On 16/04/2014 06:32, Steve Koerner wrote:

I sort of figured someone would snipe to that effect. So, jfitch,
what is your reasoning that makes it 'deadly'?

Are there any known cases when an FES was intended to be initiated
but failed to do so in flight?

Nice straw man. Are you claiming that means it'll never happen? Do you
write TV ads for a living?

It would seem to me that the FES has much going for it in terms of
its potential for very high reliable operation. That would be the
fact of no boom to raise and the fact that the power plant is an
electric motor.

No question.

Single engine airplane pilots think nothing of routinely flying in
the boonies with no landing alternate available to them. That
contrasts with an FES glider pilot who might put himself into that
situation only rarely.

There is a major difference. A certificated light aircraft has to have
a certificated engine meeting known standards of reliability in design,
construction and maintenance. EVERY powered glider's engine is only
certified as an auxiliary and meets almost none of the certified
engine's reliability tests.

To reprise what I said earlier about PLBs vs Spot/Inreach: a certified
engine is the real thing, the engine in a powered glider is a nice toy -
even electric ones.

I think all of us have had plenty of experience with both electric
motors and gas motors and know the former to be vastly more reliable.
Yet power pilots treat their gas engines as reliable enough to bet
their life on. I'm suspecting that a reasoned glider pilot who has
tested his FES startup many times in non-threatening circumstances
would arrive at the same determination. The interesting part is that
yields a significant advantage in competition.

Go ahead. Bet your life on it!

GC