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