Schweizer SGS 2-33 Fatal Accidents?
Doug Haluza
I had once heard an offhand comment that there have been no fatal accidents
in the SGS 2-33. A search of the NTSB accident reports at:
http://nasdac.faa.gov/asp/ntsb97.asp
revealed no fatal accidents in any Schweizer two seat models in the U.S. in
the last 15 years (although there were 18 fatals in Schweizer single
seaters).
If this is correct, then the 2-33 is arguably the safest training glider
ever produced in volume.
Jean Richard
Is it a coincidence : my Netscape crashed on reading this news :-(
Or may be can we argue that the DC-3 is safer than the Boeing 747,
considering there was no fatal accidents since a long time while
the last few weeks have been a black period for the 747...
Or we can still argue that pilots flying Schweizer singles have been
trained in 99 % of the cases in Schweizer twin seaters, and mostly
2-33. And if there's so many fatal accidents with Schweizer single
seaters, maybe it's because the 2-33 is a so poor trainer that it
doesn't prepare students to fly single seaters.
J. Richard
Wayne Albus
Jean Richard <jean.r...@ec.gc.ca> wrote:
Well Doug, You had to use the word "arguably" in your reply. And
someone did!
Maybe Jean Richard would like to share statistics of other 2 seat
trainers and single seaters to make his point clear?
In my opinion there has probably been few accidents in other 2 seat
trainers as well. But how many accidents have there been in other
(than Schweizer) single seaters.
Then you would have to compare the ratios between the numbers flying.
I think Jean Richards comments are (I'm searching for a word here) out
of line and just an attempt to "Schweizer Bash".
Wayne Albus
E-Mail: walbus_...@bright.net
Http://www.bright.net/~walbus
Remove the _no_spam in my address to reply.
Bert Willing
Wayne Albus wrote:
>
> Jean Richard <jean.r...@ec.gc.ca> wrote:
>
> >Doug Haluza wrote:
> >>
> >> I had once heard an offhand comment that there have been no fatal accidents
Anyhow, accidents are usually not produced by gliders, but by pilots.
Bert
Raphael H. Warshaw
There was a fatality in a 2/33 at Hemet in 1994. It was a student's
first solo flight and occurred on final.
Ray Warshaw
Robert Herndon [RU-RMTC]
Jean Richard (jean.r...@ec.gc.ca) wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
>>
>> I had once heard an offhand comment that there have been no fatal accidents
>>
>> http://nasdac.faa.gov/asp/ntsb97.asp
>>
>> revealed no fatal accidents in any Schweizer two seat models in the U.S. in
>> the last 15 years (although there were 18 fatals in Schweizer single
>> seaters).
>>
>> If this is correct, then the 2-33 is arguably the safest training glider
>> ever produced in volume.
> Is it a coincidence : my Netscape crashed on reading this news :-(
> Or may be can we argue that the DC-3 is safer than the Boeing 747,
> considering there was no fatal accidents since a long time while
> the last few weeks have been a black period for the 747...
Excuse me for whining, Mr. Richard, but I'm getting very tired of these
truly specious and insulting "arguments". I appreciate, Mr. Richard, that
you don't like 2-33s and would happily see them removed from the face of
the earth, but the fact is they exist, and many of us who belong to more
frugal, less elite, or poorer soaring clubs learn to fly in them instead
of the latest glass trainers.
The 2-33 is certainly a very safe trainer. It has a very slow stall
speed, a lot of drag (i.e., it doesn't go terribly fast), is very
stable, has benign stall characteristics, control response like a tub of
molasses, and is built like the proverbial Mack truck. On those bases
alone, it's likely to be a fairly safe trainer. Since a large fraction
of the soaring pilots in the U.S. trained in them, it seems certain that
they are in fact very safe trainers.
> Or we can still argue that pilots flying Schweizer singles have been
> trained in 99 % of the cases in Schweizer twin seaters, and mostly
> 2-33. And if there's so many fatal accidents with Schweizer single
> seaters, maybe it's because the 2-33 is a so poor trainer that it
> doesn't prepare students to fly single seaters.
If, Mr. Richard, you had bothered to look at those NTSB statistics, you'd
have seen that of those "so many fatal accidents with Schweitzer single
seaters", no fatal accidents this year have been in Schweizers. (FYI,
they've been in Schempp-Hirth (7/5/97), Marsh Turner (5/4/97), and
Glaser-Dirks (4/11/97) ships.) 18 fatal accidents in 15 years, given
the number of Schweizers in use in this country and their popularity as
club ships here, hardly legitimizes the phrase "so many fatal accidents".
Unfortunately, the log does show several in-flight structural failures
in Schweizer single seaters, which I'm sure you'll be happy to capitalize
on.
Secondly, you could at least make the slightly less frivolous argument that
perhaps all these fatal accidents (not just fatal accidents in Schweizer
singles) in the U.S. are due to poor training in 2-33s. And those of us
who fly Schweizers would have no defense, since statistics are not kept
to conclusively refute that argument. But if you cared about safety rather
than just needing it as a straw man with which to attack 2-33s, you'd be
flogging not to eliminate 2-33s as trainers, but to encourage or insist
upon additional training in other trainers before allowing pilots to move
up to one-place glass ships.
Many clubs do, and I encourage it.
> J. Richard
Robert Herndon (Jr.)
2-33, 1-26, 1-34, L-13, and PW-5 pilot
PW-5 N529PW
Larry Mitchell
On 11 Aug, Robert Herndon [RU-RMTC] wrote:
>
<cogent response snipped>
>
> ... But if you cared about safety rather
> than just needing it as a straw man with which to attack 2-33s, you'd be
> flogging not to eliminate 2-33s as trainers, but to encourage or insist
> upon additional training in other trainers before allowing pilots to move
> up to one-place glass ships.
>
> Many clubs do, and I encourage it.
>
>
> 2-33, 1-26, 1-34, L-13, and PW-5 pilot
> PW-5 N529PW
Well done, Mr Herndon.
Tim.Shirley
Doug Haluza wrote:
>
> I had once heard an offhand comment that there have been no fatal accidents
> in the SGS 2-33.
> If this is correct, then the 2-33 is arguably the safest training glider
> ever produced in volume.
I've no doubt that the 2-33 is an excellent training glider. However in
looking at whether it is "the safest" then you perhaps have to look at
other factors. There may for example have been many serious injuries.
The Shweitzer 2-33 is almost unknown outside the US. In Europe, where
the majority of gliding is done, and in many other countries such as
Canada, Japan, South Africa, Argentina, New Zealand and Australia there
are many training 2 seaters (mostly of German or Romanian origin) but
very few 2-33's.
To really understand, we would need to look at the overall incidence of
fatal accidents involving 2 seater trainers, how many hours were being
flown, whether they were solo or dual etc etc.
It would also be necessary to consider whether the accidents were the
fault of the glider in some way - for example I would not think that a
fatality resulting from a mid-air collision could be claimed to lower
the "safety" standard of the glider concerned. Some may say visibility
is an issue but in most cases mid-airs would be the result of pilot
error. I think in comparing the safety record of gliders we need to look
not only at fatal accidents but at the full range of accidents and
incidents that occur and the type of flying that was being conducted.
In many countries training 2 seaters similar to the 2-33 are often used
for cross-country flying, competition and wave flying, but this may not
apply to the 2-33 in the US.
I'm not trying to criticise either the poster or the glider. I have
flown 2-33's on visits to the US and have enjoyed the experience. But
it did seem to me that the most common use of that glider was for basic
training and check flights (circuit bashing, it is sometimes referred
to), an activity that is less likely to result in fatalities than say
mountain flying or even top level competition.
Congratulations to Mr Schweitzer for producing what seems to be an
excellent, safe and easy to fly training glider. To claim it is "better"
than others in safety matters however may denigrate other excellent
gliders unnecessarily. Lets just say its up there with the best of them.
cheers
tim
"up...is a nice place to be..."
A Dale
One interesting accident report in the NTSB data base tells of a 1-26 crash
where one wing fell off (at the root!) in a thermal at 6,000 ft AGL and the
pilot walked away.
Robert Herndon [RU-RMTC] <r...@Sun.COM> wrote in article
<5snk0m$p22$1...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>...
> Jean Richard (jean.r...@ec.gc.ca) wrote:
> > Doug Haluza wrote:
> >>
> >> I had once heard an offhand comment that there have been no fatal
accidents
> >> in the SGS 2-33. A search of the NTSB accident reports at:
> >>
> >> http://nasdac.faa.gov/asp/ntsb97.asp
> >>
> >> revealed no fatal accidents in any Schweizer two seat models in the
U.S. in
> >> the last 15 years (although there were 18 fatals in Schweizer single
> >> seaters).
> >>
> >> If this is correct, then the 2-33 is arguably the safest training
glider
> >> ever produced in volume.
>
> to conclusively refute that argument. But if you cared about safety
rather
> than just needing it as a straw man with which to attack 2-33s, you'd be
> flogging not to eliminate 2-33s as trainers, but to encourage or insist
> upon additional training in other trainers before allowing pilots to move
> up to one-place glass ships.
>
> Many clubs do, and I encourage it.
>
> > J. Richard
Mike Morgulis
While I'm not a huge supporter of the 2-33, I still instruct in them,
mostly because that's what the club dictates we use. I find the
visibility appalling, and while it's a relatively safe plane and built
tough, it doesn't have the teeth to teach students respect for the
higher performing planes that they'll be flying in later in their
careers. It takes much work to spin, it hides co-ordination flaws, it is
mostly landed wheelie-style instead of the lower energy held-off type
(resembling off field landings) and you really have to coax it to stall.
Sure, it's safe, and safe for soloing in. BUT, I find that instructors
are lazy and let the plane take over for them, because it's so safe, the
students don't get shown how things can go really wrong. We do that with
the Blanik. Now, THERE'S a trainer, and the K-13!! Both spin, both
tough, both stall yet both fly well and require good coordination to get
the most out of the plane.
So, if we want safe planes, train the pilots better, and train them on
planes that will bite the student and force the respect issue on them.
By the way, I've seen a K-13 land itself, neither pilot had control.
Everyone turned out fine. A friend's friend died in a 2-22 when he
failed to notice the bottom fabric on his elevator had been riped on the
previous flight and stalled/spun in as the fabric unravelled itself in
flight. Pilot error, bad plane? No, poor airmanship.
Personally, once we get better and newer trainers, I'm suggesting that
we either put our 2-33's and 1-26's on concrete posts as Gate Guardians,
or sell them to some other sucker who thinks that the planes are better
than anything else. Pretty heated topic eh? Geez, you'd think we were
mother-bashing or something.
Doug Haluza
Raphael H. Warshaw wrote in article <33EF36...@keyway.net>...
>There was a fatality in a 2/33 at Hemet in 1994. It was a student's
>first solo flight and occurred on final.
>
I checked and found only 5 accidents at Hemet in 1994. None in a 2-33, but
one similar in a 1-34. Was this the accident you were thinking of?
Narrative
A GROUND WITNESS OBSERVED THE AIRCRAFT ENTER THE TRAFFIC
PATTERN FOR RUNWAY 22 AT A SLOW RATE OF SPEED. THE GLIDER CONTINUED TO
SLOW
DOWN AS IT MADE A SKIDDING FLAT TURN FROMDOWNWIND TO BASE. DURING THE
BASE
TO FINAL TURN, THE WITNESS SAW THE AIRCRAFT ENTER A TWO-TURN SPIN AND
IMPACT THE GROUND NOSE FIRST. AN FAA AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTOR RESPONDED TO
THE
ACCIDENT SITE AND REPORTED THAT HE DID
NOTFIND ANY MECHANICAL DISCREPANCIES. THE PILOT WAS ISSUED HIS PRIVATE
CERTIFICATE WITH A GLIDER RATING ON MARCH 12, 1994.
Doug Haluza
Tim.Shirley wrote in article <33EFE5...@aph.gov.au>...>
>I've no doubt that the 2-33 is an excellent training glider. However in
>looking at whether it is "the safest" then you perhaps have to look at
>other factors. There may for example have been many serious injuries.
Yes, many ftactured Vertebra, for example, due to the lack of suspension.
The problem with using serious injuries is that many accidents are
unreported. Fatals are hard to hide.
>To really understand, we would need to look at the overall incidence of
>fatal accidents involving 2 seater trainers, how many hours were being
>flown, whether they were solo or dual etc etc.
For reference, there were 2 fatals with 3 fatalities in the G-103, and 4
fatals with 4 fatalities in the Blanik.
>It would also be necessary to consider whether the accidents were the
>fault of the glider in some way - for example I would not think that a
>fatality resulting from a mid-air collision could be claimed to lower
>the "safety" standard of the glider concerned. Some may say visibility
>is an issue but in most cases mid-airs would be the result of pilot
>error. I think in comparing the safety record of gliders we need to look
>not only at fatal accidents but at the full range of accidents and
>incidents that occur and the type of flying that was being conducted.
Yes, for example, one of the G-103 accidents was in mountains and was so
severe, the occupants were ejected. The other involved a collision with a
cactus. They probably would have been fatal in any aircraft. But
interestingly (and not surprisingly) front seat pax in Blaniks don't
survive, but the back seaters do.
Doug Haluza
Jean Richard wrote in article <33EE4F...@ec.gc.ca>...
>Doug Haluza wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> If this is correct, then the 2-33 is arguably the safest training glider
>> ever produced in volume.
>
>Is it a coincidence : my Netscape crashed on reading this news :-(
>
>Or may be can we argue that the DC-3 is safer than the Boeing 747,
>considering there was no fatal accidents since a long time while
>the last few weeks have been a black period for the 747...
>
>Or we can still argue that pilots flying Schweizer singles have been
>trained in 99 % of the cases in Schweizer twin seaters, and mostly
>2-33. And if there's so many fatal accidents with Schweizer single
>seaters, maybe it's because the 2-33 is a so poor trainer that it
>doesn't prepare students to fly single seaters.
I guess anybody can argue anything, the proof of that is the overpopulation
of lawyers here in the U.S.
Obviously if you select your time window, you can skew the statistics;
that's how figures can't lie, but liars can figure.
An average of about one fatal accident in Schwezer singles each year,
compared to an average of about 10 fatals in all gliders per year,
considering the popularity of Schweizer gliders in the US fleet is probably
not that bad.
Doug Haluza
Tim.Shirley wrote in article <33EFE5...@aph.gov.au>...>
>Congratulations to Mr Schweitzer
Actually, its Messrs. Schweizer.
MGREENSTNE
The accident referred to in Hemet did in fact involve an SGS 1-34. I
subsequently bought the wreckage for parts for another 1-34 project I am
rebuilding.
Tim.Shirley
I also made the completely unwarranted assumption that it was MR
Schweitzer (and not Ms).
Thank you for the correction. As I said in a previous post, Schweitzer
gliders are not common outside the US (I think there are only 2 on the
Australian register, out of a total of 800 or so gliders), and therefore
an intimate knowlege of the company cannot be expected of a foreigner.
My congratulations still stand, however many Scheitzers there are and
whatever gender they may be.
Regards
tim
Mike Morgulis
Tim Shirley wrote:
>snip....and therefore
>an intimate knowlege of the company cannot be expected of a foreigner.
American foreign relations hard at work I see. We have cartloads of
2-33's up here, right beside our igloos and stacks of back bacon! The
only intimate knowledge of the company we need is that it no longer
produces gliders. The 2-33 is robust, but many pilots are finding that
it is not contemporary anymore with other airplanes out there. If you
want a training glider to survive accidents or to withstand punishing
landings, why not teach your students to fly better first? Don't rely on
the 2-33's tough frame to pull your students through tough spots, teach
them better. If that means using a "foreign" glider then so be it. And
if by using a different more challenging glider it takes 10 more flights
to go solo, then consider that to be a good investment. Odd, in Europe
thay have fewer fatalities than here per capita, and they don't teach on
2-33's. The Law of Primacy tells us that old habits from early training
will be what students/pilots refer to in a crisis. The shallow banked,
nose up turn on final that they could get away with in the 2-33 will
kill them in a 1-26, or something better. That's the same law that makes
Cessna pilots switch the wrong fuel tank in a Beechcraft, or pull
spoilers instead of flaps in Blaniks, or forget to lower the landing
gear because they were trained on fixed wheel airplanes.
Besides that, do you want to rely upon your student to do your lookout
for you because you can't see where you're turning? We have to open the
door sometimes, and open the window on the other side!! Maybe big
mirrors and curb feelers might be a good modification, along with chrome
rims and window trim, a back up light......
Tim, gliding is an international sport. They rest of the world knows
that the best gliders are made in Europe. Until the USA makes something
superior, this century, the 2-33 is going to go the way of the Dodo.
Keep your mind a bit more open to foreigners, we're the ones that put
your men on the moon, burned the President's house last century and
forced you to paint it white to save face (that's why it's called the
White House), and if I'm not mistaken, unless you are North American
Indian, you aren't exactly indigenous to these parts yourself.
Mike
Shaber CJ
>foreigners, we're the ones that put
>your men on the moon
Well, I do tend to agree with the subject, not the tone of your posting.
(PS I learned in a Grob 103) However, I must take exception to the above
quoted section. It took a nation to put men on the moon and that nation
was the USA. NASA management put the team together and made it happen, as
well as congress who authorized the funding and the US tax payers who
footed the bill. Most of the contractors who built the hareware and
software were US firms, and the risks of these flights were taken by US
astronauts.
cheers
Craig Shaber
Cheers
Tim Shirley
Mike Morgulis wrote:
>
> Tim Shirley wrote:
>
> >snip....and therefore
> >an intimate knowlege of the company cannot be expected of a foreigner.
But I am a foreigner. Which is why I don't have an intimate knowledge
of the Schweitzer company.
> Tim, gliding is an international sport. They rest of the world knows
> that the best gliders are made in Europe.
I didn't say that. But I do own a DG300.
Until the USA makes something
> superior, this century, the 2-33 is going to go the way of the Dodo.
> Keep your mind a bit more open to foreigners, we're the ones that put
> your men on the moon, burned the President's house last century and
> forced you to paint it white to save face (that's why it's called the
> White House), and if I'm not mistaken, unless you are North American
> Indian, you aren't exactly indigenous to these parts yourself.
Well, actually I'm Australian. But I confess that I'm not indigenous
there, either.
This seems to have got a little off the topic. My only intention
originally was to point out that:
a) there are more issues to safety than the number of fatal accidents
b) the Schweitzer 2-33 is not well known outside North America and
therefore it is hard to make comparisons on this sort of issue
c) the success in sales of that glider within North America is a matter
for congratulations to the makers. I assume that the purchasers of
these gliders did so of their own free will.
cheers and safe soaring
tim
William J. Oke
In article <19970816135...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, shab...@aol.com (Shaber CJ) wrote:
>>foreigners, we're the ones that put
>
>Well, I do tend to agree with the subject, not the tone of your posting.
>(PS I learned in a Grob 103) However, I must take exception to the above
>quoted section. It took a nation to put men on the moon and that nation
>was the USA. NASA management put the team together and made it happen, as
>well as congress who authorized the funding and the US tax payers who
>footed the bill. Most of the contractors who built the hareware and
>software were US firms, and the risks of these flights were taken by US
>astronauts.
>
I think that reasearch would show that a good portion of the engineers who
were involved in the NASA Gemini/Appollo program were those doggone
foreigners.
Specifically, after the Canadian government cancelled the Avro Arrow project
in 1959, a good portion of the engineering workforce moved to US aerospace
companies and eventually did space work for NASA. (A large portion of these
men were originally from England and received their technical training there,
so the British educational and training system deserves the credit).
A lot of the early work in the USA on rocket engines and such was also
accomplished by German scientists and engineers "pressed" into service after
WW2 where the allies frankly had nothing to match the V-2 rocket weapon. This
tradition carried on in Gemini/Apollo and even Tom Wolfe in "The Right Stuff"
notes that German drinking songs were often heard at the "Cape" during the
partying after a successful launch.
NASA may have put the "team" together and the US taxpayer certainly paid the
bills but it is clear that "team NASA" had a significant number of
non-Americans on it.
Now, lets get back to gliding.
(I expect that many of the British and German personnel involved were active
glider pilots, so there is a gliding connection to this story anyway.)
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, Canada
Mike Morgulis
Love you Jim, thanks. Mostly I didn't like the way Jean got bashed.
I think that the 2-33 is very popular in these parts, therfore more
accidents per capita would be a likely statistic. But, K-6's exist in
huge numbers worldwide, and one would expect high incident/accident
rates for those as well. The bottom line is that 100% of the glider
pilots that died in gliders, were in fact glider pilots. Can't blame the
plane for crashing, pilot did that. Instruction is the only way to stop
this, so let's stop relying on a plane's subtle nature to help our
students solo. Let's teach them better and make sure they're ready! And
if it requires a better plane then so be it. The G103 is similar to the
2-33 in handling, but is far more versatile and requires alot of
coordination to get the most out of it. Otherwise, it's doing what it
was designed to, train and not bite too hard. I hear that the ASK-21 is
similar but true to Schleicher, better flying (like the K-13 I learned
on) and will bite the wayward student.
I think this entire issue arises because clubs are starting to think
about replacing the 2-33's and some of the 'old guard' are trying to
justify the 2-33 as the world's safest trainer to avoid having to buy
new stuff, mostly "foreign". There are no statistics for the number of
instructors that killed their students by letting them solo too early,
or by not teaching them well enough. That was why the Blanik was deemed
a student-killer and a plane that was easy to spin. It recovers well
enough, just not at 100'. Again, instructor error. Same as the Beech
Bonanza, the Fork Tailed Doctor Killer. Nice plane, very speedy, but the
rich guys flew it into unknown conditions, flew 20 knots faster than
their experience, and augered in. Not the plane's fault the pilot was a
dolt for pushing a bad situation.
As for the flag waving stuff, let's keep it to Olympic Sports where it's
appreciated. Just because we don't like the 2-33 doesn't mean we're
ignernt forners, we just have a wider opinion of things. In fact, Canada
was the largest single customer of 2-33's, our entire Air Cadet League
flies the rivets out of them every summer. No wonder they're built
tough.
Steve Peltz
In article <33F4CF...@sympatico.ca>,
Ok, we'll make Tim an honorary American ambassador ... before bashing someone
for being American, you might check to see if he IS American!
>it is not contemporary anymore with other airplanes out there. If you
>want a training glider to survive accidents or to withstand punishing
>landings, why not teach your students to fly better first? Don't rely on
>the 2-33's tough frame to pull your students through tough spots, teach
>them better. If that means using a "foreign" glider then so be it. And
I don't rely on the 2-33 to save students, I "train them better". I don't
NEED a foreign glider to do so, though I don't object to it. However, it
is a fallacy that in order to become "good", or even be able to fly more
challenging gliders, one must receive initial training in a "challenging"
glider.
I have trained a lot of people in a 2-33, and I have seen them transition
to several other higher performance gliders. I have seen no problems with
doing initial training on a 2-33.
I had my initial training in a 2-33 (I started with a power license). After
I received my glider rating, having flown only the 2-33 and 1-26, I had no
problems flying an Astir CS - much higher L/D, higher speeds, more effective
spoilers. I had never flown either a tail-dragger or an aircraft with
retractable gear. I have also transitioned other people to the Astir, and
the only problem was with someone who landed gear up too many times - it
is possible that if his initial training was with retractable gear, he would
have not done that, but probably not.
>to go solo, then consider that to be a good investment. Odd, in Europe
>thay have fewer fatalities than here per capita, and they don't teach on
>2-33's. The Law of Primacy tells us that old habits from early training
>will be what students/pilots refer to in a crisis. The shallow banked,
>nose up turn on final that they could get away with in the 2-33 will
They don't get away with that when I'm instructing!
>kill them in a 1-26, or something better. That's the same law that makes
None of my students have had any problems in a 1-26. Flying in the Krosno
also presents no problems, other than the usual adjustment to a new aircraft.
I do checkouts for the PW-5 in the Krosno rather than the 2-33, and I'm glad
that we do have the Krosno for that purpose, but that has nothing to do with
initial training.
>Besides that, do you want to rely upon your student to do your lookout
>for you because you can't see where you're turning? We have to open the
>door sometimes, and open the window on the other side!! Maybe big
>mirrors and curb feelers might be a good modification, along with chrome
>rims and window trim, a back up light......
I've never felt that I was unable to see what I needed to see. I can't
see how opening a door or window would let you see something that you
couldn't see already and that you'd be able to see in another glider.
Don't you look BEFORE you start the turn? True, there's a slightly
smaller window during the turn; however, if there is traffic that you
can't see before the turn and you can't see during the turn and that is
a hazard to you, it was too damn close to you anyway, and would almost
certainly have been a hazard in any glider, even if you were able to see
it a second sooner.
earth...@gmail.com
I read some of this discussion and it is all excellent. There are lots of viewpoints and lots of considerations.
One thing that was not mentioned was the difference between flying with an instructor, in a two-seater, and flying alone... in a single seater.
There is a big difference. With the instructor on board there is someone with vastly more experience to correct any errors. There is also a more clear route and a more clear focus and a more clear safe focus.
The shift to flying solo is that this back-up encyclopedia of experience is gone and that is a huge factor... a huge difference.
"....revealed no fatal accidents in any Schweizer two seat models in the U.S. in
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
Bruce Hoult
TWENTY YEARS
We're getting old.
22 years now since I was posting Omarama Worlds scores to r.a.s via dial-up uucp, two minutes after I pinned the results to the notice board, and two minutes before I had beer in hand ... thank goodness we used GPS scoring and I missed the all-nighters developing and examining turn point photos. If I recall, we sometimes had the scores out 20 minutes after the last glider landed.
Ramy
Anyway, just wanted to point out that this brought unnecessary sickening feeling...
Ramy