That's mostly a load of platitudinous codswallop, Don.

Don Johnstone wrote:
I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What
they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
can be a double edged sword.

In other spheres of aviation they are (with proper training) almost
universally seen as a good thing.

While they may be appropriate
for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who
have worked out a plan to react to they may not be
appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad
ability and experience spread.

As I said, landing with the gear up or accidents related to that
situation are taken in every other area of aviation as an indication of
inadequate training. "Inadequate" means "less than the amount required
for the level of skill and experience of the pilot involved".

They also push the idea that there is no substitute
for airmanship and configuring a glider for the intended
stage of flight is basic airmanship.

Rubbish. The BGA's policy is the reverse. It implies that the use of a
warning device is unnecessary. In the rest of aviation it has long been
accepted that warning devices and check lists are fundamental to
overcoming some basic human inadequacies. Pilots are trained to use
these tools to support the application of airmanship. Not to reject
them in some hairy-chested "real pilots don't need any crutches" way.

By all means use
warning gizzmos as a backup, we all make mistakes,

I could have put it better but that's about right.

but relying on them to remove or reduce the need for
proper airmanship is not the way to go.

Nobody said it was.

Remember that
many safety rules assume the worst case scenario and
of course mainly legislate for the less knowledgeable.
Competent pilots don't need to know there is a rule,
barring mistakes they fly sensibly anyway.

Does this mean anything sensible at all?

GC

At 07:18 22 November 2005, Graeme Cant wrote:

Tony Verhulst wrote:


The point is that very, very, few flights arrive for
a landing without
opening the spoilers for the first time (when the
warning would go off)
at 10 ft off the ground. Much more often that happens
much earlier when
it's quite safe to lower the gear and still make a
safe landing.

At 10 feet, I would agree that for most pilots it
would be best to leave
the gear where it is.

I agree. It seems to me that the BGA's recommendation
is poorly thought
out. Every other sphere of aviation with a retractable
gear has made
warning systems compulsory and while gear errors still
occur the
frequency is quite low. In particular, the warning
system is not blamed
for the accident - which is the topsy-turvy logic of
the BGA's policy.

In most of aviation, accidents involving gear warnings
are (rightly)
attributed to poor pilot training or lack of familiarity/recency
on type
and something is done about the training system and
the pilot's competence.

Blaming the warning system is irrational.

Graeme Cant




Tony V.