Yellow triangle on airspeed indicator.
Jeff Banks
Please...anyone point me to the source document on the yellow triangle on
most new sailplanes?
It seems to be best glide for our ASK-21 for "solo" flight, however our New
LET L-23 the triangle is at the "dual" gross weight best glide. (As it
happens the triangle is at 49kts on both gliders!)
My understanding is the triangle is best glide without ballast. Seems
Schelicher has determined that the second pilot is "ballast" and Blanik may
figure ya can't dump the second person.
I suspect there is probably a "JAR 22" certification description!?!?
Thanks
Jeff Banks
Duane Eisenbeiss
--
"Jeff Banks" <jeff_...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:u9dge4o...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi,
>
> Please...anyone point me to the source document on the yellow triangle on
> most new sailplanes?
>
It is what they call "approach speed".
Jim H
>most new sailplanes?
>
In all the gliders I've seen, the yellow triangle indicates the baseline speed
for flying the pattern to landing. To that speed, you should add half the wind
speed, plus some allowance if it is gusty.
I've never seen an idicator for best L/D speeds and such.
Jim
N483SZ
gapagod...@aol.com
ADP
recommended by the manufacturer. It is usually the airspeed for L/D max for
maximum gross weight in still air. JAR 22.1545 (d)
Allan
"Jeff Banks" <jeff_...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:u9dge4o...@corp.supernews.com...
Bruce Hoult
"ADP" <a...@commspeed.net> wrote:
> It is the lowest approach speed at max gross weight - without ballast-
> recommended by the manufacturer. It is usually the airspeed for L/D max for
> maximum gross weight in still air. JAR 22.1545 (d)
That sounds like a coincidence that just happens to be about right for
many gliders.
Surely it isn't correct for anything with flaps? Take the Janus, for
example (the only flaped glider I fly often). Approach speed is more
than 10 knots slower than best L/D speed.
-- Bruce
ADP
with flapped gliders. Assuming positive flap for approach, speeds could be
lower. What is L/D max with positive flap? I.E., does L/D max change with
progressive flap application? In large powered aircraft, the first 15
degrees of flap or so, (disregarding leading edge devices) increases lift.
The rest of flap travel adds drag. (And reduces approach speed).
Allan
"Bruce Hoult" <br...@hoult.org> wrote in message
news:bruce-596FEB....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
Bruce Hoult
"ADP" <a...@commspeed.net> wrote:
> "Bruce Hoult" <br...@hoult.org> wrote in message
> news:bruce-596FEB....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
> > In article <10165200...@news.commspeed.net>,
> > "ADP" <a...@commspeed.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It is the lowest approach speed at max gross weight - without ballast-
> > > recommended by the manufacturer. It is usually the airspeed for L/D max
> for
> > > maximum gross weight in still air. JAR 22.1545 (d)
> >
> > That sounds like a coincidence that just happens to be about right for
> > many gliders.
> >
> > Surely it isn't correct for anything with flaps? Take the Janus, for
> > example (the only flaped glider I fly often). Approach speed is more
> > than 10 knots slower than best L/D speed.
>
> Don't know about flaps. I suspect you are right about approach vs. L/D max
> with flapped gliders. Assuming positive flap for approach, speeds could be
> lower.
Definitely lower. According to the pilot's manual, best L/D for the
Janus is at 59 knots, min sink is at 49, stall with landing flap at 36.
In calm conditions it's reasonable to approach at 46 or so.
> What is L/D max with positive flap? I.E., does L/D max change with
> progressive flap application?
Flap makes all the critical speeds lower and compresses all the speeds
together. I don't know what speed best L/D would be if you were stuck
in landing flap -- it's not normally something you'd want to know.
> In large powered aircraft, the first 15 degrees of flap or so,
> (disregarding leading edge devices) increases lift.
> The rest of flap travel adds drag. (And reduces approach speed).
Well that's not really true. Adding flap always increases both lift and
drag. At first it's *mostly* lift, and later it's *mostly* drag, but
it's always a mixture.
-- Bruce
Don Johnstone
the lowest approach speed at max gross weight - without
it is.
It MAY also but not always be '..... the airspeed for
L/D max for maximum gross weight in still air.'
The second part of the definition can be ignored it
is the first part that is important.
The indicated speed also assumes perfect conditions
and allowances must also be made for the imperfect
conditions. (5 knots for the wife, 1 each for the kids
and 2 for the dog :-) or whatever yardstick you use.)
At 06:48 19 March 2002, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>In article ,
> 'ADP' wrote:
>
>That sounds like a coincidence that just happens to
>be about right for
>many gliders.
>
>Surely it isn't correct for anything with flaps? Take
>the Janus, for
>example (the only flaped glider I fly often). Approach
>speed is more
>than 10 knots slower than best L/D speed.
>
>-- Bruce
>
Robert Ehrlich
>
> In article <10165200...@news.commspeed.net>,
> "ADP" <a...@commspeed.net> wrote:
>
> > It is the lowest approach speed at max gross weight - without ballast-
> > recommended by the manufacturer. It is usually the airspeed for L/D max for
> > maximum gross weight in still air. JAR 22.1545 (d)
>
> That sounds like a coincidence that just happens to be about right for
> many gliders.
>
Although it may be a coincidence, I can find two reasons in favor of this
coincidence. First, flying at this speed, even with some flaps or airbrakes,
ensures that in the case it would be needed, by retracting your airbrakes
or reverting the flaps to zero, you can make your approach as flat as the
glider is able to do in order to avoid an unexpected obstruction or lengthen
your path. Second, avoiding the flight under this speed avoids the paradoxal
behavior in which short term and long term effects of the action on the
elevator are opposite, i.e. if you raise the nose when flying under this speed
the short term effect is to decrease the slope of your trajectory, which
is probably the intended effect, but the long term effect is to steepen it. Of
course this last reason is only valid if you have your airbrakes retracted and
flaps at zero, maybe due to the first reason.
Olly Ward
AUW?
Olly
ADP
teacher! (grin) Please note the (grin).
"It is the lowest approach speed at max gross weight - without ballast -
(d). The rest, "It is usually the airspeed for L/D max for maximum gross
weight in still air." Is my observation based on a small (8) sample of
medium to low performance un-flapped gliders. (< 34:1) Note the word
"usually". Webster defines it as "such as most often seen". The speed
range from stall to L/D max is relatively narrow in such machines and,
although it may be coincidence, the yellow triangle seems to be placed at or
around L/D max in these gliders.
With regard to approach speeds, in the SGS 2-32, for example, (which has no
yellow triangle and the airspeed indicator is in MPH), I have heard
recommended approach speeds from operators anywhere from "no less than 70
MPH", to " fly 110 MPH until on final".
In the Stemme S10-VT (not a low performance glider by any means), the
approach speed, with any flap setting, is 59 Kts, (yellow triangle), the
speed for L/D max is 57 Kts. That seems close enough to qualify as
"usually"!
Yes Bruce, it would be more correct to say that "In the first 15 degrees of
travel, the trailing edge flaps produce more lift than drag. With flap
settings greater than 15 degrees, trailing edge flaps produce more drag than
lift."
In the Janus, where is the yellow triangle?
Allan
"Bruce Hoult" <br...@hoult.org> wrote in message
news:bruce-64EB0F....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
Bill Daniels
> It seems to be best glide for our ASK-21 for "solo" flight, however our
New
> LET L-23 the triangle is at the "dual" gross weight best glide. (As it
> happens the triangle is at 49kts on both gliders!)
>
> Jeff Banks
>
Hmm. The yellow triangle on our new L-23 is at 41Kts which is about V/Min.
Sink at gross weight. Is our ASI mis-marked?
Bill Daniels
F.L. Whiteley
"Bill Daniels" <n22...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a77th0$n6q$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
No, according to para 2.3 of the Sailplane Flight Manual, 41kts is the
'Approach speed at maximum weight' as indicated by the Yellow Triangle on
the ASI.
Frank Whiteley
Don Johnstone
At 17:30 19 March 2002, Adp wrote:
>Here we go again! Geeze, you guys are worse (or as
>good as) my HS English
>teacher! (grin) Please note the (grin).
>'It is the lowest approach speed at max gross weight
>- without ballast -
>recommended by the manufacturer.' That is a direct
>quote from JAR 22.1545
>(d). The rest, 'It is usually the airspeed for L/D
>max for maximum gross
>weight in still air.' Is my observation based on a
>small (8) sample of
>medium to low performance un-flapped gliders. ( wrote
>in message
>news:bruce-64EB0F....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
>> In article ,
>> 'ADP' wrote:
>>
>> > 'Bruce Hoult' wrote in message
>> > news:bruce-596FEB....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
>> > > In article ,
Bruce Hoult
"ADP" <a...@commspeed.net> wrote:
> Here we go again! Geeze, you guys are worse (or as good as) my HS English
> teacher! (grin) Please note the (grin).
> "It is the lowest approach speed at max gross weight - without ballast -
> recommended by the manufacturer." That is a direct quote from JAR 22.1545
> (d).
Good.
> The rest, "It is usually the airspeed for L/D max for maximum gross
> weight in still air." Is my observation
OK, fair enough, and it's my observation as well. It would have been
better if you'd made it clear that it was your observation and not part
of JAR 22.1545 (d) at the start, for those of us who don't happen to
have JAR 22.1545 (d) immediately to hand -- I don't know where mine is,
perhaps it fell behind the bed when I snoozed off while reading it one
evening.
> based on a small (8) sample of
> medium to low performance un-flapped gliders. (< 34:1) Note the word
> "usually". Webster defines it as "such as most often seen". The speed
> range from stall to L/D max is relatively narrow in such machines and,
> although it may be coincidence, the yellow triangle seems to be placed at or
> around L/D max in these gliders.
I agree, except that I can think of low performance gliders where
approach speed is higher than best L/D speed.
> In the Stemme S10-VT (not a low performance glider by any means), the
> approach speed, with any flap setting, is 59 Kts, (yellow triangle), the
> speed for L/D max is 57 Kts. That seems close enough to qualify as
> "usually"!
!! What's the stall speed? Perhaps this approach speed is for
conformity with powered traffic? It certainly doesn't sound appropriate
for landing in a paddock.
> In the Janus, where is the yellow triangle?
I guess I'll have to check to be sure, but I think the Janus predates
yellow triangles.
-- Bruce
Jeff Banks
Jeff Banks
"ADP" <a...@commspeed.net> wrote in message
news:10165200...@news.commspeed.net...
Jeff Banks
L-23's 41kts on the older ones. There was some changes when the
certification included the wing tip extensions.
Jeff
"Bill Daniels" <n22...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a77th0$n6q$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
ADP
reference at: http://www.jaa.nl/jar/jar.html
From now on, I will separate my observations from fact - assuming they
differ!
The Stemme stall speeds are 41 Kts in landing configuration (with flaps) and
44 Kts clean.
I can think of low performance gliders where approach speed is faster than
L/D max but I can't think of any that have a yellow triangles on their
airspeed indicator for which this is true. How about it folks, any of you
out there with yellow triangle speeds that differ from L/D max speed?
This all started with yellow triangles and I would assume that, if you don't
have a yellow triangle, all bets are off.
Allan
"Bruce Hoult" <br...@hoult.org> wrote in message
news:bruce-C8C641....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
Bruce Hoult
> found the reference at: http://www.jaa.nl/jar/jar.html
Thanks for the URL!
>The Stemme stall speeds are 41 Kts in landing configuration (with
>flaps) and 44 Kts clean.
Which means that by the "stall plus 10 knots" formula used here in NZ,
you'd be looking to approach at around 51 knots in calm conditions. By
the typical light aircraft "stall times 1.3" it'd be 53 knots.
Any idea why the recommended approach speed is so high, at 59 knots?
>I can think of low performance gliders where approach speed is faster
>than L/D max but I can't think of any that have a yellow triangles on
>their airspeed indicator for which this is true. How about it folks,
>any of >you out there with yellow triangle speeds that differ from L/D
>max speed?
Oh, that's easy: PW5. Best L/D is 48 knots. Yellow triangle is
above 50 knots (51?).
-- Bruce
Caracole
not for the definition, but the application.
If you are flying at gross weight, at the yellow triangle speed,
the elevator will JUST have the ability to arrest rate of descent, once,
with essentially no float, and be done flying, on the ground.
Don't flare high, because after leveling, you Will resume sinking,
not flying. And it will not be pretty, thereafter.
Thus the nuance of a cautioning coloring for the marking.
It has no intention, nor interest, in reflecting anything else
about your sailplane's performance characteristics. For a glider with a
smaller area elevator/horizontal, that speed may be very
different from Min Sink or Best L/D.
The happenstance of a yellow triangle correlating closely to any
other flight performance value simply provides a chance for
a CFIG to win a wager for a beverage from the pundits who
haven't delved deeply into their pilot handbooks. We CFIs
would never take advantage of green students in that regard,
in fact, the sincere students are most likely to answer
that instrument marking trivia question correctly!
Typically, in areas where lift/sink can be very brisk and vigorous,
the teachers ask the students to use an approach speed a few
knots faster than the triangle, for safety margins....
closer to the concept of 1.3 times stall speed dirty, and then
adjust beyond there for windy conditions.
Best wishes,
Cindy B
--
Caracole Soaring
22570 Airport Way
California City, CA 93505
Phone/Fax 760-373-1019
e-mail Cara...@ccis.com
http://members.aol.com/soarca/caracole.htm
"Bruce Hoult" <br...@hoult.org> wrote in message
news:bruce-27C44A....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
Bruce Hoult
"Caracole" <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote:
> If you are flying at gross weight, at the yellow triangle speed,
> the elevator will JUST have the ability to arrest rate of descent, once,
> with essentially no float, and be done flying, on the ground.
I flat out don't believe that. It contradicts not only theory (that the
speed with those properties will depend more on CG than on weight) but
every experience I have that if you have the yellow triangle speed on
short final then you have ample energy to close the brakes and float on
down the field for a good distance.
-- Bruce
ADP
several knots above stall speed in approach configuration, I have much more
elevator than I need to flare and land. If that weren't true, you would see
many more hard landings in gliders. I submit that if you only have enough
elevator to make one attempt to flare and land, you are flying too slowly.
Allan
"Caracole" <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote in message
news:3c98...@news.antelecom.net...
Martin Gregorie
>I can think of low performance gliders where approach speed is faster than
>L/D max but I can't think of any that have a yellow triangles on their
>airspeed indicator for which this is true. How about it folks, any of you
>out there with yellow triangle speeds that differ from L/D max speed?
>
>This all started with yellow triangles and I would assume that, if you don't
>have a yellow triangle, all bets are off.
>
The SZD Junior for one. Max l/d = 46 Kts, but I usually fly approaches
at 55 Kts. Yellow triangle, what yellow triangle? Not fitted in either
of ours.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie.| Harlow
demon. | UK.
co. |
uk |
Caracole
1. She said when making the approach at the yellow triangle
speed (49kts in a K-21)
2. And she did say at Gross weight (1320lbs in a K-21)
3. However she also meant to say
"While maintaining full spoilers on final and throughout flare
and touchdown".
M Eiler
"ADP" <a...@commspeed.net> wrote in message
Bruce Hoult
> Sorry, fellows Cindy left out a couple important points.
>
> 1. She said when making the approach at the yellow triangle
> speed (49kts in a K-21)
> 2. And she did say at Gross weight (1320lbs in a K-21)
> 3. However she also meant to say
> "While maintaining full spoilers on final and throughout flare
> and touchdown".
Gawd.
Using that definition, the yellow triangle on a Club Libelle or Hornet
would need to be at about 70 knots. Those things have *brakes*.
-- Bruce
Duane Eisenbeiss
Did you read the part about "at max gross weight"? How often have you
landed a sailplane at max gross weight?
Duane
Duane Eisenbeiss
> not for the definition, but the application.
Yea Cindy. Finally someone gave a proper answer.
Duane Eisenbeiss
Bruce Hoult
"Duane Eisenbeiss" <eisen...@compuserve.com> wrote:
Probably nearly every flight I've ever made. At around 115 kg I'm
several kg over the weight normally designed for.
A PW-5 is slightly over gross weight with me in it. (And there's one
parked in my driveway at the moment, for a comp tomorrow)
When I fly two-seaters, generally we're at gross weight if the other
person is 85 kg or more, which is usually the case.
The exception is the Janus, which is the only glider I fly that is
designed to take water ballast. But then it also doesn't have a yellow
triangle, so the point is moot.
-- Bruce
FM
"Reccomended minimum approach speed at maximum weight without water ballast"
Furthermore, maximum weight without water ballast is NOT the same as maximum
AUW. Maximum weight without water ballast is 412kg. (908lbs.) which is
significantly less than max AUW of 525kg. (1157lbs.)
My LS8 weighs 599lbs. If you place me, my chute, and assorted supplies in
the cockpit, the scales tip out at about 800lbs which is still more than
100lbs away from the weight that yellow triangle is based on, but it isn't
as far way as one might think without reading the manual closely.
Fred
"Duane Eisenbeiss" <eisen...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:chzm8.89098$702.21000@sccrnsc02...
Rod Pool
"Bruce Hoult" <br...@hoult.org> wrote in message
news:bruce-F1E4F7....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
> A PW-5 is slightly over gross weight with me in it. (And there's one
> parked in my driveway at the moment, for a comp tomorrow)
> -- Bruce
Flying over the gross weight is a violation of the FAR's
Flying over gross weight violates the type certification
Flying over gross weight voids any insurance policy
Flying over gross weight places the pilots safety at risk
Flying over gross weight places at risk those who have pick up the pieces
Flying over gross weight shows poor judgment and disregard for the law and
rules
Flying over gross weight at a competition - see all of the above
Rod
Bruce Hoult
"Rod Pool" <rp...@dellepro.com> wrote:
Thank you for your concern, and feel free to not fly with me in future.
-- Bruce
Don Johnstone
At 20:30 23 March 2002, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>In article ,
> 'Rod Pool' wrote:
>
>> All
>>
>> 'Bruce Hoult' wrote in message
Bruce Hoult
Don Johnstone <REMOVE_TO...@bittering.screaming.net> wrote:
> Or indeed under you
So you really think the wings are going to fall off if you fly at one
ounce over gross?
-- Bruce
Jim H
>ounce over gross?
There are three things to consider when evaluating whether you are legal and
insurable.
First, are you within the allowable seat limits? For JAR, this is 154-242
pounds.
Second, are you within max gross? This includes you, your passengers, and
whatever else you might be carrying aboard that is not included in the empty
weight. Add them all up.
Third, are you within allowable CG limits? Consider that if you're near the
rear limit, you might spin easier, pitch won't be as stable.
IF you exceed any one of these parameters, you are breaking the regs.
'Nuf said.
Jim
N483SZ
gapagod...@aol.com
Don Johnstone
At 22:12 24 March 2002, Jim H wrote:
>>So you really think the wings are going to fall off
>>if you fly at one
>>ounce over gross?
>
Bill Daniels
> At 22:12 24 March 2002, Jim H wrote:
> >>So you really think the wings are going to fall off
> >>if you fly at one
> >>ounce over gross?
I have seen wings come off gliders - twice - four fatalities. In both cases
they were flying over gross weight - but not by much. I don't want to see
it again.
Bill Daniels
Bruce Hoult
"Bill Daniels" <n22...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Perhaps you could explain the circumstances, and also why each incident
would not have happened had they been precisely at gross weight?
-- Bruce
Bruce Hoult
gap...@aol.comSTOPSPAM (Jim H) wrote:
And?
Are you suggesting that the sport of gliding should have no members over
the weight of 242 pounds? Do we all have to play rugby instead, despite
enjoying flying a lot more?
-- Bruce
Jim H
>the weight of 242 pounds? Do we all have to play rugby instead, despite
>enjoying flying a lot more?
Perhaps you should ask the people who came up with the JAR standard for 242
pounds.
Jim
N483SZ
gapagod...@aol.com
John Orton
flown above the Max AUW so that we could avoid purchasing them in the
future.
Regards
John Orton J.O...@murdoch.edu.au
"Bruce Hoult" <br...@hoult.org> wrote in message
news:bruce-C53E4A....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
Bill Daniels
No one knows if one factor was the absolute cause. Perhaps if the
turbulence was a little less or the pilots were less aggressive or smoother
on the controls... What was determined is that the wings sustained loads in
excess of their rated strength before they failed - but not by much.
I lost two gliders I loved to fly - and four acquaintances. They had
'chutes but no one even released the canopy or belts. The speculation was
that they were incapacitated by the violence of the wing failure.
I'm just a crotchety old conservative. I may have got this old because I
don't fly above the Vb speed in rough air and I don't fly aerobatics in old
gliders. I maintain the largest structural safety margin I can - including
weight limits.
I believe manufacturers have no incentive to state a gross weight limit that
is one bit less than their machine's real capacity. There is certainly a
market for gliders, particularly two seaters, that can carry more load than
the JAR calls for. If you truly believe a machine can carry more than the
certification states, then prove it with a structural analysis and submit a
request for an increased gross weight limit - it's been done before.
The argument here should be with the manufacturers, not with instructors or
others who believe the placarded limits mean just what they say. It hurts
to be attacked for defending those placards.
Bill Daniels
Gary
Bruce
Don't let those guys confuse you with the facts, your mind is already made up.
Gary
Walt Konecny
news:a7m0tr$h0$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> No one knows if one factor was the absolute cause. Perhaps if the
> turbulence was a little less or the pilots were less aggressive or
smoother
> on the controls... What was determined is that the wings sustained loads
in
> excess of their rated strength before they failed - but not by much.
Which means they were probably flying in the yellow in turbulence, making
excess contol inputs while in the yellow or above Vne, or exceeding Vne, or
a combination of all or any of those. If a glider is flying below "rough air
speed", the gust load, by design, will stall the wing before it becomes
overloaded by turbulence (vertical gusts).
> I'm just a crotchety old conservative. I may have got this old because I
> don't fly above the Vb speed in rough air and I don't fly aerobatics in
old
> gliders. I maintain the largest structural safety margin I can -
including
> weight limits.
>
> I believe manufacturers have no incentive to state a gross weight limit
that
> is one bit less than their machine's real capacity.
I would think there is a design fudge factor in the gross weight limit, just
like there is with Vne.
wk
Bruce Hoult
"Bill Daniels" <n22...@mindspring.com> wrote:
The thing is that a given number on that placard doesn't stand in
isolation. The glider is designed so that, while loaded to gross
weight, it can safely go so fast, and pull so many G, and take such and
such a gust load. Various customers want different of those numbers at
least as high as they are, but its simple engineering to figure out that
it's really a certain amount of strength that is there and that if you
put more weight in you don't fly quite so fast and don't pull as many
G's. I have no probalems with that -- in the PW-5 you can win races
prefectly well without ever going over 70 knots with a 119 knot Vne, and
with the speed variations you're making, there's never a reason to pull
high G either.
Last time I did a BFR, it was with an instructor who weighs at least
what I do. And he's the regional safety officer. I brought the issue
up and he agreed with my reasoning and methodology for modifying the
placarded speeds.
Someone (you?) mentioned people getting into trouble at "only" 10% over
gross weight. I'm flying at less than 2% over gross.
Oh, and btw I believe I've won the sports class at the contest.
-- Bruce
Bruce Hoult
"John Orton" <J.O...@murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
> Perhaps Bruce you could supply us all with a list of gliders that you have
> flown above the Max AUW so that we could avoid purchasing them in the
> future.
Sure.
NZ registry. ZK-Gxx
EX
EY
FQ
HT
HW
IJ
IN
IP
JT
GA
GZ
KN
LM
LV
MS
MY
NE
PC
TA
WN
WZ
US registry:
274KS
N4793N (with Derek Piggot, btw)
N57CG
No, Aussie examples, but I'm planning a trip there soon.
Some of the above 2 seaters (e.g. the Janus and Duo) won't have been
above max AUW, but will have been above max seat weight and possibly max
weight of non flying parts.
-- Bruce
Ian Johnston
wrote:
: Perhaps Bruce you could supply us all with a list of gliders that you have
: flown above the Max AUW so that we could avoid purchasing them in the
: future.
In the UK the BGA regularly approves extensions to gross weight limits
for specific gliders, often with additional restrictions on the flight
envelope. Legality aside, an aircraft designed to be happy with a 5.5G
loading is not going to be wrecked by 1.05G. That's given obvious
implications for the edges of the envelope. Exceeding the CofG limits
is a different ball game altogether.
Ian
John Morgan
aircraft to exceed gross weight by 10%. Yet that same plane can't legally do
so in the lower 48. The FAA also grants waivers for exceeding gross weight,
by substantially more than 10%, for long overwater ferry flights to allow
for additional tankage.
Assuming the pilot is smart enough not to try an aerobatic routine with a
full ferry tank, are these aircraft otherwise unsafe?
bumper
Slingsby
> > don't fly above the Vb speed in rough air and I don't fly aerobatics in
> old
> > gliders. I maintain the largest structural safety margin I can -
> including
> > weight limits.
> >
> > I believe manufacturers have no incentive to state a gross weight limit
> that is one bit less than their machine's real capacity.
loads as this profile fits 99%of the people flying gliders.
There is an article on the DG web site about testing to destruction of
the DG 1000 wing. It failed at approx. 12 G's (about 1.85 of the
design load limit)which allows them to increase their gross weight
limit although they didn't.
> I would think there is a design fudge factor in the gross weight limit, just
> like there is with Vne.
> wk
"Samples of the rod have been tested at a laboratory to 326,000 to
333,000 psi in tension. Compression failure excedes 275,000 psi. Lab
tests on hand laid up carbon rovings failed in the range of 47,000 psi
to 80,000 psi in compression. A shocking realization.
The Genesis was the first sailplane to use the 'GRAPHLITE' carbon rod.
The Genesis is a 15 meter (49.2 ft) production sailplane with a
slightly swept forward wing. During static testing of a completed wing
the test holding fixture failed at 19g. Test conditions were: a 260 lb
pilot and 50 lbs of equipment. Extensive dynamic cyclic testing was
also performed. 20,000 cycles in positive and negative loading, many
above the design limit, failed to show any visual sign of rod failure
or separation from the binding matrix.
The prototype Genesis sailplane had a hand lay up spar from contineous
carbon roving. The spar weight was 38 lbs. The production Genesis with
the GRAPHLITE rod spar weighed only 25 lbs but was twice as strong. A
third generation spar of GRAPHLITE for the Genesis would weigh under
20 lbs and be of equal strength. Just for the record, an equivilent
aluminum spar would would weigh 65 lbs and be half as strong.
The Lithuanian engineers were so impressed witnessing the Genesis
static and dynamic test that their new sailplane, the 18 meter (59 ft
span) LAK-17A, incorporates these rods in the mainspar also. What
impresses me is the spar depth at the root of the LAK-17A is only 3.5
inches. Aspect ratio is 33 to 1. And the wing panel weight is only 122
lbs.!!"
Bill Dean.
1. Maximum All-up Weight must not be exceeded.
2. Maximum Weight of non-lifting parts must not be exceeded.
3. C. of G. must not be forward of the forward limit.
4. Max weight on the seat must not be exceeded, applies to each seat in a
two-seater. In a modern German machine this will be 110kg. (242lb.).
For those who are over the limit or marginal (such as myself) one problem is
that it is often not possible to tell from the placard which of these sets
the limit, and how much margin there is for the others.
W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>
> "Jim H" <gap...@aol.comSTOPSPAM> wrote in message
> news:20020324170257...@mb-mu.aol.com...
John Giddy
that if you are unlucky enough to have an accident, no
matter how it was caused, the insurance company is likely to
want to weigh you and look at the placard. If the numbers
don't add up, they won't pay a brass razoo to you.
Cheers, John G.
(also overweight , but usually fly only gliders which can
accept me.)
"Bruce Hoult" <br...@hoult.org> wrote in message
news:bruce-B3E836....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net...
Raphael Warshaw
production version (or at least mine). It seems from recent suggestions
comming from NTSB and others about the vertical fin separation on an A-300
being the result of a failure of the carbon fibre tabs, that conservative
limits may not be a bad idea until more is known.
BTW, my understanding is that the weight increase in the LAK wing panels
from the 122 lbs. of the prototype to the 148 lbs. in the production ship
had to do with stiffness, not failing strenth.
Perhaps someone on the list with expertise in composites could say something
about the limits and failure modes of these materials. I'd be particularly
interested in what methods are used to inspect structures made of them for
hidden damage. Given the recent certification of aircraft like the Columbia
and others here in the US, something must have been worked out. How do the
repair stations approach this when doing an anual inspection?
Raphael Warshaw
1LK
"Slingsby" <wing...@mail.flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:e602e860.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > > I'm just a crotchety old conservative. I may have got this old
because I
> > > don't fly above the Vb speed in rough air and I don't fly aerobatics
in
> > old
Walt Konecny
a regular basis since they were built? Do you think commercial operators on
a regular basis turn away customers because their combined weight would put
them somewhat over the gross weight limit when giving a ride for two? One
particular Grob 103 at a commercial operation in Arizona (which will remain
unnamed) had a pilot/passenger limit total of 340 lbs, due to many wrecks
and repairs, but was regularly flown in excess of that.
wk
Caracole
FAA or NTSB investigator as well as the insurance companies
adjustor. To check the pilots weights and the aircrafts flight
weight and c.g. as compared to placards and operating
limitations. If there is a discrepancy a smart insurance
company may well have grounds to deny claims.
For those who claim that the design fudge factors and simple
engineering shows that you can exceed the manufacturers
operating limitations. You might consider being self insured.
M Eiler
"John Giddy" wrote in message
James Wilson
I am some what supprised at the comments about flying
over weight being a basis for insurance to be invalidated.
I would like to know why is this? Is it because by
flying over weight you are breaking the rules? If so
I am some what doubtful about that this is grounds
for insurance being invalidated.
I have come to this conclusion by considering car insurance
in the UK the speed limit on motorways is 70mph and
I have never heard of insurance not being paid out
when a crash occured and someone was travelling over
the speed limit. It does beg the question that if by
breaking this type of rule what is the point of insurance
as as soon as you break a rule it will be invalidated.
So simply the rule do not crash, would result in your
insurance being invalidated every time you crashed.
This obviously would be rediculous.
James
James Wilson
Liam Finley
FAR's and go to the gym once in a while instead. Losing a few pounds
will put your glider at a more efficient C of G, and you'll have less
chance of being one of those guys who spins in as the result of a
heart attack.
Don Johnstone
but certainly in the UK the Gross weight (MAUW) is
stated in the certificate of airworthiness. If the
glider is flown outside the conditions specified in
the CofA the insurance is invalid and that includes
the JAR 242lb seat limit (The same would apply to
changing the engine size in your car and not informing
the relevant authorities if you need a meaningful comparison
to vehicle regulations.)
Vorsanger1
point: While driving on the local motorway, I hit a piece of debris which had
just flown off the truck which was ahead of me. The impact damaged the front
of my car, causing $1000 in repairs. My insurer would not pay unless I filed a
claim which would cause my premiums to go up by 30% for the next 3 years.
Reasonning: I was responsible for the incident, since I should have avoided the
debris, which was ON the road and had not hit the hood ("bonnet"), windshield
or roof. If I had attempted an evasive manoeuver which would have caused me to
hit the cars on either side of me, then I would have been covered. In the case
of flying over placarded weight, you can be absolutely certain that the
insurance company will find the means to avoid paying for any cost or liability
incurred.
Cheers, Charles
Michael
> that if you are unlucky enough to have an accident, no
> matter how it was caused, the insurance company is likely to
> want to weigh you and look at the placard. If the numbers
> don't add up, they won't pay a brass razoo to you.
I've heard this tune sung a number of times. Can you name a concrete
example (complete with name and tail number) where that actually
happened?
I used to belong to a club that had several accidents in fairly rapid
succession. One was a student who took a tow above a broken layer
(against US FAR's), got lost, landed out, and caused damage that took
several months to repair. Insurance paid.
One was a newly minted private pilot who (according to the postmortem
toxicology) was taking some disqualifying medications. He had a rope
break as a result of failure to follow the towplane, then spun in from
300 ft. Insurance paid.
A pilot flying illegally with an expired BFR, carrying a passenger,
misjudged conditions and landed with a tailwind. Went off the end of
the runway and into the bushes, causing damage that took several
months to repair. Insurance paid.
Of course the end result of these accidents in rapid succession was
that the club is no longer able to obtain hull insurance for its
fleet, which is the realistic way an insurance company deals with bad
risks.
I don't know anything about law elsewhere, but in the US an insurance
company is basically not going to be able to refuse payment for
overgross operation unless the overgross operation can be shown to be
a causal factor in the accident - and then they will generally have to
prove their case in court, in front of a jury that will be a lot more
sympathetic to an individual who has suffered a loss than to an
insurance company that's trying to get out of paying on a
technicality.
Michael
Bruce Hoult
fado...@yahoo.com (Liam Finley) wrote:
I cycle 30 km a couple of times a week, walk several km on the beach
nearly every day, play badminton, and my blood pressure is around 120/60.
Next stupid suggestion, please.
-- Bruce
Bruce Hoult
"Caracole" <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote:
> Actually in the U.S. following an accident it is common for the
> FAA or NTSB investigator as well as the insurance companies
> adjustor. To check the pilots weights and the aircrafts flight
> weight and c.g. as compared to placards and operating
> limitations. If there is a discrepancy a smart insurance
> company may well have grounds to deny claims.
>
> For those who claim that the design fudge factors and simple
> engineering shows that you can exceed the manufacturers
> operating limitations. You might consider being self insured.
That's very strange phrasing.
*IF* an insurance company won't pay out then you *are* self insured, for
that particular risk at least.
-- Bruce
EColeson
<br...@hoult.org> writes:
>So you really think the wings are going to fall off if you fly at one
>ounce over gross?
>
Your initial post said "slightly" over gross, not "one ounce". And no, we
don't think the wings are going to fall off for an ounce, but we don't know how
"slightly" over gross you're willing to operate, do we? It's not just the
weight that exceeds carefully considered limits, but your attitude. The
disdain you appear to hold for the most fundamental of design limitiations
calls into question your judgement on a myriad of other choices.
Eric
Plan ahead, stay alert, and never carry a package by the string, eh?
Bruce Hoult
ecol...@aol.comNOSPAM (EColeson) wrote:
> In article <bruce-5343B8....@copper.ipg.tsnz.net>, Bruce Hoult
> <br...@hoult.org> writes:
>
> >So you really think the wings are going to fall off if you fly at one
> >ounce over gross?
> >
>
> Your initial post said "slightly" over gross, not "one ounce". And no, we
> don't think the wings are going to fall off for an ounce, but we don't know
> how "slightly" over gross you're willing to operate, do we?
Why don't you? I've said several times.
> It's not just the weight that exceeds carefully considered limits, but
> your attitude. The disdain you appear to hold for the most fundamental
> of design limitiations calls into question your judgement on a myriad
> of other choices.
My attitude? You mean the attitude that the limitations were put there
by skilled engineers using rational processes, and that with appropriate
knowledge and consideration the mind of man is capable of
reverse-engineering those processes and making a slightly different
trade-off?
I certainly have total disdain for the unthinking letter-of-the-law
types who blindly believe that because some limit is stated somewhere
they are totally safe at 1% under the limit no matter what and totally
unsafe at 1% over the limit no matter what. The real world just doesn't
work that way. And that applies equally to aircraft limitations, speed
limits on the road, and the start height and squareness of the corners
of your landing circuit -- you should have the skill to do things by the
book when that's the right thing to do, and the judgement to do
something else when that makes more sense in the circumstances.
-- Bruce
ADP
section relating to CFRs. Not so many years ago, an insurance policy for
aircraft usually carried the phrase that it was not in force if the pilot
was "violating FARs". This appears to no longer be the case. At least with
regard to flying overwieght, the insurance policy will not be voided.
I am certain we all know that FARs no longer stand for Federal Air
Regulations but stand for Federal Acquizition Regulations and have nothing
to do with flight. The Code of Federal Regulations - Part 14 (CFR-14) now
governs flight.
Allan
"Don Johnstone" <REMOVE_TO...@bittering.screaming.net> wrote in
message news:a7lkdo$mbdfi$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
> and more to the point uninsured.
>
>
Ian Johnston
<REMOVE_TO...@bittering.screaming.net> wrote:
: I do not know the situation anywhere else in the world
: but certainly in the UK the Gross weight (MAUW) is
: stated in the certificate of airworthiness. If the
: glider is flown outside the conditions specified in
: the CofA the insurance is invalid and that includes
: the JAR 242lb seat limit
Isn't 242lb/110kg a minimum seat strength for builders? Is the actual
seat strength specified on your C of A?
Ian
Ian Johnston
: Your initial post said "slightly" over gross, not "one ounce". And no, we
: don't think the wings are going to fall off for an ounce, but we don't know how
: "slightly" over gross you're willing to operate, do we? It's not just the
: weight that exceeds carefully considered limits, but your attitude. The
: disdain you appear to hold for the most fundamental of design limitiations
: calls into question your judgement on a myriad of other choices.
My glider is designed to be flown at loadings up to +6.5g. How much
over gross would you worry about, or not worry about?
Personally, I'd much rather fly with or under someone who has given
some intelligent thought to the flight limitations of his/her aircraft
than someone who blindly trusts a sheet of figures...
Ian
John Giddy
"Ian Johnston" <engs...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-45CdIj8rtMPX@localhost...
| Isn't 242lb/110kg a minimum seat strength for builders? Is
the actual
| seat strength specified on your C of A?
No doubt the 110 kg limit is used by the designers to
specify the construction of the seat, but it also becomes
the limit for the user of that seat.
It also defines the strength and anchoring security for the
harness, which has to restrain the pilot in a crash
situation for short term loads of (I think, from memory) 12
G.
In Australia, all the maximum limits are specified on the C
of A: MTOW, MWNFP (if specified by the manufacturer), Max
seat load, C of G range, Vne, Vra etc.
Cheers, John G.
Mzsoar
<br...@hoult.org> writes:
>
>I cycle 30 km a couple of times a week, walk several km on the beach
>nearly every day, play badminton, and my blood pressure is around 120/60.
>
>Next stupid suggestion, please.
What you have to really do is practice the most difficult exercise of all:
Pushing that extra portion of grub away.
Mike (Certified Personal Trainer)
Don Johnstone
In article , Bruce Hoult
writes: (Snip)
you should have the skill to do things by the book
when that's the right thing to do, and the judgement
to do something else when that makes more sense in
the circumstances.
Bruce
Got a name for that - anarchy. Question is who decides
which rules can be ignored and which can't.
BTIZ
> what I do. And he's the regional safety officer. I brought the issue
> up and he agreed with my reasoning and methodology for modifying the
> placarded speeds.
>
you are a DAR or equivalent ?? and processed the required paperwork to
"modify the placarded speeds"... your regional safety officer is just as
guilty as you are...
TZ
BTIZ
broken layer... I've missed that one...
TZ
>
> I used to belong to a club that had several accidents in fairly rapid
> succession. One was a student who took a tow above a broken layer
> (against US FAR's), got lost, landed out, and caused damage that took
> several months to repair. Insurance paid.
>
> One was a newly minted private pilot who (according to the postmortem
> toxicology) was taking some disqualifying medications. He had a rope
> break as a result of failure to follow the towplane, then spun in from
> 300 ft. Insurance paid.
>
Insurance company was stupid.. self medical certification clause.
> A pilot flying illegally with an expired BFR, carrying a passenger,
> misjudged conditions and landed with a tailwind. Went off the end of
> the runway and into the bushes, causing damage that took several
> months to repair. Insurance paid.
>
Insurance company was stupid.. pilot was not "legal" to carry pax
> Of course the end result of these accidents in rapid succession was
> that the club is no longer able to obtain hull insurance for its
> fleet, which is the realistic way an insurance company deals with bad
> risks.
Sounds like another club I know...
>
Bruce Hoult
Don Johnstone <REMOVE_TO...@bittering.screaming.net> wrote:
That is indeed one of the problems with the government being involved
not only with defense of the realm and deterring murderers and theives,
but also deciding how many gallons of water your toilet is allowed to
use, what colour you may paint your house and how fast you may drive
your car -- it tells people that they not only don't need to think for
themselves but that they *can't*.
Blindly following the letter of the law will *not* keep you safe in a
car. You have to think as well. Blindly following the letter of the
law is even less useful in keeping you alive on a motorcycle, and I'd
guess probably about the same in a light aircraft.
I would have thought that those who deliberately choose to take to the
open skies and fly cross-country in craft without engines should be even
more able and inclined to make their own decisions and trust in their
own abilities. No FAR is going to save your butt when it comes time to
put it down in a paddock. There are no helpful signposts saying
"CAUTION: grass-covered drain" or "deceptive slope".
To answer your question: *everyone* has to decide for themselves which
rules can be ignored and which can't.
Those who aren't up to making such decisions probably shouldn't be
flying powered aircraft solo near the airfield, let alone unpowered ones
cross country.
-- Bruce
ADP
been since 1997.
There is only 14 CFR 61-53(b):
(b)Operations that do not require a medical certificate. For
operations provided for in Sec. 61.23(b) of this part, a person shall
not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required
pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know
of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate
the aircraft in a safe manner.
Allan
BTIZ
just because they took the "certification" space off the 8710-2
It's still on the Student Form
TZ
"ADP" <a...@commspeed.net> wrote in message
news:10171146...@news.commspeed.net...
Caracole
I think it was an oblique reference to USA FAR 61.89 solo student
limitations.
The solo student must fly with reference to the surface.
A broken layer may allow enough reference to the surface,
or it may not. Partly depends on the student's level of
awareness, IMHO. From the tale of that student's misfortunes,
it seems he was in violation, since he got lost...
61.89 General limitations.
(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(1) through (5) ...snipped...
(6) With a flight or surface visibility of less than 3 statute miles during
daylight hours or 5 statute miles at night;
(7) When the flight cannot be made with visual reference to the surface; or
(8) In a manner contrary to any limitations placed in the pilot's logbook by
an authorized instructor.
Cindy
who doesn't recommend second guessing
manufacturer's limitations......and walks about < 110kg
"BTIZ" <bnosp...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:u9vj9oj...@corp.supernews.com...
John Roe
> What you have to really do is practice the most difficult exercise of all:
> Pushing that extra portion of grub away.
>
> Mike (Certified Personal Trainer)
I have to agree here. Exercise is a good thing, but not a
particularly efficient way to lose weight. Intaking less calories is.
Plus lots of caffiene... ;-)
JR. A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer and SENSEI (technicaly Shihan)
John Roe "ZR"
www.martialartsacademy.org
Ian Johnston
: I have to agree here. Exercise is a good thing, but not a
: particularly efficient way to lose weight. Intaking less calories is.
Well, I'll disagree. After you've reduced your intake to a sensible
level (2000 - 2500 kcal/day for men) there is no point in cutting back
any further. The body enters starvation mode and starts preparing for
worse times by storing fat. Whoops. Exercise as well, that's the
ticket.
Ultimately, though, it's fitness that counts rather than non-fatness,
and the two by no means go together.
Ian
Michael
> I think it was an oblique reference to USA FAR 61.89 solo student
> limitations.
I didn't think it was oblique, but I guess only students and CFI's
have any particular reason to be familiar with that reg. In any case,
that's exactly the reg I referred to.
> From the tale of that student's misfortunes,
> it seems he was in violation, since he got lost...
No kidding. If you can't see enough of the surface to orient
yourself, you are not conducting the flight by visual reference to the
surface.
Michael
Walt Konecny
news:449a3d6e.02032...@posting.google.com...
> I didn't think it was oblique, but I guess only students and CFI's
> have any particular reason to be familiar with that reg. In any case,
> that's exactly the reg I referred to.
Towpilots, at least in my part of the world, know when they're towing a
student, and would not be dragging them above layers of clouds.
wk
Michael
Insurance companies do not stay in business by being stupid. Nor do
they stay in business by paying out on claims unnecessarily. The fact
that they paid indicates that in the best judgment of the adjuster,
who knows a lot more about this business than you, paying the claim
was the best course of action.
Michael
Tony Verhulst
I recently (last week) asked my club's insurance
agent what the insurer's response would be if a club member's Biennial
Flight Review (BFR) had expired and was involved in a substantial
accident. The response follows.
<start quote>
Your policies both (gliders and towplanes) state that a pilot must be
properly certificated by the FAA. This means they would need to be
current on their BFR (and for the towplanes, current on medical)."
Going strictly by the phrasing of this contract, the carrier would be
within their rights to deny a claim if the pilot involved did not hold a
current BFR. If the loss had nothing to do with the pilot's currency,
such as a ground handling claim, it is doubtful the lack of BFR would
come into play.
<end quote>
I suspect that if my question to the agent had been "How would the
insurer respond if a pilot knowingly (and there's no excuse for not
knowing) took off in a glider above the certified max gross weight", the
answer would have been similar.
Tony V.
John Roe
> Well, I'll disagree.
A common occurance on newsgroups, as many have opinions on subjects
with no particular knowledge of same.
> After you've reduced your intake to a sensible
> level (2000 - 2500 kcal/day for men) there is no point in cutting back
> any further. The body enters starvation mode and starts preparing for
> worse times by storing fat.
A common "urban myth." Like most myths there is some truth to it, in
extreme cases. In the real world you can reduce calories and you will
simply lose weight. Period. Some sort of fitness activety is a good
idea as well, but is not as a direct route to weight loss.
> Ultimately, though, it's fitness that counts rather than non-fatness,
> and the two by no means go together.
That is true. Fitness and body fat are essentially unrelated. It is
possible to be reasonably fit and quite fat, as seen in some NFL
linesmen. On the other hand it is also common to see very unhealthy
conditions of too-low body fat and poor fitness, such as some
body-builders and, oddly enough female "fitness championship"
competitors. They need to torture their bodys in the extreme to
acheive the bizarre "look" required to win.
JR.
Michael
> student, and would not be dragging them above layers of clouds.
That's great in theory. In practice, I have entries in my logbook
that indicate that I've done over 20 tows in a day. It wasn't rare
for me to spend four hours in the cockpit, stopping only to fuel the
plane and drain the bladder. I was doing pretty good just to remember
what glider I had on tow, never mind who was in it.
Michael
BTIZ
best study up for the CFIG
TZ
"Caracole" <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote in message
news:3ca0...@news.antelecom.net...
Gary
Snip
Someone (you?) mentioned people getting into trouble at "only" 10%
over
> gross weight. I'm flying at less than 2% over gross.
>
> Oh, and btw I believe I've won the sports class at the contest.
>
> -- Bruce
Bruce,
Don't blame the manufactures and the government because you can't lose
<5 pounds.
Stay away from the donut shop until you lose that huge amount. Is it
really that hard?
Maybe you're right. I think I will keep a placard in my sailplane that
agrees with my weight at that moment. What do those Germans really
know about weight and design anyway?
I was thinking also that the two pins to hold the wings on my ASW27
were one to many.
What pin would you suggest I remove, port or starboard?
Your position is indefensible.
Take up water sports until you meet the regs. Would it really take
that long?
The best way to stay legal is NOT announcing on R.A.S. that you're too
heavy for your glider.
Gary
Bruce Hoult
Ga...@Capriindustries.com (Gary) wrote:
> Don't blame the manufactures and the government because you can't lose
> <5 pounds.
>
> Stay away from the donut shop until you lose that huge amount. Is it
> really that hard?
>
> Maybe you're right. I think I will keep a placard in my sailplane that
> agrees with my weight at that moment. What do those Germans really
> know about weight and design anyway?
>
> I was thinking also that the two pins to hold the wings on my ASW27
> were one to many.
> What pin would you suggest I remove, port or starboard?
>
> Your position is indefensible.
>
> Take up water sports until you meet the regs. Would it really take
> that long?
>
> The best way to stay legal is NOT announcing on R.A.S. that you're too
> heavy for your glider.
Well there's one who *really* doesn't get it.
I'm at least 100 times more interested in staying safe than I am in
staying legal. I'd far rather be illegal and alive than legal and dead.
If you can't figure out which wing pin you should remove then I suggest
you either think about it until you come to some conclusion or else try
one at a time to find out which works better.
I know what I'd do but I don't want to confuse you.
-- Bruce
Stephen Cook
> Insurance companies do not stay in business by being stupid. Nor do
> they stay in business by paying out on claims unnecessarily. The fact
I'm aware of a fatal accident in the UK where at post-mortem the pilot was
found to be about 20lbs over the maximum weight. The insurance company
paid, but only because they considered the weight not to have been a factor
in the accident (it was a spin in) and because, with a bit of paperwork, the
maximum cockpit weight for the glider could have been increased to put the
pilot within limits. (As indicated by a previous post the BGA will do this
in certain circumstances). However they made it quite clear that this was
an exception and normally they wouldn't have paid the claim - and neither
would they do it in the same situation again.
Stephen
David Brunner
Yes, you read that correctly. For many of us, the pattern goes as follows:
We follow a (sort of) strict, low fat / low calorie diet for a couple of
months, and yes, we see some reduction in weight - this then tails off and
we become discouraged and return to our old eating habits and back to our
original weight, oh well, back to where we started huh? Tell me you have
never been there and done that!
Wrong! When we lose weight - yes, we lose fat; but up to 60% of the weight
we lose may be muscle and guess what? When we put back on the weight it
returns as.. Fat. So, lets suppose I start off at 200 pounds with 30% fat
(that equates to 60 pounds) - typically, I would diet and lose 20 pounds and
then regain it over the next 4 months. Well, of that 20 pounds loss, if
50% of it was fat, and the rest lean / fluids then when it goes back on I am
back to 200 pounds - but now I am at 70 pounds of fat, as the extra goes
back as fat, not lean, so my body fat is 35%. in other words, I weigh the
same but I am fatter!
What is worse is that when you diet (< 1500 cals or so), your body works
harder to conserve the fat store that you do have and it will use it only
when it really, really has to.
Here's another kicker. when you lose the muscle tissue, your daily calorific
requirement (relates to metabolic rate) actually drops. Why? Well, muscle
tissue burns calories just to exist (that's why, when you diet, the body
gets rid of muscle tissue first). Fat tissue doesn't require anything to
maintain. So not only do you return to your original weight, you need fewer
calories than you did before, but do you eat less? Nope, so you end up
adding more to your fat reserves.
Note: 1 pound of fat = 3500 calories.
Losing Weight vs Losing Fat
After 14 weeks of a University program, exercising for 45-60 minutes 3 times
a week and maintaining my existing eating habits (including Fajitas and Sams
at the Mill Inn), I discovered that I had only 'lost' 10 pounds of weight.
OK, but I have done much better than that just by dieting - wrong! When my
%body fat was calculated, it had dropped from 30% to 24% as I had lost 15
pounds of fat and added 5 pounds of muscle. Let's look at the figures:
200 pounds at 30% fat = 60 pounds of fat and 140 pounds of
muscle/skeleton/fluids.
190 pounds at 24% fat = 45 pounds of fat and 145 pounds of muscle/skeleton
etc.
How do you measure % body fat?
The 'Gold Standard' is hydrostatic weighing - you are dunked in a tank of
water and you expel all the air in your lungs - repeat this 4 or 5 times,
your weight in air and water and your volume are then used to determine %
body fat. Then there are things like the "Bod Pod" which does the same with
ultrasound, bio-electrical impedance measurers and fat-calipers (sorry,
skin-fold calipers). As part of the University study I had all these done;
however, the Navy, Army and YMCA developed a set of formulae that are just
as accurate and simply require some body measurement and calculation. In
my case, these turned out to be within 1% of the tank/calipers - so I think
they can be relied upon - and I have made an Excel worksheet that simply
requires you to plug in the parameters and it will provide you with Body
Mass Index and %Body Fat - it can be very scary to know how much of you is
lard. The formulae are different for men and women and are readily
available.
Losing Fat
The key to this, for me anyway, has been a correctly planned exercise regime
that I committed to. Not only aerobic exercise to burn calories (note, I
didn't say fat), but strength training to promote muscle growth (at least,
to prevent muscle loss) and a sensible low-fat diet that was only 250
calories less than my usual daily intake. Typically, my aerobic training
would burn 500 calories a session, so I was 3250 calories in debt over a
week, resulting in a steady 12-14 ounces of weight loss per week over the 14
weeks.
Also, my cholesterol levels have significantly improved (total is now 154),
my heart-rate has dropped (resting=44), I sleep better (exhaustion) and my
pants fit!
I'm writing this to encourage anyone feeling the effects of those few extra
pounds to avoid the so-called miracle weight loss programs and to consider a
well balanced, active exercise program. All it has cost me is a relatively
small change in my eating habits, a heart-rate monitor watch and 4 hours a
week, a small price to pay for significant health benefits.
If you want to know more about the study, what the blood work showed and
what the exercise regime was, then send your request on the back of a $20
bill to... or drop me a line by e-mail.
For those of you skinny guys who don't need to worry.. spare a thought for
those of us with a few extra pounds huh, sorry if you didn't want to read
this, but I wanted to share it. No, I'm not there yet**, the recommended
figure for a healthy male is 20% body fat - I'll let you know when (when,
not if!) I reach it, and I might even have a slice of Coconut Meringue Pie
to celebrate.. Nah, maybe not.
Dave... who cares about being over-gross any way, lets face it most people
are!
**PS, I think I am there now at 165 pounds and 13% bodyfat.
Tom Stowers
Pasi
"Bill Daniels" <n22...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a7lleb$qes$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > At 22:12 24 March 2002, Jim H wrote:
> > >>So you really think the wings are going to fall off
> > >>if you fly at one
> > >>ounce over gross?
>
> I have seen wings come off gliders - twice - four fatalities. In both
cases
> they were flying over gross weight - but not by much. I don't want to see
> it again.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
John Galloway
> staying legal. I'd far rather be illegal and alive than legal and dead.
>
> -- Bruce
Bruce,
The better option is to be legal and alive but flying illegally isn't
your main worry anyway - that should be to make sure that you are not
flying outwith your particular glider's C of A and therefore
uninsured. An serious injury to a third party (cheaper to kill them)
could be financially ruinous for the uninsured pilot as well as a bit
unfair to the injured party who might not be able to get adequate
compensation from the pilot to allow them to cope with long term
disability.
John
FM
2002 AOPA magazine that addresses this and similar situations.
The NJ Supreme court decided that there need not be a causal connection
between the cause of an acccident and an exclusionary condition when denying
coverage for an accident. Elsewhere some courts have decided that causality
is germane but I wouldn't bet my glider on it.
Fred
"Tony Verhulst" <verh...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
news:3CA09FDC...@zk3.dec.com...
>
<snip>
ADP
:-)
Allan
"FM" <REMOVECAPSfkm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uGup8.3330$ml2.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...