New trainer from SZD Bielsko

On 22 Jun, 16:43, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:05:05 -0600, "Bill Daniels"

bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
So, don't assume that a glider has bad spin behavior just because they've
been spun in by instructors.

Given the fact that other gliders did not spin in during a winch
launch with an instructor in board, odds are that these accidents were
not completely the pilot's fault, don't you agree?

The Puchacz is not, alas, the only glider to have spun in off a winch
launch.

Mind you, I recall a site check at a Large UK Club in a winch launched
Puchacz. At the top of the launch the instructor kept telling me to
pull back more, even when pre-stall buffet could be felt. And that was
only two weeks after an AEI flight had spun in off the winch, fatally
for the pupil.

My conclusion: some instructors shouldn't be flying, and some clubs
shouldn't be operating.

Ian

On 22 Jun, 15:23, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On 22 Jun 2007 13:28:04 GMT, Al Eddie

wrote:
non-recoverable spin

Define.

And before you do, read the accident reports...!

In Germany there were at least wo spin-related accidents during winch
launches, in both cases instructors on board. Iirc no survivors.

How many gliders can recover from a spin which starts on the winch
launch? I really don't think the Puchacz can be blamed in such cases.

Ian

Ian wrote:
On 22 Jun, 15:23, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On 22 Jun 2007 13:28:04 GMT, Al Eddie

wrote:
non-recoverable spin
Define.
And before you do, read the accident reports...!
In Germany there were at least wo spin-related accidents during winch
launches, in both cases instructors on board. Iirc no survivors.

How many gliders can recover from a spin which starts on the winch
launch? I really don't think the Puchacz can be blamed in such cases.

Ian


I know of at least one incident with a Ka7 or 8.

In this case the early solo pilot allowed the attitude to get too high and spun
while under power from the winch. He managed to recover and arrive in one piece
if a little shaken. I gather he was circa 800 feet when the aircraft departed
from controlled flight.

Score 1 for sheer luck...

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:10:28 -0700, Ian
wrote:

How many gliders can recover from a spin which starts on the winch
launch? I really don't think the Puchacz can be blamed in such cases.

Sorry to repeat myself, but how many primary trainers really DO enter
an unintentional spin during a winch launch with an instructor on
board?

In my opinion a primary trainer (the one that is used for early solo
flights) cannot be spin-resistent enough.



Bye
Andreas

On Jun 23, 10:34 pm, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:10:28 -0700, Ian
wrote:

How many gliders can recover from a spin which starts on the winch
launch? I really don't think the Puchacz can be blamed in such cases.

Sorry to repeat myself, but how many primary trainers really DO enter
an unintentional spin during a winch launch with an instructor on
board?

Why do people think instructors are invulnerable? I know instructors
who've destroyed gliders.


In my opinion a primary trainer (the one that is used for early solo
flights) cannot be spin-resistent enough.

That was the rationale behind the K21, which was designed to German
requirements. Unfortunately all single seat gliders will spin, so
training solely on spin-resistant gliders is a receipe for disaster
and has no doubt cost lives. The Pooch is an excellent training glider
as it does what any single seater will do - spin if provoked.

Tales of "unrecoverable" spins in pooches are probably due to the idea
that the low tail can blank the rudder (actually it won't). In reality
a pooch will always recover with standard spin recovery technique. If
you claim otherwise, please provide a reference to an accident report
stating so.


Dan

On 23 Jun, 22:34, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:10:28 -0700, Ian
wrote:

How many gliders can recover from a spin which starts on the winch
launch? I really don't think the Puchacz can be blamed in such cases.

Sorry to repeat myself, but how many primary trainers really DO enter
an unintentional spin during a winch launch with an instructor on
board?

Do you mean how many do, or how many can?

In my opinion a primary trainer (the one that is used for early solo
flights) cannot be spin-resistent enough.

I disagree. I think the glider used for training should spin like a
top. The learner needs to know that this is something which can
happen, can be recovered from, and really shouldn't be allowed to
happen near the ground.

I like K21's, but their lack of spinnability is a mennace. I jave
flown at three different clubs where the message given - effectively -
to student pilots is "Today we are going to learn about something
called a spin. To do that, we are going to need a different glider
from the one you normally fly in, and we are going to have to do very
strange things to the controls." Subliminal message: "This won't
happen to you unless you want it to."

My first spin was in a Bocian - the one I was used to flying in as an
ab-initio, at Portmoak. One day my instructor said "You are flying to
slowly and over-ruddering your turns at the hill. One day you will
scare yourself ****less doing that. Let me demonstrate. I have
control..."

And he proceeded to scare me ****less. So I learned that spinning was
something which could happen to /me/ in gliders /I flew/, doing /
perfectly normal things/ - albeit not very competently.

I do not this a message of "Let's land and go up in a completely
different aircraft" would have made anything like the same
impression ...

Ian

Are you saying a K-21 or a DG 505 are not insurable for student pilots? I
think they are. The K21 is a VERY robust glider and a great trainer - so is
the 505.

Bill Daniels

Bill: Both are excellent gliders - and probably anything is insurable at
some price. My point is that you cannot look at the issue of "training"
without examining both the cost involved in the acquisition and insuring
of your "trainers" and what type of training you are going to use them
for. To make an extreme example, how many 2-33s can we buy and insure for
the cost of one 505? How many clubs are going to use their shiny new $100K
asset for a 15 year old's first solo? Clubs make these decisions all of
the time and I have seen over and over with many clubs that the high
performance "trainer" is never used for ab initio training if a lesser
performing (and cheaper) 2-place is available. Examples: Sugarbush has both
ASK-21s and Blaniks but first solo training is always on the Blanik. SS
Boulder has a 505 and a G-103 but first solo training is on the G103.
Franconia has a G-103 and a 2-33 but teaches and solos on the Schweizer. I
could give 10 more examples. This is frequently driven by insurance
requirements.

I agree with your comments that High Performance gliders are no more
difficult to fly than low performance (although there are some differences
in teaching on them). But as somebody who is very concerned with the high
entry cost to our sport (I am the CFI in charge of my club's youth program)
I see the financial "downside" of the higher performance trainers. The
truth is, every training glider decision is a mix of cost, performance,
maintenance issues, repairability, modernity, staff instructor comfort, and
relationship to what else is in the fleet. Depending on how you assign
values to those factors - you can "make a case" for almost anything.

Roy

No doubt that the insurance premium on a more expensive glider is greater
but insurance is a fixed cost. Divide the premium by the yearly hours to
get hourly insurance costs. The most expensive glider to insure on an
hourly basis is the one that doesn't get flown much. I know a guy who owns
a 1-26 and flies it maybe twice a year. His hourly insurance rate must be
$200/hr.

A popular high performance trainer may well have a low hourly insurance
costs. An ugly, low performance trainer may have a higher hourly insruance
rate if the nice one gets flown more.

The really huge advantage of modern high performance trainers is that they
attract new members and keep the old ones. I offer two examples: The
Philadelphia Soaring Council and the Soaring Society of Boulder - there are
many more. There is a very good case to be made for operating really nice
equipment.

On the other hand, it's not hard to find clubs who have reduced their
equipment and insurance costs to the minimum and, in the process, reduced
their membership to the minimum. They are related.

On a slightly different tack, if a club mandates solo in old, cheap
equipment, that says they don't trust the new member students or their
instructors. If a club can't trust its instructors, it has a far worse
problem than the training gliders.

Bill Daniels


"Roy Bourgeois" wrote in message
...


Are you saying a K-21 or a DG 505 are not insurable for student pilots? I
think they are. The K21 is a VERY robust glider and a great trainer - so
is
the 505.

Bill Daniels

Bill: Both are excellent gliders - and probably anything is insurable at
some price. My point is that you cannot look at the issue of "training"
without examining both the cost involved in the acquisition and insuring
of your "trainers" and what type of training you are going to use them
for. To make an extreme example, how many 2-33s can we buy and insure for
the cost of one 505? How many clubs are going to use their shiny new
$100K
asset for a 15 year old's first solo? Clubs make these decisions all of
the time and I have seen over and over with many clubs that the high
performance "trainer" is never used for ab initio training if a lesser
performing (and cheaper) 2-place is available. Examples: Sugarbush has
both
ASK-21s and Blaniks but first solo training is always on the Blanik. SS
Boulder has a 505 and a G-103 but first solo training is on the G103.
Franconia has a G-103 and a 2-33 but teaches and solos on the Schweizer.
I
could give 10 more examples. This is frequently driven by insurance
requirements.

I agree with your comments that High Performance gliders are no more
difficult to fly than low performance (although there are some differences
in teaching on them). But as somebody who is very concerned with the high
entry cost to our sport (I am the CFI in charge of my club's youth
program)
I see the financial "downside" of the higher performance trainers. The
truth is, every training glider decision is a mix of cost, performance,
maintenance issues, repairability, modernity, staff instructor comfort,
and
relationship to what else is in the fleet. Depending on how you assign
values to those factors - you can "make a case" for almost anything.

Roy

On a slightly different tack, if a club mandates solo in old, cheap
equipment, that says they don't trust the new member students or their
instructors. If a club can't trust its instructors, it has a far worse
problem than the training gliders.

Bill Daniels
Bill - You point to SSB as an example of the kind of club you want - but
they do exactly what I am talking about which is to use their 505 for
advanced training and do training and first solos in the old G103. (my son
Dan is the maintenance chief for that G103) Same with
Sugarbush, Franconia, GBSC and virtually every club that has a high
performance and a low performance 2 seater.

You argue that better equipment attracts new members and you are right. I
argue that lower cost attracts youth into the sport - and I am right. It's
all in how you value things. I've been in gliding for 33 years hand seen
this debate for most of them (I have been director of 6 clubs, member of
10, past SSA Director, etc.). I have learned that there are 2 types of
students: Those who have time but not money and those who have money but
little time. You run very different clubs (with very different equipment)
depending upon which constituency you serve. But - if you take the big
picture, you don't denigrate one club model compared to another.

Roy

"Roy Bourgeois" wrote in message
...

On a slightly different tack, if a club mandates solo in old, cheap
equipment, that says they don't trust the new member students or their
instructors. If a club can't trust its instructors, it has a far worse
problem than the training gliders.

Bill Daniels
Bill - You point to SSB as an example of the kind of club you want - but
they do exactly what I am talking about which is to use their 505 for
advanced training and do training and first solos in the old G103. (my son
Dan is the maintenance chief for that G103) Same with
Sugarbush, Franconia, GBSC and virtually every club that has a high
performance and a low performance 2 seater.

You argue that better equipment attracts new members and you are right. I
argue that lower cost attracts youth into the sport - and I am right.
It's
all in how you value things. I've been in gliding for 33 years hand seen
this debate for most of them (I have been director of 6 clubs, member of
10, past SSA Director, etc.). I have learned that there are 2 types of
students: Those who have time but not money and those who have money but
little time. You run very different clubs (with very different equipment)
depending upon which constituency you serve. But - if you take the big
picture, you don't denigrate one club model compared to another.

Roy

Roy, I think we agree across the board. The SSB Grob Twin II is a fine
trainer that attracts both youth and more afluent members. BTW, if you look
hard at training costs, it isn't the glider that costs so much, it's launch
costs. I've long been on record favoring winches for the majorityof
training flights.

It's the kind of decrepit trainer that was recently removed from Boulder
Airport by another club that I was writing about. It's those things that
drive clubs to extinction.

Bill Daniels