曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

As with a hot air balloon, if a fast layer has been encountered during the descent, it may be advisable to level off at an altitude below the fast layer to burn off some momentum. However, if this jeopardizes hitting the only likely landing site, a high wind landing is the better option.
The final phase of the landing is ground contact, and just as in piloting a hot air balloon, a decision must be made to perform either a rip-out or standup landing. Contrary to hot air ballooning, in gas, rip-out landings are the norm. Up to the final moment, ascent rate is controlled by actuating the valve (or parachute) to release small amounts of lifting gas. As in hot air ballooning, both pilots should be positioned for landing. Typically at about five feet AGL, the deflation port line (usually red) is pulled to open the port and release a large quantity of gas immediately. Some systems may have multiple deflation ports. Once the deflation port is activated, the flight is terminated with a rapid descent, so it is important to be close to the ground before activation. The height of activation can occasionally be as high as thirty to fifty feet in for emergency reasons, but a very hard landing is sure to ensue.
On the newer German (Wörner) balloons with sealing parachute tops, it is possible to reseat the parachute after a deep activation of several seconds, but gas equivalent to many bags of ballast has been lost. Shorter, shallower vents are used on these systems for maneuvering, but deflation is achieved with a deep constant pull on the parachute line.
Once the balloon has come to a stop and is no longer buoyant, the pilots exit and attempt to contact the chase. Any medical concerns should be dealt with immediately. Landowners should be located, if possible, and an inventory of the contents of the gondola should be done to check to see if anything bounced out during the landing. If darkness is near and no houses are in sight, flashlights, a compass, and GPS should be located immediately to ensure that bearings are not lost in the dark. On a long flight, it may be several hours until the chase crew arrives, but when they do, pack-up proceeds in reverse of assembly.
The America’s Challenge Race, 2006
The 2006 America’s Challenge gas balloon competition is considered by many in the gas balloon community to be one of the most exciting and controversial flights in recent years. It is presented here as an illustration of the skills and decision-making processes necessary for a successful gas balloon flight.
In July 2006, two gas balloon pilots from Georgia, Andy Cayton and Danni Suskin, were to participate in the Gordon Bennett challenge competition in Belgium. Upon preparation for launch, it was discovered that the balloon to be used had some mechanical problems that kept the Cayton-Suskin team from flying. Cayton came back to the United States with every intention of winning the America’s Challenge in the hope of having the opportunity to pursue a victory in the following year’s Gordon Bennett. As Suskin was unable to participate in the event, Cayton selected Kevin Knapp of North Carolina as his co-pilot for the America’s Challenge.
11-13
Figure 11-12. Inflation of the America’s Challenge balloons, Albuquerque, NM, October 2006.
Figure 11-13. Dallas, Texas, from 11,000 feet, as seen from the Cayton-Knapp balloon in flight.
Launch was originally scheduled for the evening of October 7, 2006. Don Day, a meteorologist who worked with Cayton on numerous world record hot air flights as well as other gas flights, was located at the launch field in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In conference with Cayton and Knapp, Day determined that the weather would be a significant factor in the launch and in any subsequent flight track across the United States. The initial track for the planned launch date would have put the team on a northeasterly track towards Canada; but, low freezing levels and thunderstorms east of the Sandia Mountains forced race officials to delay the planned launch. The next launch window, Tuesday, October 10, showed a potential track east, paralleling Interstate 40.
During the 3-day weather delay, Cayton had reason to reevaluate some strategic issues regarding the flight. One concern was the fact that both he and Knapp were fairly large men; he felt that this might place them at some disadvantage over teams with smaller pilots. Smaller pilots are able to carry more ballast, and thus can extend their flight time. Also, while disappointed with the no-fly situation at the Gordon Bennett, he realized that this might provide an advantage, as he would not be attempting a second duration flight while still fatigued from the Gordon Bennett. Cayton believed that these two issues balanced out, and continued with Knapp to prepare for the launch.
Tuesday, October 10, arrived clear and cold; the cold front and low-pressure system that had delayed the initial launch had passed through the Albuquerque area and was now ahead of them. A massive cold front would push through Canada into the central United States and move to the Gulf of Mexico during the second day of flight. The plan was to stay between the two systems to remain competitive and safe. With crew chief Ken Draughn and help from competitors Peter Cuneo and Bert Padelt, the inflation went smoothly. [Figure 11-12]
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Balloon Flying Handbook(140)