Why is Soaring declining

Eric Greenwell wrote
There is a skill set that a pilot must learn if he is to be able to
check himself out in a new aircraft.

What is this skill set? I'm not aware of anything specific along these
lines from the instructor/instruction manuals I've read. Generally, once
I'd trained a pilot to fly in a Blanik, he had most of the skills needed
to fly one of the usual single seaters.

Think for a moment. If you're checking yourself out in a glider,
you're going to do some stalls in it, right? And they're going to be
true approach-to-landing stalls - starting with a stabilized descent
at pattern speed, with a speed reduction to mimic the flare. Gives
you plenty of time to feel what the glider is going to do.

Suppose we didn't teach stalls that way. Suppose we taught them as a
performance maneuver, where the goal was to get the nose high, get a
clean break, and minimize altitude loss at recovery. Would the
student still be prepared to figure out the landing characteristics of
the plane?

Apparently, I'm still missing the point: why is a 1-26 or ka-8 far
better for soaring flight?

Because it doesn't handle like a truck. Because it's relatively
(compared to an L-23) easy to reg and derig. Because it's a single
seater, which makes it easier for the student to cut the apron strings
and for the club to let him go, whereas the two-seater is needed to
train more presolo students.

Michael

Eric Greenwell wrote:

There is a skill set that a pilot must learn if he is to be able to
check himself out in a new aircraft.

What is this skill set? I'm not aware of anything specific along these
lines from the instructor/instruction manuals I've read. Generally, once
I'd trained a pilot to fly in a Blanik, he had most of the skills needed
to fly one of the usual single seaters.

Calculating W&B, determining tow rope weak link
required strengths, recovery from a spin entry,
calculating stall speed from loaded weight,
how to develop a personalized checklist,
procedures for retractable gear gliders,
hazards and emergency procedures with water ballast,
etc.

None of these skills are required for the most basic solo
in a 2-33. All of this can be briefed or calculated
or (water ballast, etc.)is unneeded ahead of time.
All of these are things that can be taught post-solo,
or in some details after licensing.

You are right that the instructor manuals do not
go extensively into how a student can be taught to
teach himself. The closest I've seen is "personal
minimums" and maybe some EAA test pilot literature.

But I think this is really one of the best
areas where an instructor can add value, mostly after
solo. Teach the student how to approach a new aircraft
and learn it's potential hazards and quirks before ever flying it.

I flew a Lancair IVP last week, and even though I flew
it with another pilot who had many hours in it, he and
I together approached it like test pilots. He wanted me to teach
him not how to fly it, but how to approach a new aircraft
that he'd never flown before. We learned a LOT together
and I helped him change his takeoff and approach procedures
to reduce risk. Learning how to fly a new aircraft is
very different from flying that aircraft to it's
full capabilities (which comes later).


--

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

On 26 Apr 2004 21:19:48 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.

Add the SZD Junior to this list - I know there are only 5 in the USA,
but they are more common elsewhere..

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
On 26 Apr 2004 21:19:48 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.

Add the SZD Junior to this list - I know there are only 5 in the USA,
but they are more common elsewhere..

8 at the moment.

Frank Whiteley

Michael wrote:

I've flown an L-13 as well, and even by comparison with a 1-26, never
mind a Ka-8, the handling can best be described as truck-like. Also,
I'm not sure the second seat is a feature. It's good for new pilots
to get into a single-seater (once they solo the two-seater, of
course). Builds self-reliance and keeps instructors honest about
teaching one to fly gliders, not L-13's or 2-33's.

Well, our L-13 is the best spin trainer we've got. Absolutely
fantastic spinning with the nose pointing WAY down and the ASI
showing the student that we ain't spiralling. I'm not sure
a new student really understands the "can stall at any attitude"
as well as in a many turn spin in a L-13. Well, at least not dual in
a ship costing about $10,000...

Besides that, I agree with everything else you've posted.

P.S. "ain't" = are not. Can also be translated "is not."
American vernacular for us'ns who d'wanna be concerned with
plural or singular...
--

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