dean_barker

Hi, I stumbled onto the post below in the US ppgbiglist. A french PPG pilot/software developer has created an android app specifically for paramotoring. It looks pretty cool and appears to offer most of the basic features one could want. Regards DB

http://ppginfo.com/diary.html

Here's my favourite solar glory to date. The colours were quite distinct and it was eerie seeing the side-on perspective without the wing.

Nice xc you've got marked out on there Morgy.

Hi Meds, I'm on a 175 (1.3m). Max rpm has always been 7800 for me. I'm a little surprised to here you say 8400 (I'll have to recheck my manual). What prop size are you on? How much do you weigh? What size is your new wing? Did you change wing size when you switched to the force? Have you tried to measure your rate of climb with a vario? If you answer these questions I could compare with my experiences. Also keep in mind that density altitude can have a major impact on both wing and motor performance. To be clear; I'm not suggesting that you could have lost 300 rpm due to environmental changes alone, I'm just saying that the all-round performance of your aircraft could be down by double-figure percentages due to changes in density altitude. If it's hot and/or high (i.e. low pressure) and/or humid you should expect notably degraded performance . Things have been pretty hot and humid lately and the pressure has been reasonably low at times so this could be contributing to your experience of reduced performance. I also lost 300 - 400 rpm not too long ago and tracked it down to a leaking inlet manifold. My symptoms were a little different though because the lost rpm was minimal at ground level and only become noticeable at altitude when the mixture leaned out so my initial climb rate wasn't impacted much. To rule this out check for oil splatter around the carb and head sides of the inlet manifold. If it's clean then probably not the issue. Regards DB

I used today to test my resilience to the cold and failed miserably. I'm having trouble staying up for more than 40 mins at a time in the cold so for the second time in as many weeks I'm going to chicken out of this flight. First light-wind 10 degree day this year I'll be taking it on. Conditions were beautiful in Oxfordshire today and I'm sure they're going to be even better tomorrow. Had one of the best day's flying of the year so far and sure I'll be kicking myself tomorrow for not trying to milk more out of this beautiful window. Best of luck. Regards DB

I've been meaning to make very nearly the same flight for a while now (except my destination is my club site in Wantage). I've been watching the forecast for Monday since Thursday and if it holds I may very well be going for it as well. DB

Assume: a in {1..9} b in {0..9} x = 10a + b Solve: x - a - b = y (10a + b) - a - b = y Therefore 9a = y It follows that y is always a multiple of 9. If you put the same value in all squares represented by a multiple of 9 (i.e. 9, 18, 27 ... 81) and randomize all other values you're guaranteed to always be correct. ... couldn't help myself.

Hi Morgy, Reasonably common occurrence AFAIK on swing arm machines. It's happened to me twice (I think we have the same hang points). As you discovered relatively easy to free in-flight by unloading the riser a bit. I now have a specific step in my pre-pull-up mnemonic to check that the crabs and risers are inside the arm so that a riser can't "take a wrap" so to speak during inflation. As the wing comes up I now also glance at the risers _before_ turning to ensure they things are where they should be. DB

I flew past in the afternoon and thought I saw some wings on the ground. Inside a big mowed circle? Sounds (and looks) like a great spot.

Nah, it's just cause they were flying synths.

I know this isn't a poll but I would vote for that photo if I could. I think it's incredible; very well composed and it speaks volumes. Kudos to the shooter.

Chris, it's a damn shame to hear about the equipment but congrats on an epic xc. In my view that's what this whole paramotoring malarky is all about. 100 miles is one of the check boxes I've still haven't ticked. Yet again I find myself listening to a story from you with envy (well all except the last bit). Dammit you're always one step ahead of me!

Phil, what I'm actually referring to when I mention sailplanes is a specific dispensation or memorandum of agreement outside of the ANO which allows them to indulge in "cloud flying". This is non-VFR flight within clouds in open G airspace. When I say non-VFR I don't mean IFR (so they are not flying according to VFR rules - since they're in cloud - and neither are they flying according to IFR rules i.e. no need to obey quadrantals etc. which is impossible for them anyway). There doesn't seem to be any clear definition of mandatory equipment other than a parachute for the pilot although in general turn and slip indicators are expected and an artificial horizon is recommended. A dedicated "cloud flying" frequency, 130.4, should also be used to broadcast position and altitude information. It's an interesting situation which kind of became illegal with the European acceptance of ICAO VFR rules and which the gliding community seems to be struggling to formally legalize through a set of proposals to EASA. Didn't Norman used to be a BGA member? I'm sure he'll be able to dispel any myths or misinformation I may have propagated above. The only reason I originally brought this up is because Morgy mentioned his sailplane instructor's reference to cloud flying (or that's what I thought he was referring to) and I don't think our classification as gliders in the ANO allows to invoke the above mentioned dispensation when we accidentally get too close to cloud above 3000ft. Nuff said I guess. Blue skies. DB[/b]

I would have to say if the PMC instructor fly's above clouds and said we should do it then i dont think it would be illegal if it is then is the pmc encouraging new pilots to bareak the law Morgy, my personal interpretation of the law is that there is nothing wrong with flying over, under or near cloud as long as it is at or below 3000ft and you have sight of the ground (as Phil pointed out the last bit could be tricky as well). I don't think anyone would dispute this and it certainly is common practice for various aircraft types. Above 3000ft however the minimum separation requirements increase significantly (for very sensible reasons). In my view the only aircraft exempt from these minimum separation requirements are unpowered sailplanes, so foot launchers like us don't have the same dispensation. (This is my personal view since I've never seen any documentation overriding the very explicit statements made in the footlaunch ANO exemption under which we fly - but I certainly am open to correction). I obviously don't know what you were taught or told by your instructor and I certainly am not trying to openly contradict him or be inflamatory. And to be fair I don't think anything I've said contradicts him in anyway (at or below 3000 ft ) My original comment to Rob was simply that he should perhaps consider editing the movie a bit because it clearly states that cloudbase was at 4000ft and to someone like me (who holds the rather strict stated interpretation of the law) the movie _seems_ to be evidence of a violation and therefore looks a little bad for us. Obviously all of this is open to interpretation and most of the people on here seem to disagree or disregard my interpretation of the law and/or the video so that means there's probably nothing to be worried about. However, in the light of the midair (two weeks ago) that happened a couple of miles away and which claimed two lives I personally would be a little hesitant to post a video like this, which is open to interpretation/misinterpretation, into the public domain because there must be people who are currently unusually interested in the aerial activity in this neck of the woods. I guess I'm just another one of the old wet blankets urging you to be careful (not for the sake of your own safety, that's your prerogative, but for the sake of rousing sleeping dragons). P.S. In my view it’s every pilot’s personal responsibility to be acquainted with the airlaw pertaining to any flight they wish to undertake (so what someone else tells you is irrelevant; even if it’s an instructor). P.P.S Perhaps I should change my forum nickname to "Wet Blanket". Whitter's what do you think?

Roger. I am the proverbial hindu cow. Not trying to stir.

Hi Morgy, I certainly think some clarification of the rules would be good. Yes, it is my understanding that "cloud flying" is allowed but I thought this only applied to unpowered sailplanes. I know we are technically classed as gliders but I've always accepted that foot launchers like us fly under a specific ANO exemption (http://www.paramotorsuk.co.uk/pdf/exemption.pdf) which lays out cloud clearance requirements very clearly. If anyone knows with any certainty whether foot launchers have the same exemption as unpowered sailplaines I'd be keen to know. I'll ask on some other forums as well. Regards Dean B.

Hi Rob, I don't want to be a wan*er but either my airlaw needs some revision or you've just posted a video demonstrating a violation of VMC minima. Your video claims cloudbase was at 4000ft. VMC minima for flight conducted in class F or G below FL 100 (but above 3000ft) are: - 5km flight visibility - 1500 m horizontally from cloud - 1000ft vertically from cloud. If I've got that wrong please correct me but if I'm right you may want to edit your video a wee bit. Looked like great fun though. Regards DB

Michel Carnet

Very well said Norman.

Believe you me... if I could I would.

You almost made my heart stop Dan! I thought that maybe, just maybe, you had been drinking with someone from the CAA. Sounds like it must have been a land owner instead. There's nothing I would love more than to be able to fly from somewhere close to home though. Gonna have to be satisfied with Guildford and Wantage till the CAA give us a special VFR route out from Brooklands Regards Dean Barker

Flew over the flag pole this evening and found not a soul in sight. It was a wonderful evening and I had the sky to myself. You must all be at the peas...

Hi Chris, I'm averaging roughly 3 l/hr at full fast trim flying near the top end of the weight range of my 31 synth. I think that to get close to the optimum numbers we'll need more efficient wings and we'll need to stay well away from the bar. That said I've repeatedly been told that fuel economy on a paramotor is just as it is with a car: it's as much about how you drive as it is about what you drive. Bring on the cruise-climb... Blue skies! Dean B Synthesis 31, Bailey 175 and loving it.

Transair do emergency next day delivery of air charts at no extra cost but it may be too late if you need it before Friday...