[Merlin]

As for Joe, Joe is a treasure.

Yup. Joe is the spiritual connection to the beginning.

[JoeF]

Hey guys, (Waldo Waterman)
Waldo Waterman and his 1911 hang gliding in San Diego
wrote Self-Soar Association a check for $100; that gift of support and promotion was a symbol of rich early beginnings that flows to the present for us in our efforts. He also rented
out his Santa Monica, CA building space to Self-Soar Association for publishing Low & Slow and Hang Glider Weekly,
Waldo then had Seagull Aircraft in the same building along with a project to build a replica of his early hang glider;
then many of us, including myself, flew his hang glider that Mike Riggs and Bob Keeler finished in high quality.

And then Richard Miller, Volmer Jensen, Irv Culver, Francis Rogallo, James Hobson, Bruce Carmichael, Peter Lissamen, Jack Lambie, Mike Riggs, Bill Bennett, and Bill Moyes all
subscribed and received Otto numbers. I was privileged to be a partial conduit from their tall spirits to our contemporary efforts to focus on framed hang gliding.

It is neat that in contemporary San Diego hang gliding we are touched still by Waldo Waterman's spirit. If San Diego appreciated what gem they had, they might build a bunny slope at the west portion of the Torrey Pines Gliderport and name it after Waldo Waterman (perhaps near where the Bill Bennett mound was once). San Diego City, dare to be great!

[magentabluesky]

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
§1.1 General definitions.

Kite means a framework, covered with paper, cloth, metal, or other material, intended to be flown at the end of a rope or cable, and having as its only support the force of the wind moving past its surfaces.

Joe, does this definition work when dealing with the FAA?

[JoeF]

The FAA is working with the energy kite systems nascent industry. Have a mooring set of lines to wings made in any manner where the wings are supported in the air by interaction with the wind and the FAA sees "kite" that needs to be respected as a user of airspace, a user that needs to be controlled with respect to other aircraft. The mooring lines must fulfill defined visibility or conspicutiy regulation. Such moored systems are restricted by weight and altitude; beyond the restrictions, waivers and NOTAMS, etc. much be filed and approved by ATC. There are tiny toy kites that also must follow FARs. A kite might be huge and possibly with scores or hundreds of tethers and perhaps two or scores or hundreds of wings in the tethered system; all are simply kites. It does not matter what materials are use to make the wings; the wings could be a 747 tethered and it would all still simply be a kite system.
The FAA has barely started to have text to face the free-flying kite systems where mooring is not to the ground. Large experience has been with the towing of troop gliders, aero tow of sailplanes, etc., and even long-stringed soaring parachutes. But very-long tethered free-flight kite systems has not been addressed well yet by the FAA; have a wing set at each end of a very long tether set; have two wing sets in different wind environments; dynamically kite and soar the integrated system; eat up a large amount of airspace; such is a kite system but is not directly addressed by the FAA; however, being an aircraft of some sort, the system still must follow the FARs for safety, however the one sees the system, perhaps as a wierd glider or as a glider towing another glider, etc.; mechanically the system is a kite system that may do some gliding and soaring during its kiting operation.
The soaring parachute of sport paragliding is a kite system of the FFAWE sort (free-flight airborne wind energy system), but FAA is dealing with such sport soaring parachutes with the FAR 103 deal, etc. The Wills Wing Falcon 3 hang glider is also mechanically a free-flight airborne wind energy system kite system, but FAA sees such as an ultralight vehicle to be under the FAR 103 deal also. +However, more starkly, when a PG or HG is long-lined towed, then the FAA kite and balloon FARs are supposed to be respected; many technical violations regularly occur, partly because of the transient nature of the long-line kiting episode of the tow-launch operation.
Many efforts at glossary and definition of "kite" are cemented in centuries-old dealings. Mechanical engineers and aeronautical engineers have easily operated with "kite" in ways that are not constrained by the paper and toy laconic glance. When the Wright Brothers kited their wings (wings being eventually intended for gliding and powered aircraft), they were aware of the kiting mode occurring. Similarly, when NASA long-lined towed various wings, they were aware of mechanically involving kiting. Without a resistive anchor (moving or fixed) and without a connecting tether set, then one just sees a wing or wing set which of itself is just a wing, but by default is called "kite" when indeed the intent is to get that wing tethered and set in resistance with some kind of resisting anchor (soil anchor, towing truck, towing airplance, another wing in another wind system, a person's hand, a kiteboard, a winch, etc.).

Related: http://www.energykitesystems.net/akiteis.html

FAA paraphrased: Fly safely in coordination with other aircraft and do no unfair damage to things on the ground, no matter what the flying something is called.

Kiting is occurring at the Torrey Pines Gliderport: PG and kite hang gliders are kiting systems with their resistive set (pilot, harness), their tether set (PG many and long, HG one or so and short), and their respective wings (no-neg-g canopy parachute wing for PG, and the sturdy wing of the HG). The systems do kiting; they are kite systems.

The definition in that part of FAA that you presented is very inadequate and is something that one day--I hope--will be found changed by the FAA. The definition fails to respect the weakness of "intended" and weakness of the singular notice with respect to rope or cable; the text also fails to respect the essential anchor involved to get the "force" to have effect for aviation; anchors may be moving, they may be flying in the airspace, they may be fixed to some ground or building, etc. The "general" definition found in Title 14 is way out of date relative to what the FAA has been dealing over the many recent decades. I could intend flying a house, but my intention does not effect kiting. What effects kiting is to have a wing set tethered with a tether set that integrates an effective anchor set in such manner that the wing set is supported in the air by interaction with the apparent wind around the wing set. Then one sees "kite" extant. Absent the anchor: then no kite. Absent the coupling tether system: then no kite. Just the house sitting there is of no concern to the FAA; but have a coupling of house with tether set with anchor set and find the house supported in the air by such couplings, then one has kite. FAA will never cite a house siting on the ground (unless the house is so tall and fails to put on itself conspicutiy devices to warn aircraft). But have a device that couples the house with a tether set and anchor set with result of the house flying up in the air, then the FAA will notice that a kite system or kite is occurring, and some regs will apply. Regs speak of place (possible shielding by close buildings or approved towers), weight, time of day, airspace, etc. Night rules apply: conspicuity for kites (wing, tether system, anchor) is regulated. FAA has active study of the kite systems coming out of the energy kite systems.
How fast will general dictionaries meet the mechanical realities? Some general dictionaries may never catch up to the mechanical realities found in practice. The matter is dynamic. Things are evolving.
Even in professional kiting, a default language occurs; the tether set essentiality and the anchor set essentiality are suppressed while the quick-and-handy "kite" is applied to just the wing or wings involved; yet the experts involved know through that defaulting that just the wing is not a kite, but just a wing. Some people put "kites" on a home's wall for decoration; but do not put up the tether and anchor; what they have in flow is a default appreciation that involves that "intend" bit; but even in such art space there are "kites" never intended to be coupled with tether and anchor in wind or apparent wind. So, the fuzzy space continues. But actually fly something in the airspace that FAA likes to keep space, then "kite" involves tether and anchoring part to the subject. Have flying a kite; have wing break away at the bridle point; see a wing gliding about the sky; the shape of that free untethered wing may be the shape of a sailplane; in the breakaway mode, the sailplane wing becomes a sailplane and at that time is no longer a sub-part of a kite system, but just a sailplane. A bit different: car-tow a manned Falcon 3 HG; at that stage: kite (wing, tow rope, anchor car); then drop rope and see HG flying off (well the Falcon 3 is not a sailplane but a kite hang glider where one sees a wing coupled to another part of the system which is the kite short tether which is coupled to a falling anchor pilot); the pilot is a significant sub-part of the kite system (kite, in other words; a kite is a system of parts). When I fly a kite hang glider, then at that time, I am a kite part; my part is strongly being attracted to the center of the earth; such play helps strongly to cause a resistance to the wing's interaction with the wind; the resistance is made possible essentially via the hang line (the kite tether part); that such kite is globally seen to mostly glide, one tends to call the system a type of glider; often default looks to the wing only to say "glider" but mechanical my mass integrated makes for a glider system (which in this case is also a kite system). So, some kites are gliders, but not all gliders are kites. FAA struggles to look for efficient means to keep the airspace safe; administratively categories are formed; administrative categories only fuzzily follow mechanical precision. FAA ever lags behind mechanical realities; but such lag does not excuse an aviator from following the global safety rules paraphrased: Aviator, do no harm to people or property.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hi Joe,

Your recent post - for whatever quirk in my own human brain - has most clearly defined the problematic nature of defining what is or is not a "kite". The problem isn't the kite system. The problem is our language itself!!

Our language uses words that are fixed to describe things - in the real world - that are a continuum. The ratio of a kite system's "tether set" length to its "wing set" length is a good example. As that ratio approaches infinity, we tend to call the system a "kite", and as that ratio approaches zero, we tend to call it a "glider". Our language doesn't really give us a way to express that continuum in a single varying word. A more expressive language might call a hang glider a "glider95kite5", and it might call the little green paraglider kite that we flew a few years ago a "kite99glider1".

I guess the key is to try not to get hung up on the words because the words are such a poor representation of reality. The universe has too many degrees of freedom to fit nicely into the few thousand words that humans can remember. So to really describe anything takes many words ... and many drawings (each worth a thousand words) ... and many equations (each worth a thousand pictures).

By the way, that last thought is new to me. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then an equation is worth a thousand pictures!!!   

P.S. That kite that we flew together in Los Angeles was purchased in response to a very kind kiting lesson given to me by magentabluesky (directly above your post). It's really wonderful to see so many good people come together here at the US Hawks, and I hope you'll all consider participating in the Trial Board of Directors that we're currently assembling!!

[JoeF]

Nice addition to the kite world; thanks, BobK.
_________________________________________________

Another alternative for some handling of some nouns involves sets and subsets. An item may belong to a non-empty intersection of of two distinct sets. Etc.
An item could belong to many different sets. An particular aircraft may be at once a full member of the family of kites while also being a full member of gliders; there may be some gliders that are fully not kites. There may be kites that are fully not gliders. Gliding kite systems are fully kites and fully gliders. As you noted, common language may well not respect or appreciate that a particular item is a full member of two sets while defaulting to, say, just glider. When I see BobK gliding in the Falcon 3, I deeply sense that you are involved in a kite system that is also a glider system, fully for both designations, not in any reduced ratio; the system is a full member of both sets: kite and glider; my language frequestly posits "kite glider" for what I see when you are seen in active flight on the Falcon 3.

Code: Select all

Here is a short equation:  K= [{W1,T,W2} in media (one or more), iff the sets named are not empty]

[AirNut]

Hi Joe,

Your recent post - for whatever quirk in my own human brain - has most clearly defined the problematic nature of defining what is or is not a "kite". The problem isn't the kite system. The problem is our language itself!!

Our language uses words that are fixed to describe things - in the real world - that are a continuum. The ratio of a kite system's "tether set" length to its "wing set" length is a good example. As that ratio approaches infinity, we tend to call the system a "kite", and as that ratio approaches zero, we tend to call it a "glider". Our language doesn't really give us a way to express that continuum in a single varying word. A more expressive language might call a hang glider a "glider95kite5", and it might call the little green paraglider kite that we flew a few years ago a "kite99glider1".

I guess the key is to try not to get hung up on the words because the words are such a poor representation of reality. The universe has too many degrees of freedom to fit nicely into the few thousand words that humans can remember. So to really describe anything takes many words ... and many drawings (each worth a thousand words) ... and many equations (each worth a thousand pictures).

By the way, that last thought is new to me. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then an equation is worth a thousand pictures!!!   

P.S. That kite that we flew together in Los Angeles was purchased in response to a very kind kiting lesson given to me by magentabluesky (directly above your post). It's really wonderful to see so many good people come together here at the US Hawks, and I hope you'll all consider participating in the Trial Board of Directors that we're currently assembling!!

Bob, I like your point about words being a poor reflection of reality. This is why they can be miss-used so readily (part of what Joe is getting at I suppose).

I remember coming across a wonderful illustration of this point many years ago in a book on creative writing. The author was making the point that we often think in terms of labels, rather than the thing being labelled. The author quoted a speech of Winston Churchill's back in World War II. The speech was basically to justify the RAF area bombing of Dresden. Heavily paraphrasing, the speech went something like this:

"We are completely justified in bombing German cities, because it was the Germans that started World War I, the Germans that started World War II, and the the Germans who first bombed innocent civilians in London. Therefore we need to make Germany feel the cost of the war so that they will lose the will to keep fighting."

Phrased in that way, the argument seems more-or-less logical (at least as far as military logic goes). But if we replace the labels "Germans/Germany" with what the label really stands for, we end up with:

"We are completely justified in bombing German men, women and children, because it was Kaiser Wilhelm (et al) who started World War I, Adolf Hitler who started World War II, and Hermann Goering and the Luftwaffe who first bombed innocent civilians in London. Therefore, we need to make German men, women and children feel the cost of the war so that Adolf Hitler will lose the will to keep fighting."

Without the labels, the logic pretty much evaporates.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob, I like your point about words being a poor reflection of reality. This is why they can be miss-used so readily (part of what Joe is getting at I suppose).

We agree 100% there.     

For example, someone could write this translation of Churchill's speech about World War II:

"We are completely justified in bombing German men, women and children, because it was Kaiser Wilhelm (et al) who started World War I, Adolf Hitler who started World War II, and Hermann Goering and the Luftwaffe who first bombed innocent civilians in London. Therefore, we need to make German men, women and children feel the cost of the war so that Adolf Hitler will lose the will to keep fighting."

The use of seemingly disconnected nouns in that description doesn't accurately represent the real world connection between "German men, women, and children" and the war machine that had risen from their choices in governance (for whatever reason ... economic, nationalistic, etc).

AirNut, I hope you have a good sense of humor.     

It's great to share membership in this organization with you, and I look forward to many future thoughtful and civil discussions!!!

[Bob Kuczewski]

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then an equation is worth a thousand pictures!!!

Code: Select all

Here is a short equation:  K= [{W1,T,W2} in media (one or more), iff the sets named are not empty]

Of course the problem with equations is that it's not always easy to view and understand the dense information contained in ... 1000 pictures!!!    

[Bill Cummings]

I just might have to make a trip to Colorado to find myself on the same page with you guys.