Future Club Training Gliders

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