Glider Simulator Training at the USAFA

[[email protected]]

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.

[Giaco]

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...

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

In my experience with the USAFA glider program, both as a cadet instructor and later as the officer-in-charge of the advanced soaring program, the vast majority of students achieved the end goal of the Airmanship 451 program, which was to solo. That act completed the course.

Has the AM 451 curriculum changed whereby most students now do *not* solo (which would have to be the case to "more than double the solo rate")?

[[email protected]]

This was for AM 251.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 5:19:16 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> In my experience with the USAFA glider program, both as a cadet instructor and later as the officer-in-charge of the advanced soaring program, the vast majority of students achieved the end goal of the Airmanship 451 program, which was to solo. That act completed the course.
>
> Has the AM 451 curriculum changed whereby most students now do *not* solo (which would have to be the case to "more than double the solo rate")?

The sims were used in the AM 251 course, the "Into to Soaring" course given during the summer for 340 students, not the AM 451 which is used to train the instructors. The AM 451 course only has about 60 students, and yes, most of those have already soloed, or come close, in AM 251.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 12:26:25 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 5:19:16 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > In my experience with the USAFA glider program, both as a cadet instructor and later as the officer-in-charge of the advanced soaring program, the vast majority of students achieved the end goal of the Airmanship 451 program, which was to solo. That act completed the course.
> >
> > Has the AM 451 curriculum changed whereby most students now do *not* solo (which would have to be the case to "more than double the solo rate")?
>
> The sims were used in the AM 251 course, the "Into to Soaring" course given during the summer for 340 students, not the AM 451 which is used to train the instructors. The AM 451 course only has about 60 students, and yes, most of those have already soloed, or come close, in AM 251.

One obvious difference is that a simulator based on a wrecked glider fuselage is a one-off project -- it's not scalable. A commercially available simulator rig that seemlessly integrates with the most popular glider simulator is something worth considering by glider clubs. I suggest requesting the article mentioned in the original post.

[[email protected]]

Back when the rains came & the earth cooled:

400-series academic courses were associated with a cadet's freshman ("4-degree") year.
AM-451 was typically taken the summer break before a cadet's began his sophomore year.

The USAF ACADEMY SOARING PROGRAM SYLLABUS OF INSTRUCTION FOR AIRMANSHIP 451, BASIC COURSE GLIDER, Dated APRIL 1980, states, "This syllabus outlines...the training required...to solo a glider."

As for the 1980s through the 1990s--The vast majority of BASIC COURSE GLIDER students achieved solo. It was rare not to solo.
When did not soloing become the norm (hence the modern-day possibility to double the BASIC COURSE GLIDER solo rate)?

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 5:00:12 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Back when the rains came & the earth cooled:
>
> 400-series academic courses were associated with a cadet's freshman ("4-degree") year.
> AM-451 was typically taken the summer break before a cadet's began his sophomore year.
>
> The USAF ACADEMY SOARING PROGRAM SYLLABUS OF INSTRUCTION FOR AIRMANSHIP 451, BASIC COURSE GLIDER, Dated APRIL 1980, states, "This syllabus outlines...the training required...to solo a glider."
>
> As for the 1980s through the 1990s--The vast majority of BASIC COURSE GLIDER students achieved solo. It was rare not to solo.
> When did not soloing become the norm (hence the modern-day possibility to double the BASIC COURSE GLIDER solo rate)?

This is true. Back when the USAFA was training in 2-32s, the solo rate was much higher. They are now using a "club" version of the DG-1000, and the solo rate was around 40%. But by adding simulator training there were able to get that up to 89%.
-Russell Holtz

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 5:00:12 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Back when the rains came & the earth cooled:
>
> 400-series academic courses were associated with a cadet's freshman ("4-degree") year.
> AM-451 was typically taken the summer break before a cadet's began his sophomore year.
>
> The USAF ACADEMY SOARING PROGRAM SYLLABUS OF INSTRUCTION FOR AIRMANSHIP 451, BASIC COURSE GLIDER, Dated APRIL 1980, states, "This syllabus outlines...the training required...to solo a glider."
>
> As for the 1980s through the 1990s--The vast majority of BASIC COURSE GLIDER students achieved solo. It was rare not to solo.
> When did not soloing become the norm (hence the modern-day possibility to double the BASIC COURSE GLIDER solo rate)?

This is true. Back when the USAFA was training in 2-33s, the solo rate was much higher. They are now using a "club" version of the DG-1000, and the solo rate has been around 40%. By adding simulator training there were able to get that up to 89%.
-Russell Holtz

[[email protected]]

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.

[Bruce Hoult]

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.

[Frank Whiteley]

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?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch2,Sec15

Frank Whiteley

[Dan Marotta]

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?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch2,Sec15
>
> Frank Whiteley

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

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*!

[Frank Whiteley]

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?docId=8900.1,Vol.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

[Giaco]

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

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

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:(

[Frank Whiteley]

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

[son_of_flubber]

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.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 12:47:50 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber 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.
>
> 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.


Should be a mix in my opinion, but as Scott Manley has demonstrated (convincingly at a Barnaby Lecture in Denver), it can be used effectively prior to actual flight. Simulators can also advance student knowledge and opportunities for reflective thinking in learning the art and science of soaring by several lessons.

If you indeed acquire a Mach 0.01 or put effort and money into another simulator setup, do what Black Forest Soaring Society does, charge some hourly rate for use.

Frank Whiteley

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 12:47:50 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Should be a mix in my opinion, but as Scott Manley has demonstrated (convincingly at a Barnaby Lecture in Denver), it can be used effectively prior to actual flight. Simulators can also advance student knowledge and opportunities for reflective thinking in learning the art and science of soaring by several lessons.
>
> If you indeed acquire a Mach 0.01 or put effort and money into another simulator setup, do what Black Forest Soaring Society does, charge some hourly rate for use.
>
> Frank Whiteley

Exactly. Why would changing for simulator time ever not be a consideration? Ideally you are paying for an instructor to monitor and guide learning and for the use of capital equipment and people costs to set all this up. etc. The more "professionally" the use of those simulators is conducted, I'd hope the more folks should be willing to pay for them and the more likely to be gained from them. I've seen early use of these where charging seemed to just have not been considered and the justification/concerns issues spiral into negative thought territory fairly quickly.