New trainer from SZD Bielsko

There's no downside to training in higher performance unless the instructor
THINKS there is. If the instructor is afraid of high performance gliders,
he will pass that fear on to his students.

Bill Daniels
With all due respect I am not sure that this portion of the debate is
meaningful until the participants clarify and agree upon what it is they
are "training" for. If we are training for advanced cross country,
competition, or step up to high performance single seats then the
observation is correct. If we are ab initio training in hope to solo the
student in the subject glider then we need something robust, insurable for
student pilots, and economical for the typical club. Higher performance
rarely serves those needs - so there is a downside.

Roy B.

"Roy Bourgeois" wrote in message
...

There's no downside to training in higher performance unless the
instructor
THINKS there is. If the instructor is afraid of high performance
gliders,
he will pass that fear on to his students.

Bill Daniels
With all due respect I am not sure that this portion of the debate is
meaningful until the participants clarify and agree upon what it is they
are "training" for. If we are training for advanced cross country,
competition, or step up to high performance single seats then the
observation is correct. If we are ab initio training in hope to solo the
student in the subject glider then we need something robust, insurable for
student pilots, and economical for the typical club. Higher performance
rarely serves those needs - so there is a downside.

Roy B.

Are you saying a K-21 or a DG 505 are not insurable for student pilots? I
think they are. The K21 is a VERY robust glider and a great trainer - so is
the 505.

Bill Daniels

On Jun 22, 4:08 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Are you saying a K-21 or a DG 505 are not insurable for student pilots?

In the UK it's just about possible to insure a K21 for first solo
(premium is around one-seventh the value of the glider), but the cost
of insuring a 505, 1000 or Duo for the same is astronomical. Sure you
could do it but you'd never get the money back - no-one would pay the
incredible soaring fees needed. I think I know one 500 that's insured
for solos, but every other Janus, Duo or 1000 I've seen or flown was
Silver C minimum for P1. Even then the soaring fees were twice a K21.

I belong to the low money/high time group, and high-performance
gliders are the bane of my life. Our club offers winch launches at
half the price of others and that's mainly down to having a fleet of
K13s instead K21s. I could never have afforded to learn to fly
otherwise. Visiting other clubs with shiny fleets always hurts my
wallet.


Dan

We have trained ab.initio and soloed students in a Janus B. No difference
whatsoever in training/soloing students in a Ka7 (which we did in another
club).

"Roy Bourgeois" wrote in message
...

There's no downside to training in higher performance unless the
instructor
THINKS there is. If the instructor is afraid of high performance
gliders,
he will pass that fear on to his students.

Bill Daniels
With all due respect I am not sure that this portion of the debate is
meaningful until the participants clarify and agree upon what it is they
are "training" for. If we are training for advanced cross country,
competition, or step up to high performance single seats then the
observation is correct. If we are ab initio training in hope to solo the
student in the subject glider then we need something robust, insurable for
student pilots, and economical for the typical club. Higher performance
rarely serves those needs - so there is a downside.

Roy B.