Future Club Training Gliders

Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons

http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/

I am very surprised at the extremely low number of add-on glider ratings.
Can this be right? *Last year, only 10 power pilots added on a glider
rating in the entire US?

If that's true, then we should be doing a serious marketing campaign aimed
at power pilots who have let their medicals lapse. *That's the really low
hanging fruit.

--
Mike Schumann

I question those numbers as well. *I got into gliders 2008 and have known of
at least 4 or 5 add-ons at my small club since, and we are not located in a
hotbed of soaring activity.

Bob McKellar

I don't disagree that the numbers appear low, but we don't have any
other collection methodology. The FAA got new servers last years and
you'd expect them to be able to sort out the data.

You can't even find a glider pilot examiner on the FAA web site. You
can find a full list by FSDO region, but there's nothing to indicate
glider examiners and FAA staff are not listed. Scottsdale FSDO
publishes a list, but I couldn't find any others that do. FAA has an
LSA (glider) examiner list.

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...r_examiner.pdf

Basically, the check ride candidate must contact the FSDO.

If we could get an exhaustive list of glider pilot examiners with good
e-mails, we could poll them.

I suspect only 50-60% of the examiners are SSA members. In my FSDO
region, 40% of DPE don't appear to have ever been SSA members.

Glad to hear of any other suggestions.

Frank Whiteley

On Nov 9, 3:39*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:41:00 -0800, noel.wade wrote:
I think you have misunderstood my last comment and the comments of
others here. *No one is saying that you have to buy a DG-1000 or a Duo-
Discus or an Arcus in order to conduct training.

No, I'm with you but a lot are arguing that even an G.103 is outrageous
when a 2-33 will do. I spoke up this time because there seemed to be a
hint of 'people who learn on glass will all be flying the latest and
greatest single seaters' and I wanted to see if I'd misread the writer:
seems that I had.

Your example of an
ASK-21 is a sex-machine compared to the Schweizer gliders! *Compa

I don't need to compare them. There's one of the Avenal 2-33s in my log
book. :-)

I like flying our club Juniors in winter or when there's some other
reason I'm not flying my Libelle and, as I've flown an ASK-23, a Ka-8 and
a PW-5, I reckon about there's an unfilled slot in my logbook that is the
same shape as a 1-26. I hear they're fun to fly even if they do penetrate
even worse than a Junior. Can they be winched?

The point is that even someone who knows nothing about airplanes can
tell which one is more modern and capable.

Sure, and I agree that's a no-brainer.

THEY are the exception. *The average
citizen (at least in the USA) is not going to slog through all that, and
their interest-level is certainly going to be affected by how modern (or
at least modern-looking) the aircraft are. *Its just human nature.

I'm probably one of them to some extent: the ASK-21 hooked me where an
ASK-13 couldn't, though to be fair that happened 10+ years after I had
the K-13 ride, I was no longer totally gung-ho about competition free
flight and was probably subconsciously looking for a new challenge.

There's a similarity: my favourite models always have been F1A towline
gliders and now winch launching is my preferred way of getting airborne,
outnumbering aero tows this year by better than 15:1.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

I think there is something missed here. To say that one is shallow for
not training up in a primitive old glider isn't valid. If that were
true, then all you guys are the shallow ones, for not buying and
flying a 2-33. When I first showed up to take my glider ride 3 or 4
years ago, I jumped into a DG1000, paid my $200 to the private
operation, came back, and joined the club on the field. (The operation
is unusual because the DG1000 owner is a club CFIG and is towed up by
club towplanes, even for private rides, in direct competition with the
club trial ride program, and there are more advantages than negatives
in the arrangement.) I trained in L23s and the DG1000, with a $60 or
$75 per hour fee to use the DG1000 on top of tow fees. It was clear to
me that in most cases the learning went at exactly the same speed in
either ship, and I jumped into whichever was available.But the goal
was to fly a DG300 at some point, which I now do. In fact I owned it
long before I soloed and could fly it.

If I understand people to be saying "kids to day won't train in a 2-33
or an L23 on their way to flying a slippery ship, the will just give
up if they don't have a DG100 type plane", I think that is wrong. But
they do need to see a path to flying with the big dogs back in the
mountains or way up high at some point, in a nice plane.

Brian

On Nov 9, 12:48*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
You are absolutely right. *Looks matter a LOT. *Just look at Apple's
success.

--
Mike Schumann

Darn, and there I thought he was going to say
"Just look at Dave's success".

See ya, Dave

On Nov 9, 5:37*pm, bildan wrote:

IIRC, It was also a time when AVGAS jumped from around $.50/gal to $2/
gal. *It was a time when a sharp pencil analysis showed it no longer
made economic sense for me to own an airplane.

Fuel costs in a 2000 Hr TBO cycle went from $10,000 to $40,000 which
made fuel four times the cost of the engine overhaul. *By 1996, any
trip by GA airplane could be done faster and cheaper by other means.
Burning 10 GPH at 125Kts didn't make sense. *Many flying enthusiasts
who could no longer justify an airplane went to gliders.

Prior to the mid-90's, many people actually used GA airplanes as
business travel tools. *Afterward, airplane ownership tended to
resemble yacht ownership. *The purpose of owning an airplane became a
public display of how much money you had to spend. *Money display
types are hard to convert to gliding - it isn't showy enough.

I recall an "airport day" display of a very pretty glass glider next
to a Gulfstream bizjet. *The Gulfstream owner was really ****ed when
crowds gathered around the glider and not his flying yacht. *He made a
scene with the airport management demanding they, "Get that glider the
hell out of here".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are lucky that you don't live in the UK, where Avgas is (very
highly) taxed as a motor fuel, but jet fuel isn't. And this is in a
country that is an oil producer! The only good thing is that oil price
fluctuations have little effect on motor fuel prices, because most of
what you pay is tax. BTW most UK gliding clubs run their winches on
LPG (propane) or red tractor diesel because these attract a lower rate
of duty.

http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html

UK joke:
What do you call somebody who doesn't run a car?

A tax evader!

Derek C

On Nov 9, 4:34*am, Derek ruddock wrote:
Funnily enough, my first trial flight was at Cambridge Club: I was
launched in a K13 and had a short thermalling flight, but never went
back because I was expecting a sleek fibreglass machine rather than
something that was older than I was (29 at the time).
I ended up joining London gliding club, whos had a fleet of 6 K21's,
and went solo in one of their K23's (a single seat version of a K21)


Lasham runs a large fleet of elderly K13s, albeit with nosewheel
conversions. I often wonder to what extent they put people off
gliding. However they are excellent trainers, with just enough vices
to teach pilots to deal with anything they may come across later in
their careers. We have a couple of K21s, but they are so bland and
easy to fly that they might cause problems later on, IMHO as an
instructor. We mainly use them for aerobatic training, glass
conversions and general fun flying.

The advantages of the K13 also include low capital value and lower
insurance costs. In fact Lasham's K13s are only insured for third
party and seat insurance, as required by EASA regulations. If we
damage them, they are either repaired by our in house maintenance
organisation or scrapped, not that we have had to do that for a long
time.

Derek C

On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:
In ,
Martin wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
shiny glass slipper....

Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?

Seems pretty sane to me. I welcome glider pilots in any equipment that
makes them happy. I just think that people who claim that looks don't
matter ought to put their money where their mouth is....


Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.

Now - the opportunity to take the Bergie for a late afternoon lazy amble
over the river as the sun sets is not to be missed. Classic vintage wood
and fabric - gentle lift and peaceful slow flight has many attractions.
But it does not compare to pushing it in a 1:40+ glass single, or even a
composite two seater.
Personally my back is broken after less than an hour the back seat of in
most of the oldies. They are just plain horrible for instruction. My
personal maximum has been 11 flights and around 4 hours in the air in a
G103. Quite a long day if you include all the fetching and pushing
gliders, but no problem. Conversely - 8 launches on one day in a
Bergfalke II-55 cured me of wanting to instruct in vintage gliders... My
back took days to recover.

So depends who you are - I was actually attracted to the club I
initially learned at by the vintage trainers.

Having moved on - I still value some of the lessons they facilitated.
There is something to be said for learning to fly something that fights
back when you abuse it. The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about
the completeness of skills it would provide if it were the only trainer
used.

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:29:17 +0200, BruceGreeff wrote:

Having moved on - I still value some of the lessons they facilitated.
There is something to be said for learning to fly something that fights
back when you abuse it. The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about
the completeness of skills it would provide if it were the only trainer
used.

Which is why we counterbalance ours with a G.103, which is better for
teaching speed control, and a Puchacz, which enthusiastically does all
the stuff an ASK-21 doesn't want to do, and is marvellous to fly solo.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Nov 10, 1:29*pm, BruceGreeff wrote:
On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:

Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.

No problem with that. I like old wooden gliders too. I just have a
problem with coercing others to fly them if they want something
better. (A 2-33 isn't 'vintage', it's just old.)

Snip---------

The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about the completeness of
skills it would provide if it were the only trainer used.

Snip---------

As others have pointed out, the K-21 will spin just fine with the CG
aft and weight kits are available just for that purpose. I find even
with the CG well forward, the ASK-21 clearly exhibits all the pre-
stall/stall behaviors a student needs to learn. Just asking them to
compare how the K-21 handles at 36Kts vs 42Kts convinces them it flies
a lot better at 42. It barks, but doesn't bite.

One youngster said in delight, "Hey, it gets wobbley when it's slow
just like a bicycle". Yup!

On Nov 10, 9:27*pm, bildan wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:29*pm, BruceGreeff wrote:

On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:
Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.

No problem with that. *I like old wooden gliders too. *I just have a
problem with coercing others to fly them if they want something
better. *(A 2-33 isn't 'vintage', it's just old.)

Snip---------

The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about the completeness of
skills it would provide if it were the only trainer used.

Snip---------

As others have pointed out, the K-21 will spin just fine with the CG
aft and weight kits are available just for that purpose. *I find even
with the CG well forward, the ASK-21 clearly exhibits all the pre-
stall/stall behaviors a student needs to learn. *Just asking them to
compare how the K-21 handles at 36Kts vs 42Kts convinces them it flies
a lot better at 42. * It barks, but doesn't bite.

One youngster said in delight, "Hey, it gets wobbley when it's slow
just like a bicycle". *Yup!

The K21 is very stable, normal amount of adverse yaw, no tendency for
any of the controls to overbalance, and slightly lacking in rudder
power - which is one of the reasons why it is so reluctant to spin.
Many heavier pilots could get the impression that if you get a stalled
wing drop, it will always turn into a benign spiral dive. That is why
it is not a very good trainer.

Derek C

On Nov 10, 10:50*am, Jim Beckman wrote:
Certainly if a club can afford to put that kind of gliders on the field,
it's a much better situation than flying 2-33s (at least in some ways).
But my club would have to sell off our entire fleet of five gliders (wanna
buy a Blanik?) to finance just half the price of an ASK-21. *It's really
hard to see how we get from here to there, particularly in these
hard-pressed times. *

It's a tricky decision.

There are all kinds of people in our club, from students and
unemployed, to the merely struggling, to some reasonably wealthy
people. We are fortunate in that over the years some of the more
wealthy members have been prepared to lend money to the club at quite
nominal interest rates (e.g. 3%).

We recently bought two 18m fixed gear DG1000's (and one nice Cobra
trailer, and transponder and Cambridge 302 in one of them at present)
to use for everything from rides to basic training to early solos to
serious cross country.

In order to do this we sold a PW5, a Std Libelle, a Janus, and 2 x
Twin Astir. We also owe approximately 2/3 of a DG1000 to a club
member, which will take 5 - 10 years to pay back at current usage
levels.

I personally was opposed to turning 8 bums on seats in the sky into
only 4 (actually 9 into 5 as we retained another PW5), but the reality
is that it was a very rare day that all 8 were in use, especially as
there were only two or three in the club who liked the Janus (and half
the instructors weren't even rated in it) and the four 1970's aircraft
were starting to become more maintainance-intensive.

I'm now convinced that it was well worth turning 3 two-seaters into 2.
The DGs clearly outperform everything except the Janus, and are far
more pleasant to fly, especially the accommodations in the back seat.

I do think we would have been well-advised to keep the PW5 though.
Selling it shortened the loan payback hardly at all, and they're
excellent for early cross-country exploration. We've already started
to see early-solo students accidentally outlanding the DG1000's
(safely so far) but it's putting a hard to replace asset at more risk
than may be wise.