Differences in Italian vs US soaring instruction?

"Basil Fairston" wrote
PTS accuracy landing, whats that. In UK all landings are supposed to be
accurate.

Since I started this mess, I'll try to answer some of the questions.
While I've replied to this message in particular, I've included the
points raised in others.

PTS means practical test standards, which are detailed descriptions of
what is covered on a checkride. http://av-info.faa.gov/ is a web site
that contains them. It includes a description of an accuracy landing.
If you've not flown in the US, I assure you it's not what you think
it is.

In this situation (training a pilot who is already proficient towards
a rating) many maneuvers will only be performed once or twice. There
is no real syllabus for this kind of training, and relatively few
flights are required. It's not a big deal if I were training a
US-trained glider pilot towards the commercial and CFI, because he
would have absorbed normal operating practices and habits while
training towards the private. In this case, I am training an
Italian-trained pilot, who has absorbed DIFFERENT normal operating
practices and habits. I have already noticed some that are
safety-critical, including the rudder waggle that is used by the
glider pilot to signal the start of tow in the US. It is not
reasonable to have him repeat the entire private syllabus, and
suggesting this certainly implies that the foreign training is somehow
inferior.

Formal XC planning is a normal staple of instruction in the US.
Briefly, in the US glider XC is taught as a series of
airport-to-airport hops, such that an outlanding will most likely be
at an airport. I know many US-trained glider pilots who are active in
XC flying and have never landed anywhere other than an airport,
because they use this method. I use this method myself - I have
limited experience in off-airport operations (all power) and recognize
their unavoidable hazards; I am thus not very interested in hearing
that this is unnecessary.

The planning is done by assuming a reduced glide ratio (typically half
of what is published) and drawing segments between airports. Winds
aloft data and polar information are then used to determine minimum
altitudes for going ahead at any given point, as well as predicted
groundspeeds and crosswind correction angles. The method is not
perfect (once I nearly had to land off airport due to some strong
unexpected sink) but it does reduce the probability of an off-airport
landing with the consequent hazards of unknown field conditions and
obstacles that are not seen until too late.

The formal XC planning process is a transitional stage; with
experience a pilot learns to judge go-ahead points by eye. However, I
believe it is a useful method that formalizes the many factors
involved and allows a low time glider pilot to venture out with a
measure of confidence. It is certainly unacceptable for any glider
instructor in the US to be unfamiliar with this process, since it is
the norm here.

In the US, we turn right and climb on release. Italy seems to do the
same. I understand that some countries do otherwise. Obviously
either way is fine, as long as both glider and tow pilot are on the
same page.

Michael