Glider Simulator Training at the USAFA

Not sure about their logic of using an aircraft apparently less conducive to the intended task.
Congratulations on finding a way to help overcome that incongruity.

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 6:17:13 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Not sure about their logic of using an aircraft apparently less conducive to the intended task.
Congratulations on finding a way to help overcome that incongruity.

If your KPI is to get students to one solo tow and sled ride to a safe landing on a dead calm day and then never set foot in a glider again then, yeah, the 2-33 is probably superior.

Otherwise I'd take the DG1000 every time.

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 8:26:04 PM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 6:17:13 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Not sure about their logic of using an aircraft apparently less conducive to the intended task.
Congratulations on finding a way to help overcome that incongruity.

If your KPI is to get students to one solo tow and sled ride to a safe landing on a dead calm day and then never set foot in a glider again then, yeah, the 2-33 is probably superior.

Otherwise I'd take the DG1000 every time.

The only shortcoming with the USAFA glider program is that the Cadets,until commissioned, are not active military members, thus not eligible for any ratings issued under 8900.1 http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?...ol.5,Ch2,Sec15

Frank Whiteley

When I was associated with the Black Forest Soaring Society, near the
USAFA, we had several cadets join BFSS and complete their pilot
certificates in gliders.

On 11/15/2018 11:03 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 8:26:04 PM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 6:17:13 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Not sure about their logic of using an aircraft apparently less conducive to the intended task.
Congratulations on finding a way to help overcome that incongruity.
If your KPI is to get students to one solo tow and sled ride to a safe landing on a dead calm day and then never set foot in a glider again then, yeah, the 2-33 is probably superior.

Otherwise I'd take the DG1000 every time.
The only shortcoming with the USAFA glider program is that the Cadets,until commissioned, are not active military members, thus not eligible for any ratings issued under 8900.1 http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?...ol.5,Ch2,Sec15

Frank Whiteley

--
Dan, 5J

The USAFA basic soaring program exisits to expose up to ~1000 (per year) future Air Force officers with the experience of having piloted an actual aircraft, even though the majority of which will serve in non-flying careers. The training goal used to state "...training required...to solo a glider".

Here's the reality:

23,000 tows x 7 days/week x 280 good days/year = 82 sorties/operating day..
A semester long (5 month) program attended in between academic classes = student availability for maybe 2 hours each day + ½ day each weekend. Weather permitting on an airfield sitting at the base of a mountain range.

Program safety and efficiency IAW the mission of the United States Air Force Academy in support of the United States Air Force.
Not a means towards civilian licensure.
Not the infusion of life-long soaring aficionados.
(Though the latter are worthy causes.)

My opinion, having personally experienced all aspects to the specific matter: USAFA basic glider training culminating in a solo flight--yes, even if a sled ride in calm conditions if flying sleds equates to more, safe sorties--better achieves that program's intent plus would provide the kind of experience one remembers for a lifetime; more so than receiving minimal training in a glass slipper. This is why I was shocked to hear the USAFA solo rate could conceivably be *doubled*!

On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 7:42:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
When I was associated with the Black Forest Soaring Society, near the
USAFA, we had several cadets join BFSS and complete their pilot
certificates in gliders.

On 11/15/2018 11:03 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 8:26:04 PM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 6:17:13 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Not sure about their logic of using an aircraft apparently less conducive to the intended task.
Congratulations on finding a way to help overcome that incongruity.
If your KPI is to get students to one solo tow and sled ride to a safe landing on a dead calm day and then never set foot in a glider again then, yeah, the 2-33 is probably superior.

Otherwise I'd take the DG1000 every time.
The only shortcoming with the USAFA glider program is that the Cadets,until commissioned, are not active military members, thus not eligible for any ratings issued under 8900.1 http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?...ol.5,Ch2,Sec15

Frank Whiteley

--
Dan, 5J

A few may still do that at Black Forest and an occasional cadet drifts to Boulder. I might have clarified a bit more. The glider instructor pilots accumulate a lot of experience that isn't transferable. I've attended several G-Wings ceremonies (now an annual formal affair). 35-37 new instructor pilots were pinned each semester. Not sure about the team pilots that fly at SSA Regionals or IAC Aerobatics competitions, whether they are flying with FAA ratings. Would be useful were they able to add this to their USAF Flight Records. AFAIK, cadets still can't have a car until third year and they are very busy people and the instructor pilots are pretty busy during the summer months.

Even the local FSDO and CAP tried to get some action on this, but the hiccup is the cadet status.

Frank Whiteley

On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 10:30:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 6:30:26 PM UTC-8, Giaco wrote:
On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 5:05:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
In the summer of 2018, the United States Air Force Academy began using Mach 0.1 Simulated Glider Cockpits as part of their "Glider Airmanship" course. The data collected from the course shows that the solo rate for students who completed the course in 2018 was more than double the solo rate of the previous two years.

To see a full article about the program, send us an email to and we will email you a copy.

How does this differ from the simulators that they have been using since 2008? They have had condor hooked up to all the controls on a wrecked L-23 fuselage with head tracking for a number of years, and I thought they implemented simulator time as part of the curriculum as far back as 2009-2010....

I am not sure what you are referring to. The people I worked with didn't mention any other use of glider sims at the Air Force Academy other than some brief experimentation with Condor using a table top joystick. In this program, each of the 340 students in the glider course trained for several hours on one of eight Mach 0.1 Simulated Glider Cockpits, using custom lesson scenarios I developed for Condor 2.
- Russell Holtz

Interesting... We were actively using it for teaching basic airmanship (AM-251...461 is instructor upgrade course). I found it incredibly helpful for students on pattern and landing, especially given that they could see and feel actual cockpit controls, and we could pause the sim to talk through a landing step by step.

Not Knocking the Mach 0.1, it just came as a surprise, as they already had arguably the best setup I'd ever seen for Condor sim flying. I was one of those cadets that taught for 3 years and then went out to Black Forest for my CFI-G...and the rest is history. I have applied many of their best practices to help drive a bit more expediency and safety into club operations (they don't have to be opposites, just ask UH!).
G7

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 7:26:04 PM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 6:17:13 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Not sure about their logic of using an aircraft apparently less conducive to the intended task.
Congratulations on finding a way to help overcome that incongruity.

If your KPI is to get students to one solo tow and sled ride to a safe landing on a dead calm day and then never set foot in a glider again then, yeah, the 2-33 is probably superior.

Otherwise I'd take the DG1000 every time.

Bruce, not sure how much time you have in 2-33's, I only have maybe ten hours, but these are great training aircraft. Full disclosure, I learned in glass G103/ASk21. The 2-33 will go up on a winter day when not much else will. The gliderport I fly from has both G103's and 2-33's. The instructors tell me that they can train a student through check ride then transition them to a G103/G102 in less time, tows, money than it take to train someone in a G103 to check ride. My localglider port is a mountainous area with high winds, wave, ridge, thermal, 2-33's fly everyday. I have been told that if you send one back to factory to rebuild the mixer is changed to give more control movement with less stick movement. Colorado Springs is a mountain location and the Air Force had a higher solo rate with 2-33's. I have no financial interest in Schweitzer or anything else for that matter

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 9:32:42 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 7:26:04 PM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 6:17:13 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Not sure about their logic of using an aircraft apparently less conducive to the intended task.
Congratulations on finding a way to help overcome that incongruity.

If your KPI is to get students to one solo tow and sled ride to a safe landing on a dead calm day and then never set foot in a glider again then, yeah, the 2-33 is probably superior.

Otherwise I'd take the DG1000 every time.

Bruce, not sure how much time you have in 2-33's, I only have maybe ten hours, but these are great training aircraft. Full disclosure, I learned in glass G103/ASk21. The 2-33 will go up on a winter day when not much else will. The gliderport I fly from has both G103's and 2-33's. The instructors tell me that they can train a student through check ride then transition them to a G103/G102 in less time, tows, money than it take to train someone in a G103 to check ride. My localglider port is a mountainous area with high winds, wave, ridge, thermal, 2-33's fly everyday. I have been told that if you send one back to factory to rebuild the mixer is changed to give more control movement with less stick movement. Colorado Springs is a mountain location and the Air Force had a higher solo rate with 2-33's. I have no financial interest in Schweitzer or anything else for that matter

JSC,

2-33's are still in use. Better than not having a glider.

However.

I recall that a number of G-103's have been PIO'd into the deck by pilot conversions from 2-33's.

A study presented at the SSA convention in 1997 showed that the US had a 30 percent churn in members, whereas the rest of the world was 20 percent. At the time, many clubs had few options after the 2-33, except perhaps a 1-26 and quite a few did not allow cross country in club equipment. I think few pilots used the 2-33 for their achievements. Many take pride in 1-26 achievements, as well they should.

Over 15 years ago, one of the larger US clubs made a decision to homogenize their fleet into G-103's, G-102's and an ASW-19 from a diverse fleet. This resulted in better pilots, improved checkride performance (according to examiners), and more rapid progression in the single seaters. I actually recall that they had an additional glider or two before this process started. They way US clubs operate, it's often a hurdle to get checked out for each glider.

Have a look at this PowerPoint that was presented at the SSA 2005 Convention Focus on Clubs Track.

https://tinyurl.com/yakkayvv

Frank Whiteley

On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 5:05:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
In the summer of 2018, the United States Air Force Academy began using Mach 0.1 Simulated Glider Cockpits as part of their "Glider Airmanship" course.

Back to the merits of glider simulator training...

Student pilots pay for the majority of aerotows at most clubs. This cash flow keeps the club afloat. If we used simulators to train up students with fewer aerotows, then we would need to recruit more students, or the cash flow would suffer and aerotow rates would go up. Everybody would pay more for each tow, but students would still provide most of the cash flow. Certificated pilots would pay more, maybe a lot more.

How do we use simulator training to recruit and retain more pilots? Reducing the overall cost and duration of primary training will marginally increase the number of pilots, but I'd like to think that we could use Condor to potentially recruit even more pilots. I don't know exactly how though.