Sylmar Hang Gliding Association

we have flown together a lot, but I am just always higher than you so you never see me !!! I know what the top of your glider looks like !!

hang gliding needs some friendly competition !!! I'm just trying to get people motivated.

don't be so try to be ok !!

Word,

Sether (PS I'm a better driver than you too!) (just kidding...chill out)

surfinseth wrote:............I know what the top of your glider looks like !! ......

Gosh, Seth, I must have been banked waaaay past vertical when that happened.
Have you been posting your track logs? I personally like the Leonardo site on PG forums. It's chock full of features. Here's a local pilot worth watching..

wow dude that is way advanced !! I don't even fly with GPS ! I am the lamest H4 ever !

I NEED to say how good I am to stoke my ego !!!
check this video out... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTvcVfIQzqI

it's from kagel.

best,

Sether

surfinseth wrote:.........I NEED to say how good I am to stoke my ego !!! ........

If you're really serious about XC you might want to invest in a decent, inexpensive GPS like the Garmin 76S and some free software.

NMERider wrote:.... XS-Skies blows for SoCal. .....

It seems fine for parts North of Mojave. For some reason it does seem to mess up pretty badly (mostly overcalling the height and under calling the wind) for Kagel/Crestline. Not sure why, as it takes the NWS data directly. Go figure. In any case, it does do pretty well for the Northern parts of Southern Cal. Like the Owens.

But Jonathan is right. Lately anyway, it's been bad for our area.

for me GPS is watching & following guys that have one! luckily I have my radio so I can ask other pilots what's going on

my longest XC was just under 25 miles using Greblo as my gps.

see you all tomorrow morning weather permitting

Word up

Seth

surfinseth wrote:........my longest XC was just under 25 miles using Greblo as my gps.............

GPS? Greblo Positioning System?

stebbins wrote:............It seems fine for parts North of Mojave. For some reason it does seem to mess up pretty badly (mostly overcalling the height and under calling the wind) for Kagel/Crestline..............

George, I'm relieved to know that XCS is good for the Owens and desert. Pilots in other parts of the US seem to be getting very good results from it. I do find the clickable map and Skew-T s and 3-day point forecasts useful locally. But it must be our proximately to the marine air that's defeating their models. I signed up for Dr. Jack's subscription service and need to learn how to use it now. It might be cool to have an SHGA weather forecasting seminar.
- Jonathan

I'll bet Hungary Joe or Dave Cutter would be willing. They are both better at the Kagel area than I am, that's for sure.

Dr. Jack usually gives the same (or similar) to XC-Skies, in terms of forecast. They use the same data. But he has a different interface. Usually, XC-Skies is easier to use/read. But there are a few features that each has that the other doesn't. You know how that goes. I have both, but usually use XC-Skies first since it really does have a nicer interface.

Of course, both of them are just forecasts, and are not as good as looking out the window.... But in terms of the future, looking out the window doesn't work so well.

CORRECTION TO THIS POST!!!!
I accidentally switched NAM and RUC in this post. The concepts are right, I just had the models backwards. See my post a few down from this for details.
END OF CORRECTION TO THIS POST!!!! My apologies. I will try and proof-read better next time.

I just had a thought. If you use XC-Skies, it is important to remember this:

There are three models. The local one (NAM) is best, but doesn't go as far into the future. The national one (RUC) is next best, and goes farther into the future. The global (GFS) one is the worst, but goes farthest into the future, and covers areas the others don't. The NAM does seem to do a significantly better job with Kagel than the other two. It still misses a lot. The important point here is to use the NAM first if possible, the RUC if you can't use the NAM and the GFS as a last resort.

I tend to use the RUC when I'm planning a few days out, then as soon as the NAM is available, switch. That's usually the night before (late), unfortunately. The day of, I always use the NAM and local observations as a check. When they diverge, it's a warning sign. Of course, for things like trips, you just have to go with the best you can get and hope for the best.

I think (just a guess) that the models overestimate the terrain influence and underestimate the ocean influence. They treat Kagel as if it was deeper in the mountains. Probably the same with Crestline, as the results are off in a similar way. Dr. Jack had to "adjust" our blipspot to get it to work as well as it does. I think he just moved it away from the mountains a bit, but am not sure.

BTW, I just checked the XC-Skies (NAM) report at 6:30 am (don't ask), and it looks significantly better at Crestline/Marshall than at Kagel. For whatever that's worth.

And NWS is calling for W-NW winds in Sylmar.

I'm not inclined to go out, but if you do, I'd suggest Marshall might be a safer call.

Of course, they've been wrong before, and I didn't look any deeper than to glance at XC-Skies and read the NWS forecast and discussion.

Jonathan pointed out in a very nice and polite email that I misstated the RUC and NAM information. Sorry about that. I got interrupted and didn't proof read. My mistake.

Corrected data:

RUC - Only goes out 12 hours, but is updated at 3 hour intervals and seems to be much better for hang gliding. Lower horizontal resolution, but better vertical resolution. SEEMS TO BE BETTER FOR KAGEL/CRESTLINE than the other models. USE THIS IF POSSIBLE.

NAM - Goes out 84 hours (sort of), updated only twice a day. Not as good as the RUC, but you can use it for several days in advance. Higher horizontal resolution, but not as good vertical resolution.

GFS - Global - Not as good, but covers areas that the other models don't. I only use this as a last resort, or to compare with the other two models. It seems to (usually) predict lighter winds and better lift, for some reason. Oh, if it were only right!


For more details on RUC and NAM, see: http://www.drjack.info/BLIP/index.html

There's lots more on the net, of course.