New trainer from SZD Bielsko

"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.

At 19:36 21 June 2007, Gary Emerson wrote:

hopefully the issues of Puchacz spins don't present
with this glider
too. They look very similar.

The fact that the Puchacz spins so positively and effectively
with the 'correct' control inputs is one reason why
it's such a popular training glider. Pupils need to
be taught the situations in which a glider will spin,
what they can do to prevent a spin, and how to quickly
recognise one and recover from it if it does occur.
It means they will fly a lot safer in gliders which
might not spin as readily, by not flying too slowly
and unco-ordinated in thermal turns for example, because
they don't only KNOW but HAVE EXPERIENCE that this
method of flying might result in a spin.

One of the main reasons our club bought 2 Puchaczs
was because they spin so well, and we realise the importance
of spin training. Before we had Bocians, which also
spin well.



Don't Disregard Dangling the Dunlop!

Sorry dude, nice try. There are a number of reported cases with
Puchaczs spinning all the way down, in some cases with two instructors
on board. There is no denying (you can try) that this particular ship
can establish itself into a non-recoverable spin. While spinability is
important, it's unsafe if it may (even rarely) enter into a
non-recoverable situation.


Colin Field wrote:
At 19:36 21 June 2007, Gary Emerson wrote:

hopefully the issues of Puchacz spins don't present
with this glider
too. They look very similar.

The fact that the Puchacz spins so positively and effectively
with the 'correct' control inputs is one reason why
it's such a popular training glider. Pupils need to
be taught the situations in which a glider will spin,
what they can do to prevent a spin, and how to quickly
recognise one and recover from it if it does occur.
It means they will fly a lot safer in gliders which
might not spin as readily, by not flying too slowly
and unco-ordinated in thermal turns for example, because
they don't only KNOW but HAVE EXPERIENCE that this
method of flying might result in a spin.

One of the main reasons our club bought 2 Puchaczs
was because they spin so well, and we realise the importance
of spin training. Before we had Bocians, which also
spin well.



Don't Disregard Dangling the Dunlop!

can establish itself into a non-recoverable spin.

below an altitude of 100m no spin is rocoverable.

Mat

At 11:30 22 June 2007, Gary Emerson wrote:

non-recoverable spin

Define.

And before you do, read the accident reports...!

Al

On 22 Jun 2007 13:28:04 GMT, Al Eddie
wrote:

non-recoverable spin

Define.

And before you do, read the accident reports...!

In Germany there were at least wo spin-related accidents during winch
launches, in both cases instructors on board. Iirc no survivors.



Bye
Andreas

"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jun 2007 13:28:04 GMT, Al Eddie
wrote:

non-recoverable spin

Define.

And before you do, read the accident reports...!

In Germany there were at least wo spin-related accidents during winch
launches, in both cases instructors on board. Iirc no survivors.



Bye
Andreas

Unfortunately, instructors differ quite a bit in their spin knowledge. I
recall spin training instruction for my CFI. (Actually I already knew about
spins from gliders.) I announced to my right seat instructor that we would
do three turns and recover within 10 degrees of the entry heading. (That's
the WWII Instructor Pilot standard.)

I picked a road intersection that would give a good ground reference and
spun the C-150 to the right starting on a north heading. (I already knew
this particular C-150 would continue 3/4 turn after anti-spin controls were
applied.) As we passed north on the first turn, I heard my instructor
mumbling to himself - he was counting what he thought were turns reaching
'three' as we pass north for the first time. As north came up again he
reached 'six' - his voice increasing in pitch. I applied anti-spin controls
on an east heading and the C-150 stopped auto-rotation on a north heading
precisely three turns after entry as my instructor spoke 'nine'. I had a
hard time convincing him we did only three turns.

Spins are a good example of perception vs reality problems. People read and
hear hangar talk about spins and develop "spin phobia". This fear degrades
their performance. Apparently, instructors are no exception.

I rode with one very senior ATP who had been taking aerobatic instruction in
a Citabria. We intended two turns in a L-23 but as we went around for the
third time, I had to point out that the Blanik requires forward stick to
achieve a recovery. This pilot expected the glider to recover with only
opposite rudder.

So, don't assume that a glider has bad spin behavior just because they've
been spun in by instructors.

Bill Daniels

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:05:05 -0600, "Bill Daniels"
bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:

So, don't assume that a glider has bad spin behavior just because they've
been spun in by instructors.

Given the fact that other gliders did not spin in during a winch
launch with an instructor in board, odds are that these accidents were
not completely the pilot's fault, don't you agree?



Bye
Andreas