Dear Burt

[[email protected]]

Thought this was an opportunity to start what might be an interesting
thread regarding soaring instruction. Using your aside as a
springboard, I'll ask the group: "Is soaring instruction adequate to
produce safe, knowledgable soaring pilots." I bring this up, first to
echo Burt's observation of the RAS penchant for mis-information, and as
an opportunity to point out to Burt that the contributors to this
group are the product of soaring instruction.

During my 10-year tenure as a CFIG, I was astounded by the lack of
knowledge and skill demonstrated by FAA certified glider pilots. And
even more astounded by the lack of knowledge demonstrated by some CFIs.
For example, I found that most glider pilots are unable to slip a
sailplane (if we measure competency as the ability to differentiate the
uses of a slip and maintain directional control and speed). I also
found that many pilots demonstrated a marked inability to maintain
coordination at critically low airspeeds, were unable to clearly and
quickly name the signs of an impending stall, and failed to observe
many of them while practicing flight at MCA.

I'm not saddling a high horse here... as an instructor I stressed over
how much a student needed to know versus the need to let him go keep
learning for himself. However, the lack of knowledge demonstrated by
many pilots exceeds what might be forgotten over the course of a season
or two of inactivity, pointing instead to a poorly laid foundation.

Teaching others to fly is a privelege... but carries with it a solemn
responsibility. Are instructors, in part, to blame for the
mis-information we see on RAS? Is it a matter of poor instructors, or
is it possible that the standards used for teaching are inadequate?

[Mark James Boyd]

One challenge is just the sheer amount of material, and lack of
consistency, in even the minimal FAA documents.

For example, the glider PTS requires knowledge of
"turning slips to a landing." Until Judy pointed this out, I
didn't even see it. Pages 7-36 and 7-37 of the Glider Flying Handbook
don't seem to even acknowledge this. 61.87(i)(17) just says
"slips to a landing."

So the references and PTS don't even match up. I've found over
a hundred specific inconsistencies between examiner handbooks,
CFR, GFH, PTS, forms, etc. Given the sheer volume of material,
this doesn't surprise me. Even the GFH is internally inconsistent.
Slips are defined in several places DIFFERENTLY.

I look at all of the stuff, and the detail, and at some point
pick up "The Joy of Soaring" and just hand that to a student.
Digestible, consistent, fundamental, focused.

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>Thought this was an opportunity to start what might be an interesting
>thread regarding soaring instruction. Using your aside as a
>springboard, I'll ask the group: "Is soaring instruction adequate to
>produce safe, knowledgable soaring pilots." I bring this up, first to
>echo Burt's observation of the RAS penchant for mis-information, and as
>an opportunity to point out to Burt that the contributors to this
>group are the product of soaring instruction.
>
>During my 10-year tenure as a CFIG, I was astounded by the lack of
>knowledge and skill demonstrated by FAA certified glider pilots. And
>even more astounded by the lack of knowledge demonstrated by some CFIs.
>For example, I found that most glider pilots are unable to slip a
>sailplane (if we measure competency as the ability to differentiate the
>uses of a slip and maintain directional control and speed). I also
>found that many pilots demonstrated a marked inability to maintain
>coordination at critically low airspeeds, were unable to clearly and
>quickly name the signs of an impending stall, and failed to observe
>many of them while practicing flight at MCA.
>
>I'm not saddling a high horse here... as an instructor I stressed over
>how much a student needed to know versus the need to let him go keep
>learning for himself. However, the lack of knowledge demonstrated by
>many pilots exceeds what might be forgotten over the course of a season
>or two of inactivity, pointing instead to a poorly laid foundation.
>
>Teaching others to fly is a privelege... but carries with it a solemn
>responsibility. Are instructors, in part, to blame for the
>mis-information we see on RAS? Is it a matter of poor instructors, or
>is it possible that the standards used for teaching are inadequate?
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Terry]

wrote:
> Thought this was an opportunity to start what might be an interesting
> thread regarding soaring instruction. Using your aside as a
> springboard, I'll ask the group: "Is soaring instruction adequate to
> produce safe, knowledgable soaring pilots."

As a FAA Designated Pilot Examiner, I think I have some insight to this
question. The short answer is yes, and no. It all depends upon the
standards utilized by the individual.

The regulatory standards are detailed in the US Federal Air Regulations
and relevant Practical Test Standards (PTS). These are the bare
minimum to be demonstrated to me on a flight test in order to gain
certification. As I hand the new temporary certificate over, I remind
the pilot that aviation safety is now in his hands. It is trite, but
true that each of us is as good as we want to be. In order to raise
the bar, we have to willingly suffer critique and to be self critical
enough to improve our own knowledge.

Some instructor problems will always be with us. Any bad information
given and then accepted as fully true can live for generations of
pilots. For example, last week-end a vacationing pilot came to our
field for some training and confessed to me his unease about "the low
energy landing you all use here." As this was during our introduction
and pre flight briefing, I asked him to more fully explain his
statement. At his home field he felt that were he to land over than by
flying onto the ground, he would be chased off and never released from
dual.

This is a description of how the concept of maintaining energy until
landing is assured can become distorted by a poor description from a
flight instructor. Careful questioning of your own and your student's
assumptions based upon your instruction should catch this-but due to
short shifting of ground instruction frequently gets missed. No one
whether club or commercial is immune. At Estrella, I have inherited
students that have been told they are close to solo but have yet to
crack a text. What did that instructor do to allow this?

What is needed is an instructor that will not accept the minimums. Any
instructor should be in the glider for the student-not for the flight
time. I had a conversation with a chief CFI of a large club that
thought my own glider time to number of flights was too low. How could
I have been teaching soaring and not stayed up longer? My response was
that the student needed to learn to soar, not me. In order to do that,
mistakes had to be made and corrected. It is all too easy to fly the
glider for the student. I was guilty of that at one time, but when my
own confidence grew, I found that I could fly just as well orally.

Any instructor in any endeavor sets the example and should not be
satisfied with the minimum performance standard, but always a little
bit more. You don't have to look into a mirror to see yourself, just
at the pilots that you have trained.

Terry Claussen
DPE Estrella

[[email protected]]

Terry wrote:
> wrote:
> > Thought this was an opportunity to start what might be an
interesting
> > thread regarding soaring instruction. Using your aside as a
> > springboard, I'll ask the group: "Is soaring instruction adequate
to
> > produce safe, knowledgable soaring pilots."
>
> As a FAA Designated Pilot Examiner, I think I have some insight to
this
> question. The short answer is yes, and no. It all depends upon the
> standards utilized by the individual.
>
> The regulatory standards are detailed in the US Federal Air
Regulations
> and relevant Practical Test Standards (PTS). These are the bare
> minimum to be demonstrated to me on a flight test in order to gain
> certification. As I hand the new temporary certificate over, I
remind
> the pilot that aviation safety is now in his hands. It is trite, but
> true that each of us is as good as we want to be. In order to raise
> the bar, we have to willingly suffer critique and to be self critical
> enough to improve our own knowledge.
>
> Some instructor problems will always be with us. Any bad information
> given and then accepted as fully true can live for generations of
> pilots. For example, last week-end a vacationing pilot came to our
> field for some training and confessed to me his unease about "the low
> energy landing you all use here." As this was during our
introduction
> and pre flight briefing, I asked him to more fully explain his
> statement. At his home field he felt that were he to land over than
by
> flying onto the ground, he would be chased off and never released
from
> dual.
>
> This is a description of how the concept of maintaining energy until
> landing is assured can become distorted by a poor description from a
> flight instructor. Careful questioning of your own and your
student's
> assumptions based upon your instruction should catch this-but due to
> short shifting of ground instruction frequently gets missed. No one
> whether club or commercial is immune. At Estrella, I have inherited
> students that have been told they are close to solo but have yet to
> crack a text. What did that instructor do to allow this?
>
> What is needed is an instructor that will not accept the minimums.
Any
> instructor should be in the glider for the student-not for the flight
> time. I had a conversation with a chief CFI of a large club that
> thought my own glider time to number of flights was too low. How
could
> I have been teaching soaring and not stayed up longer? My response
was
> that the student needed to learn to soar, not me. In order to do
that,
> mistakes had to be made and corrected. It is all too easy to fly the
> glider for the student. I was guilty of that at one time, but when
my
> own confidence grew, I found that I could fly just as well orally.
>
> Any instructor in any endeavor sets the example and should not be
> satisfied with the minimum performance standard, but always a little
> bit more. You don't have to look into a mirror to see yourself, just
> at the pilots that you have trained.
>
> Terry Claussen
> DPE Estrella

Terry:
Interesting and enlightening perspective.
But I've gotta ask you a question.
If you view the PTS as "minimum", and the candidate performs to that
standard, but let's assume, not above, does this candidate receive a
certificate?
Obviously a complicated question.
When an examiner, for whatever reason, decides to apply his own
standards, he creates a situation in which the instructors training the
pilots he will examine, now have to train to PTS plus his standards, if
they know them.
I'm sure this works OK at Estrella where your instructors have a sense
of what you expect, but how does an instructor who does not know you
prepare his student? His opinion of what should be performed above the
standard may be much different than yours.
Probably the most important insight is that just cause you got the
ticket, doesn't mean you know all you should about flying gliders. It
is a lifetime endeavor.
I see pilots all the time that need additional or retraining to be as
good as they could be.
That said, examiners who do their own thing can make it very hard on
instructors.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
UH

[Terry]

> That said, examiners who do their own thing can make it very hard on
> instructors.
> Thanks for sharing your perspective.
> UH
================================================== ====================
I hope I did not give the impression that I am making up my own
checkride for I am not. If an applicant meets the PTS during my time
with him, then he passes. As it should be. Any examiner that is
running his own checkride does not deserve nor should he continue to
hold his status.

By raising the bar, I meant as an <i>INSTRUCTOR</i>, I should always be
looking to higher standards from my students. After all getting the
student there is what instruction is all about.

Terry Claussen

[[email protected]]

This is possibly the most interesting and useful thread I've seen on
RAS in some time. Thanks to Fiveniner2 and Burt for inspiring it.

My view, as an instructor of 10 years at various operations, is that
the PTS is as adaquate as can be expected from a large beurocrocy and
that examiners are reasonably consistant in their duties.

The PTS does not really require one to be able to demonstrate the
ability to: plan, execute, and conclude a soaring ADVENTURE in a broad
spectrum of conditions, environments, and aircraft types; to share,
initiate, and promote soaring adventure; to recognize, refresh, and
maintain pilot skills.

Human beings are variable in their dedication, attention, coordination,
commitment, resources, etc. So, we have what we have in terms of
pilots, and in terms of a sport.

It's pretty clear where we need to be directing our best attention to
achieve growth in participation and improvement in safety statistics.

And, it takes a priceless contribution to dedication beyond what most
are capable of to make happen.

My hat's off to those who rise to the challenge. They are the great
mentors who work to honor the contributions of great mentors before
them. They keep this sport alive. They deserve every bit of support
the rest of us manage to direct their way.

Find a mentor, become a mentor.

Matt Michael CFIG
Ames, Iowa USA

[[email protected]]

Terry wrote:
> Any bad information
> given and then accepted as fully true can live for generations of
> pilots.

Terry,

You've hit the nail on the head. I think this is reinforced by the fact
that there are many pilots who fly very, very well, but have built
their own successful (if not wholly accurate) models of flight and
airmanship. For example, I know pilots who routinely make expert
crosswind landings who believe the wind exerts force on the aircraft
while it is in the air and that by tilting the wing into the wind, they
are counteracting that force. The physics of the model is flawed, but
they are able to use it to fly with great competence.

The model they use, however, may not serve another so well.

I have a sense that airmanship and its teaching has yet to be fully
explored. Seems like a great Doctoral Thesis for someone with interests
in aerodynamics and pedagogy. Building an accurate aerodynamic model
tailored to serve the needs of aviators (as opposed to engineers) would
be a good first step. Next, application of the expansive work done in
instructional methodology to create a more efficient and effective
approach to teaching flying.

There's a certain charm in realizing we are only four generations
removed from the Wright Brothers. But that should also be a warning.
There's much left to learn.

[[email protected]]

Terry wrote:
> > That said, examiners who do their own thing can make it very hard
on
> > instructors.
> > Thanks for sharing your perspective.
> > UH
>
================================================== ====================
> I hope I did not give the impression that I am making up my own
> checkride for I am not. If an applicant meets the PTS during my time
> with him, then he passes. As it should be. Any examiner that is
> running his own checkride does not deserve nor should he continue to
> hold his status.
>
> By raising the bar, I meant as an <i>INSTRUCTOR</i>, I should always
be
> looking to higher standards from my students. After all getting the
> student there is what instruction is all about.
>
> Terry Claussen
]
Thanks Terry: Agree we should all be expecting more than barely good
enough. I have seen some examples of examiners making up their own
stuff and it can make you crazy. The standards are a bit mushy, which
makes it more complicated, especially for someone who is new. I'm sure
all of us that have been doing this for awhile has our own "hot spots",
that is things I commonly see a weak points in the pilot population.
I'll share a few of mine and maybe some other folks can add to the
list.

#1 Poor energy management in the landing pattern- an over application
of "speed is your friend". I'd estimate that 2 out of 3 pilots I check
for the first time would hit the fence at the far end of a small field.
#2 Failure to create a plan for developing events. The simple lack of
recognition of a need for this is far too common.
#3 Poor general airmanship- especially is slow flight. Most pilots do
not know how to fly in the stall range. I include in this flying the
glider in a stalled or partially stalled condition.

Anybody else want to jump in here?
UH

[Bob Greenblatt]

> #1 Poor energy management in the landing pattern- an over application
> of "speed is your friend". I'd estimate that 2 out of 3 pilots I check
> for the first time would hit the fence at the far end of a small field.
> #2 Failure to create a plan for developing events. The simple lack of
> recognition of a need for this is far too common.
> #3 Poor general airmanship- especially is slow flight. Most pilots do
> not know how to fly in the stall range. I include in this flying the
> glider in a stalled or partially stalled condition.
>
> Anybody else want to jump in here?
> UH
>

OK, I'll jump in and agree completely with Hank. Energy management and
particularly low energy landings (i.e. touchdowns) are a really big problem.
Too may people (me included) have been taught to "fly it onto the ground."

And, as Chris pointed out, some basic misconceptions about flight. I found
the following quote in the March 2005 issue of Private Pilot:
³In reality ailerons and the rudder don¹t turn airplanes; they allow the
pilot to bank the airplane, allowing the engine to pull the aircraft around
in a circle. Once the turn is established, controls are returned to almost
neutral and the elevators and engine do the work of turning the airplane.²

Hmmm, I wonder what makes a glider turn. Maybe only motor gliders can turn
and then only after the engine is started.

--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom <--fix this before responding

[Jim Vincent]

>³In reality ailerons and the rudder don¹t turn airplanes; they allow the
>pilot to bank the airplane, allowing the engine to pull the aircraft around
>in a circle. Once the turn is established, controls are returned to almost
>neutral and the elevators and engine do the work of turning the airplane.²
>
>Hmmm, I wonder what makes a glider turn. Maybe only motor gliders can turn
>and then only after the engine is started.

Lift is what causes an airplane or glider to turn. Bank the wings and a
component of lift is then in the horizontal, causing the turn. All the engine
does is control the rate of climb, typically to maintain altitude.

Jim Vincent
N483SZ

[[email protected]]

> Thanks Terry: Agree we should all be expecting more than barely good
> enough. I have seen some examples of examiners making up their own
> stuff and it can make you crazy. The standards are a bit mushy, which
> makes it more complicated, especially for someone who is new. I'm
sure
> all of us that have been doing this for awhile has our own "hot
spots",
> that is things I commonly see a weak points in the pilot population.
> I'll share a few of mine and maybe some other folks can add to the
> list.
>
> #1 Poor energy management in the landing pattern- an over application
> of "speed is your friend". I'd estimate that 2 out of 3 pilots I
check
> for the first time would hit the fence at the far end of a small
field.
> #2 Failure to create a plan for developing events. The simple lack of
> recognition of a need for this is far too common.
> #3 Poor general airmanship- especially is slow flight. Most pilots do
> not know how to fly in the stall range. I include in this flying the
> glider in a stalled or partially stalled condition.

The idea that the FAA sets minimum standards, and of course all
instructors will train to higher standards, sounds great in theory.
However in the real world, a large portion of the instructors teach
only what will actually be tested on the practical test. By debriefing
their students after flight tests, they have learned exactly what a
particular examiner will expect. This then allows them to train their
students
for a flight test with that specific examiner, rather than bothering to
train for a thorough test in accordance with the PTS.

A blatant example of this was recently evident when I did some acro
with a pilot who had just passed his Private Pilot Glider flight test.
During the first high tow I asked the pilot to turn the towplane toward
the airport. The pilot then told me he had NEVER done signals on tow
before.

A few other relevent questions about stalls, slips and spins, showed
that this pilot's knowledge base was quite deficient. However we
cannot blame the pilot for these shortcummings. He was trained by an
FAA certificated instructor and passed a flight test given by an FAA
Designated Examiner. Unfortunately for this pilot, his training was
done at an operaton known for shopping around for easy examiners.

M Eiler

[Nyal Williams]

At 17:00 04 February 2005, Jim Vincent wrote:
>>³In reality ailerons and the rudder don¹t turn airplanes;
>>they allow the
>>pilot to bank the airplane, allowing the engine to
>>pull the aircraft around
>>in a circle. Once the turn is established, controls
>>are returned to almost
>>neutral and the elevators and engine do the work of
>>turning the airplane.²
>>
>>Hmmm, I wonder what makes a glider turn. Maybe only
>>motor gliders can turn
>>and then only after the engine is started.
>
>Lift is what causes an airplane or glider to turn.
> Bank the wings and a
>component of lift is then in the horizontal, causing
>the turn. All the engine
>does is control the rate of climb, typically to maintain
>altitude.
>
>Jim Vincent

Seems to me this picture is also inadequate. If the
aircraft is banked and a component of the lift is then
horizontal, why doesn't the aircraft just go sideways
over into the next county?

We need a good mental picture of what is happening
to cause the circling flight instead of just being
lifted sideways. We have to bring gravity, centrifugal
force, and the effect of the tail feathers into this
picture.

[Wayne Paul]

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> At 17:00 04 February 2005, Jim Vincent wrote:
> Seems to me this picture is also inadequate. If the
> aircraft is banked and a component of the lift is then
> horizontal, why doesn't the aircraft just go sideways
> over into the next county?
>
> We need a good mental picture of what is happening
> to cause the circling flight instead of just being
> lifted sideways. We have to bring gravity, centrifugal
> force, and the effect of the tail feathers into this
> picture.
>
You need to remember that this is a 3D vector problem involving both
velocity vectors and acceleration vectors.

The math works out something like this:

Turn Radius = Velocity squared divided by 11.26 time the tangent of the bank
angle.
Velocity is in knots (TAS), bank angle is in degrees and turn radius is in
feet.

The full description of the problem and its' solution can be found on page
178 of the 1965 edition of "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators."

Respectfully,

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

[Mark James Boyd]

It isn't the examiner's job to verify everything has been taught.
Examiners sample the areas, but are not required or even
suggested to cover everything.

My favorite examiner was a stickler for the instructor endorsements.
I asked him why he was so particular about making sure they were
all correct, and everything was there. He said:

"It's the instructor responsibility to cover the aeronautical
skills and the knowledge and prepare the applicant for EVERYTHING
in the PTS. When the instructor endorses and signs this,
they are saying the pilot is trained. I just give the test.
I can't possibly test everything, and I'm not going to. But if
I uncover something missing, that reflects on the instructor,
not the student."

This examiner is also good at doing exactly what the PTS
says. Buried in the many words in there, one example says:
"Examiners shall test to the greatest extent practicable the
applicant's correlative abilities rather than mere rote enumeration
of facts throughout the practical test."

This examiner never got nitpickety, but would test correlation
for only fundamental areas.

For example, the student might fly coordinated very well,
understand yaw and roll, and describe rudder and ailerons and
even parrot back adverse yaw. But in the air, the examiner
may ask for a slow roll rate into a steep bank, then try the
same thing with a fast roll rate. If the applicant can't
CORRELATE what he was asked on the oral exam, and apply
more rudder pressure during higher roll rates, then they
FAIL the standard.

So instructors are required to cover everything. And they are
required to teach to proficiency not just of rote or
understanding or application. They are required, by the PTS, to
teach pilots to the highest level of learning.

Correlation.

When the instructor signs off saying the applicant is prepared for
the practical test, they are saying the applicant has correlation
for all of the skills to be tested.

Not obscure weather terms, not the manufacturer names of
yaw-indifferent static ports, not the number of pounds of
force exerted on a tiedown at different windspeeds, and
not how density altitude affects variometers.

Not this obscure rote garbage. Correlation. When two
windsock tails a mile apart point at each other, what does this
MEAN? What is happening? What are you going to do about
it?

The minimum standard, straight from the PTS, is correlation,
and I think it is quite a high standard indeed.

Yes, there are instructors who give ZERO ground instruction.
And there are some students who can learn it all on their own
or in the air. But I hear what Terry said, and the instructors
who sign off they've covered wind-shear and wake turbulence,
or assembly procedures, when they have NOT, are simply unethical
and unprofessional.

My CFIG FAA ASI examiner said the same. He said the CFI endorsement
carries a LOT of weight.

Two years ago a CFI signed off a student for an instrument test.
The student got to the "holds" portion of the flight test, and
when asked to do a hold, the student said "I've never done one
of those in flight before." It turns out the CFI had signed off
this as proficient, but had never taught a single hold in flight or
in a simulator. And there was no record of any such training anywhere
in the logbook.

Well, the student got some of her money back from the CFI, the FAA
issued the CFI a letter, and the CFI got a VERY bad rep out of this.

Yes, CFIs and even examiners go bad sometimes. Some are too easy,
some are too hard. I, for one, go through every single line
of the reg and endorse longhand for each item, before I endorse for
a solo or practical test or privilege. I've always missed some
part of it every single time, and take that opportunity to cover
wind shear or assembly or how to evaluate runway lengths at airports
of intended landings or ...

Any of you who think the bare minimum PTS standard, or the
bare minimum regulatory standard of part 61, is too lax,
well, I disagree...

If you're arguing that some CFIs or examiners are signing off stuff
they haven't done, I agree with that, and that is a whole
different subject of ethics.

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>Terry wrote:
>> > That said, examiners who do their own thing can make it very hard
>on
>> > instructors.
>> > Thanks for sharing your perspective.
>> > UH
>>
>================================================== ====================
>> I hope I did not give the impression that I am making up my own
>> checkride for I am not. If an applicant meets the PTS during my time
>> with him, then he passes. As it should be. Any examiner that is
>> running his own checkride does not deserve nor should he continue to
>> hold his status.
>>
>> By raising the bar, I meant as an <i>INSTRUCTOR</i>, I should always
>be
>> looking to higher standards from my students. After all getting the
>> student there is what instruction is all about.
>>
>> Terry Claussen
>]
>Thanks Terry: Agree we should all be expecting more than barely good
>enough. I have seen some examples of examiners making up their own
>stuff and it can make you crazy. The standards are a bit mushy, which
>makes it more complicated, especially for someone who is new. I'm sure
>all of us that have been doing this for awhile has our own "hot spots",
>that is things I commonly see a weak points in the pilot population.
>I'll share a few of mine and maybe some other folks can add to the
>list.
>
>#1 Poor energy management in the landing pattern- an over application
>of "speed is your friend". I'd estimate that 2 out of 3 pilots I check
>for the first time would hit the fence at the far end of a small field.
>#2 Failure to create a plan for developing events. The simple lack of
>recognition of a need for this is far too common.
>#3 Poor general airmanship- especially is slow flight. Most pilots do
>not know how to fly in the stall range. I include in this flying the
>glider in a stalled or partially stalled condition.
>
>Anybody else want to jump in here?
>UH
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

The examiner had absolutely no responsibility to test this whatsoever.
If it wasn't one of the required areas, and he didn't
pick it optionally, he was fully correct in not doing it.

The instructor, on the other hand, had complete responsibility to
train this to proficiency, and endorsed as much unethically in the
student's logbook.

Or the student's memory is bad, right? :)

The FAA as far as I've seen almost always comes after the CFI license.
The most famous cases are the power plane fuel mismanagement
cases. Lotsa accidents from these.

The occasional examiner gets fired too, sometimes for
not ever flying with the applicant at all! But this seems rare.

Most instructors and examiners seem to do it exactly right.
CFIs train the part 61 and PTS areas completely, and to the
level of correlation. Examiners stick to fundamental areas
in listed references and conduct an efficient test of the required
sampling of areas, at the correlation level.

There is some judgement involved. Is training to the
"Handbook for Naval Aviators" standard of explaining
the forces involved while firing a missile, in an inverted turn,
a reasonable standard. I don't think so. Are signals
on tow or spin recovery procedures a reasonable standard?
Sure.

Somewhere in between there is some gray. How big the
gray area becomes seems to be an interesting topic...

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>By debriefing
>their students after flight tests, they have learned exactly what a
>particular examiner will expect. This then allows them to train their
>students
>for a flight test with that specific examiner, rather than bothering to
>train for a thorough test in accordance with the PTS.
>
>A blatant example of this was recently evident when I did some acro
>with a pilot who had just passed his Private Pilot Glider flight test.
>During the first high tow I asked the pilot to turn the towplane toward
>the airport. The pilot then told me he had NEVER done signals on tow
>before.
>
>A few other relevent questions about stalls, slips and spins, showed
>that this pilot's knowledge base was quite deficient. However we
>cannot blame the pilot for these shortcummings. He was trained by an
>FAA certificated instructor and passed a flight test given by an FAA
>Designated Examiner. Unfortunately for this pilot, his training was
>done at an operaton known for shopping around for easy examiners.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Nyal Williams]

At 17:30 04 February 2005, wrote:
>

>The idea that the FAA sets minimum standards, and of
>course all
>instructors will train to higher standards, sounds
>great in theory.
>However in the real world, a large portion of the instructors
>teach
>only what will actually be tested on the practical
>test. By debriefing
>their students after flight tests, they have learned
>exactly what a
>particular examiner will expect. This then allows
>them to train their
>students
>for a flight test with that specific examiner, rather
>than bothering to
>train for a thorough test in accordance with the PTS.

<A bit chopped out>
>
> ................. Unfortunately for this pilot, his
>training was
>done at an operaton known for shopping around for easy
>examiners.
>
>M Eiler
>


This notion of teaching to the test has come up in
political discussions about education. Even our current
US president was drawn into this about 4 years ago
and suggested that 'teaching to the test -- is teaching.'

Consider that the classroom teacher would teach multiplication
by teaching only those examples on the statewide test
for proficiency. No student would learn the entire
table -- just a few of the 5's and 10's and two or
three of the 6's and 7's -- maybe none of the 8's and
none of the 4's.

[Steve Hill]

I sure think we are close to the slippery slope when we start making
comments that imply certain things should ALWAYS be done the same way...ALL
the time.

Low Energy landings are great, when the weather is nice, but in a big stiff
blustery crosswind, you dang sure better know how to fly your machine onto
the ground or you are going to learn all about this pretty little manuever
called the "ground loop".

We may as well just face the music that NO single methodology is ever going
to be 100% correct and that every instructor is going to have his pet peeves
and that's the way life is. So I'd suggest we'd do well to explain and
demonstrate the multitude of different methods to students...I'd further
assert that there are plenty of pilots who simply shouldn't be flying in on
the brink of a stall, because they are not keenly enough attuned to the
voice of the sailplane and it's subtle ways of letting us know what it needs
to keep us flying. There are many safe club pilots however, who fly their
gliders onto the ground and while they may not perform flawlessly in an
outlanding scenario, most of them will probably never pursue cross-country
flight and have the need arise to truly utilize those skillsets. I have met
MANY pilots...who are uncomfortable flirting with the stall, and the main
reason is a general lack of understanding and training...we should help them
work on those skills.

For Every flight...there are a hundred different methods to accomplish the
same thing...we should just patiently teach and share the information we
have and particularly share with a person why we think the way we do, when
we see a pilot do something that we think they would be better served by
being enlightened by additional information. I've never yet met a pilot who
wasn't willing to tell you why they do the things the way they do them...and
discuss differences...


Steve.

[Mark James Boyd]

Unlike the knowledge (written) test, in the USA, the
PTS is comprehensive. At the examiner discretion, it
covers everything the FAA believes a pilot needs to
know in order to fly safely. This is my understanding.
One could certainly argue that the PTS is either vague or
incomplete. But by design it is supposed to be comprehensive.

So everything in it is testable, and that is comprehensive.
This doesn't mean everything is TESTED during a given
practical test, just TESTABLE.

The written test seems an example of what you point out, however.

****Are examiners the best solution?******

The FAA collected statistics for pass rates of pilots for
various certificates. They compared the pass rates of
pilots flying with an FAA ASI for a practical test vs. the
pass rates for Designated Pilot Examiners.

The pass rates for both glider initial and add-on ratings
for DPEs was around 90%.

Over the same period, the FAA ASI pass rate for all types of
glider tests was 100%.

What is going on here? Well, the sample sizes were significant
(at least 30+) so that can't be it. One major difference is that
if a DPE has a string of perhaps 20-30 passes, they get
"looked at" a little bit harder.

The FAA ASIs do not get "looked at" harder for passing 100%

In any case, there is some statistically significant inconsistency
in these results.

How about eliminating Designated Pilot Examiners altogether?
Although they certainly put a human face on the FAA, are they
entirely necessary? If glider DPEs are failing 10% of the
applicants, and the FAA during it's mandatory random
flight test checks thinks 100% are fine, then there seems
to be a statistically significant standardization problem.

What do you think? Does the DPE 90% FAA 100% pass rate
surprise you? Are you thinking maybe you have a better shot
going to the FAA instead of a DPE for your next glider
practical test?

http://acra.faa.gov/iacra

is the automated FAA application system.
It can check the numbers by some computer formula to see
if the application is correct. And it can match data to the
student pilot license and medical info already in the database.

Beyond that, a "proctor" could put a logger with ENL in the
aircraft. Noise approximates engine RPM, gives buffet or stall horn,
and/or can record the voice of the pilot "That's the impending stall."

So give the guy a logger, have a "proctor" verify the takeoff, and
have the applicant do the manuever series off a clipboard or
audio tape instruction.

Land, and upload the flight log to FAA. A computer blindly
checks the data, and you get a pass or fail instantly.

I have not figured out how to test for coordination yet.
How do you know if the pilot is coordinated? Maybe a
360 45deg with a fast reversal to another 45deg 360.
The reversal would show differently on the track log coordinated
or not, maybe.

This would certainly provide consistency enforcing
the mathematical standards. It wouldn't test whether the
pilot was sweating profusely or crying during parts of the test,
however...and those are things we sure wouldn't want to see
once they carry a passenger.

But this seems pretty straightforward to implement.

Even if the DPEs remained to do the oral exam part,
the flight part could be done at one's leisure.

Hmmm...loggers are sure an interesting new device I
didn't know anything about until recently. Maybe
the FAA doesn't know about them so much either.

In article >,
Nyal Williams > wrote:
>At 17:30 04 February 2005, wrote:
>>
>
>>The idea that the FAA sets minimum standards, and of
>>course all
>>instructors will train to higher standards, sounds
>>great in theory.
>>However in the real world, a large portion of the instructors
>>teach
>>only what will actually be tested on the practical
>>test. By debriefing
>>their students after flight tests, they have learned
>>exactly what a
>>particular examiner will expect. This then allows
>>them to train their
>>students
>>for a flight test with that specific examiner, rather
>>than bothering to
>>train for a thorough test in accordance with the PTS.
>
><A bit chopped out>
>>
>> ................. Unfortunately for this pilot, his
>>training was
>>done at an operaton known for shopping around for easy
>>examiners.
>>
>>M Eiler
>>
>
>
>This notion of teaching to the test has come up in
>political discussions about education. Even our current
>US president was drawn into this about 4 years ago
>and suggested that 'teaching to the test -- is teaching.'
>
>Consider that the classroom teacher would teach multiplication
>by teaching only those examples on the statewide test
>for proficiency. No student would learn the entire
>table -- just a few of the 5's and 10's and two or
>three of the 6's and 7's -- maybe none of the 8's and
>none of the 4's.
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

This is exactly my point! Why don't we all already know what makes an
aircraft turn? Many pilots feel they do, but if we sit several
professional pilots down, separately, and ask them how an aircraft
flies from a pilot's perspective, you'll get three substantively
related, though specifically different answers.

I can demonstrate with an equation (F=ma), a rectangular piece of stiff
paper, and a paper clip that an aircraft in a bank will turn (establish
a circular flight path) unless the pilot intentionally prevents it from
turning by applying rudder or reducing AoA. The point, for the sake of
this thread, isn't to define a theory of flight suitable for aviators.
Rather, it is to recognize how informal and untested many of our
theories really are. A theory that demands tail feathers to initiate
turns (as opposed to the wing just dragging the aircraft sideways
through the air) doesn't sufficiently explain the flight of hang
gliders, boomerangs, frisbees, or my paper clip ballasted flying wing.

Some might say, well, the model serves well enough.... but does it
really? How many accidents do we have each year that are preventable?
Why do competent pilots spin in? Why do well-trained pilots demonstrate
a lack of competency in basic flight skills like slipping and stall
recognition?

I'll return to slips: it's my favorite example becasue so few people
can do them well or describe them accurately. What factors need to be
considered during a slip? Are you aware that the ailorons contribute a
nose down pitching motion during a slip? Have you considered that
during a slip, you must increase the angle of attack because the lift
verctor is no longer antiparallel with graivity (as in a turn)? Are
you aware that the pitching moment of the elevator decreases with
increased beta? What effect on lift and drag does the effective
reduction of wing aspect ratio have? What differences in stick use can
be expected in a high performance versus a wide-body glider during
slipping? Is there any aerodynamic difference between a forward and a
side slip? If there isn't, why do we bother differentiating them? Have
you ever seen any of these ideas discussed in a flight primer? Why not?
I consider all these questions foundational. Yet it took me a long time
to start asking them. I learned to do slips by rote, but never did them
really well until I began to ask these questions. Hopefully, you'll
recognize I've only asked some of the less obvious questions. There are
plenty of others, some taught, some ignored, some simply not
recognized. An example of the latter... how do you measure airspeed in
a slip?

OK, I'm dancing on the head of pin, but I needed an example to drive
home what we don't know about something so "simple" as slipping. A good
pilot should be asking questions and looking for answers all the time.
A good instructor should be looking for new and better ways to pose and
answer such questions. One last example, if I asked "What is the
primary yaw control in a glider?" how would you react if I answered,
"its the ailerons?" And why might this be a better answer than "the
rudder?"

There's alot left to learn, and discuss, and apply. And alot of bright,
"mis-informed" people out there who have something to contribute. I'll
address myself to Burt again... if the RAS is misinformed, isn't the
source culpable? Isn't the first step to recognize that we're ALL, to a
greater or lesser degree, misinformed so we can get about the business
of improving our understanding?

[jphoenix]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

<<Maybe the FAA doesn't know about them so much either.>>

Or... maybe they do.

..igc files are very handy for post crash analysis. A logger file was
used in a very recent glider accident investigation.

Jim

[[email protected]]

Streve, you said,
"I'd further assert that there are plenty of pilots who simply
shouldn't be flying in on
the brink of a stall, because they are not keenly enough attuned to the

voice of the sailplane and it's subtle ways of letting us know what it
needs
to keep us flying."

No well-trained pilot "flies in on the brink of a stall." In a
sailplane, the flair isn't initiated until the pilot is less than 10
feet above the ground. One does not approach stall speed until within
several feet of the ground, at which point ham handedness won't lead to
much more than landing with a "thud" rather than a "swish." The point
at which one chooses to flair or not to flair comes with skill and
knowledge. But forcing a glider onto the ground can lead to equally
unhappy results, usually ending in a stall and something louder than a
thud. By far, the most common landing mistake I see is forcing the
glider onto the ground, only to become airborne with the first
substantial bump, at which point things become genuinely interesting,
and usually end in a fully stalled landing. Why not just cut out the
middle man?

If a pilot is unable to manage a flair and continue it into a fully
stalled landing, the pilot is not yet competent. When he can
demonstrate the ability to do this, then he can start experimenting
with more energetic arrivals.

Crosswinds are another matter. If you'd like, start a thread on them.
There are lots of theories about this too. And plenty to question in
each of them.

I think, though, I'm being too negative . You do make a good point.
Flexibility is a desirable quality. I once had a student who simply
couldn't get his landings right, even though he was doing everything by
the book. He was a sailor. Finally, in exasperation, I said, "Bill, do
you dock your boat the same way every time? Don't you have to change
how you do things based on wind and current?" From that point on I
could never find anything criticize in his landings. He soloed several
flights later.

But flexibility depends a sound foundation of knowledge. If your
conceptual model is flawed, flexibility might hurt you. Interesting
line of thought...

[Steve Hill]

Not to be argumentative without cause...but in my humble opinion you are
very caught up in the minutae or degree of specificity as though you have
the only way...I guess that my point. There are many ways to discuss these
and a myriad of issues and the real key is to convey the information to a
student so that HE/SHE understands the principles...Just when I start
thinking I really know my stuff about aerodynamics, I listen to someone like
Mark Maughmer...or some other guy who REALLY knows his stuff...and all the
blacks and whites start turning grey...


I guess my analogy would be...that I really don't completely understand the
funky new "low volume flushing toilet" to an exacting tolerance, but I've
never had difficulty understanding it's theory of operation, or using it, in
its intended roll.

My opinion would be that we should speak simple english, that new guys can
understand and make certain that we've conveyed the correct principles and
answered questions in logical fashions...And demonstrated behaviors that are
consistent across the board. I've had lots of check rides and bi-ennial's
and NEVER...NOT ONCE....do you answer every question to the satisfaction of
the examiner/instructor. Not to worry though...the trick is in making sure
that the student or examinee understands well, and has the tools required to
accomplish the task at hand.


That's it from me...


Steve.

[Steve Hill]

I think perhaps I've crossed wires somewhere along the line...the stall
comment I meant in earnest. I have flown with plenty of pilots who are
afraid of stalls...or let's say..."uncomfortable" performing them. To me, I
think they're pretty neat.

My comment was aimed at pointing out, that if you teach an undynamic
approach...regardless of what it is...we are asking for trouble at some
point.

Every landing is different.

When I refer to flying in on the brink of a stall, I was responding to
unclehanks previous posting regarding someone not being able to fit into a
tight field.

An off field landing into a tight field, is a completely different mindset
and setup and I do slow my ship WAY down, when I have to land very short.
You give up layers of options in doing so and fully commit yourself to a
different level of risk. But skill and awareness generally keeps us safe.


Just to clarify my point further.


Steve.

[[email protected]]

Steve, don't run away...

You're going in an interesting direction and raising interesting
questions. I think I'd like to see wrangle through just what
information needs to be conveyed? I can speak simple English and
present you with a model that is patently wrong, but applicable. And
that's my point: what's the right model?

What's fascinating about where we're going with this discussion is that
we don't have much latitude for experimentation. If we go down the
wrong path, it could cost dearly. But at the same time, the methods we
currently use demand some healthy suspicion.

As for my commitment to a "way," that is, my way... of course I'm
committed to it. This is a potentially dangerous business we pursue,
and we need to have confidence in our abilities to see every flight
through to a successful outcome. As an instructor, I had some axioms,
among them that a student who could not demonstrate control of the
glider had absolutely no business flying alone in it: the basis for my
criticism of your "flexibility." However, that doesn't mean I'm not
open to differing view points. Just be ready for a bit of sparring. I
am, if nothing else, open to having my mind changed. If we were talking
Marxist criticism of Shakespeare, I might be more disposed to wear your
opinion... but when it comes to flying, you'll have to make a sound
argument and skillfully field my objections.

I mean this to be entertaining. A little sparring. A little learning,
for both of us.

[Terry]

wrote:
> What's fascinating about where we're going with this discussion is
that
> we don't have much latitude for experimentation. If we go down the
> wrong path, it could cost dearly. But at the same time, the methods
we
> currently use demand some healthy suspicion.
>
>================================================== ===================

Earlier I made two examples that I thought detailed some of the more
pressing problems in instruction today: lack of detailed ground
instruction on a conceptual basis, and a specific example of how that
translated a short-handed description into a bad understanding for a
student (in that particular case a new PPG).

Pilots like to fly, otherwise they would do something else. Some
instructors are very good pilots, yet they are not particularly good at
communicating on a conceptual level the art of flying. Result, a
flying instuctor that hangs onto the stick and is always willing to
show instead of teach.

New instructors are particulary susceptable to this as they are not
quite sure of their ability to let out enough rope to the student but
not so much as to hang themselves as well. So they hang on. Some very
experienced pilots do just that. When I had one flying me around while
I was being checked out in the club's grob, I suddenly realized that I
was probably doing the same and wasn't even aware of it. Speak more,
show less.

Which brings out another frequently overlooked item. An aircraft is a
lousy classroom. In a tandem configuration, I am talking to the back
of someone's head. If we accept that a great portion of communication
is non verbal, then students are only receiving a small portion of what
is trying to be conveyed verbally.

It is more fun to fly. I would rather strap into the glider and fly
flight after flight, but were I to do that with students, how would I
plan, brief, clarify questions, query, and evaluate progress for that
day while examining my student's hat or hair style? Impossible.

The instructor sets the plan and executes the instruction. By taking
the time, and it does take AT LEAST the same amount of ground time as
flight time to settle any misconceptions and solidify instruction, your
student will have fewer bad habits and hopefully fewer withdrawls from
the bank of luck.

Terry

[Steve Hill]

Don't sweat it...no running here.

I am simply convinced that many times, one persons perfect plan, is another
persons last alternative.

I think what we are really referring to, is the single most difficult thing
to teach. we can teach the skills, we can teach the theory, but what we
cannotn teach, is judgment. The first time you cut a student loose, after
knowing they have all the required skills and then you watch them do
something truly dumb or completely adverse to what you've taught, you
realize that the single best thing we can try to share, is how to think and
analyze and act. There was an old military adage called the ODA loop. I'm
sure someone will be able to tell you the guys name. It was
Observe,Decide,Act. It really became and analytical basis for modern
warfare. As Mark James Boyd points out, the PTS does a good job of laying
out what is to be demonstrated to the minimum acceptable standards. I have
just always sorta felt that the PTS and ensuing exam is based on passing the
test in a 2-33 and going for 20 minute sled rides.

Real world in a 45:1 sailplane...that test doesn't even scratch the surface
of what's required.

We can argue for weeks I'm sure and in the end, a free exchange of soaring
philosophy from a variety of sources is of more benefit to a soaring pilot
advancing into the ranks, then just passing the FAA Knowledge Test and PTS.
Just my opinion...flame me all you want. Not a safe soaring pilot, does a
freshly printed Glider certificate in hand...necessarily make.


I'm still not running....but it is Friday and I'd rather go have a beer than
argue anymore.



Steve.

[Tony Verhulst]

wrote:
> This is exactly my point! Why don't we all already know what makes an
> aircraft turn? Many pilots feel they do, but if we sit several
> professional pilots down, separately, and ask them how an aircraft
> flies from a pilot's perspective, you'll get three substantively
> related, though specifically different answers.

Let me play "devil's advocate" for a minute. A friend of mine was taking
power lessons and the CFI asked how a VOR works. My friend started to
explain the reference and rotating signals. The CFI stopped him and said
"I see you're an engineer, now tell me how a VOR works". "You tune and
identify the frequency and set the radial on the OBS". "Right".

Tony V.

[Vaughn]

"Steve Hill" > wrote in message
...
> An off field landing into a tight field, is a completely different mindset
> and setup and I do slow my ship WAY down, when I have to land very short.
> You give up layers of options in doing so and fully commit yourself to a
> different level of risk. But skill and awareness generally keeps us safe.

You are simply trading one kind of risk for another, and hopefully making a
good deal for yourself and your aircraft in the process. Too many pilots forget
the simple formula "E= M * V^2", which tells you how much energy you must
dissipate after touching down at a given speed. Note that velocity is a square
relationship, so therefore you do not have to increase velocity much before you
have doubled the energy that must somehow be dissipated on landing. (Simple
example here:
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/energy/kineticEnergy/kineticEnergy.html )

It is good to sit down and plug in numbers for your own bird at various
landing speeds and then you will be far better equipped to rationally make that
particular risk tradeoff when you are looking at a landout.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

Glad I misunderstood. I'd have joined you, but Laura had beer and pizza
waiting this evening.

Cheers,

OC (hic)

[[email protected]]

I am a Private SEL and Glider Pilot, not an instructor or an examiner,
so go easy if I have no biz contributing!

I currently work at an airplane flight school (not as a pilot). I have
observed how individual students/customers learn and progress, each in
their own timeframe and each with his/her own strengths and weaknesses.
I've also witnessed how, with varying levels of success, the CFIs
perceive and handle customers' differences.

Based on those observations and my own personal experiences, I have two
comments:

(1) "One picture is worth a thousand words." Terry, I appreciate the
value of your thoughts about how "the student needs to learn, not me"
and about being able to "fly orally, and certainly there are some things
that can only be explained or shown to a point, after which the rest is
up to the student/customer. On the other hand, while some CFIs are
hesitant or even reluctant to "fly for the student", there are other
times when being SHOWN *instantly* teaches an understanding that
multiple verbal or written descriptions cannot convey. The preached
phrase -- "don't fly on the customer's dime" -- has been taken so
literally and absolutely by some instructors that repeatedly and
unsuccessfully verbally explaining something vs. demonstrating it
sometimes wastes more of the customer's dime than it saves.

(2) Please welcome questions, and never EVER make anyone regret asking
you. I know how BASIC that is, but it addresses the original ideas about
erroneous info on RAS or anywhere, how and why it is born, how long it
lives, and whether or not instruction is lacking. Whether we hear it in
a hangar caf or read it on RAS, if it gets people thinking about
specific areas, and more importantly, if we bring the thought/question
to you, a CFI or Examiner, *THAT DISCUSSION*, regardless of the source
that prompted it, should be one of the most welcome opportunities you
get to further educate us.

I have tremendous respect and gratitude for everyone I've taken
instruction from, but I have varying levels of comfort approaching each
of them with questions. I have been both chastized and applauded for
asking questions that originated from discussions on the internet. In
one instance, Instructor-A blasted me for even considering that anything
I'd read on an internet newsgroup may have validity; Instructor-B heard
my question, suggested some topic-specific reading material, and took a
flight with me to address the subject hands-on. Which instructor made me
feel apprehensive about asking other questions? And which reaction to my
question was advantageous to me as a pilot constantly striving to be as
safe, knowledgeable and competent as possible?

Lastly, I recently was invited to sit-in at a CFI meeting. During an
exchange of ideas/suggestions for various areas of instruction, one CFI
expressed a preference for teaching instrument or commercial students
because "they already know how to fly." Another instantly spoke up,
saying that she welcomes and appreciates the opportunity to teach
private students because she's had so many instrument and commercial
students that have clearly been adequately taught the mechanics of
flying, but NOT how to think, reason and make sound judgments in
situations that aren't routinely rehearsed for a checkride. She said she
felt that skill of how to think, due to the vagueness of how to
measure/grade it, was the one most commonly skimmed over and
consequently lacking, and sometimes not received as well when addressed
in a person already licensed vs during training for Private.

Interesting thread. Thanks!

[Nyal Williams]

At 01:30 05 February 2005, Tony Verhulst wrote:
wrote:
>> This is exactly my point! Why don't we all already
>>know what makes an
>> aircraft turn? Many pilots feel they do, but if we
>>sit several
>> professional pilots down, separately, and ask them
>>how an aircraft
>> flies from a pilot's perspective, you'll get three
>>substantively
>> related, though specifically different answers.
>
>Let me play 'devil's advocate' for a minute. A friend
>of mine was taking
>power lessons and the CFI asked how a VOR works. My
>friend started to
>explain the reference and rotating signals. The CFI
>stopped him and said
>'I see you're an engineer, now tell me how a VOR works'.
>'You tune and
>identify the frequency and set the radial on the OBS'.
>'Right'.
>
>Tony V.


Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.

[Tony Verhulst]

> Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
> how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.

The point I was trying to make was that you don't have to know how a VOR
works in order to use it. Just as you don't have to know what makes an
airplane turn in order to turn an airplane.

Tony V.

[Kilo Charlie]

Great thread you guys but I'm thinking that there are tons of folks missing
out due to the "Dear Burt" title.

I agree with you Steve and will add in response to some earlier comments
that I get very tired of the "guess what I'm thinking" approach to teaching.
Many years ago I had an instructor refuse to sign me off at a commercial
operation in So Cal because my approach turns were not at the exact
altitudes he expected and the speed was slightly slower than he wanted. As
far as I'm concerned if your approach is identical whether landing on a
7000' paved runway or an outlanding in a short field you have missed the
boat somewhere.

I teach residents in a medical setting and learn a lot from watching them.
There are nearly always multiple appropriate solutions to the same problem
and to insist that there is a single solution not only is incorrect it
confuses the student. It also shows that prior instructors were insecure in
their own knowledge base. What I suggest they do is to politely listen to
all of the various methods and then to either incorporate one that they feel
best fits their own thinking or to maybe combine some to make a new
solution.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Vaughn]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>

> the simple formula "E= M * V^2",

Typo. Actually, the formula is "E=.5M * V^2" but the important thing is
the relationship between mass and velocity. Double the mass of your glider and
you "only" double the landing energy, double your speed and you quadruple the
energy!

Vaughn

[Nyal Williams]

At 15:00 05 February 2005, Tony Verhulst wrote:
>
>> Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
>> how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.
>
>The point I was trying to make was that you don't have
>to know how a VOR
>works in order to use it. Just as you don't have to
>know what makes an
>airplane turn in order to turn an airplane.

I understood, Tony. I just like to belabor the point
that what we say is not a;ways understood. What we
communicate is not what we say; it is what the other
person thought we said.

I don't really intend to be a smartass; my apologies
if I come off that way!

[Nyal Williams]

At 17:30 05 February 2005, Vaughn wrote:
>
>'Vaughn' wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>
>> the simple formula 'E= M * V^2',
>
> Typo. Actually, the formula is 'E=.5M * V^2'
> but the important thing is
>the relationship between mass and velocity. Double
>the mass of your glider and
>you 'only' double the landing energy, double your speed
>and you quadruple the
>energy!
>
>Vaughn
>
>
>Thank you for that simple statement. It is clear and
>concise, the way our instructions should be. Many of
us and many, many more do not 'read' formulae. I have
no personal knowledge of the meaning of the '^' symbol
in the above equation, but I know very well the truth
of what it purports to state.

[Tony Verhulst]

> I understood, Tony. I just like to belabor the point
> that what we say is not a;ways understood. What we
> communicate is not what we say; it is what the other
> person thought we said.
>
> I don't really intend to be a smartass; my apologies
> if I come off that way!


No problem - and you were right. I just didn't know if my point was
clear or not, and so I clarified it.

Tony

[Tim Ward]

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> At 15:00 05 February 2005, Tony Verhulst wrote:
> >
> >> Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
> >> how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.
> >
> >The point I was trying to make was that you don't have
> >to know how a VOR
> >works in order to use it. Just as you don't have to
> >know what makes an
> >airplane turn in order to turn an airplane.
>
> I understood, Tony. I just like to belabor the point
> that what we say is not a;ways understood. What we
> communicate is not what we say; it is what the other
> person thought we said.
>
> I don't really intend to be a smartass; my apologies
> if I come off that way!

I know you believe you think you understand what you thought I said; but I
am not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant!

Tim Ward

[David]

> If the aircraft is banked and a component of the lift is then
> horizontal, why doesn't the aircraft just go sideways
> over into the next county? We have to bring gravity, centrifugal
> force, and the effect of the tail feathers into this picture.
> We need a good mental picture of what is happening.......

"The math" doesn't give a "good mental picture".
Gravity provides the thrust for a glider. It is sliding downhill.

Centrifugal force is provided by part of the lifting force of the
wings. It causes the glider to turn because it is always at
right angles to the direction of flight. Don't think of it as pulling
you sideways but rather as pulling you round. (sic.)

The "tail feathers": The rudder is used to counteract the adverse
yaw of the wings caused by the differences of drag on the two
wings during turning flight.

The elevator is used to counteract the loss of some of the
"upwards" lift being used to create "inwards" lift (towards the
center of the circle) during banking. This loss is made
up for by increasing the angle of attack.

The use of the rudder and elevator during turning is not entirely
necessary but it does make flying safer and more efficient.

David

[[email protected]]

Some parties are best kept small...

Casey, could you expand a little on your methodology. Specifically, as
it relates to aviation, your residents must have a foundation of
knowledge you can trust. Methods for monitoring patients, a copy if
Griffith's in their pockets, etc. Experimentation and sharing insights,
opinions, sudden flashes of clarity are an important part of learning,
but we do the majority of learning in the air alone. What about teach
the immutables? (or semi immutables... ie, if I choose to go against
this precept, I'd better have a damn good reason). What is the parallel
in medicine of a certified pilot yanking back the yoke and trying to
snatch up a dropping wing without an equal helping of rudder? Is it
possible for a doc, under your tutelage, to get it that wrong?

I'm trying to work us backwards into the beginnings of an answer for
"Why aren't we giving every pilot the tools necessary to protect him
from self-inflicted injury?" And how do we get there?

[Kilo Charlie]

Good questions Chris but requiring a long answer some of which would
certainly scare the public. Let's just say that there are many ways that
new residents (and even some not so new residents) could off a patient.
Probably the simplest way to explain it is that all of the medications used
for euthanizing prisoners and terminal patients (in other countries) are
used by anesthesia providers each and every day. It is a matter of dose and
timing. So you can see that if not paying attention (esp in my area of
pediatrics) it would be easy to do harm.

I would thereby submit that you and I have similar situations wrt how far to
let them go before reeling them back in and not allowing harm to in my case
another person and in yours to themselves as well as you. I think with
years of teaching most of us get a good sense of students in a short period
of time. Do they ask appropriate questions? Do they know when they are in
trouble and if so do they ask for help or try to muddle through? I will
take a student with average intellect that knows when to ask for help any
day over an extremely bright one that is clueless or that refuses to admit
failure. Those types are dangerous not only in my field but would be in the
air as well.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with your statement that "we do the
majority of learning in the air alone". It certainly has not be true for
myself at least. After days that were the most frustrating learning to fly
(and in the OR) I would come home and go through it again and again in my
mind until I had a solution that would work for the next time. That not
only helped me to learn it also solidified things so that they became second
nature. Interestingly though I'm not so sure that is a good thing for an
instructor. You remember when my wife took flying lessons...she would come
home and ask me how to keep the nose straight on the initial roll and I
realized that it had become so ingrained that I had trouble giving her an
adequate answer.

We have to face up to the fact that some folks are never going to be good
teachers no matter how hard they try. Others will never be able to solo an
aircraft no matter how good the teacher. Those are the minority but
nevertheless it our responsibility as students and teachers to look them in
the eye and tell them such.

Learning is a dynamic process. If a student wants to simply "get by" i.e.
learn just enough to pass the test, then they are a danger to themselves and
others. If not today then sometime in the future. At least in the areas of
medicine and aviation.

Pretty sure this only scratched the surface. Boy would it be great to sit
around a fireplace and discuss this over a beer!

Casey

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Steve Hill > wrote:

> I have
> just always sorta felt that the PTS and ensuing exam is based on passing the
> test in a 2-33 and going for 20 minute sled rides.
>
> Real world in a 45:1 sailplane...that test doesn't even scratch the surface
> of what's required.

You may be correct about the test. OTOH, if people are flying things
similar to what they've lerared in then they are probably OK. At our
club, at the moment people learn in 38:1 sailplanes, but in 18 months or
so we'll be switching to 45:1 sailplanes from their first flight.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[[email protected]]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> The FAA collected statistics for pass rates of pilots for
> various certificates. They compared the pass rates of
> pilots flying with an FAA ASI for a practical test vs. the
> pass rates for Designated Pilot Examiners.
>
> The pass rates for both glider initial and add-on ratings
> for DPEs was around 90%.
>
> Over the same period, the FAA ASI pass rate for all types of
> glider tests was 100%.
>
> What is going on here? Well, the sample sizes were significant
> (at least 30+) so that can't be it. One major difference is that
> if a DPE has a string of perhaps 20-30 passes, they get
> "looked at" a little bit harder.

Mr. Boyd since your quoting numbers and statistics that many of us have
never heard of before. Could you provide us with the name of the FAA
publication or the url for the site where the FAA publishes this
information? Interestingly one of our regional directors had requested
this type of information from the local FSDO just last year and was
told that the data was not available.

M Eiler

[Stefan]

Kilo Charlie wrote:

> far as I'm concerned if your approach is identical whether landing on a
> 7000' paved runway or an outlanding in a short field you have missed the
> boat somewhere.

In our club, the approach is: No matter how long and wide a runway is,
every landing is a spot landing because every landing is a training for
that outlanding to come.

Of course, a busy airport with commercial traffic may be another story.

Stefan

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>In article >,
> Steve Hill > wrote:
>
>> I have
>> just always sorta felt that the PTS and ensuing exam is based on passing the
>> test in a 2-33 and going for 20 minute sled rides.

I agree COMPLETELY. The nuances of water ballast, tail ballast,
convergence, weather details, PIO, etc. are far beyond the scope of
anything one could possibly test in a 4 hour period.

>>
>> Real world in a 45:1 sailplane...that test doesn't even scratch the surface
>> of what's required.

Fortunately, real world in a 2-33, it does perfectly well.
And real world beyond that the insurance company will require
enough (sometimes 10 hours+ in make/model) so that their $120,000
glider doesn't get hamfisted.

>
>You may be correct about the test. OTOH, if people are flying things
>similar to what they've lerared in then they are probably OK. At our
>club, at the moment people learn in 38:1 sailplanes, but in 18 months or
>so we'll be switching to 45:1 sailplanes from their first flight.

How many of them have "ZERO" instruction between a 2-33 practical test and
their flying 45:1 solo?

In the "real world" insurers, clubs, Darwin, and wallets all value
time in make/model quite strongly. The FAA relies on these
four mechanisms to finish the job they have laid a rudimentary foundation
for.

The fatal accident reports from the US don't suggest to me that
all, or even most, of the fatalities were preventable by more
dual instruction. Many/most of these accidents look to me like
pilots pushing the aircraft to the naked edge of performance and
exceeding the limitations of aircraft/weather/pilot. There are some
personality types of students that I have seen who consistently
overestimate their abilities and consistently underestimate the
limitations. No amount of dual instruction seems to have any
effect on this attitude. I have identified 5 pilots during my
instructing who I felt had this propensity. 4 of 5 have seriously
dameged or destroyed aircraft and/or injured passengers, despite
my strong warnings and even refusal to continue training.

I will review the fatalities again and see how close this is to the
mark generally, but I must say that from reading the glider
accident reports, I wasn't terribly surprised at the fatalities, and
I didn't see a huge percentage of low-time pilot fatalities either.

>
>--
>Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
>Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

A student pilot with 5 hours bought an experimental taildragger
"midget mustang II" and proceeded to reconstruct it into a
nosedragger. When he was done, I convinced him to fly with the
old owner, and to get the former owner to train his CFI.

This happened. During the test flights the stall was 82mph IAS.
The student also mentioned the engine was "sometimes rough
or unresponsive." I mentioned quite plainly that if it failed
on takeoff, he would die. And I told him the squared business.

So he redid the leading edge. No difference. Same stall speed,
and a dramiatic, instant wing drop during stall, with a spin
entry and 500 foot recovery (if you were doing it intentionally).

I recommended avoiding full stall landings for a bit, and also
calibrating the ASI.

Turns out the stall is 56mph (48 kts?). He's working on the
calibration some more now.

And then I mentioned to him again that he would still be severely
injured. 35 knot stall in a Cessna 152 vs 48 knots in a
Mustang II means about 2 times as much energy. Then, drop
the wing at stall and cartwheel into the ground, and it's
worse.

So he's working on getting the stall speed down with fences.
Hmmmm...I hope it works.

All this because the published performance was better. 1100 NM
range. And speed. But no safety whatsoever.

I've told people the difference between a 2-33 and an ASW-20
is simple. Just take all of the built in safety for the
design and replace it with higher workload and
higher required pilot proficiency for the same level of safety.
As Bob K. is apt to say "it goes like stink." The
downside is the naked edge of safety vs. performance.

In article >,
Nyal Williams > wrote:
>At 17:30 05 February 2005, Vaughn wrote:
>>
>>'Vaughn' wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> the simple formula 'E= M * V^2',
>>
>> Typo. Actually, the formula is 'E=.5M * V^2'
>> but the important thing is
>>the relationship between mass and velocity. Double
>>the mass of your glider and
>>you 'only' double the landing energy, double your speed
>>and you quadruple the
>>energy!
>>
>>Vaughn
>>
>>
>>Thank you for that simple statement. It is clear and
>>concise, the way our instructions should be. Many of
>us and many, many more do not 'read' formulae. I have
>no personal knowledge of the meaning of the '^' symbol
>in the above equation, but I know very well the truth
>of what it purports to state.
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

http://registry.faa.gov/faqam.asp
historical airmen stats is the second from the bottom.
Look at 2003 stats, table 19 and 20, in the xls format.

I don't have Excel on this machine or I'd post the actual
stats directly. Mr. Eiler, if you or someone else could please
translate format and post it, I'd be grateful :)

If I recall correctly, the 100% pass rate for FAA ASIs
for gliders vs. 90% for DPEs was interesting. But also interesting
was the 66% or so pass rate of FAA ASIs for airplanes (?) compared
to DPE 80% or so. Hmmm...maybe this was instructors? I dunno,
somebody post the info here so we can all take a looksie...

Anyway, the stats seem to show that DPEs are not standardized
to ASI standards completely, and there is a statistically
significant difference in some areas.

Hope this is interesting!

Mark

In article om>,
> wrote:
>
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> The FAA collected statistics for pass rates of pilots for
>> various certificates. They compared the pass rates of
>> pilots flying with an FAA ASI for a practical test vs. the
>> pass rates for Designated Pilot Examiners.
>>
>> The pass rates for both glider initial and add-on ratings
>> for DPEs was around 90%.
>>
>> Over the same period, the FAA ASI pass rate for all types of
>> glider tests was 100%.
>>
>> What is going on here? Well, the sample sizes were significant
>> (at least 30+) so that can't be it. One major difference is that
>> if a DPE has a string of perhaps 20-30 passes, they get
>> "looked at" a little bit harder.
>
>Mr. Boyd since your quoting numbers and statistics that many of us have
>never heard of before. Could you provide us with the name of the FAA
>publication or the url for the site where the FAA publishes this
>information? Interestingly one of our regional directors had requested
>this type of information from the local FSDO just last year and was
>told that the data was not available.
>
>M Eiler
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Kilo Charlie]

A point well taken Stefan and that scenario should be practiced enough to
make it ingrained. Soaring is a very dynamic sport however and we need to
teach students not only to react to certain situations reflexively but to be
able to evaluate each one and to stay tuned into what is happening around
them.

My point is more of a mental issue.....if a pilot/student is not able to see
that there is a difference between landing in an unknown short field and a
huge paved runway then there is something very wrong with their processing.
Whether that leads to a problem with an outlanding is not so much the issue.
I would argue that they have a basic failure to evaluate situations
adequately and that failure will lead to a problem with another situation
that is yet unseen.

Not to point too fine a point on it but I would also argue that by ALWAYS
doing approaches like you are landing in a small field you are unnecessarily
putting yourself at risk. It is worth the risk to be slow on final if you
must stop short but if you do this each and every time you land eventually a
gust or sudden change in wind direction may cause you or the glider harm.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[[email protected]]

KC

I am just beginning my soaring career with only 60 flights in 10
months. I would like to explain our clubs handling of approaches as
explained by our instructors and as practiced in everyday operations.

We attempt to fly all approaches at our club as PRECISION approaches.
Not SLOW! Every proper approach is handled this way and our landing
zone is a 250X50 meter marked area. Improper\unusual approaches are
also expected to end up in this zone, although not at the risk of
flight safety. The point is that (almost) every approach into our field
is handled this way. This, per instructors, makes field/outlanding an
adjunct of your normal operations i.e. lowers the options and
requirements for the outlanding. If you want to land long to put the
plane away or to end up near the launch point you make the approach to
land in the zone and apply less airbrakes. @20/1 from 20 meters you can
fly most of the way to the far end of the field. No slow flying until
the flare at 2-5 meters. As a matter of fact I have only
unintentionally missed stopping in this zone 2-3 times in my 60
flights.

Two weeks ago I had an unusual approach to the field, low at IP so very
much shortened downwind-base-final (all one turn and much too low over
the trees). Had no trouble landing in the "Zone" but had lots of
friendly queries about my approach. At no time during this approach was
I flying slow and the safety envelope is quite large (to tell the truth
I have a speed issue, I have a problem keeping my speed down on the
base to final turn but can now keep it within 10KMPH.)

Bob McDowell

[Stefan]

Kilo Charlie wrote:

> Not to point too fine a point on it but I would also argue that by ALWAYS
> doing approaches like you are landing in a small field you are unnecessarily
> putting yourself at risk. It is worth the risk to be slow on final if you

Fly the yellow triangle (plus correction for estimated wind) and you are
safe. If you are not able to fly the yellow triangle, you're not ready
for solo. It's as simple as that. Under no circumstances fly the final
slower than that triangle, especially not when outlanding.

That said, of course a pilot should be able to analyse a situation and
adopt his behaviour accordingly. We train for this by choosing a
different touch down spot for each landing. Likewise, on a busy airport,
he should be able to hurry up.

Stefan

[[email protected]]

Interesting how standards vary. We train for 50 by 250 feet for
touchdown and stop. This is my personal standard before candidates are
sent to the examiner.
UH

[Nyal Williams]

At 14:30 07 February 2005, wrote:
>Interesting how standards vary. We train for 50 by
>250 feet for
>touchdown and stop. This is my personal standard before
>candidates are
>sent to the examiner.
>UH
>

To make this answer complete, what glider are you training
in?

[Steve Hill]

Mark James Boyd Wrote:
"I've told people the difference between a 2-33 and an ASW-20
is simple. Just take all of the built in safety for the
design and replace it with higher workload and
higher required pilot proficiency for the same level of safety.
As Bob K. is apt to say "it goes like stink." The
downside is the naked edge of safety vs. performance."


Okay...alright...I'm not trying to start a fight, but to claim that an
ASW-20 is the "naked edge of safety" leads me to believe that some
definitions are in order.
I don't own an ASW-20 but I have flown one, and I have to say they fly VERY
nicely. At no point was I left hanging on the brink of safety. I think that
comment is mis-representative of the machine, to say the least.

I guess my whole thought on this topic has not really changed from my first
posting. This weekend I thought about the fact that the way we are all
taught to fly, is mostly focused on "How-To" do the correct thing and that
basis makes it pretty difficult to deal with what to do when things go awry.
In many cases simple little snippets of information that you learn along the
way that you rely on when all the normal stuff goes to hell...Comments about
we ALWAYS do things this way or that way, generally lead to problems later.
We simply cannot teach all the variable adversities that one may encounter,
so we have to teach student to think and analyze and act to the best of
their abilities.

I had a truck driver once who came to work for me. My old truckdriver was
moving up within the company, so we had him take the new hire on the route
the first day to show him where to go...they borrowed my pickup truck
instead of the delivery truck in an effort to save some time. The next day
the new hire set out on his own and at 5 o'clock in the evening I got a call
saying he had hit a bridge and that my delivery truck was badly
broken...upon arriving I found my delivery truck torn into 4 or 5 major
separated components after having been driven under a 7ft8 clearance train
tressle ( the truck was 13ft 6" tall as opposed to the pickup truck which
cleared easily the day before) When asked what in the hell he was
thinking...you guessed it..."That's the way I was shown to go yesterday"
Full steam ahead 45 miles an hour...

Students can be like that, they take what is said far too literally
sometimes and I think that's why I believe that we ought to concentrate more
fully on addressing how they think. All too often, you see an instructor who
settles into his plan ie...rope break in the same place...pattern always the
same, you get to know fairly quickly what they want to see and it is then
easy to comply with... sorta the same way the Designee's are...I'm sure we
all remember the instructors two cents worth..." Okay when he asks you about
this, remember to say this...and oh yeah...don't forget to clear those
turns" I mean..there's the little "wink wink" that let's everyone in the
loop know you're okay and ready to pass...There really wouldn't be much
point to checkrides if instructors sent "maybe he'll be okay's" on to
checkrides.

We had a guy die at our airport last year. His own sailplane, nicer than
anything on the field. Everyone was a little in awe I believe. He took a
"familiarization flight" with one of our CFIG's in our Blanik, who said he
did great. We have a little one way, mountain strip and he self launched and
flew for 4 hours and when he came back, he was high and fast and screwed
things up horribly. He then proceeded to flail around indecisively, until
which time he stalled and spun in dying on impact. Everyone felt
horrible,his logbook revealed he had hardly ANY experience with his ship but
hundreds of hours in Blaniks. Nobody did anything wrong, but in the end, the
real issue is how do we keep it from happening again.

>From my perspective, if I were an instructor, I'd be very keen on training a
student the way I wanted them to fly, but then I think the last 4 or 5 hours
would be spent on just doing things differently, and with an open mind, to
see how they react. Induce stress and see how they react. Tha,t after all,
is what I was referring to from my view on student training, making sure we
teach them to think adequately.

We have to teach pilots to think and analyze and act. With a decided eye
towards maximizing their odds for survivability. That's probably a whole lot
tougher than I am aware of. I'm not sure it's covered in the Practical Test
Standards or Airmans Knowledge Tests. But it is perhaps the biggest reason
to be dynamic in our training as opposed to static, which I believe to be a
major difference from teaching JUST to the PTS...and JUST to pass the
Exam...

JUST...my humble opinion.

I take my hat off to all you instructors who give tirelessly to this sport
and please, I hope you take my comments as they are intended, which is
constructive, not destructive.


Respectfully,



Steve.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Interesting how standards vary. We train for 50 by 250 feet for
> touchdown and stop. This is my personal standard before candidates
are
> sent to the examiner.
> UH


You train for your 250X50 feet; we do 250X50 meters every flight and as
one wouldn't go into a 250X50 foot (talk about a small safety margin)
field which model is more effective? The model we use is tested every
great soarable summer day by hundreds of pilots (out of thousands of
daily soaring flights), which one is better? Probably neither!

[Mark James Boyd]

I train to consistently within 200 feet of ontended stopping
point for Sport Pilot and
Private, and within 100 feet for commercial and CFI.

I've found that by the time my students are consistently
within this standard, they are coincidentally within
50 feet anyway.

In a 2-33 or L-13 anyway :)

In article om>,
> wrote:
>Interesting how standards vary. We train for 50 by 250 feet for
>touchdown and stop. This is my personal standard before candidates are
>sent to the examiner.
>UH
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Steve,

First of all, I read the accident report from the accident you
mention. I personally concluded that the pilot was the only one
who could have prevented this accident.
www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
look up glider fatalities and I think you'll find it.

Then I got involved in your response about the ASW-20 comment being
mis-representative. So I researched the past 5 years of US glider
fatalities. I had done this a year or two ago, and this time added
some formality.

29 fatalities.

7 ridge
4 off-airport landings
4 spin on final
3 intentional aerobatics
3 did a PCC but not an assembly check
2 drugs
2 midair
1 rope break
1 on top of rotor clouds
1 fuel exhaustion takeoff eng fail
1 trim failure, killed the towpilot

(all of these pigeonholes are arguable, of course).

Of the ridge fatalities, the sailplane L/Ds were
57, 48, 48, 43, 43, 37, 36. Median L/D of 43.

The only make/model to have two fatal incidents was the ASW-20.

Only one non-glider rated occupant was killed. An acro
ride in the ASK-21 with a midair less than 4 miles from
the airport and within 2500 ft AGL killed both passenger and
pilot.

Only ONE of the 29 fatal accidents involved a glider
with a Vne less than 120 knots. This was an SGS 1-26
that broke a shoulder strap on impact.

Over 75% of the accidents involved a glider with an L/D over 33.

The median L/D of the fatal gliders was 43, and was the ASW-20.

From some best guessing and the reports, over 80% of the
fatal accidents had PICs with over 100 hours in gliders. About half of the
pilots were CFIs or ATPs with hundreds of hours, often in make/model.

So I used the ASW-20 as my example. If I'd used the ASW-24E or
ASW-27B or Jantar 42-2 or PIK-30 or SZD 55-1, I'm sure
pilots would have come to defend these aircraft as well.

My point is that if I had to guess the next fatality, it would be
an experienced soaring pilot in a 43:1 ship low near a ridge
in a gaggle. On Saturday I heard just this description from
a pilot (who was in such a gaggle) and he mentioned he was
keenly aware he had put himself in this position. Yes,
he did so intentionally, and found it to be an exciting challenge.

Is there something wrong with the FAA system? No. The low timers
in their low and medium performance gliders are barely a blip
on the accident reports.

Most fatalities from my perspective are due to the "naked edge."
Some experienced pilots choose to fly something with performance in
challenging conditions. They've accepted risk to gain performance.
Should we do something about this? I don't think there's
anything to be done. Drugs, aerobatics, ridge soaring, gaggles,
off-airport landings are all risks the pilots themselves
are aware of, are trained and familiar with, and accept.
Unaware passengers and people on the ground aren't being
significantly harmed (1 fatality in 5 years? An acro ride?).

From a public safety standpoint, I think the FAA has done its
job. And I'll keep training pilots in the 2-33 and L-13 and
1-26 and PW-2. And some of them will move up to fast glass and
practice to try to maintain a level of safety. Hey, man,
that really is their own personal choice, as far as I'm concerned.

In article >,
Steve Hill > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd Wrote:
>"I've told people the difference between a 2-33 and an ASW-20
>is simple. Just take all of the built in safety for the
>design and replace it with higher workload and
>higher required pilot proficiency for the same level of safety.
>As Bob K. is apt to say "it goes like stink." The
>downside is the naked edge of safety vs. performance."
>
>
>Okay...alright...I'm not trying to start a fight, but to claim that an
>ASW-20 is the "naked edge of safety" leads me to believe that some
>definitions are in order.
>I don't own an ASW-20 but I have flown one, and I have to say they fly VERY
>nicely. At no point was I left hanging on the brink of safety. I think that
>comment is mis-representative of the machine, to say the least.
>
>I guess my whole thought on this topic has not really changed from my first
>posting. This weekend I thought about the fact that the way we are all
>taught to fly, is mostly focused on "How-To" do the correct thing and that
>basis makes it pretty difficult to deal with what to do when things go awry.
>In many cases simple little snippets of information that you learn along the
>way that you rely on when all the normal stuff goes to hell...Comments about
>we ALWAYS do things this way or that way, generally lead to problems later.
>We simply cannot teach all the variable adversities that one may encounter,
>so we have to teach student to think and analyze and act to the best of
>their abilities.
>
>I had a truck driver once who came to work for me. My old truckdriver was
>moving up within the company, so we had him take the new hire on the route
>the first day to show him where to go...they borrowed my pickup truck
>instead of the delivery truck in an effort to save some time. The next day
>the new hire set out on his own and at 5 o'clock in the evening I got a call
>saying he had hit a bridge and that my delivery truck was badly
>broken...upon arriving I found my delivery truck torn into 4 or 5 major
>separated components after having been driven under a 7ft8 clearance train
>tressle ( the truck was 13ft 6" tall as opposed to the pickup truck which
>cleared easily the day before) When asked what in the hell he was
>thinking...you guessed it..."That's the way I was shown to go yesterday"
>Full steam ahead 45 miles an hour...
>
>Students can be like that, they take what is said far too literally
>sometimes and I think that's why I believe that we ought to concentrate more
>fully on addressing how they think. All too often, you see an instructor who
>settles into his plan ie...rope break in the same place...pattern always the
>same, you get to know fairly quickly what they want to see and it is then
>easy to comply with... sorta the same way the Designee's are...I'm sure we
>all remember the instructors two cents worth..." Okay when he asks you about
>this, remember to say this...and oh yeah...don't forget to clear those
>turns" I mean..there's the little "wink wink" that let's everyone in the
>loop know you're okay and ready to pass...There really wouldn't be much
>point to checkrides if instructors sent "maybe he'll be okay's" on to
>checkrides.
>
>We had a guy die at our airport last year. His own sailplane, nicer than
>anything on the field. Everyone was a little in awe I believe. He took a
>"familiarization flight" with one of our CFIG's in our Blanik, who said he
>did great. We have a little one way, mountain strip and he self launched and
>flew for 4 hours and when he came back, he was high and fast and screwed
>things up horribly. He then proceeded to flail around indecisively, until
>which time he stalled and spun in dying on impact. Everyone felt
>horrible,his logbook revealed he had hardly ANY experience with his ship but
>hundreds of hours in Blaniks. Nobody did anything wrong, but in the end, the
>real issue is how do we keep it from happening again.
>
>>From my perspective, if I were an instructor, I'd be very keen on training a
>student the way I wanted them to fly, but then I think the last 4 or 5 hours
>would be spent on just doing things differently, and with an open mind, to
>see how they react. Induce stress and see how they react. Tha,t after all,
>is what I was referring to from my view on student training, making sure we
>teach them to think adequately.
>
>We have to teach pilots to think and analyze and act. With a decided eye
>towards maximizing their odds for survivability. That's probably a whole lot
>tougher than I am aware of. I'm not sure it's covered in the Practical Test
>Standards or Airmans Knowledge Tests. But it is perhaps the biggest reason
>to be dynamic in our training as opposed to static, which I believe to be a
>major difference from teaching JUST to the PTS...and JUST to pass the
>Exam...
>
>JUST...my humble opinion.
>
>I take my hat off to all you instructors who give tirelessly to this sport
>and please, I hope you take my comments as they are intended, which is
>constructive, not destructive.
>
>
>Respectfully,
>
>
>
>Steve.
>
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Steve Hill]

Mark,
Thanks for clarifying that you weren't mis-representing the ASW-20
itself as dangerous, or trading safety for performance...or increasing
workload on the pilot in command, SPECIFICALLY on JUST the ASW-20...it
sounds like you really meant...All High performance sailplanes and with
that, I'd agree that as performance is gained, somewhere safety is given up.
But I don't think it's at all safe to say that it's because of a sailplanes
design, it's because of what people do with them. Those of us that choose
high performing sailplanes, do accept increased risk...and almost everyone I
know who pursues it, is aware of those risks and mentally works to mitigate
as much or as many of the variables possible. If the complexity of the
aircraft were really the issue, wouldn't in then mean that as aircraft
continued to go up in sophistication levels or performance levels, then that
as some point you'd simply die just by getting in or on one...?? Methinks
the logic is fundamentally flawed. It's what happens in the cockpit with the
pilot...not the craft.

Your comment about predicting the next bad accident is well taken...sorta
like saying the next catastrophic car crash next Friday, will be due to a 17
year old, his three best buddies and a case of Bud....on a long straight
road, with a nasty curve at the end....

We also accept increased risk as a very function of our daily lives Mark,
cars that zip along happily at 75 or 80...when things go bad...they go bad
worse than if you were doing 45. We all know that.

Oh well....not sure where this threads going anymore, but thanks for the
clarification.


Steve.

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

hmmm ... less then one in four odds ...

but, isn't the more common denominator incompetence ... and lets define
that as a failure of execution because of lack of training or currency
or awareness or attention, etc. You can easily die in aviation doing
some routine non-cutting-edge things ... and most of the people in your
list did.

* My point is that if I had to guess the next fatality, it would be
* an experienced soaring pilot in a 43:1 ship low near a ridge
* in a gaggle.

* 7 Ridge in 29 fatalities.



Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Steve,
>
> First of all, I read the accident report from the accident you
> mention. I personally concluded that the pilot was the only one
> who could have prevented this accident.
> www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
> look up glider fatalities and I think you'll find it.
>
> Then I got involved in your response about the ASW-20 comment being

> mis-representative. So I researched the past 5 years of US glider
> fatalities. I had done this a year or two ago, and this time added
> some formality.
>
> 29 fatalities.
>
> 7 ridge
> 4 off-airport landings
> 4 spin on final
> 3 intentional aerobatics
> 3 did a PCC but not an assembly check
> 2 drugs
> 2 midair
> 1 rope break
> 1 on top of rotor clouds
> 1 fuel exhaustion takeoff eng fail
> 1 trim failure, killed the towpilot
>
> (all of these pigeonholes are arguable, of course).
>
> Of the ridge fatalities, the sailplane L/Ds were
> 57, 48, 48, 43, 43, 37, 36. Median L/D of 43.
>
> The only make/model to have two fatal incidents was the ASW-20.
>
> Only one non-glider rated occupant was killed. An acro
> ride in the ASK-21 with a midair less than 4 miles from
> the airport and within 2500 ft AGL killed both passenger and
> pilot.
>
> Only ONE of the 29 fatal accidents involved a glider
> with a Vne less than 120 knots. This was an SGS 1-26
> that broke a shoulder strap on impact.
>
> Over 75% of the accidents involved a glider with an L/D over 33.
>
> The median L/D of the fatal gliders was 43, and was the ASW-20.
>
> From some best guessing and the reports, over 80% of the
> fatal accidents had PICs with over 100 hours in gliders. About half
of the
> pilots were CFIs or ATPs with hundreds of hours, often in make/model.
>
> So I used the ASW-20 as my example. If I'd used the ASW-24E or
> ASW-27B or Jantar 42-2 or PIK-30 or SZD 55-1, I'm sure
> pilots would have come to defend these aircraft as well.
>
> My point is that if I had to guess the next fatality, it would be
> an experienced soaring pilot in a 43:1 ship low near a ridge
> in a gaggle. On Saturday I heard just this description from
> a pilot (who was in such a gaggle) and he mentioned he was
> keenly aware he had put himself in this position. Yes,
> he did so intentionally, and found it to be an exciting challenge.
>
> Is there something wrong with the FAA system? No. The low timers
> in their low and medium performance gliders are barely a blip
> on the accident reports.
>
> Most fatalities from my perspective are due to the "naked edge."
> Some experienced pilots choose to fly something with performance in
> challenging conditions. They've accepted risk to gain performance.
> Should we do something about this? I don't think there's
> anything to be done. Drugs, aerobatics, ridge soaring, gaggles,
> off-airport landings are all risks the pilots themselves
> are aware of, are trained and familiar with, and accept.
> Unaware passengers and people on the ground aren't being
> significantly harmed (1 fatality in 5 years? An acro ride?).
>
> From a public safety standpoint, I think the FAA has done its
> job. And I'll keep training pilots in the 2-33 and L-13 and
> 1-26 and PW-2. And some of them will move up to fast glass and
> practice to try to maintain a level of safety. Hey, man,
> that really is their own personal choice, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> In article >,
> Steve Hill > wrote:
> >Mark James Boyd Wrote:
> >"I've told people the difference between a 2-33 and an ASW-20
> >is simple. Just take all of the built in safety for the
> >design and replace it with higher workload and
> >higher required pilot proficiency for the same level of safety.
> >As Bob K. is apt to say "it goes like stink." The
> >downside is the naked edge of safety vs. performance."
> >
> >
> >Okay...alright...I'm not trying to start a fight, but to claim that
an
> >ASW-20 is the "naked edge of safety" leads me to believe that some
> >definitions are in order.
> >I don't own an ASW-20 but I have flown one, and I have to say they
fly VERY
> >nicely. At no point was I left hanging on the brink of safety. I
think that
> >comment is mis-representative of the machine, to say the least.
> >
> >I guess my whole thought on this topic has not really changed from
my first
> >posting. This weekend I thought about the fact that the way we are
all
> >taught to fly, is mostly focused on "How-To" do the correct thing
and that
> >basis makes it pretty difficult to deal with what to do when things
go awry.
> >In many cases simple little snippets of information that you learn
along the
> >way that you rely on when all the normal stuff goes to
hell...Comments about
> >we ALWAYS do things this way or that way, generally lead to problems
later.
> >We simply cannot teach all the variable adversities that one may
encounter,
> >so we have to teach student to think and analyze and act to the best
of
> >their abilities.
> >
> >I had a truck driver once who came to work for me. My old
truckdriver was
> >moving up within the company, so we had him take the new hire on the
route
> >the first day to show him where to go...they borrowed my pickup
truck
> >instead of the delivery truck in an effort to save some time. The
next day
> >the new hire set out on his own and at 5 o'clock in the evening I
got a call
> >saying he had hit a bridge and that my delivery truck was badly
> >broken...upon arriving I found my delivery truck torn into 4 or 5
major
> >separated components after having been driven under a 7ft8 clearance
train
> >tressle ( the truck was 13ft 6" tall as opposed to the pickup truck
which
> >cleared easily the day before) When asked what in the hell he was
> >thinking...you guessed it..."That's the way I was shown to go
yesterday"
> >Full steam ahead 45 miles an hour...
> >
> >Students can be like that, they take what is said far too literally
> >sometimes and I think that's why I believe that we ought to
concentrate more
> >fully on addressing how they think. All too often, you see an
instructor who
> >settles into his plan ie...rope break in the same place...pattern
always the
> >same, you get to know fairly quickly what they want to see and it is
then
> >easy to comply with... sorta the same way the Designee's are...I'm
sure we
> >all remember the instructors two cents worth..." Okay when he asks
you about
> >this, remember to say this...and oh yeah...don't forget to clear
those
> >turns" I mean..there's the little "wink wink" that let's everyone in
the
> >loop know you're okay and ready to pass...There really wouldn't be
much
> >point to checkrides if instructors sent "maybe he'll be okay's" on
to
> >checkrides.
> >
> >We had a guy die at our airport last year. His own sailplane, nicer
than
> >anything on the field. Everyone was a little in awe I believe. He
took a
> >"familiarization flight" with one of our CFIG's in our Blanik, who
said he
> >did great. We have a little one way, mountain strip and he self
launched and
> >flew for 4 hours and when he came back, he was high and fast and
screwed
> >things up horribly. He then proceeded to flail around indecisively,
until
> >which time he stalled and spun in dying on impact. Everyone felt
> >horrible,his logbook revealed he had hardly ANY experience with his
ship but
> >hundreds of hours in Blaniks. Nobody did anything wrong, but in the
end, the
> >real issue is how do we keep it from happening again.
> >
> >>From my perspective, if I were an instructor, I'd be very keen on
training a
> >student the way I wanted them to fly, but then I think the last 4 or
5 hours
> >would be spent on just doing things differently, and with an open
mind, to
> >see how they react. Induce stress and see how they react. Tha,t
after all,
> >is what I was referring to from my view on student training, making
sure we
> >teach them to think adequately.
> >
> >We have to teach pilots to think and analyze and act. With a decided
eye
> >towards maximizing their odds for survivability. That's probably a
whole lot
> >tougher than I am aware of. I'm not sure it's covered in the
Practical Test
> >Standards or Airmans Knowledge Tests. But it is perhaps the biggest
reason
> >to be dynamic in our training as opposed to static, which I believe
to be a
> >major difference from teaching JUST to the PTS...and JUST to pass
the
> >Exam...
> >
> >JUST...my humble opinion.
> >
> >I take my hat off to all you instructors who give tirelessly to this
sport
> >and please, I hope you take my comments as they are intended, which
is
> >constructive, not destructive.
> >
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >
> >
> >
> >Steve.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
> > Interesting how standards vary. We train for 50 by 250 feet for
> > touchdown and stop. This is my personal standard before candidates
> are
> > sent to the examiner.
> > UH
>
>
> You train for your 250X50 feet; we do 250X50 meters every flight and
as
> one wouldn't go into a 250X50 foot (talk about a small safety margin)
> field which model is more effective? The model we use is tested every
> great soarable summer day by hundreds of pilots (out of thousands of
> daily soaring flights), which one is better? Probably neither!

Reply:
In the area where we fly( northeast US) there are not many fields 250
meters long. We are training pilots to be able to land in the best
portion of a field that may be only 400 to 500 feet long. Simply flying
to level of the PTS standards does not cut it.
Better skills and habits lead to higher margins in difficult
situations.
I admit to being very demanding in this area because it saves gliders
and can save lives.
UH

[[email protected]]

> Reply:
> In the area where we fly( northeast US) there are not many fields 250
> meters long. We are training pilots to be able to land in the best
> portion of a field that may be only 400 to 500 feet long. Simply
flying
> to level of the PTS standards does not cut it.
> Better skills and habits lead to higher margins in difficult
> situations.
> I admit to being very demanding in this area because it saves gliders
> and can save lives.
> UH

UH what gliders do you train in and what do you believe the level of
the PTS is, in regard to length of designated landing area?

M Eiler

[Andreas Maurer]

On 7 Feb 2005 15:10:10 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>29 fatalities.
>
>7 ridge
>4 off-airport landings
>4 spin on final
>3 intentional aerobatics
>3 did a PCC but not an assembly check
>2 drugs
>2 midair
>1 rope break
>1 on top of rotor clouds
>1 fuel exhaustion takeoff eng fail
>1 trim failure, killed the towpilot

Those statistics is absolutely worthless, I'm sorry to say.

If you want to find a connection between L/D and danger, it's
necessary to compare identical missions. A 2-33 that is limited to
flying traffic circuits is unlikely to hit a ridge or be damaged in an
off-airport landing during a competitition, don't you agree?

Fuel exhaustion is very unlikely to occur if your glider does not have
an engine - and gliders with engines are usually 45:1 plus. Another
case where a low.-performance glider has no chance to enter the crash
statistics.


Training gliders are per se safer than high performance gliders -
because the latter fly the more risky missions, e.g. cross-country.

One must not compare raw numbers - I bet even in the US there's at
least half a dozen glass gliders on every low-performance glider
("with a Vne less than 120 knots") that are flying cross-country.

Of coure accident numbers will be half a dozen times higher - but
accident rate per glider will be identical.


>From some best guessing and the reports, over 80% of the
>fatal accidents had PICs with over 100 hours in gliders. About half of the
>pilots were CFIs or ATPs with hundreds of hours, often in make/model.

>So I used the ASW-20 as my example. If I'd used the ASW-24E or
>ASW-27B or Jantar 42-2 or PIK-30 or SZD 55-1, I'm sure
>pilots would have come to defend these aircraft as well.

I may use the ASW-20 for an example of my own.
We had one in my club for 17 years.
During this time, we had about 20 aircraft damages (fortunately only
one guy was hurt), and NONE in the ASW-20.

Clear case - the 20 was by far the safest glider in our fleet. Its
replacement, the ASW-27, still hasn't suffererd any damage yet either.
Conclusion: The higher the L/D and the more handles in the cockpit,
the safer the glider.

I guess you see the dangers of reading statistics... ;)


>My point is that if I had to guess the next fatality, it would be
>an experienced soaring pilot in a 43:1 ship low near a ridge
>in a gaggle.

Yup.
Because all the low-performance gliders will bei either on the ground
or staying in the traffic circuit and therefore cannot take part your
scenario.


>From a public safety standpoint, I think the FAA has done its
>job. And I'll keep training pilots in the 2-33 and L-13 and
>1-26 and PW-2. And some of them will move up to fast glass and
>practice to try to maintain a level of safety. Hey, man,
>that really is their own personal choice, as far as I'm concerned.

"Fast glass"... lmao.

Sorry Mark, but up in the air I like to go as fast as possible with as
much L/D as possible. The approach speed of a "fast glass" glider is
the same 50-55 kts as the one of any other low performance glider, and
its airbrakes are as effective.
It's an urban legend that an LS-4 is harder to fly than a Ka-8. Here
in Europe many clubs are using fast glass gliders as first solo
gliders, with convincing success.




Bye
Andreas

[Wayne Paul]

I agree that the quantitative number of fatalities is of little statistical
value.

In order to have statistical value the fatalities have to measured against
flight hour, or against flights, etc. in order to establish an fatality
rate.

It is a fact that fatalities seldom happen in gliders that are in the hangar
or their trailer. How many hours have these high performance gliders flown
compared the fatality count? How many high performance gliders are flying
in the country compared to the low performance group?

Flight time, sortie rate, flight mission type, and pilot's experience are
all items that need to be considered in order to determine risk factors
associated with a sailplane's performance level.

Respectfully,
Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/



"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On 7 Feb 2005 15:10:10 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
> wrote:
>
> >29 fatalities.
> >
> >7 ridge
> >4 off-airport landings
> >4 spin on final
> >3 intentional aerobatics
> >3 did a PCC but not an assembly check
> >2 drugs
> >2 midair
> >1 rope break
> >1 on top of rotor clouds
> >1 fuel exhaustion takeoff eng fail
> >1 trim failure, killed the towpilot
>
> Those statistics is absolutely worthless, I'm sorry to say.
>

[Steve Hill]

It's nice to hear others question the validity of useless statistics. How
many privately owned L-13's or 2-33 are there in the US and how many of
those ever embark on an cross country flight??

If all you want to do is train in 2-33's and L-13's and fly around within a
5 to 10 mile area of your local airport...then I'd agree you are at less
risk in some ways and more in others.

That's not what I do however. I take off and leave and come back generally
many hours later. Are there risks?? Damn straight. But I accept them and
understand them and work my butt off to have a logical plan to deal with
them. And hope that I never need to excercise any of those plans, based on
my ability to evaluate my own risk/reward equation and to always remember
that flying is, at the end of the day a very personal reward.

In a way, I believe you have cemented my view that in many cases, students
are not receiving the information that helps them to attain their goals, and
so they have to get it from osmosis, instead of an instructor. The SSA
Master Instructor program is a great idea as well as the mentoring programs
that some areas are fortunate enough to have...we need a ton more of that,
from qualified sources. And again, not to sound like a broken record, but I
believe that the training must become more dynamic and less static. The
pearls of wisdom accrued over the years need to have a better venue to be
shared.


That's about it from me.



Steve.

[[email protected]]

Steve Hill wrote:
> It's nice to hear others question the validity of useless statistics.
How
> many privately owned L-13's or 2-33 are there in the US and how many
of
> those ever embark on an cross country flight??
>
> If all you want to do is train in 2-33's and L-13's and fly around
within a
> 5 to 10 mile area of your local airport...then I'd agree you are at
less
> risk in some ways and more in others.
>
> That's not what I do however. I take off and leave and come back
generally
> many hours later. Are there risks?? Damn straight. But I accept them
and
> understand them and work my butt off to have a logical plan to deal
with
> them. And hope that I never need to excercise any of those plans,
based on
> my ability to evaluate my own risk/reward equation and to always
remember
> that flying is, at the end of the day a very personal reward.
>
> In a way, I believe you have cemented my view that in many cases,
students
> are not receiving the information that helps them to attain their
goals, and
> so they have to get it from osmosis, instead of an instructor. The
SSA
> Master Instructor program is a great idea as well as the mentoring
programs
> that some areas are fortunate enough to have...we need a ton more of
that,
> from qualified sources. And again, not to sound like a broken record,
but I
> believe that the training must become more dynamic and less static.
The
> pearls of wisdom accrued over the years need to have a better venue
to be
> shared.
>
>
> That's about it from me.
>
>
>
> Steve.


SSA M I program is an example of available(in some places) additional
instruction.
The SSA Bronze Badge program was also developed to fill the gap in the
instruction to get the license process.
UH

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Steve Hill > wrote:
>Mark,
> Thanks for clarifying that you weren't mis-representing the ASW-20
>itself as dangerous, or trading safety for performance...or increasing
>workload on the pilot in command, SPECIFICALLY on JUST the ASW-20...it
>sounds like you really meant...All High performance sailplanes and with
>that, I'd agree that as performance is gained, somewhere safety is given up.
>But I don't think it's at all safe to say that it's because of a sailplanes
>design, it's because of what people do with them.

Absolutely. Flown within the limitations of the pilot and
aircraft and weather, all flying is safe. The interesting part is
that for some aircraft (the 2-33 for example), flying outside of
all of these limitations is still unlikely to result in
death. Not just because it is so hard to even GET into the mountains,
above wave, etc., but also because the 2-33 is a lot like
flying inside a big rubber ball anyway (to use an analogy).

>Those of us that choose
>high performing sailplanes, do accept increased risk...and almost everyone I
>know who pursues it, is aware of those risks and mentally works to mitigate
>as much or as many of the variables possible.

That's almost a direct quote from Steve Fosset, right? From what I've
seen of competition pilots and even just "fast glass" pilots,
their preparation and proficiency and experience is quite extensive.
I think this is because it MUST be. They then go out and eeek
performance out of themselves, the weather, and the aircraft.
This reminds me of NASCAR, where the drivers have every concievable
safety device, are very experienced, and know everything about
their craft as well as anyone can. Instead of using this
knowledge to safely drive the minivan with the kids to Chuck-E-Cheeses,
they strap on the fastest, gnarlyest machine imagineable and
drive it as fast and hard as possible without ensuring certain death.

Make no mistake, I think the competition pilots are every bit
as comitted to the sport as the Reno air race guys or NASCAR or
<fill in your favorite>. Just because it isn't as noisy or
"in your face" doesn't make the "fast glass" any less sporty.

>If the complexity of the
>aircraft were really the issue, wouldn't in then mean that as aircraft
>continued to go up in sophistication levels or performance levels, then that
>as some point you'd simply die just by getting in or on one...??

Yes that is precisely what I think. Ask Mike Melvill
(the fastest glider pilot in the world)
why he didn't take the third flight. And ask Richard Branson
how many glider rides he expects to give if his fatality rate
for the White Knight ends up matching NASA's 4%.

>Methinks
>the logic is fundamentally flawed. It's what happens in the cockpit with the
>pilot...not the craft.

I disagree. The pilot, craft, and weather are all co-involved.
I didn't see a single fatal accident that would have happened in a 2-33.
I also noted the Hottelier connections causing fatalities. This
doesn't happen with self-connecting controls. And I don't think this
is a "pilot training" issue. This is a design flaw.
Some accidents can be designed away. A very interesting
area of work in soaring is designing away some of these fatalities
with a minimal reduction in performance. Parachutes, BRS, traffic
detectors, turbo, spin characteristics, etc. are all hotly
discussed here and by designers for just this reason.

>Your comment about predicting the next bad accident is well taken...sorta
>like saying the next catastrophic car crash next Friday, will be due to a 17
>year old, his three best buddies and a case of Bud....on a long straight
>road, with a nasty curve at the end....

Yes, yes. It wasn't a terribly insightful comment to some people. But
I think your analogy surprises few, while my prediction perhaps DID
surprise some people, who didn't know most fatalities are happening mostly
in >33 to 1 gliders.

>We also accept increased risk as a very function of our daily lives Mark,
>cars that zip along happily at 75 or 80...when things go bad...they go bad
>worse than if you were doing 45. We all know that.

Well, airbags and shoulder harnesses and crash zones made cars
better. This maybe translated into exactly the same fatality rate,
but with greatly increased capability.

Soaring pilots seem to accept a certain level of risk. If
a safety device reduces this risk, it doesn't seem to
provide more safety, it seems to provide more CAPABILITY.
For me it's the same for training. The student was at an
acceptable level of safety when he soloed. Beyond that, my
goal was always to improve his CAPABILITY, while keeping
the safety level at least as good as during solo.

>Oh well....not sure where this threads going anymore, but thanks for the
>clarification.

And thanks for taking the time to share viewpoints. I don't
know right or wrong, but I certainly know discussing this stuff at all
is VERY helpful for me at least.

>
>
>Steve.
>
>
>
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

I had a recent very positive experience from an SSA
X-C instructor. What a blast of fresh air. Totally
thorough, totally professional, and never nitpickety.

I'm thinking the SSA Master X-C program is great. And
I look forward to some time in the mountains with
the Carl Herold's and Rolf Peterson's of the world.

But I also get a LOT from reading and listening about
X-C flights of non-instructors. ENSURE for 24 hours before the
flight to help with "relief" issues. Cautions about
oxygen use and importance. The continual focus on landouts
throughout X-C flight and the extensive landout preparation.

Really great stuff from a lot of sources. Although I agree
about the SSA Master X-C program, the info from non-instructors
is great too, I think. Just like I think getting two pilots
together for a flight is sometimes more enlightening than
flying repeatedly with the same old instructor.

In article >,
Steve Hill > wrote:
>It's nice to hear others question the validity of useless statistics. How
>many privately owned L-13's or 2-33 are there in the US and how many of
>those ever embark on an cross country flight??
>
>If all you want to do is train in 2-33's and L-13's and fly around within a
>5 to 10 mile area of your local airport...then I'd agree you are at less
>risk in some ways and more in others.
>
>That's not what I do however. I take off and leave and come back generally
>many hours later. Are there risks?? Damn straight. But I accept them and
>understand them and work my butt off to have a logical plan to deal with
>them. And hope that I never need to excercise any of those plans, based on
>my ability to evaluate my own risk/reward equation and to always remember
>that flying is, at the end of the day a very personal reward.
>
>In a way, I believe you have cemented my view that in many cases, students
>are not receiving the information that helps them to attain their goals, and
>so they have to get it from osmosis, instead of an instructor. The SSA
>Master Instructor program is a great idea as well as the mentoring programs
>that some areas are fortunate enough to have...we need a ton more of that,
>from qualified sources. And again, not to sound like a broken record, but I
>believe that the training must become more dynamic and less static. The
>pearls of wisdom accrued over the years need to have a better venue to be
>shared.
>
>
>That's about it from me.
>
>
>
>Steve.
>
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Roger Worden]

Where in the PTS does it say land without reference to the altimeter? I
don't see it. I think that's a Bronze requirement, but not in the PTS. I was
asked to do it on my PPG practical... much to my surprise! I had never done
it before but nailed it.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>
> >There's a "simulated off field landing" standard too.
> >

> The simulated off field landing Task says 1) select a good
> field and 2) land without reference to the altimeter.
> There's no accuracy requirement in this section where it's
> critical.
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

At 01:30 15 February 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>I think you are right. I think that the glider examiners
>could come
>together to define a better standard for 'simulated
>off-field
>landings' that perhaps borrows terminolgy from the
>airplane 'short-field landing' stuff.
>
>As long as the focus of such short field landings is
>on
>'near-minimum energy' and 'touchdown spot' this would
>be
>good. These are good skills. Stopping after that
>within any
>actual particular distance is of no interest, however,
>since anyone can mash the brakes.

I agree with the first part of this but stopping as
quickly as possible is also important. When landing
on an unknown surface, and all field landings are that,
the greater the chance of hitting something hidden
in the grass/crop like deep ruts or rocks. Making the
ground run as short as possible reduces the chances
of that. I know that it does not eliminate it altogether.
Of course the minimum stopping distance is reduced
by ensuring a minimum touchdown speed which goes right
back to managing the speed on the approach.
>
>So the normal landing being a momentum management task,
>and having the
>off field landing be a different test for minimum landing
>speed and
>touchdown point task, seems quite reasonable. Putting
>them together,
>however, doesn't make sense to me. Either you are
>landing with
>minimum energy, or you are landing with extra energy
>and using it
>to stop at a certain point. Never both.
>
>And I would not recommend trying to combine them in
>real life, either.
>One is for one thing, the other is for something else.
> A long ground
>roll gives a lot more control (using spoiler AND brake)
>than
>a slightly long 'minimum energy' landing followed by
>attempts at maximum
>braking that fail and end up rear-ending someone.
>
>In article ,
>T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>>Martin Eiler wrote:
>>
>>As long as we acknowledge what skill we are testing
>>(managing a rollout), I'm OK with it. It's just a
>>skill
>>that I think it is odd to test when IMHO a more important
>>skill (low energy accurate touchdown) is not directly
>>tested.
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd
>

[Bert Willing]

Still, in an off-airfield landing you need the shortest possible rollout.
And that should be teached and tested.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Mark James Boyd" > a écrit dans le message de news:
42122c18$1@darkstar...
> Agreed, I'd want to see them use SOME braking, and KNOW
> where the brakes are and how they are used. And awareness
> of the difference in effectiveness of brakes on wet grass vs. cement,
> etc. But testing to see "who can stop shorter using brakes"
> seems like a bad emphasis.

[Mark James Boyd]

Agreed, I'd want to see them use SOME braking, and KNOW
where the brakes are and how they are used. And awareness
of the difference in effectiveness of brakes on wet grass vs. cement,
etc. But testing to see "who can stop shorter using brakes"
seems like a bad emphasis.

In airplane teaching, a different instructor used to
teach the "mash the brakes" stuff for the short-field
landing practice. Several of his students flatted tires.
Our local examiner never asked for this kind of braking
action, just a demonstration of the elements, but never the
maximum braking one would actually do in an emergency.

In article >,
T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>
>>As long as the focus of such short field landings is on
>>"near-minimum energy" and "touchdown spot" this would be
>>good. These are good skills. Stopping after that within any
>>actual particular distance is of no interest, however,
>>since anyone can mash the brakes.
>
>While it is true that "anyone can mash the brakes," I would
>advocate a simulated off field landing task, and in that
>test you will want to see that the student actually
>remembers to use the brakes. In an off field landing you
>want to stop quickly to minimize the chance of rolling into
>a rock or hole.


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

I think a "simulated off-field landing"
flight portion with standards isn't a bad idea.

But keep in mind the reason I advocate this is to
standardize the examiners. Having some examiners
require 8 feet and others require 400 feet as the
tolerance for an off-field (minimum-energy) landing
isn't standardized.

I'm not sure a PTS change is absolutely required.
There are newletters and such for examiners that
can discuss this and come to a "consensus" that
within 200 feet, or 400 feet or whatever of a designated
point for simulated off-field landings is a reasonable idea.

And if this is only in the commercial PTS, then
maybe that is ok. I know plenty of private pilots who
follow the X-C stuff in the GFH and are always within glide
of long runways and never, ever put themselves in an
off-field situation. If they want to fly this way, good for them...

In article >,
T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
>Martin Eiler > wrote:
>
>>Todd I think your opinion is that normal glider landings
>>should mirror what the Private asel standards describe
>>as touching down smoothly at approximate stalling speed,
>>at or within 400 feet beyond a specified point.
>
>I don't have any strong opinions about where in the PTS to
>put an accuracy landing test (Normal Landing Task or
>elsewhere) but I do think if the PTS is going to have an
>accuracy landing test it should be similar to the test
>above. If they want to have two tests, then the stopping
>point test is fine.
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:05:41 +0100, "Bert Willing"
> wrote:

>Still, in an off-airfield landing you need the shortest possible rollout.
>And that should be teached and tested.

I guess we both know where the broken tail booms on US Twin 2's come
from, don't we? :)


Bye
Andreas

[Don Johnstone]

I don't understand the broken tail booms bit or what
that has to do with short rollouts. We do teach and
test for short rolls in the UK and I have no recollection
of a large number of tail boom breaks

At 02:04 16 February 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:05:41 +0100, 'Bert Willing'
> wrote:
>
>>Still, in an off-airfield landing you need the shortest
>>possible rollout.
>>And that should be teached and tested.
>
>I guess we both know where the broken tail booms on
>US Twin 2's come
>from, don't we? :)
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

[Bert Willing]

The remark was targeted to the opposite - if you do a main wheel landing
with the excess energy needed to taxi to a stopping point 2 miles away, you
have a good chance to enter a PIO :-)))

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Don Johnstone" > a écrit dans
le message de news: ...
>I don't understand the broken tail booms bit or what
> that has to do with short rollouts. We do teach and
> test for short rolls in the UK and I have no recollection
> of a large number of tail boom breaks
>
> At 02:04 16 February 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:05:41 +0100, 'Bert Willing'
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Still, in an off-airfield landing you need the shortest
>>>possible rollout.
>>>And that should be teached and tested.
>>
>>I guess we both know where the broken tail booms on
>>US Twin 2's come
>>from, don't we? :)
>>
>>
>>Bye
>>Andreas
>>
>
>
>

[Roger Worden]

Interesting. What's the date on your PTS? Mine, dated 1999 and downloaded
from the FAA, does not have an item 1 and 2. It has a single unnumbered
paragraph containing the text shown in your number 1.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger Worden" > wrote:
>
> >Where in the PTS does it say land without reference to the altimeter? I
> >don't see it. I think that's a Bronze requirement, but not in the PTS. I
was
> >asked to do it on my PPG practical... much to my surprise! I had never
done
> >it before but nailed it.
>
> See 2 below:
>
> X. AREA OF OPERATION: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
> A. TASK: SIMULATED OFF-AIRPORT LANDING
> REFERENCES: Soaring Flight Manual, Glider Flight Manual.
> NOTE: This landing will be performed at an established
> airport.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to a simulated
> off-airport landing, including selection of a suitable
> landing area and the procedures used to accomplish an
> off-airport landing.
> 2. Performs a simulated off-airport landing without the use
> of an altimeter.