There's an aspect of discussions as this I find quite interesting, and even
though it's a common part of them (the discussions) it's rarely mentioned. The
aspect is this: people quite often (and naturally?) project their personal
druthers onto the discussion as a whole...as if one's personal approach is the
only - or the most - valid one.

Personally, I think that if someone was king and could impose such thinking on
the sport (in the U.S., anyway), participation would take an immediate and
negative hit, for the reasons others (rightly, IMHO) have pointed out...e.g.
costs of entry & training & fleet insurance, etc.

Now as Kevin C. points out below (and he's in good company with Tom Knauff,
among others I know of)...

On 9/15/2010 10:58 AM, Kevin Christner wrote:

Perhaps the best thing I can say is that you can teach a student to
land two point or better yet tail first.
Such training is definitely a good thing, IMHO...

The inability of such a
large percentage of US pilots to do proper low energy landings is
probably the biggest contributor to the amount of ground loop damage
in outlandings.
I'm not about to argue the point!

....Schweizers aren't the best to teach 2-point, low-energy landings in (though
it IS easily/safely/definitely possible to do so in 2-33's with the
spring-tailwheel mod). That said - and with a nod toward Kevin's/Tom's
'primacy of learning argument' I'm inclined to think 'primacy' is (arguably)
overstated when it comes to 2-point landing discussion. Here's why...

My basic training was in 2-33's, my first single-seat gliders were 1-26s, my
first 4 off-field landings were in 1-26s. And yet - when it came to performing
OFLs - it was immediately obvious to me that 2-point (or lowest-possible safe
energy) touchdowns were the safest (to the plane and to me) ticket...so that's
what I did, both in 1-26s (4 OFls) and succeeding tail-draggers (~20 OFLs). I
have *never* had any formal 2-point-landing instruction (from an instructor
other than myself)...and since the mid-'70's until now have had many an
occasion to share my 'soaring wisdom' - specifically the wisdom supporting
low-energy field landings - with fellow practitioners. Call it 'wisdom
sharing', 'bull sessions', 'beer debriefings' or whatever...we all do it.

What I've found is some pilots have 'gotten it' (the wisdom, I mean) on their
own, some 'immediately get it' when we chat, some clearly do not 'get it' from
such discussions (though they may over time...), and some 'never get it'
(despite instruction). Regardless of how they have 'gotten it' those that do,
seem to actively work to apply the concept, and to further develop their
landing skills/energy management going forward.

As for 'primacy' in this particular instance, I'd argue it little matters,
simply because OFLs rarely are 'instantaneously stressful' (the usual argument
advanced in defence of the law of primacy being applicable). Hence any
'properly prepared pilot' should have ample opportunity to think through
precisely what it is s/he hopes to accomplish as they are sinking toward a
possible OFL (or any other landing, for that matter). Anecdotally speaking, it
worked that way for me on my 1st OFL, even though it was a (dismaying!)
not-actively-planned/wanted event at that time. Stated another way, the stress
of an impending OFL is insufficient reason for *any* pilot to 'have to' revert
to laws of primacy as their 'excuse' controlling all that's about to happen.

Soaring requires thought, and excepting those emergency situations that in
fact do happen suddenly and surprisingly, primacy shouldn't ever be a major
factor in how one applies his or her flight skills.

I suspect an absolutely fascinating statistic (if impossible to ever obtain)
would be a comprehensive compilation correlating OFLs gone bad with pilot
training. While I've no doubt some distinct/significant/(small?) proportion
could be 'obviously' laid to some combination of inadequate/incomplete
training compared to flight decisions actually made that resulted in the OFL,
I'd lay significant money on there also being a (considerably?) larger
proportion of OFL accidents committed by 'pilots who had every training
opportunity beforehand to know better.'

My point is, dual-training isn't a panacea, and anyone who argues it is is
choosing to ignore a considerable proportion of reality.

Regards,
Bob W.

P.S. My worst/only OFL-induced damage occurred on 1-26 OFL #4 when I
single-mindedly landed in a freshly plowed field, and a dirt clod poked a
small hole in the nose fabric. On short final I realized the biggest clod in
the field was about to arrive. Yes, there were better surfaces within easy
reach had I not been so (newbie-influenced) single-minded in my field surface
assessments.