Leading Turns With Rudder

On Jul 22, 4:41*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
...Gliders designed by Weber, the W of ASW tend to be very well
co-ordinated...

Off-topic, but who's this Weber guy? I've never heard of him. I'll
have to ask Gerhard Waibel about him...



Thanks, Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com

Well, Paul---
Have you personally been trained by this instructor, or is this second hand
"distilled" information.
Perhaps the full instruction is more complete---or maybe not.

Hi Harty,

While I showed up to my club already rated a private pilot, I have
indeed experienced this phenomenon first hand. Being the new guy, I
kept my mouth shut during my field check flights and subsequent ship
checkout flights. While doing some airwork on my commercial at a later
date though, he was very upset with my turn coordination as I was
resisting his very loud/high pitched insistence that I MUST lead with
the rudder for proper turn coordination in a glider-period. I
explained to him that the plane I normally flew (Sisu 1a) would not
appreciate that very much, nor would a lot of other ships I have the
aspirations to fly, that it was contrary to my previous training, and
a reflex that I would rather not develop. In my book slipping =
inefficient while skidding = dangerous, no mater how loud you yell.

He also was very upset with my thermalling technique (the mild slip
thing), and in his eyes that reflected on my qualifications as a
commercial pilot (I tried to explain that I only wanted to cover PTS
issues, and that my personal thermalling technique was not actually
part of the PTS...). He has already accused me of 'arguing' with him,
when defending myself from things he was trying to ding me for that he
was simply NOT right about (seems the FAA wanted to 'argue' with him
too once books got involved). I personally wrote off flying with him
(actually, the only ones who go up with him are newbs or BFR's in a
pinch), but when I am on the ground I am constantly hearing his lesson
on how a glider turns, and just in case I heard wrong all those times
(including in the air...) it is also in writing. It just really annoys
me, since this guy teaches this SO authoritatively along with other
flat out misconceptions (although the rudder is the only one I deemed
potentially hazardous and am seeking outside opinions on). I'm trying
my best not to smear, as that would be unproductive and this fellow
DOES have a lot to offer despite my feelings on this issue. Ignorance
is curable, and luckily this guys' not stupid.

-Paul

Paul -

Just so you know, you're not alone. We too have instructors up here
who misunderstand what a "CFIG" rating means.

We say that a PPL is a "license to learn". We need to emphasize that
a CFI certificate is simply a "license to teach" - not a license to
have all the answers or to have a God-complex.

And a CFI cert does not mean you STOP learning; though many seem to
think getting one of these is a signal that they know all they'll ever
need to.

--Noel

Blush

I should learn to not write in such a hurry - that was very poorly said.

What I was trying to get across was that we teach the effect of controls (as you have described so succinctly) in the
sequence I described. We also teach primary effect first, then the secondary effect then move on to the next control.
Students only learn one control at a time.
Because it is a logical progression of complexity, and the primacy principle then works for you.

Andy wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:13 am, Bruce wrote:
For what it is worth - we teach sequentially (in South Africa) the primary effects of controls.

I don't know if what you wrote is actually what you teach, but what
you wrote does not describe the primary effects of the controls, at
least not as I was taught.

Elevator - primary effect pitch attitude change, secondary effect
speed change
Aileron - primary effect roll attitude change, secondary effect
adverse yaw
Rudder - primary effect yaw attitude change, secondary effect roll

Andy

On Jul 23, 6:14*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Jul 22, 4:41*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:

...Gliders designed by Weber, the W of ASW tend to be very well
co-ordinated...

Off-topic, but who's this Weber guy? I've never heard of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Maria_von_Weber

I'll have to ask Gerhard Waibel about him...



Thanks, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Maria_von_Weber

Ah, I loved performing his Clarinet pieces (they rank right behind
Mozart's Clarinet Concerto as my favorite to play)

....And I didn't even know he was into gliders!! ;-)

--Noel

On Jul 24, 2:43*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Maria_von_Weber

Ah, I loved performing his Clarinet pieces (they rank right behind
Mozart's Clarinet Concerto as my favorite to play)

...And I didn't even know he was into gliders!! ;-)

--Noel

Is there no end to the talents of people here?

Personally I prefer the Mozart both to play & listen to by a country
mile, but sadly many great composers didn't create a clarinet
concerto. Beethoven, Schubert & Brahms come straight to mind, though
Brahms wrote some truely sublime chamber music for it.

Bad habits don't discriminate based on titles. Sadly, titles can more easily
pass on those bad habits as best practices. The rudder first approach is
something gleaned by many pilots from the stories about a few marginally
controllable "super gliders" from a previous generation of the sport. Its
reapplication to certain "underruddered" two-place training gliders shows a
remarkable lack of understanding of coordination.

Here's the crux of the problem... the rudder first approach is most
effective at low speed, when the ailerons produce the greatest adverse yaw
and the vertical stabilizer has less righting force. When is coordination
most important?

To make your argument I'd focus on the following:

Lack of coordination is universally discouraged. Any training regimen which
promotes lack of coordination needs to justify it based on both increased
controllability AND uncompromised safety.

Generally, all sailplanes require more rudder with less aileron at low speed
to remain coordinated. Shouldn't pilots be taught to discern the difference
in control effectiveness throughout the speed range rather than to simply
using an expedient that "works" in one case?

If you teach someone from the outset to lead with rudder, isn't it likely he
will continue this practice for ALL aircraft and in all conditions?

Modern aircraft are built to standards of controllability. Does your model's
operator's manual suggest leading with the rudder? If not, why not?

And finally, from an aesthetic point of view, it's just plain sloppy. As a
CFI, I'd question the abilities of a pilot who couldn't make a coordinated
turn in a modern glider (SGS 2-33 included) all the way down to MCA. Slewing
the nose before banking... every time you turn? My comment to the pilot
would be to fly the glider you're in, not the one you're fantasizing about.

;-)


"sisu1a" wrote in message
...
Hi All,

An SSA 'Master' CFIG I know is perpetually hammering it into his
students that to initiate a turn in a glider, the FIRST thing you do
is feed in rudder. On his 1-5 list of making a turn in a glider, #1 is
rudder (as it's own separate input). While this may be aerodynamically
acceptable practice for a 2-33, it seems a recipie for disaster in
other ships to begin a turn by intentionally skidding. Since in a
pinch, one has a tendency to revert to instincts that were first
learned/practiced (right OR wrong), I see this as a setup for possible
future problems.
Since I have issues with this, I want to gather some other opinions
(particularly those of other CFI's) to help present a case to
possibly get this corrected. He holds little value of MYopinion, so I
was hoping to get some 'name brand' opinions to help my case. And if I
am just putting to much into this, I would rather hear it from this
group.

-Paul

I'd say this post provides an excellent summary.

There are gliders where, to obtain improved performance, it is sometimes
helpful to fly uncoordinated. For example, to persuade my Open Cirrus
(1967 design, 17.7m span) to turn into a strong thermal, it's sometimes
most effective to yaw it towards the thermal enough to induce the
beginning of a wing drop - then catch it and continue into the turn.

BUT, this is deliberate uncoordinated flying. If you haven't been taught
to fly coordinated, you won't be able to recognise when and where it's
safe to do the opposite.

In the circuit, or thermalling low down, I work really hard to keep my
turns coordinated. Attempting to turn in the way I described above would
be a recipe for disaster. I only do it in the circumstances I described
because I was TAUGHT to fly coordinated, and now have enough experience
(I hope) to recognise when it's safe to do something else. The default
should always be coordinated flying.

user wrote:
Bad habits don't discriminate based on titles. Sadly, titles can more easily
pass on those bad habits as best practices. The rudder first approach is
something gleaned by many pilots from the stories about a few marginally
controllable "super gliders" from a previous generation of the sport. Its
reapplication to certain "underruddered" two-place training gliders shows a
remarkable lack of understanding of coordination.

Here's the crux of the problem... the rudder first approach is most
effective at low speed, when the ailerons produce the greatest adverse yaw
and the vertical stabilizer has less righting force. When is coordination
most important?

To make your argument I'd focus on the following:

Lack of coordination is universally discouraged. Any training regimen which
promotes lack of coordination needs to justify it based on both increased
controllability AND uncompromised safety.

Generally, all sailplanes require more rudder with less aileron at low speed
to remain coordinated. Shouldn't pilots be taught to discern the difference
in control effectiveness throughout the speed range rather than to simply
using an expedient that "works" in one case?

If you teach someone from the outset to lead with rudder, isn't it likely he
will continue this practice for ALL aircraft and in all conditions?

Modern aircraft are built to standards of controllability. Does your model's
operator's manual suggest leading with the rudder? If not, why not?

And finally, from an aesthetic point of view, it's just plain sloppy. As a
CFI, I'd question the abilities of a pilot who couldn't make a coordinated
turn in a modern glider (SGS 2-33 included) all the way down to MCA. Slewing
the nose before banking... every time you turn? My comment to the pilot
would be to fly the glider you're in, not the one you're fantasizing about.

;-)

Chris Reed wrote:
I'd say this post provides an excellent summary.

There are gliders where, to obtain improved performance, it is sometimes
helpful to fly uncoordinated. For example, to persuade my Open Cirrus
(1967 design, 17.7m span) to turn into a strong thermal, it's sometimes
most effective to yaw it towards the thermal enough to induce the
beginning of a wing drop - then catch it and continue into the turn.

In the (most excellent) video "A Fine Week of Soaring", George Moffat
says that the handling of some first generation glass ships was so poor
that you could initiate a turn substantially faster by first moving the
stick in the opposite direction. Once the adverse yaw (in the desired
direction)had kicked in, THEN you'd move the ailerons into the turn.

Tony V