Graeme Cant wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:
Graeme Cant wrote:

Have your students ever damaged one?

No (crossed fingers!).
We haven't either, but we use it AFTER basic training in the 2-33...

They are, in fact, taildraggers

Yep. Whole lotta gliders just like that.
This part does take additional training to achieve low damage chances.
Just like a power plane taildragger. Which is why insurers require
10+ hours in a taildragger and 0 in a Cezzna 152...

and if the tail isn't kept down after landing then it slams down.

Not in my experience. But why wouldn't you keep it down anyhow?

Because it isn't there on it's own. In a taildragger, there are still
things going on after landing.

So certification and licensing rules (=insurance costs) are a major
reason for the Blanik not being a cheap trainer in the US?
Yes, if all the other reasons were moot, the certification as
experimental and restriction against "for hire" would probably
keep them out of the commercial gliderports (about 1/4 to 1/2 of
the US gliderports).

And 0 US fatalities for 2-33 in 25 years. 6 US fatalities in
L-13 during that time, none of which would have happened in
a 2-33.

The real measure is the overall accident rate. A trainer that kills
nobody but also teaches nothing (so they have accidents in other
aircraft later) shouldn't be given credit for its 'kindness'.

Solo. I think solo is something. It gets credit for that. And it
gives the pilot the skills needed to fly a ... 2-33. So if one has only the
$$$s for a 2-33, then it's a great idea. If we were interested in
ensuring all our pilots could fly any glider proficiently before licensing
them, we'd only let people solo in a mini-nimbus, right? It isn't hard to
figure out what would happen if pilots could only get a license if they
demonstrated proficiency in a glider with flaps, retract gear, spoilers,
and ballast...

2 x stall spin (the 2-33 is almost impossible to stall, even to demo it)

1 suicide on a "ride" (2-33 upright seating means CFI just puts hand over
front seater's mouth and pinches nose. Front seater releases stick,
and bingo, back to CFI control.)

1 too fast overshot landing (2-33 is never accused of being too fast).

1 hit photographer bystander (2-33 landing too slow to hurt anyone,
and too ugly to take pictures of anyway)

1 ATP without a glider rating, 200 ft rope break (hey, man, a trained
ape could land a 2-33. One 2-33 accident report has a solo pilot
who passes out in flight and wakes up with minor injuries after the crash)

You seem to be saying that people don't really learn to fly on a 2-33.
I don't believe US training standards are that bad.

What I say on that subject isn't important. The point is: they flew.
And they can do it again and not get hurt or damage anything. And they
can do it with passengers, without getting hurt or damaging anything.
And it didn't cost very much. You can argue whether they "learned to
fly" 'till the Millenium, but the fact is, they flew, and that is that.
The 2-33 isn't for learning to fly, or impressing anyone. It is for flying.
If you want to fly, the 2-33 is more likely to accomplish that goal than
any other glider. If you want to learn to fly, first, figure out what that
means, get 1,000,000 definitions from different people, and then pick one,
and if it requires a mini-nimbus, then good luck finding one, affording it,
finding an adequate two-seater and instructor, and getting soloed before
you get bored, broke, or old...

Most of the Blaniks in Oz would be around the 15-20,000 hour mark. Our
(now sold) grandmother with 25k winch launches only has about 14000
hours but that's high fatigue cycles. How many aerotows equals 25k
winch launches?
Well out of my experience to comment...

And why do 2-33 owners abuse their gliders?
I didn't say they abuse them. The glider is never damaged. What I said
was they sometimes "crash" in the sense that if the same thing was done in
a glass ship, it would be damaged. I've seen people cringe at some of the
things done in a 2-33. We even had a huge laugh one time over a perfect
ground loop that didn't even touch a wingtip. In the PIK, the same think
certainly didn't get a laugh... The 2-33 never has a scratch,
and the pilot is fine. Perhaps the word is "forgiving."

I just don't believe the standard of students and instructors varies
that much from country to country. I believe Blaniks get treated just
as badly as 2-33s and stand up to that treatment just as well.

Keep in mind, I'm using hyperbole to make a point. I think the
safety standards are always the same, it's just the amount of time it takes
to acheive that standard differs. As I explain to students: When I solo
them, they have an acceptable level of safety. After that, training and
currency and experience simply maintain that same level of safety,
while improving capability...

But isn't the aim to get them a licence, not just send them solo? In
that case, even if it takes a few more flights to solo (which I'm not
convinced of), in the end isn't it the same total number of flights to
licence test?
In my experience, the faster to solo = the better the chance of maintaining
interest. And even if there was no difference between the 1-26, 2-33 and
L-13 in terms of total time to license, I'd still solo them in the 2-33,
and do some after solo training in the (solo) 1-26 and L-13.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA