landing

[miguel]

2. So how come one hundred percent of hang glider LZs are so big that we can afford to throw out every foot of the first half as an option in order to be able to nail the old Frisbee in the middle?

'Cause that's where the beer is!

[Tad Eareckson]

How 'bout we relocate the beer to the extreme downwind end of the field to reward the...

05-2704-c
http://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1525/26167489042_9f5e5af537_o.png


...COMPETENT pilots? Putting it in the middle reminds me of rewarding the dickheads who fly with really safe weak links with cuts back into the front of the launch line and "free" relights.

Or hell, we could put it at the extreme upwind end and get a lot of the problem drinkers out of the gene pool a bit faster.

BOTH extreme ends! Win/Win. And make sure there are plenty of large rocks strewn all over the middle to give the old Frisbee junkies a taste of reality and further cleanse the gene pool.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6884
Dimensions of field comfortable to land hang glider?

Jim McClave - 2015/12/29 19:37:29 UTC

We need to start looking at landing options for Woodstock and other locations where our current landings are at risk.

With the u$hPa insurance crisis pretty much everywhere - even if you're not doing stupid stunt landings.

Do any of the hang gliders have rules of thumb for the dimensions for a comfortable landing field?

I've always favored waist high wheat. Just treat the tops as the surface and you'll be fine.

Are there any written references?

Yeah. For a Three a fifty foot radius cleared circle is plenty. Any Four's good with twenty-five. And if you can't find any suitable circles just designate a narrow dry riverbed with large rocks strewn all over the place. Twos should have no problem as they're all still fresh from all their emergency landing training.

Thanks,
Jim

Don't mention it.

P.S. A bit odd that Hyner recently proved inadequate for a Four who came in with plenty of speed and corrected when he got popped by a thermal, dontchya think?

Jim McClave - Virginia - 91287 - P3 - 2012/02/10 - Laszlo Lovei - FL CL FSL RLF RS TUR XC - OBS

I so do hope some of those Capitol Club assholes respond to this guy. It'll be so much fun to compare their numbers to what's in the u$hPa ratings requirements and the Hyner LZ.

[NMERider]

....And if you can't find any suitable circles just designate a narrow dry riverbed with large rocks strewn all over the place. Twos should have no problem as they're all still fresh from all their emergency landing training....

Don't forget the Frisbee! http://youtu.be/IWcGTSUplO4?t=7m3s

[Tad Eareckson]

We should just carry them in harness Frisbee deployment containers and drop them wherever we happen to stop. It would make it a helluva lot easier to perfect our flare timing and pass rating requirements.

[Dave Gills]

It would make it a helluva lot easier to perfect our flare timing and pass rating requirements.

Use these large foam boulders instead.
http://www.artificialrocksfactory.com
Much more realistic without the consequences.

[NMERider]

It would make it a helluva lot easier to perfect our flare timing and pass rating requirements.

Use these large foam boulders instead.
http://www.artificialrocksfactory.com
Much more realistic without the consequences.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=5061
More Carnage in the Rain, For my buddy Greg who asked nicely

Jim Thompson - 2016/01/11 05:09:48 UTC

For those who have not flown a wet Mylar wing, a word of caution.

The Monday after Christmas, we were not expecting rain, with only a 10% chance forecast. Long story short, it drizzled on us, heaviest as we approached for landing.

As a fellow pilot put it afterward, expect your glider's stall speed to increase by at least 5MPH. Expecting is one thing, experiencing it is quite another. Speaking only for myself, I was shocked by the difference in the flight characteristics of my glider. As I circled down, at speeds between 30 and 40MPH, the RX3.5 had a tendency to pitch the nose down and several times I felt I was free-falling. With little or no wind, I flared a little early and ended up sailing through the control frame in a hard whack. I didn't feel any change in speed or trajectory. No damage, slightly jammed thumb.

Well, the important thing is that you were able to get it stopped without slamming headfirst into any of the large rocks strewn all over the place in that narrow dry riverbed in which you were landing.

The point being, gliders with plastic sails fly differently when wet. I'll leave the technical explanation to more capable hands.

If and when, of course, they find the time to remove those capable hands from the control tubes where the keep them for the better control authority and perfecting flare timing.

A tip I received from Kraig Coomber: some comp pilots put a light coat of dish washing liquid on the leading edge of a Mylar sail to break the surface tension and allow the water to stream away more efficiently. Like de-icing for jets.

So what kinds of landing areas and surfaces do Kraig Coomber and some of these comp pilots generally seek out and use?

For my part, I'll be more careful about choosing days to fly with rain in the forecast.

And do any of them ever consider bellying in when they know they're dealing with a compromised glider...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27086
Steve Pearson on landings

Steve Pearson - 2012/03/28 23:26:05 UTC

I can't control the glider in strong air with my hands at shoulder or ear height and I'd rather land on my belly with my hands on the basetube than get turned downwind.

...or situation?

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.kitestrings.org/post8866.html#p8866

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6884
Dimensions of field comfortable to land hang glider?

Jim McClave - 2015/12/29 19:37:29 UTC

We need to start looking at landing options for Woodstock and other locations where our current landings are at risk. Do any of the hang gliders have rules of thumb for the dimensions for a comfortable landing field? Are there any written references?

Thanks,
Jim

Sure, just check out the u$hPa SOPs. Something THAT basic, fundamental to our sport...

Dave Gills - 2015/12/30 12:52:58 UTC

300' x 300' is a RLF
Easy to do if there are no trees or other obstructions.

1. Kinda the way coming in upright with one's hands on the control tubes is easy to do if...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27086er
Steve Pearson on landings

Steve Pearson - 2012/03/28 23:26:05 UTC

I can't control the glider in strong air with my hands at shoulder or ear height and I'd rather land on my belly with my hands on the basetube than get turned downwind.

...the air is smooth and steady.

2. Notice the way for a Four you're supposed to be able to consistently nail no steppers within a 25 foot radius of a spot but if you can go from downwind to squeeze a base and final into a ninety thousand square foot square, from Zero to Five, you've totally mastered the approach. No fuckin' way can you ever improve upon that skill.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=21088
What you wish you'd known then?

Doug Doerfler - 2011/03/02 05:24:44 UTC

Nothing creates carnage like declaring a spot landing contest.

And, strangely, nobody's ever said anything remotely like that about a tight approach contest for two interlated reasons...
- Nobody ever runs tight approach contests.
- In hang gliding tight approach skills are regarded with anything ranging from indifference to contempt.

80' trees all around would require 1000' if it is a slot.

A thousand feet is a pretty good XC flight or aicraft carrier. Maybe we could get away with shorter runways if we stopped training people to land on old Frisbees in their middles.

300' x 600' if not a slot.

A football field wide by two long. Hope the crosswind isn't too problematic.

Just a guess and something to start the discussion.

John Middleton - 2015/12/30 15:47:45 UTC
Arlington

High Rock's LZ is approximately 110 yds x 435 yds which is approx .893 acres and has trees around most of it. It would work OK being 90 yds x 350 yds which is approx .65 acres but no smaller in my opinion. Assuming I did the acre conversion correctly I was very surprised because I though it was a lot more!

It is.

Jim McClave - 2015/12/30 18:28:51 UTC

Hello John,

Your decimal point is off. There are 4840 square yards in an acre. High Rock at 110 * 435 is 47,850 square yards or 9.886 acres. Based on using High Rock as a model...

Based on using High Rock as the bare minimum.

...we would need...

NEED.

...between a 7 acre and a 10 acre rectangle.

Thanks for this input!

More input... Let's muliply by nine to do square feet. 43560. And let's look at the Addendum 1 - Optional Landing Task. If the rating official ISN'T a total motherfucker he can allow Twos and Threes to advance to Threes and Fours by landing consistently on a two hundred by forty foot strip which is:
- eight thousand square feet (888.9 square yards)
- 0.184 acres
- 1.84 percent of the area of your ten acre rectangle

Also, per Matt's question the other day, are there any lawyers or insurance agents/experts in the club?

1. By whom you don't mean Matthew Graham. He hasn't posted much since:

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6842
Woodstock Saturday 11/7

Matthew Graham - 2015/11/07 15:56:18 UTC

Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhh!
Still raining and it doesn't ' look like it will end anytime soon.
So we are out.
We can get to the Rock by around 1:30 on Sunday.

Most active topic: Weak link question - (11 Posts / 0.56% of user's posts)

Fuck you, Matthew.

2. Sure. Look at all the great advice you're getting regarding the implosion of the national organization.

Thanks,
Jim

John Middleton - 2015/12/30 20:16:41 UTC

Absolutely right that the calculations were off.

How 'bout the u$hPa calculations on variously configured single and double loops of 130 pound Greenspot, the focal points of our safe aerotowing systems? You good with the crap that we were being told at Ridgely and what was published in the magazine eight months before one of them increased the safety of the towing operation for Zack Marzec and fatally inconvenienced him? Get fucked, John.

Existing High Rock field is about 9.886 acres.

Or maybe ABOUT 9.887 acres. Hard to tell about for sure sometimes.

David Bodner - 2015/12/30 20:49:02 UTC

Randy once told me the High Rock field was 13 or 15 acres. Landing in the final 1/3rd of it probably counts as a screw-up (which I've done).

Really? The beginning of the last third is only a sixth beyond the old Frisbee in the middle for which you're aiming. Doesn't necessarily sound that bad to me. And I've never heard anybody characterize any landing that stops short of the upwind treeline as a screw-up - as long as one stays on one's feet, of course.

I would think the Pulpit secondary (PG) field would be adequate--if it were flat.

Dan Lukaszewicz - 2016/01/13 04:46:09 UTC

I vote for a 200 meter...

656.2 feet.

...square. That would be approximately eight acres.

430598.44 square feet, 9.885 acres, ten acres.

That would allow ample landing field for any direction. If we wish to land only in the prevailing ridge soaring winds that amount of land may be halved.

328 feet to allow complete base run inside the perimeter defined by the treeline. So while Twos going for there Threes can consistently land within fifty feet of the old Frisbee in the middle of the LZ we're not really capable of RLF approaches.

Is there land for sale within an easy glide?

Maybe. Stop throwing your money into Ryan Voight and Mitch Shipley landing clinic black holes and start pooling it for Happy Acres putting green real estate.

So the fiction that u$hPa starts selling on Day One, Flight One and continues throughout our careers through rating requirements, spot landing contests, peer pressure, landing clinics is that highly accurate targeted no steppers are critical to our long term survival in the sport. But in this inadvertant reality check by these Capitol Club assholes (not you, Dave) we can very plainly see that consistent landing accuracy in a local flyer population in real world conditions, even in primary LZs, is both totally useless and totally unattainable. They're saying that what recreational flyers REALLY need to stay healthy during careers of any significant lengths are big flat Happy Acres putting greens.

Note the conspicuous absence of anyone saying that if they just train for tighter approaches and short - versus old Frisbee - finals, 2.5s and up could safely exploit less generous LZ options.

Wanna:

- aerotow pro toad? No problem. Just learn the skill in a short clinic with Steve Exceptionally-Knowledgeable Wendt.

- more safely fly with an Industry Standard release a Tad-O-Link? Gotta be at an around all this plenty long enough to understand what's what and who's who.

- park in:
-- a narrow dry riverbed with large rocks strewn all over the place? Perfect that flare timing and nail those spots.
-- waist high wheat? Treat the tops as the surface.

- learn to handle a tight field? Fuck that. If we use anything tighter than High Rock (or Hyner) we're gonna kill (more) people.

Not the least bit surprising when ya think about it, really. As we all know from watching what u$hPa does and Mark G. Forbes openly states, hang gliding culture will do as much as possible to kill proper procedures and equipment and promote and entrench the total crap.

Can't EVER admit that THIS:

05-2704-c
http://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1525/26167489042_9f5e5af537_o.png


is the way to safely deal with a tight field 'cause SAFE approaches involve going upright and transitioning to the control tubes at the beginnings of long finals and staying safely level until impact.

Smoking gun thread - just as I'd hoped it would be.
---
Edit - 2016/01/13 21:05:00 UTC

Assumed the thread was dead as of two weeks ago, neglected to check before posting, missed Lucky Chevy's late entry. Quote and comments amended.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=5061
More Carnage in the Rain, For my buddy Greg who asked nicely

Rob Burgis - 2016/01/13 18:44:35 UTC

On the day Jim quotes, I was another pilot who also pounded in due to a wet sail (just before Jim).

Yeah. The wet sail. That's the only reason you assholes pounded in.

I knew the problem with wet sails...

And fuck this problem:

Gil Dodgen - 1995/01

All of this reminds me of a comment Mike Meier made when he was learning to fly sailplanes. He mentioned how easy it was to land a sailplane (with spoilers for glide-path control and wheels), and then said, "If other aircraft were as difficult to land as hang gliders no one would fly them."

...but was lulled into a sense of complacency...

What? You did a hook-in check?

...when the pilot that landed ahead of me...

What? HE did a hook-in check?

...reported no problems on landing.

Must've had his flare timing perfected.

I guess he came in from a different direction and his glider was not as wet as mine and Jim's were.

The point is this: I should have tested the stall speed characteristics while I was still high and circling. Regardless of what the pilot ahead of me reported, MY glider did not fly well at slow speed and I paid the price for not checking it out myself at higher altitudes when I had the chance.

Ya know another good time to check out your stall characteristics, Grebloville dickhead? Dive YOUR glider into ground effect and skim until it stops flying.
---
P.S. See edit note at the end of the previous post.