Future Club Training Gliders

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:35:39 +0100, Surfer! wrote:

AS-K21 gets my vote for this job. Comfortable, sturdy, reasonable
handling. Available new or used. Great support. Jim

Goes xc well too, in the right hands. Our summer course instructors have
taken their more advanced students on o/r flights to turn points 50-80 km
away on suitable days. Both these gents are regular XC pilots too. No
K-21 landouts to date.


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

In article
,
bildan wrote:

On Sep 14, 12:44*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:47*am, RN wrote:

The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
will need.



For a training on a budget, it's really hard to beat a Ka-13 or Ka-7,
except that they have fairly small cockpits. We sold off our Ka-7
because about half the folks who came to us for training just could not
fit their legs under the panel and/or were too heavy. Still, that Ka-7
soldiers on in a commercial training operation today!

On Sep 15, 1:50*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:14*am, "Surfer!" wrote:



But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in most US
clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. *It's certainly not (IMHO) an
endorsement of them.

I couldn't agree more! *As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I
started), let me make a few assertions:

1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring
if what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game?
After watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? *The 2-33 looks
like a dog and flies slowly. *Those of you who talk about being "happy
just to be in the air" have to realize what a tiny minority you are -
and that your numbers are dwindling. *People these days are often
flying hundreds of miles per hour in jetliners before they're 10.
They're mixing it up in 60 - 80mph traffic by the time they're 15 or
16 (and even their economy cars have power windows, power door locks,
keyless remote, and a dock for their Phone/MP3-player). *They're
playing with Google Maps and Google Earth - seeing the world from that
vantage point is not new to them. *Being in the air is not new to
them. *They don't know what they're missing; but they *are* going to
have a whole lot of preconceived notions about it, and their
experiences are going to bias them towards wanting something that's
fast, sleek, exciting, modern, high-tech, etc. *NONE of those things
apply to the 2-33. *If you want to turn a young person OFF, show then
a 2-33! *They'll either stick to Flight Simulators or they'll walk
over to fly powered airplanes - you know, "the exciting and fast kind
of flying". *Oh, and how many young (under 40), energetic instructors
are there in the USA? *Right. *So from the perspective of a young
person (under 35, let's say), their introduction to soaring is a 50 or
60 year old guy standing next to a glider that's of equal age. *Yeah,
really enticing! :-P *Good luck with that, folks. *At least an L-13 or
L-23 looks sleeker (by comparison) and flies a whole lot better.

2) One more thing: the 2-33 is a favorite because it is cheap, and it
is easy to fix/maintain (especially for FBOs/commercial operators).
Notice that neither of these has ANYTHING to do with flying qualities
or its value in training good pilot skills! *I started in an L-13,
made the jump to a 1-36 quite easily, and then had to go drop back to
a 2-33 for my license. *The 2-33 was HELL. *Sloppy controls, TITANIC
throw required to get a good response, and my big legs (I'm 6'1" and
215 lbs) meant that I had to lift my leg and tuck the stick under the
back of my knee to get full aileron deflection - NOT the safest way to
fly! *The 2-33 is nothing like the advanced metal & glass I have flown
since. *Its usefulness (if it has any) is restricted to very early
primary training, since you can't use it to develop advanced skills
(such as flying XC or good thermal-centering in anything representing
the same manner you work thermals in a more modern/capable ship).

--Noel

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.
Our 2-33's fly all day every day it's flyable. We had to get a 3rd due
to demand.
Our '21 flies much less than that.
And our '21, which we got at a favorable price, cost twice what we
have in our 3 2-33's.
Cost does matter in smaller club to the point of being critical to
survival.
Clubs depending on Blaniks are really challanged now. Who knows for
how long. Do we think they all will go buy '21's. I doubt it. They
already wanted 21's and couldn't afford them.
UH

Tony V wrote:

What else is wrong with the 2-33? An incomplete list would include
- not enough leg room in either seat. *I hate turning with
* *the stick *under* my knee.
- lethargic roll rate.
- Poor visibility from the rear seat - teaching someone to
* *soar in a gaggle is scary.
- ineffective trim - unless the front seater is heavy, you're
* *still applying significant forward stick pressure on tow even
* *with full forward trim.
- ineffective spoilers (but it does slip GREAT!).
- generally poor ergonomics.
- doesn't spin well.

I would add that instructors with big feet (me) have nowhere to put
them except on the rudder pedals. I know students must hate that.

Have you noticed how students seem to drag the right wing far more
than the left on landing? It's because they can't get any left
aileron with the spoilers open whether they lift their leg or not -
the spoiler handle is in the way.


What's good about the 2-33:
- it's cheap
- anybody can repair it
- it's built like a tank. If a student is going to crash, I want
* *him to be in a 2-33.
- doesn't spin well (yeah, I know).

I wonder if you've priced aircraft welding, sheet metal repair or
fabric work lately. Any significant damage to a 2-33 will cost far
more to repair that the glider will be worth afterward. Old geezers
like me who know how to weld 4130 thinwall tubes and own a pair of
pinking shears are getting really hard to find. If those streamlined
aluminum wing struts suffers damage, you're probably out of luck.
Nobody makes them anymore.

I'm not confident the "tank" reputation holds either. It's not hard
to imagine a broken tube penetrating the cockpit - and the pilot
within. If that tube cuts a leg artery the student is in serious
trouble. I know of one such fatality when the skid kicked up a stick
which penetrated the fabric and the students leg.

Given the increasing girth of pilots these days it doesn't happen
often but if you load a 2-33 to the rear CG limit, it will spin - with
alarming suddenness.

On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.

UH -

1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
other expensive glass ships in this thread.

2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
attractive to younger members! Either you have great instruction, or
a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
those lines. They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
2-33, and decide it was a good idea.

I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
continue to fly with the club.

--Noel

On 9/15/2010 12:12 PM, Kevin Christner wrote:

Bob,

I'm glad you realized that 2-point approaches are the best way avoid
land out damage. Unfortunately, it appears a large portion of US
pilots disagree with you!

Regrettably, I wouldn't seriously try to argue this particular point because
my working suspicion is your contention is accurate. I've encountered 'a
not-insignificant percentage' of experienced XC pilots - including some
actively involved in racing - I've never seen practice a low-energy landing,
and some who've (gasp) actively pooh-poohed the desirability of having the
skill. Admittedly, the bulk of my experience has been on the eastern side of
the intermountain west (where large fields are often easily found), but the
pooh-pooh attitude has always astounded/worried me.


I appreciate your argument regarding primacy, but for most I'm not
sure it works like that. Regardless of how much time you have to
think about an off-field landing, they are still 'stressful' enough
that reversion to bad habits is highly likely to occur.

I agree that most folks' initial OFL 'will be' high-stress (in the actual
sweaty-palmed sense), but have for years within my club put forth the
reasoning that it doesn't need to be in an 'actual risk to you/the plane' sense.

(Ref.: http://soarboulder.org/stories/kissing-tips-1)
(...verbose, written in the '90's for my club's newsletter, personally
out-of-date, cited simply as supporting evidence...)

I also agree that initial OFL's are the place where all the mistakes will be
'practiced' (e.g. too-close-in downwinds, too high speeds, less-than-good
field selections in the face of better nearby options, etc.). My club
(sensibly, IMHO) actively encourages pilot-skill-set expansion via XC
instruction and a (22 consecutive years and counting) XC camp in benign
landout country. But the fact remains, Joe Pilot is the one who ultimately
does most of the (non-instructor-aided) skill-set-expansion, and 'bull
sessions' are a huge part of the experience.

(Ref.: http://soarboulder.org/newsletters See September's edition)


Another point
would be bad things very rarely happen with the first bad decision.
Too much energy at touchdown is often a result of a pattern flown to
quickly. I can't count the number of times I've gone up with someone
who flew their pattern 5-8kts over best L/D speed in benign
conditions. When you ask why its because "its safer." This may be
"safe" but it I doubt it's "safer" at the time and it certainly won't
be "safer" when you are going into a 400ft field and a pattern speed 4
or 5 knots below L/D is called for. The benign conditions would have
been a perfect time to practice a minimum energy pattern - but then
again, they've never heard of that.

I've no doubt we're on the same page, here. Where we might differ is that I
don't see 'mandated instruction' as curing the underlying problem, which (I
believe) is with Joe Pilot's basic attitude and approach to his or her soaring
world. My own approach is to gently try and help them expand their world-view
so they'll understand that any world view is (always) incomplete, *and* want
to expand their own...whether via dual instruction, or self-practice or any
other sensible method that works for them. That said, I suspect that some
people ARE entirely entrenched in their (less-than-good-for-them/their-ship)
thinking...but my approach is to act as if no one is, meaning my personal
radar routinely looks for opportunities to help others 'see the light' even if
they've previously proven blind.

And, if we accept primacy does not occur to "nerves of steel"
attempting his first off field landing, I'd still preferred he has
lots of practice on low energy approaches followed by minimum energy
landings. Ultimately this is not an argument about 2-33's vs. K-21s,
but rather an argument about the pitiful state of glider training in
the US.

I guess I'm not so convinced the problem can be laid at the door of 'poor
training'. I'm inclined to suppose ultimate responsibility lies within the
pilot population itself. Not that I'm saying dual instruction isn't
fundamentally important...because it unarguably is *vitally* so...just that I
don't see any proposed 'better instructional approach' as likely to have
significant/measurable effects on the landout-crunch-world. Consider the
dismal - and enduring down the decades - record of inadvertent stall-spins in
the pattern; a reasonable argument can be made that 'better instruction' has
had exactly zero effect on the normalized annual death rate (whether we're
talking glider or power worlds).

In the glider-OFL-world, we could be up against human nature...

But even if we are, I believe it shouldn't diminish our attempts to educate
wannabe XC pilots in the 'best practices' of OFLs. Why? Because *some* WILL
'get it!' If dual instruction can play a part (and I agree its competent
availability varies widely in the U.S. club scene), then those pilots who can
avail themselves of it are indeed luckier than those who cannot. Options are good.

Regards,
Bob W.

On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.

UH -

1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
other expensive glass ships in this thread.

2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
2-33, and decide it was a good idea.

I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
continue to fly with the club.

--Noel

Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.

I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
progression.

By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.

If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
nothing more.

I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?

On Sep 15, 10:28*pm, Westbender wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:





On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.

UH -

1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
other expensive glass ships in this thread.

2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
2-33, and decide it was a good idea.

I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
continue to fly with the club.

--Noel

Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.

I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
progression.

By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.

If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
nothing more.

I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution
to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000
new glider pilots in the USA fling from about 1000 new clubs/
gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now?

If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution
to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000
new glider pilots in the USA *fling from about 1000 new clubs/
gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now?


That's easy. It's because we're not all rushing out to buy new Duos
and DG1000s! Once we do that, all will be fixed in the soaring world.

Not to mention the improved health all the small clubs (that are just
getting by) will experience when they take on the huge debt necessary
to make such purchases.

It's a no-brainer!

On Sep 15, 10:51*pm, Westbender wrote:
If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution
to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000
new glider pilots in the USA *fling from about 1000 new clubs/
gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now?

That's easy. It's because we're not all rushing out to buy new Duos
and DG1000s! Once we do that, all will be fixed in the soaring world.

Not to mention the improved health all the small clubs (that are just
getting by) will experience when they take on the huge debt necessary
to make such purchases.

It's a no-brainer!

In 40 years of fooling with gliders I don't ever remember anyone
leving the club because we weren't charging enough in fees...and I
don't ever recall seeing a Lambrogini dealer on every street corner
either...