Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site pbear.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!phri!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!yale!pbear!peterb From: peterb@pbear.UUCP Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: Re: Ultralight advice sought Message-ID: <800006@pbear.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 00:47:00 EDT Article-I.D.: pbear.800006 Posted: Fri Jul 5 00:47:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 09:25:44 EDT References: <188@SCIRTP.UUCP> Lines: 28 Nf-ID: #R:SCIRTP:-18800:pbear:800006:000:1056 Nf-From: pbear!peterb Jun 28 22:47:00 1985 There are three simple avionics instruments that would make ultralights MUCH more safe: 1) airspeed indicator This would inform the pilot when V(never exceed) is exceeded or when V(stall speed) is close to becoming a fatal reality. 2) Altitude indicator Would inform when pilot is exceeding TCA requirements (if near one) or when entering a pattern too low/high. 3) Rate of Climb indicator Would inform the pilot when trying to climb too fast and when used in combination with the airspeed indicator, can be used to set up proper approaches and climbouts. Also useful for determining updrafts/downdrafts that would adversly affect such a light craft. Only the Airspeed indicator would require a pitot tube, the others only require a static air vent. I think ultralights would be far safer if a regulation existed requiring the instalation of a simple panel consisting of the above mentioned instruments.... It would prevent some of the better "Never Again" incidents. Peter Barada {ihnp4!inmet|{harvard|cca}!ima}!pbear!peterb