48.4 hours !?

Maybe more to the point is not the hours, but
what could be done to change this?

I don't think hours makes that much difference.
100 hours in a 2-33 doesn't mean a whole lot
towards avoiding inadvertent spin in a 2-32.

I think what helps is:

Spin training, and spin recovery training.
Training in judgement and personal limitations.

Training someone to spin has the opposite effect if
that same pilot has poor judgement. I've
given training to pilots who have then gone out and
abused
it, despite my best efforts at instilling
good judgement too.

Should spin training be required for commercial
privileges? I don't know for sure, but I think it
is the right level to ask the question. I think the

insurers should consider incentives for this
training (for glider and also airplane commercial
pilots).

For airplanes, spins used to be mandatory for
ASEL Private pilots. I don't know about
gliders...

Of course, none of this assumes the pilot in this
accident did or didn't have spin training or
personal minimums well established. As far
as I know, he may have done spins many times,
and been even more meticulous than the half-dozen highly
experienced glider pilots who died in the US near ridges
in
the past 5 years.

I try to spin all of my pre-solos (but I've missed
2 of them).
But I've spun everyone before they get their ratings...

I don't know how anyone can really understand a
spin (and it's dangers) until they've done one personally.
It is a fascinating manuever...

At 13:30 27 April 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 05:00 27 April 2005, Ian Forbes wrote:
wrote:

The pilot received his student pilot certificate on
March 16, 2005. On
March 24, 2005, he received his private pilot certificate
with a
glider rating. On March 26, 2005, he obtained his
commercial pilot
certificate with a glider rating. According to the
pilot's logbook, as
of April 5, 2005 (the day before the accident), he
accumulated a total
of 48.4 hours of flight time, of which 31.2 hours
were as
pilot-in-command.

Even James Bond or Tin Tin could not qualify to carry
passengers in 10
days from novice. Clearly this pilot must have had
some prior
training/experience that is not reflected above.

My South African Glider Pilot's Licence and Instructor's
Brevet together
do not permit me to carry passengers for hire and reward
here, let
alone in Hawaii. If I took on a job flying joy rides
in Hawaii, chances
are I would have to get Student, Private and Commercial
Glider Pilot's
ratings in a hurry. Maybe I could do it in 2 weeks.

The 48.4 hours were probably what he logged since arriving
on the
Island. Of course this does not explain why the accident
happend.


Ian
You are right Ian if I went out there I would show
exactly the same profile, my previous 1500 hours would
not show either.
This probably sums the whole thing up, speculation,
rumour, and heresay, almost anything but fact. If much
of what has been said previously had been said about
a pilot who survived the accident a lot of people would
soon become very poor. Dead people can't sue, or even
more to the point defend themselves against scurrilous
attacks by the ignorant.





Mark J. Boyd

Mark,

Good points on the need for spin training. The other thing that should
be included in the training requirement in the US for a commercial
rating is soaring training. I have seen it often where a pilot is
taught to fly the glider, but has no real world soaring training to
deal with lift and sink environments as well as decision making process
when you are not right over the airport. It is easy to fly a glider if
you take a three thousand foot tow, make a few turns and land again
without ever trying to keep the plane in the air. But are you ready to
handle adverse conditions? No, not when you get your commercial in a
total of 25 to 30 hours and need to meet the 100 flight requirement.

Tim

"M B" wrote in message
...
Maybe more to the point is not the hours, but
what could be done to change this?

(Disclaimer: I am speaking in generalities and not necessarily about this
accident in particular)

The exercise of good common sense by operators and insurers would go far to
"change this". Let's not insist on the government doing our thinking for us, we
are unlikely to be happy with the result. The exercise of such "common sense"
that goes far beyond the minimum letter of the FARs is very common in the
soaring world. I do not always agree with this "ad hock" regulation (any more
than I agree with every word in the FARs), but I agree that it is a necessary
thing.

A few tiny examples; 1) In a club I was associated with years ago, I saw
new CFIG's (especially those new to the club) told to "watch and wait" for a
period of time before they started instructing. At that same club, you needed
over 100 flights to even be considered to fly some of the equipment. 2) I don't
recall the operator I worked for ever allowing a non-CFIG Commercial pilot to
give commercial rides. 3) I remember when Mile-High came to Florida to sell
rides; they advertised for Commercial pilots and were demanding very significant
2-32 time/# of flights from applicants. 4) I know of no commercial operator
that will rent you a ship without a local checkout, many will not even sell you
a tow. None of this is required by the FARs. 5) Everybody has a story about
insurance company requirements that go far beyond the FARs, insurance companies
are emerging as our new regulators. Their regulation may seem arbitrary, but
they do not operate in a vacuum. We are customers and hold "the power of the
checkbook".

Let us learn from accidents and religiously apply what we learn to prevent
further accidents, but please! let's not ask for more regulation.

Vaughn

The exercise of good common sense by operators and insurers would go far to
"change this". Let's not insist on the government doing our thinking for us, we
are unlikely to be happy with the result. The exercise of such "common sense"
that goes far beyond the minimum letter of the FARs is very common in the
soaring world.

I agree with this and suggest that this is already the typical case -
and wonder why this did not happen here. The FAA really only certifies
to the minimum standards. When not in my LS6, I fly a Skylane and have
high performance and complex endorsements. As far as the FAA is
concerned, I can quite legally jump into a Bonanza and commit aviation.
But, the insurance company would say "hold on, cowboy".

Tony V.

"Tony Verhulst" wrote in message
...
...The FAA really only certifies to the minimum standards. When not in my LS6,
I fly a Skylane and have high performance and complex endorsements. As far as
the FAA is concerned, I can quite legally jump into a Bonanza and commit
aviation. But, the insurance company would say "hold on, cowboy".

Exactly...and for good reason.

Vaughn



Tony V.