On Thursday, 7 June 2018 06:23:14 UTC+8, SoaringXCellence wrote:
All,

As a pilot examiner (USA) for gliders and a 22-year glider instructor, I'd like to add a few points:

In the USA just being able to take-off fly well and land does not fulfill the solo flight requirements in FAR 61.87, there are 19 items! The requirements are to train and LOG the training in each of the 19 elements. I find that many logbooks are not complete with regard to the accurate logging of the training and are often very vague as to what was trained.

I had a student come to me for instruction, who had been signed off for solo, but had never done a stall!! That clearly doesn't meet the requirements and or any logic for safety.

One of the items, #13, is for training in the assembly and dis-assembly of gliders. That one seems to be often left until after the solo. I also find that occasionally I need to contact the CFIG to insure that the training has actually been done, and to get an entry in the logbook to the attest to the training. This is during the practical test!

Another, #18 Procedures and techniques for thermalling, is often weak even in the Commercial pilots that come to me. Proper entry to a thermal, right-of-way and centering are the minimum I expect to be trained, actually being able to gain altitude is a bonus.

Check out the list, I think you'll see several areas that are frequently only lightly touched.

All these omissions are more frequent when the glider operation does not have a closely monitored training process or there are frequent changes of instructor.

OK, I'm stepping down from my soapbox,

Mike Bamberg

Agree mike, solo is a standard not a number of flights. Even the best students need to demonstrate consistency & good judgement over time & different conditions. Trying to get them to solo in the minimum number of launches for commercial or ego reasons is ill-advised. And the inevitable conversations around how few flights you went solo in don't serve any purpose other than to egos .. maybe you were good & maybe your instructor didn't cover everything as thoroughly as they should have .. either way, it's not really relevant now!

Richard McLean