Why is Soaring declining

Michael wrote:

Eric Greenwell wrote

I would not lump the L-13 and the 2-33 together in the "non-glider"
class!


You're missing the point. I'm not saying either one is a "non-glider"
but something completely different. You can teach a student to fly
gliders in general, or you can teach him to fly only the particular
glider he is flying. The latter is not a winning strategy if the
student is going to advance in the sport. It's not really common in
soaring instruction either, but some instructors are transition pilots
from power, where this practice IS common.

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.

As a rule, glider pilots learn
this skill set because single seaters are common in soaring, and the
instructors realize that the skill must be taught. In power, single
seaters are a rarity and many power pilots never really learn the
skill, and need to be checked out in each individual make and model
they fly.

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.


Apparently, I'm still missing the point: why is a 1-26 or ka-8 far
better for soaring flight? My point was that the L13 is a good glider,
capable of soaring and doing good cross country flights. It certainly is
better at cross country flying than a 1-26, and similar in ability to
the Ka-8.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

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

Michael wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote

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?

If we taught them this way, we would be doing the student a disservice,
even if they never flew any other glider. It's widely understood that
you have to teach turning stalls, as these are the most likely way a
pilot will encounter a spin or spiral dive.


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.

Maybe it's a matter of preference. I think it it's a nice handling
glider, not truck like at all, though it is heavier than a 15 meter
glider. It SOARS just fine, and I'm not tired from flying it after a few
hours, as long as I can sit in the front seat.

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.

These are good reasons to have a glider that is easier to retrieve from
a field, but aren't related to the soaring or cross-country ability of
the glider. Also, The L13 can be safely tied down outside, unlike the
Ka-8, which is important for some clubs. Our members generally preferred
to fly the already assembled L13, rather than rigging the Ka-6E we had
for year. A hangar to keep the Ka-6 in would have likely reversed this
choice.

In our area, it is practical to do nice cross-country flights and still
stay within reach of an airport. Aerotows retrieves were not expensive,
but still the members were reluctant. What made a difference was taking
them cross-country in the L13, so they could see how it is actually done.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote
If we taught them this way, we would be doing the student a disservice,
even if they never flew any other glider. It's widely understood that
you have to teach turning stalls, as these are the most likely way a
pilot will encounter a spin or spiral dive.

Maybe not as widely understood as you believe.

All I can tell you is this - spend some time as a power instructor
finishing up the training of students who started with typical power
instructors, or do some BFR's for power pilots, and you will quickly
realize what I'm talking about. Many if not most power pilots have
not a clue about why we do stalls or how to do them in any other
manner than the one I've described.

The average quality of glider instruction is DRAMATICALLY better than
the average quality of power instruction. I suspect that no small
part of this has to do with the prevalence of single seaters.

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

None of these skills are required for the most basic solo
in a 2-33.

If you're going to serve as the grammar police . . .

"None" is a contraction of "not one." It is singular, therefore, your sentence
should be, "None of these IS required . . ." etc.

Dave

Mark James Boyd wrote:
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.

I'm still puzzled. Are you saying these skills (calculating W&B, ....)
are _additional_ skills a pilot needs before "checking himself out in a
new aircraft"? They seem to be requirements learning to fly, or things
you need to be learn before flying advanced gliders. All of them can
apply to a high performance two-seaters or can be taught with ground
training. I don't see any thing specific to "checking himself out in a
new aircraft", but perhaps I don't understand what you and Michael mean
by "checking himself out in a new aircraft".

Or are you simply saying learning the minimun necessary to solo a 2-33
isn't enough to get you ready for a high performance racing glider? I"d
agree with that!


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:

I'm still puzzled. Are you saying these skills (calculating W&B, ....)
are _additional_ skills a pilot needs before "checking himself out in a
new aircraft"?

I'm saying some of these skills are only post-solo, and some of these
skills (how to operate a retract) are not required for the PPL at
all. These skills are only learned by the pilot because he himself
accepts or maybe the insurance company requires some post-license training...

They seem to be requirements learning to fly, or things
you need to be learn before flying advanced gliders. All of them can
apply to a high performance two-seaters or can be taught with ground
training. I don't see any thing specific to "checking himself out in a
new aircraft", but perhaps I don't understand what you and Michael mean
by "checking himself out in a new aircraft".
Deciding how to load CG for the first flight, selecting
a long runway into the wind, choosing the launch method, researching
prior accidents, etc. are all things one can do to help
check oneself out in a new aircraft. None of this is required
by license, none of this requires dual training, but these things
and awareness of how to minimize risk flying something
completely new are developed pilot skills.

Or are you simply saying learning the minimun necessary to solo a 2-33
isn't enough to get you ready for a high performance racing glider? I"d
agree with that!

I'm saying that, and more. I'm saying that a license isn't
enough either. But it SHOULD give you the skills to form your
own training plan and an idea about how to smoothly progress to
flying higher performance aircraft with no increase in risk. As
experience grows, risk is reduced. To maintain the same level of risk,
we throw something new in. Maybe ballast, maybe retract, maybe
more sensitive pitch controls (spins easier). Pilots who understand
personal minimums and have a comprehension of how different
flight characteristics and experience relate to risk can
add one component at a time and through reading and careful
observation add components slowly so the risk doesn't "spike"
up.

When soloing, we have accepted a certain level of risk. Over
time, we maintain the same level of risk while increasing capability,
or we can just remain with our same glider, pilot, and conditions and
have the risk go down. Most pilots, at least to some level, choose to
increase capability. Instructors are an aid to some extent,
as are manuals and AD's and accident reports, etc. But the
pilot himself is the only one who can consistently enforce
a post-license training plan...

Whether this involves dual instruction, or a college aerodynamics course,
or talking to others who've flown the same glider, etc. is up to
the pilot at that point. A good advanced instructor teaches a
pilot how to use resources and generalize, not how tofly
one particular glider...teach a man to fish, right?
--

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