New Butterfly Vario

Somebody posed the question whether instrument flying skills are part
of the European glider pilot license.


I don’t know about other European countries, but in the UK, it is
not. When pilot qualifications (not at present a license necessarily)
stop being a BGA matter and become an EASA issue instead between April
this year and 2015, there will be a glider pilots licence, and
separately an instrument rating that can be added to it or not.


None of what follows is in any way a suggestion that other countries
copy us – I am simply stating facts as far as I know them. AFAIAC,
what you do in the USA in particular is entirely your affair.


Under the present UK arrangements, it is legal for gliders to go IMC
in class G airspace, which is where most of us fly. Nobody knows how
many people do it, nor what training they have had. Some are PPLs or
ATPLs with instrument ratings anyway. Some are not, and have learned
cloud flying by less formal means. My impression is that only a small
minority of glider pilots fly in cloud at all – but I know of no way
to establish that with certainty. My impression is gained partly from
talking to other pilots, but mostly from monitoring the cloud flying
radio frequency. I rarely hear anybody using it for cloud flying.


Competitions in the UK are either “rated” (and count for placings
towards the national competitions and national team membership etc.)
or “unrated”. I don’t know about the former, but cloud flying is often
if not always permitted in unrated competitions, of which I have
entered many. Collisions in cloud in competitions are virtually
unknown these days – we have had a radio procedure which seems
effective for over 30 years, and I think no incidents in that time.
There were a very few before that, even fewer or maybe none fatal in
the UK as far as I know.


We did have one fatal break-up in cloud nearly 30-40 years ago (not in
a competition). It was a very experienced pilot flying a modified
glider (extended wings) and the cause was unknown as far as I recall.


We had one cloud related collision, not competition, more recently. It
was about at cloud base. IIRC, neither pilot was using the cloud
flying protocol. There was another in very poor visibility. I won’t
comment further as my knowledge is second hand, from the accident
reports.


In the UK it is common practice to thermal up to cloud base, with no
requirement for instrument flying training let alone an IR. It is also
common to fly close to wave clouds. Occasionally people do enter cloud
inadvertently, but not usually sucked up in the way so graphically
described in Kempton Izuno's article. Before modern gliders, and
before much use of wave in the UK, clouds were more often used to gain
gold and diamond heights, typically in CBs – but most UK CBs are
nothing like as vigorous as those often found in the USA. I doubt if
anyone ventures deliberately into active CBs these days. (I have been
in one, or perhaps 2, not realising what they were developing into –
and I soon got out when I realised, and before the flashing and
banging started.)


I would be interested to know if it is possible to deduce from an IGC
logger file whether cloud was entered or not. If anyone wants to try
some analysis, I could provide some traces where I climbed from below
cloud up into them. I can’t say at what height, though i have a rough
idea from other clues and memory. My guess is that a competition
scrutineer would have difficulty in identifying the entry height. Even
harder would be to say when it got closer than 500 or 1000 feet from
cloud base, without other traces for comparison.


I hope you don’t mind a Brit providing the above information. As I
said, I am not trying to influence the USA scene, just provide some
facts relevant to questions posed by others.


Chris N

Very interesting post, Chris. Using a knowledge of physics, I would infer
that the climb rate would increase upon cloud entry due to the release of
the latent heat of vaporization of the water vapor as it condenses. Again,
this is only a guess.

As to how would the scorer know that someone entered a cloud? If someone's
flight was protested, I'd imagine the scorer could poll the field to
determine cloud base over the course and duration of the flight. Anything
significantly above the agreed cloud base would be cause for suspicion,
though not proof.

Still, it would be interesting to look at one of your cloud flying traces
and try to guess where the cloud base was during the flight.


"Chris Nicholas" wrote in message
...
Somebody posed the question whether instrument flying skills are part
of the European glider pilot license.


I don’t know about other European countries, but in the UK, it is
not. When pilot qualifications (not at present a license necessarily)
stop being a BGA matter and become an EASA issue instead between April
this year and 2015, there will be a glider pilots licence, and
separately an instrument rating that can be added to it or not.


None of what follows is in any way a suggestion that other countries
copy us – I am simply stating facts as far as I know them. AFAIAC,
what you do in the USA in particular is entirely your affair.


Under the present UK arrangements, it is legal for gliders to go IMC
in class G airspace, which is where most of us fly. Nobody knows how
many people do it, nor what training they have had. Some are PPLs or
ATPLs with instrument ratings anyway. Some are not, and have learned
cloud flying by less formal means. My impression is that only a small
minority of glider pilots fly in cloud at all – but I know of no way
to establish that with certainty. My impression is gained partly from
talking to other pilots, but mostly from monitoring the cloud flying
radio frequency. I rarely hear anybody using it for cloud flying.


Competitions in the UK are either “rated” (and count for placings
towards the national competitions and national team membership etc.)
or “unrated”. I don’t know about the former, but cloud flying is often
if not always permitted in unrated competitions, of which I have
entered many. Collisions in cloud in competitions are virtually
unknown these days – we have had a radio procedure which seems
effective for over 30 years, and I think no incidents in that time.
There were a very few before that, even fewer or maybe none fatal in
the UK as far as I know.


We did have one fatal break-up in cloud nearly 30-40 years ago (not in
a competition). It was a very experienced pilot flying a modified
glider (extended wings) and the cause was unknown as far as I recall.


We had one cloud related collision, not competition, more recently. It
was about at cloud base. IIRC, neither pilot was using the cloud
flying protocol. There was another in very poor visibility. I won’t
comment further as my knowledge is second hand, from the accident
reports.


In the UK it is common practice to thermal up to cloud base, with no
requirement for instrument flying training let alone an IR. It is also
common to fly close to wave clouds. Occasionally people do enter cloud
inadvertently, but not usually sucked up in the way so graphically
described in Kempton Izuno's article. Before modern gliders, and
before much use of wave in the UK, clouds were more often used to gain
gold and diamond heights, typically in CBs – but most UK CBs are
nothing like as vigorous as those often found in the USA. I doubt if
anyone ventures deliberately into active CBs these days. (I have been
in one, or perhaps 2, not realising what they were developing into –
and I soon got out when I realised, and before the flashing and
banging started.)


I would be interested to know if it is possible to deduce from an IGC
logger file whether cloud was entered or not. If anyone wants to try
some analysis, I could provide some traces where I climbed from below
cloud up into them. I can’t say at what height, though i have a rough
idea from other clues and memory. My guess is that a competition
scrutineer would have difficulty in identifying the entry height. Even
harder would be to say when it got closer than 500 or 1000 feet from
cloud base, without other traces for comparison.


I hope you don’t mind a Brit providing the above information. As I
said, I am not trying to influence the USA scene, just provide some
facts relevant to questions posed by others.


Chris N

Dan, see your emails. Regards - Chris

Chris, I'm going to try to analyze the height trace using the graphical
functions in Microsoft Excel. I'll look for a sudden increase in rate of
climb and make a guess from there. I might say in advance that I'm not
hopeful, but this should be a fun exercise.

Dan

BTW, I received your IGC files.


"Chris Nicholas" wrote in message
...
Dan, see your emails. Regards - Chris

Well, just going on a look-see, it looks like cloud base in one of the
traces was around 17,200 MSL with a top of climb of 24,740 MSL and, in the
other, around 16,000 MSL with a top of climb of 34,480.

So... How'd I do? I'm also thinking that your altitudes might be in meters
and if that's the case, then it might be...

Cloud Base: 1,720 meters, Top of climb: 2,447 meters for the first flight,
and, for the second,

Cloud Base: 1,600 meters, Top of climb: 3448 meters.

Since I can't paste a picture in here, I sent you the Excel file with the
traces included on Sheet 3. Please let us know if such a quick look came
close.

"Dan Marotta" wrote in message
...
Chris, I'm going to try to analyze the height trace using the graphical
functions in Microsoft Excel. I'll look for a sudden increase in rate of
climb and make a guess from there. I might say in advance that I'm not
hopeful, but this should be a fun exercise.

Dan

BTW, I received your IGC files.


"Chris Nicholas" wrote in message
...
Dan, see your emails. Regards - Chris

Thanks to Chris who took the time to look up the IGC specification for the
log file. From his analysis, I was able to determine that the cloud base on
one of the flights was around 5,200 ft (lower than my airport!). The trace
looked the same, just the altitude scale was changed.

And it's interesting what Jim said about reduced lift inside the cloud. I
would have expected higher lift due to the heat release. Maybe that's all
expended right at cloud base...

It was a fun exercise!


"Dan Marotta" wrote in message
...
Well, just going on a look-see, it looks like cloud base in one of the
traces was around 17,200 MSL with a top of climb of 24,740 MSL and, in the
other, around 16,000 MSL with a top of climb of 34,480.

So... How'd I do? I'm also thinking that your altitudes might be in
meters and if that's the case, then it might be...

Cloud Base: 1,720 meters, Top of climb: 2,447 meters for the first
flight, and, for the second,

Cloud Base: 1,600 meters, Top of climb: 3448 meters.

Since I can't paste a picture in here, I sent you the Excel file with the
traces included on Sheet 3. Please let us know if such a quick look came
close.

"Dan Marotta" wrote in message
...
Chris, I'm going to try to analyze the height trace using the graphical
functions in Microsoft Excel. I'll look for a sudden increase in rate of
climb and make a guess from there. I might say in advance that I'm not
hopeful, but this should be a fun exercise.

Dan

BTW, I received your IGC files.


"Chris Nicholas" wrote in message
...
Dan, see your emails. Regards - Chris

In my experience lift in cloud is stronger only if the cloud has a lot
of vertical development – say several thousand feet, which of course
developing CBs do have, and provided you can stay centred in the lift,
which as Jim points out is harder if you can’t see the real horizon. I
have found that expanding the GPS scale helps a lot in keeping in good
lift, in VMC or in IMC. (I still do not advocate people teaching
themselves to do the latter these days – if it goes wrong in a
slippery glider, it can do so very quickly and very badly.)

In the more usual “good” conditions in the UK when we get them, an
inversion stops vertical cu development and they are often only a few
hundred or 1-2000 feet deep. Then, as Jim says, it is usually faster
to keep in the energy where you can see it, in VMC. With very shallow
clouds, it is not even worth going up to cloud base – the lift weakens
before getting there. Even if it does strengthen briefly at and into
cloud, I usually lose more in the fumble of coming out on the wrong
heading, or on the right one but into another cloud and in its sink,
than staying below, if achieved speed is what you are after.


Chris N

At 16:15 18 February 2012, Dan Marotta wrote:
Chris, I'm going to try to analyze the height trace using the graphical
functions in Microsoft Excel. I'll look for a sudden increase in rate of

climb and make a guess from there. I might say in advance that I'm not
hopeful, but this should be a fun exercise.

Dan

Dan, I do quite a lot of cloud flying mostly to keep current as cloud
flying is allowed in UK competition and sometimes it is necessary to fly in
cloud to stay up.

However....it rarely is faster. I usually find that my climb rate drops as
I enter cloud because the artificial horizon although good is not anything
like as good as the real thing. In my experience if cloud base allows it is
much faster to fly the energy below cloud.

BTW I also find cloud flying fun which is after all the reason I go
flying.

J1M

Dan was about right. Using metres is more like right – the plots Dan
sent me showed way too many feet on the left hand scale. My
recollection is that cloudbase was a bit over 4000 feet and I climbed
to about 11000 feet that day.

By the way, to repeat part of what I sent Dan privately - I do not
claim to be a very good IMC pilot. I had a bit of instruction at
first, then a lot of self-learning in a Ka6E which is strong, draggy,
has speed-limiting brakes/spoilers, and is fairly forgiving when
things go wrong – which they often did when I was slowly acquiring the
skill, using only a glider Turn and Slip (stronger spring, less
sensitive than a Power T&S so it does not go onto the stop in a
thermalling turn). I also advise other people not to cloud fly. Modern
gliders are too slippery to self-teach safely, IMHO. I do it because I
like it and accept the risk (which I think is minimal having learned
the slow way).

I also agree with Jim's comments.

Chris N.