Future Club Training Gliders

On Sep 15, 8:37*am, Tony wrote:
Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.

unless it was the only way they could afford the training.

As an advocate of wood and glue your defense of Schweizers puzzles me,
so I'll figure its because your unaware of the far better wooden
alternatives. The Ka7/Berfalke III/IV and the like come up for sale
on a regular basis in the $7-$10k range and offer far better training
and handling characteristics. You can almost begin to teach energy
management in them - they at least have enough energy for one high
speed pass followed by an immediate 180 and landing - don't ask me how
I know. The rear seats have adjustable rudder pedals and *gasp* an
instrument panel.

Perhaps the best thing I can say is that you can teach a student to
land two point or better yet tail first. 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 remember standing next to one very well regarded
European pilot watching a number of landings at the end of a contest
day. He said to the gathered group "Does anyone in American know how
to land a glider properly? We would not let any of you go solo!"

Try a wooden alternative, you just might like it.

I know of one club who sold their Ka7 last year to "upgrade" to an
L-13. Quite unfortunate.

KJC

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.

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.


Bob,

I'm glad you realized that 2-point approaches are the best way avoid
land out damage. Unfortunately, it appears a large portion of US
pilots disagree with you!

I appreciate your argument regarding primacy, but for most I'm not
sure it works like that. Regardless of how much time you have to
think about an off-field landing, they are still 'stressful' enough
that reversion to bad habits is highly likely to occur. Another point
would be bad things very rarely happen with the first bad decision.
Too much energy at touchdown is often a result of a pattern flown to
quickly. I can't count the number of times I've gone up with someone
who flew their pattern 5-8kts over best L/D speed in benign
conditions. When you ask why its because "its safer." This may be
"safe" but it I doubt it's "safer" at the time and it certainly won't
be "safer" when you are going into a 400ft field and a pattern speed 4
or 5 knots below L/D is called for. The benign conditions would have
been a perfect time to practice a minimum energy pattern - but then
again, they've never heard of that.

And, if we accept primacy does not occur to "nerves of steel"
attempting his first off field landing, I'd still preferred he has
lots of practice on low energy approaches followed by minimum energy
landings. Ultimately this is not an argument about 2-33's vs. K-21s,
but rather an argument about the pitiful state of glider training in
the US.

KJC

On 9/15/2010 12:12 PM, Kevin Christner wrote:

Bob,

I'm glad you realized that 2-point approaches are the best way avoid
land out damage. Unfortunately, it appears a large portion of US
pilots disagree with you!

Regrettably, I wouldn't seriously try to argue this particular point because
my working suspicion is your contention is accurate. I've encountered 'a
not-insignificant percentage' of experienced XC pilots - including some
actively involved in racing - I've never seen practice a low-energy landing,
and some who've (gasp) actively pooh-poohed the desirability of having the
skill. Admittedly, the bulk of my experience has been on the eastern side of
the intermountain west (where large fields are often easily found), but the
pooh-pooh attitude has always astounded/worried me.


I appreciate your argument regarding primacy, but for most I'm not
sure it works like that. Regardless of how much time you have to
think about an off-field landing, they are still 'stressful' enough
that reversion to bad habits is highly likely to occur.

I agree that most folks' initial OFL 'will be' high-stress (in the actual
sweaty-palmed sense), but have for years within my club put forth the
reasoning that it doesn't need to be in an 'actual risk to you/the plane' sense.

(Ref.: http://soarboulder.org/stories/kissing-tips-1)
(...verbose, written in the '90's for my club's newsletter, personally
out-of-date, cited simply as supporting evidence...)

I also agree that initial OFL's are the place where all the mistakes will be
'practiced' (e.g. too-close-in downwinds, too high speeds, less-than-good
field selections in the face of better nearby options, etc.). My club
(sensibly, IMHO) actively encourages pilot-skill-set expansion via XC
instruction and a (22 consecutive years and counting) XC camp in benign
landout country. But the fact remains, Joe Pilot is the one who ultimately
does most of the (non-instructor-aided) skill-set-expansion, and 'bull
sessions' are a huge part of the experience.

(Ref.: http://soarboulder.org/newsletters See September's edition)


Another point
would be bad things very rarely happen with the first bad decision.
Too much energy at touchdown is often a result of a pattern flown to
quickly. I can't count the number of times I've gone up with someone
who flew their pattern 5-8kts over best L/D speed in benign
conditions. When you ask why its because "its safer." This may be
"safe" but it I doubt it's "safer" at the time and it certainly won't
be "safer" when you are going into a 400ft field and a pattern speed 4
or 5 knots below L/D is called for. The benign conditions would have
been a perfect time to practice a minimum energy pattern - but then
again, they've never heard of that.

I've no doubt we're on the same page, here. Where we might differ is that I
don't see 'mandated instruction' as curing the underlying problem, which (I
believe) is with Joe Pilot's basic attitude and approach to his or her soaring
world. My own approach is to gently try and help them expand their world-view
so they'll understand that any world view is (always) incomplete, *and* want
to expand their own...whether via dual instruction, or self-practice or any
other sensible method that works for them. That said, I suspect that some
people ARE entirely entrenched in their (less-than-good-for-them/their-ship)
thinking...but my approach is to act as if no one is, meaning my personal
radar routinely looks for opportunities to help others 'see the light' even if
they've previously proven blind.

And, if we accept primacy does not occur to "nerves of steel"
attempting his first off field landing, I'd still preferred he has
lots of practice on low energy approaches followed by minimum energy
landings. Ultimately this is not an argument about 2-33's vs. K-21s,
but rather an argument about the pitiful state of glider training in
the US.

I guess I'm not so convinced the problem can be laid at the door of 'poor
training'. I'm inclined to suppose ultimate responsibility lies within the
pilot population itself. Not that I'm saying dual instruction isn't
fundamentally important...because it unarguably is *vitally* so...just that I
don't see any proposed 'better instructional approach' as likely to have
significant/measurable effects on the landout-crunch-world. Consider the
dismal - and enduring down the decades - record of inadvertent stall-spins in
the pattern; a reasonable argument can be made that 'better instruction' has
had exactly zero effect on the normalized annual death rate (whether we're
talking glider or power worlds).

In the glider-OFL-world, we could be up against human nature...

But even if we are, I believe it shouldn't diminish our attempts to educate
wannabe XC pilots in the 'best practices' of OFLs. Why? Because *some* WILL
'get it!' If dual instruction can play a part (and I agree its competent
availability varies widely in the U.S. club scene), then those pilots who can
avail themselves of it are indeed luckier than those who cannot. Options are good.

Regards,
Bob W.

On Sep 15, 11:58*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:
On Sep 15, 8:37*am, Tony wrote:

Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.

unless it was the only way they could afford the training.

As an advocate of wood and glue your defense of Schweizers puzzles me,
so I'll figure its because your unaware of the far better wooden
alternatives. *The Ka7/Berfalke III/IV and the like come up for sale
on a regular basis in the $7-$10k range and offer far better training
and handling characteristics. *You can almost begin to teach energy
management in them - they at least have enough energy for one high
speed pass followed by an immediate 180 and landing - don't ask me how
I know. *The rear seats have adjustable rudder pedals and *gasp* an
instrument panel.

Perhaps the best thing I can say is that you can teach a student to
land two point or better yet tail first. *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 remember standing next to one very well regarded
European pilot watching a number of landings at the end of a contest
day. *He said to the gathered group "Does anyone in American know how
to land a glider properly? *We would not let any of you go solo!"

Try a wooden alternative, you just might like it.

I know of one club who sold their Ka7 last year to "upgrade" to an
L-13. *Quite unfortunate.

KJC

I think a Ka7 or ASK-13 would be a great club glider. In fact I'm
promoting my old club who has an L13 lawn ornament to explore Ka7's.
However there are about 30 Ka7's on the registry and 16 ASK-13's.
Compare that with ~350 2-33's. Retiring the fleet of 2-33's would
absolutely cripple glider training in the US. Losing all the L-13's
for the time being is bad enough.

For more limited resources than required for an aerotowed AS-K21:
A. Winch. A cheap way to launch students to solo.
B. Ka13. Comfortable, nice handling (better prep for slippery ships),
can do limited aerobatics, climbs great on a winch, and has factory
support.
If you insist on a Schweizer, go for the 2-22, which has better
handling qualities than the 2-33.
But one handicap nearly all US operations seem to have is the desire
to park the fleet outside in the weather, adding complications.
Want a demonstration of inexpensive? Here's a 2-22 auto tow video...
http://www.youtube.com/user/dacekner...10/pLUAS7wD_eo
Josh goes XC in his Ka8 off these tows.
Jim

On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:
I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
back.

Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.

KJC

You found one. I train in 2-33's every weekend I'm not racing. I completely disagree about skills as they relate to what glider is used. That is a function of good instructing much more than the platform.
Would I like it to be more comfortable in the back? You betcha!
All this said, our 2-33 fleet still provides economical, weather
tolerant, safe, durable service.
We added another to our fleet last year. We also bought a '21 for more
advanced training.
Keeping costs down may be why we have grown every year including the
downturn and have almost 30 juniors.
Not fancy , but it works.
All that said, building a 2-33 today would not be an economical thing
to do.
FWIW
UH

On Sep 15, 12:58*pm, wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:



I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
back.

Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.

KJC

You found one. I train in 2-33's every weekend I'm not racing. I completely disagree about skills as they relate to what glider is used. That is a function of good instructing much more than the platform.

Would I like it to be more comfortable in the back? You betcha!
All this said, our 2-33 fleet still provides economical, weather
tolerant, safe, durable service.
We added another to our fleet last year. We also bought a '21 for more
advanced training.
Keeping costs down may be why we have grown every year including the
downturn and have almost 30 juniors.
Not fancy , but it works.
All that said, building a 2-33 today would not be an economical thing
to do.
FWIW
UH

I should rephrase my premise from "a good idea" to "the best option"
which was the intent behind the statement. Costs aside, I don't think
you'd choose the 2-33 over the K-21 for any purpose, but I could be
missing something.

In regards to equipment vs. instruction I stated previously
"Ultimately this is not an argument about 2-33's vs. K-21s, but rather
an argument about the pitiful state of glider training in the US."
Perhaps I've placed too much blame on the glider fleet and not enough
on the instructor base. I would have hoped this was not the case.

Tom Mara and Bob Whelan;

THANK YOU for being the 'VOICES OF REASON" on this thread! (With
apologies to BK and TC)

As for the rest of you, how about post on the FAA Blanik AD comment
page to inform them of the effect the AD will have on 1/5 of the
training fleet, as most of the students I know can't afford north of
$60 just to get thier rating in Modern glass, and will cease their
training as a result. Your comments here outnumber those on the FAA
page by three to one!

If not able to do so, I imagine the combined hot air on this thread
could be directed vertically with measurable effect!

aerodine

On Sep 15, 10:27*pm, wrote:
Tom Mara and Bob Whelan;

THANK YOU for being the 'VOICES OF REASON" on this thread! (With
apologies to BK and TC)

As for the rest of you, how about post on the FAA Blanik AD comment
page to inform them of the effect the AD will have on 1/5 of the
training fleet, as most of the students I know can't afford north of
$60 just to get thier rating in Modern glass, and will cease their
training as a result. *Your comments here outnumber those on the FAA
page by three to one!

If not able to do so, I imagine the combined hot air on this thread
could be directed vertically with measurable effect!

aerodine

I'm missing the point of just telling the FAA what the effect of the
AD will be on grounding L13 fleet -- I kinda suspect people directly
involved at the FAA know. The FAA seems pretty set that a testing
procedure needs to be developed. They seem to have invested a fair
amount of time and effort lookign at this already and went out of
their way in the recent letter to the SSA to present a nice report.
What is it you actually want people to ask the FAA to do? That the FAA
engineer a test procedure on their own? That they provide more help
(what exactly?) to develop that in collaboration? That they try to
pressure the LAK to do something? That they just accept the past
visual inspection AD?

Thanks

Darryl