2018 - AN EXCITING YEAR

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 7:38:01 PM UTC-5, Jeff Morgan wrote:
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 12:42:17 PM UTC-7, Scott Manley wrote:

The airlines fully qualify pilots in simulators, essentially reaching 100%.

A bit overstated.

After 6-8 sessions in a full motion Level D sim and the Check Ride airline pilots require 20-40 hours Initial Operating Experience in the airplane under the supervision of a Check Airman before being "finished" and signed off for line operations.

The flight footprint is often larger than the sim footprint.

And then if the new airline pilot fails to gain 100 flight hours within 90 days of the simulator check ride (IOE counts towards this), the entire training process must be repeated - FAA requirement.

===
I stand corrected. I should know better than to use 100% in any argument.
===


But most importantly, airline pilots are not primary students.

===
'Not sure why that is "most" important. Both are simply humans trying to learn something. The use of simulation is about improving human learning.
===


Understand I'm not downing your product. Sims have their place. Primary students need to actually fly and land the real aircraft too.

For clarification: Condor is not "my product". (I should probably stop using the nickname "The Condor Guy", given to me by others. I am actually the "Advocate for the use of flight simulation in glider flight training GUY"). I have no financial stake in Condor. I am a professional educator who understands the value of simulation in the human learning process. I use Condor because it is the best glider flight simulation available. When a better glider flight simulation becomes available, I will use it.

===

It has never been my position that "all" flight training, primary or otherwise, can or should be conducted in simulation, only that a very large percentage of it (approximately, IMHO, based on my 10 years of experience in simulation-based flight training, 80%) can and should be. Simulation is the superior "learning" environment. Actual flight is the superior "application of learning" environment.

===

My original reply to this post was not intended to highjack the thread and spur yet another debate over the value of simulation in human learning.

My intent was to provide clubs / commercial operations who struggle with the cost and complexity of maintaining actual aircraft for the purpose of providing flight training, what I believe to be a viable solution for their consideration.

Scott Manley 3167160CFI ---- Out!

So, my club has a new K21 arriving for the upcoming season. For the price of the glider, instruments and trailer ($140K +/- I think) we might be able to get a used Duo Discus and have some cash left over. For instance, there is what appears to be a nice, 20 year old Duo an W&W for $115,000. Are Duos that unsuitable for training or are K21s simply more robust and better able to handle the inevitable hard landings by students/low time pilots. Both? I have no dog in the fight as the decision has been made and I, as an owner of my own ship, will fly the K21 only for flight reviews the occasional passenger flight. Maybe. We also have a Grob Twin and L23 and either of those is suitable for those needs. I'm just curious.

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 8:26:21 PM UTC+3, wrote:
So, my club has a new K21 arriving for the upcoming season. For the price of the glider, instruments and trailer ($140K +/- I think) we might be able to get a used Duo Discus and have some cash left over. For instance, there is what appears to be a nice, 20 year old Duo an W&W for $115,000. Are Duos that unsuitable for training or are K21s simply more robust and better able to handle the inevitable hard landings by students/low time pilots. Both? I have no dog in the fight as the decision has been made and I, as an owner of my own ship, will fly the K21 only for flight reviews the occasional passenger flight. Maybe. We also have a Grob Twin and L23 and either of those is suitable for those needs. I'm just curious.

Duos are beautiful machines.

I think the main areas of concern for initial training (valid or not) a

- unsprung wheel
- not the most powerful airbrakes in the world
- not a good idea to do inadvertent extreme attitudes
- wings lowish and 10% - 15% longer than most trainers

The DG1000 with 18m tips is better in all those areas.

I think that you will find the primary difference between the Duo and K-21 is energy management. Teaching students to manage energy and land is one of the keys to getting them solo in a reasonable amount of time. My club purchased a Duo XL last year and while we have been training in K-21's for 10 years, the transition to the Duo was not easy for some licensed pilots.

It is much quieter than the K-21 so the noise feedback for speed control is gone.

It is much slipperier than the K-21 so subtle changes in attitude result in much larger changes in speed. Couple this with the lack of noise and pilots were finding themselves over 70 kts on final.

It carries more energy into the landing than does a K-21, although the addition of landing flaps to the XL version resolves much of this.

Besides its handling and performance, another nice advantage is the sideways opening canopy does not result in burn marks on the instrument panel in the front and headrest in the back. We've sent an S3 vario back 2 times for screen replacement because of sun burns that happen almost instantly when the sun is in the worst possible spot for a K-21.

The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a Duo?

Chris

At 18:47 18 February 2018, Dave Springford wrote:
I think that you will find the primary difference between the Duo and
K-21
=
is energy management. Teaching students to manage energy and land is one
o=
f the keys to getting them solo in a reasonable amount of time. My club
pu=
rchased a Duo XL last year and while we have been training in K-21's for
10=
years, the transition to the Duo was not easy for some licensed pilots.
=
=20

It is much quieter than the K-21 so the noise feedback for speed control
is=
gone.

It is much slipperier than the K-21 so subtle changes in attitude result
in=
much larger changes in speed. Couple this with the lack of noise and
pilot=
s were finding themselves over 70 kts on final.

It carries more energy into the landing than does a K-21, although the
addi=
tion of landing flaps to the XL version resolves much of this.

Besides its handling and performance, another nice advantage is the
sideway=
s opening canopy does not result in burn marks on the instrument panel in
t=
he front and headrest in the back. We've sent an S3 vario back 2 times
for=
screen replacement because of sun burns that happen almost instantly
when
=
the sun is in the worst possible spot for a K-21.

On Sunday, 18 February 2018 21:15:07 UTC+2, Chris Rowland wrote:
The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a Duo?

Chris

Would you send pilot trained in Duo to solo in any other type?

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 10:15:07 PM UTC+3, Chris Rowland wrote:
The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a Duo?

My club has sent dozens of average pilots solo in DG1000 in the last ten years.

At 21:42 18 February 2018, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 10:15:07 PM UTC+3, Chris
Rowland wrote:
The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a
Duo?

My club has sent dozens of average pilots solo in DG1000 in the
last ten
years.


A Duo xl much easier to land .
In fairness if you loose control in a duo it picks up speed very
quickly.
Easier in a K13 but the spars are going to get worse not better

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:47:54 PM UTC-6, Dave Springford wrote:

Snippage

It is much quieter than the K-21 so the noise feedback for speed control is gone.

Not an instructor but my solution is one of training. Enter the patter, gear down, side window scoop open. Instant audio airspeed. Maybe not as sensitive as an ASI, but certainly provided clues as to what you are doing.

I would assume that your club's Duo has windows with scoops on them. Try it, particularly with those who tend to wander a bit on speed.

Steve Leonard

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:15:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Rowland wrote:
The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a Duo?

Chris

At 18:47 18 February 2018, Dave Springford wrote:
I think that you will find the primary difference between the Duo and
K-21
=
is energy management. Teaching students to manage energy and land is one
o=
f the keys to getting them solo in a reasonable amount of time. My club
pu=
rchased a Duo XL last year and while we have been training in K-21's for
10=
years, the transition to the Duo was not easy for some licensed pilots.
=
=20

It is much quieter than the K-21 so the noise feedback for speed control
is=
gone.

It is much slipperier than the K-21 so subtle changes in attitude result
in=
much larger changes in speed. Couple this with the lack of noise and
pilot=
s were finding themselves over 70 kts on final.

It carries more energy into the landing than does a K-21, although the
addi=
tion of landing flaps to the XL version resolves much of this.

Besides its handling and performance, another nice advantage is the
sideway=
s opening canopy does not result in burn marks on the instrument panel in
t=
he front and headrest in the back. We've sent an S3 vario back 2 times
for=
screen replacement because of sun burns that happen almost instantly
when
=
the sun is in the worst possible spot for a K-21.


Yes, I would send a student solo in a Duo Discus. But a better question is how much longer would it take to get the student to solo standard vs a K21.. I am not sure what the average amount of flights to solo would be in each aircraft but I am certain it would be more in a Duo. For the sake of argument, lets say it would take 5 more flights to solo in a Duo. If you have 10 students, you will need 50 more flights from your instructor group. If that is not a big deal than get a Duo. If like most clubs your instructor time is at a premium then get a K-21 (or 2-33,L-23).