Glider crow-hops:

[J-Soar]

I am a newly soloed student pilot, still flying the club's 2-seat trainer. I'll be moving to the club's single-seater soon. Then I hope to be allowed by my instructor to make solo flights in my own mid-performance sailplane that I bought before starting glider lessons. It was flown by advanced solo students at a far-away club, so should be OK for me to fly.

I have built and flown a number of powered ultralights over the years, some of my own design, and have always started out doing lots of crow-hops in them before the actual first flight. The crow-hops have helped me get used to the feel of it, operating the controls, and to get some experience in takeoff, touchdown, roll out, and dealing with mild cross winds, before taking on the whole flight and it's associated risks.

My instructor, nor any one around, have had experience in the particular glider that I own. For various reasons I can't let anyone else fly it first to advise me about how to fly it. So no help there.

So I'm thinking that doing crow-hops in it might be a good idea before my actual first flights in it. They would be by auto-tow, on a 5000' runway, accelerating quickly to the normal touch down speed of the glider, getting no more than 3 feet high. Then right away releasing, pulling on the air-brakes, and landing straight ahead. Of course I would be using a driver who knows about glider towing issues and would get out of the way.

Any thoughts or comments about this idea?

Thanks in advance,
Jerry Booker

[Paul Tribe[_3_]]

At 12:47 23 August 2012, J-Soar wrote:
>I am a newly soloed student pilot, still flying the club's 2-seat
trainer.
>=
>I'll be moving to the club's single-seater soon. Then I hope to
be allowed
>=
>by my instructor to make solo flights in my own mid-
performance sailplane
>t=
>hat I bought before starting glider lessons. It was flown by
advanced solo
>=
>students at a far-away club, so should be OK for me to fly.
>=20
>I have built and flown a number of powered ultralights over the
years,
>some=
> of my own design, and have always started out doing lots of
crow-hops in
>t=
>hem before the actual first flight. The crow-hops have helped
me get used
>t=
>o the feel of it, operating the controls, and to get some
experience in
>tak=
>eoff, touchdown, roll out, and dealing with mild cross winds,
before
>taking=
> on the whole flight and it's associated risks.
>
>My instructor, nor any one around, have had experience in the
particular
>gl=
>ider that I own. For various reasons I can't let anyone else fly
it first
>t=
>o advise me about how to fly it. So no help there.
>
>So I'm thinking that doing crow-hops in it might be a good idea
before my
>a=
>ctual first flights in it. They would be by auto-tow, on a 5000'
runway,
>ac=
>celerating quickly to the normal touch down speed of the
glider, getting
>no=
> more than 3 feet high. Then right away releasing, pulling on
the
>air-brake=
>s, and landing straight ahead. Of course I would be using a
driver who
>know=
>s about glider towing issues and would get out of the way.
>
>Any thoughts or comments about this idea?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Jerry Booker
>

I'm a low hours solo pilot too, so my advice is limited (and
caveated) but:
1. Read the aircraft's manual;
2. Post again stating the glider type so that pilots with
experience in it can give you good advice;
3. Fiddling with the airbrakes near the ground when new on type
is not a very good idea and could lead to more excitement than
you'd probably want...

[Vaughn]

On 8/23/2012 8:47 AM, J-Soar wrote:
> Any thoughts or comments about this idea?

An FAA technicality comes quickly to mind. That's a ground launch, a
different launch method than what you are trained for.

Vaughn

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Aug 23, 7:47*am, J-Soar > wrote:
> I am a newly soloed student pilot, still flying the club's 2-seat trainer.. I'll be moving to the club's single-seater soon. Then I hope to be allowed by my instructor to make solo flights in my own mid-performance sailplane that I bought before starting glider lessons. It was flown by advanced solo students at a far-away club, so should be OK for me to fly.
>
> I have built and flown a number of powered ultralights over the years, some of my own design, and have always started out doing lots of crow-hops in them before the actual first flight. The crow-hops have helped me get used to the feel of it, operating the controls, and to get some experience in takeoff, touchdown, roll out, and dealing with mild cross winds, before taking on the whole flight and it's associated risks.
>
> My instructor, nor any one around, have had experience in the particular glider that I own. For various reasons I can't let anyone else fly it first to advise me about how to fly it. So no help there.
>
> So I'm thinking that doing crow-hops in it might be a good idea before my actual first flights in it. They would be by auto-tow, on a 5000' runway, accelerating quickly to the normal touch down speed of the glider, getting no more than 3 feet high. Then right away releasing, pulling on the air-brakes, and landing straight ahead. Of course I would be using a driver who knows about glider towing issues and would get out of the way.
>
> Any thoughts or comments about this idea?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Jerry Booker


Did you ask your local instructors about this idea? Or did they tell
you it was a terrible idea already so you're asking for a second
opinion?

Near the ground is a lot more dangerous than way up high. It's not
like there's a shallow end or anything when you're flying! Most first
flights are done by taking a high tow in still air, working out how
the glider flies a long way from anything hard, and then doing a
proper pattern to land.

Find somewhere an instructor familiar with the flying characteristics
of this glider. Find an instructor who is good at helping people to
make transitions. Instructors have a lot of experience with how to
make transitions, even to gliders they don't know much about. That you
are asking this question at all suggests you aren't talking to
instructors. Read the "transition to new gliders" section of textbooks
or manuals. They all suggest the right procedure and syllabus which
your instructor will follow. Crow hops aren't on it.

Soaring is a social and organized sport. The build it yourself, figure
out how to fly it on your own culture of some kinds of powered
ultralights is not how we do things. We have lots of good instructors
and work with them when taking new steps. They can pass on lots of
hard-won experience so you don't have to figure out a good transition
plan on your own.

John Cochrane

[Bill D]

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 6:47:34 AM UTC-6, J-Soar wrote:
> I am a newly soloed student pilot, still flying the club's 2-seat trainer.. I'll be moving to the club's single-seater soon. Then I hope to be allowed by my instructor to make solo flights in my own mid-performance sailplane that I bought before starting glider lessons. It was flown by advanced solo students at a far-away club, so should be OK for me to fly.
>
>
>
> I have built and flown a number of powered ultralights over the years, some of my own design, and have always started out doing lots of crow-hops in them before the actual first flight. The crow-hops have helped me get used to the feel of it, operating the controls, and to get some experience in takeoff, touchdown, roll out, and dealing with mild cross winds, before taking on the whole flight and it's associated risks.
>
>
>
> My instructor, nor any one around, have had experience in the particular glider that I own. For various reasons I can't let anyone else fly it first to advise me about how to fly it. So no help there.
>
>
>
> So I'm thinking that doing crow-hops in it might be a good idea before my actual first flights in it. They would be by auto-tow, on a 5000' runway, accelerating quickly to the normal touch down speed of the glider, getting no more than 3 feet high. Then right away releasing, pulling on the air-brakes, and landing straight ahead. Of course I would be using a driver who knows about glider towing issues and would get out of the way.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts or comments about this idea?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Jerry Booker

I'll differ somewhat from the others and say what you describe as "crow hops" is a workable idea. Auto towing to lift-off speed and releasing for an immediate flare and touchdown is often used as a way to "feel out" an experimental glider. It gives the pilot a chance to explore critical takeoff and landing behavior at minimum energy in case something goes wrong. It's the glider equivalent of "taxi tests".

If I were your instructor, I'd approve it.

[WAVEGURU]

Teaching yourself to ground launch is a bad idea. Work with an instructor experienced in ground launch and get sighed off first. There are many things that can go wrong and it’s not as simple as you think. Have you read about the accident in Cle Elum last year?

Boggs

[JohnDeRosa]

John C's comments are well said.

A few extra thoughts of my own.

"crow hops" (near heard that term before but I get it) might equate to a "high speed taxi" which is how the general aviation (GA) powered crowd might take a few hops off the runway to test the new hardware. This might work for self powered aircraft but not for a (non-powered) glider.

Think about a glider on a tow rope behind a tow plane. Having the tow plane pull you to take off speed, then you come back down and both you and the tow plane need to come to a halt in unison. The take off is the trickiest thing to master anyway, these hops you suggest would be REALLY tricky.

Of course there is this aspect of the first flight in a single place glider which very few powered GA pilots have ever experienced. Nearly all of them have flown with someone else in a 2 place before soloing it. Even a single place Pitts has a two place equivalent. The point is that gliders are different beasts with special needs. I don't mean to scare, just to get specialized training.

So, anyway, the common course of action is to take a high tow (5,000 ft AGL) early or late in the day, while pretending to execute landing patterns multiple times as you descend. That and a good briefing of the ship beforehand by the POH and an instructor you trust. Especially if this glider of yours is a CG hook and you have never flown one before.

Good luck and stay safe.

- John DeRosa

[Brad[_2_]]

On Aug 23, 7:41*am, Waveguru > wrote:
> Teaching yourself to ground launch is a bad idea. *Work with an instructor experienced in ground launch and get sighed off first. *There are many things that can go wrong and it’s not as simple as you think. *Have you read about the accident in Cle Elum last year?
>
> Boggs

I've built and test flown 3 sailplanes, one that was our own design.
Each one was initially flight tested by me using the "crow-hop"
method. I would be happy to share with you what my process was and
what was learned from these tests.

You can contact me directly via Bob K thru the hpaircraft website.

Or you can ask the smart guys here who have never built or crow hopped
a sailplane.

Dick Schreder must be spinning in his grave.

Brad

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Aug 23, 11:06*am, Brad > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 7:41*am, Waveguru > wrote:
>
> > Teaching yourself to ground launch is a bad idea. *Work with an instructor experienced in ground launch and get sighed off first. *There are many things that can go wrong and it’s not as simple as you think. *Have you read about the accident in Cle Elum last year?
>
> > Boggs
>
> I've built and test flown 3 sailplanes, one that was our own design.
> Each one was initially flight tested by me using the "crow-hop"
> method. I would be happy to share with you what my process was and
> what was learned from these tests.
>
> You can contact me directly via Bob K thru the hpaircraft website.
>
> Or you can ask the smart guys here who have never built or crow hopped
> a sailplane.
>
> Dick Schreder must be spinning in his grave.
>
> Brad

Dick gave specific admonishments to low time pilots not to do their
own test flying. Great advice, imo.

-Evan / T8

[Wayne Paul]

> "Brad" wrote in message
> ...

> On Aug 23, 7:41 am, Waveguru > wrote:
> > Teaching yourself to ground launch is a bad idea. Work with an
> > instructor experienced in ground launch and get sighed off first. There
> > are many things that can go wrong and it’s not as simple as you think.
> > Have you read about the accident in Cle Elum last year?
> >
> > Boggs

> I've built and test flown 3 sailplanes, one that was our own design.
> Each one was initially flight tested by me using the "crow-hop"
> method. I would be happy to share with you what my process was and
> what was learned from these tests.
>
> You can contact me directly via Bob K thru the hpaircraft website.
>
> Or you can ask the smart guys here who have never built or crow hopped
> a sailplane.
>
> Dick Schreder must be spinning in his grave.
>

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/HP14-ft.html

Been there, done that!

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Aug 23, 10:06*am, Brad > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 7:41*am, Waveguru > wrote:
>
> > Teaching yourself to ground launch is a bad idea. *Work with an instructor experienced in ground launch and get sighed off first. *There are many things that can go wrong and it’s not as simple as you think. *Have you read about the accident in Cle Elum last year?
>
> > Boggs
>
> I've built and test flown 3 sailplanes, one that was our own design.
> Each one was initially flight tested by me using the "crow-hop"
> method. I would be happy to share with you what my process was and
> what was learned from these tests.
>
> You can contact me directly via Bob K thru the hpaircraft website.
>
> Or you can ask the smart guys here who have never built or crow hopped
> a sailplane.
>
> Dick Schreder must be spinning in his grave.
>
> Brad

So, let's clarify. "Crow hops" are commonly done by very experienced
pilots, acting as test pilots for new designs or homebuilt aircraft.
They are doing crow hops to establish if the glider is airworthy and
controllable, and following a detailed plan. Most recently, Dick
Butler and Concordia.

"Crow hops" are not advised as a way for pilots to make a transition
to different aircraft types, especially for newer and less experienced
pilots.

The OP didn't tell us what kind of glider he had bought before
starting flying lessons, only that nobody he knew had any flight
experience in type. And he had previous building experience. This
starts to smell of new pilot AND untested glider, a homebuilt or old
project that has been sitting around for many years whose
airworthiness is in question. Needless to say that is a deadly
combination.

John Cochrane

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

It's an Apis 13m. Anyone with a web browser can figure that out.

You should be able to network your way to experience with the type and
develop a transition plan with an experienced CFIG. I don't see the
problem.

-Evan / T8

[Brad[_2_]]

On Aug 23, 8:38*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Aug 23, 10:06*am, Brad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 7:41*am, Waveguru > wrote:
>
> > > Teaching yourself to ground launch is a bad idea. *Work with an instructor experienced in ground launch and get sighed off first. *There are many things that can go wrong and it’s not as simple as you think. *Have you read about the accident in Cle Elum last year?
>
> > > Boggs
>
> > I've built and test flown 3 sailplanes, one that was our own design.
> > Each one was initially flight tested by me using the "crow-hop"
> > method. I would be happy to share with you what my process was and
> > what was learned from these tests.
>
> > You can contact me directly via Bob K thru the hpaircraft website.
>
> > Or you can ask the smart guys here who have never built or crow hopped
> > a sailplane.
>
> > Dick Schreder must be spinning in his grave.
>
> > Brad
>
> So, let's clarify. "Crow hops" are commonly done by very experienced
> pilots, acting as test pilots for new designs or homebuilt aircraft.
> They are doing crow hops to establish if the glider is airworthy and
> controllable, and following a detailed plan. Most recently, Dick
> Butler and Concordia.
>
> "Crow hops" are not advised as a way for pilots to make a transition
> to different aircraft types, especially for newer and less experienced
> pilots.
>
> The OP didn't tell us what kind of glider he had bought before
> starting flying lessons, only that nobody he knew had any flight
> experience in type. And he had previous building experience. This
> starts to smell of new pilot AND untested glider, a homebuilt or old
> project that has been sitting around for many years whose
> airworthiness is in question. Needless to say that is a deadly
> combination.
>
> John Cochrane

I must have missed the part where he claimed to be a "low time pilot"

here is how I define a crow-hop:

first step is to place the sailplane intake-off position, taxi tow-
plane ahead of sailplane far enough to have the prop wash be effective
for roll control authority and advance throttle.
glider pilot gets to feel the roll response of the glider, leveling
wings and picking up right then left wing.

actual take-off is a normal take off under tow and then a release from
the towplane straight-ahead and land straight ahead. airbrakes not
used the first time, landing gear not cycled. if pilot is comfortable
with this then proceed to next step.

take-off 2, same procedure except dive brakes are used, land straight
ahead.

if pilot is comfortable then either a few more of these are done or a
high tow is taken.

I would be interested in Dick Butler's explanation for not advising
crow-hops............just out of curiosity. My experience has been the
crow hop was actually more intensive than a high tow, maybe that is
what he is getting at?

Brad

[Brad[_2_]]

On Aug 23, 9:01*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> It's an Apis 13m. *Anyone with a web browser can figure that out.
>
> You should be able to network your way to experience with the type and
> develop a transition plan with an experienced CFIG. *I don't see the
> problem.
>
> -Evan / T8

jeez, an Apis-13......................I have 800 hours in an
Apis-13................perhaps I just might know what I am talking
about?

Brad

[Brad[_2_]]

On Aug 23, 9:26*am, Brad > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 9:01*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
>
> > It's an Apis 13m. *Anyone with a web browser can figure that out.
>
> > You should be able to network your way to experience with the type and
> > develop a transition plan with an experienced CFIG. *I don't see the
> > problem.
>
> > -Evan / T8
>
> jeez, an Apis-13......................I have 800 hours in an
> Apis-13................perhaps I just might know what I am talking
> about?
>
> Brad

The Apis line of sailplanes are very easy to fly. No surprises.

The Apis I built I actually flew first time under high-tow.

Crow hops in very light sailplanes can be a handful, since they
accelerate so much faster and want to get airborne much faster than
heavier sailplanes.

Find a CFI-G to work with, get a good cockpit check out and then go
have fun. Who's did you buy?

Brad

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Aug 23, 12:26*pm, Brad > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 9:01*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
>
> > It's an Apis 13m. *Anyone with a web browser can figure that out.
>
> > You should be able to network your way to experience with the type and
> > develop a transition plan with an experienced CFIG. *I don't see the
> > problem.
>
> > -Evan / T8
>
> jeez, an Apis-13......................I have 800 hours in an
> Apis-13................perhaps I just might know what I am talking
> about?
>
> Brad

Exactly. You could be the experience resource. Add a CFIG that has
managed a few pilot transitions and stir.

Proper pre-flight brief and planning, big airport, smooth air, high
tow, proper pattern, *stabilized approach*, great landing, beers and
smiles all around.

Crow hops are what you do if you have concerns about the
controllability of the glider. This is just a simple pilot transition
exercise. My $0.02.

-Evan / T8

[Bill D]

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:44:06 AM UTC-6, JohnDeRosa wrote:
> John C's comments are well said.
>
>
>
> A few extra thoughts of my own.
>
>
>
> "crow hops" (near heard that term before but I get it) might equate to a "high speed taxi" which is how the general aviation (GA) powered crowd might take a few hops off the runway to test the new hardware. This might work for self powered aircraft but not for a (non-powered) glider.
>
>
>
> Think about a glider on a tow rope behind a tow plane. Having the tow plane pull you to take off speed, then you come back down and both you and the tow plane need to come to a halt in unison. The take off is the trickiest thing to master anyway, these hops you suggest would be REALLY tricky.
>
>
>
> Of course there is this aspect of the first flight in a single place glider which very few powered GA pilots have ever experienced. Nearly all of them have flown with someone else in a 2 place before soloing it. Even a single place Pitts has a two place equivalent. The point is that gliders are different beasts with special needs. I don't mean to scare, just to get specialized training.
>
>
>
> So, anyway, the common course of action is to take a high tow (5,000 ft AGL) early or late in the day, while pretending to execute landing patterns multiple times as you descend. That and a good briefing of the ship beforehand by the POH and an instructor you trust. Especially if this glider of yours is a CG hook and you have never flown one before.
>
>
>
> Good luck and stay safe.
>
>
>
> - John DeRosa

Guys, I don't think you do "get it".

First, this is never done using a tow plane.
It is not "teaching yourself ground launch" since it's not a 'launch'.
It does not involve enough energy to endanger the pilot or glider.
Once upon a time, this is how everyone learned to fly a glider.
A tow car is used only if a bungee is unavailable.

The glider never gets more than a few inches above the runway nor more than 40 knots. It is done in steps starting with a ground roll just fast enough for aileron control and, if things go well, increasing to just barely liftoff speed. If the glider pilot starts to "lose it" the tow car releases the rope and stops well clear as the glider stops. It is never done in proximity to obstacles the glider could collide with.

It's best done in the early morning with a headwind which keeps the ground speed down.

I did this hundreds of times with an experimental flying wing sailplane as pilots learned its unconventional handling characteristics. No one had a problem, the glider was unscathed and all quickly gained the skills to fly the glider well. If the pilot was really inexperienced, I did a couple of dual "ground slides" and "crow hops" in a 2-seat trainer to get them used to the idea.

Northern European countries like Lithuania still do this with primary gliders. Even young children learn to fly them. Google "LAK 16" videos.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 8/23/2012 11:07 AM, Bill D wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:44:06 AM UTC-6, JohnDeRosa wrote:
>> John C's comments are well said.

>> A few extra thoughts of my own.
>>
>> "crow hops" (near heard that term before but I get it) might equate to a
>> "high speed taxi" which is how the general aviation (GA) powered crowd
>> might take a few hops off the runway to test the new hardware. This
>> might work for self powered aircraft but not for a (non-powered) glider.
>>
>> Think about a glider on a tow rope behind a tow plane. Having the tow
>> plane pull you to take off speed, then you come back down and both you
>> and the tow plane need to come to a halt in unison. The take off is the
>> trickiest thing to master anyway, these hops you suggest would be REALLY
>> tricky.
>>
>> Of course there is this aspect of the first flight in a single place
>> glider which very few powered GA pilots have ever experienced. Nearly
>> all of them have flown with someone else in a 2 place before soloing it.
>> Even a single place Pitts has a two place equivalent. The point is that
>> gliders are different beasts with special needs. I don't mean to scare,
>> just to get specialized training.
>>
>> So, anyway, the common course of action is to take a high tow (5,000 ft
>> AGL) early or late in the day, while pretending to execute landing
>> patterns multiple times as you descend. That and a good briefing of the
>> ship beforehand by the POH and an instructor you trust. Especially if
>> this glider of yours is a CG hook and you have never flown one before.
>>
>> Good luck and stay safe.
>>
>> - John DeRosa
>
> Guys, I don't think you do "get it".
>
> First, this is never done using a tow plane. It is not "teaching yourself
> ground launch" since it's not a 'launch'. It does not involve enough energy
> to endanger the pilot or glider. Once upon a time, this is how everyone
> learned to fly a glider. A tow car is used only if a bungee is
> unavailable.
>
> The glider never gets more than a few inches above the runway nor more than
> 40 knots. It is done in steps starting with a ground roll just fast enough
> for aileron control and, if things go well, increasing to just barely
> liftoff speed. If the glider pilot starts to "lose it" the tow car
> releases the rope and stops well clear as the glider stops. It is never
> done in proximity to obstacles the glider could collide with.
>
> It's best done in the early morning with a headwind which keeps the ground
> speed down.
>
> I did this hundreds of times with an experimental flying wing sailplane as
> pilots learned its unconventional handling characteristics. No one had a
> problem, the glider was unscathed and all quickly gained the skills to fly
> the glider well. If the pilot was really inexperienced, I did a couple of
> dual "ground slides" and "crow hops" in a 2-seat trainer to get them used
> to the idea.
>
> Northern European countries like Lithuania still do this with primary
> gliders. Even young children learn to fly them. Google "LAK 16" videos.
>

It CAN be fun to arrive late to the party. :-)

So now that you've received advice spanning the entire spectrum, how best to
sort it out?

My - utterly free, complete with money-back-guarantee - advice includes:

1) The devil is ALways in the details, and I haven't seen any advice I'd say
is flat out "wrong"...even though plenty of it is conflicting. There
definitely are some useful lessons therein... Proceed accordingly.

2) Yes, you'll be transitioning to a new-to-you single-seat sailplane, but
(based on what you originally wrote) not to a new-to-flight sailplane. I and
every previous responder have done that multiple times; it's one of the
personally intense joys of this grand sport. Point 'A' being, it's not THAT
big a step into the unknown, given many do it safely every year, all around
the globe. Certainly it's not in the same category as acting as a test pilot
to a new-type-sailplane. Point 'B' being there are some sound reasons
supporting the fact most pilots today transitioning to ships of the
performance of your Apis 13M do NOT use the "crow hop" approach. One is that
very few have direct experience with it anymore. (Blame this on the advent of
2-seat trainers post-WW-II. Bill D. - whose aviation [power &
glider]/instructor experience I seriously respect - is an exception, and, note
his referenced "crow hop" experience had both more direct availability of
people with similar experience [because it was decades ago], and, involved
test-flying a new, non-standard/flying wing design. Very prudent
decision/approach under those circumstances, IMHO. Why would you want to
involve yourself with others equally new to what *they're* doing [i.e. "crow
hopping"] as you will be to what *you're* proposing doing? Knee jerk answers
will be downgraded.) Meanwhile John C. touched upon a 2nd reason most
transitions as you've asked about are TODAY arguably most safely done by high
aero tow...i.e. rapidly getting as far away from big, hard things you can hit,
using a tow method with which you (and others) are thoroughly familiar with is
prudent indeed.

3) Brad (Hill - builder/pilot of an Apis 13 w. 800 hours on it & a prior
responder in this thread) apparently used John C.'s recommended approach to
his first flight in his Apis. He alluded to why. Most Definitely pick his
brains before you make your transition flight. Be sure to ask not only "what"
but "why?"

4) If you haven't already, be sure and have a discussion about "PIO" with your
instructor(s) regardless of which approach you pursue.

Have fun! (Just to be anal, I'll note that you won't have much fun if you
crunch something, so there's no need for me to advise, "Be safe!")

Bob W.

[Mike C]

On Aug 23, 10:37*am, Brad > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 9:26*am, Brad > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 9:01*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
>
> > > It's an Apis 13m. *Anyone with a web browser can figure that out.
>
> > > You should be able to network your way to experience with the type and
> > > develop a transition plan with an experienced CFIG. *I don't see the
> > > problem.
>
> > > -Evan / T8
>
> > jeez, an Apis-13......................I have 800 hours in an
> > Apis-13................perhaps I just might know what I am talking
> > about?
>
> > Brad
>
> The Apis line of sailplanes are very easy to fly. No surprises.
>
> The Apis I built I actually flew first time under high-tow.
>
> Crow hops in very light sailplanes can be a handful, since they
> accelerate so much faster and want to get airborne much faster than
> heavier sailplanes.
>
> Find a CFI-G to work with, get a good cockpit check out and then go
> have fun. Who's did you buy?
>
> Brad

Have one flight in an Apis 13. Very nice sailplane with an astonishing
roll rate!

Would take a high tow to get use to the sailplane.

Familiarize yourself with the proper landing and take off flaperon
positions, and you should have no problems.

[Bill D]

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:44:22 PM UTC-6, Bob Whelan wrote:
> On 8/23/2012 11:07 AM, Bill D wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:44:06 AM UTC-6, JohnDeRosa wrote:
>
> >> John C's comments are well said.
>
>
>
> >> A few extra thoughts of my own.
>
> >>
>
> >> "crow hops" (near heard that term before but I get it) might equate to a
>
> >> "high speed taxi" which is how the general aviation (GA) powered crowd
>
> >> might take a few hops off the runway to test the new hardware. This
>
> >> might work for self powered aircraft but not for a (non-powered) glider.

[BobW]

On 8/23/2012 6:54 PM, Bill D wrote:


<Major snip of intervening nuance...>

>
> Bob, you will recall your wife's first flight in her 1-26. I was certain
> she was good to go after training her in a 2-33 but she wasn't so sure. To
> her, the 1-26 looked scary - it was her first single seat transition.

Actually, I'd forgotten that detail, Bill, until this reminder!
>
> So, I tied two or three aero tow ropes together and towed her with my Jeep.
> The first ground roll was below liftoff speed she over-controlled the
> ailerons as I had promised she would. The next try she was straight and
> true so I nudged the speed up a bit until the 1-26 lifted off to about 3
> feet where she released as instructed. I wheeled the Jeep away from the
> runway and she glided straight ahead about 100 yards to a perfect landing.
> Her grin just wouldn't go away. Now she KNEW she could fly her 1-26.
>
> Ground skims are a very old technique but they can still serve a purpose.

"I agree!" with both those closing statements. What I was seeking to convey to
the O.P. in this particular regard (the devil being in the details) was it may
matter to him (and his transitional success) how experienced every one of his
helpers is in whatever job he asks them to competently perform. Me knowing
none of those details, my guess is in today's world he's more likely to find
folks competent in aerotowing than in "crow hopping" at his home field.

I suspect we're both in agreement that reducing variables when transitioning
to a new-to-the-pilot ship is arguably "more safe" than increasing them is
likely to be.

In any event, I hope he lets RAS know how the transition goes...and how he
accomplishes it!

Bob W.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Aug 23, 6:43*pm, BobW > wrote:
> On 8/23/2012 6:54 PM, Bill D wrote:
>
> <Major snip of intervening nuance...>
>
>
>
> > Bob, you will recall your wife's first flight in her 1-26. *I was certain
> > she was good to go after training her in a 2-33 but she wasn't so sure. *To
> > her, the 1-26 looked scary - it was her first single seat transition.
>
> Actually, I'd forgotten that detail, Bill, until this reminder!
>
>
>
> > So, I tied two or three aero tow ropes together and towed her with my Jeep.
> > The first ground roll was below liftoff speed she over-controlled the
> > ailerons as I had promised she would. *The next try she was straight and
> > true so I nudged the speed up a bit until the 1-26 lifted off to about 3
> > feet where she released as instructed. *I wheeled the Jeep away from the
> > runway and she glided straight ahead about 100 yards to a perfect landing.
> > Her grin just wouldn't go away. *Now she KNEW she could fly her 1-26.
>
> > Ground skims are a very old technique but they can still serve a purpose.
>
> "I agree!" with both those closing statements. What I was seeking to convey to
> the O.P. in this particular regard (the devil being in the details) was it may
> matter to him (and his transitional success) how experienced every one of his
> helpers is in whatever job he asks them to competently perform. Me knowing
> none of those details, my guess is in today's world he's more likely to find
> folks competent in aerotowing than in "crow hopping" at his home field.
>
> I suspect we're both in agreement that reducing variables when transitioning
> to a new-to-the-pilot ship is arguably "more safe" than increasing them is
> likely to be.
>
> In any event, I hope he lets RAS know how the transition goes...and how he
> accomplishes it!
>
> Bob W.

it's too bad the O.P. used the term "crow-hop"

Brad

[J-Soar]

Thanks for all the comments, and the few direct emails. Due to the time required I can't respond to all the issues raised.

Yes it is an Apis 13m, which was well built by Robert Mudd and then owned by Evergreen Soaring. I suspect Brad may have even flown it. I have read all the flying reports I can find about it, and I would respect anything Brad might add from his vast experience flying one.

My attitude still is that the crow-hop process I described is not a bad idea. And a few others here, with experience doing it, seem to agree. I have done many of them in new powered ultralights. For me it relieved the pressure of the transition, reducing the chance of “task over-load”, by getting more familiar with, and experience with some of the critical phases of flying before the actual flight, and thus reducing the risk.

I would also think that crow-hops in a towed glider are probably no big deal to do. The process is likely no different than practicing a rope break before the tow plane gets airborne, where you land straight ahead on the runway. So it is probably not a bad idea for others to practice it anyway.

A couple of useful things I did pick up on:

The comment which said watch out for PIOs rang a bell with me. I had that problem with one of the ultralights I designed and was crow-hop testing, when trying to test a new control while just a couple feet off the ground. That could be a problem in the Apis when reaching forward to release, or when unlocking the air brake. So I thought that unlocking the air brake first, like it would be anyway during a landing, and keeping the Apis on the ground with a forward stick while it gets up to speed, then release while still on the ground, then let it rise a few inches if there is enough speed left, then pull on the air brake, and then let it touch down and roll out like any normal landing.

The other concern might be allowing it to rise too high in a zoom climb, then stalling. But that is probably no different than any landing and not likely to happen to an experienced pilot.

Of course I'll discuss the crow-hop idea with my instructor, who is probably reading this RAS discussion anyway, and who has had a lot of experience in transitioning students to other gliders.

My Apis flying is still a few weeks away, so there is plenty of time to consider it, maybe even time for some others to try it and report back to RAS.

Thanks again,
Jerry Booker

[J-Soar]

Thanks for all the comments, and the few direct emails. Due to the time required I can't respond to all the issues raised.

Yes it is an Apis 13m, which was well built by Robert Mudd and then owned by Evergreen Soaring. I suspect Brad may have even flown it. I have read all the flying reports I can find about it, and I would respect anything Brad might add from his vast experience flying one.

My attitude still is that the crow-hop process I described is not a bad idea. And a few others here, with experience doing it, seem to agree. I have done many of them in new powered ultralights. For me it relieved the pressure of the transition, reducing the chance of “task over-load”, by getting more familiar with, and experience with some of the critical phases of flying before the actual flight, and thus reducing the risk.

I would also think that crow-hops in a towed glider are probably no big deal to do. The process is likely no different than practicing a rope break before the tow plane gets airborne, where you land straight ahead on the runway. So it is probably not a bad idea for others to practice it anyway.

A couple of useful things I did pick up on:

The comment which said watch out for PIOs rang a bell with me. I had that problem with one of the ultralights I designed and was crow-hop testing, when trying to test a new control while just a couple feet off the ground. That could be a problem in the Apis when reaching forward to release, or when unlocking the air brake. So I thought that unlocking the air brake first, like it would be anyway during a landing, and keeping the Apis on the ground with a forward stick while it gets up to speed, then release while still on the ground, then let it rise a few inches if there is enough speed left, then pull on the air brake, and then let it touch down and roll out like any normal landing.

The other concern might be allowing it to rise too high in a zoom climb, then stalling. But that is probably no different than any landing and not likely to happen to an experienced pilot.

Of course I'll discuss the crow-hop idea with my instructor, who is probably reading this RAS discussion anyway, and who has had a lot of experience in transitioning students to other gliders.

My Apis flying is still a few weeks away, so there is plenty of time to consider it, maybe even time for some others to try it and report back to RAS.

Thanks again,
Jerry Booker

[Squeaky]

One last thought...

I bought my first Glider before I was cleared solo, and wanted to fly it as soon as possible as well. Once I was cleared solo, I moved from the club 2-33 to the club 1-26. Both Schweitzers, not quite the same flight characteristics. But didn't need a crow hop to go fly the 1-26.

I asked my instructor for a check out in my Pilatus--never flew one, neither had most of the instuctors... But I found a club member who had, and we went over things while my instructor listened. I then got checked out in a Blanik L23 for practice with a tail dragger, and then my instructor let me try the Pilatus well before my check ride.

Did a full tow to 3k--just like I did for the first 1-26 flight. Good thing, because I found the Pilatus to be more "pitchy" than the previous gliders I'd flown. I practiced multiple manuevers at altitude before coming in for an approach and landing the same way I had in every other glider sortie, no issues. Had I tried a crow hop and pulled the spoilers out after release it would have been ugly---I would have been too abrupt, and the Pilatus does not have symmetric airbrakes like the Schweitzers or the Blanik, and with abrupt air brake movement you get pitch changes.

My point is this, If your instructor feels you are good enough to safely fly solo in single ship aircraft--which you will do and be cleared for the club ship as you mentioned--why would you try something different with your own plane?? Why would you risk finding something out about it doing something new in gliders?

It seems to me, as most have mentioned, it is best to go on a long tow to altitude, practice turns, stalls, airbrake extension and retraction, all the std stuff, then fly a normal, conservative pattern and come in and land. Your ship isn't unflown before, doesn't need testing before you should feel confident to fly it, so why not just fly it? Sit in it and play with everything, get comfortable putting it together and taking it apart, play with all the controls, then get a cockpit check from your instructor after both of you listen to anyone who's flown it before, and just go fly.

Cheers,
Squeak

[Roberto Waltman[_2_]]

Evan Ludeman wrote:
>Crow hops are what you do if you have concerns about the
>controllability of the glider. This is just a simple pilot transition
>exercise. My $0.02.

Not the situation discussed here, but do a search for the children
gliding camps in Lithuania for a different, wonderful use of crow
hops.
--
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

[Bill D]

On Friday, August 24, 2012 8:29:38 AM UTC-6, Roberto Waltman wrote:
> Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> >Crow hops are what you do if you have concerns about the
>
> >controllability of the glider. This is just a simple pilot transition
>
> >exercise. My $0.02.
>
>
>
> Not the situation discussed here, but do a search for the children
>
> gliding camps in Lithuania for a different, wonderful use of crow
>
> hops.
>
> --
>
> Roberto Waltman
>
>
>
> [ Please reply to the group,
>
> return address is invalid ]

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1607818468179

[kirk.stant]

My "worth what you paid for it" opinion:

You are overthinking the problem. This is a known design with no unusual characteristics. Take a high tow, get the feel of the controls, do some practice approaches, feel the changes when you open and close the spoilers, etc.. By that time you will know how it flies - then land it.

Crow hops are not usually done anymore for a reason - they are not necessary for normal aircraft. And I can think of several ways for things to go wrong with a relatively high performace glider (it's not a primary!) at low altitude when you are concentrating on doing a lot in a short time. Wrong place to be if something distracts you, etc... Think about it. Get away from the ground so you have the options of sorting things out.

Crow hops for testing a new design or for no-instructor primary training is a completely different thing.

Kirk
66

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 24, 9:31*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:

> Crow hops for testing a new design or for no-instructor primary training is a
> completely different thing.

I'm with Kirk on this. For a new pilot in a proven aircraft, I would
recommend a high tow that gets as far from the ground as quickly as
practical so you can figure out how to fly it and use its systems.

I'm one of the folks who recommended that Brad use what you might call
"crow hops" on his latest completion, the Tetra-15. The situation
there was very different from the one at hand. Brad is an experienced
pilot in sailplanes and hang gliders, but the aircraft was an unproven
example of an unproven design. And I should know, I designed and
helped build most of its important bits.

I supervised the main wing rigging and conducted the static test to
Utility category load factor, and I was pretty sure it was all going
to work out fine, but there's still an anxious gap between pretty sure
and absolutely certain. The crow hops ensured that if we miscalculated
or just plain missed something, it would come to light at a potential
energy (altitude) state and kinetic energy (speed) state such that
both could be brought to zero without bringing to bear a lethal energy
gradient (deceleration).

For the first flights, my main concerns were that we would find that
either we had mis-rigged the wings and it would have turning tendency,
or that we had miscalculated either weight and balance or stability
and control and it would not have good stability or control in pitch.
The "crow hops" would have revealed any of these conditions with ample
margin to rein it in before anyone or anything gets hurt.

However, it all turned just as we had hoped and planned. It flies
straight, has good stability and good control response, performs well,
and I can't get Brad to stop flying it long enough to show it off on
the ground. Which is as it should be, I think.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/HP-24-Sailplane-Project/200931354951

[Brad[_2_]]

On Aug 24, 6:31*am, J-Soar > wrote:
> Thanks for all the comments, and the few direct emails. Due to the time required I can't respond to all the issues raised.
>
> Yes it is an Apis 13m, which was well built by Robert Mudd and then owned by Evergreen Soaring. I suspect Brad may have even flown it. I have read all the flying reports I can find about it, and I would respect anything Brad might add from his vast experience flying one.
>
> My attitude still is that the crow-hop process I described is not a bad idea. And a few others here, with experience doing it, seem to agree. I have done many of them in new powered ultralights. For me it relieved the pressure of the transition, reducing the chance *of *“task over-load”, by getting more familiar with, and experience with some of the critical phases of flying before the actual flight, and thus reducing the risk.
>
> I would also think that crow-hops in a towed glider are probably no big deal to do. The process is likely no different than practicing a rope break before the tow plane gets airborne, where you land straight ahead on the runway. So it is probably not a bad idea for others to practice it anyway.
>
> A couple of useful things I did pick up on:
>
> The comment which said watch out for PIOs rang a bell with me. I had that problem with one of the ultralights I designed and was crow-hop testing, when trying to test a new control while just a couple feet off the ground. That could be a problem in the Apis when reaching forward to release, or when unlocking the air brake. So I thought that unlocking the air brake first, like it would be anyway during a landing, and keeping the Apis on the ground with a forward stick while it gets up to speed, then release while still on the ground, then let it rise a few inches if there is enough speed left, then pull on the air brake, and then let it touch down and roll out like any normal landing.
>
> The other concern might be allowing it to rise too high in a zoom climb, then stalling. But that is probably no different than any landing and not likely to happen to an experienced pilot.
>
> Of course I'll discuss the crow-hop idea with my instructor, who is probably reading this RAS discussion anyway, and who has had a lot of experience in transitioning students to other gliders.
>
> My Apis flying is still a few weeks away, so there is plenty of time to consider it, maybe even time for some others to try it and report back to RAS.
>
> Thanks again,
> Jerry Booker

Jerry,

The Apis Robert built was one of the nicest of the 13m kits that were
shipped over here. I have indeed flown it and it is a delight to fly.

My advice would be to talk with your CFI-G to determine if the
sailplanes you have flown will be suitable for transition to the Apis,
and I would say if you are handy in the 2 seat Blaniks you should be
just fine in the Apis. In fact the Albastar brochure says it is a
transition sailplane for the Blanik L-13.

You can use the flaps if you want but they are not really that
necessary for the first flights. I used 1 notch of positive just
because it gives a good view over the nose of the towplane. Leave them
at zero for landing, the ship can be landed just fine that way.

Make sure your airbrakes are locked until you need them; you mentioned
something about having them un-locked for a "crow-hop".........not a
good idea.

You have yourself a really nice sailplane there.................when
you are ready to move up, get one of Bob's HP-24 kits, I did and am
really happy with it.

Brad

[J-Soar]

Brad:

Thanks for all the info about flying the Apis. I'm getting closer to the first flights, probably preceded by some simple ground towed crow-hops to get used to it first.

A question:

Did your Apis have flaperon/wing gap seals? Mine had them, but they made the force on the stick in the roll direction very hard and sticky, at least on the ground.

The maintenance log for my Apis shows them only recently installed and with only about 3 flights on them, so I doubt they were well tested.

It seemed like not a good idea to have hard moving and sticky roll control, at least on the first flights, so I took them off of my Apis. It vastly reduced the stick force required to move the flaperons, and made it more like the elevator force.

I could replace them with new if required. What do you think?

Thanks,
Jerry Booker

[Brad[_2_]]

On Aug 29, 6:21*am, J-Soar > wrote:
> Brad:
>
> Thanks for all the info about flying the Apis. I'm getting closer to the first flights, probably preceded by some simple ground towed crow-hops to get used to it first.
>
> A question:
>
> Did your Apis have flaperon/wing gap seals? Mine had them, but they made the force on the stick in the roll direction very hard and sticky, at least on the ground.
>
> The maintenance log for my Apis shows them only recently installed and with only about 3 flights on them, so I doubt they were well tested.
>
> It seemed like not a good idea to have hard moving and sticky roll control, at least on the first flights, so I took them off of my Apis. It vastly reduced the stick force required to move the flaperons, and made it more like the elevator force.
>
> I could replace them with new if required. What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry Booker

Hi Jerry,

Robert was very conscious about trying to get the most performance out
of the Apis, that is why he installed those root fences. Mine did not
have them and removing yours already gives you a stick force
reduction, I would just leave them off. My Apis had light roll forces.

You probably don't need to do a crow hop, but if you do remember this
is a VERY LIGHT sailplane and will want to jump off the ground rather
quickly............put trim full forward!

Brad

[John Scott[_3_]]

I put the flaperon root flow fences on my APIS as well. I also have mylar
gap seal on the lower surface only, plus some interior "V" seal along the
top and bottom of the flaperons.

I've never flown the plane without the flow fences. If the seal strip
(fuzzy piece of velcro) is narrow and the flow fence is waxed, then these
add very little to the control forces. However, when I added the gap seals,
I did notice an increase in force at the stick to move the flaperons. While
this is noticeable on the ground, I've never really been aware of it in
flight.

FWIW.

John Scott

[J-Soar]

Thanks Brad and John.

I should have been more descriptive. I was referring to the mylar gap seals that cover the joint between the aft edge of the wing and the flaperon. The flow fences at the root didn't seem to be a problem, so I have left them on. I just removed the mylar seals, and got much less resistance to the stick movements.

I wanted to make sure it was safe to fly without them for the first flights.. I know they probably help with gliding performance, so I will later probably follow some good advice in a direct email and just install them on the bottom surface.

Thanks again,
Jerry Booker

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Aug 30, 6:01*pm, J-Soar > wrote:
> Thanks Brad and John.
>
> I should have been more descriptive. I was referring to the mylar gap seals that cover the joint between the aft edge of the wing and the flaperon. The flow fences at the root didn't seem to be a problem, so I have left them on. I just removed the mylar seals, and got much less resistance to the stick movements.
>
> I wanted to make sure it was safe to fly without them for the first flights. I know they probably help with gliding performance, so I will later probably follow some good advice in a direct email and just install them on the bottom surface.
>
> Thanks again,
> Jerry Booker

So now we're adding up new pilot, new glider, new manuevers (crow-
hops) not practiced with other gliders before, glider not flown by
instructors the pilot can get checked out by, new tow method (ground
not air) and, the latest, uncertain status of mylar seals and other
"improvements" to the control system, so glider flying in unknown and
un-test flown configuration. All at once.

I think enough advice has been dispensed in this thread about useful
approaches to glider test flying, transitions to new gliders, etc.
etc. It doesn't seem to be sinking in though. I hope someone at the
airport where this all is going to happen will perk up.

John Cochrane

[RAS56]

That's why "Hey, watch this!" are so famous as the last utterances of so many amateur engineers, scientists, and yes...test pilots.

Hopefully, not in this case.

[Bill D]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:38:55 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Aug 30, 6:01*pm, J-Soar > wrote:
>
> > Thanks Brad and John.
>
> >
>
> > I should have been more descriptive. I was referring to the mylar gap seals that cover the joint between the aft edge of the wing and the flaperon.. The flow fences at the root didn't seem to be a problem, so I have left them on. I just removed the mylar seals, and got much less resistance to the stick movements.
>
> >
>
> > I wanted to make sure it was safe to fly without them for the first flights. I know they probably help with gliding performance, so I will later probably follow some good advice in a direct email and just install them on the bottom surface.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks again,
>
> > Jerry Booker
>
>
>
> So now we're adding up new pilot, new glider, new manuevers (crow-
>
> hops) not practiced with other gliders before, glider not flown by
>
> instructors the pilot can get checked out by, new tow method (ground
>
> not air) and, the latest, uncertain status of mylar seals and other
>
> "improvements" to the control system, so glider flying in unknown and
>
> un-test flown configuration. All at once.
>
>
>
> I think enough advice has been dispensed in this thread about useful
>
> approaches to glider test flying, transitions to new gliders, etc.
>
> etc. It doesn't seem to be sinking in though. I hope someone at the
>
> airport where this all is going to happen will perk up.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

John, I have deep respect for your views on many subjects, but here you are just plain wrong. All the "issues" you raise above are precisely why this first 'flight' should be a "crow hop". There is exactly zero chance of the pilot getting hurt and virtually no chance of dinging the glider. But, there is an excellent chance of uncovering problems which could prove fatal if an aero tow is attempted.

Despite it being done tens of thousands of time in the whole history of gliding, I don't think there is a single incidence of pilot injury from a minimum energy "crow hop". I have it on excellent authority that no ground launch sign off is needed for a "crow hop" since it really isn't a launch of any kind - just the glider equivalent of taxi tests.

What I find revealing in the hand wringing is an apparent terror of takeoff rolls and landings rolls which is all a "crow hop" is. Maybe you folks need more practice. Go do some "crow hops" and get back to us.

[RAS56]

"Newly soloed student pilot...."

Didn't have to read a thing after that to reach the conclusion that any initial test flying should be conducted by someone else, who can give him a proper checkout with specific comments on his particular aircrafts handling qualities and/or quirks when he's more fully capable and has more glider experience. On the pro side of the aviation world, we like to say that if you'll "work it backwards from the FAA/NTSB hearing- you WILL arrive at the right answer" to questions like this.

My 2 cents.

Rob
ZAP

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

>
> John, I have deep respect for your views on many subjects, but here you are just plain wrong. *All the "issues" you raise above are precisely why this first 'flight' should be a "crow hop". *There is exactly zero chance of the pilot getting hurt and virtually no chance of dinging the glider. *But, there is an excellent chance of uncovering problems which could prove fatal if an aero tow is attempted.
>
> Despite it being done tens of thousands of time in the whole history of gliding, I don't think there is a single incidence of pilot injury from a minimum energy "crow hop". *I have it on excellent authority that no ground launch sign off is needed for a "crow hop" since it really isn't a launch of any kind - just the glider equivalent of taxi tests.
>
> What I find revealing in the hand wringing is an apparent terror of takeoff rolls and landings rolls which is all a "crow hop" is. Maybe you folks need more practice. *Go do some "crow hops" and get back to us.

I have no problem with "crow hops" per se. I'm just applying the
principle of "do one new thing per flight." Add up the number of
"firsts" on this proposed flight. You need two hands.

John Cochrane

[kirk.stant]

I'm with John, and many others who have commented on this thread.

And Bill, I respectfully, but totally, disagree with you.

The "crow hop" idea is seriously flawed in this circumstance, IMO.

Either the glider in question is a safe, known quantity, and therefore is probably a lot easier to fly than any of the trainers J-soar has flown, or it is an unknown quantity that should be test flown by an experienced pilot.

In the first case, there is NFW a crow hop is easier or safer than a normal aero tow. In the second case, the nature of the unknowns would be the determining factor in whether the crow hop approach is needed. Seems unlikely in this case, unless there had been some serious modifications made to the Apis in question.

I'm a bit perplexed as to why J-soar is so hung up on this crow-hop approach to what is really a simple and common exercise. But if I was there, I would do my best to discourage it.

Just sayin'...

Kirk
66

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 30, 6:07*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
> That's why "Hey, watch this!" are so famous as the last utterances of so many
> amateur engineers, scientists, and yes...test pilots.

As amusing as that might seem on the surface, that is exactly what
happened to a good friend of mine in August of 1987:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001213X31829&key=1

Thanks, Bob K.

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

I was going to stay out of this one, but want to add this after all.

In the UK, instructors are trained to teach winch launching and coping with launch failures, at “high”, “medium” and “low” (50 feet or lower) heights. The latter are to be done as demos only, not allowing student pilots to do them in practice – they too often result in damage which the P1 is unable to correct in time if done wromg.

On the instructors courses, the low failure demo tuition is done at the end of the week – so that resulting damage does not stop the rest of the course. And this is with experienced pilots at the controls, just one teaching the other how to teach and how to cope.

We have a tried and tested, universally practiced way to do conversions to new types, used and approved by virtually all experienced instructors and training organizations.

There is also a general guideline which I believe all should practice – do a risk analysis, and don’t have too many new things at one time, and never more than one major new thing at a time.


Here we have a low gliding hours pilot with several things new to him, going to teach himself, by a method he thinks better thsn what almost everyone else uses. If he goes ahead, I hope he does not damage his new toy, but if he does, don’t anyone be surprised.

I second the posts above – working backwards from the accident report, it would have been obvious that it was too likely.

In the USA, do insurers have a concept of contributory negligence which can impact upon thje pay out in the event of a claim? It has been raised on occasion over here, when people who the insurers thought should know better took a risk that they knew or had been warned about about.


Chris N.

[Tony V]

On 8/31/2012 9:38 AM, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> I was going to stay out of this one, but want to add this after all.
>
> In the UK, instructors are trained to teach winch launching and coping with launch failures, at “high”, “medium” and “low” (50 feet or lower) heights. The latter are to be done as demos only, not allowing student pilots to do them in practice – they too often result in damage which the P1 is unable to correct in time if done wromg.
>
> On the instructors courses, the low failure demo tuition is done at the end of the week – so that resulting damage does not stop the rest of the course. And this is with experienced pilots at the controls, just one teaching the other how to teach and how to cope.
>
> We have a tried and tested, universally practiced way to do conversions to new types, used and approved by virtually all experienced instructors and training organizations.


The difference is the pitch attitude. In the above, the nose even at 50
ft is significantly elevated. In a 'crow hop' it (more or less) stays level.

Tony "6N"

[S. Murry]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:30 -0500, Bill D > wrote:


> ...I have it on excellent authority that no ground launch sign off is
> needed for a "crow hop" since it really isn't a launch of any kind -
> just the glider equivalent of taxi tests.
>

Bill, I don't want to challenge you on this, but I'm interested in your
"excellent authority."

From my read of the FAR's it sure looks like a ground launch endorsement
would be required. Here is the relevant section of 14 CFR 61.31:

(j) Additional training required for operating a glider.

(1) No person may act as pilot in command of a glider--

(i) Using ground-tow procedures, unless that person has satisfactorily
accomplished ground and flight training on ground-tow procedures and
operations, and has received an endorsement from an authorized instructor
who certifies in that pilot's logbook that the pilot has been found
proficient in ground-tow procedures and operations;

the "pilot in command" is defined as the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety
of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight;
and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if
appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

and a "flight" can be inferred from the definition of flight time:

(2) For a glider without self-launch capability, pilot time that commences
when the glider is towed for the purpose of flight and ends when the
glider comes to rest after landing.

So, if a glider is towed with the intention of leaving the ground, that
constitutes a flight and the pilot in command of that flight needs to have
a ground launch endorsement if the towing is being done using "ground tow
procedures."

I admit that this is one of those areas where being caught is unlikely,
and I wasn't going to interject this in this thread, but since you
mentioned that you have a good authority who says that it is legal to
make short, low altitude flights using ground launch procedures without
the endorsement, can you please give me some more information about the
basis for this claim?

--
Stefan Murry
CFI-G

[WAVEGURU]

Bill D says "There is exactly zero chance of the pilot getting hurt and virtually no chance of dinging the glider."

Really? This statement is scary and absurd.

Can you tell us where and when this is going to take place?

I would really like to hear from your instructor here in this thread.
This is a bad idea and I find it a little hard to believe that it is condoned by an instructor and club or commercial operation.

Boggs

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:54:31 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> I'm with John, and many others who have commented on this thread.
>
>
>
> And Bill, I respectfully, but totally, disagree with you.
>
>
>
> The "crow hop" idea is seriously flawed in this circumstance, IMO.
>
>
>
> Either the glider in question is a safe, known quantity, and therefore is probably a lot easier to fly than any of the trainers J-soar has flown, or it is an unknown quantity that should be test flown by an experienced pilot.

[Dan Marotta]

I believe they call that: "Negligence".

I, too, have stayed out of this discussion until now, and I have only one
word to describe the proposed method: Stupid.

Please don't do what you're proposing.


"Chris Nicholas" > wrote in message
...
I was going to stay out of this one, but want to add this after all.

In the UK, instructors are trained to teach winch launching and coping with
launch failures, at “high”, “medium” and “low” (50 feet or lower) heights.
The latter are to be done as demos only, not allowing student pilots to do
them in practice – they too often result in damage which the P1 is unable to
correct in time if done wromg.

On the instructors courses, the low failure demo tuition is done at the end
of the week – so that resulting damage does not stop the rest of the course.
And this is with experienced pilots at the controls, just one teaching the
other how to teach and how to cope.

We have a tried and tested, universally practiced way to do conversions to
new types, used and approved by virtually all experienced instructors and
training organizations.

There is also a general guideline which I believe all should practice – do a
risk analysis, and don’t have too many new things at one time, and never
more than one major new thing at a time.


Here we have a low gliding hours pilot with several things new to him, going
to teach himself, by a method he thinks better thsn what almost everyone
else uses. If he goes ahead, I hope he does not damage his new toy, but if
he does, don’t anyone be surprised.

I second the posts above – working backwards from the accident report, it
would have been obvious that it was too likely.

In the USA, do insurers have a concept of contributory negligence which can
impact upon thje pay out in the event of a claim? It has been raised on
occasion over here, when people who the insurers thought should know better
took a risk that they knew or had been warned about about.


Chris N.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 31, 8:20 am, wrote:

> Somewhere back previously I think it was noted that this particular glider
> has only been flown a few times...

This has been a long meandering (though useful) thread, so I think the
particulars have gotten a bit scrambled. I've seen the glider in
question; it was well-built and was flown a fair amount by a variety
of pilots. I never heard that there were any issues with it.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Dan Marotta]

....And my final comment on this...

We can try all day to interpret what the FAA would say, but I'll bet your
insurance company will declare you uninsured the second your wheel leaves
the ground unless you have a ground launch endorsement.


"Waveguru" > wrote in message
...
> Bill D says "There is exactly zero chance of the pilot getting hurt and
> virtually no chance of dinging the glider."
>
> Really? This statement is scary and absurd.
>
> Can you tell us where and when this is going to take place?
>
> I would really like to hear from your instructor here in this thread.
> This is a bad idea and I find it a little hard to believe that it is
> condoned by an instructor and club or commercial operation.
>
> Boggs

[Bill D]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:11:12 AM UTC-6, S. Murry wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:30 -0500, Bill D > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ...I have it on excellent authority that no ground launch sign off is
>
> > needed for a "crow hop" since it really isn't a launch of any kind -
>
> > just the glider equivalent of taxi tests.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Bill, I don't want to challenge you on this, but I'm interested in your
>
> "excellent authority."
>
>
>
> From my read of the FAR's it sure looks like a ground launch endorsement
>
> would be required. Here is the relevant section of 14 CFR 61.31:
>
>
>
> (j) Additional training required for operating a glider.
>
>
>
> (1) No person may act as pilot in command of a glider--
>
>
>
> (i) Using ground-tow procedures, unless that person has satisfactorily
>
> accomplished ground and flight training on ground-tow procedures and
>
> operations, and has received an endorsement from an authorized instructor
>
> who certifies in that pilot's logbook that the pilot has been found
>
> proficient in ground-tow procedures and operations;
>
>
>
> the "pilot in command" is defined as the person who:
>
>
>
> (1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety
>
> of the flight;
>
>
>
> (2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight;
>
> and
>
>
>
> (3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if
>
> appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.
>
>
>
> and a "flight" can be inferred from the definition of flight time:
>
>
>
> (2) For a glider without self-launch capability, pilot time that commences
>
> when the glider is towed for the purpose of flight and ends when the
>
> glider comes to rest after landing.
>
>
>
> So, if a glider is towed with the intention of leaving the ground, that
>
> constitutes a flight and the pilot in command of that flight needs to have
>
> a ground launch endorsement if the towing is being done using "ground tow
>
> procedures."
>
>
>
> I admit that this is one of those areas where being caught is unlikely,
>
> and I wasn't going to interject this in this thread, but since you
>
> mentioned that you have a good authority who says that it is legal to
>
> make short, low altitude flights using ground launch procedures without
>
> the endorsement, can you please give me some more information about the
>
> basis for this claim?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Stefan Murry
>
> CFI-G

Ground LAUNCH requires an endorsement. The proposed "crow hop" is not a launch in the eyes of the FAA inspectors I have discussed it with.

[Bill D]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:50:56 AM UTC-6, Waveguru wrote:
> Bill D says "There is exactly zero chance of the pilot getting hurt and virtually no chance of dinging the glider."
>
>
>
> Really? This statement is scary and absurd.
>
>
>
> Can you tell us where and when this is going to take place?
>
>
>
> I would really like to hear from your instructor here in this thread.
>
> This is a bad idea and I find it a little hard to believe that it is condoned by an instructor and club or commercial operation.
>
>
>
> Boggs

It would happen where there is nothing to hit on a level surface. It there are obstacles, don't do it.

[Bill D]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 11:02:18 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> ...And my final comment on this...
>
>
>
> We can try all day to interpret what the FAA would say, but I'll bet your
>
> insurance company will declare you uninsured the second your wheel leaves
>
> the ground unless you have a ground launch endorsement.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Waveguru" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Bill D says "There is exactly zero chance of the pilot getting hurt and
>
> > virtually no chance of dinging the glider."
>
> >
>
> > Really? This statement is scary and absurd.
>
> >
>
> > Can you tell us where and when this is going to take place?
>
> >
>
> > I would really like to hear from your instructor here in this thread.
>
> > This is a bad idea and I find it a little hard to believe that it is
>
> > condoned by an instructor and club or commercial operation.
>
> >
>
> > Boggs

BS. Insurance companies don't enforce FAR's. Call your agent and get a conformation of that.

[Bill D]

He had the presence of mind to readjust them while holding position at 2' AGL and land the plane.

He did WHAT?! At the first sign of a problem, you release. You DO NOT try to fix a problem while on tow.

[Bill D]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 7:38:35 AM UTC-6, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> I was going to stay out of this one, but want to add this after all.
>
>
>
> In the UK, instructors are trained to teach winch launching and coping with launch failures, at “high”, “medium” and “low” (50 feet or lower) heights. The latter are to be done as demos only, not allowing student pilots to do them in practice – they too often result in damage which the P1 is unable to correct in time if done wromg.
>
>
>
> On the instructors courses, the low failure demo tuition is done at the end of the week – so that resulting damage does not stop the rest of the course. And this is with experienced pilots at the controls, just one teaching the other how to teach and how to cope.
>
>
>
> We have a tried and tested, universally practiced way to do conversions to new types, used and approved by virtually all experienced instructors and training organizations.
>
>
>
> There is also a general guideline which I believe all should practice – do a risk analysis, and don’t have too many new things at one time, and never more than one major new thing at a time.
>
>
>
>
>
> Here we have a low gliding hours pilot with several things new to him, going to teach himself, by a method he thinks better thsn what almost everyone else uses. If he goes ahead, I hope he does not damage his new toy, but if he does, don’t anyone be surprised.
>
>
>
> I second the posts above – working backwards from the accident report, it would have been obvious that it was too likely.
>
>
>
> In the USA, do insurers have a concept of contributory negligence which can impact upon thje pay out in the event of a claim? It has been raised on occasion over here, when people who the insurers thought should know better took a risk that they knew or had been warned about about.
>
>
>
>
>
> Chris N.

Yes, I know exactly how winch launch is taught in the UK. Failing to properly train your pilots in low failures is one reason why you have one of the worst accident records in the world. I watched one of your pilots destroy a glider and put himself in the hospital because he didn't have a clue how to handle a real low failure. My students do it every time without the slightest problem.

UK training methods have improved in the last few years but you have a long way to go.

Everyone else in the world successfully trains their pilots in low failures.. You might want to ask them how they do it.

[Bill D]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 7:47:33 AM UTC-6, Tony V wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 9:38 AM, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>
> > I was going to stay out of this one, but want to add this after all.
>
> >
>
> > In the UK, instructors are trained to teach winch launching and coping with launch failures, at “high”, “medium” and “low” (50 feet or lower) heights. The latter are to be done as demos only, not allowing student pilots to do them in practice – they too often result in damage which the P1 is unable to correct in time if done wromg.
>
> >
>
> > On the instructors courses, the low failure demo tuition is done at the end of the week – so that resulting damage does not stop the rest of the course. And this is with experienced pilots at the controls, just one teaching the other how to teach and how to cope.
>
> >
>
> > We have a tried and tested, universally practiced way to do conversions to new types, used and approved by virtually all experienced instructors and training organizations.
>
>
>
>
>
> The difference is the pitch attitude. In the above, the nose even at 50
>
> ft is significantly elevated. In a 'crow hop' it (more or less) stays level.
>
>
>
> Tony "6N"

EXACTLY! The glider never gets airborne more than a few inches and never gains enough energy to get higher. Even a "balloon" on landing has far more energy.

[Bill D]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:40:39 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> >
>
> > John, I have deep respect for your views on many subjects, but here you are just plain wrong. *All the "issues" you raise above are precisely why this first 'flight' should be a "crow hop". *There is exactly zero chance of the pilot getting hurt and virtually no chance of dinging the glider. *But, there is an excellent chance of uncovering problems which could prove fatal if an aero tow is attempted.
>
> >
>
> > Despite it being done tens of thousands of time in the whole history of gliding, I don't think there is a single incidence of pilot injury from a minimum energy "crow hop". *I have it on excellent authority that no ground launch sign off is needed for a "crow hop" since it really isn't a launch of any kind - just the glider equivalent of taxi tests.
>
> >
>
> > What I find revealing in the hand wringing is an apparent terror of takeoff rolls and landings rolls which is all a "crow hop" is. Maybe you folks need more practice. *Go do some "crow hops" and get back to us.
>
>
>
> I have no problem with "crow hops" per se. I'm just applying the
>
> principle of "do one new thing per flight." Add up the number of
>
> "firsts" on this proposed flight. You need two hands.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

With respect, the only new thing is the glider and it's only new to this pilot. The takeoff roll, float, touch down and landing roll is old hat to this pilot - he's done it a hundred times. The only difference is there isn't a flight at altitude in the middle.

Is this a "test flight" requiring a "test pilot"? No. What test pilots do is to teach themselves how to fly a new aircraft, then carefully measure engineering details of the flight dynamics. The engineering details are known so this is just a pilot teaching himself to fly a new glider - something we have all done every time we fly a new single place glider.

The hand wringing and outrage expressed in this thread is interesting to an old instructor. In a "Freudian slip" sort of way it exposes a hidden terror in the posters minds. That fear comes out loud and clear in the posts. They are terrified of takeoff and landings. The cure is "crow hops".

Here's how I would do it. Go somewhere with vast space. A 250' wide concrete runway would do - a dry lake is better. The space is for the pilots peace of mind, it's not required for safety. I'd use whatever 2-seater is available but it's better if he hasn't flown it before. With the "crow hop" newbie in front and me in back I'd say, "do a crow hop" with no further explanation.

The tow car with a nice long rope would accelerate at about the same rate as a tow plane. The pilot will balance the wings with ailerons and steer with rudder just as he has done hundreds of time before. Just as the glider reached liftoff airspeed, I'd pull the release. The glider will simply roll straight ahead and stop just the pilot has done hundreds of times. Next time, I'd let it lift off a few inches before pulling the release. In the few seconds the glider is airborne, the pilot will get a feel for how the glider behaves in ground effect before touching down and rolling to a stop. After a dozen or so repeats, takeoffs and landings will hold no fear.

So, what could go wrong? Could the pilot PIO? Yes, if he "pumps the stick" but that should have been worked out of him long ago by an alert instructor. If it hasn't, the worst will be a few low-energy bounces which will quickly cure him. There isn't enough energy to support a destructive PIO. Could he ground loop? Yes, but that could happen on an aero tow too. The energy is so low, no damage is likely. Could the tow car driver slam on the brakes, put it in reverse and accelerate back toward the glider? Sure. We could also be hit by lightning.

So, that's the downside. What's the gain? Beyond removing the fear, the pilot learns the glider responds to control inputs normally, how it steers while on it's wheel and how easy it is to keep straight and level while rolling. Now, those are things he doesn't have to worry about on the first real flight at altitude. If a new to the pilot glider was used, we both know he can handle a single seater.

If you think about it, this is an essential skill for all of us. What if a tow plane aborts takeoff and stops on the runway? What if the rope breaks or you get an uncommanded release? I've had that happen twice and it's happened several time to others locally in the last few years. I had to fly around the tug at 1' AGL.

Now, if you actually do a auto tow launch to hundreds of feet, that's a different thing. You will need specific training and a logbook endorsement for that. If the glider only reaches a few inches of height, you don't. The FAA has several times issued circulars that "taxi tests" which involve a "hop", intentional or otherwise, which doesn't involve the aircraft leaving the runway environs is not considered a "flight".

[[email protected]]

I'm wondering why J-soar asked in the first place. It's clear he had his mind made up, and is content (maybe even pleased) to go ahead with what has been roundly denounced by some of the top pilots/instructors in the country.. Great way to get attention, though...

Jack Wyman
2000 accident-free hours
Diamond #610

[Tom Claffey]

As the pilot is experienced enough and aircraft suitable, as the post below
says - then just take a launch to 3000' and enjoy it!

or


Find an instructor and experienced pilot in this type and go with their
training!

This "crow-hop" crap was OK before we invented 2 seaters.

Tom



>
>With respect, the only new thing is the glider and it's only new to this
>pi=
>lot. The takeoff roll, float, touch down and landing roll is old hat to
>th=
>is pilot - he's done it a hundred times. The only difference is there
>isn'=
>t a flight at altitude in the middle.
>
>Is this a "test flight" requiring a "test pilot"? No. What test pilots
>do=
> is to teach themselves how to fly a new aircraft, then carefully measure
>e=
>ngineering details of the flight dynamics. The engineering details are
>kno=
>wn so this is just a pilot teaching himself to fly a new glider -
>something=
> we have all done every time we fly a new single place glider.
>
>The hand wringing and outrage expressed in this thread is interesting to
>an=
> old instructor. In a "Freudian slip" sort of way it exposes a hidden
>terr=
>or in the posters minds. That fear comes out loud and clear in the
posts.
>=
> They are terrified of takeoff and landings. The cure is "crow hops".
>
>Here's how I would do it. Go somewhere with vast space. A 250' wide
>concr=
>ete runway would do - a dry lake is better. The space is for the pilots
>pe=
>ace of mind, it's not required for safety. I'd use whatever 2-seater is
>ava=
>ilable but it's better if he hasn't flown it before. With the "crow hop"
>n=
>ewbie in front and me in back I'd say, "do a crow hop" with no further
>expl=
>anation.
>
>The tow car with a nice long rope would accelerate at about the same rate
>a=
>s a tow plane. The pilot will balance the wings with ailerons and steer
>wi=
>th rudder just as he has done hundreds of time before. Just as the
glider
>=
>reached liftoff airspeed, I'd pull the release. The glider will simply
>rol=
>l straight ahead and stop just the pilot has done hundreds of times.
Next
>=
>time, I'd let it lift off a few inches before pulling the release. In
the
>=
>few seconds the glider is airborne, the pilot will get a feel for how the
>g=
>lider behaves in ground effect before touching down and rolling to a
stop.
>=
> After a dozen or so repeats, takeoffs and landings will hold no fear.=20
>
>So, what could go wrong? Could the pilot PIO? Yes, if he "pumps the
>stick=
>" but that should have been worked out of him long ago by an alert
>instruct=
>or. If it hasn't, the worst will be a few low-energy bounces which will
>qu=
>ickly cure him. There isn't enough energy to support a destructive PIO.
>C=
>ould he ground loop? Yes, but that could happen on an aero tow too. The
>e=
>nergy is so low, no damage is likely. Could the tow car driver slam on
>the=
> brakes, put it in reverse and accelerate back toward the glider? Sure.
>W=
>e could also be hit by lightning.
>
>So, that's the downside. What's the gain? Beyond removing the fear, the
>p=
>ilot learns the glider responds to control inputs normally, how it steers
>w=
>hile on it's wheel and how easy it is to keep straight and level while
>roll=
>ing. Now, those are things he doesn't have to worry about on the first
>rea=
>l flight at altitude. If a new to the pilot glider was used, we both
know
>=
>he can handle a single seater.
>
>If you think about it, this is an essential skill for all of us. What if
>a=
> tow plane aborts takeoff and stops on the runway? What if the rope
>breaks=
> or you get an uncommanded release? I've had that happen twice and it's
>ha=
>ppened several time to others locally in the last few years. I had to
fly
>=
>around the tug at 1' AGL.
>
>Now, if you actually do a auto tow launch to hundreds of feet, that's a
>dif=
>ferent thing. You will need specific training and a logbook endorsement
>fo=
>r that. If the glider only reaches a few inches of height, you don't.
>The=
> FAA has several times issued circulars that "taxi tests" which involve a
>"=
>hop", intentional or otherwise, which doesn't involve the aircraft
leaving
>=
>the runway environs is not considered a "flight".
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill D >
wrote:


>Here's how I would do it. Go somewhere with vast space. A 250' wide concrete runway would do - a dry lake is better.

From my German point of view I'm amazed - we don't have such vast
runways, apart from some famous places like Frankfurth Rhein/Main
airport which are unfortunately reserved for Boeing and Airbus...

But I'm really amazed that someone really proposes to use such a huge
airfield just to do the first single-seater flight on a glider that is
really easy to fly. Kind of over-kill in my opinion. :)


>So, that's the downside. What's the gain? Beyond removing the fear, the pilot learns the glider responds to control inputs normally,
>how it steers while on it's wheel

Please excuse me if I laugh. This glider in question will be airborne
after ten seconds at maximum - it's hardly necessary to learn how it
steers on its wheel. :)


I'd like tomention something else:
To me, this pilot in question is extremely scared. So scared that he
does not even dare to make a simple aoerotow on a glider that is
really easy to fly, but instead tries to find any excuse to avoid a
"real" flight.

I strongly doubt that this pilot is able to handle the combination of
new glider and new launch method, let alone stress if something
unexpected happens.
A combination of an unexperienced, scared pilot and new, untrained
procedures is a dangerous thing.

In my opinion some more training (in another single-seater?) is
necessary - experience helps to get rid of fears.

Andreas

[Dan Marotta]

Fly a strange glider without a CFI signoff and see how far you get with the
insurance if you damage it. There's no FAR requiring a CFI signoff to fly a
new (to you) glider. At least my insurer required a signoff even after 40
years of flying and 61 different aircraft types in my logbook.

Go ahead and break your neck. I'm done with know-it-alls.


"Bill D" > wrote in message
...
> On Friday, August 31, 2012 11:02:18 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> ...And my final comment on this...
>>
>>
>>
>> We can try all day to interpret what the FAA would say, but I'll bet your
>>
>> insurance company will declare you uninsured the second your wheel leaves
>>
>> the ground unless you have a ground launch endorsement.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Waveguru" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Bill D says "There is exactly zero chance of the pilot getting hurt and
>>
>> > virtually no chance of dinging the glider."
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Really? This statement is scary and absurd.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Can you tell us where and when this is going to take place?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I would really like to hear from your instructor here in this thread.
>>
>> > This is a bad idea and I find it a little hard to believe that it is
>>
>> > condoned by an instructor and club or commercial operation.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Boggs
>
> BS. Insurance companies don't enforce FAR's. Call your agent and get a
> conformation of that.

[Dan Marotta]

I must be confusing multiple threads. I thought I heard Bill D say this is
an experienced pilot. I've also heard he's newly cleared to solo. Is he
experienced or not?

I've heard this is a well known glider and I've heard that the seals have
been removed to "improve" control feel. Is this the glider Robert Mudd
built? I ask because I spoke with him this morning and he was in no way
pleased. He said he'd join in the thread so I won't attempt to convey his
feelings.

Finally, I agree completely with Andreas.

And for you, Bill after 5,489 takeoffs and landings (and never a damaged
aircraft), I'm afraid of neither.


"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill D >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Here's how I would do it. Go somewhere with vast space. A 250' wide
>>concrete runway would do - a dry lake is better.
>
> From my German point of view I'm amazed - we don't have such vast
> runways, apart from some famous places like Frankfurth Rhein/Main
> airport which are unfortunately reserved for Boeing and Airbus...
>
> But I'm really amazed that someone really proposes to use such a huge
> airfield just to do the first single-seater flight on a glider that is
> really easy to fly. Kind of over-kill in my opinion. :)
>
>
>>So, that's the downside. What's the gain? Beyond removing the fear, the
>>pilot learns the glider responds to control inputs normally,
>>how it steers while on it's wheel
>
> Please excuse me if I laugh. This glider in question will be airborne
> after ten seconds at maximum - it's hardly necessary to learn how it
> steers on its wheel. :)
>
>
> I'd like tomention something else:
> To me, this pilot in question is extremely scared. So scared that he
> does not even dare to make a simple aoerotow on a glider that is
> really easy to fly, but instead tries to find any excuse to avoid a
> "real" flight.
>
> I strongly doubt that this pilot is able to handle the combination of
> new glider and new launch method, let alone stress if something
> unexpected happens.
> A combination of an unexperienced, scared pilot and new, untrained
> procedures is a dangerous thing.
>
> In my opinion some more training (in another single-seater?) is
> necessary - experience helps to get rid of fears.
>
> Andreas
>
>

[Brian[_1_]]

Johns hitting pretty close here but hasn't actually said what I think he is getting at.

I also am not against the Crow Hops but think there are some opportunities to remove some of the 1st's as it has been proposed.

The OP should try doing some crow hops with an instructor in a two seater 1st.
The OP should have an experienced CFI do a Crow hop in the glider 1st, and then instruct him on how to do them.
There may be some other opportunities to make this a baby steps event instead of jumping in with both feet, which is sort of the point of doing the crow hops in the 1st place.

Brian