Dear Burt

Glad I misunderstood. I'd have joined you, but Laura had beer and pizza
waiting this evening.

Cheers,

OC (hic)

In article ,
Steve Hill wrote:

I have
just always sorta felt that the PTS and ensuing exam is based on passing the
test in a 2-33 and going for 20 minute sled rides.

Real world in a 45:1 sailplane...that test doesn't even scratch the surface
of what's required.

You may be correct about the test. OTOH, if people are flying things
similar to what they've lerared in then they are probably OK. At our
club, at the moment people learn in 38:1 sailplanes, but in 18 months or
so we'll be switching to 45:1 sailplanes from their first flight.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

In article ,
Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article ,
Steve Hill wrote:

I have
just always sorta felt that the PTS and ensuing exam is based on passing the
test in a 2-33 and going for 20 minute sled rides.

I agree COMPLETELY. The nuances of water ballast, tail ballast,
convergence, weather details, PIO, etc. are far beyond the scope of
anything one could possibly test in a 4 hour period.


Real world in a 45:1 sailplane...that test doesn't even scratch the surface
of what's required.

Fortunately, real world in a 2-33, it does perfectly well.
And real world beyond that the insurance company will require
enough (sometimes 10 hours+ in make/model) so that their $120,000
glider doesn't get hamfisted.


You may be correct about the test. OTOH, if people are flying things
similar to what they've lerared in then they are probably OK. At our
club, at the moment people learn in 38:1 sailplanes, but in 18 months or
so we'll be switching to 45:1 sailplanes from their first flight.

How many of them have "ZERO" instruction between a 2-33 practical test and
their flying 45:1 solo?

In the "real world" insurers, clubs, Darwin, and wallets all value
time in make/model quite strongly. The FAA relies on these
four mechanisms to finish the job they have laid a rudimentary foundation
for.

The fatal accident reports from the US don't suggest to me that
all, or even most, of the fatalities were preventable by more
dual instruction. Many/most of these accidents look to me like
pilots pushing the aircraft to the naked edge of performance and
exceeding the limitations of aircraft/weather/pilot. There are some
personality types of students that I have seen who consistently
overestimate their abilities and consistently underestimate the
limitations. No amount of dual instruction seems to have any
effect on this attitude. I have identified 5 pilots during my
instructing who I felt had this propensity. 4 of 5 have seriously
dameged or destroyed aircraft and/or injured passengers, despite
my strong warnings and even refusal to continue training.

I will review the fatalities again and see how close this is to the
mark generally, but I must say that from reading the glider
accident reports, I wasn't terribly surprised at the fatalities, and
I didn't see a huge percentage of low-time pilot fatalities either.


--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

wrote:
This is exactly my point! Why don't we all already know what makes an
aircraft turn? Many pilots feel they do, but if we sit several
professional pilots down, separately, and ask them how an aircraft
flies from a pilot's perspective, you'll get three substantively
related, though specifically different answers.

Let me play "devil's advocate" for a minute. A friend of mine was taking
power lessons and the CFI asked how a VOR works. My friend started to
explain the reference and rotating signals. The CFI stopped him and said
"I see you're an engineer, now tell me how a VOR works". "You tune and
identify the frequency and set the radial on the OBS". "Right".

Tony V.

At 01:30 05 February 2005, Tony Verhulst wrote:
wrote:
This is exactly my point! Why don't we all already
know what makes an
aircraft turn? Many pilots feel they do, but if we
sit several
professional pilots down, separately, and ask them
how an aircraft
flies from a pilot's perspective, you'll get three
substantively
related, though specifically different answers.

Let me play 'devil's advocate' for a minute. A friend
of mine was taking
power lessons and the CFI asked how a VOR works. My
friend started to
explain the reference and rotating signals. The CFI
stopped him and said
'I see you're an engineer, now tell me how a VOR works'.
'You tune and
identify the frequency and set the radial on the OBS'.
'Right'.

Tony V.


Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.

Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.

The point I was trying to make was that you don't have to know how a VOR
works in order to use it. Just as you don't have to know what makes an
airplane turn in order to turn an airplane.

Tony V.

At 15:00 05 February 2005, Tony Verhulst wrote:

Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.

The point I was trying to make was that you don't have
to know how a VOR
works in order to use it. Just as you don't have to
know what makes an
airplane turn in order to turn an airplane.

I understood, Tony. I just like to belabor the point
that what we say is not a;ways understood. What we
communicate is not what we say; it is what the other
person thought we said.

I don't really intend to be a smartass; my apologies
if I come off that way!

I understood, Tony. I just like to belabor the point
that what we say is not a;ways understood. What we
communicate is not what we say; it is what the other
person thought we said.

I don't really intend to be a smartass; my apologies
if I come off that way!


No problem - and you were right. I just didn't know if my point was
clear or not, and so I clarified it.

Tony

"Nyal Williams" wrote in message
...
At 15:00 05 February 2005, Tony Verhulst wrote:

Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.

The point I was trying to make was that you don't have
to know how a VOR
works in order to use it. Just as you don't have to
know what makes an
airplane turn in order to turn an airplane.

I understood, Tony. I just like to belabor the point
that what we say is not a;ways understood. What we
communicate is not what we say; it is what the other
person thought we said.

I don't really intend to be a smartass; my apologies
if I come off that way!

I know you believe you think you understand what you thought I said; but I
am not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant!

Tim Ward

If the aircraft is banked and a component of the lift is then
horizontal, why doesn't the aircraft just go sideways
over into the next county? We have to bring gravity, centrifugal
force, and the effect of the tail feathers into this picture.
We need a good mental picture of what is happening.......

"The math" doesn't give a "good mental picture".
Gravity provides the thrust for a glider. It is sliding downhill.

Centrifugal force is provided by part of the lifting force of the
wings. It causes the glider to turn because it is always at
right angles to the direction of flight. Don't think of it as pulling
you sideways but rather as pulling you round. (sic.)

The "tail feathers": The rudder is used to counteract the adverse
yaw of the wings caused by the differences of drag on the two
wings during turning flight.

The elevator is used to counteract the loss of some of the
"upwards" lift being used to create "inwards" lift (towards the
center of the circle) during banking. This loss is made
up for by increasing the angle of attack.

The use of the rudder and elevator during turning is not entirely
necessary but it does make flying safer and more efficient.

David