51,849 feet by BobRodwell?

I've been looking through some old Soaring magazines and in the June, 1977
issue there's an article about a record flight by Bob Rodwell to 51,849 feet
on March 29th of that year. Can someone tell me why that isn't the current
altitude record? Sounds like he's lucky to be alive after having his
controls mostly frozen for most of the descent. In the article it says that
after finding his spoilers frozen shut, he put his Skylark 4 into a 38,000
foot spin that had an estimated 400 turns! Is Bob still around and is he
still soaring? He would be in his late 70's now.

--
Gary Boggs
3650 Airport Dr.
Hood River, Oregon, USA
97031-9613

Gary-

That is an interesting sounding flight, for those of
us without that issue could you provide some more details?

No. I remember it well.

The pilot was Mike Field. The BGA did not ratify the claim, and it was
later found to be fraudulent.

Mike Field had already "broken" the U.K. local height record, and the claim
had been allowed. After his "world" record was disallowed, his U.K. local
record claim was removed.

Mike Field disappeared from gliding, and I have not heard of him since.

Bob Rodwell was and is a journalist, and regularly has articles in the
aviation press. He probably wrote about the claims, no other connection.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Gary Boggs" wrote in message
...

I've been looking through some old Soaring magazines and in the June, 1977
issue there's an article about a record flight by Bob Rodwell to 51,849
feet on March 29th of that year. Can someone tell me why that isn't the
current altitude record? Sounds like he's lucky to be alive after having
his controls mostly frozen for most of the descent. In the article it
says that after finding his spoilers frozen shut, he put his Skylark 4
into a 38,000 foot spin that had an estimated 400 turns! Is Bob still
around and is he still soaring? He would be in his late 70's now.

Gary Boggs
3650 Airport Dr.
Hood River, Oregon, USA
97031-9613

I've gotten several replies that say that this was eventually proven to be a
hoax. Now I wonder even more just what ever happened to this guy?

--
Gary Boggs
3650 Airport Dr.
Hood River, Oregon, USA
97031-9613
"Stewart Kissel" wrote in
message ...
Gary-

That is an interesting sounding flight, for those of
us without that issue could you provide some more details?

I think you will find that this was an article WRITTEN by Bob Rodwell who
was a journalist as well as the Chairman of the Ulster Gilding Club. He was
not the pilot involved.

The "record" flight was, as I remember, not ratified as there was very good
grounds to think that the barograph trace was not consistent with the
claimed event. It was claimed to be a wave climb upwind of a thundercloud.
A phenomenon never before encountered to such heights .The pilot also landed
away from base and only one of the barographs showed a trace.

I remember when the event was reported that my partner, who was a dentist,
expressed doubts at the pilots claim that the cold was so intense that his
tooth fillings fell out There were several inconsistencies which caused a
very detailed investigation and the record claim was not accepted. As the
pilot concerned threatened legal action it could not be stated that the
claim was actually fraudulent.

No doubt some one who was involved in the BGA at the time knows more about
it? Ian Strachan maybe ?


Gary Boggs wrote in message
...
I've been looking through some old Soaring magazines and in the June, 1977
issue there's an article about a record flight by Bob Rodwell to 51,849
feet
on March 29th of that year. Can someone tell me why that isn't the
current
altitude record? Sounds like he's lucky to be alive after having his
controls mostly frozen for most of the descent. In the article it says
that
after finding his spoilers frozen shut, he put his Skylark 4 into a 38,000
foot spin that had an estimated 400 turns! Is Bob still around and is he
still soaring? He would be in his late 70's now.

--
Gary Boggs
3650 Airport Dr.
Hood River, Oregon, USA
97031-9613

You are confusing the two height claims by Mike Field.

The first claim for the U.K. local height record was flown from a launch at
Booker Gliding Club in a club owned glider (a Skylark 3g I think) and was
done by climbing in a cu-nim to 25-30,000 ft., and then climbing in wave in
front of the cloud. The flight finished with a field landing (not
surprising with a flight of this nature), he was retrieved by the Chief
Flying Instructor of his club, who I knew and who saw no reason to doubt
him.

This type of flight is well known, but I have not heard of any other flights
of this type to such heights. I did not know about the dental "evidence",
my own doubts related to the oxygen system he used, a 120 litre portable
system with one of those dreadful medical re-breather bag masks, which I
thought would not have withstood the cold and only had an endurance of 1
hour.

Although quite a few people were worried the claim was allowed, and I know
one person involved with the claim who still thinks that he could have done
it. The record was subsequently withdrawn when the second claim was shown
to be fraudulent.

The second claim for a world record was flown in a Skylark 4 and was
sponsored by the Daily Telegraph, but the journalist involved was not a
glider pilot and their gliding correspondent Anne Ince was not involved
(funny that!). The launch and landing were at Feshie Bridge in Scotland,
and the flight was supposed to have been done in wave.

There were so many oddities about this flight that no-one really believed
it, and it was very carefully investigated. When the barograph trace was
examined under a magnifying glass it was found that part of the trace was
double, and that the descent was so steep it could only have been drawn on
the drum if it rotated backwards for part of the time! In other words the
trace had been drawn freehand and not by the barograph. I don't know how
he got round the official observer.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Silent Flyer" ] wrote in message
...

I think you will find that this was an article WRITTEN by Bob Rodwell who
was a journalist as well as the Chairman of the Ulster Gilding Club. He
was not the pilot involved.

The "record" flight was, as I remember, not ratified as there was very
good grounds to think that the barograph trace was not consistent with the
claimed event. It was claimed to be a wave climb upwind of a
thundercloud. A phenomenon never before encountered to such heights.
The pilot also landed away from base and only one of the barographs showed
a trace.

I remember when the event was reported that my partner, who was a
dentist, expressed doubts at the pilots claim that the cold was so intense
that his tooth fillings fell out. There were several inconsistencies
which caused a very detailed investigation and the record claim was not
accepted. As the pilot concerned threatened legal action it could not be
stated that the claim was actually fraudulent.

No doubt some one who was involved in the BGA at the time knows more about
it? Ian Strachan maybe ?

Bill Dean wrote: [snip] "In other words the trace had been drawn
freehand and not by the barograph. I don't know how he got round the
official observer."

I was one of the BGA Executive Committee which disallowed the claim, on
advice, and decided (or ratified the decision) to disallow the previous
UK record too. I choose my words carefully in case of litigation.

For the second flight (claimed world record), we were told that the
barograph had originally been prepared the previous day. It was a Winter
barograph, using a smoked foil, and had a special modification to allow
it to go much higher than the normal 12km limit of the factory unit.
The pilot drew the OO's attention to the use of the modified pivot
appropriate to the intended height. The instrument was then sealed
(using gummed paper tape) and signed by the OO across the join in the
tape. On the record attempt day, the pilot claimed it had not been used
since sealing on the previous day, and showed it briefly to the same OO
before the flight, "still" sealed. It was reported that the OO could
see no trace on that part of the drum (about half) visible through the
transparent part of the cover.

After the flight, another OO (who I have since met personally and
discussed this) was doubtful that it was a valid claim. The pilot
nevertheless submitted the claim. A trail of detailed investigation was
started which exposed the process deficiencies that could have allowed
access to open the barograph, put a trace on it, and then reseal it.
Forensic examinations led to the conclusion that the submitted trace was
fraudulent. The pilot asked to address the BGA Executive Committee in
person when he was told that the claim would be disallowed. He then
claimed that somebody had switched the trace at some time between him
doing the flight and posting the evidence to the BGA. He said that the
one received by the BGA was superficially similar to the genuine trace
which he claimed had been created on the barograph, and he had not
realised that it had been switched by some other person before he posted
it.

The evidence for the first, UK record flight, had by then been disposed
of, so it could not be subjected to the same forensic testing - and of
course it had not been looked at so carefully when originally submitted
and allowed. There had been no doubts expressed in a way which reached
the BGA at the time, though there were some which surfaced after the
second incident. Those familiar with the technology of that time will
recall that the ideal process was for an OO to check that the foil was
blank before the flight on the day, then seal it. When retrieved from
the glider after the flight, by the same or another OO, it should be
checked as being still sealed, before being opened, verified as having
been carried by that pilot on that flight in that glider, and signed
again - i.e. continuity/integrity of the history of the trace was
preserved and verified. An important element of security with that
process is to allow no opportunity to steam open the sealing tape and
enable a false trace to be created or substituted, after which the tape
could be stuck back with the join carefully reproduced. Some
contemporaries allegedly reported that one or more of the ideal steps
had not been followed.

The rest is history.

The BGA also changed its procedures - physical record flight evidence
(film/barograph trace) was ruled as having to be kept indefinitely, not
returned to the pilot or otherwise disposed of.

I am no expert in these things, but I believe that those events have
informed the subsequent emphasis on the need for security of logger
traces etc., in both BGA and IGC. I imagine that such emphasis will
continue, in spite of the claims by some subscribers on other threads
that it goes too far.

Chris N.

"W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." wrote in message ...

Bob Rodwell was and is a journalist, and regularly has articles in the
aviation press. He probably wrote about the claims, no other connection.

He's a delightful man who, when I last met him, was living and working
in Northern Ireland and a member of the Ulster Gliding Club.

Ian

Chris Nicholas wrote in message ...

Some
contemporaries allegedly reported that one or more of the ideal steps
had not been followed.

I was told that the claim was for a climb in a wave-assisted
cumulo-nimbus. Metereorological evidence was obtained about the
prevalence of a) wave and b) cu-nims on the day in question.

I have also heard of a forged height claim in Scotland in which the
pilot, busy with needle at kitchen table, forgot that barographs
scribe in an arc and managed to produce a trace in which he arrived at
height before he left.

Ian

In article , Chris Nicholas
writes:


Bill Dean wrote: [snip] "In other words the trace had been drawn
freehand and not by the barograph. I don't know how he got round the
official observer."

I was one of the BGA Executive Committee which disallowed the claim, on
advice, and decided (or ratified the decision) to disallow the previous
UK record too. I choose my words carefully in case of litigation.

I also recall this incident. At the end of the day, most "records" are a
personal ego trip. Anyone filing a fraudulent claim is only kidding himself,
the rest of the world should not care!!

Barney, UK