Monthly Newsletter of the Skyline Soaring Club, Inc. — February 2004
Readable archival transcription from the original eight-page SVG edition. Typography and page columns have been normalized; original wording has otherwise been retained.
George Hazelrigg
Our annual meeting is finally behind us. I say “finally” because it was about the longest meeting we have ever had. The meeting included encouraging reports from our Treasurer, Membershipstoffemeister, Chief Tow Pilot and Chief Instructor, and a briefing on CAP activities from Steve Lander. And what we found is that we have a club that has come through a trying year strong and poised for growth. Our Treasurer, Bob Collier, told us that our equity and cash positions have continued to improve, despite our $17,000 expenditure on rebuilding our Pawnee and our reduced total number of flights in 2003. Our outgoing Membershipstoffemeister, John Lewis reported that our membership has grown to 68 members at the end of the year, our highest level ever. Taking over in this important position from John, and the outstanding job he has done, will be Joe Lingevitch and Steve Wallace. And from our Chief Tow Pilot, Richard Otis, and Chief Flight Instructor, Jim Kellett, we found that we have full cadres of tow pilots and instructors.
At the meeting, we paid tribute to people who have made our Club outstanding. Our Sustained Service Award this year was given to two members, Shane Neitzey and Fred Winter, for their outstanding and sustained support of the Club. Shane is a founding member of the Club, and has avidly supported and worked for the Club. He has provided support in the form of instruction, tow piloting, as a designated inspector, and as a Board member. And I know of no one more concerned about our safety than Shane. Fred has generously supported the Club through provision of the ASK-21. Were it not for Fred, we would not have the excellent equipment that we have. And many people know Fred for the help he is always willing to give in any way he can. We also recognized the many other members who have done service to the Club over the past year and more. They are too numerous to mention again here. However, I want to add special recognition to Lisa Sergent, Tim James, Malcolm Gardner, and Fred Winter. Together these people gave to the Club $5,000 toward the purchase of the Grob.
A recent report from Bill Vickland notes that our Pawnee is back from its annual, and ready to tow. So our season is ready to begin. Now all we need to kick off the season is good weather. To top off this good news, Piet Barber and Joe Rees, who recently acquired their new baby, Juliet Sierra (in partnership with Steve Wallace), have offered the Sprite to the Club, and the Board has decided to accept their offer. So, the Sprite will continue to be available for solo flights. We hope to transition solo students into the Sprite early in their training so as to free up the K and the Grob for dual instruction and rides. But, beyond this, the Spite will be available for flights longer than an hour. And, at $20 per hour, maximum $60 per day, we hope it will be an attractive alternative to the K and the Grob whenever you want to fly solo.
Our Hangarmeister, Rick Harris has been busy too. He reported that the hangar construction at FRR is nearing completion, and that we should have additional hangar space in the next couple of months. For perhaps the first time in our history-at least the first time since I have been in the Club-we will not be hangar-space limited. This too is an area in which we can grow. So, if you have a ship that you have been hiding from us and want to put it in a hangar, now would be a real good time to tell Rick about it. Rick has a lot of stuff on his plate, and he needs some help chewing it. So, if you’re inclined to get involved in hangarstoffe, don’t hesitate to call Rick.
I noted at the meeting that Stan Pawloski has asked to go inactive, and he is resigning his position as Safety Officer. Stan did an outstanding job in that position, and we need a volunteer to take his place. This needs to be a person with some appropriate experience and a strong desire to stay on top of our operations. If you feel qualified and you’re willing to take on this duty, please let me know. We also need a Batterymeister to oversee our battery charging and maintenance. If you know anything about electrons, you might volunteer for this job.
Richard Otis put forth seven resolutions to the membership for consideration at the meeting, all dealing with representation of the membership by the Board and President. Among these were resolutions to remove term limits for Board members, shorten the term of office of a Board member to two years, and provide for direct election of the president by the members. The membership provided a strong sense to the Board that term limits for Board members should be eliminated, and gave the sense that the Board might be increased to six members plus a President. In its meeting following the general membership meeting, the Board approved a change of the bylaws to remove term limitations on Board members. The Board also asked Richard to reconsider his resolution on the size of the Board in light of the expressed preferences of the Club membership regarding his other proposed resolutions.
Finally, the members elected two Board members to begin their terms immediately. Chosen were Chris Williams and Frank Banas. Chris and Frank, we all welcome you to the Board and look forward to the sage advice you will provide over the next three years.
Our general meeting didn’t end until about 2 PM, at which time Shane provided a great barbeque in his backyard, despite the 20-degree weather. Then the Board began its meeting.
I’ve gotten the sense that some members feel that the Board could do more to benefit the membership. So we decided to take some special steps to let you know more about what the Board is doing. For one thing, we decided to make the minutes of the Board available to all members. However, we will retain the right to redact sections of the minutes that contain particularly sensitive information or information that might harm the Club. This might, for example, include information on negotiation strategies for the acquisition of, say, an aircraft, where it would not be to the benefit of the Club for its strategy to be made public. But we will make a special effort in the future to keep all members aware of what the Board is doing.
The Board also chartered Richard Freytag to revitalize his long-range planning activities. We need to set proper goals for the Club, both for the short term and longer. In the short term, we need to consider the growth that we want to achieve over the next year, and the equipment that we will need to achieve that growth. We will need to develop a strategy regarding hangars, and a plan to increase our capitalization. The Board is actively pursuing these issues.
On the bottom line, I am looking forward to a great year for the Club. I hope it is a good soaring season-surely better than last year with all its rained-out weekends. And I look forward to seeing you all on the field in 2004.
“...we must take stock of ourselves and our universe. We must send forth pontoons into the night.” Antoine de Saint Exupéry
We all know that no signifi cant advancement comes free of sacrifi ce. It seems no peacetime program has been asked to tithe more of its best and brightest than the space program.
With the anniversary of the loss of Columbia, we also remember Challenger and Apollo sacrifi ces as well as dozens of others whose duties rendered them less visible.
We also are reminded that whenever we leave the earth, whether it be in giant leaps or baby steps, we can pay a staggering price for minimizing the signifi cance of the routine.
In hindsight the fi rst cousins of our faucet seals and coffee cups have resulted in much pain. As we start a new soaring season it seems fi tting to keep that in mind.
Dick Otis and Jim Kellett
J im Kellett , CFI and Dick Otis, CTP request that all Tow Pilots, Instructors, and members at large conduct training in the tow plane rudder wag signal.
Tow Pilots: a rudder wag (used to notify the glider in tow of a problem, like spoiler extended etc) is performed by a rapid (2-4 per second) alternating 1/2 to one inch oscillation of the rudder peddles. When properly performed there is no (imi = I say again) no apparent movement of the tow plane’s tail. Rather the rudder virtually fl utters. It is hardly noticeable in the tow plane, but VERY evident in the glider under tow.
T ow pilots and instructors are requested to practice this signal, and to ensure (which won’t be hard) that members are cognizant of the appear ance and meaning of the rudder wag alert.
Our Sustained Service Award this year was given to two members, Shane Neitzey and Fred Winter, for their outstanding and sustained support of the Club. Fred missed the meeting so only Shane and George got the photo op with Dick Otis.
Richard A. Otis
Executive Summary: My motions for changes to the Skyline Soaring Club organization and operations which were presented at the 2004 annual meeting generated extensive debate and inconclusive action for a variety of reasons.
The BOD requests that I redefi ne and resubmit my motions at the annual safety meeting. Fifteen (15) minutes have been programed for the safety meeting for these motion(s), discussion and voting.
Should you not be able to attend the 2004 annual safety meeting, I strongly urge you to give your proxy vote and position on these motions in writing (email) to the member of your choice.
For those attending, I respectfully request you formulate your position on these motions PRIOR to the meeting, and to be prepared to vote with minimum discussion.
For those of the ~28 full members (and new and probationary members) who attended the 2004 annual meeting of the Skyline Soaring Club, thank you for your patience.
I announced my intention to submit several motions at the annual meeting via email and the December newsletter. These motions were developed after thoughtful refl ection and discussion with our President and many of the club’s founding fathers.
I did not anticipate or project the procedural problems and time required as result of my motions. However having started this, I feel compelled to fi nish what I began. In an attempt NOT to repeat this event at the next schedule “all hands” meeting–the 2004 Annual Safety Meeting, I submit the following for your consideration.
To briefl y summarize the events at the annual meeting: It takes 1/8th of the (~48) eligible voting members to be present at the start of a meeting to establish a quorum for the purposes of electing a BOD member, and a majority vote by the present members after such a quorum is establish to actually vote in new BOD members [e.g. it doesn’t matter if members depart before a vote is taken].
Not with standing the above statement, the President and others present determined that the club’s bylaws require a majority vote of all eligible voting members to pass a motion on other issues of club business. Since all eligible voting members were not present, (~ 24 were initially present, however many left by the point in the meeting that my motions were raised) any vote at the annual meeting was necessarily non binding. Consequently at the suggestion of one of the members, I and those present decided to take a “straw vote” and to make recommendations to the BOD for their consideration of my motions.
Followed the annual meeting, the BOD met and took defi nitive action on one of my seven motions.
The BOD then requested that I further deliberate, clarify and re-draft those motions which proved to be confusing, or which generated signifi cant debate. I was asked to re-introduce these motions at the annual safety meeting on 14 February.
In order to avoid impacting the scheduled safety meeting, and to avoid the lengthy discussion which ensued at the annual meeting;
The President and I agreed that action on my motions, including voting, will be limited to 15 minutes. I request you consider, debate, offer opinions and suggestions via email, to better enable minimum debate and a rapid vote on the 14th.
As a result of the annual meeting, the BOD enacted my fi rst motion: elimination of BOD term limits (previously set at no more than two consecutive terms of three years). The remainder of my motions were not acted on by the BOD.
(1) A motion to eliminate term limits for board members. [OBE–approved by the BOD]
(2) A motion to shorten the board of director’s term of offi ce to two years.
I intended this motion to compliment motion one (now approved). The BOD desired further input by the membership at large, even thought the majority of voting members at the annual meeting approved this motion (by a small margin). My rational for this motion is that members need the ability to change the direction of the club if not satisfi ed with board’s direction. This motion allows for [but does not required] the membership to replace 50 percent of the board in one year. The main argument to this motion, is that new BOD members require at least one year to “come up to speed”. I believe this is a fallacious argument. Just like students learn at different rates, BOD members will as well. Passage of motion one means board members may have as many years on the board as the membership is willing to allow. I do not believe board members need to be “protected” by a three year tenure. I fi nd it understandable that the incumbent BOD does not desire to limit their term of offi ce. Should this motion not pass, then I submit that regardless of the BOD action motion one needs to be voted on by the membership.
(3) A motion that the number of directors be set at six, plus the club President, who will only vote to break a tie. This motion generated considerable discussion and questions at the annual meeting. The BOD requested I clarify my intent, which is that there would be 7 members, including the President, on the Board of Directors. The President would have a “dual hat” as the Chairman of the BOD, but would not vote except in the event of a tie. My goal is to have a strong leader to steer and manage the BOD. I broke this motion out from the following two motions, but I intended they go hand in hand. One member suggested that the BOD be proportional to the total size of the club. I had considered this option, but in the end decided that the effi ciency of a small group was more important, and that a larger BOD had no strong benefi ts over the proposed size.
Reason: Seven is an optimum number of people to work in a group towards a common goal. The President should have broad powers and should provide leadership to the directors as a policy board, but at the same time should be free to exercise decision making in the event the board is unable to agree on a course of action for emergent issues.
( 4) A motion that the President be given broader Executive Decision authority.
This motion generated considerable discussion, in that several people maintained the President already had executive decision authority. My intent was to enable the President to make unilateral decisions on issues he/she deemed time critical, ONLY in the event the BOD was unable (for whatever reason) to make a decision within 30 days. I also intended that IF the President decided to make an executive decision, then that decision could NOT be enacted until 15 days had elapsed during which time the BOD could over ride the decision by a majority vote. My intent in this proposal was to ensure time critical decisions are made, with suffi cient safe guards to prevent excessive abuse of power. I also intended that the above powers be vested in a President elected by the membership (vice the BOD), hence motion fi ve below.
Reason: In the event the directors are unable make a decision on a critical issue within a 30 day period then the President, if he or she desires, should be authorized to make an executive decision–her/his decision being subject to being over turned by a vote of at least four directors within the following 15 days.
( 5) A motion that the membership at large elect the club president.
I really don’t have much to add to my initial reasoning below. At the annual meeting this motion was not seconded, leading to it’s untimely death. I am at a loss to understand this, other that many members had left, and the rest of them were ready to follow suit.
Reason: Election of a club president by the members provides a balance to the board which otherwise has virtually unlimited power. The President Should be accountable to the members, not to the board of directors.
(6) A motion that directors be a member of the club for at least 2 years to be eligible for nomination / election. (7) A motion that the president be a member of the club for at least 4 years to be eligible for nomination / election.
Motions six and seven generated discussion on the need for “representation” on the BOD by special interest groups, such as students, who might not meet the stated qualifi cations for nomination. I believe such groups should be given voice by the BOD in their decision process, but do NOT agree they need to sit on the board. I equate this to having a company BOD with the best qualifi cations to run the company. I also desire presidents and directors who have demonstrated long term dedication and commitment to our club, regardless of their personal qualifi cations. I believe the present President and BOD members meet the qualifi cations of this motion, but would be more that happy to grand father any who do not.
Reason: Our club leadership should be composed of our peers, e.g. glider pilots who have acknowledge standing within the group. Having at least a private glider license and having spent suffi cient time in the club to establish “peer hood” should be essential qualifi cations for nomination. The President, by virtue of his/her greater authority (assuming adoption of the above motions) should have to demonstrate greater investment in the club.
(8) A motion that vacancies in the BOD be fi lled by member vote.
I’ve added this motion to the original seven. Currently if a BOD member leaves the board mid-term, the BOD selects a replacement to complete his/her term of offi ce. Since the BOD is vested with almost total authority in club operations, the members are entitled, in fact have an obligation to choose the members of the board. Failure to do so, means the BOD are electing themselves.
AVflash
With CBS’s big eye glaring last week at GA as a security risk, you’d think all pilots might be on their best behavior—it doesn’t appear to have worked out that way. When authorities fi nally arrested John Salamone after chasing him for four hours around Philadelphia-area skies, he was staggering, his eyes were bloodshot and his pants were undone, according to the Philadelphia Daily News. Police told the Daily News Salamone blew .13 on a breathalyzer (the legal limit is .04) after he fi nally landed his Piper Cherokee at Limerick Airport about 10:30 p.m. The fl ight had originated there about 6:20 p.m. While in the air, Salamone allegedly barged through controlled airspace near Philadelphia International Airport as low as 100 feet AGL, forcing six airliners to abort landings. Authorities also said he circled the nuclear power plant… which sits practically at the foot of the runway at Limerick (PTW) .
Original newsletter introduction: “Not scared enough this week?—read on!”
Bill Vickland
A lmost 700 1-26s were built in the period from 1954 to about 1984 including six different models. The original factory gliders were designated the SGS 1-26 and a kit version was designate as the A model. The factory then built a B model with a kit version as the C model These models have a gross weight of 600 lbs and a red line speed of 104 mph. The D and E models increased the strength of the wing, which allows a gross weight of 700 lbs and increased the red line speed to 114 mph. All models are rated for aerobatics and have a maximum allowable g load of 9.5 gs positive and 6 negative. An example of the strength of the 1-26 is contained in a story about a Florida pilot fl ying in the clouds without IFR instruments who became disoriented, entered a spiral dive and broke one wing off at 6000 feet. Schweizer Aircraft Company determined that the g load necessary to break the wing was 13.5 gs. By the way, the glider went into auto rotation with one wing, crashed on a golf course and the pilot walked away.
Schweizer Aircraft Company created the 1-26 with pilot safety foremost in its design. The design provides the pilot with energy absorbing progressive failure of the metal structure that signifi cantly reduces the g loads on the pilot on impact. This is in contrast to fi berglass construction which shatters on impact with little energy absorption. Additionally, the 1-26 cockpit is surrounded with a heavy aluminum skin that provides the properly restrained pilot with effective protection. For this reason, the 1-26 is probably the safest glider, except possibly the 2-33, in which a low time pilot can gain fl ying skills safely. This factor, coupled with the durability and maneuverability, make it an ideal glider to train for off-fi eld landings and cross-country fl ying.
F inally, one of the greatest reasons for fl ying a 1-26 is the fun, support and camaraderie available within the 1-26 Association. The Association has a membership of about
500 members in the US and Canada. It maintains a Web site at http://www.126association.org and publishes a bimonthly Newsletter concerning activities of the 1-26 Association, including a free classifi ed section from which one can buy or sell soaring equipment and gliders. The 1-26 Association conducts a separate badge and record fl ight program which supplements, but does not replace the SSA/FAI badge and record programs. The Association holds an annual eight-day 1-26 Championship meet each year, and the Eastern, Central and Western Divisions host weekend events. The Western Division also hosts an annual Goal Strike near Las Vegas Nevada, which is a nine-day badge and record camp.
If you are a new pilot and are trying to decide what sort of glider you need to buy to continue your soaring goals, I recommend that you carefully consider the 1-26 for both inexpensive local fl ying to build time, and for the purpose of learning cross-country fl ying. If you buy a 1-26 for the reasons I have mentioned above, beware, many pilots who started their soaring experience in the 1-26 have never left. You may fi nd yourself hooked. Membership dues are only $15 per year, and membership can be established by sending your check for $15 to our own Lisa Sergeant. Lisa is the newly elected Secretary/Treasurer of the 1-26 Association. Owning a 1-26 is inexpensive, safe, fun and fi lled with the camaraderie that many pilots are looking for in soaring, but are not fi nding. If you do buy a 1-26, join the 126 Association. If you are not sure what sort of glider you would like to buy, join the 1-26 Association, read about the exploits of its pilots and then make your decision. It will cost you only $15 to learn.
Incidentally, some of you may remember Jim Hard who was a member of the Short Hills Club that operated at Jan Scott’s back in the 70’s. Jim has logged more than 28,000 cross-country miles in his 1-26, and has made maybe 20 or 30 fl ights of more than 300 miles and several over 400 miles. When he was a student, his instructors did not tell him that you needed 30:1 to go cross country.
Continued from the January 2004 issue.
CAP Captain Jim Kellett, CFI(G)
On January 17, 2004, Skyline Club members (and Civil Air Patrol members) Eric Litt, Jim Kellett, Steve Lander, and Greg Ellis led the planning and execution of the fi rst fl ights and pilot checkouts of a really beautiful SGS 1-26E, S/N 517 which has been surplused from the US Air Force Academy to the Virginia Wing of the Civil Air Patrol. The ship’s a real beauty, decked out in red-white-and-blue “Thunderbird” colors, and comes with an L-NAV and oxygen (in addition to the usual complement of instruments.) So on January 17, the fi rst four area pilots completed their checkouts and CAP paperwork to fl y it. CAP members can fl y this glider for $5/hour, plus tow. Tows behind CAP Corporate towplanes are competitively priced, and arrangements are in the works for CAP members to purchase tows from approved cooperating Clubs (such as Skyline or Shenandoah Valley, e.g.).
Skyline’s members continued their tradition of supporting the local Civil Air Patrol’s development of a Glider Program, which, in turn, provides oustanding service to America’s youth by introducing them to aviation, and even providing very low cost fl ight instruction. Skyline has been an active participant in this effort for many years, and particularly so since 1999.
Here’s a shot of the new glider, Steve Lander PIC, hooking up behind a new Maule 235 towplane equipped with an internal Tost reel.
Carlos Roberts
The purpose of this review is to help us all learn from the mistakes of others, and to increase the awareness of the importance of safety in our sport. Because of the delays in reports being published with the NTSB, the following accidents being reported occurred approximately six months ago.
August 2003 was an average month for gliding safety. While on average you can expect that two or three glider accidents will happen every month, its always nice to have a month like this with no fatalities or even serious injuries.
Here’s the NTSB summaries, without any added commentary. (If anyone has any comments or observations on any of these, particularly what we can do to avoid a particular type of accident in our own club, I think it would be very helpful to discuss it in an open email to the members.)
NTSB Identifi cation: DEN03LA143. Accident occurred Thursday, August 07, 2003 in Boulder, CO Aircraft: Schempp-Hirth Ventus B/16.6, registration: N25RN Injuries: 1 Uninjured. On August 7, 2003, at 1415 mountain daylight time, a Schempp-Hirth Ventus B/16.6 glider, N25RN, was substantially damaged during a precautionary landing in Gross Reservoir, near Boulder, Colorado. The commercial certifi cated fl ight instructor, the sole occupant on board, was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. No fl ight plan had been fi led for the cross-country fl ight being operated under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 91. The glider departed Boulder, Colorado, at 1130. According to the pilot, he was soaring 8 miles northeast of Mount Evans, when he noted the formation of thunderstorms and rain showers along his route of fl ight. He elected to return to Boulder. During his return fl ight, thunderstorms developed along the foothills, just west of Boulder. Due to the inadequate lift to sustain fl ight and with unsuitable terrain between his position and Boulder, the pilot decided to ditch the glider in Gross Reservoir. The pilot reported that he positioned the glider to land into the wind, a “west/northwest direction[,] parallel to the shore.” During the impact with the water, the glider canopy was destroyed and the wings were separated from the fuselage at mid-span.
NTSB Identifi cation: CHI03 LA32814 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Saturday, August 16, 2003 in Highland, IL Aircraft: LET L-13 Blanik, registration: N302SL Injuries: 1 Uninjured. ... On August 16, 2003, at 1105 central daylight time, a LET L-13 Blanik glider, N302SL, piloted by an airline transport pilot, sustained substantial damage when it overran runway 36 (2,692 feet by 200 feet, dry turf) and subsequently collided with a road embankment at Highland-Winet Airport (H07), Highland, Illinois. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The solo-instructional fl ight was operating under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 without a fl ight plan. The pilot did not report any injuries. The local fl ight departed H07 at 1040 and was returning at the time of the accident.According to the pilot’s written statement, he was obtaining fl ight instruction for the addition of a glider rating and the accident occurred during his fi rst solo fl ight. The pilot stated the fl ight was uneventful until he turned onto fi nal approach. The pilot reported that he was high on fi nal and had to slip to loose altitude. The pilot stated that during the slip the glider had “picked up some airspeed.” The pilot reported that the glider landed “long, fast, and as a result hit the mound at the edge of the airport perimeter dirt road.”The pilot stated that several witnesses recalled not seeing the spoilers deployed during the fi nal approach and landing. The pilot surmised that he had mistakenly repositioned his hand on the fl ap lever and as a result had been raising and lowering the fl aps instead of the spoilers.
NTSB Identifi cation: LAX03CA277.Accident occurred Saturday, August 30, 2003 in Yreka, CA Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/25/03 Aircraft: PZL PW-5, registration: N105PS Injuries: 1 Minor. On August 30, 2003, at 1416 Pacifi c daylight time, a nonpowered PZL Swidnik PW-5 glider, N105PS, impacted trees after a loss of thermal lift near Yreka, California. The pilot/owner was operating the glider under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The private pilot, the sole occupant, sustained minor injuries; the glider sustained substantial damage. The local fl ight departed Siskiyou County Airport, Montague, California, about 1330. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no fl ight plan had been fi led. The primary wreckage was at 41 degrees 43 minutes north latitude and 122 degrees 46 minutes west longitude.In a telephone interview, the pilot reported that he was released from a tow airplane near mountains at 5,600 feet mean sea level (msl). He climbed, using thermals, to 7,500 feet msl and began to maneuver toward a ridge. The glider was caught in a downdraft and descended at a rapid pace. He turned the glider to face into the ridge while losing altitude. As he came closer to the treetops on the mountain, he lifted the nose, which resulted in a loss of airspeed. The glider stalled into the trees. After the accident, the pilot radioed for help and successfully met up with a rescue team.The pilot speculated that the downdrafts were from a wave effect from mountains that were just south of the accident location. During the pilot’s glider training, his instructors taught him to always turn away from ridges when “thermaling,” in efforts to avoid downdrafts. In a written statement, the pilot observed that the glider damage consisted of the right wing being torn off, the tail boom broken, and the left wing broken at the aileron. There were no mechanical malfunctions reported.
AVflash
Back home in Virginia after the Outer Banks trip, Ken Hyde found some notes written by Wilbur Wright, which eerily predicted the experience of Hyde’s team. On May 5, Wilbur wrote that he and Orville were working in secret, and “so far we’ve not been subjected to the slightest disturbance from the press.” On May 23, 1904, the brothers invited reporters to Huffman Prairie to view their progress. But the weather was uncooperative: “Light rain, wind too anemic,” Wilbur wrote. “The result ... a run down the track and a fl op onto the ground. Only three of the four cylinders fi ring properly. Many were disappointed.” Hyde’s team had the same troubles on Dec. 17 — light wind and a misfi ring cylinder — and a disappointed audience. “It was spooky when I read that,” Hyde said.
The fl ights completed this year, with a fl ight data recorder on board, plus the wind-tunnel tests, already have generated reams of data that will help to refi ne the procedures for future trials, Hyde said. “We learned a lot. ... The light bulb comes on when you start getting all this data.” They learned, for example, that wind gusts can fl ex the surface of the canard, changing the angle of attack beyond the pilot’s control. “It’s like having an extra hand on the control surface there, that you don’t need,” Hyde said. They also found that, as Wilbur’s notes had suggested, the airplane is controllable only within a very narrow range of speed. “The minimum is about 22 mph, and the maximum about 30 mph. After that, it becomes ‘unmanageable,’ as Wilbur put it.”
...And More To Come—The EAA’s Wright Flyer—the one that everyone saw on the 17th is back in Virginia and will be heading for Dearborn, Michigan to its permanent home at the Henry Ford Museum. It will never fl y again. A second copy of the airplane was sponsored by the late Harry Combs, and has been donated to the National Park Service for static display. But Hyde also has a third copy in the works, and plans to use that aircraft to continue his fl ight-testing program. “The engines and propellers are all done, and the rest should go together pretty quickly,” he said. He plans to continue working with his experienced fl ight-test crew, and return to the Outer Banks with the Wright Flyer, sometime soon.
“We don’t have a time frame yet,” he said. But he was touched by the support from the public, and even the press, after the failed fl ight on December 17. “The people understood. They told us, now they know how diffi cult it really was for the Wright brothers. Don’t be discouraged, they said.” So for those who still hope to someday see a 1903 Wright Flyer reproduction take off and fl y as they imagine it should, the effort will go.—
SSA convention in Atlanta, Georgia next week…Steve’s on the agenda there on February 6, to share this with the entire soaring community. It’s not too late. Check out the incredible program at http://www.airsportsexpo.com/. There is truly something for everyone!
Annual Mandatory Safety Meeting— scheduled for 10:00 AM on Saturday, February 14, 2004, in the Terminal Building at the Front Royal Airport. Topic: Ground Operations, led by David Weaver. Bring a chair!! All members must either attend this session OR review a videotape of it before they can fl y Club equipment after February 14!
Keep in touch, miss you guys too...Dave dbrunner@eastleigh.ac.uk “The most dangerous part of gliding is the crash.”
“Been there, bent that.” — Bill Bentley.
Washington Post, January 16, 2004, A17—Craig Steidle RAdm, USN, Ret., to head Offi ce of Exploration Systems for NASA. I hereby forecast that he becomes the fi rst commander of Moonbase USA. —Fred Winter Seeing how Craig resides in Purceville, let’s hope he held out for a daily limo...or helicopter!
Juliet Sierra is now resting comfortably at Front Royal, where she can be recognized by the distinct bumper-sticker “Soar it like you stole it” on the back of the trailer. —Piet Barber
Find out when TFRs are active, or other timely information from the FAA: Go to this page and sign yourself up for the FAA announcements for our FSDO region: http://announce.aea.faa.gov/lists/?p=subscribe&id=17 I subscribe to Pilot (Washington), and Glider (Washington) —Piet Barber
So, did you miss the incredible presentation by Steve Wallace on the shuttle accident investigation that he made at FRR last year? Well, you have another chance… just attend the
Jim Kellett, Resident Curmudgeon
If this [nomination] happens, and at an appropriate time, I’ll be glad to post a full “Campaign Platform” for what I have in mind for Region IV. I’m sending a similar note, with a VERY brief “platform”, to the other Clubs who’ve expressed willingness to support me.
10:00 AM, Saturday, February 14 Terminal Building at the Front Royal Airport.