FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just a question of when

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:01:20 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:54:11 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote: On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41:37 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote: Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back. If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem. T8 Buying the cheapest glider without regard for value is part of what got us into this jam.

at one time the SSA was working on developing a program with Lea County State Bank to offer attractive financing options to clubs for two seaters. Sort of a group buy discount or something? Has there been any progress on that?

On Apr 4, 8:50*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:

I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...

+ should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21

I think that Greg is right, but only if what we want to do is train an
elite cadre of cross-country and competition pilots. And I happen to
think that that is not necessarily what we want to do.

I worked at one of the busiest training gliderports in the US for
about five years, and I saw the kind of abuse that a real training
glider gets, and I saw what a real training glider does. And I know
that performance better than ASK21 might sound good and look good, and
might be an interesting design challenge, but it is to a great extent
secondary to what we want to do, and is in some ways counterproductive
to what we need.

I have talked with several commercial operators, and what they seem to
value above all else is operational availability. The glider has to be
functional and ready to go when it is needed. That means more than
rugged construction, it means minimum downtime. It means that the
glider is easy to repair, and that replacement parts are easily
available, and easy to install. It means that you can change a wheel,
tire, and brake assembly in fifteen minutes. It means that FedEx can
deliver a replacement canopy, with frame, ready to latch on and fly
with, overnight. It means wings that interchange so you can mix and
match your fleet when things get rough.

What we need is a glider that will launch 7200 times a year, every
year. A glider that will expose thousands of potential pilots to the
experience of soaring flight in a way that shows them the potential
and makes them want more. Because the reality is that, while soaring
is a wonderful and fascinating and engrossing activity, it is not for
everyone. Maybe one in person in what, 300? 500? maybe 1000? takes a
20 minute ride and sticks with it through to the license.

Another important thing is that the glider has to offer a pleasant and
effective training environment for those that do stick. And that means
ease of entry and exit, good seating, and good communication with the
instructor.

Electric motor in nose? Sure, that's a reasonable option. But the
important thing is to produce new starts. We have to launch a few
thousand people into the air and see which ones stick. The ones that
stick can get their own gliders with performance "significantly better
than an ASK 21," because that's easy to do with single-seaters.

Thanks, Bob K.
https://www.facebook.com/AuroraTrainingSailplaneProject

On 4/5/2013 4:24 AM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
No motors! That adds cost, complexity and training issues all out of
proportion to any supposed benefit as a trainer. We need *trainers*
and a safe, reliable, economical way to launch them. The PW-6 is the
closest thing on the market.

Greg's belief is we need *soaring* and *XC* trainers, not just
"trainers". He absolutely wants to avoid the cost, complexity and
training issues of the current gasoline engine systems, and that is why
he want to use a TFP system ("Tractor folding propeller" - same concept
as the FES, but that name belongs to another company). The cost,
complexity, and training issues are far smaller with an electric folding
propeller sustainer than gasoline sustainers, or self-launcher systems
like the ASK-21 Mi. Any instructor should be able to make good use of a
TFP after a few flights, and students could be ready to use it as well
by the time they are solo.

The TFP addresses the "safe, reliable, economical way" to launch the
glider, using a car launch to 500 feet.

I think training effectiveness would be increased if the instructor
could extend the flight with another climb instead of landing, and with
just a flick of a switch.

Think how exciting it would be for a student who isn't solo, but has
progressed to flying the glider for most of the flight, if part (or
all!) of the flight included real XC flying, beyond gliding range of the
airport? I think that would eliminate the huge "rubber band" effect most
solo students experience, and that continues to haunt them even when
they get their license.

That excitement would keep them coming back better than the typical
training program does now, don't you think?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.

I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.

At 15:26 05 April 2013, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:50=A0pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:

I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...

+ should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21

I think that Greg is right, but only if what we want to do is train an
elite cadre of cross-country and competition pilots. And I happen to
think that that is not necessarily what we want to do.

I worked at one of the busiest training gliderports in the US for
about five years, and I saw the kind of abuse that a real training
glider gets, and I saw what a real training glider does. And I know
that performance better than ASK21 might sound good and look good, and
might be an interesting design challenge, but it is to a great extent
secondary to what we want to do, and is in some ways counterproductive
to what we need.

I have talked with several commercial operators, and what they seem to
value above all else is operational availability. The glider has to be
functional and ready to go when it is needed. That means more than
rugged construction, it means minimum downtime. It means that the
glider is easy to repair, and that replacement parts are easily
available, and easy to install. It means that you can change a wheel,
tire, and brake assembly in fifteen minutes. It means that FedEx can
deliver a replacement canopy, with frame, ready to latch on and fly
with, overnight. It means wings that interchange so you can mix and
match your fleet when things get rough.

What we need is a glider that will launch 7200 times a year, every
year. A glider that will expose thousands of potential pilots to the
experience of soaring flight in a way that shows them the potential
and makes them want more. Because the reality is that, while soaring
is a wonderful and fascinating and engrossing activity, it is not for
everyone. Maybe one in person in what, 300? 500? maybe 1000? takes a
20 minute ride and sticks with it through to the license.

Another important thing is that the glider has to offer a pleasant and
effective training environment for those that do stick. And that means
ease of entry and exit, good seating, and good communication with the
instructor.

Electric motor in nose? Sure, that's a reasonable option. But the
important thing is to produce new starts. We have to launch a few
thousand people into the air and see which ones stick. The ones that
stick can get their own gliders with performance "significantly better
than an ASK 21," because that's easy to do with single-seaters.

Thanks, Bob K.
https://www.facebook.com/AuroraTrainingSailplaneProject

Apologies if I say something that has already been said, but I haven't read
all the postings. You are obviously in a similar situation to that which
the UK was in many years ago, no local manufacturers, so the only place to
go was Europe, which most clubs have done.
However, you are a lot further away, and by the sound of it, there could be
a good market, so why does not some composite aircraft manufacturer try for
a licence? Why re-invent the wheel? There are a number of good designs
available.
Dave

Car towing adds a number of significant hazard variables. The rubber band effect can be and is effectively dealt with by implementing progressive XC minded training. I didn't have it but all my students do. Dual XC land outs can work wonders!

Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.

If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem.
T8

Buying the cheapest glider without regard for value is part of what got us into this jam.

If capital cost is the problem, utilization is the answer. As an
economist, it's a bit funny to see a $120,000 asset sitting on the
ground except for 12-5 pm on weekends 6 months of the year. An ASK 21
would pay for itself really quickly if training started at 7 am --
much better for students anyway -- and went on until dusk, 7 days a
week, and then moved to Florida/Arizona/Texas/California for the
winter. That it doesn't -- that commercial operators don't give
discounts for off peak utilization for example -- has always struck me
as a bit of a mystery. Capital cost must not be that big a deal in the
end...


John Cochrane

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:14:36 AM UTC-6, wrote:
I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.

Tandem vs. side-by-side is a non-issue. I learned in LK-10's and Pratt Reads. The only people who thought side-by-side seating might be hard had never flown the PR. The PR's seating seemed odd for about 10 seconds on the first flight then it became perfectly natural. If anything, the LK was harder to learn in because I sometimes couldn't quite understand what the instructor wanted.

I really liked the PR in that I could see the instructor point to things and it was much easier to follow his demonstrations of a maneuver when sitting beside him. Being able to watch the instructor do a "handie" of a maneuver was invaluable.

There are 97 L-23's in the US...what about those?