noel.wade wrote:
On Jan 11, 10:54 am, Bruce wrote:
So - a little advice. If you find an asset not being used, look at the
procedures relating to it's use. Low time solo pilots should be safe in
something like an Apis - encourage them to fly it.

Funny thing is that when we changed the rule and made it standard procedure to
drag the hangar queen to the launch point every day - and lightened up a little
on the restrictions - it gets flown.

Thanks, Bruce!

Snip...

For our Apis, I think the flaps make the senior members overly
cautious (but AFAIK we could just tell low-time pilots to leave the
flaps in the 0 position and they'd be fine).
Snip...

--Noel

Hi Noel,

Sounds as if we're in agreement on this particular aspect of glider
'complexity' but I thought I'd use this as an opportunity to interject a
viewpoint that (to me!) seems obvious, yet based on your
comment/observation above, and my own experiences...*isn't*!!!

The anal part of me occasionally would like to know exactly how many
times I've heard the following 2 positions (usually in opposition to
some sort of proposed fleet change in a club) espoused (with varying
degrees of vehemence):
1) flaps (not the landing kind, merely the camber-changing efficiency
kind) are definitionally 'too complex' to even be considered as a new
club ship, and...
2) ditto retractable landing gear.

Color me bemused.

If I'm Joe Instructor (which I'm not), I'd be seeking to convey those
seeking my input, how to use their in-flight brains critically, and not
simply 'rotely.' IMHO, camber-changing flaps and retractable gear to me
are platter-served superb teaching and skill-expanding devices. (It's
left as an exercise for the reader to reconcile 'skill-expanding' with
'safety-enhancing'...)

On my question list for wannabe transitionees (I was one, once, & I
asked myself these same questions) a
a) why mess with the flaps at all?
b) why mess with the gear at all?

I'd expect decent comprehensive replies - probably coming only after an
extended conversation about these aspects - before I'd be comfortable
saying, "Have at it!"

Flying nothing but (large-deflection-for-landing) flapped and
retractable geared ships since transitioning from a 1-26, I recognize
it's human nature to want to fiddle with new stuff (i.e. camber-changing
flaps and retractable gear). I further readily acknowledge some ships
definitely benefit from negative flaps at the outset of takeoff rolls,
and that retract gears are (arguably) less strong than fixed gears.

Those things noted, understand that neither of my first two flapped
ships *had* negative flap options. I'd further point out that most (not
all) poor landings sufficiently hard as to damage retract gear
mechanisms, are so violent as to simultaneously risk damaging fixed gear
support structures. But to the point of human nature, clearly it's not
going to change....but - IMHO - some of its more obviously off-the-wall
impulses easily fall within the purview of sensible instruction. If I
seriously thought my glider club mostly consisted of members so
off-the-wall as to not be able to resist reasoned injunctions against
not messing with flaps or gear until higher priority flight control and
safety issues associated with transitioning to a new single-seat club
ship had become second-nature to them, then I, too, would vote against
acquiring flapped, retractable single-seaters. Happily, I've never seen
such a club.

Regards,
Bob - soapbox now stored - W.