martinbg

Yes See http://www.lasaero.com/article/a-ardrox The Ardrox crack detection kit is a quick and easy way to make inspections of airframe, landing gear and components using highly sensitive dye penetrants which will show defects as bright red lines. A set of 3 Aerosols:- Red Dye 996PA Developer 9D1B Cleaner 9PR50A The cleaner is handy for other uses as well. approx £7 each Martin

Terry's mobile should read Mobile 07840 56775 9

Hi Norman You're right, if I log out then zummerzet, sorry Somerset disappears. Very strange. Martin

does for me.

The forum you selected does not exist. 'tis not.

Well, things are moving on at a pace! So if you are up in the Oxfordshire area, say hello. I'm in negotiation with a local farmer friend over some fields in the Banbury, Bicester, Brackley triangle at the moment so I'm hoping that we'll have some great places to fly to/from. It's always a bit of a drive for me to get down to Lambourn, but worth it for the quality of the fields and company. Lets see if we can't get the same quality or better up this neck of the woods. Martin

Now who was it who had the air to air rockets from a RC aircraft? Dan or Slim I can't remember.

Oh, when you said box I thought you meant ...X......X ...X......X

If four, go for the standard RAF 4. If NASA data works for paramotors then the ones behind will be saving fuel (as long as they are close enough). It'll probably be easier to keep in line than a four as well. Flying > way .........X ............X .........X ......X

The last comment was edited by Dan. A gentleman. Thank you.

Simon One of my customers does video editing & stuff. Let me know if you need him as he is on the south coast and will charge. Martin

Taken from the AAIB report >None of the pilots flying at White Rocks at the time >of the accident was wearing a life jacket. The pilots >interviewed stated that they found them uncomfortable >and believed that they would always be able to land >either on the cliffs or East Strand Beach and therefore >chose not to wear them. There are very capable life jackets which just go around you waist until you need them. See http://www.transair.co.uk/lifejackets.a ... ory_ID=590 Not perfect, but better than nothing. However, if you do wear one, have the straps go underneath your harness straps so that you can ditch the harness. There is a paramotor "lifejacket" system which attaches to the motor. If you would prefer that as well use both, because if you start to get dragged by the wing and your only life jacket is attached to your motor, getting out of your harness without another lifejacket will almost certainly result in drowning. Rescue crews (for UK waters, read lifeboat) will save life and let equipment go, unless it is a safety hazard (which they will assess at the time). So in essence, save yourself. Stuff the equipment, it's only money! >Safety Recommendation 2007-075 >It is recommended that the British Hang Gliding >and Paragliding Association (BHPA) highlights this >accident to its members and reinforces the importance >of using the appropriate safety equipment. This is the worrying part of the report, which is intended to be concerned with flight safety! Not road safety! >During the course of the investigation AAIB Inspectors >were concerned about the proximity of the White Rocks >paragliding site to the road. The layout of the road >means that drivers might easily be distracted by the >sudden appearance of a paraglider in close proximity >to their vehicle. >Safety Recommendation 2007-076 >It is recommended that the Ulster Hang Gliding and >Paragliding Club, in co-operation with the Police >Service of Northern Ireland, reviews the suitability >of White Rocks as a paragliding site and advises its >members accordingly. So now the AAIB will be required to assess the suitability of a take off site???? Would the Lambourn site up by the ridgeway pass a suitability test as it "might" distract drivers?

For me, location would probably be best stated as Oxfordshire/Northamptonshire borders & M40 Corridor as Bicester/Banbury is mid way between Birmingham and London time wise at about 40 minutes each way. Still thinking on the name front.

I'm planning an affiliate field up in the Banbury, Brackley, Bicester triangle as well.

I'm off to see King Tut at the O2 on the Saturday.

Ha! 55

Hard to believe it's hissing down outside.

840.8 Go high and hope to hit the land mines in succession, depends on their random placing. Not good if you don't like red sauce!!!

Francis Without giving their name (no name, no pack drill) I had a reply from my contact. I have edited it to remove any traces of identity. >I think to be honest that it probably is foot-launched, >since the feet and legs are doing the main >work of the take-off. Since the definition doesn't make any >reference to the landing, >I don't think landing on wheels negates it. >Possibly it rather defies the spirit of the foot-launching regulation, >but not I believe the word of the law. So you and I are both correct. On a technicality it can be classed foot launched, under the spirit of the regulation it is not. It will continue like this until someone in authority has the balls to stand up and say "look guys, I know we didn't specifically say you can't, but you've gone too far". That's the polite version! I have also considered some other methods of achieving the same aim of taking some of the weight whilst still remaining within the spirit of the regulations and it is entirely possible. Maybe one day Francis we will meet and have a face to face, I'll buy you a beer and we'll have a laugh about it. Martin

I have been musing on this for a while now. It seems to me that to be considered foot launched then the feet must be integral with the launch. By that I mean that if the feet were not present then the machine could not take off. This is demonstrated well in videos of wasp, doodlebug etc powered hang gliders. The two wheels at the back provide balance and prop clearance, but without the pilots legs the whole thing collapses. (there is a youtube video which demonstrates this very well on a landing. search for powered hang glider doodlebug) If the machine could plainly take off with no input from the pilots legs, as in the case of a trike, then regardless of a person being able to pick up the whole thing and run with it fast enough to take off I believe that it would still be classed as a trike. Of course one could argue that if two wheels was the definition you could use a bike layout but the same applies. I think the clarity will come from the question "do the legs of the pilot form an integral part of the deal or not". I vote not in the case of the trike. In terms of the AIC 109/2000. one of the things we must adapt to is that the regulations pertaining to foot launched are not all in one place. As an example, to define the minimum pilot age for a paramotor one must look in 3 places in CAP393 to achieve the full definition. I went through this exercise with the CAA head of GA so that I could get it absolutely water proof. I'm not a legal person, but if push came to shove AIC109/2000 would be referred to and the definition it contained would be used. AIC109/2000 also defines foot launched machines and what they can and can't do in terms of flying. So it's much more than just a document for GA pilots. AIC's are for all aviation as is the ANO (CAP393). I have also sought advise from someone who will be able to give a definitive answer without any constraints from the CAA etc. I'm off to bed!

AIC 109/2000 Foot launched powered flying machines: (powered paragliders and hang gliders) defines the genre further Quote"Powered parachutes have been flying in the UK for several years and use a ram air Para wing to provide lift above a tricycle frame embodying the pilots seat and a power unit driving a pusher propeller, they are classified as a microlight………(dull and irrelevant stuff removed)…..The powered paraglider simplifies this configuration further by dispensing with the undercarriage and frame, the power unit being strapped to the back of the pilot. Such a device is still a microlight….. "end quote and goes on to say Quote"A powered flying machine which: 1:Comprises a combination of a parachute or flexwing aerofoil and a mechanical propulsion device 2:is demonstrably capable of being safely foot launched from a horizontal surface in still air or light wind conditions........."end quote....then repeats what is in CAP 393 CAP393 section 1 part 14 page 25 paragraph 8 "SPHG" 'Self-propelled hang-glider' means an aircraft comprising an aerofoil wing and a mechanical propulsion device which: (a) is foot launched; (b) has a stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration not exceeding 35 knots calibrated airspeed; © carries a maximum of two persons; (d) has a maximum fuel capacity of 10 litres; and (e) has a maximum unladen weight, including full fuel, of 60 kg for single place aircraft and 70 kg for two place aircraft; Minimum pilot age is 16 (as it is a glider) Seems pretty well defined to me. If you have a trike for one person then you can design it under SSDR rules. If it's two people then CAP 482 BCAR Section S applies (This is the view of the BMAA who look after the design of microlights and therefore also the view of the CAA who allow the BMAA to operate the microlight catagory for them). By all means pioneer new designs, but you should fly it with the correct licensing. If you wish to challange the rules please do so out in the open in full view of the CAA/EASA (and the committee of 12 people who are looking into European licencing harmonisation right now).

We are getting into semantics here, and some people are always up to "some antics". The spirit of the regulation is foot launch for both take off and landing. Taking some of the weight on take off! I'm sure we have all ridden a bike whilst pretending to run. I can spin a regulation with the best of them (I spent 14 years in motorsport making the life of senior scrutineers and regulators a nightmare) but whilst it's fun to bend the rules like that it will only take a small error of judgement to bring the CAA down on us like a ton of bricks. Just my opinion of course.

Foot launch is foot launch. add wheels and it becomes a trike with the associated licence requirements. Even if you can foot launch it, the CAA aren't that stupid. "would double as a hang glider trike when no one was watching the launch." There is always someone watching, either in person on on forums like this (and e mail groups). We should comply with what little rules there are otherwise we will soon drown under the new rules that will be imposed if we don't play ball. Having said that, it does look like a nice trike.

The Thrust HP is billed as a wing for pilots who are intermediate and upwards. Possibly not for a newbie. We can get hold of them for the same price as a standard Thrust. Martin

Plenty of thermals and long glides. Interesting how some of the GPS data showed altitude spikes. Martin