On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-7, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
To my point, if a retrieve Crew is far cheaper than being a glider equipped with a landing prevention option, then why do pI lots make the investment. Psychologically they are more comfortable flying with that extra option!

Proving that bad decisions are made by certain motor gliders is equally difficult to qualify as proving that they are not taking more risks. The fact of the matter is, the availability of the motor Psychologically changes the way a pilot interprets the risks associated with pushing further.

This argument is just sad in my opinion. If you want to go fly a powered aircraft, go for it, but don't claim that having an engine is equal in all ways to flying a pure glider. Two different classes all together.

SW, have you flown a lot of miles cross country in an auxiliary motorglider?

If not, how do you know what changes in psychological thoughts and risk assessment the pilot is having? Without having flown one, how do you know they are "two different classes all together"?

I fly the same places on the same days as many friends without engines. A couple of them are willing to go much lower, much further into unlandable terrain than I will, engine or not. I have a lower (self) retrieve rate than most of them. The engine does not turn a pilot instantly into a risk taking madman.

Once again the arguments comparing the two and concluding that they are quite different, are coming almost exclusively from those who have experience in only one and are ignorant of the other. And that is sad.