On 9/15/2010 12:12 PM, Kevin Christner wrote:

Bob,

I'm glad you realized that 2-point approaches are the best way avoid
land out damage. Unfortunately, it appears a large portion of US
pilots disagree with you!

Regrettably, I wouldn't seriously try to argue this particular point because
my working suspicion is your contention is accurate. I've encountered 'a
not-insignificant percentage' of experienced XC pilots - including some
actively involved in racing - I've never seen practice a low-energy landing,
and some who've (gasp) actively pooh-poohed the desirability of having the
skill. Admittedly, the bulk of my experience has been on the eastern side of
the intermountain west (where large fields are often easily found), but the
pooh-pooh attitude has always astounded/worried me.


I appreciate your argument regarding primacy, but for most I'm not
sure it works like that. Regardless of how much time you have to
think about an off-field landing, they are still 'stressful' enough
that reversion to bad habits is highly likely to occur.

I agree that most folks' initial OFL 'will be' high-stress (in the actual
sweaty-palmed sense), but have for years within my club put forth the
reasoning that it doesn't need to be in an 'actual risk to you/the plane' sense.

(Ref.: http://soarboulder.org/stories/kissing-tips-1)
(...verbose, written in the '90's for my club's newsletter, personally
out-of-date, cited simply as supporting evidence...)

I also agree that initial OFL's are the place where all the mistakes will be
'practiced' (e.g. too-close-in downwinds, too high speeds, less-than-good
field selections in the face of better nearby options, etc.). My club
(sensibly, IMHO) actively encourages pilot-skill-set expansion via XC
instruction and a (22 consecutive years and counting) XC camp in benign
landout country. But the fact remains, Joe Pilot is the one who ultimately
does most of the (non-instructor-aided) skill-set-expansion, and 'bull
sessions' are a huge part of the experience.

(Ref.: http://soarboulder.org/newsletters See September's edition)


Another point
would be bad things very rarely happen with the first bad decision.
Too much energy at touchdown is often a result of a pattern flown to
quickly. I can't count the number of times I've gone up with someone
who flew their pattern 5-8kts over best L/D speed in benign
conditions. When you ask why its because "its safer." This may be
"safe" but it I doubt it's "safer" at the time and it certainly won't
be "safer" when you are going into a 400ft field and a pattern speed 4
or 5 knots below L/D is called for. The benign conditions would have
been a perfect time to practice a minimum energy pattern - but then
again, they've never heard of that.

I've no doubt we're on the same page, here. Where we might differ is that I
don't see 'mandated instruction' as curing the underlying problem, which (I
believe) is with Joe Pilot's basic attitude and approach to his or her soaring
world. My own approach is to gently try and help them expand their world-view
so they'll understand that any world view is (always) incomplete, *and* want
to expand their own...whether via dual instruction, or self-practice or any
other sensible method that works for them. That said, I suspect that some
people ARE entirely entrenched in their (less-than-good-for-them/their-ship)
thinking...but my approach is to act as if no one is, meaning my personal
radar routinely looks for opportunities to help others 'see the light' even if
they've previously proven blind.

And, if we accept primacy does not occur to "nerves of steel"
attempting his first off field landing, I'd still preferred he has
lots of practice on low energy approaches followed by minimum energy
landings. Ultimately this is not an argument about 2-33's vs. K-21s,
but rather an argument about the pitiful state of glider training in
the US.

I guess I'm not so convinced the problem can be laid at the door of 'poor
training'. I'm inclined to suppose ultimate responsibility lies within the
pilot population itself. Not that I'm saying dual instruction isn't
fundamentally important...because it unarguably is *vitally* so...just that I
don't see any proposed 'better instructional approach' as likely to have
significant/measurable effects on the landout-crunch-world. Consider the
dismal - and enduring down the decades - record of inadvertent stall-spins in
the pattern; a reasonable argument can be made that 'better instruction' has
had exactly zero effect on the normalized annual death rate (whether we're
talking glider or power worlds).

In the glider-OFL-world, we could be up against human nature...

But even if we are, I believe it shouldn't diminish our attempts to educate
wannabe XC pilots in the 'best practices' of OFLs. Why? Because *some* WILL
'get it!' If dual instruction can play a part (and I agree its competent
availability varies widely in the U.S. club scene), then those pilots who can
avail themselves of it are indeed luckier than those who cannot. Options are good.

Regards,
Bob W.