Glider for a beginner
Rodney Lee
I am new to soaring,not much flight time. I would like some suggestions
on what type of glider to buy. I'm looking for something I can fly on
some cross-country flights. I'm looking for a glider that would be good
for a beginner,and still fly once I get more experience. I really do not
want to have to buy another in a couple of years.
Thanks Rodney
David Reece van der Linden
You may want to get some info on one of the following World Class Gliders:
PW-5
Russia AC-5
LET L-33 Solo
or older
1-34
ASW-15
There are a number of WWW sites with info on various gliders
Regards
--
David Reece van der Linden
"IM" LS-3
Tore Skaar
I was not aware that there was more than ONE World Class Glider; the
PW-5.
The FAI will arrange the first World Championship for the World Class
next year in Turkey as a part of the World Air Games (the air sports
"olympics"). In the soaring competitions, only the PW-5 will be allowed
to participate.
The FAI has commited itself to arrange Championships for the PW-5 for at
least the next 15 years.
The PW-5 is a great aircraft for beginners and has also attracted many
top pilots because of the FAI commitment.
The other aircraft mentioned are OK, but it is not correct to classify
them as World Class, as this class is reserved exlusively for the PW-5.
Regards
Tore....@nord.eunet.no
EGreenwell
In article <53hkd9$4...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
drli...@usa.pipeline.com(David Reece van der Linden) writes:
>You may want to get some info on one of the following World Class
Gliders:
>
>PW-5
>Russia AC-5
>LET L-33 Solo
Please note that ONLY the PW-5 is the World Class glider. The other
gliders were entratnts in the World Class competition, but did not win it.
They are fine gliders that would be also be suitable for your purpose,
but will not be allowed in World Class glider competitions (unless the
rules change).
The ASW19 is a 38:1, good handling glider, and seems to be reasonably
priced. Be careful about selecting a 1st or 2nd generation 'glass glider:
their prices are attractive, but the handling is generally inferiour to
the later ones.
Good luck,
Eric Greenwell
Eagle Data
I would recommend the same glider that I purchased before even having my
private pilot license. The glider is the Jantar standard. They have good
performance at 38:1, easy to handle and very sturdy. They have very
effective speed-limiting dive brakes (which probably saved my life). Very
controllable on final approach. No flaps to be concerned with. High
landing gear clearance which prevents damage in off-field landings. Large
rudder which makes spin recovery nearly automatic. If you release back
pressure on the stick it stops spinning.
I have one in excellent condition for sale. For more info. see the web
site or call.
http://www.nrvcom.com/aviation/aircraft/homepage.html
John Duprey
847-821-8022
Chicago area
John Duprey
ASW 24
DannyS12
In article <53ohoi$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, egree...@aol.com wrote:
>Be careful about selecting a 1st or 2nd generation 'glass glider:
>their prices are attractive, but the handling is generally inferiour to
>the later ones.
Perhaps you would so kind as to point out recommended gliders that are
*not* 1st or 2nd generation gliders
David Reece van der Linden
I was not aware that there was more than ONE World .Class Glider; the
PW-5.
The FAI will arrange the first World Championship for the .World Class
next year in Turkey as a part of the World Air Games (the .air sports
"olympics"). In the soaring competitions, only the PW-5 .will be allowed
to participate.
The FAI has commited itself to arrange Championships for .the PW-5 for at
them as World Class, as this class is reserved .exlusively for the PW-5.
Regards
Tore....@nord.eunet.no
Hell!!!!
I know the PW-5 is the ONLY world class glider.
That is an unnecessary posting.
So I left out ENTRAINT from the sentence. The gliders mentioned are all
nice gliders and there all great for beginners. I was answering the
question asked. No flame was intended.
HERE IS A REAL FLAME. Russias and L-33s are easy to come by....PW-5???
;)
Tore Skaar
I am sorry if I upset you, but there seem to be some confusion about
this issue in some quarters! Many use the expression World Class Glider
about many sailplanes (like the "Genesis"). I am worried that this use
will "dilute" the public impression of the World Class concept.
Keep on flying your great LS-3!
Regards
Tore
David Reece van der Linden
Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour and it seem the soaring community
hasn't got it.
Easy does it....
FYI ;) means a sarcastic comment.
But let me backpeddle, lest I make someone mad.
The PW-5 is a wonderful ship. We have one of the international judges for
the world class our my club. He is currently building PW-5 molds and these
will become available soon.
My initial posting was giving a pilot some suggestions for GOOD planes to
look at...not having a dig at anything in particular.
Bruce Hoult
> nice gliders and there all great for beginners. I was answering the
> question asked. No flame was intended.
>
> HERE IS A REAL FLAME. Russias and L-33s are easy to come by....PW-5???
> ;)
Not that hard.
As far as I know there isn't a single Russia or L-33 here in New Zealand,
but there are a dozen PW-5's.
To put that in context of our country, I believe that the only types
more heavily represented here are the Ka6, Std Cirrus, Blanik and Grob
103/Twin Astir.
I just moved house and my soaring directory is still packed away somewhere,
but I think the PW-5 has passed the Libelle, Ka7, ASK13 and Discus in
numbers.
-- Bruce
--
XTRA: wordnumbers a go go
John Bojack
rl...@mail.myriad.net (Rodney Lee) wrote:
> Thanks Rodney
If you have the money, an LS-4 would be perfect for you. The plane
has no bad habits, period. And it will run when loaded with water.
As a testimonial to its nature, newly soloed students in Germany are
allowed to fly the LS-4.
J4
Alan Meyer
In article <53hl7v$8...@news.myriad.net>, rl...@mail.myriad.net wrote...
>
> I am new to soaring,not much flight time. I would like some suggestions
>on what type of glider to buy. I'm looking for something I can fly on
>some cross-country flights. I'm looking for a glider that would be good
>for a beginner,and still fly once I get more experience. I really do not
>want to have to buy another in a couple of years.
>
> Thanks Rodney
Since no one seems to have mentioned it yet, I have to put in a word
for the old Schweizer 1-26. The performance is low, but it is easy to
fly, very safe, handles very pleasantly, and lands in a very short field.
You can buy it cheaply and, if you do decide to sell it some day there is
a good market and it will hold or even increase it's value.
The downside about it for cross country work is that, because of its low
performance, you'll make more landouts. Unless you have someone who
is happy to crew for you and don't mind assembling and disassembling, that
will be a bummer.
--
Alan Meyer
AM Systems, Inc.
Randallstown, Maryland
ame...@ix.netcom.com
EGreenwell
In article <53rrve$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dann...@aol.com (DannyS12)
writes:
Generally the newer they are, the better they handle, e.g., the discus and
the ASW24. The LS4 is also very good and not so expensive. By
first/second generation, I meant gliders such as the Phoebus and Standard
Cirrus. These gliders tend to be cheaper, and attract the newcomer, who
may not have the ability to fly them safely. I suggest the older the
glider, the more carefully you should investigate it's flying qualities.
Regards,
Eric Greenwell
Michiel De Corte
>rl...@mail.myriad.net (Rodney Lee) wrote:
>
>> I am new to soaring,not much flight time. I would like some suggestions
>>on what type of glider to buy. I'm looking for something I can fly on
>>some cross-country flights. I'm looking for a glider that would be good
>>for a beginner,and still fly once I get more experience. I really do not
>>want to have to buy another in a couple of years.
>
>> Thanks Rodney
>
Nice gliders for a beginning cross-country-pilot are planes from the GROB
Astir-series like the Astir CS77,Standard AstirII/III.
Although they are not completely competitive for contest-flying, nice
flights can be made.
some technical info for the Standard AstirII:
Gliding-ratio (calculated) :37 at 95km/h (wingload:28kg/m²)
38 at 105km/h (wingload:36kg/m²)
Minimum sink 0,65 at 75km/h (350kg)
Wing-span: 15m (old STANDARD-class)
Wing-area 12,4m²
Aspect ratio 18,2
Weight(empty/max) 275kg/450kg
Tor Olav Steine
Michiel De Corte wrote:
>
> >rl...@mail.myriad.net (Rodney Lee) wrote:
> Nice gliders for a beginning cross-country-pilot are planes from the GROB
> Astir-series like the Astir CS77,Standard AstirII/III.
> Although they are not completely competitive for contest-flying, nice
> flights can be made.
I agree, they are inexpencive and beatiful to fly. I have seen some
landing gear breakdowns on these, however, they do not tend to forgive
errors in the landing phase. No suspension and weak fuselage bottom is
no good for a beginner.
Happy searching!
R.K.T.
Astirs must not be landed with full airbrakes. This sets up too high a
rate of descent which the flare cannot quite stop. Result is a hard
landing and possible collapse of the cast alloy undercart. Ease off the
brakes to about half before the flare and the problem goes away. At
least, so I'm told by my instructors.
Rudi Treutlein
Gympie Soaring Club
Australia
Peter Disdale
In article <VA.0000000...@ozemail.com.au>
rtr...@tpgi.com.au "R.K.T." writes:
> Astirs must not be landed with full airbrakes. This sets up too high a
???
> rate of descent which the flare cannot quite stop. Result is a hard
> landing and possible collapse of the cast alloy undercart. Ease off the
> brakes to about half before the flare and the problem goes away. At
And swap one problem for another? In my experience of teaching
"beginners" making a large reduction in the airbrake setting at
a critical point (ie. the flare) during the landing causes more
problems than it solves (airspeed permitting:-) )
> least, so I'm told by my instructors.
I have yet to fly a type which cannot be landed with full brake
(given that the wheel brake is not connected/engaged at full
airbrake setting). What is relevant here is to have sufficient
airspeed commensurate with the amout of airbrake - if the glider
has powerful airbrakes (like the Astir), one simply needs a
higher airspeed than eg. a minimal approach with half-brake.
There are times when a (steep) full brake approach is necessary,
for example over an obstacle (line of trees?) into a smallish
field. In such circumstances, one does *not* want to reduce
the airbrake setting; however, the airspeed *must* be sufficient
for the round-out. This will be even higher than "normal" if
there is a significant wind gradient or there is an appreciable
up-slope.
Your instructors may well be giving good advice, but please
don't interpret advice as a never-to-be-broken rule!
--
Pete
Gary Nelson
Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
> Well, I agree with your points about the first-generation gliders. The
> Cirrus in particular has some 'interresting' spinning capabilities.
> It's a lot less forgiving with regards to speed during approach and
> landing than most new gliders.
Could you elaborate on your comment "the Cirrus in particular has some
'interresting' spinning capabilities". As I managed to spin mine
unexpectedly during my third flight in it, I'm interested in learning
what others know about this plane's spin characteristics.
Admittingly, the cause in my case was pilot induced, too slow of IAS for
conditions and inexperience (had just earned my PPL the day before).
That said, I still do not believe the plane gave me much in the way of
warning before the right wing dropped out from under me. This happened,
I believe, just as the right wing passed through the outside edge of a
particularly strong thermal. This was during a flight from Turf in
April of this year. As I remember it, my IAS was around 48-50 mph, well
above stall of 42 mph. I don't remember there being any tell tale
buffeting or mushy controls indicating an impending stall. I had
familiarized myself with the stall characteristics of this plane by
practicing several in my first two flights. Needless to say, I was
quite surpised when I found myself hanging from the straps, staring at
the ground spinning before me. Fortunately for me, this all happened at
3,000' AGL and I had time to recover.
To digress for a moment, required spin training before earning a PPL
would be a good topic for another thread. Adding to my "pucker factor"
was the fact that I had never been given spin training. All I had to go
on was what I had read. I burned 1,000' of altitude while I sorted
things out and made the necessary control inputs to effect a recovery.
If I had experienced a spin under the guidance of an instructor, I would
of quickly recognized it for what it was and made the full control
inputs necessary to recover. Belatedly, I sought out spin training from
an instructor before I flew my plane again.
Any naysayers out there to the idea of requiring spin training before
earning a PPL?
Back to the topic of this thread. Having related my spin experience, I
still would recommend the Open Cirrus as a great ship for a beginner.
Once I did the right thing, the Cirrus came right out of the spin. I
now have aprox. 50 very enjoyable hours in it. It is a very docile,
easy to fly ship. Since I live and fly in Wisconsin, with its less than
booming thermals, the L/D of 44:1 has helped me make several O&R
x-country flights that would of been much more difficult in a lower
performing plane. Because it is a higher performance ship, I expect I
will continue to enjoy and fly it as I gain hours and experience for
many years to come.
Gary Nelson
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
Rick Filipkiewicz
I've been looking at buying one of these 1st generation glass gliders
- LS1, DG100, Std Cirrus, ASW15B - myself for next season. What I've
gleaned in the way of problems/characteristics are these:
(a) They were, at least initially, equipped with all-flying tailplanes,
inheirited from the last wooden generation. This made for very light
pitch control with little or no natural ``feel'' in the stick. Strong
spring trimmers were added to compensate but it is still easy to PIO
on take-off, especially if only a belly hook is fitted. Since they
accelerate more quickly its also easy to overspeed the approach.
(b) Std Cirrus approach control is poor (I think DG100/101 & ASW15 are
o.k. here not sure about the LS1). This probably resulted from the
move to top-side only brakes without re-thinking the positioning. The
problem here is that brake effectiveness reduces with increasing
speed, caused by the airflow re-establishing itself in the gap between
the paddle & the wing.
(c) The ASW15 has an offset belly-hook which means it tends to swing
on the initial take-off ground run, made worse by cross-wind from the
hook side. Need a switched-on wing runner.
Also the ASW15 had balsa wood as the wing filler instead of plastic
foam with any water penetration leading to mould problems. Check that
the proper fungicide injection was done BEFORE the problem showed up.
I suspect that the ones with water ballast are best avoided.
For (a) Both the Rolladen-Schnieder and Glaser-Dirks came out with
conventional tail variants resp. LS1-f & DG101. Schempp-Hirth also had
a conventional tail variant, the Std Cirrus-G81 but very few were
made. Beware the build quality of the Yugoslav ones. I believe that
Grob & some French company also made a few but they are very rare.
For (b) there is a very effective mod which adds another paddle to
fill in the gap between the top one & the wing.
For (c) the B model has a bigger rudder giving more authority early
on.
One of the down-sides to (a) is that you have to fly the a/c all the
time, if you take your hand off the stick for more than a few sec it
will start to oscillate in pitch. This happens even on my K6-E which
can be a handful in heavy turbulence.
For what its worth I've eliminated the Cirrus-G81 unless I can find a
Grob/French one. For me, having lived with my K6's offset hook for a
year and a half, (c) eliminates the ASW15. This leaves me with the
DG101 as first choice and the LS1-f as backup (only 2 in the U.K.!).
I've not flown the 101 yet but I have flown the '300 (I'd love one but
not enough $$$) and all reports say that they are very similar.
DG101: + Performance (38-1 @ 53 kts)
+ Approach control.
+ Lots of ground clearance.
+ Takes up to 300lbs (135L) water ballast.
++ Control harmonisation. I've had the '300 in a thermal at 55
degrees of bank climbing hands-off at 6 kts.
+/- Huge canopy give great visibility but suffers from internal
reflections, a problem in hazy conditions.
+/- Bum-down/Feet-up seating position not to everyones taste, I
LOVE it. The '300 is the most comfortable glider I've ever
flown.
- Undercarriage lever down position is at full arm stretch &
its difficult to see that its fully locked. Its easy to get
this wrong. There is a minor mod that improves this.
- Parallelogram stick arrangement where it moves straight
forward/back with no tilt. Easy to get used to but can be a
problem if you are small and sitting a long way forward.
- Trim mechanism is a trigger on the stick. If you use it
crudely the ratchet wears very quickly.
_________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Richard Filipkiewicz phone: +44 171 700 3301
Algorithmics Ltd. fax: +44 171 700 3400
3 Drayton Park email: ri...@algor.co.uk
London N5 1NU
England
Andrew Stevens
>> > Nice gliders for a beginning cross-country-pilot are planes from
>the GROB
>> > Astir-series like the Astir CS77,Standard AstirII/III.
>> I agree, they are inexpencive and beatiful to fly. I have seen some
>> landing gear breakdowns on these, however, they do not tend to
>forgive
>> errors in the landing phase. No suspension and weak fuselage bottom
>is
>> no good for a beginner.
This sounds like an serious over-generalisation...
Consider my old friend 'FEF' (Oxford University GC's Astir). Good
old 'Feffy' gets to be flown as a first single seater by 10 or more
new early solo pilots every year. No problems with undercarriage
collapses. Ditto 'R8' a similar RAF-owned Astir. According to our
friendly glider mechanics at RAF Bicester there are significant
variations between Astir's in the undercarriage department. Certain
styles of Grob castings are (apparently) rather brittle and prone to
cracking wheras others are much much better. Similar observations
apply to the interior bracing in the fuselage structure (if I recall
rightly). A lot of this can (apparently) be corrected by retro-fit.
>Astirs must not be landed with full airbrakes. This sets up too high a
>rate of descent which the flare cannot quite stop. Result is a hard
>landing and possible collapse of the cast alloy undercart. Ease off the
>brakes to about half before the flare and the problem goes away. At
>least, so I'm told by my instructors.
This *directly* contradicts extensive personal experience and the
standard pre-Astir briefing given at RAF Bicester. Show me an
early-solo pilot in our Astir trying to land with half airbrake and
I'll show you an Astir going 'boing boing boing' all the way down the
airfield. I have no direct experience of the '77 etc but in the
original ship the problem for inexperienced pilots is the relatively
powerful elevator and the propensity to fly on a long way (compared
with K.21, K.13 et al) after the round out at low airbrake settings.
Certainly, the plane flares sufficiently well, even with full
airbrake, that it is easy to over do it and end up balloon upwards
slightly. Personally, I habitually try to apply plenty-to-full
airbrake before the round out and have simply *never* 'arrived' due
to an ineffective flare (and I'm not a lightweight). I have, however,
on several occasions embarrassed myself with a combination of
low-airbrake and mis-judged hold-off when trying to land on Bicester's
undulating turf.
Andrew
John Cochrane
My own entry into the justify-your-outrageous-expenditure derby:
Most of this discussion concerns the handling and flying habits of 1st
generation gliders when they were new. Consider carefully the age and condition of a
glider too.
The other problem with very old gliders is their age. A beginning pilot is likely
also a beginning maintenace technician. Buying a very old glider, you have a lot
more worries. Rusting, wearing or bent control connections, moisture in fiberglass,
delaminating hinges, gel coat cracking, bubbling, peeling, and so forth. The trailer
is probably rotting. The flight manual says 36:1, but the waves in the aging gel
coat probably cut that down a lot!
Buying an old glider, you are likely to put a lot more time into maintenace and
refurbishing. If you have the time, space, and equipment, if have or are willing to
get the skills, or if you have lots of friends who can help, great. You can save a
bundle. But if time is precious and you'd rather fly, and if you live far from
sources of expertise on glider maintenance, it may be worth spending a bit more to
get something newer. Considering the resale market 10 years from now, the actual
extra expenditure may not be that big.
I bought a 1985 Pegasus 5 years ago. It has none of the bad habits mentioned of some
1st generation gliders. Handling is very good. Transition from blaniks etc. was
straightforward. It clims beautifully, and can carry 9 lbs of water. And I won't
need to sell it and move up until I get so good that last 2% of performance is worth
the extra $30k. The way I fly, that will be a long time! Yes, it costs $5-$10k more
than a 1975 Cirrus. For me, it was the right thing on the price/performance/hassle
tradeoff.
John Cochrane
Rick Filipkiewicz
Re Gary Nelson's experience -
FLAME-ON
No spin recovery practice before going solo in a sailplane ??!!! I can
only hope that you were converting from power and it was assumed that
you'd already done this as part of the PPL.
FLAME-OFF
I've been caught out & semi-spun like this often enough to always put
on another 5kts or so when thermalling in close proximity to Mother
Earth. I was test flying an ASW19 a few weeks back and did the usual
straight line stall tests & saw no tendency to drop a wing or spin
even in a fairly sharp pull-up. However while in a steep thermalling
turn I deliberately kept pulling the stick back. It stalled very
suddenly and, with a brief buffet from the tail, went straight into a
spin. Even though I was ready it still took 3/4 turn to recover to
straight & level.
BTW: I'm not sure that this applies but I seem to remember someone a
long time ago on r.a.s mentioning the ``interesting spinning habits''
of his Std. Cirrus. Caught out in a similar way flying slowly in a
rough thermal @ 1700' AGL. Who ever it was said that that this
improved dramatically when he had the - all-flying - tailplane
correctly mass balanced.
Jim Kellett
Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
> When I call the spinning capabilities "interresting", it's because
> normally the Cirrus is a fairly easy ship to fly. The Cirrus simply is
> not as forgiving as some newer types. Also, under certain conditions,
> its stall warnings are very weak or none at all.
At the risk of getting a TRIFLE off-topic, I believe we're talking about
STANDARD Cirri here, not the OPEN Cirrus.
The OPEN Cirrus is, IMO, a much more docile ship than the STANDARD.
Derek Piggott recommended the Cirrus in one of his recent booklets on
recommended "first gliders" to buy, and I concur with that.
If you can find one, I would heartily endorse the Open Cirrus as a first
glider - great performance, reasonable price, a bit "over engineered"
(which makes it more solid than it needs to be). Only complaint I've
ever had with one is the lousy seat belt configuration - it's too high
on the chest to securely hold the pilot in during a sharp deceleration
(e.g., crash).
Jim Kellett
Cirrus No. 67
Skyline Soaring Club,
New Market VA
Martin Gregory
ri...@camden.algor.co.uk (Rick Filipkiewicz) writes:
>
> Re Gary Nelson's experience -
>
> FLAME-ON
>
> No spin recovery practice before going solo in a sailplane ??!!! I can
> only hope that you were converting from power and it was assumed that
> you'd already done this as part of the PPL.
>
> FLAME-OFF
You may consider it flameable. I certainly consider it ... um.. odd.
But have do you realise that in the USA spin recovery is not on the
training syllabus?
Well, actually that is a bit of a mischevious statement. They do
learn how to recover from spins, _theoretically_, and practice from
incipients. But actual spin training is not on the syllabus.
(Or so I have been told).
I think that this will be like the signalling discussion a while back.
The Europeans thing that waggling the wings on a winch launch is
dangerous. The Australians don't.
We will now hear from the USA pilots telling us why they consider not
teaching spins not to be dangerous. (They'd hardly be picking a
method they consider dangeours, would they?) The rest of the world
probably won't agree...
Cheers,
Martin.
R.K.T.
> Your instructors may well be giving good advice, but please
> don't interpret advice as a never-to-be-broken rule!
> --
> Pete
I don't, last time I landed ours, I was on full brakes right down to
end of roll. This is what I do with my Cirrus as well. I'm told, again
by my instructors, that a rash of broken Astir Undercarts, a few years
ago, was solved by the edict that "Thou shalt not land an Astir with
full airbrakes".
Of course, with full brakes, you've got to check it pretty hard on the
flare, especially when you weigh as much as I do (max). One of the
advantages, I find, is a short ground run, especially going into a
paddock. The tail wheels is the first bit of the plane to touch, then
the mainwheel drops on and pretty soon you're stopped.
Rudi Treutlein
R.K.T.
> > > Cirrus in particular has some 'interresting' spinning
capabilities.
> > > It's a lot less forgiving with regards to speed during approach
and
> > > landing than most new gliders.
Yeah well, 1.5 times stall speed plus an allowance for wind speed. Get
slow in the circuit(pattern) and you're asking to make raspberry jam.
The hardest thing about misjudged low approaches is keeping that nose
down to maintain safe flying speed, as the trees and ground come up.
>
> > Could you elaborate on your comment "the Cirrus in particular has
some
> > 'interresting' spinning capabilities". As I managed to spin mine
> > unexpectedly during my third flight in it, I'm interested in
learning
> > what others know about this plane's spin characteristics.
I hate spinning. In a two seater, with the instructor requesting a one
turn spin, I've never managed more than half a turn before getting it
out of the spin. I've *never*, ever spun my Cirrus, in some 250 hours.
I've experienced many incipients, but as soon as that wing drops, the
stick goes forward. No thought involved. Below 2000 feet, I'm fighting
to keep my thermal speed down around 50kts.
My partner, with about the same number of hours got bitten once, about
a year ago. She pratically went inverted, he found his face flattened
into the canopy over his right shoulder and got a hell of a fright,
before taking normal recovery action and pulling out of it.
> > That said, I still do not believe the plane gave me much in the way
of
> > warning before the right wing dropped out from under me.
>
> steep turn. Still, as you say, well above the nominal stall steed at
> that bank. No warnings. No nothing. Just a spin.
>
Heaps of buffetting would be nice, but what more warning do you need?
When that wing drops in a turn you've got an incipient spin.
Immediate stick forward is the answer. Wait to think about it and youre
spinning. Try to pick it up with your ailerons and you're spinning.
> > To digress for a moment, required spin training before earning a
PPL
> > would be a good topic for another thread. Adding to my "pucker
factor"
> > was the fact that I had never been given spin training. All I had
to go
> > on was what I had read.
Ah, yes, that's the problem. Our training tends to emphathise incipient
spin recognition. That stops spins dead. Of course we also do the full
thing. The most hated part of my training.
Learning how to handle a spin from a book must be on a par with
learning how to make love from a book.
> > Any naysayers out there to the idea of requiring spin training
before
> > earning a PPL?
Hell no, we need live pilots. Raspberry jam mixed through the kindling
makes such a mess for someone to clean up before it can be repaired.
Rudi Treutlein
Todd Pattist
Martin Gregory <mgre...@asc.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>But have do you realise that in the USA spin recovery is not on the
>training syllabus?
>We will now hear from the USA pilots telling us why they consider not
>teaching spins not to be dangerous. (They'd hardly be picking a
>method they consider dangeours, would they?) The rest of the world
>probably won't agree...
>Cheers,
>Martin.
Actually, Martin, most U.S. glider pilots and glider
instructors I know consider spin recovery to be an essential
part of training. Unfortuanately, they are often hindered
from giving good spin recovery training by the following
factors:
1. U.S. regulations do not require a demonstration of spin
recovery for a private or commercial glider certificate.
(they used to, but no longer).
2. The most common U.S. training glider (Schweizer 2-33) is
hard to coax into a spin. Spin training in them is not
realistic.
3. The present interpretation of U.S. regulations by our FAA
requires a parachute for both student and instructor to do
spin training. Don't misunderstand, where parachutes are
available, I think they should be used. Unfortunately, Many
clubs do not own one, let alone two parachutes, and many
training gliders are very space limited, so flying them with
the typical club-owned parachute is difficult.
I have long been an advocate of spin training in the U.S. I
never signed off a student for a license test without first
seeing a few spin recoveries. It's a shame that the FAA
has written the rules to permit pilots to go through
training without ever seeing a full spin and then interprets
the rules in a way that makes it difficult for a
conscientious instructor to give the training he thinks is
needed. All that really would be required to fix the latter
problem is a change in the interpretation of the rules, not
an actual rule change.
---
Todd Pattist Ventus C - WH
pat...@worldnet.att.net
Fly safely, fly often.
---
bob gibbons
>>>>> On 23 Oct 1996 10:22:16 GMT, ri...@camden.algor.co.uk (Rick Filipkiewicz) said:
RF> I've been looking at buying one of these 1st generation glass gliders
RF> - LS1, DG100, Std Cirrus, ASW15B - myself for next season. What I've
RF> gleaned in the way of problems/characteristics are these:
... text deleted ...
RF> (c) The ASW15 has an offset belly-hook which means it tends to swing
RF> on the initial take-off ground run, made worse by cross-wind from the
RF> hook side. Need a switched-on wing runner.
... text deleted ...
RF> For what its worth I've eliminated the Cirrus-G81 unless I can find a
RF> Grob/French one. For me, having lived with my K6's offset hook for a
RF> year and a half, (c) eliminates the ASW15. This leaves me with the
RF> DG101 as first choice and the LS1-f as backup (only 2 in the U.K.!).
Rick, kind of a minor point, but my recollection is that the B version
of the ASW-15, the ASW-15B, changed over to a nose-mounted tow hook.
BTW, after 6 years with a K-6E and some 700 hrs, I felt comfortable with
the side mounted hook if I could get the wingrunner positioned on the
downwind wing and instructed to hold back for the first 5 ft or so of
ground run to keep the ship straight during this initial critical
period. As I am sure you know, it is only the very start of the tow
during light wind conditions that the side hook of the K-6 can generate
more torque than can be corrected by the K-6's powerful rudder.
Bob
--
Bob Gibbons Texas Instruments
Internet: Bob.G...@dseg.ti.com Dallas, TX
Judah Milgram
In article <r8aftbv...@asc.sps.mot.com>,
Martin Gregory <mgre...@asc.sps.mot.com> wrote:
[in the USA]
>... But actual spin training is not on the syllabus.
>
>(Or so I have been told).
>
...
>We will now hear from the USA pilots telling us why they consider not
>teaching spins not to be dangerous.
You're also likely to hear from US pilots telling you that spin training
was indeed on their syllabus (was on mine).
--
Judah Milgram mil...@eng.umd.edu (301)405-1144
finger milg...@eng.umd.edu for address, pgp key etc.
or: http://www.glue.umd.edu/~milgram
Chad Moore
In article <3270e4c9...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
pat...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>....snip.....
> 3. The present interpretation of U.S. regulations by our FAA
> requires a parachute for both student and instructor to do
> spin training. Don't misunderstand, where parachutes are
> available, I think they should be used. Unfortunately, Many
> clubs do not own one, let alone two parachutes, and many
> training gliders are very space limited, so flying them with
> the typical club-owned parachute is difficult.
As I understand the FARs, a parachute is not required for spins if it is
part of a training program with instructor on board. Can anyone back me
up?
Chad Moore
cha...@mcn.net
Briegleb BG-12
Todd Pattist
pe...@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) wrote:
>>3. The present interpretation of U.S. regulations by our FAA
>>requires a parachute for both student and instructor to do
>>spin training.
>
>Not true. They are specifically allowed, both in the regulations and
>in interpretations from the FAA.
I'd like to believe you, but having investigated it myself
by calling the local Designated Examiner for gliders, and
the local FSDO, you're going to have to cite some additional
authority to convince me.
To make it clear, the rules require spin recovery flight
training only for the Flight Instructor rating. (FAR61.187)
It's always seemed sort of stupid, but I guess the FAA
thinks that with good training, private pilots won't
actually get into a spin, but during the training, the
student/instructor might, so the instructor needs to have
actual experience in spin recovery.
The FAR's require parachutes for certain maneuvers that
exceed 30 degrees nose down (i.e., spins), but permit
exceptions for:
"(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the
regulations for any certificate or rating when given by--
(i) A certificated flight instructor; "
(See FAR 91.307)
I've been repeatedly told that the most up to date
interpretation of the interaction between these FAR[s is
that the exception to the parachute requirement only applies
when actually directly training towards a Flight Instructor
endorsement, and only when the instruction is being given by
a flight instructor who meets the requirements for giving
instruction for the Flight Instructor rating, i.e.,has held
the certificate for 2 years, etc..
For years, my club had operated under the assumption that
one could claim that the instruction was ultimately directed
towards a flight instructor certificate, even though the
student was doing ab initio training, ortraining for the
Commercial . That rationale, however, was specifically
rejected by the FSDO and the local D.E. The local glider
D.E. even went so far as to send me an interpretation from
the FAA, which supported this view in a general way. It
wasn't perfectly on point however, so I'm ready to believe
there is something else supporting your comment.
Do you have a specific interpretation to direct me to?
Steve Peltz
Tyler Walker
Martin Gregory (mgre...@asc.sps.mot.com) wrote:
: ri...@camden.algor.co.uk (Rick Filipkiewicz) writes:
: >
: > Re Gary Nelson's experience -
: >
: > FLAME-ON
: >
: > No spin recovery practice before going solo in a sailplane ??!!! I can
: > only hope that you were converting from power and it was assumed that
: > you'd already done this as part of the PPL.
: >
: > FLAME-OFF
: You may consider it flameable. I certainly consider it ... um.. odd.
: But have do you realise that in the USA spin recovery is not on the
: training syllabus?
You are correct. Practical spin training is not required by the
FAA in the USA. Although my instructors for both PPL and glider
in the USA did spin training with me anyway.
Tyler
Wings and Wheels
Todd, you ARE Correct on this issue...
Parachutes MUST BE WORN unless as you stated:
-- "(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the
regulations for any certificate or rating when given by--
(i) A certificated flight instructor; "
As required for a Flight Instructor Rating....
You cannot do spins, without parachutes (By regulation) otherwise
((Legally))
I do not make the rules, just try to live with them.
Tim Mara FAA DPE #23EA73
Wings and Wheels
Todd Pattist <pat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article =
<327121c9...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
pe...@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) wrote:
>>3. The present interpretation of U.S. regulations by our FAA
>>requires a parachute for both student and instructor to do
>>spin training.
>
>Not true. They are specifically allowed, both in the regulations and
>in interpretations from the FAA.
I'd like to believe you, but having investigated it myself
by calling the local Designated Examiner for gliders, and
the local FSDO, you're going to have to cite some additional
authority to convince me. =20
To make it clear, the rules require spin recovery flight
training only for the Flight Instructor rating. (FAR61.187)
It's always seemed sort of stupid, but I guess the FAA
thinks that with good training, private pilots won't
actually get into a spin, but during the training, the
student/instructor might, so the instructor needs to have
actual experience in spin recovery.
The FAR's require parachutes for certain maneuvers that
exceed 30 degrees nose down (i.e., spins), but permit
exceptions for:
(See FAR 91.307)
I've been repeatedly told that the most up to date
interpretation of the interaction between these FAR[s is
that the exception to the parachute requirement only applies
when actually directly training towards a Flight Instructor
endorsement, and only when the instruction is being given by
a flight instructor who meets the requirements for giving
instruction for the Flight Instructor rating, i.e.,has held
the certificate for 2 years, etc..=20
Billevelyn
Martin Gregory <mgre...@asc.sps.mot.com> wrote:
[in the USA]
>... But actual spin training is not on the syllabus.
Actually, there's a required sign off before getting the CFIG or CFI for
that matter. You must be trained on spins prior to taking this
certification.
However, there is no required spin training for the private or commercial.
Yet, what instructor would allow his student to go off into the world of
soaring without experiencing spins in a controlled environment?
Bill
Wings and Wheels
--=20
Wings and Wheels
Chad Moore wrote:
>....snip.....
> 3. The present interpretation of U.S. regulations by our FAA
> requires a parachute for both student and instructor to do
> spin training. Don't misunderstand, where parachutes are
> available, I think they should be used. Unfortunately, Many
> clubs do not own one, let alone two parachutes, and many
> training gliders are very space limited, so flying them with
> the typical club-owned parachute is difficult.
As I understand the FARs, a parachute is not required for spins if it is
part of a training program with instructor on board. Can anyone back me
up?
a Parachute is not required ONLY when said maneuver "Spins" are REQUIRED
for a rating...The ONLY Rating that REQUIRES SPINS is for the INSTRUCTOR
TATING. So to sum this up, Parachutes ARE REQUIRED FOR SPINS for
anyone NOT TRAINING FOR the INSTRUCTOR RATING...
PS: It's not acceptable for a Student Pilot, Private Pilot to train for =
an instructor rating...so you can't use this as a way around the issue =
of using a parachute
It's also a pity that clubs don't have parachute for their members..A =
parachute is
VERY cheap insurance when it's cost is divided among it's 20 or 50 =
members..
tim
Alan S Moore
>
>Martin Gregory (mgre...@asc.sps.mot.com) wrote:
>: ri...@camden.algor.co.uk (Rick Filipkiewicz) writes:
>: >
>: > Re Gary Nelson's experience -
>: >
>: > FLAME-ON
>: >
>: > No spin recovery practice before going solo in a sailplane ??!!! I can
>: > only hope that you were converting from power and it was assumed that
>: > you'd already done this as part of the PPL.
>: >
>: > FLAME-OFF
>
>You are correct. Practical spin training is not required by the
>FAA in the USA. Although my instructors for both PPL and glider
>in the USA did spin training with me anyway.
>
>Tyler
Didn't spin training and parachutes used to be required in the USA?
Both my husband and I believe that spin recovery was required around
1965-67. I learned a bit of gliding as my dad was involved, in my
early teens and spins were on my syllabus (although I don't think I
knew that word then.) We certainly required parachutes, too. My
husband learned to fly light planes in the early 70's and spin-training
was no longer required, but believes this was a change recent to that
time.
My dad wanted me to get about 100 hours before I could use his Cirrus
Standard, spin training or not. I guess he didn't think it was a good
ship for a beginner compared to the 126 he built.
Ginny Snyder
Tor Olav Steine
It puzzled me, once I owned a PIK 20 in a syndicate with former WW2
pilots:
Whatever the topic, we alwas ended talking Spits and Mustangs.
Same thing seems to happen in this conference, whatever the topic, we
end teaching eachother how to fly....:-)
--
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Tor Olav Steine, t...@sn.no Tel/Fax: +4792-884035/+67-568701,
representing:
! *** Economica Acounting Engine - probably the most powerful Borland
Delphi
! development tool for accounting systems....
http://www.economica.com
! *** FlexiMap Electronic Vector Map System - probably the most
effective
! electronic mapping engine available....(Web page to be announced)
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bojack
This thread is so long, he's probably ready for a Nimbus 4 by now.
Steve Peltz
In article <327121c9...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Todd Pattist <pat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the
>regulations for any certificate or rating when given by--
> (i) A certificated flight instructor; "
>
>
>
>Do you have a specific interpretation to direct me to?
First, directly reading this, there is absolutely no indication that
instruction must be occuring. Spins are explicitly mentioned, regardless
of whether they are required anywhere else, and the wording "required by
the regulations for any certificate or rating" is quite clear. It does
not depend on the circumstances under which you are performing the
maneuvers, it is merely "is this maneuver a spin or is it required for
any certificate or rating?" If the answer is "yes", then you don't need
a parachute IF you're with a certificated instructor.
Note that the grammar of the regulation is faulty. You don't "give"
spins or maneuvers. That certainly requires interpretation, and may
require that the instructor be teaching the spins or other maneuvers.
Note also that it doesn't explicitly require that the instructor be
certified for the type of aircraft in which the maneuver is being
performed, much less able to act as PIC (and I certainly wouldn't
come close to trying to push that interpretation!), although some of
that may be implied if the instructor is required to be instructing
for the exception to come into play.
Second, the last time this came up (about two weeks ago), someone said
they had an explicit interpretation from the FAA that agreed with that. I
can't find that citation any longer, and the only relevant interpretation
I found on the Web was one from 1989, in response to "since spins are
no longer required for instructors ...", which is no longer true. The
wording of that response made no mention of the context in which spins
were being done, simply that since spins were no longer listed in Part
61, parachutes would need to be used. Since spins are explicitly listed
in 91.307, that interpretation is way out of date.
Does someone have a more recent explicit interpretation from the FAA regarding
this issue that covers the regulations as they are currently written?
JNBearden
Thanks to Todd Pattist and Tim Mara (Wings & Wheels) for interpreting the
US FARs for us regarding spins without parachutes. For the record, most US
glider pilots I know think the FAA's position on spin training (i.e., if
you're taught never to get into a spin, you don't have to learn how to get
out of one) is absurd and have themselves experienced spin training even
though it's not required (except for instructor rating).
Tim's point is a good one, though. Parachutes are cheap insurance for a
club. (he's also too polite to say so, but Wings & Wheels is a source of
several brands of chutes at good prices).
Getting around the reg is a different question. Am I the only one who
thinks spinning a two-seater I don't maintain and fly only once in a great
while--without a parachute--is mildly disconcerting? I won't even fly my
ASW-24, let alone spin it, without a chute and I KNOW the CG is within
range, the controls are all rigged properly, etc., as well as having
hundreds of hours in it.
But perhaps my attitude is the result of growing up in a country where,
because spin training is something out of the ordinary, spins provoke an
almost subconscious reaction even when we do have some familiarity with
them.
Chip Bearden
ASW-24 "JB"
SSA Vice Chairman and Director, Region 2
Todd Pattist
pe...@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) wrote:
>First, directly reading this, there is absolutely no indication that
>instruction must be occuring. Spins are explicitly mentioned, regardless
>of whether they are required anywhere else, and the wording "required by
>the regulations for any certificate or rating" is quite clear. It does
>not depend on the circumstances under which you are performing the
>maneuvers, it is merely "is this maneuver a spin or is it required for
>any certificate or rating?" If the answer is "yes", then you don't need
>a parachute IF you're with a certificated instructor.
Steve,
You're arguing the same thing I argued to the FAA and the
local Designated Examiner. It's the same argument that we
used for years to give spin instruction in the Blanik L-13
without 'chutes, and it's the same argument that was
originally given to us by a glider DE. The problem is that
the FAA doesn't seem to agree, at least not locally. That's
why I said, all we need is an interpretation change, not a
rule change. If the FAA doesn't agree with an
interpretation, and there's a problem. or field check, well
When I asked the local D.E. for something in writing, he
sent me a copy of an FAA interpretation that seemed to say
that full spins were not technically "required" for the CFI
rating, so therefore were not exempted from the parachute
requirement. It supported his point ('chutes required), but
not for the reason the FAA claimed, and it didn't seem to
match up with the regs. I assumed it was an outdated
interpretation, and quit at that point, but still remain
interested in what the rule is, and what people are actually
doing. BTW, i think the DE was just passing along the FAA
position, as he was required to do. He may well not have
agreed with it.
I still want to be clear. I think we should always wear
'chutes. Further, except when flying dual in a ship where
there is no room, I have always worn one, even when I have
no intention of spinning or doing aerobatics. I spin every
ship I fly regularly, and do it from a variety of 1) entries
2) configurations, and 3) atmospheric conditions, e.g. wind,
in thermal turbulence, etc. to simulate possible spins
during landing, ridge flying, etc..
Full spins should be a required part of every training
program, with particular emphasis on the flat turn,
over-ruddered entry. Too many times full spins are shown as
straight ahead accelerated stalls with full rudder at the
top, leaving the student with the impression that's the only
way to get a "real" spin.
>Second, the last time this came up (about two weeks ago), someone said
>they had an explicit interpretation from the FAA that agreed with that. I
>can't find that citation any longer, and the only relevant interpretation
>I found on the Web was one from 1989, in response to "since spins are
>no longer required for instructors ...", which is no longer true. The
>wording of that response made no mention of the context in which spins
>were being done, simply that since spins were no longer listed in Part
>61, parachutes would need to be used. Since spins are explicitly listed
>in 91.307, that interpretation is way out of date.
It sounds like you found the same interpretation I was
given.
>Does someone have a more recent explicit interpretation from the FAA regarding
>this issue that covers the regulations as they are currently written?
I'd like to see this too.
Two more interpretations I'd like are:
1. Is ridge flying legal under the FAR's?
2. What do the FAR's require for a transition to a self
launched motorglider?
Number 1 and the 500' rule is the subject of an ongoing
thread.
Number 2, I'm beginning to suspect after years of looking
for something definitive, has not been interpreted, despite
the AC61-94 (is this the right no.?) and many expressed
opinions.
Tore Skaar
Bojack wrote:
>
> This thread is so long, he's probably ready for a Nimbus 4 by now.
If you remember the first question (all seem to have forgotten?) he has
actually informed me that he has ordered one PW-5.
And this in spite of all the lies and nonsense that was presentad as
facts about this aircraft.
Regards
Tore
F.L. Whiteley
R.K.T. <rtr...@tpgi.com.au> wrote in article
<VA.0000000...@ozemail.com.au>...
>
> I hate spinning. In a two seater, with the instructor requesting a one
> turn spin, I've never managed more than half a turn before getting it
> out of the spin. I've *never*, ever spun my Cirrus, in some 250 hours.
> I've experienced many incipients, but as soon as that wing drops, the
> stick goes forward. No thought involved. Below 2000 feet, I'm fighting
> to keep my thermal speed down around 50kts.
In addition, I was taught to add the secondary effects of controls, when
incipient add top rudder to get the wing flying again. Part of the BGA
syllabus in the late '70s.
FLW