Some good news

I really should have read the entire thread rather than replying
individually to the various bad ideas here.

I'm trying to visualize a commercial glider operation that would rent a
tablet with some "cheap" software (neither of which has been tested nor
certified) to someone to go fly in conditions which might lead to a trip
into IMC. I can see the grieving widows with their poor, pathetic
children, and the greedy lawyers preparing their briefs right now.

The Dynon D2 looks like a fine piece of equipment but it does not have
the TSO to be used in IFR flying. But most all airplanes built in the
past 50-60 years come out of the factory with an attitude indicator,
directional gyro, VSI, altimeter, and airspeed indicator and STILL
people come falling out of the bottom of the clouds. Having a TV picture
of the same instruments will not make you an instrument pilot. And I
can not even conceive of and instrument rated pilot making such dumb
suggestions. If you're competent and comfortable with flight in IMC
then, legalities aside, you might succeed with with what you suggest but
what if, say, an email alert pops up in the middle of your display just
as your aircraft is beginning a slow upset? Or any other kind of
interrupt which slows/stops/obscures your display? Do you text while
you drive?

OK, I'm going to see how long it will be until the next bright idea
comes along.

On 11/3/2015 5:38 AM, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
I'd agree with any of these. The point is, it's insane to fly in wave or conditions where clouds could form without some sort of artificial horizon. Btw an added advantage of the right foreflight subscription is that it will also give you terrain and clearance. Death seems like a poor bargain vs a couple of thousand, that could be a shared asset at a club or rented at a commercial operation.

--
Dan, 5J

Quote from my days as a mountain climber, "stay alert, hope for the best, expect the worst, bring what you can".

Why not have an AHSR in case the worst happens. In 1,500 hours of glider flying I have never been inadvertent IMC, but I have in both airplanes and helicopter (once). I am instrument rated in both, so in the airplane as I realized things were not so sunny I just changed my fight following to an IFR plan, happened many times, apparently the forecast is as unpredictable as the weather. The helicopter (while I was instrument current and rated) was an unstable, re fun, MD 500 which are not certified for flight in IMC, this was much more thrilling and not to be repeated.

Recently I got back into soaring and when I instrumented the glider I bought a fancy multipurose instrument that also has a feature to double as an AHSR. While my first choice if caught on top would be to fly east for drier weather, I now have something in my quiver if I find myself IMC to help me get safely to clear air. As we know, one can be a bit aggressive at cloud base and end up in the cloud, it is not just wave flying.

The video on inadvertent IMC was great, it has been around for a long time, and even with rudimentary training (private pilot license) and the proper instruments, you can find yourself in a world of hurt if you go IMC.


On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 8:05:40 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:

OK, I'm going to see how long it will be until the next bright idea
comes along.

On Tuesday, 3 November 2015 18:05:40 UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
The Dynon D2 looks like a fine piece of equipment but it does not
have the TSO to be used in IFR flying.*

Glider cloud flying is not considered real IFR flying in Europe (for example), and gliders or equipment do not have to be TSO/IFR, only cloud flying equipment is required (compass, turn&bank, 10 m/s vario, clock). Difference between cloud flying glider and real IFR flight is that with latter you are supposed to know where you are and where you are going. Glider cloud flying regulations kind of suppose that you are flying well above ground (which is always VMC) and stay locally inside one cloud at a time. I would have no problem using non-TSO'd equipment, don't you have thousands of experimental planes flying IFR every day using these?

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 10:44:18 AM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 November 2015 18:05:40 UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
The Dynon D2 looks like a fine piece of equipment but it does not
have the TSO to be used in IFR flying.*

Glider cloud flying is not considered real IFR flying in Europe (for example), and gliders or equipment do not have to be TSO/IFR, only cloud flying equipment is required (compass, turn&bank, 10 m/s vario, clock). Difference between cloud flying glider and real IFR flight is that with latter you are supposed to know where you are and where you are going. Glider cloud flying regulations kind of suppose that you are flying well above ground (which is always VMC) and stay locally inside one cloud at a time. I would have no problem using non-TSO'd equipment, don't you have thousands of experimental planes flying IFR every day using these?

10 m/s vario? Really?

I thought euros used pretty much the same 10 knot varios the rest of us use, but labelled ±5 m/s.

On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 11:28:41 UTC+2, Bruce Hoult wrote:

10 m/s vario? Really?

I thought euros used pretty much the same 10 knot varios the rest of us use, but labelled ±5 m/s.

Got to admit that I've no idea what EASA says of minumum equipment for cloud flying, if anything, but yes, that is at least what our (still valid) national regulation says. Nowhere is said that it has to be mechanical, though, so variable scale electric vario is ok. (I would not depart my beloved 10 m/s mechanical Bohli at any price.)

How is it that you Euro Guys are so advanced in certain areas and and so
retarded in others? Aren't we all? ;-)

I would happily fly IFR with the Dynon D2 but, alas, I live in the "New
World", and, in reality, our weather is so terrific out west that we
need an occasional break from flying when the stray cloud passes by.

On 11/4/2015 12:44 AM, krasw wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 November 2015 18:05:40 UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
The Dynon D2 looks like a fine piece of equipment but it does not
have the TSO to be used in IFR flying.
Glider cloud flying is not considered real IFR flying in Europe (for example), and gliders or equipment do not have to be TSO/IFR, only cloud flying equipment is required (compass, turn&bank, 10 m/s vario, clock). Difference between cloud flying glider and real IFR flight is that with latter you are supposed to know where you are and where you are going. Glider cloud flying regulations kind of suppose that you are flying well above ground (which is always VMC) and stay locally inside one cloud at a time. I would have no problem using non-TSO'd equipment, don't you have thousands of experimental planes flying IFR every day using these?

--
Dan, 5J

On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 16:54:07 UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
How is it that you Euro Guys are so advanced in certain areas and
and so retarded in others?* Aren't we all? ;-)*

That is valid question. One would think that nothing can be more retarded than EASA regulating general aviation and gliding in particular. But then you insert national authorities who interpret these EASA regulations and all bets are off in general retardiness.

At 15:17 04 November 2015, krasw wrote:
That is valid question. One would think that nothing can be more retarded
t=
han EASA regulating general aviation and gliding in particular. But then
yo=
u insert national authorities who interpret these EASA regulations and
all
=
bets are off in general retardiness.


One of the few sensible things that EASA licencing did prompt was the
introduction of a formal "cloud flying rating / certificate" in the UK.
This is relatively simple to get & covers the basics you need for flying a
glider in a fair weather cumulus or descending through a wave gap and
teaches you a standard set of recovery actions if things get out of hand.

Mind you our terrain is a lot more forgiving than the continental US - and
gliding out to lower ground (or even the coast!) is normally an option from
most wave climbs.

Several people at our club use the Kanardia A/H, which seems to work very
well in a glider environment. Power consumption is low enough I have mine
on from launch.

Of course we no doubt persevere with other retarded stuff :-)

As I mentioned before, I have one of THESE
http://code7700.com/images/t37_attitude_indicator_j8.png in a box at
the airport. It runs on 400 Hz AC and mine has a dual transistor
flip-flop which converts 12 Vdc to the required voltage for the attitude
indicator. It buzzes like a mad hornet when hooked up and I have no
idea of how much power it dissipates. It fits into an 80 mm hole and,
if installed, I'd have to complete a new weight and balance. But just
look at all the gizmos that whirl around and note that the sky and
ground are both black. Fun to use...

Here's the link for the non-HTML crowd:
http://code7700.com/images/t37_attit...dicator_j8.png

On 11/4/2015 9:43 AM, Julian Rees wrote:
At 15:17 04 November 2015, krasw wrote:
That is valid question. One would think that nothing can be more retarded
t=
han EASA regulating general aviation and gliding in particular. But then
yo=
u insert national authorities who interpret these EASA regulations and
all
=
bets are off in general retardiness.

One of the few sensible things that EASA licencing did prompt was the
introduction of a formal "cloud flying rating / certificate" in the UK.
This is relatively simple to get & covers the basics you need for flying a
glider in a fair weather cumulus or descending through a wave gap and
teaches you a standard set of recovery actions if things get out of hand.

Mind you our terrain is a lot more forgiving than the continental US - and
gliding out to lower ground (or even the coast!) is normally an option from
most wave climbs.

Several people at our club use the Kanardia A/H, which seems to work very
well in a glider environment. Power consumption is low enough I have mine
on from launch.

Of course we no doubt persevere with other retarded stuff :-)


--
Dan, 5J

At the risk of sounding defensive and getting Andrew all fired up again (the reason so many avoid RAS to start with), I think it is pretty obvious that I made several mistakes throughout the course of this flight that caused the end result. I would say, given the conditions and clearing trend at takeoff and climb, that to say the entire flight was just an indicator of a dumb mistake of a careless pilot is a bit of an over-generalization and Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

While I have zero time under the hood, i have no doubt that an ARHS would have significantly changed my plan for the flight, but given the conditions under the clouds (the LS-4 that was forced to land in the valley just after me due to incredibly low ceilings) i don't know that it would have resulted in any better of an outcome, and probably would have given me a false sense of security and forced a more dangerous decision when the best option was to indeed bail out. How many pilots would intentionally go into IFR when there is a VFR hole still available? The greatest mistake in this flight was the hurry up mentality and decision to try and dive through the VFR hole.

I have no doubt in my mind that the outcome of my flight was pilot error at 18,000 feet, and little confidence that I would have used an artificial horizon to my benefit and not to my demise if i had had one on board.