Glider Safety

Originally Posted by Brad[_2_]

On Feb 24, 11:58*am, Greg Arnold wrote:
Tony wrote:

I think you'd lose a lot of experienced and effective instructors.
Seeking advanced badges and advanced knowledge is certainly a good
trait in an instructor but not the be all and end all. *Not all of us
live and work and play at a "Diamond Mine" location. *Some instructors
seek advancement in other ways than badge flights. *I've only got a
lousy Silver Badge but I certainly think I'm a decent CFIG, at least
my students and their DPE's seem to think so. *As far as I know none
of the CFIG's I have taken training from have above a Silver Badge.
But I still feel that I received top notch instruction. *I also feel
that I get plenty of respect from my fellow glider pilots even though
I don't have the coveted Diamonds.

If any of the racing pilots in the country came to me for a spring
checkout or a flight review I wouldn't be able to teach them a damn
thing about going fast or winning races, but that is not what a flight
review or spring checkout is about. *We'd have a fun time reviewing
tow signals, tow failures, abnormal patterns, spot landings, sim off
field landings, and other things that are the real killers.

And I'm still young enough to think of an afternoon crammed in the
back of a 2-XX rotating through 3 or 4 students as a good time.
Hopefully I don't get too old for that for a long time.

Another issue is the type of glider being used. *Does a glass pilot
learn anything useful by practicing abnormal patterns, spot landings,
simulated off field landings, etc. in a 2-XX? *Don't you need an least
an ASK-21 or Grob 103 to make such instruction useful, and preferably a
Duo Discus or DG-1000? *Or even better, have him use his own glider to
practice these things?

Awhile ago a friend of mine bought himself a 40:1 motorglider. His
first glass ship, after years flying Blaniks, Twin Larks and other
club tin. He was a competent pilot and had a fair amount of time, I'm
guessing under 300 hours.

So, after getting checked out in his new motorglider, he flew it
"several" times at the local airport where our club operates. No
worries, he does fine, let's a few of us fly the ship......the first
thing I notice is this is NOT a Blanik, or a Lark, or anything else he
might have flown, this thing has a great sink rate, and a great glide,
and while easy to fly, did require all my attention when entering the
pattern and setting up for a landing.

One afternoon after flying together, and while having dinner at the
airport cafe, he say's to me "let's take our sailplanes to XX field
tomorrow and fly". I declined the invite, since it was a long drive
and didn't offer anything my local area didn't offer. But this field
is "trickier" than our home field, and I should have asked him if he
was comfortable enough in his new glider to go there, not "safer". It
never occurred to me to really dig in and question him.

The locals required him to take a couple check flights in the L-13, he
flies the TO/Tow, pattern then lands flawlessly. So now he's ready to
fly his glider. From what I understand he had a great flight, close to
4 hours and explores all the local ridges, etc. then..........when it
comes time to land, he sets up and flies a perfect Blanik pattern,
into this tight field, with no real emergency bail out
options..............panics, makes a few hesitant S turns, then stall
and spins into the middle of the field, killing himself.

What went wrong?

Brad

Brad, Are you referring by any chance to the guy who died in the Tst 10M down by Mt. Rainier?

In article
,
bildan wrote:

So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? I know of
many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". A lot of
accidents can be traced back to them.

Dude, that's a pretty strong statement with some harsh implications.
First, anyone truly familiar with instructors with high accident rates
(of their former students) should be in touch with the FAA to share the
observation. And second, if they aren't, that kind of makes them
complicit, doesn't it.

On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan wrote:
Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
arrogance.

So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
accidents can be traced back to them.

We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.

In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do.
While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
instructor.

I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
respect to get their Diamond.

You are pretty good at supporting your arguments with statements like
"we have always known," and "it's clear to me." However, you are not
so good at supporting what is clearly a weak position with actual
facts. You cite an example of ONE instructor with a problem and
generalize it to ALL instructors who don't have your apparently
exalted level of accomplishment. PROVE that we have a surplus of
instructors. PROVE that a lot of accidents can be traced to
instructors whose only interest is free flying. PROVE that a
dedicated instructor who doesn't have a diamond badge cannot provide
excellent instruction to his/her students. The fact is that your idea
is simply unjustified, unworkable, and would lead to a further
diminishing of the numbers of participants in our sport.

On Feb 26, 10:42*am, Dave White wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan wrote:



Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
arrogance.

So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
accidents can be traced back to them.

We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.

In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do.
While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
instructor.

I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
respect to get their Diamond.

You are pretty good at supporting your arguments with statements like
"we have always known," and "it's clear to me." *However, you are not
so good at supporting what is clearly a weak position with actual
facts. *You cite an example of ONE instructor with a problem and
generalize it to ALL instructors who don't have your apparently
exalted level of accomplishment. *PROVE that we have a surplus of
instructors. *PROVE that a lot of accidents can be traced to
instructors whose only interest is free flying. *PROVE that a
dedicated instructor who doesn't have a diamond badge cannot provide
excellent instruction to his/her students. *The fact is that your idea
is simply unjustified, unworkable, and would lead to a further
diminishing of the numbers of participants in our sport.

FWIW, there are approximately 3000 CFI-G's in the FAA database. Can't
say how many are active, nor how many hold FAI badges, at least
without some research. Of the approximately 130 SSA chapters with
flight activities, several are suspected to not encourage or allow XC
flights in club equipment. Many encourage and mentor XC flying.

Frank Whiteley

On Feb 26, 11:05*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:42*am, Dave White wrote:



On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan wrote:

Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
arrogance.

So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
accidents can be traced back to them.

We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.

In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do.
While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
instructor.

I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
respect to get their Diamond.

You are pretty good at supporting your arguments with statements like
"we have always known," and "it's clear to me." *However, you are not
so good at supporting what is clearly a weak position with actual
facts. *You cite an example of ONE instructor with a problem and
generalize it to ALL instructors who don't have your apparently
exalted level of accomplishment. *PROVE that we have a surplus of
instructors. *PROVE that a lot of accidents can be traced to
instructors whose only interest is free flying. *PROVE that a
dedicated instructor who doesn't have a diamond badge cannot provide
excellent instruction to his/her students. *The fact is that your idea
is simply unjustified, unworkable, and would lead to a further
diminishing of the numbers of participants in our sport.

FWIW, there are approximately 3000 CFI-G's in the FAA database. *Can't
say how many are active, nor how many hold FAI badges, at least
without some research. *Of the approximately 130 SSA chapters with
flight activities, several are suspected to not encourage or allow XC
flights in club equipment. *Many encourage and mentor XC flying.

Frank Whiteley

Of those 3000 CFI-G's in the US, surveys show about 400 are
"occasionally" active with the usual 20% doing 80% of the work.
There's no overall shortage but it's true some localities can have
difficulties finding one.

Over the years, there have been a number of Soaring articles showing
XC pilots tend to stay with the sport while local-only and "sleigh
riders" don't. Operations which only teach "sleigh rides" aren't
doing us much good in the long run. I've worked for 2-33 "sleigh
ride" schools. Only about 1 in 10 stuck around after getting their
rating - and they moved to a club where they could fly XC.

On Feb 25, 2:38*pm, ken wrote:
In article
,

*bildan wrote:
So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
accidents can be traced back to them.

Dude, that's a pretty strong statement with some harsh implications.
First, anyone truly familiar with instructors with high accident rates
(of their former students) should be in touch with the FAA to share the
observation. And second, if they aren't, that kind of makes them
complicit, doesn't it.

You know what, I work with the FAA on a pretty regular basis and have
a damn good relationship with them. My points come from those
discussions. Think I'm harsh, try getting cross-ways with a FSDO
Operations Inspector.

On Feb 26, 5:40*pm, bildan wrote:
On Feb 26, 11:05*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:



On Feb 26, 10:42*am, Dave White wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan wrote:

Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
arrogance.

So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
accidents can be traced back to them.

We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.

In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do..
While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
instructor.

I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
respect to get their Diamond.

You are pretty good at supporting your arguments with statements like
"we have always known," and "it's clear to me." *However, you are not
so good at supporting what is clearly a weak position with actual
facts. *You cite an example of ONE instructor with a problem and
generalize it to ALL instructors who don't have your apparently
exalted level of accomplishment. *PROVE that we have a surplus of
instructors. *PROVE that a lot of accidents can be traced to
instructors whose only interest is free flying. *PROVE that a
dedicated instructor who doesn't have a diamond badge cannot provide
excellent instruction to his/her students. *The fact is that your idea
is simply unjustified, unworkable, and would lead to a further
diminishing of the numbers of participants in our sport.

FWIW, there are approximately 3000 CFI-G's in the FAA database. *Can't
say how many are active, nor how many hold FAI badges, at least
without some research. *Of the approximately 130 SSA chapters with
flight activities, several are suspected to not encourage or allow XC
flights in club equipment. *Many encourage and mentor XC flying.

Frank Whiteley

Of those 3000 CFI-G's in the US, surveys show about 400 are
"occasionally" active with the usual 20% doing 80% of the work.
There's no overall shortage but it's true some localities can have
difficulties finding one.

Over the years, there have been a number of Soaring articles showing
XC pilots tend to stay with the sport while local-only and "sleigh
riders" don't. *Operations which only teach "sleigh rides" aren't
doing us much good in the long run. *I've worked for 2-33 "sleigh
ride" schools. *Only about 1 in 10 stuck around after getting their
rating - and they moved to a club where they could fly XC.

I suspect most chapters have between 1 and 8 active CFIG's. I suspect
there are 1-4 in most commercial operations. I'd expect more like 800
are active, some in currency flights, others mostly in ab-initio
training, and a few qualifying pilots for commercial and CFI-G check
rides.

Frank Whiteley

In article bildan writes:
On Feb 26, 11:05 am, Frank Whiteley wrote:

FWIW, there are approximately 3000 CFI-G's in the FAA database. Can't
say how many are active, nor how many hold FAI badges, at least
without some research. Of the approximately 130 SSA chapters with
flight activities, several are suspected to not encourage or allow XC
flights in club equipment. Many encourage and mentor XC flying.

Frank Whiteley

I just looked it up in part 61, when an instructor re-validates or
renews his instructor certificate, all parts get renewed. He may have
instructed in gliders 10 years ago, but now lives 150 miles from the
gliderport and only instructs in powered aircraft at the nearby airport.


Of those 3000 CFI-G's in the US, surveys show about 400 are
"occasionally" active with the usual 20% doing 80% of the work.
There's no overall shortage but it's true some localities can have
difficulties finding one.

Over the years, there have been a number of Soaring articles showing
XC pilots tend to stay with the sport while local-only and "sleigh
riders" don't. Operations which only teach "sleigh rides" aren't
doing us much good in the long run. I've worked for 2-33 "sleigh
ride" schools. Only about 1 in 10 stuck around after getting their
rating - and they moved to a club where they could fly XC.


I can see why simply doing sled rides might be less exciting than
XC trips, but if priced right, I think that it could be attractive to
a lot more folks. Figuring the cost per hour of such flights, the
folks who added the rating to their power rating probably went back
to the powered aircraft. The price of 10 touch and go laps around
the pattern is a lot less than the price of 10 pattern tows in a
glider. (by about 4 to 1 around here)


Safety comes from practice. (At least, the right kind of practice.)

Given three pilots:
1. A power pilot who flys about 2 hours per week in a single
engine cessna, and gets about 6 - 10 landings per week.
2. Glider pilot who flys 6 - 10 sled rides in a glider, totaling
about 2 hours flight time.
3. XC glider pilot, who flys about 3 - 4 hours per week, making
1 landing per week.
Who do you think will be making better landings? I figure 1 and 2 will
be about tied, and the XC pilot will be getting down safely, but probably
not as accurately as the other two.


But my real point is, what is wrong with sled rides or local flying?
If the price were right, I would be doing those every chance I got.

Cross country and racing are fine, just as sailboat sailors want
to race or do long trips. We should not look down on those who just
want to go out ans spend the afternoon in the air. By discouraging
these non-XC types, either by social attitudes or cost, we do us all
a disservice.


Alan

On Feb 27, 12:42*am, (Alan) wrote:
In article bildan writes:

On Feb 26, 11:05 am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
FWIW, there are approximately 3000 CFI-G's in the FAA database. *Can't
say how many are active, nor how many hold FAI badges, at least
without some research. *Of the approximately 130 SSA chapters with
flight activities, several are suspected to not encourage or allow XC
flights in club equipment. *Many encourage and mentor XC flying.

Frank Whiteley

* I just looked it up in part 61, when an instructor re-validates or
renews his instructor certificate, all parts get renewed. *He may have
instructed in gliders 10 years ago, but now lives 150 miles from the
gliderport and only instructs in powered aircraft at the nearby airport.

Of those 3000 CFI-G's in the US, surveys show about 400 are
"occasionally" active with the usual 20% doing 80% of the work.
There's no overall shortage but it's true some localities can have
difficulties finding one.

Over the years, there have been a number of Soaring articles showing
XC pilots tend to stay with the sport while local-only and "sleigh
riders" don't. *Operations which only teach "sleigh rides" aren't
doing us much good in the long run. *I've worked for 2-33 "sleigh
ride" schools. *Only about 1 in 10 stuck around after getting their
rating - and they moved to a club where they could fly XC.

* I can see why simply doing sled rides might be less exciting than
XC trips, but if priced right, I think that it could be attractive to
a lot more folks. *Figuring the cost per hour of such flights, the
folks who added the rating to their power rating probably went back
to the powered aircraft. *The price of 10 touch and go laps around
the pattern is a lot less than the price of 10 pattern tows in a
glider. *(by about 4 to 1 around here)

* Safety comes from practice. *(At least, the right kind of practice.)

* Given three pilots:
* * 1. *A power pilot who flys about 2 hours per week in a single
* * * * engine cessna, and gets about 6 - 10 landings per week.
* * 2. *Glider pilot who flys 6 - 10 sled rides in a glider, totaling
* * * * about 2 hours flight time.
* * 3. *XC glider pilot, who flys about 3 - 4 hours per week, making
* * * * 1 landing per week.
Who do you think will be making better landings? *I figure 1 and 2 will
be about tied, and the XC pilot will be getting down safely, but probably
not as accurately as the other two.

* But my real point is, what is wrong with sled rides or local flying?
If the price were right, I would be doing those every chance I got.

* Cross country and racing are fine, just as sailboat sailors want
to race or do long trips. *We should not look down on those who just
want to go out ans spend the afternoon in the air. *By discouraging
these non-XC types, either by social attitudes or cost, we do us all
a disservice.

* * * * Alan

Alan -

Its not that XC types are getting a certain number of landings... Its
that XC types tend to fly regularly and tend to stick with the sport,
accumulating more time and experience and skill.

The "local fliers" who come out for a sled ride now and then DO NOT
typically go 6 - 10 times; especially not in a single day! In my
experience, a lot of the "local only" or "sled ride" folks come out
once every few weeks or months, take 1 - 3 tows, and then disappear
for another stretch of time. It is the infrequency of their
experience and the lack of regular practice that is the problem - not
the type of flying that they enjoy.

When I was earning my first license (PPL, SEL) I flew 3 times a week
and studied very hard. I made sure that every flight ended in 2 or 3
touch-and-go's before a final full-stop landing. With this regular
regimen of training, I was able to get my license in about 45 hours -
at a large airport in difficult airspace (Boeing Field, Seattle). I
know that flying often helped, because at one point in my training I
had to take about a week off from flying... and let me tell you, my
first flight or two after that showed obvious signs of "rust"!

--Noel
P.S. Also: Quantity of landings doesn't mean as much as the _quality_
of your landings. If you practice the wrong technique or do something
badly 100 times, you're going to be bad at it on the 101st time too!
So don't just use number of landings as a measuring stick...

In article "noel.wade" writes:



Alan -

Its not that XC types are getting a certain number of landings... Its
that XC types tend to fly regularly and tend to stick with the sport,
accumulating more time and experience and skill.

The "local fliers" who come out for a sled ride now and then DO NOT
typically go 6 - 10 times; especially not in a single day! In my
experience, a lot of the "local only" or "sled ride" folks come out
once every few weeks or months, take 1 - 3 tows, and then disappear
for another stretch of time. It is the infrequency of their
experience and the lack of regular practice that is the problem - not
the type of flying that they enjoy.


Actually, this is pretty close to my point. These discussions seem
to always include the theme that the XC flyers are the "better" flyers
with some credit to their doing XC. There is no reason a local flyer
cannot be the better flyer, if they get enough practice at it.

As I wrote:
But my real point is, what is wrong with sled rides or local flying?
If the price were right, I would be doing those every chance I got.

It is my claim that we need to address the issues that keep those
folks from flying frequently, be they cost or attitudes.



P.S. Also: Quantity of landings doesn't mean as much as the _quality_
of your landings. If you practice the wrong technique or do something
badly 100 times, you're going to be bad at it on the 101st time too!
So don't just use number of landings as a measuring stick...

Right you are. As I said:
Safety comes from practice. (At least, the right kind of practice.)
When I said "At least, the right kind of practice" that is exactly what
I meant.


Alan