Air Force Academy grounds gliders over cadets' safety concerns
Stewart Kissel
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap05-23-152803.asp?t=3Dapnew&vts=3D52=
320031537
Walt Konecny
Let me get this right, they bought gliders which aren't
'rated' above 5000 ft....and these guys who soon plan
on pulling high-G turns and lighting the cans after
they drop their JDAMS amid AAA aren't 'comfortable'
flying these?
Goodgawdalmighty, if Chuck Yeager were dead, he'd be
rolling over in his grave.
Or is this some 'diversion smoke' to make people look
away from the, um, male/female activity at the academy?
wk
Jack
> ...they bought gliders which aren't 'rated'
> above 5000 ft...and these guys who soon plan
> on pulling high-G turns...after they drop
> their JDAMS amid AAA aren't 'comfortable'
> flying these?
Just one more step in the feminization of the Academy, and you can't
blame the girls for this one.
Jack
Jim Britton
do not detail flying performance above 5,000 feet....'
Ah - these would be the same manuals that tell them
where the mess halls are and remind them to breathe
at regular intervals I suppose..
Liam Finley
> 'rated' above 5000 ft....
So this probably has something to do with redline speeds being TAS vs.
IAS? I've seen some manuals which aren't very explicit about this.
And I've known some pilots who were under the impression that redline
speeds only apply to IAS. Does JAR certification have anything to say
about this?
W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>
> "Walt Konecny" <REMOVE_TO_REP...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bamb1j$1beop$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
da...@aros.net
I can understand the Air Force complaining about the capabilities of
helicopters above 5000'
But to take issue over gliders (and these are not even the expermimental
variety) in the glorious soaring environment of Colorado...
Well,
It just doesn't seem quite right-
Sad, sad, day...
Dan Thirkill
"Walt Konecny" <REMOVE_TO_REP...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bamb1j$1beop$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Walt Konecny
>Ah Walt, Walt...
>
>I can understand the Air Force complaining about the
>capabilities of
>helicopters above 5000'
>
>But to take issue over gliders (and these are not even
>the expermimental
>variety) in the glorious soaring environment of Colorado...
>
>Well,
>It just doesn't seem quite right-
>
>Sad, sad, day...
>
>Dan Thirkill
Hey Dan, how's flying 'up north'?
Speaking of USAF Academy blunders, check out
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20020510X00654&key=1
and then either click on 'Full narrative available'
or go directly to
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020510X00654&ntsbno=DE
N02GA039&akey=1
Nothing like having a totally clueless instructor along
for the ride....and someone paying for it with their
life.
wk
rjciii
> Let me get this right, they bought gliders which aren't
> 'rated' above 5000 ft....and these guys who soon plan
> on pulling high-G turns and lighting the cans after
> they drop their JDAMS amid AAA aren't 'comfortable'
> flying these?
First of all, the U.S. Air Force Academy does not train fighter
pilots. It
is an institution of higher learning academically on par with the
finest universities in this country (check out this and previous
year's Princeton Review rankings). After graduation, should a
ex-cadet (now 2Lt) be qualified and lucky enough to receive a pilot
training slot (no longer a guarantee), he/she then goes on to a year
Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT). If one then is further considered
as so qualified, the newly slick-winged may attend fighter training
where one learns to do the tactical mission of that particular fighter
aircraft which may include elements of what you list above. FWIW, it
takes about two years of continuous training to get a fighter pilot to
mission ready status.
The point is that the Air Force Academy (AFA) does not exist for nor
does it have the mission to train pilots. It does, as you know, have
an extensive glider program with the goal to expose (as much as
possible considering the weather limitations of the Rockies) each
cadet to at least some semblence of flying--whether that cadet goes on
to a flying or non-flying job in the Air Force. The ultimate but
sometimes not attainable goal is to have each cadet solo. Sort of the
way the Naval Academy has each Midshipman complete a sailing course.
I don't exactly know what the cadets at West Point are required to
do--perhaps dive a tank? There used to also be basic power flight
training (about 20 hours in a C-172), but after the later to be
mentioned "Firefly" debacle I don't believe that type of training is
currently being offered.
Although there are Air Force officers that oversee the AFA glider
program, most of the training is accomplished by cadet instructors,
many of which whose first exposure to flying was indeed through the
very same soaring orientation program. I'm not sure if it is still
true, but these cadet instructors at one time did get a CFIG rating
even though military pilots are not required to have a FAA license to
fly military aircraft. Nothing aginst the cadet instructor pilots
(IPs), but from a quantative standpoint they do have limited overall
flying and instructing experience. That being said the safety record
of the AFA soaring program is outstanding considering they been around
since the early 1960s and now fly close to 10,000 sorties per year.
Also realize that the recent history of aircraft procurement by the
Air Force Academy for its limited flying programs has been suspect and
questionable in my opinion. Here's some background: The Academy was
tasked in the early 1980s to offer the glider orientation to every
cadet. It was decided that this was to be mandatory for each
sophomore cadet of which there are approx. 1000. At the time it was
taking an average of 23 sorties to solo an all but "pedestrian" cadet,
taking 10-12 sorties just to get proficient a aerotow. So now your
talking 23,000 sorties/year in a day VFR operation which is exposed to
its share of inclement weather. I don't think so! So what to do? The
Academy decided to procure some motorgliders which would be used for
the first few flights in the glider training to give the cadet student
pilot more that the average 15 minute glider sortie to learn the basic
effects of flight controls, airspeed and attitude control, coordinated
flight, and some stall and pattern work. By first flying two 1 hour
training missions in a motorglider the "pedestrian" cadet now could
solo in ~ 12 sorties instead of 23--and that was more do-able on an
annual basis.
So now we needed to procure motorgliders (MGs). Next problem--there
were no stock MGs in the early 1980s that could adequately handle the
summertime density altitudes at the Academy airfield having a field
elevation of ~6500 feet. So Schweizer was contracted to build a
training motorglider with roughly the same performance and flight
characteristics as a 2-33 (the then used training glider) from ground
up which resulted in the TG-7.
The military procurement process is a "funny" thing (see the movie
"Pentagon Wars), but since the Air Force Academy is considered a
separate operating agency with an indepedent budget they were able to
bypass the multitude of flight testing iterations that would
otherwise nomally would have been required ad-naseum. That was
unfortunate because what they ended up with..
I'm going to post this message now and continue so as to not loose
it...
rjciii
...because what they ended up with was mating a widened 2-32 fuselage
to 1-34 wings and sticking an engine on the front. The thing had
terrible departure characteristics having little or no noticeable
warning cues resulting in large degree wing drops and very easily
developed into a spin. Not exactly the typical desired
characteristics a benign basic trainer, was it? But insted of
admitting and correcting design mistakes, Schweizer and the AFA put
this "Murder" glider into service. Subsequently, the TG-7 was
involved in four major mishaps which resulted in six (and luckly not
eight) fatalities to include two experienced Air Force test pilots,
one Academy Soaring IP officer's wife on an orientation flight, and
one cadet. Ask yourself how you'd feel if you sent your son off to
college (not to war, not to jet pilot training [both of which one
wear's parachutes and/or has an ejection seat] but at college) and he
was killed in an accident while being flown around in a hastily
procured and insufficienty tested aircraft. To add insult to injury
the TG-7 wing also started to develop cracks along the main spars, and
the Academy coninued to fly cadets in the aircraft.
Then at some point in the 1990s the AFA decided it was time to replace
the
T-41 (C-172) basic power trainer fleet. It was decided to procure the
Slingsby
"Firefly". Many were concerned that this was too "hot" of an aircraft
for the mission, but some ex-fighter pilot general pushed the issue
with much the same Yeager-esqe bravado as you espoused in your retort,
Walt. This egomaniac also forgot that the Academy's job was not to
train fighter pilots but to educate the future leaders of the USAF, a
small percentage of whom might eventually be trained in a proper
manner and in proper equipment to become fighter pilots. The result
of this hasty and ill thought out acqusition was yet another fatal
accident killing another cadet and his IP. The "Firefly's" tenure at
the Academy was thankfully short lived--at least this time the Air
Force realized their mistake before more lives were unecessarily lost
during what should have been a basic, benign powered flight training.
We're not talking advanced jet training here but your basic
solo-around-the-pattern stuff.
So now it's the Blanik L-23. Also procured without adequate Air Force
flight testing and now be told without proper operational data (seems
like a trend to you yet?) And they've already lost one inflight during
cadet training (thank god the cadet bailed out O.K.).
So, I for one applaud the acting Superintendent B/Gen Weida's decision
to ground the Air Force Academy's glider fleet until such time as the
recent loss of a L-23 can be determined and adequate testing to be
performed to ensure that the glider training given to these
intelligent and motivated young men and women can be provided in a
safe and predicatibly controlled manner. This decision was done in
the interest of safety. To suggest it was not a "manly" decision is
not an accusation that a level-headed aviator should make. There are
times a (properly trained and experienced) military pilot must "push
the envelope" in order to get the mission done. Basic glider
orientation training at the Air Force Academy is ceratinly not one of
those times.
Ray Cornay
USAFA Cadet CFIG, 1980-82
USAFA Officer-in-charge of Advance Soaring, 1989-1990
rjciii
>
> Ah - these would be the same manuals that tell them
> where the mess halls are and remind them to breathe
> at regular intervals I suppose..
What exactly are you saying here, Jimbo?
Let me take a breath and go way out on a limb by stating that in my
experience people like yourself who make ignorant statement as
exampled above usually weren't academically competitive to gain
appointment to much less be graduated from a Service Academy of the
United States.
Now excuse me while I go get something to eat all on my own accord...
Ray Cornay
USAFA '82
Greg Arnold
> So now it's the Blanik L-23. Also procured without adequate Air Force
> flight testing and now be told without proper operational data (seems
> like a trend to you yet?)
The L-23 has been flying for years, and apparently has had no problems. Why
should the AF reinvent the wheel with regard to flight testing? And what do
you mean by "without proper operational data"? Hasn't the data been
sufficient for everyone else?
>And they've already lost one inflight during
> cadet training (thank god the cadet bailed out O.K.).
I thought it was the L-33 that had the crash, not the L-23.
Jack
> ...I for one applaud the acting Superintendent B/Gen Weida's decision
> to ground the Air Force Academy's glider fleet....
And I also salute the General for doing the right thing, but the gliders
are good -- it's the program that's a joke.
Is the USAFA capable of purchasing the right equipment AND developing
the right program around it? Recent reports make one wonder. If
USAFA-style management had been in control of our efforts in Afghanistan
and Iraq, Bin Laden and Hussein would be operating out of plush offices
in Manhattan by now.
Why are the Cadets in charge of the program? Did they decide to buy the
Firefly, too, or did that Solomonic decision come out of the Pentagon?
In the Blanik, USAFA bought a proven design operated safely all over the
world for years, and after a very short time decided, on the urging of
CADETS, that they need a dash one as thick as an F-15's or it can't be
flown safely? Or is it that they are still operating so many different
types of gliders that they were confusing themselves hopping from one to
the other?
So far we have only heard half of the story.
Jack
Doug Haluza
Gee, I wonder what their old 2-33 manuals said about T/O & Landing above 5000 feet.
Kevin Christner
with the 2-33's (no skill required) won't work with the L-23's. The
L-23 is a hotter ship (though not 'hot') and requires a greater skill
to fly. The Cadet instructors with only experience in 2-33's probably
are finding it a difficult conversion. The old 10 flight solo ruitine
probably needs to be rethought too.
Kevin Christner
Shirley
>Let me take a breath and go way out on a
>limb by stating that in my experience people
>like yourself who make ignorant statement
>as exampled above usually weren't
>academically competitive to gain
>appointment to much less be graduated from
>a Service Academy of the United States.
Ray, I think the way that "story" itself was written in the news contributed to
the offensive spin some put on it. If the story had given a little more info
about what exactly it was that made them apprehensive enough to ground the
entire fleet (other than some vague reference to data on their performance over
5000 feet), it likely would have been received with appropriate seriousness and
interest, especially if the gliders in question are flown regularly by glider
enthusiasts in addition to being used as trainers at the USAFA.
--Shirley
Jim Vincent
>true, but these cadet instructors at one time did get a CFIG ratin
The instructor had about 100 flights in gliders. What a joke.
Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
gapagod...@aol.com
ch
Why
> should the AF reinvent the wheel with regard to flight testing? And what
do
> you mean by "without proper operational data"? Hasn't the data been
> sufficient for everyone else?
Thats not quite true
we had a blanik and it was flown at an airshow 20 years ago
and the pushrods to the ailerons bent in a not successfully
flown turn (slipping backward out).
The incident was reported, but the Blanik still was allowed
for limitted acrobatics.
Some years later another similar incident happened, but it
killed flying instructor and student. Since then acrobatics
have been forbidden to fly with the Blanik in Switzerland,
but I don't know if later models got reinforced pushrods and
bearings.
Chris
Michael McNulty
"Jim Vincent" <gap...@aol.comSTOPSPAM> wrote in message
news:20030524220341...@mb-m29.aol.com...
The report said she had 100 flights, and that the average duration of these
flights was 15 minutes. So the instructor had a grand total of 25 hrs in
gliders.
F.L. Whiteley
speeds and limitations are constant to 13,780ft. Above this, there is a
decrease in max allowable speed with differentiation on whether the extended
tips are used or not up to 35,000ft. However, para 2.12B does state maximum
demonstrated operating altitude is 13,780ft also, which was probably the
demonstated basis for JAR certification.
Hard to see the basis for the USAFA 5000ft confusion. Perhaps a more
experienced instructor staff is needed and the real basis of concern as an
L-23 is most certainly not a 2-33.
Frank Whiteley
Colorado
"Walt Konecny" <REMOVE_TO_REP...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bamb1j$1beop$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Bill Daniels
"Kevin Christner" <k8dr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48d9a3ec.03052...@posting.google.com...
This is the root of the problem. The L-23 is an excellent trainer in that
it requires pilots to really learn to fly - the 2-33 doesn't. It does take
a few more flights to become proficient in the L-23 but the result is a far
better, and safer, pilot.
I have always held the opinion that the ubiquitous 2-33 deserves some blame
for our poor safety record. It just makes it too easy to get through
training without gaining any real skills. A good instructor can make a
difference, but the choice of a basic trainer is a big factor.
If the USAFA wants to continue with the L-23, they will need to beef up
their training program. This may require a staff of full time paid
instructors that are not cadets.
Bill Daniels
Ian Strachan
<gre...@greeleynet.com> writes
>Reading through our L-23 Operating Manual indicates that all indicated
>speeds and limitations are constant to 13,780ft. Above this, there is a
>decrease in max allowable speed
Interesting, that is a different schedule of Vne with altitude to that
commonly used in modern European designs, where the Vne altitude
transition is just under half of 13,780ft. The modern European system
has been part of frequent discussions on this newsgroup about high
altitude flutter and the need for Vne IAS to be reduced at altitude in
order to avoid various types of flutter.
13,780ft (4200.14m) does not seem to equate to anything that I can think
of. I wonder why it was picked?
Unlike more expensive powered aircraft, gliders are not put through
formal flutter tests at altitude as parts of their initial certification
flight testing.
Therefore, the German certification authority LBA (Luftfahrt Bundesampt)
sensibly developed a cautious protocol for Vne IAS reduction at
altitude. This is incorporated in the flight manuals of most modern
European designs of gliders and is:
---------------------------------------
Sea level to 2000m (6562ft) - Constant Vne IAS. Vne TAS increases by
10.3% between SL and 2000m.
Above 2000m - Vne TAS is held constant at the 2000m figure. To whatever
altitude that you like. Vne IAS therefore reduces above 2000m in
accordance with the figures of air density in the ICAO International
Atmosphere.
---------------------------------------
Since our glider ASIs register IAS, the above protocol governs the table
of reducing Vne IAS that we see in the flight manual for such gliders.
The danger of flutter is increased at greater TAS/IAS ratios, so a
"constant IAS" system is not safe as altitude increases. TAS/IAS ratio
can be thought of as an indication of inertia effects over aerodynamic
damping and stability effects. At sea level TAS/IAS ratio is 1 but at
about 40,000ft it is 2. When a disturbance or deflection of a flight
component such as a wing, horizontal or vertical tail, etc., starts,
inertia will tend to allow it to continue but aerodynamic damping will
try and restore it to the original condition. If you have high inertia
but low damping, a disturbance or deflection that would be innocuous at
lower altitudes might become oscillatory, divergent or both. That is
"flutter".
Anyway, the above protocol leads to the following table, for a glider
with a sea level Vne of 100 knots. I choose that figure because it is
easy to scale up to the figures for your own machine, starting from the
Flight Manual Vne at Sea Level:
Alt
kFeet Vne TAS Mach
0 100 100 0.15
1 100 101.5 0.15
2 100 103.0 0.16
3 100 104.5 0.16
4 100 106.1 0.16
5 100 107.7 0.17
6 100 109.4 0.17
6.5620 100 109.9 0.17 (2000m)
7 99.3 110.3 0.17
8 97.8 110.3 0.17
9 96.3 110.3 0.17
10 94.8 110.3 0.17
11 93.3 110.3 0.17
12 91.9 110.3 0.17
13 90.4 110.3 0.17
14 88.9 110.3 0.18
15 87.5 110.3 0.18
16 86.1 110.3 0.18
17 84.7 110.3 0.18
18 83.3 110.3 0.18
19 81.9 110.3 0.18
20 80.5 110.3 0.18
25 73.8 110.3 0.18
30 67.5 110.3 0.19
35 61.4 110.3 0.19
11 km 60.1 110.3 0.19 (tropopause on ICAO ISA)
40 54.7 110.3 0.19
50 43.0 110.3 0.19
60 33.9 110.3 0.19
---------
I have an MS Excel spreadsheet which makes these calculations at the
press of a button for any chosen sea level Vne. If anyone would like a
copy, just email me.
--
Ian Strachan
i...@ukiws.demon.co.uk
Shirley
>This is the root of the problem. The L-23
>is an excellent trainer in that it requires
>pilots to really learn to fly - the 2-33 doesn't.
[snip]
>
>I have always held the opinion that the
>ubiquitous 2-33 deserves some blame for our
>poor safety record. It just makes it too easy
>to get through training without gaining any
>real skills. A good instructor can make a
>difference, but the choice of a basic trainer
>is a big factor.
Bill, I'm a somewhat new glider pilot trained in a 2-33 <gasp>!
It took me about nine months, flying twice/week-or-so. I've since moved on to
the 1-26 (and I read the big thread on 1-26s and realize that glider has its
fans and detractors as well), and would like to gradually move up to others. I
know I still have a lot to learn and experience, but I feel as if I worked and
studied hard, as did my instructor, just getting here -- I went at my own pace
and was not influenced by pre-established timelines.
So your comments that the 2-33 doesn't require pilots to really learn to fly
and that it is to blame for a poor safety record make me wonder what skills I
am dangerously lacking, in your opinion, due to having "learned to fly" (term
subject to debate, I GUESS!) in the 2-33. Would you elaborate?
--Shirley
rjciii
> Nothing like having a totally clueless instructor along
> for the ride....and someone paying for it with their
> life.
So I guess in your mind the "smart" thing for the instructor to have
done is to ride the towplane down after the towpilot had a heart
attack and crashed?
As the towplane dove away uncontrolled the cadet tried to release and
couldn't so the tow rope broke (as it is supposed to do).
What exactly are you finding fault with here?
Walt, some friendly advice: After reading the comments on several of
your recent posts I am finding your attitude about safety quite
suspect. You may want to step back and evaluate the basis of your
point of view on such matters and not wade in as we used to say with
"all balls and no forehead". RJC
Jack
> [would] the "smart" thing for the instructor to have
> done [be] to ride the towplane down after the towpilot had a heart
> attack and crashed?
Sounds to me like a "smart" IP would not have let the student repeatedly
get so far out of position that the glider may have caused tow plane
control problems, and perhaps even induced high stress in the tow plane
pilot which contributed to the heart attack, if one did occur.
The young IP was not being positive enough about the situation, early
on. The glider should have disconnected much earlier than it did, and
certainly the attempt to do so should have been initiated much, much
earlier than it was. It makes one wonder how well the glider crew sleep
at night, or should.
Jack
F.L. Whiteley
"Shirley" <xmnus...@aol.communicate> wrote in message
news:20030525112454...@mb-m23.aol.com...
early solo flight. I've seen some people solo the 2-33 who will clearly
never solo any other glider nor complete their private and the instructors
also concur in this assessment. When is it time for the instructor to
advise the student that they should seek some other pastime? A few folks
will remain club members and be content to always fly with another member.
A few suddenly get 'switched on' after a few years of struggling and come
around. Similarly the leap from the 2-33 to a more modern glider type may
be quite large. For instance, over the past 25 years, there have been a
substantial number of incidents/accidents in the Grob Twins in the US. Two
primary categories spring to mind, canopy opening on takeoff and PIO on
landing. These appear to be largely US incidents and not repeated
significantly in other regions operating the Grobs in relatively larger
numbers. The sad results from the canopy opening incidents were completely
preventable at two junctures, on the ground, and later by continuing to the
fly the glider and ignoring the open canopy. The PIO incidents are
bothersome as they would appear to indicate that when things get a bit
awkward, the law of primacy kicks in the pilot perhaps reacts in a way
consistent with how they flew the 2-33 and things go all pear-shaped.
Granted, this is only a couple patterns of incidents that seem to perhaps be
related to initial training in the 2-33 and certainly the pilots in the
Grobs were 'checked out', though a few of these incidents had instructors on
board.
Don't get me wrong, many fine pilots have trained in the 2-33 and more will
continue to do so. Like other things in soaring, there may be pitfalls.
When it comes time for you to step up from the 2-33 and 1-26, where will you
get more training? Will you run out and buy a Libelle and jump in? Will
you seek a few hours of dual in a glass two-seater first, even if it's 500
miles away? Hopefully there is a convenient opportunity much nearer.
The 2-33 is durable and long lasting and cheap. It makes soo much sense to
keep using them, but it's a double-edged sword considering what you may be
flying next. Then there's the other group of folks who just leave soaring
because all they have an opportunity to fly is the 2-33. I know, an hour in
the 2-33 is better than an hour on the ground, but I'd rather spend an hour
on my bicycle personally, keeping fit for flying something more demanding
and satisfying.
The issue with the USAFA indicates that the program using the 2-33's cannot
be continued effectively using the L-23's and they must adapt and modify.
The greater shame would be that they would abandon the program simply
because it's more challenging. L-23's simply must be flown to a higher
standard which is achieved through more training.
Frank Whiteley
Colorado
F.L. Whiteley
"Shirley" <xmnus...@aol.communicate> wrote in message
news:20030525112454...@mb-m23.aol.com...
and/or
early solo flight (good). I've seen some people solo the 2-33 who will
clearly
never solo any other glider nor complete their private and the instructors
also concur in this assessment. When is it time for the instructor to
advise the student that they should seek some other pastime? A few folks
will remain club members and be content to always fly with another member.
A few suddenly get 'switched on' after a few years of struggling and come
around. Similarly the leap from the 2-33 to a more modern glider type may
be quite large. For instance, over the past 25 years, there have been a
substantial number of incidents/accidents in the Grob Twins in the US. Two
primary categories spring to mind, canopy opening on takeoff and PIO on
landing. These appear to be largely US incidents and not repeated
significantly in other regions operating the Grobs in relatively larger
numbers. The sad results from the canopy opening incidents were completely
preventable at two junctures, on the ground, and later by continuing to the
fly the glider and ignoring the open canopy. The PIO incidents are
bothersome as they would appear to indicate that when things get a bit
awkward, the law of primacy kicks in the pilot perhaps reacts in a way
consistent with how they flew the 2-33 and things go all pear-shaped.
Granted, this is only a couple patterns of incidents that seem to perhaps be
related to initial training in the 2-33 and certainly the pilots in the
Grobs were 'checked out', though a few of these incidents had instructors on
Don't get me wrong, many fine pilots have trained in the 2-33 and many more
will
continue to do so. Like other things in soaring, there may be pitfalls.
When it comes time for you to step up from the 2-33 and 1-26, where will you
get more training? Will you run out and buy a Libelle and jump in? Will
you seek a few hours of dual in a glass two-seater first, even if it's 500
miles away? Hopefully there is a convenient opportunity much nearer to
master two-point landings.
The 2-33 is durable and long lasting and cheap. It makes sooo much sense to
keep using them, but it's a double-edged sword considering what you may be
flying next. Then there's the other group of folks who just leave soaring
because all they have an opportunity to fly is the 2-33. I know, an hour in
the 2-33 is better than an hour on the ground, but I'd rather spend an hour
on my bicycle, keeping fit for flying something more demanding
Mark James Boyd
Some folks say that training in less complex aircraft that are easy to fly
causes problems later because the more complex aircraft then get ahead of
the student. This is utter nonsense. Reading a book on flying is
less complex than flying a Grob as well, does this mean one
shouldn't read books on flying?
I'm a firm believer that students should fly aircraft with the
lowest insurance rates. The Cessna 152/172 and SGS 2-33 fall
into this category. These aircraft have lift, weight, thrust and
drag, have roll/bank, pitch, and yaw. They also have light
enough control forces yet large enough cockpits that
both large and small students can fly them. They also have
low stall speeds, are a bit hard to spin, and are forgiving of
striking the tail and hard or sideways landings.
I have no idea why anyone would start in something else unless
these aircraft aren't available. Standard, low performance
trainers which are abundant and have millions of hours of
proven safety and success can't simply be brushed aside.
There are other perfectly safe training aircraft, but just not
in enough abundance to make them a good choice, in my opinion.
Ralph Jones
The AFA glider program goes up and down in quality, according to the
qualifications and motivation of the officer who runs it; it's been
very good and very bad. Dave Allen did a splendid job at it, but he's
long gone.
rj
Bill Daniels
"Shirley" <xmnus...@aol.communicate> wrote in message
news:20030525112454...@mb-m23.aol.com...
I agree with Frank Whiteley that great pilots have been trained and will
continue to be trained in 2-33's. However, the instructor must insist on
the student meeting high standards because the glider won't. The 2-33 will
give a student with terrible flying skills a pass.
The L-23 and other European training gliders, are strict disciplinarians
that, even if the instructor is lax, will simply require that high standards
be met. They are none too forgiving of mishandling by a sloppy pilot. This
is directly communicated to the student by the glider itself. There is
nothing like an inadvertent spin entry to drive home the lesson. On the
other hand, European trainers are lovely to soar and impart a love of the
sport which is hard to imagine in a 2-33.
I have never, ever, seen an inadvertent spin with a 2-33. Most students
trained in them don't believe they happen - even if the instructor strongly
emphasized the point that they do.
If a student has only flown a 2-33, I would be concerned about a transition
to single place glass. If they can show proficiency in a L-23, I would
worry much less.
It's somewhat like saying that you CAN teach mountain climbing in the
flatlands of Kansas - which is true. However, the result is always better
if you train in Colorado with real mountains.
Bill Daniels
rjciii
> The AFA glider program goes up and down in quality, according to the
> qualifications and motivation of the officer who runs it; it's been
> very good and very bad. Dave Allen did a splendid job at it, but he's
> long gone.
Be advised that the scope and size of the Academy glider program has
changed drastically since Dave Allen's time. Back the it was more like
a flying club offering the gammet of soaring experiences (X/C, Wave,
etc.) to a select few cadets. Now the fleet is at least twice at
large, has motorgliders (therefore more officer involvement), and is
charged with the mission of attempting to solo each and every of the
~1000 sophomore cadets. Due to the sheer numbers involved the program
is necessarily run very procedurly more like an Air Training Command
operation.
The good news is that the soaring program at the Air Force Academy is
able to expose nearly all cadets to at least some semblence of flying
whether they go on to a flying career in the Air Force or not.
Personal testimony is that the soaring program does motivate many
cadets to stick it out for the grueling four years. And many more
cadets are needed to act as instructor pilots--a job that is highly
motivating and considered on campus very prestigious. Lastly, many
cadets first exposed to soaring at the AFA come back to the sport and
support it--like Jim Payne for one. RJC
Walt Konecny
>Walt Konecny says:
>
>> Nothing like having a totally clueless instructor
>>along
>> for the ride....and someone paying for it with their
>> life.
>
>
>to have
>done is to ride the towplane down after the towpilot
>had a heart
>attack and crashed?
What?? Where the hell do you read this? I'm talking
about a clueless instructor here, one who lets the
student get way out of position several times, the
last of which when the towplane is 150-200 ft below
the glider, basically the length of the towrope, before
the instructor attemps to release the glider. A competent
instructor would have released the rope long before
it broke.
>What exactly are you finding fault with here?
The incompetent instructor. Period.
>Walt, some friendly advice: After reading the comments
>on several of
>your recent posts I am finding your attitude on safety
>quite
>suspect. You may want to step back and evaluate the
>basis of your
>point of view on such matters and not wade in as we
>used to say with
>'all balls and no forehead'.
>RJC
Well then, let me counter with some friendly information.
I have not 'been graduated' from the AFA, I have however,
been flying since 1966, including three back-to-back
tours in Vietnam, and considerable contract work in
various countries in Africa, Central and South America,
under less than optimal flying conditions, and have
found that my 'attitude on safety' and my 'point of
view on such matters' has served me quite well.
There is safety, and then there is safety. There is
the common-sense safety approach, tempered one way
or the other depending on one's total flying experience,
that's the reasoned, rational kind of safety. Then
there is the PC safety, the 'Hoot, the Safety Owl',
old woman in dire stress type of safety, and that is
the kind of 'safety' attitude which would have prevented
the Wright brothers from ever having made their first
flight.
I know my limits, and I stay within those parameters
whenever possible. We all have different comfort/competence
levels, and criticizing a person for having different
'safety' attitudes than your own, does nothing more
than make public your own sense of insecurity.
wk
rjciii
> it's the program that's a joke.
Please see my reply post to Ralph Jones concerning the benefits of the
program.
> Is the USAFA capable of purchasing the right equipment AND developing
> the right program around it?
Yes. They flew 2-33s, 2-32s, 1-34s, and 1-26s for decades.
> Why are the Cadets in charge of the program?
They aren't. Commissioned officers are in charge but primarily act in
a supervisory and evaluatory role. Cadets are the primary glider
instructors and rated pilot officers are the Motorglider IPs.
> Did they [the cadets] decide to buy the
> Firefly, too, or did that Solomonic decision come out of the Pentagon?
See my lengthy post giving the background of this procurement. The
Academy is considered a separate operating agency on par with the
other major commands and does its own procurement.
> In the Blanik, USAFA bought a proven design operated safely all over the
> world for years, and after a very short time decided, on the urging of
> CADETS, that they need a dash one as thick as an F-15's or it can't be
> flown safely?
So what if this is what it takes to run that operation safely?
Realize that the congessionally mandated mission of soloing every
cadet dictates tens of thousands of sorties and the use of hundreds of
cadet instructor pilots. Such an operation indeed necessarily
requires a very procedural personality.
Besides, what skin is it off your nose if the AFA decides to reinvent
the wheel on this one? RJC
Shirley
>I agree with Frank Whiteley that great pilots have
>been trained and will continue to be trained in 2-33's.
>However, the instructor must insist on the student
>meeting high standards because the glider won't.
>The 2-33 will give a student with terrible flying
>skills a pass.
>
>The L-23 and other European training gliders, are
>strict disciplinarians that, even if the instructor is
>lax, will simply require that high standards be met.
>They are none too forgiving of mishandling by a sloppy
>pilot. This is directly communicated to the student
>by the glider itself. There is nothing like an inadvertent
>spin entry to drive home the lesson. On the other hand,
>European trainers are lovely to soar and impart a love of
>the sport which is hard to imagine in a 2-33.
>
>I have never, ever, seen an inadvertent spin with a 2-33.
>Most students trained in them don't believe they happen -
>even if the instructor strongly emphasized the point
>that they do.
[snip]
Bill, I understand what you're saying about the differences in the planes, but
those differences in the aircraft alone do not simply make a safer pilot. If
the instructor is lax and not a strict disciplinarian, the glider isn't going
to make up for it by putting the student into situations he hasn't been taught
to handle. Would you want a student who doesn't yet possess the capability of
recognizing and recovering in an aircraft that WILL inadvertently go into a
spin? or is an aircraft that is less likely to spin a more logical choice until
that student acquires experiennt with terrible flying skills a pass" -- unless
I'm mistaken, that's precisely what the FAA Examiner and the private pilot
checkride are for. Even if an instructor turns a blind eye to slop, the
examiner can usually spot even subtle inadequacies and evaluate them, and a
student with terrible flying skills shouldn't make it past the checkride in ANY
aircraft. I may be relatively new at this, but a "sloppy pilot" doesn't
necessarily become a competent one simply by being tossed into on-the-spot
situations where he/she has to use trial and error as a substitute for
training.
Staying on topic, we're talking about the USAFA here, and it's doubtful their
cadet "instructors" with only 100 flights and 25 hours in their logbooks can be
competent in spin recovery themselves, let alone being able to teach it to a
student in ANY trainer aircraft. The debate should more appropriately be the
AFA glider instructor qualification standards, not rating the effectiveness of
one glider as a trainer against another. You don't automatically become a
better driver if you sit behind the wheel of a Ferrari vs. a Honda.
Oh, and I'd like to say something about your comment that it's hard to imagine
a 2-33 being lovely to soar or imparting a love of the sport, but I'm too
offended ... feels like you just insulted one of my kids!
:-)
--Shirley
Neal Pfeiffer
Shirley
second time so the first and second paragraphs make sense. See? even a
state-of-the-art computer sometimes doesn't do it as well as the old
typewriter!
Bill, I understand what you're saying about the differences in the planes, but
those differences in the aircraft alone do not simply make a safer pilot. If
the instructor is lax and not a strict disciplinarian, the glider isn't going
to make up for it by putting the student into situations he hasn't been taught
to handle. Would you want a student who doesn't yet possess the capability of
recognizing and recovering in an aircraft that WILL inadvertently go into a
spin? or is an aircraft that is less likely to spin a more logical choice until
that student acquires experience, skill, and hopefully a more competent
instructor?
Furthermore, NO glider, not even a 2-33, gives "a student with with terrible
E. A. Grens
conditions. It seemed a pleasant aircraft to fly; except for poor seating
and low sensitivity in pitch control input. I would prefer cadets be
trained in ASK-21 or Grob 103.
But, this totally beside the point. The cadets are members of the US Armed
Services. They must be prepared to go in harm's way in the defense of their
country. This includes suffering casualties in training. The training
regimes should be designed to minimize training casualties. However, if
they are limited to avoiding all training casualties, they can not produce
an effective combat force.
Ed
Neal Pfeiffer
After reading the full transcript, the student pilot's statement
indicated the glider to be 150 to 200 feet above the towplane and twice
he asked the IP whether they should release. By the time the rope
broke, the tow pilot was without options, blocked arteries or not.
I fly vintage single-seat gliders with cg hooks only and have repeatedly
emphasized to my two children (22 and 18) to be very careful to hold the
correct position behind the towplane, and also the importance of
releasing early if they start to pull high. The Germans have have had a
number of aerotow accidents when using the cg hook so they now have a
currency requirement to aerotow from a cg hook.
I don't believe that this aircraft was being towed from a cg hook and
thus should have been more benign.
All students need to be told that their actions can lead to loss of life
if they do not maintain the correct vertical position on tow and they
need to release early not late.
njp
Bill Daniels
"Shirley" <xmnus...@aol.communicate> wrote in message
snip--
> Bill, I understand what you're saying about the differences in the planes,
but
> those differences in the aircraft alone do not simply make a safer pilot.
If
> the instructor is lax and not a strict disciplinarian, the glider isn't
going
> to make up for it by putting the student into situations he hasn't been
taught
> to handle. Would you want a student who doesn't yet possess the capability
of
> recognizing and recovering in an aircraft that WILL inadvertently go into
a
> spin? or is an aircraft that is less likely to spin a more logical choice
until
> that student acquires experience, skill, and hopefully a more competent
> instructor?
the pilot - intentional or otherwise. The training must provide the student
with the understanding of the consequences of using the controls in a way
the produces an inadvertent spin. You can make inappropriate control inputs
with a 2-33 and not observe any untoward effects. The L-23 will not let you
get away with that. For example, "do a cross-controlled stall and see what
happens". That maneuver produces a "take-home" lesson in the L-23 but may
convince the 2-33 student that the instructor is talking nonsense.
>
> Furthermore, NO glider, not even a 2-33, gives "a student with with
terrible
> flying skills a pass" -- unless I'm mistaken, that's precisely what the
FAA
> Examiner and the private pilot checkride are for. Even if an instructor
turns a
> blind eye to slop, the
> examiner can usually spot even subtle inadequacies and evaluate them, and
a
> student with terrible flying skills shouldn't make it past the checkride
in ANY
> aircraft. I may be relatively new at this, but a "sloppy pilot" doesn't
> necessarily become a competent one simply by being tossed into on-the-spot
> situations where he/she has to use trial and error as a substitute for
> training.
Not suggesting that at all. Most examiners do as you say but the fact that
an applicant performs to the PTS standard on the test day does not mean
that, years later, habits that formed in basic training will not trip up the
pilot. As Frank says, "primacy of learning" is a fact.
Our accident rate is a fact too.
I would never let a student frighten themselves by encountering an
inadvertent spin without full and complete training in stall/spin
recognition and recovery - AND a full demonstration of inadvertent spin
scenarios. But, that's a lot easier to do and much more convincing in a
L-23.
I was taught to fly before the 2-33 was designed by grizzled veteran WWII
aviators in far better trainers. Ironically, some of them were built by
Schweizer for the military. The WWII TG-2's, TG-3's, LK-10's and Pratt
Reads were great trainers. I only wish the 2-33 had been just a lighter,
all-metal TG-3. It would have sold at least as well and American soaring
would have been far better off.
I want to train people to fly glass racers not 2-33's. Trainers like the
L-23 support that idea well. I just don't see where the venerable 2-33 fits
in the long view. It was intended for a bygone era. Lets move on.
>
> Staying on topic, we're talking about the USAFA here, and it's doubtful
their
> cadet "instructors" with only 100 flights and 25 hours in their logbooks
can be
> competent in spin recovery themselves, let alone being able to teach it to
a
> student in ANY trainer aircraft. The debate should more appropriately be
the
> AFA glider instructor qualification standards, not rating the
effectiveness of
> one glider as a trainer against another. You don't automatically become a
> better driver if you sit behind the wheel of a Ferrari vs. a Honda.
>
Snip--
The USAFA has a lot of thinking to do. I agree that the 25 hour, 100 flight
IP wonders are probably not up the the task of teaching in a L-23 let alone
spin training. However, without some competent spin training in the
program, those Blaniks will kill somebody. So, do we want the USAF to dumb
down the program or smarten up the cadets? I vote for smarter.
If there is a bitter tone in my comments, perhaps it is because I watched a
pilot spin 25 full turns to his death. I cannot but believe that, had he
been competently trained in an easily spinnable trainer, he would have
recovered from the spin and lived to fly another day. I doubt that any PTS
maneuver entered his terrified mind. All he knew was that a 2-33 never did
this.
I just want all pilots to have fun flying any glider that pleases them - and
live to tell about it.
Bill Daniels
Jack
> The cadets are members of the US Armed Services.
> They must be prepared to go in harm's way...includ[ing]
> suffering casualties in training...if they are limited
> to avoiding all training casualties, they can not produce
> an effective combat force.
EAG,
You have missed the point, which has been made here several times,
regarding the mission of the USAFA. It is not to train warriors, nor
even to train pilots, but to educate a particular cadre of future Air
Force Officers, only a few of whom will ever fire a weapon or be fired
upon, or even prepare to do so. A military education could also be
gotten at one of the other Service Academies of course, but then who
would indoctrinate the next generation in that particular mindset which
is the U.S. Air Force?
The vision which the USAFA has for its Cadet flight familiarization
program may be overly ambitious (a thousand 2d year Cadets every year),
but I do see the value of putting every young officer-to-be at the
controls of an aircraft, at least once in his life, in a Service
dedicated to controlling the sky, and space, for the necessary defense
of the Nation and our Allies.
I hope that the General who is the acting head of the USAFA will create
a program that is both realistic in its ambitions, effective, and safe.
It will take money, imagination, and commitment to recreate an effective
glider training program whose benefits, though they may be difficult to
quantify, add not only to Cadet morale, but also to an enhanced
appreciation of the role of the men who will later be trained to
personally carry offensive and defensive power directly to the enemy
using air and space vehicles. There will be plenty of opportunity later
in their education and training and in operations around the world for
those few to find themselves in harm's way.
The USAF has never been completely at ease with all the very challenging
roles which have evolved for it to fill, and I suspect that what we see
happening at the Academy recently is a microcosm of that tremendously
difficult situation.
Jack
Lennie the Lurker
Hindsight is always 20/20
>
>
>
> Jack
Jason Stephens
I just thought to put in my 2 cents before we move on. I have been a
full-time glider instructor for about 12 years now(time flies!)and
have trained students in both of the types discussed and others.
The goal of flight training is to give experience and through that
gain proficiency. When a student has adequate exp and proficiency
they solo. Different aircraft require different ammounts of
proficiency to be flown well. To move from an aircraft to a more
advanced aircraft(ie 2-33 to G103) requires ADDITIONAL
experience(training) and increased proficiency to be flown well. This
is why at our company we have 14 gliders ranging from 2-33's to G103's
to 1-26's to glass racing ships and other ships in between.
Why then do we train in 2-33's? Why not teach in our G103's? In
theory they would be more proficient at the time of solo, licence etc
right? There are a couple of reasons why we use the 2-33.
1) One of the important factors in keeping a student going in their
quest to become a glider pilot is progression. A student in a 2-33
will achieve the required ammount of proficiency sooner than in the
G103. This does not mean that they are crummy pilots, it means they
are capable of flying the 2-33 WELL in a variety of conditions.
Training in the G103 takes more time and therefore money which makes
the student more likely to give it up part way through. Some of our
clients(3%) still choose the G103 but we explain the difference up
front.
2) The margin of error during training is greater with the 2-33 than
in anything else. Remember that students aren't perfect during
training and sometimes don't flare just right, or drag a wing, or slip
the turn to final etc. By letting them make minor errors and then fix
them themselves you create a more productive training environment.
One last note. Before solo you must expect something close to
perfection in the aircraft being flown. For an instructor would solo
a student that was just barely there is not so good.
Bill Daniels
"Jason Stephens" <jasons...@uofu.net> wrote in message
news:b6999f2f.0305...@posting.google.com...
Jason, I can't argue with your points. They represent conventional USA
wisdom and they do work.
However, I have noticed that if the students first training flight is in an
"advanced" trainer like the L-23, they simply don't notice that it is more
difficult to fly than a 2-33 - they just learn to fly it. They don't seem
to be working any harder to learn.
In fact, when they get to fly a 2-33, it takes almost the same amount of
transition training as going the other way. The 2-33 does have its odd
points.
Obviously, the non-USA soaring world trains in gliders like the L-23 with
great success. They even train in G103's. I don't believe they would think
that their training programs would benefit from adopting a glider like the
2-33.
Now, I would agree that basic training in a G103 is likely to result in some
damage from landing PIO's ( Actually, I prefer to call them PIB's for Pilot
Induced Bounces). On the other hand, the 2-33 may result in some damage to
the instructor's spine for the same reason.
Bill Daniels
F.L. Whiteley
"E. A. Grens" <ea...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:pUdAa.1110$Vs1...@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> I have only two flights in a L-23. A check-out and one in very weak
> conditions. It seemed a pleasant aircraft to fly; except for poor seating
> and low sensitivity in pitch control input. I would prefer cadets be
> trained in ASK-21 or Grob 103.
>
We ordered ours this way and I, for one, find it quite comfortable fore and
aft.
> But, this totally beside the point. The cadets are members of the US
Armed
> Services. They must be prepared to go in harm's way in the defense of
their
> country. This includes suffering casualties in training. The training
> regimes should be designed to minimize training casualties. However, if
> they are limited to avoiding all training casualties, they can not produce
> an effective combat force.
>
There may be some things to consider WRT to the failure to release from tow
incident. A couple of questions I'd like answered would be: Is the USAFA
fleet equipped with the standard factory L-23 release or the TOST upgrade?
Our L-23 is equipped with TOST at the nose and CG release points and I don't
think it would fail to release in a similar incident. Also, is the USAFA is
using weak links or relying on the rated rope strength?
Frank Whiteley
Colorado
F.L. Whiteley
http://www.soarcsa.org/docs/L23%20Flight%20Manual%20(OCR).pdf
PDF, 1.09MB
Please note 2.13b Speed vs Altitude placard (On customer's request (I don't
recall this explicitly requested, but it perhaps was)
Frank
"Ian Strachan" <I...@ukiws.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9LhpPiEz...@ukiws.demon.co.uk...
Terry Lee
news:d14b8f27.0305...@posting.google.com...
> So this probably has something to do with redline speeds being TAS vs.
> IAS? I've seen some manuals which aren't very explicit about this.
> And I've known some pilots who were under the impression that redline
> speeds only apply to IAS. Does JAR certification have anything to say
> about this?
What?????
Vaughn
"F.L. Whiteley" <gre...@greeleynet.com> wrote in message
news:3ed26ea7$0$199$7586...@news.frii.net...
>
> There may be some things to consider WRT to the failure to release from
tow
> incident. A couple of questions I'd like answered would be: Is the USAFA
> fleet equipped with the standard factory L-23 release or the TOST upgrade?
> Our L-23 is equipped with TOST at the nose and CG release points and I
don't
> think it would fail to release in a similar incident. Also, is the USAFA
is
> using weak links or relying on the rated rope strength?
I believe the "failure to release" accident was with a Schwiezer T6-4A,
not the new birds.
Vaughn
E. A. Grens
:
> You have missed the point, which has been made here several times,
> regarding the mission of the USAFA. It is not to train warriors, nor
> even to train pilots, but to educate a particular cadre of future Air
> Force Officers, only a few of whom will ever fire a weapon or be fired
> upon, or even prepare to do so. A military education could also be
> gotten at one of the other Service Academies of course, but then who
> would indoctrinate the next generation in that particular mindset which
> is the U.S. Air Force?
>
If the mission of our Service Academies is not to train warriors, then who's
mission is it to train warriors? As you say, most USAFA graduates will not
fly in combat, or even fly. But, they must be part of a warrior attitude
that should pervade all military operations. We must understand that only
the dedication of the small fraction of our population who serve in the
Armed Forces stands between us and destruction.
Ed Grens
Mark James Boyd
The problem of getting too high on tow is a real thing.
This has happened to me twice, once I did it and my
instructor released, another time a fellow pilot did
it and I released for us.
I do a few things to help. I trim forward during
tow so that inattention is less likely to get me high.
I also use a big seatcushion so I am higher and can see better
over the nose.
I've also always used a weak link. Because we tow out
of a field with lots of landout spots for takeoff,
we use links closer to the 80% instead of the 200% of
glider gross. When I do a check release,
I notice if there's a "two-stage release". The blanik
and the PW-2 both seem to have this issue.
Finally, my instructor taught me that if the other pilot
keeps getting high on tow, make a fist and put it behind the
stick to block against too much back pressure.
The big thing that I DON'T feel good about is the
towplane tow release. It's the crappy type that
may not allow the towpilot to release when the
glider gets too high. I've made the decision to
continue to hire tows from these towplanes, it is
a calculated risk. On the other hand, I've never
had any confidence the towpilot could react
fast enough to release anyway.
Jason Stephens
> However, I have noticed that if the students first training flight is in an
> "advanced" trainer like the L-23, they simply don't notice that it is more
> difficult to fly than a 2-33 - they just learn to fly it. They don't seem
> to be working any harder to learn.
>
> In fact, when they get to fly a 2-33, it takes almost the same amount of
> transition training as going the other way. The 2-33 does have its odd
> points.
>
This is not in line with my experience. The people always have an
easier time with the 2-33 than anything else.
Also..a very common "trainer" in Europe and many other places is the
ASK-13 which has very similar performance and capabilities to the
2-33A(except is does spin a little more easily).
My main point is that they aircraft should never be an excuse for a
pilot's mistakes or an incompetent instructor.
J
Jack
> If the mission of our Service Academies is not to train warriors, then who's
> mission is it to train warriors?
The term "warrior" is used a bit too freely these days, in a society
which, in general, has little notion of the real meaning of the term.
These men, and the occasional woman, will self-select, and the several
Services provide numerous opportunities for such individuals to be
recognized, trained, and prepared for their calling. The USAFA is just
one part of the process wherein recognition and indoctrination takes
place, in addition to its roll as an educational institution.
Never fear, true warriors have always been a relatively rare breed, and
will be. The glory of this nation rests firmly on the foundation that
those of us who may not truly be warriors in the strictest sense still
step forward when the call goes out, and generally perform very well in
the most difficult circumstances.
The USAFA and other Military Academies seek to prepare leaders, and
managers, to operate effectively in whatever circumstances they may find
themselves, and some Cadets will also become warriors.
Jack
Eric Greenwell
cho...@gmx.net says...
> > The L-23 has been flying for years, and apparently has had no problems.
> Why
> > should the AF reinvent the wheel with regard to flight testing? And what
> do
> > you mean by "without proper operational data"? Hasn't the data been
> > sufficient for everyone else?
>
> Thats not quite true
> we had a blanik and it was flown at an airshow 20 years ago
If it was 20 years ago, then it was an L13 and not an L23, correct?
> and the pushrods to the ailerons bent in a not successfully
> flown turn (slipping backward out).
Do you mean the glider fell backwards (airflow in the reverse
direction)?
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)
F.L. Whiteley
compare much more favorably with the L-13 and L-23. The K-4 is a much
better comparison to the 2-33.
Frank Whiteley
F.L. Whiteley
"Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in message
news:8ZyAa.175062$ja4.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
explain the failure to release part.
We flew the RAF L-13's years ago with the factory hook using both TOST and
OTTFUR rings and I don't recall any problems.
Frank
Eric Greenwell
jasons...@uofu.net says...
> Also..a very common "trainer" in Europe and many other places is the
> ASK-13 which has very similar performance and capabilities to the
> 2-33A(except is does spin a little more easily).
This is a striking comment! I learned to fly in an ASK 13, instructed
in L 13s, and have flown a few 2-33. For me, the ASK 13 and the L13
are very similar, the 2-33 is very dissimilar. The ASK 13 and the 2-33
both have nose skids, but the flying behavior is so different...
Bruce Hoult
jasons...@uofu.net (Jason Stephens) wrote:
> Also..a very common "trainer" in Europe and many other places is the
> ASK-13 which has very similar performance and capabilities to the
> 2-33A(except is does spin a little more easily).
No way -- the ASK-13 is neck and neck with the Blanik for performance
and handling. The K7 is only a few LD points worse (and much worse rear
seat).
-- Bruce
rjciii
> But, this totally beside the point. The cadets are members of the US Armed
> Services.
Barely, in sort of a quaisi-training status. So is a ROTC student.
Neither is considered active duty by any means.
> They must be prepared to go in harm's way in the defense of their
> country. This includes suffering casualties in training.
How about let's let them graduate from college first, get commissioned
and then properly train them in their wartime mission (which may take
an add'l two years in the case of a fighter pilot) before we throw
them into the fray.
> The training regimes should be designed to minimize training casualties.
Absolutely!
> However, if they are limited to avoiding all training casualties, they can
> not produce an effective combat force.
It has been said time and time again throughout this thread that the
mission of the U.S. Air Force Academy is not to train combat pilots.
Let's give them a fighting chance to graduate before we kill them off,
eh?
From the Air Force Cadet Handbook: "The mission on the United States
Air Force Academy is to provide the instruction and experience to all
cadets so that they graduate with the knowledge and character
essential to leadership and the motivation to become career officers
in the United States Air Force".
Now where does it say anything about "combat" or "pilot" of "flying"?
However, do realize (from personal experience) that the USAFA soaring
program is highly motivational to the cadets, especially to those who
<after graduation> intend to pursue a flying career in the Air
Force--sorta a way to keep all the B.S. from obscuring the big
picture. And it certainly does provide those cadets who are exposed
to the program, especially the cadet IPs, a leg up once he/she attends
formal USAF Flight Training--even if they did only fly the lowly 2-33.
Pitch, aimpoint and airspeed control...
After 3 & 1/2 years as a cadet instructor in the USAFA glider program
I finished tops in my USAF Pilot Training class and was awarded a
coveted fighter assignment (no trouble transitioning from a 2-33 to
"something hotter" [like and L-23? Gasp!] here. Try going from 8
minutes per mile to 8 miles/min. To this day I attribute my airsense
to having first learned to fly in glider aircraft. Matter of fact, six
of the top 10 UPT graduates were ex-cadet IPs.
So let's realize what the mission of the Air Force Academy is, and
then let's realize what the mission of the glider "orientation"
program at the Academy is to include its limitations (not formal USAF
flight training) and its motivational benefits to the future *leaders*
of the U.S. Air Force.
rjciii
>...and criticizing a person for having different
> 'safety' attitudes than your own, does nothing more
> than make public your own sense of insecurity.
Walt:
First may I remind you that it was your comment about "Chuck Yeager
rolling over in his grave" [which I'm sure Chuck's not quite ready to
do yet] that got the ball rolling on this thread in the first place.
BTW, I doubt that ole Chuck himself would turn a blind eye to the risk
vs. reward evaulation of the safety aspects of this non-mission
essential "orientation" program which we are discussing.
Secondly, like I have said, it's a smart thing for the Academy's new
[acting]Superintendent to take a step back and evaluate the flying
programs at the AFA.
To infer that doing so is a patsy thing to do and that such action
will affect future ex-cadet combat pilot's ability to properly perform
his mission shows a lack of understanding for the mission of the Air
Force Academy and the mission of the AFA's glider program.
Third, since my flying career includes tours as an AFA cadet IP/CFIG
and then as an officer-in-charge/IP, I would argue that my personal
first-hand experience with the Academy's soaring program lends itself
to at least some degree of credibility with regard to the subject at
hand irrespective as to how long *you* may have been flying or how
many tours *you* had in Vietnam.
And lastly: As I have indeed have "been graduated" from the Air Force
Academy [and, as you said, you have not], and have served three tours
as a USAF fighter pilot, I can assure you that I'm not "insecure"
about much of anything. But thanks for the free bit of psychoanalysis
anyhow.
I always have and will continue to point out any questionable attitude
I perceive in someone's opinion(s)about aviation safety.
RJC
Mark James Boyd
they may be injured severely or killed to accomplish
some goal for others. In a military sense,
this objective is to kill or injure others (the
enemy). But police, firemen, lifegaurds, and even
some missionaries fall into this category in a broad sense,
since they also fight (although not always against
people).
There are specific job training schools for these
jobs, and there is an appropriate "weed out." Over time,
I think the modern military including the Air Force, although
interested in warriors and developing a warrior spirit in
soldiers, have largely abandoned this as a general rule.
Yes there are jobs which require this, and there
are training programs like PJs, Seals, Rangers, Recon,
Special Forces, Top Gun, etc. for this kind of
adrenaline junkie willing to make this sacrifice.
Also, every ROTC or Academy grad has the choice at the
end to accept or decline a commision. Until then
they are students and young adults, not draftees.
I'm certain the students aren't prevented from
flying gliders at their own expense, and in the
meantime I'm certain they are learning more from the
lively safety discussions than they would get from
the few extra weeks of flying gliders.
As far as 100 flights and 25 hours goes, I believe
instructors can be excellent with even less time,
if it is used well, and the potential instructor
is very critical and enforces high standards
and discipline upon him or herself. In fact
I've found that the key to any pilot's success
has less to do with instructors or aircraft
and more with self-discipline. Students
with self-discipline will seek good instructors
and appropriate aircraft, and study everything
they can, and read about the risks and common
student errors without much prompting.
In fact, I'm surprised more USAF cadets aren't
reading this right now and voicing their
opinions... I would hope to hear some
lively discussion from them to mix in with
the experienced voices on this newsgroup...
Mark James Boyd
job using time available in training. Focus is on
practical aerodynamics and technique, instead of
FAR's, airspace, wake turbulence, or other things
that may be less important (depending on where one flies).
I have always felt that practical aerodynamics is much
more important than what type airspace is above
FL600, or what a brunswick tube is, or what the
names are of the five (or 7) pins that are used
when assembling the 2-33, or whether the air
creating the lenticulars is stable or unstable
(all questions I have had on checkrides).
Yes, aerodynamics for Naval Aviators is a personal
favorite, and the amazing ground schools given
to military pilots before they fly no doubt
greatly improves their safety records.
On the other hand I'd bet few of these same
aviators could tell what "TEMP 0810" means
from a METAR.
So without knowing anything about the
cadet's 100 flights and 50 hours (or if the
same cadet also has a power license), I'm
hesitant to indict...
Jack
> In fact, I'm surprised more USAF cadets aren't
> reading this right now and voicing their
> opinions. I would hope to hear some
> lively discussion from them to mix in with
> the experienced voices on this newsgroup.
They don't have time.
Jack
------------------------------------
mailto:bar...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58
====================================
Walt Konecny
Lennie, I mean, changing your ID to Rjciii, really.....
wk
At 19:54 27 May 2003, Rjciii wrote:
>Walt Konecny wrote:
>
>>...and criticizing a person for having different
>> 'safety' attitudes than your own, does nothing more
>> than make public your own sense of insecurity.
>
>Walt:
>
>First may I remind you that it was your comment about
>'Chuck Yeager
>rolling over in his grave' [which I'm sure Chuck's
>not quite ready to
>do yet] that got the ball rolling on this thread in
>the first place.
>BTW, I doubt that ole Chuck himself would turn a blind
>eye to the risk
>vs. reward evaulation of the safety aspects of this
>non-mission
>essential 'orientation' program which we are discussing.
>
>Secondly, like I have said, it's a smart thing for
>the Academy's new
>[acting]Superintendent to take a step back and evaluate
>the flying
>programs at the AFA.
>To infer that doing so is a patsy thing to do and that
Bob Kuykendall
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> > In fact, I'm surprised more USAF cadets aren't
> > reading this right now and voicing their
> > opinions. I would hope to hear some
> > lively discussion from them to mix in with
> > the experienced voices on this newsgroup.
>
> They don't have time.
It's certainly not because USAFA cadets don't have any opinions:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/airforce.asp
But seriously, I am also very much interested in hearing what the
USAFA soaring program participants have to say about the grounding.
Everything I've read about it has been filtered by the media to such a
degree as I can't figure out which type of aircraft prompted the
concerns, and exactly what those concerns are. I'd also like to see
what an FOIA inquiry would reveal.
Bob K.
Chris Reed
"Shirley" <xmnus...@aol.communicate> wrote in message
news:20030525202728...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> Staying on topic, we're talking about the USAFA here, and it's doubtful
their
> cadet "instructors" with only 100 flights and 25 hours in their logbooks
can be
> competent in spin recovery themselves, let alone being able to teach it to
a
> student in ANY trainer aircraft.
I soloed with 75 flights/7 hours (winch launch training), at which time I
was judged to be competent in spin recovery, otherwise I would not have been
sent solo. At well below 100 flights/25 hours I was told to undertake
observed (from the ground) spins in a both a trainer (flown solo, K13) and a
single seater (K6). This is UK training to the BGA syllabus.
In my view, pilots need to be trained to the point where spin recovery is
(yawn) automatic. Then, if it happens unexpectedly when flying solo, your
instincts take over.
I don't think that at 25 hours I would have been competent to teach spin
recovery (maybe now, with about 200 hours, if I had further training), but
that's a separate issue.
Chris Reed
ch
then it must have been the L13 I was then flying as well.
And the problems happened when the glider slipped
backward in reverse direction.
Chris
"Eric Greenwell" <flyg...@charterDECIMAL.POINTnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.193c94297...@news.charter.net...
Michael
> The report said she had 100 flights, and that the average duration of these
> flights was 15 minutes. So the instructor had a grand total of 25 hrs in
> gliders.
In the US, this is sufficient to become a CFIG.
61.129(f) and 61.183. 100 flights and 25 hours are the minimum
requirements, provided the applicant has no other flight experience.
Michael
W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Gliding & Motorgliding International, see
http://www.glidingmagazine.com/ListFeatureArticleDtl.asp?id=327 .
I understand from his article that he was involved in the investigation into
the accident at the USAF Academy.
The modification to Schweizer type banner towing hooks he mentions is
approved and highly recommended by the BGA. It may be found at:
British Gliding Association.
http://www.gliding.co.uk/
Go to: Info for Clubs & Members.
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/news.htm
Go to: Technical.
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/technical/news.htm
Go to: Airworthiness Directives.
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/technical/ads.htm
Go to: Motor Glider and Tug issues.
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/technical/manufacturers/motorgliderandtug.pdf
See: Page 2 – item 14. Schweitzer type banner towing hooks.
W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>
> "Walt Konecny" <REMOVE_TO_REP...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bao20t$1p4uc$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Speaking of USAF Academy blunders, check out
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20020510X00654&key=1
>
> and then either click on 'Full narrative available' or go directly to
>
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020510X00654&ntsbno=DEN02GA039&akey=1
>
> Nothing like having a totally clueless instructor along for the
> ride....and someone paying for it with their life.
>
> wk
>
Phil King
>Accidents in
>Gliding & Motorgliding International, see
> http://www.glidingmagazine.com/ListFeatureArticleDtl.asp?id=327
>.
Chris's article is well worth reading. One thing I
would add to it is that to me the danger seems greatest
with high wing designs. This is because the centre
of mass and the centre of lift of the whole glider
is generally near the level of the wings. The greater
the height of these above the tow hook, the greater
the pitch-up moment created by the tension in the tow
rope. The greater the pitch-up moment, the greater
the instability of the combination.
When Chris suggests:
>Don’t aerotow gliders, especially light weight, low
>wing-loading gliders on C of G hooks intended for winch
>launching.
I wonder whether it is not just the lightweight & low
wing-loading that is important, but also the high wing.
The ASK8 has all these attributes.