Story for those who are active in PPG community
I was recently asked to present a digital photography workshop demonstrating how I shoot images and what processing techniques I use on the resulting photographs. The major take home lesson from the talk was that images are no longer made in the field but rather afterward, taking pictures in the field is now a matter of data collection. This approach is especially useful for photographs taken while flying where quick snapshots are the rule. If you are not satisfied with your aerial photographs perhaps applying some of these techniques will help make your photographs jump off the screen. While I do not claim to know what makes an interesting photograph these techniques have helped garer over 500,000 views on images I created and submitted to Google Earth.
I have uploaded a pdf of the workshop power point presentation which shows how to manipulate images and lists all the software resources (free). The pdf may be found here (the file will not embed so you will have to click the link).
Below is a before and after of the same image where the input levels were slightly decreased, contrast was slightly increased, and unsharp mask was applied. Note the apparent increase in resolution and increase in photographic depth.
I know, I know, it ain't a trike. But just so you's clowns don't think I am only a bad apple with an attitude about parachutes I'd like to show you photographic evidence that I may indeed be a bad apple with an attitude but when it comes to rockets-on-a-string I have some experience too. Of my own that is. I have owned a few. Exhibit A, for example, is this photo I myself am taking with my left hand, that clearly shows a BPS centered in the top of the shot, riding along on a downtube and attached to the carabiner D ring connection. See? This very system, by the way, was given to me personally by that parachute expert and old-hangie John Dunham himself, up at Slide Mountain, must have been around 1987 or so. It is a Second Chantz system. I hope you all don't have queasy stomachs.
I am trying to decide of what system to use for my new trike. In the past I have used Lynx system and loved it. But I want to know what do you prefer and why? I have the option of buying completely a new system. My trike comes with Comtronics helmets but it is not a complete system and I just wanted to find out if there is something better out there.
Parachute attachment point. Thoughts for all trike pilots. I may change my recommendation about this important issue.By Paul Hamilton
I had a very interesting conversation with John Dunham www.SecondChantz.com at lunch while we were discussing the installation of the BPS (Backup/Ballistic Parachute System) on one of my students trikes. I now have a policy that I will not provide training on a student’s trike unless there is a BPS. When I asked about the attachment point, John provided me information that has may change my viewpoint about the attachment point.
Previously, I was convinced to have the hang point through the top of the wing hangpoint (attached to the carriage) so when you “pop the chute”, you end up coming down level and landing on all three wheels. I have heard many stories in my research about coming down with the trike in many in many uncomfortable situations such as nose straight down hanging with the seat belt etc…..
John explained that if you pop the chute, and it is attached to the top of the wing, two things happen. Whatever speed you have, which is usually substantial, when you pop the chute and it inflates, it pulls the top of the wing back, forcing the control bar forward, and the trike jets up at an unusual attitude climbing, maybe almost looping as the chute pulls the top of the wing back creating an upward tract…… makes sense. Hopefully in this situation “at a high enough altitude” things will stabilize and you will come back hanging under the chute to level and hang to hit the ground with all 3 wheels. Again makes sense.
However, if you are low to the ground it may not be so good if you are attached to the top of the wing. You jet up and now you must stabilize to hang underneath. If you are low to the ground you may hit the ground before you stabilize.
If your chute is attached lower on the mast, above the CG, and you pop the chute, now you will not have both a yanking back on the top of the wing/forcing the control bar forward and such a large moment above the CG yanking your nose up. Yes you would come down nose first maybe 30 degrees and hit nose first.
Overall I see the advantages with the lower chute attachment point on the mast as being able to successfully deploy at lower altitudes and being less hassle for setup/takedown because there is no need to detach/reattach the chute bridle to the top of the wing. The disadvantages is that you would come down nose first and you would have more likelihood of the prop getting the bridle if the engine is not shut off or prop wind milling.
I would like any other opinions or experience on this important issue to understand the advantages/disadvantages of both options for parachute attachment points.
Some people use the term “uncontrolled airport” to
the same thing as “nontowered airport,” but nontowered airports are anything but “out of control.”
Nontowered airports—those not served by an operating air traffic control (ATC) tower—are much more common than towered fields. In fact, nearly 20,000 airports in the United States are nontowered, compared to approximately 500 that have towers.
Millions of safe operations in all types of aircraft are conducted at nontowered airports in a variety of weather conditions. The process works because pilots put safety first and use recommended procedures.
A word about procedure: There are several sources of information that explain official FAA-recommended procedures at nontowered airports. FAR 91.113 cites basic right-of-way rules, and FARs 91.126 and 91.127 establish traffic-flow rules at nontowered airports. The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) and FAA Advisory Circular 90-66A expand on the regulations. Together, these documents define procedures for nontowered flight operations.
Regulations and procedures can’t cover every conceivable situation, though, and the FAA has wisely avoided imposing rigid operating regulations at nontowered airports. What is appropriate at one airport may not work at the next. Some airports have special operating rules due to obstacles or hazards, while other rules may promote a smooth and efficient flow of traffic or keep aircraft from overflying unsympathetic airport neighbors