Tom Knauff's newsletter

[p***@gmail.com]

Has anyone read this? What is your opinion? Tom Knauff certainly
doesn't provide any facts to support his conclusions. The following
statement in particular should anger each glider pilot, CFIG and
examiner: "The point of this is the demonstrable fact that most glider
pilots do not have the fundamental knowledge to fly safely. (Perhaps
with the exception of very controlled circumstances.)"

When I questioned him on this he simply offered the following:“Oh, by
the way, the test results demonstrate the point.”

Really? What tests? Where’s the empirical data? Has he just perused
NTSB reports or is it firsthand knowledge? Does he speak of transition
pilots or “from scratch” students. Why does he only mention glider
pilots and not general aviation? What has he done to change the FAA
PTS?

I personally know two CFIG’s who have crashed with passengers on
board. One passenger died and the other passenger will never be the
same. One CFIG continues to fly and the other has withdrawn from the
glider community and, quite possibly, aviation altogether. Are they to
be included in Tom’s categorical statements? I think not.

It is not just glider pilots. It isn’t just the low time pilot.
Everyone makes mistakes. For Tom to make such broad statements just to
sell some books is reckless and doesn’t provide any real help to our
small community.

Is there a gap in training and real flying? You bet. So why isn’t he
tapping on the shoulder of every CFIG, DPE, and the FAA?

His offhand comments smack in the same style as John Scherer’s
commercials for the Video Professor; “Buy my product.”

Warren

The complete newsletter:
Several of you have asked for answers to the questions, and want more
questions.
At the end of most chapters of the first training manual, "Glider
Basics From First Flight To Solo," there are important end of chapter
questions.
Also, "The Bronze Badge Book" has nearly 300 important questions and
answers.
You can order these and other books from our web site listed below.
The point of this is the demonstrable fact that most glider pilots do
not have the fundamental knowledge to fly safely. (Perhaps with the
exception of very controlled circumstances.)
I recently had a person contact me about flight training. He explained
that he did not need any ground school because he was going to take
the FAA written test before arriving at our school. I expect him to go
elsewhere for his training.
Everyone gets a score on the FAA test in the high 90s because the
questions and answers are available to them. Unfortunately, the FAA
written test does not ask questions like, "Why does an aircraft have a
rudder?" Or, "What color field is generally best for an off field
landing?" Or, "At what altitude can you see cow's legs?"
Thomas Knauff
Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
Ridge Soaring Gliderport
3523 S Eagle Valley Rd
Julian, Pa 16844

Phone [phone]
***@earthlink.net
http://www.eglider.org

[Randy]

If you do not not like what Tom has to say in his news letter,
unsubscribe. He is
entitled to his opinion, but I believe that he his right.

Is this the first news letter that you have read from Tom Knauff?

In previous new letters, Tom said they he was giving the test to CFIGs
in the
Refresher Clinics and they were the ones failing his general questions
test.

Tom does provide training to the FAA. I read that he was doing some
special
training with them this year.

I believe that they are many pilots that after they get their license,
do very little
to further educated themselves to become a better pilot. The only time
most of
them fly with a CFIG is on their BFR.
During the past few months of taking my glider to other soaring
locations, I have talked
with some glider pilots that I would consider to be unsafe. They had
very little knowledge
of airspace requirements and were flying in class A without any
clearance. They did not
even know what to say to ATC to request a clearance. A few other basic
items.
Oxygen Requirements were not understood.
Reading the Section Chart to locate a busy airway.
Did not know how to give a position report to ATC...

I helped a man assemble his glider which is similar to mine and I know
that he
probably never even read through his OM. He was clueless to the
assembly procedures.

I am a CFIG and I am always asking a lot of general knowledge
questions and receiving
the wrong answers. I recommend many of Tom Knauff's and Bob Wander's
books.
There is one book that I highly recommend from Dale Masters, Soaring
beyond the Basics.

Randy

[Ian]

Post by p***@gmail.com
Has anyone read this? What is your opinion? Tom Knauff certainly
doesn't provide any facts to support his conclusions. The following
statement in particular should anger each glider pilot, CFIG and
examiner: "The point of this is the demonstrable fact that most glider
pilots do not have the fundamental knowledge to fly safely. (Perhaps
with the exception of very controlled circumstances.)"

Controversy sells. I'd just shrug and move on.

Ian

[t***@earthlink.net]

The newsletter quoted was a response to an earlier newsletter, which
described a test first given at the Hartford, Connecticut SSA
convention probably 20+ years ago.

It was a ten-question test of things all glider pilots should know. No
trick questions. Everyone would agree all glider pilots should know
the answers. It was multiple choice.

This same test and similar tests have been given throughout the
country during conventions, CFI revalidation clinics, and seminars
with the same results.

Examples of the questions include:

During a left turn on aero tow, which side of the towplane should the
glider pilot see?

A. Left side
B. Right Side
C. Both sides equally
D. Which side does not matter as long as the glider is not too high.

During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?

A. Left Aileron, right rudder, back stick
B. Left aileron, left rudder, back stick
C. Right aileron, right rudder, back stick
D. Right aileron, left rudder, back stick

During an off field landing, what color farm field is generally most
desirable?

A. Light green
B. Dark green
C. Dirt color
D. Color is not important

I believe you would all agree the test includes subject matter a
glider pilot should know.

Over the years, the average score by licensed pilots has been 37%.

The glider pilot fatality rate is one of the highest of any activity.
The demonstrable lack of essential knowledge is a major factor.

If “Warren” does not like my choice of questions &/or answers, then
he should make up his own list of questions he feels are important and
present them at his club’s next meeting.

The result, will be better educated, safer pilots.

And, if you need help devising test questions, you will find lots of
examples in "Glider Basics From First Flight To Solo" and "The Bronze
Badge Book."

Yes, selling books I write, and teaching pilots to fly safely is how I
earn my living.

The first Glider PTS was written after we trained the FAA author at
Ridge Soaring Gliderport.

Tom Knauff

[Chris Reed]

One of the problems with multiple choice is that it can't capture the
subtleties of the subject being examined, or at least that it requires
very careful question design.

Two of the three questions posted by Tom Knauff do not, in my view have

Post by t***@earthlink.net
During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?
A. Left Aileron, right rudder, back stick
B. Left aileron, left rudder, back stick
C. Right aileron, right rudder, back stick
D. Right aileron, left rudder, back stick

I'm aware of a genuine debate between experienced and capable pilots
whether C or D is the right answer. From my own experience, it's
somewhat type-dependent as to whether a small amount of rudder into or
out of the turn produces the best climb rate.

Post by t***@earthlink.net
During an off field landing, what color farm field is generally most
desirable?
A. Light green
B. Dark green
C. Dirt color
D. Color is not important

In the UK at least, the answer to this depends on the time of year. In a
wet April, definitely A or B, but only if you can see brown through the
green(I've been involved in retrieves where the glider parts had to be
carried to the edge of the field because the soil was so sticky that the
glider wheel jammed solid after a few yards rolling). In June, probably
C, but you won't find a C field in England in June unless some strange
kind of cultivation has been carried out, which might mean heavily
ploughed up clods of earth. A would be OK if it's short grass, but not
if it's long barley (much lighter than wheat, though yellowing now).

If my answers are reasonable, then we really don't know whether the 37%
score reflects the knowledge of the pilots tested or the differing
assumptions made when setting and answering the questions.

[Jim Beckman]

Post by Chris Reed
One of the problems with multiple choice is that it can't capture the
subtleties of the subject being examined, or at least that it requires
very careful question design.
Two of the three questions posted by Tom Knauff do not, in my view have

Post by t***@earthlink.net
During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?
A. Left Aileron, right rudder, back stick
B. Left aileron, left rudder, back stick
C. Right aileron, right rudder, back stick
D. Right aileron, left rudder, back stick

My answer to this one is: Whatever it takes to keep the
turn smooth, continuous, and coordinated. After a while,
it shouldn't take any conscious thought - you just do what
needs to be done (Powdermilk Biscuits for breakfast
makes it possible, even for shy persons).

Jim Beckman

[Jim Logajan]

Post by t***@earthlink.net
The glider pilot fatality rate is one of the highest of any activity.

I've been looking for accident statistics for gliding/soaring and haven't
come across any formal studies. So the assertion above comes somthing as a
surprise and it would be greatly appreciated if you can provide the
location of any supporting data. I know of some cross-modal studies that
indicate that helicopters appear to have a higher accident rate on a per
mile and hour flown than fixed wing aircraft, and that motorcycles are more
dangerous than general aviation flying, but gliders weren't split out into
their own category in those studies.

Actually, cross-modal accident studies are, in general, hard to find so I'm
always curious to know the source of any such claims.

[Bill Daniels]

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by t***@earthlink.net
The glider pilot fatality rate is one of the highest of any activity.

I've been looking for accident statistics for gliding/soaring and haven't
come across any formal studies. So the assertion above comes somthing as a
surprise and it would be greatly appreciated if you can provide the
location of any supporting data. I know of some cross-modal studies that
indicate that helicopters appear to have a higher accident rate on a per
mile and hour flown than fixed wing aircraft, and that motorcycles are more
dangerous than general aviation flying, but gliders weren't split out into
their own category in those studies.
Actually, cross-modal accident studies are, in general, hard to find so I'm
always curious to know the source of any such claims.

It's confusing to address relative safety as it relates to the 'sport' as
opposed to the pilot. A glider, in and of itself, is neither dangerous or
safe. It's only when you put a human pilot in it and launch it into the air
that the activity can become dangerous. One statistic that comes through
loud and clear is that 99% of all glider accidents are pilot error.

So, I tend to agree with Tom Knauf. The safety issue almost entirely
involves pilot knowledge, skill and whether the pilot chooses to use them on
any particular flight. If you are to survive, you must accept that it's
only your knowledge, skills and a determination to use them on every flight
that will assure survival.

Flying is highly Darwinian. As a pilot you must know two sets of rules. One
set is, of course, flying regulations. The other set is Mother Nature's
laws - like gravity, weather and aerodynamics. Regulations are to keep you
safe. Mother Nature just wants to clean the gene pool. Cross Her and She'll
kill you without mercy.

Bill Daniels
"If you can avoid the really stupid mistakes, what's left is manageable."

[Nyal Williams]

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by t***@earthlink.net
The glider pilot fatality rate is one of the highest of any activity.

I've been looking for accident statistics for gliding/soaring and

haven't

Post by Jim Logajan
come across any formal studies. So the assertion above comes somthing

as

Post by Jim Logajan
a

Post by Jim Logajan
surprise and it would be greatly appreciated if you can provide the
location of any supporting data. I know of some cross-modal studies that
indicate that helicopters appear to have a higher accident rate on a per
mile and hour flown than fixed wing aircraft, and that motorcycles are more
dangerous than general aviation flying, but gliders weren't split out

into

Post by Jim Logajan
their own category in those studies.
Actually, cross-modal accident studies are, in general, hard to find

so

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by Jim Logajan
I'm
always curious to know the source of any such claims.

It's confusing to address relative safety as it relates to the 'sport' as
opposed to the pilot. A glider, in and of itself, is neither dangerous or
safe. It's only when you put a human pilot in it and launch it into

the

Post by Jim Logajan
air
that the activity can become dangerous. One statistic that comes through
loud and clear is that 99% of all glider accidents are pilot error.
So, I tend to agree with Tom Knauf. The safety issue almost entirely
involves pilot knowledge, skill and whether the pilot chooses to use

them

Post by Jim Logajan
on
any particular flight. If you are to survive, you must accept that it's
only your knowledge, skills and a determination to use them on every flight
that will assure survival.
Flying is highly Darwinian. As a pilot you must know two sets of rules.
One
set is, of course, flying regulations. The other set is Mother

Nature's

Post by Jim Logajan
laws - like gravity, weather and aerodynamics. Regulations are to keep you
safe. Mother Nature just wants to clean the gene pool. Cross Her and She'll
kill you without mercy.
Bill Daniels
"If you can avoid the really stupid mistakes, what's left is
manageable."

On reflection, I believe we would all want pilot error to account for 100%
of the accidents. This would remove those accidents attributable to
equipment flaws and would make flying that much safer.

[Bob Whelan]

<Major snip>

Post by Bill Daniels

Post by Bill Daniels
Flying is highly Darwinian. As a pilot you must know two sets of rules.
One
set is, of course, flying regulations. The other set is Mother

Nature's

Post by Bill Daniels
laws - like gravity, weather and aerodynamics. Regulations are to keep you
safe. Mother Nature just wants to clean the gene pool. Cross Her and She'll
kill you without mercy.
Bill Daniels
"If you can avoid the really stupid mistakes, what's left is
manageable."

On reflection, I believe we would all want pilot error to account for 100%
of the accidents. This would remove those accidents attributable to
equipment flaws and would make flying that much safer.

Hmmm...

I suspect many more pilots would (still be a)live in the 100% absence of
pilot-error-induced fatalities than the 100% absence of
equipment-induced fatalities.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to prevent both in my flying!

Regards,
Bob - perfection is not an option - W.

[Nyal Williams]

Post by Bob Whelan

Post by Bill Daniels

Post by Bill Daniels
Flying is highly Darwinian. As a pilot you must know two sets of rules.
One
set is, of course, flying regulations. The other set is Mother

Nature's

Post by Bill Daniels
laws - like gravity, weather and aerodynamics. Regulations are to

keep

Post by Bob Whelan

Post by Bill Daniels

Post by Bill Daniels
you
safe. Mother Nature just wants to clean the gene pool. Cross Her and She'll
kill you without mercy.
Bill Daniels
"If you can avoid the really stupid mistakes, what's left is
manageable."

On reflection, I believe we would all want pilot error to account for

100%

Post by Bill Daniels
of the accidents. This would remove those accidents attributable to
equipment flaws and would make flying that much safer.

Hmmm...
I suspect many more pilots would (still be a)live in the 100% absence of
pilot-error-induced fatalities than the 100% absence of
equipment-induced fatalities.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to prevent both in my flying!
Regards,
Bob - perfection is not an option - W.

Absolutely! But there are those who think that an excuse exists if it can
be blamed on equipment. While I'm blundering about I don't want my
equipment to fail me.

[Brad]

be blamed on equipment.  While I'm blundering about I don't want my
equipment to fail me.

This is exactly what "scares" me the most. Imagine aggresively
thermalling in front of a rock face, only to find out your elevator
circuit fails just as you start your turn away from the granite.
Wonder what the nattering nabobs of negativity in our club would say
about that one?

Brad

[Bill Daniels]

be blamed on equipment. While I'm blundering about I don't want my
equipment to fail me.

This is exactly what "scares" me the most. Imagine aggresively
thermalling in front of a rock face, only to find out your elevator
circuit fails just as you start your turn away from the granite.
Wonder what the nattering nabobs of negativity in our club would say
about that one?

Brad

I'd bet that at least 99% of those who actually hit a cliff had perfectly
airworthy gliders one nanosecond before impact. It happens often enough
there's a name for it - CFIT. (Controlled Flight Into Terrain)

Yes, by all means, eliminate equipment failures. But if a pilot is among
the tiny minority destined to have an accident, there's a 99% probability
the cause will be the fabled "loose nut on the stick".

Bill Daniels
"Your most effective safety gear is located between your ears."

[bumper]

Post by Bill Daniels
I'd bet that at least 99% of those who actually hit a cliff had perfectly
airworthy gliders one nanosecond before impact. It happens often enough
there's a name for it - CFIT. (Controlled Flight Into Terrain)
Bill Daniels
"Your most effective safety gear is located between your ears."

Some, maybe most of the CFIT glider accidents are due to the pilot's
underestimation of what Mother Nature can dish out. Turbulence so strong,
abrupt, and unanticipated, that the glider's aerodynamic controls are
completely overwhelmed. If this happens while polishing rocks and you don't
have enough airspeed, altitude, or a plan "B" that will trump Mother
Nature's plan "A" . . .

bumper
Minden, NV
zz

[Alan]

Post by Nyal Williams
On reflection, I believe we would all want pilot error to account for 100%
of the accidents. This would remove those accidents attributable to
equipment flaws and would make flying that much safer.

And we blame pilot error when a preflight misses a part about to come
apart.

We blame lots of things on pilot error. The FAA seems to like to do
that, and we go along with it because it allows us to remind ourselves
that we are better, and we would not make those mistakes.

The folks who have had "pilot error" accidents almost certainly were
certain of the same thing.

I apologize (slightly) for putting this in .soaring, because it also
applies to powered flight. It also applies to driving. We think that
we are not going to make the same mistake. We become comfortable with
our new safety and that comfort leads to carelessness.

Post by Nyal Williams

Post by Bill Daniels
"If you can avoid the really stupid mistakes, what's left is
manageable."

In many things this is probably true. In the air, there are too
many exceptions.

Alan

[Brad]

Tom,

I've not read your books and have just skimmed some of the posts. In
general I agree with some of your assertions. The stuff I agree with
would have me pulling out my FAR/AIM if/when I hop in a power plane
and fly in to areas where airspace, radio freq's and communication
issues are required. I believe that would fall under the FAR that all
pilots make themselves aware of all aspects of the flight they are
engaging in.

My main flying is done in the foothills of the Cascades, and then when
conditions allow, moving back into the cascades proper. Do you have
specific information written in any of your books about mountain
flying and what to do, not do...........etc?

I would suspect that given the variety of conditions a mountain
sailplane pilot can experience, might not have him worried much about
remembering what are the proper positions the controls must be in, but
more an instinctual and reflexive response/solution to the dynamics of
the situation at hand.

Cheers,
Brad

[Ian]

Post by t***@earthlink.net
During a left turn on aero tow, which side of the towplane should the
glider pilot see?
During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?
I believe you would all agree the test includes subject matter a
glider pilot should know.
Over the years, the average score by licensed pilots has been 37%.

But does that mean that pilots are holding the controls in the wrong
place while turning and looking at the wrong side of the towplane ...
or does it mean that they don't think about things in that way because
they don't need to think about things in that way?

Over here the Institute of Advanced Motorists runs advanced driving
tests, an important part of which is the narrative - a running
commentary on exactly what one is doing and why. However, the
statistics (ie the insurance company premiums) suggest that "advanced"
drivers are not "safer" drivers. Part of this may be that although
verbalising may be an interesting skill, it's not needed to drive
safely.

In an activity which is largely learned and trained reflexes - like
flying, driving, riding a bike or tap dancing - "doing" it is much
more important than being able to say exactly "what I'm doing".

Of course it's very useful for an instructor to be able to break down
the activities in order to work on faults, but it's a secondary skill
for the pupil.

Ian

PS I'd be interested to see the other questions - are they available
online?

[Gary Emerson]

Post by t***@earthlink.net
During a left turn on aero tow, which side of the towplane should the
glider pilot see?
A. Left side
B. Right Side
C. Both sides equally
D. Which side does not matter as long as the glider is not too high.
During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?
A. Left Aileron, right rudder, back stick
B. Left aileron, left rudder, back stick
C. Right aileron, right rudder, back stick
D. Right aileron, left rudder, back stick

First, I think Tom is mostly right, but I'll make a couple of points.

Look at the two questions above. I'd suggest that these questions are
both moot. On the first question I would have originally said A, but
this past weekend while on tow I realized that the angle is pretty small
and you can actually see both sides almost the same as long as the turn
isn't very sharp. But WHO CARES???? Just because I couldn't remember
this visual image with photographic memory doesn't make me a bad pilot
or an unaware pilot. I can certainly recognize when I'm out of position
laterally without having to ask myself if I'm looking at one side of the
towplane more than the other.

Same goes for the second question. I CAN make very steep coordinated
turns. I don't have to verbalize to myself what I need to do with the
controls in order to do it. It just happens. Again, not being able to
verbalize this doesn't make one a bad pilot.

Now, back to the original point. There ARE some number of people who
have mis-understood the rudder wag signal. Tom's solution is to blame
those people and he's mostly right. I'm not saying that there aren't
plenty of people flying today who couldn't pass the FAA written right
now, but IF (big IF) a different signal could be developed that was LESS
prone to confusion with the rock off signal we might keep a couple of
people from at least crashing, if not dying. IF the towpilot is giving
the rudder wag signal to someone, that gliderpilot is probably already
in a stressful situation because the tow isn't going well. True, they
should be more prepared, but if a different signal could be developed
that helped, wouldn't we all be better off?

[Soarin Again]

At 11:43 01 July 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
snips

Post by Gary Emerson
Now, back to the original point. There ARE some number of people who
have mis-understood the rudder wag signal. Tom's solution is to blame
those people and he's mostly right. I'm not saying that there aren't
plenty of people flying today who couldn't pass the FAA written right
now, but IF (big IF) a different signal could be developed that was LESS
prone to confusion with the rock off signal we might keep a couple of
people from at least crashing, if not dying. IF the towpilot is giving
the rudder wag signal to someone, that gliderpilot is probably already
in a stressful situation because the tow isn't going well. True, they
should be more prepared, but if a different signal could be developed
that helped, wouldn't we all be better off?

Changing the signal, mandating radios, prohibiting tow pilots
from giving the appropriate signal until pattern altitude?
We only have 3 signals that the tow plane can give the glider
while on tow and each signal is easily distinguished from the
other. Let's quit making excuses for pilots who simply don't
consider it important enough to bother to know the tow signals.
Yes in many cases poor initial instruction and deficient flight
reviews contributes to their poor attitude regarding the signals.
But just ask anyone who routinely does field checks or flight
reviews particularly for transient pilots and they can tell you
how unimportant many glider pilots consider the tow signals.

If we want to reduce the accidents resulting from pilots not
knowing (not misinterpreting) the rudder wag. Examiners
need to routinely include all of the signals on flight tests,
instructors must always include all of the signals on tow
during training and flight reviews, and finally glider pilots
need to accept that they have a responsibility to know and
practice the signals. Otherwise are destined to continue seeing
pilots release from tow rather than simply closing their spoilers.

Does it seem strange to anyone else that apparently tow pilots
don't seem to have the same confusion about what signal to give
a spoiler open glider?

This is a golden opportunity for the Soaring Safety Foundation
to actually impact the accident rate. They should lobby to get
all signals on tow incorporrated into a specific task in all of the
Practical Test Standards for gliders.

[Bill Daniels]

Post by Soarin Again
snips

Post by Gary Emerson
Now, back to the original point. There ARE some number of people who
have mis-understood the rudder wag signal. Tom's solution is to blame
those people and he's mostly right. I'm not saying that there aren't
plenty of people flying today who couldn't pass the FAA written right
now, but IF (big IF) a different signal could be developed that was LESS
prone to confusion with the rock off signal we might keep a couple of
people from at least crashing, if not dying. IF the towpilot is giving
the rudder wag signal to someone, that gliderpilot is probably already
in a stressful situation because the tow isn't going well. True, they
should be more prepared, but if a different signal could be developed
that helped, wouldn't we all be better off?

Changing the signal, mandating radios, prohibiting tow pilots
from giving the appropriate signal until pattern altitude?
We only have 3 signals that the tow plane can give the glider
while on tow and each signal is easily distinguished from the
other. Let's quit making excuses for pilots who simply don't
consider it important enough to bother to know the tow signals.
Yes in many cases poor initial instruction and deficient flight
reviews contributes to their poor attitude regarding the signals.
But just ask anyone who routinely does field checks or flight
reviews particularly for transient pilots and they can tell you
how unimportant many glider pilots consider the tow signals.
If we want to reduce the accidents resulting from pilots not
knowing (not misinterpreting) the rudder wag. Examiners
need to routinely include all of the signals on flight tests,
instructors must always include all of the signals on tow
during training and flight reviews, and finally glider pilots
need to accept that they have a responsibility to know and
practice the signals. Otherwise are destined to continue seeing
pilots release from tow rather than simply closing their spoilers.
Does it seem strange to anyone else that apparently tow pilots
don't seem to have the same confusion about what signal to give
a spoiler open glider?
This is a golden opportunity for the Soaring Safety Foundation
to actually impact the accident rate. They should lobby to get
all signals on tow incorporrated into a specific task in all of the
Practical Test Standards for gliders.

It's already in the FAR's. To pass a Biannual Flight Review, (BFR) you have
to meet the skill and knowledge requirements of the rating you hold. Flight
instructors giving BFR's are now required to test BFR candidates to that
level.

The rudder wag signals are part of that test.

So, if you can't pass the written test, don't expect an instructor to sign
off your next BFR.

Bill D

[Mike Schumann]

If you really want to help educate the pilots that need it, why not include
what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann

Post by Soarin Again
snips

Post by Gary Emerson
Now, back to the original point. There ARE some number of people who
have mis-understood the rudder wag signal. Tom's solution is to blame
those people and he's mostly right. I'm not saying that there aren't
plenty of people flying today who couldn't pass the FAA written right
now, but IF (big IF) a different signal could be developed that was LESS
prone to confusion with the rock off signal we might keep a couple of
people from at least crashing, if not dying. IF the towpilot is giving
the rudder wag signal to someone, that gliderpilot is probably already
in a stressful situation because the tow isn't going well. True, they
should be more prepared, but if a different signal could be developed
that helped, wouldn't we all be better off?

Changing the signal, mandating radios, prohibiting tow pilots
from giving the appropriate signal until pattern altitude?
We only have 3 signals that the tow plane can give the glider
while on tow and each signal is easily distinguished from the
other. Let's quit making excuses for pilots who simply don't
consider it important enough to bother to know the tow signals.
Yes in many cases poor initial instruction and deficient flight
reviews contributes to their poor attitude regarding the signals.
But just ask anyone who routinely does field checks or flight
reviews particularly for transient pilots and they can tell you
how unimportant many glider pilots consider the tow signals.
If we want to reduce the accidents resulting from pilots not
knowing (not misinterpreting) the rudder wag. Examiners
need to routinely include all of the signals on flight tests,
instructors must always include all of the signals on tow
during training and flight reviews, and finally glider pilots
need to accept that they have a responsibility to know and
practice the signals. Otherwise are destined to continue seeing
pilots release from tow rather than simply closing their spoilers.
Does it seem strange to anyone else that apparently tow pilots
don't seem to have the same confusion about what signal to give
a spoiler open glider?
This is a golden opportunity for the Soaring Safety Foundation
to actually impact the accident rate. They should lobby to get
all signals on tow incorporrated into a specific task in all of the
Practical Test Standards for gliders.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[George Knight]

Yes, I'd like to know what the third one is!

If you really want to help educate the pilots that need it, why >not

include what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann

[George Knight]

Yes, I'd like to know what the third one is!

If you really want to help educate the pilots that need it, why >not

include what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann

[Uncle Fuzzy]

Yes,  I'd like to know what the third one is!
At 02:33 02 July 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:>If you really want to help educate the pilots that need it, why >not
include what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Tow plane Wing rock - release immediately
2. Tow plane yawing back and forth - towplane unable to release rope
3. Tow plane rudder waggle (too quickly to significantly yaw the
airplane) - check glider for extended spoilers.

[Uncle Fuzzy]

Post by Uncle Fuzzy

Yes,  I'd like to know what the third one is!
At 02:33 02 July 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:>If you really want to help educate the pilots that need it, why >not
include what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Tow plane Wing rock - release immediately
2. Tow plane yawing back and forth - towplane unable to release rope
3. Tow plane rudder waggle (too quickly to significantly yaw the
airplane) - check glider for extended spoilers.

Here's an online ref:
http://www.soaringsafety.org/school/towpilot/tpc9.htm

[Nyal Williams]

I'm extremely happy to see the text in parenthesis on point no.3. I have
called attention to this to the Soaring Safety Foundation. In coaching a
new tow pilot (I am not one) he made his first couple of attempts at this
at a somewhat slow but vigorous rate. The result was a large yaw and the
Pawnee with its large dihedral looked almost like rocking the wings.

Yes, =A0I'd like to know what the third one is!
At 02:33 02 July 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:>If you really want to help

edu=
cate the pilots that need it, why >not

include what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Tow plane Wing rock - release immediately
2. Tow plane yawing back and forth - towplane unable to release rope
3. Tow plane rudder waggle (too quickly to significantly yaw the
airplane) - check glider for extended spoilers.

[George Knight]

Yes, I'd like to know what the third one is!

If you really want to help educate the pilots that need it, why >not

include what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by t***@earthlink.net
The newsletter quoted was a response to an earlier newsletter, which
described a test first given at the Hartford, Connecticut SSA
convention probably 20+ years ago.
It was a ten-question test of things all glider pilots should know. No
trick questions. Everyone would agree all glider pilots should know
the answers. It was multiple choice.
This same test and similar tests have been given throughout the
country during conventions, CFI revalidation clinics, and seminars
with the same results.
During a left turn on aero tow, which side of the towplane should the
glider pilot see?
A.      Left side
B.      Right Side
C.      Both sides equally
D.      Which side does not matter as long as the glider is not too high.
During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?
A.      Left Aileron, right rudder, back stick
B.      Left aileron, left rudder, back stick
C.      Right aileron, right rudder, back stick
D.      Right aileron, left rudder, back stick
During an off field landing, what color farm field is generally most
desirable?
A.      Light green
B.      Dark green
C.      Dirt color
D.      Color is not important
I believe you would all agree the test includes subject matter a
glider pilot should know.
Over the years, the average score by licensed pilots has been 37%.
The glider pilot fatality rate is one of the highest of any activity.
The demonstrable lack of essential knowledge is a major factor.
If  “Warren” does not like my choice of questions &/or answers, then
he should make up his own list of questions he feels are important and
present them at his club’s next meeting.
The result, will be better educated, safer pilots.
And, if you need help devising test questions, you will find lots of
examples in "Glider Basics From First Flight To Solo" and "The Bronze
Badge Book."
Yes, selling books I write, and teaching pilots to fly safely is how I
earn my living.
The first Glider PTS was written after we trained the FAA author at
Ridge Soaring Gliderport.
Tom Knauff

OK, what are the correct answers, those are questions I have seen
before and they lead to a good discussion, but I would like to read
your opinion, always good.

[Bill Daniels]

Post by t***@earthlink.net
During a left turn on aero tow, which side of the towplane should the
glider pilot see?
A. Left side
B. Right Side
C. Both sides equally
D. Which side does not matter as long as the glider is not too high.
During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?
A. Left Aileron, right rudder, back stick
B. Left aileron, left rudder, back stick
C. Right aileron, right rudder, back stick
D. Right aileron, left rudder, back stick
During an off field landing, what color farm field is generally most
desirable?
A. Light green
B. Dark green
C. Dirt color
D. Color is not important

OK, what are the correct answers, those are questions I have seen
before and they lead to a good discussion, but I would like to read
your opinion, always good.

Q#1: If you were on a passenger train rounding a left bend in the tracks
and looked out a window at the locomotive, the only side you could see is
the left side. Like a passenger car on a train, a glider should follow the
same path in the sky as the tow plane (locomotive) so you see the left side.
(Answer: A)

Q#2: This one needs a some qualification since it depends on the glider.
Obviously, into-the-turn aileron (left in a left turn) would never be used
in a continuous turn so the choice is between C and D.

I find many gliders, once stabilized in a turn, will track nicely with the
string centered with my feet off the pedals indicating no rudder is needed
at all. Only opposite aileron (right in this case) is used to hold off the
overbanking tendency - this right aileron provides all the left yaw (adverse
yaw) needed to center the string. Gliders with less adverse yaw will need
some into-the-turn rudder (Answer: D). Gliders with a lot of adverse yaw
may need a little out-of-the-turn rudder (right) (Answer: C).

One must add that the Dick Johnson technique of using a slight slip also
works nicely and adds a little to the performance. Dick holds
out-of-the-turn rudder to oppose overbanking and keeps the stick centered.
In my experience, this works best on gliders with generous dihedral and
without winglets or polyhedral.

Q#3: Any uniform green color indicates a growing crop. This could be
alfalfa, corn or something else. You can land in freshly cut alfalfa or hay
but not much else. Green usually means some form of irrigation which adds
additional hazards like sprinkler pipes. Landing in a crop is likely to
cause some irritation among the farm folk. Dirt, if it's reasonably smooth,
level and large enough, is always landable. (Answer: C)

Bill Daniels

[Andy]

Q#3:  Any uniform green color indicates a growing crop.  This could be
alfalfa, corn or something else.  You can land in freshly cut alfalfa or hay
but not much else.  Green usually means some form of irrigation which adds
additional hazards like sprinkler pipes.  Landing in a crop is likely to
cause some irritation among the farm folk.  Dirt, if it's reasonably smooth,
level and large enough, is always landable.  (Answer: C)

I agree with most of that but it may be too simple an answer. You need
to know what crop is grown in the area you are flying and how tall it
is likely to be at that particular time of year. You also need to
know how it is watered or irrigated. Landings in siphon irrigated
cotton fields, that are common in Arizona, can be made safely with no
crop damage if you are able to keep both wheels in the same furrow and
if the cotton is still short. On the other hand I know of a glider
that sufferered significant fuselage damage on landing in a recently
plowed field. The dirt clods were as hard as concrete and up to a
foot across.

Of all the landouts I have made I think the best field surfaces were
mown alfapha and wheat stubble. One of the worst was a fallow dirt
field that was so soft it was almost impossible to roll the glider to
the trailer as it sank six inches deep in powder. Nice short landing
roll though!

So I don't know what answer Tom wanted to that question. My answer
would be to make a choice based on size, slope, surface and a
knowledge of local crop conditions. The best choice could be either
green or brown but I'd take a look at the brown one first and hope it
had a thermal.

You can see why I don't like multiple choice tests ;)

Andy

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Andy
I agree with most of that but it may be too simple an answer. You need
to know what crop is grown in the area you are flying and how tall it
is likely to be at that particular time of year. You also need to
know how it is watered or irrigated. Landings in siphon irrigated
cotton fields, that are common in Arizona, can be made safely with no
crop damage if you are able to keep both wheels in the same furrow and
if the cotton is still short. On the other hand I know of a glider
that sufferered significant fuselage damage on landing in a recently
plowed field. The dirt clods were as hard as concrete and up to a
foot across.

Wow - does this mean I need to get an endorsement for agricultural science
on my certificate before I solo, or just before attempting a cross country?
;-)

[Bill Daniels]

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by Andy
I agree with most of that but it may be too simple an answer. You need
to know what crop is grown in the area you are flying and how tall it
is likely to be at that particular time of year. You also need to
know how it is watered or irrigated. Landings in siphon irrigated
cotton fields, that are common in Arizona, can be made safely with no
crop damage if you are able to keep both wheels in the same furrow and
if the cotton is still short. On the other hand I know of a glider
that sufferered significant fuselage damage on landing in a recently
plowed field. The dirt clods were as hard as concrete and up to a
foot across.

Wow - does this mean I need to get an endorsement for agricultural science
on my certificate before I solo, or just before attempting a cross country?
;-)

Wouldn't hurt.

I agree with what Andy wrote. A freshly cut crop like a wheat stubble field
is a great runway. Fallow wheat fields are nice too.

Wheat stubble is usually brown, however, not green. Uncut wheat looks
almost the same until you are low enough to see the "waves of grain" and
then it may be too late to pick something else. If you land in standing
wheat, close the air vents. I didn't and got a very upset hornet in the
cockpit with me.

Big, hard clods in a plowed field are a problem for gear doors if not more.

[Martin Gregorie]

Post by Bill Daniels

Post by Jim Logajan
Wow - does this mean I need to get an endorsement for agricultural science
on my certificate before I solo, or just before attempting a cross country?
;-)

Wouldn't hurt.

Agreed.

As an easier alternative, the information in this site may also be useful
outside the UK:

http://www.field-landings.co.uk/

I think the paired air-ground pictures (click 'CROP IMAGES') should be
useful almost anywhere round the world if you translate the time of year
to suit your seasons.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Martin Gregorie
As an easier alternative, the information in this site may also be
http://www.field-landings.co.uk/
I think the paired air-ground pictures (click 'CROP IMAGES') should be
useful almost anywhere round the world if you translate the time of
year to suit your seasons.

Thanks for link - I've bookmarked it for futurer reference.

[Nyal Williams]

snip>

Post by Bill Daniels

Post by t***@earthlink.net
During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?
A. Left Aileron, right rudder, back stick
B. Left aileron, left rudder, back stick
C. Right aileron, right rudder, back stick
D. Right aileron, left rudder, back stick

Q#2: This one needs a some qualification since it depends on the glider.
Obviously, into-the-turn aileron (left in a left turn) would never be used
in a continuous turn so the choice is between C and D.
I find many gliders, once stabilized in a turn, will track nicely with the
string centered with my feet off the pedals indicating no rudder is needed
at all. Only opposite aileron (right in this case) is used to hold off the
overbanking tendency - this right aileron provides all the left yaw (adverse
yaw) needed to center the string. Gliders with less adverse yaw will need
some into-the-turn rudder (Answer: D). Gliders with a lot of adverse yaw
may need a little out-of-the-turn rudder (right) (Answer: C).
One must add that the Dick Johnson technique of using a slight slip also
works nicely and adds a little to the performance. Dick holds
out-of-the-turn rudder to oppose overbanking and keeps the stick centered.
In my experience, this works best on gliders with generous dihedral and
without winglets or polyhedral.

<snip>

Post by Bill Daniels
Bill Daniels

I notice from the back seat in a left turn that the yaw string for the
front cockpit is slightly more to the right than the one in the back; I
believe this to be because the front one is farther from the center of
lift -- or the tangent of the turning radius.

This leads me to believe that the rudder, also displaced from the center
of lift would likely align itself with its own relative wind and would
thus be slightly to the left if unattended.

I do not think of this as holding bottom rudder. I was taught to hold a
little top rudder and it might just be that a bit of pressure on the top
rudder would place it somewhere between the place it would naturally seek
and perfect alignment with the fuselage if not actually to the outside.

I do note that if the nose drifts too low in a turn it is much easier to
move it back to the proper position by applying top rudder than it is to
add more back pressure on the stick. I believe this is also much safer --
a little bit of slip instead of lowering the airspeed with the stick while
holding top aileron and bottom rudder, the classic setup for spin entry.

React, Bill?

[Tony Verhulst]

Post by Nyal Williams
I notice from the back seat in a left turn that the yaw string for the
front cockpit is slightly more to the right than the one in the back; I
believe this to be because the front one is farther from the center of
lift -- or the tangent of the turning radius.

I suspect not. Assuming the following: 1. on a 2 seater, the front yaw
string is about 6 ft (2m) ahead of the center of lift. 2. According to
the American Soaring handbook, a 45 degree banked turn at 60 mph (52
kts) has a radius of 240 feet (73m).

High school level geometry and trigonometry (I've been out of high
school for a looong time :-) ) shows that this results in an error of
only 1.4 degrees - small enough to be ignored for all practical purposes.

I suspect that a yaw string, typically taped to the canopy, may have
errors because the string is in the boundary layer.

Tony V.

[sisu1a]

Post by Tony Verhulst
I suspect that a yaw string, typically taped to the canopy, may have
errors because the string is in the boundary layer.
Tony V.

Closer than the OP, but still doesn't seem quite right. The front yaw
string is much more subject to 'crossflow effect' (on most ships) than
the back one due to canopy shape and the string's relative placement
on a compound curve that is sometimes splitting air striking it
(besides, both strings are in the boundary layer...)
With this in mind, it is not a bad idea to "calibrate" ones yawstring
by comparing it's position relative to a panel mounted slip-skid ball
when flying a new ship, perhaps even marking the coordinated positions
(at 45 deg banks?) with pinstripe tape if they are far off center.
Jonson also covers this in the previously mentioned article about
mildly slipping during thermalling turns (named "Circling the
Holighaus Way" http://www.owp.us/Johnson/CirclingTheHolighausWay.pdf
). He explains it much more elegantly than I and it is worth reading
if you have not already seen it.

-Paul

[Tony Verhulst]

Post by sisu1a
With this in mind, it is not a bad idea to "calibrate" ones yawstring
by comparing it's position relative to a panel mounted slip-skid ball....

But the 2 instruments measure different things. The yawstring (in
theory) measures airflow angle at the fuselage. The inclinometer
measures the difference between gravity and the opposite centripetal
force - when in balance, the ball is centered.

The question is, which is a better measure of coordination? Or, IOW,
which is more important? Because of the difference in drag at the
wingtips during the turn, the nose may yaw away from the center of the
turn. The yaw string would show that, while at the same time, the
inclinometer would be centered. I understand that some believe that
that's the way it should be. Others believe that you need to hold rudder
into the turn to minimize the drag.

I should experiment in my LS6. Lord knows that I'm tired of looking up
at the gaggle :-).

Tony V.

[sisu1a]

Post by Tony Verhulst
But the 2 instruments measure different things. The yawstring (in
theory) measures airflow angle at the fuselage. The inclinometer
measures the difference between gravity and the opposite centripetal
force - when in balance, the ball is centered.

True they measure different forces, but they derive appx the same info
for the pilot- status of turn coordination.

Post by Tony Verhulst
The question is, which is a better measure of coordination?

BOTH! A good ball is more accurate, but it's responses are more
damped. The string gives you a good enough approximation for gaggling
and such, but no reason not to have a ball as well (works better in
icing too...) since they are available as 'space miser' instruments as
well (screwed in under an existing instrument by sharing two bottom
holes) and don't hog panel.

Post by Tony Verhulst
Because of the difference in drag at the
wingtips during the turn, the nose may yaw away from the center of the
turn. The yaw string would show that, while at the same time, the
inclinometer would be centered.

Again, the damped response of the ball vs the string. This effect is
amplified by using a low quality ball and a high quality string ;-)
It is recommended by some (Helmut Reichman was amongst this crowd)
that believe that a normal ball in fluid is too slow for soaring, and
instead used an inverted curved glass tube with a bubble of air. He
also used a string of course...

Post by Tony Verhulst
I should experiment in my LS6. Lord knows that I'm tired of looking up
at the gaggle :-).

We really do appreciate the warning though ;-)

-Paul

[kirk.stant]

Post by Tony Verhulst
I should experiment in my LS6. Lord knows that I'm tired of looking up
at the gaggle :-).
Tony V.

Tony, I've found that my LS6 prefers to thermal with several degrees
of apparent slip as indicated by the yaw string - if I try to center
the yaw string with the rudder, I have to use much more aileron to
control the bankangle and prevent overbanking.

Once established and trimmed, hands off, she will thermal on her own
just fine, maintaining that slight slip.

Pretty much agrees with what Dick Johnson wrote.

Kirk
66

[t***@earthlink.net]

By now, most people are bored with this thread, so I expect few will
get to this post. I generally avoid posting to RAS because of the
hostile responses / postings.

In this case, the demonstrable thesis that most glider pilots do not
have the knowledge to fly safely is generally supported by the
postings to date.

There is only one bottom line to aviation knowledge, and that is the
demonstrated safety record. In our case, there are no reliable
statistics save one: the fatality rate. Glider fatalities are reported
most of the time (not all.) Simply dividing the number of fatalities
into the membership gives a fatality rate that can be compared with
other activities. The NTSB has web sites listing comparisons of
fatality rates for many activities. Gliding is the worst of all. There
will be several postings to quibble with this last statement, but it
is true if you care to look it up.

It is also true that we have been teaching people to fly for 44 years,
and no one we taught as died. Last year we had an experienced power
pilot who we transitioned to gliders who had a seizure and we did do
his transition training.

So we are doing something right. That something, is to teach
everything stated in the FARs, to the standard implied by the PTS.
Nothing more, nothing less.

When it comes to specifics, the legal system punishes those who do not
comply with the standard, so we ensure everything we teach is correct.
We have been successful and we have a lot to lose if we do it wrong.

In the early days, we enlisted famous people like Wolfgang
Langeweische and Derek Piggott to help us. Both came to our gliderport
several times. We will long remember the discussions. Many other very
experienced instructors also helped, and of course we used every
reference to establish standards still used today.

You can see the differences of opinions in the details of this thread.
If you ask specific questions on even the simplest subjects, you will
get many firmly held opinions.

So, anyway, I don’t have the time to get involved with the discussions
in this newsgroup. Most everything I know, I have written in books and
articles, and made presentations at SSA conventions, seminars and FAA
Glider CFI Revalidation Clinics, which I started many years ago.

For those of you who made it this far, I figure you deserve answers to
the three questions.

During a steep left turn, how are the controls held?

Right aileron to counteract the overbanking tendency.
Left Rudder in the direction of the turn. (A paragraph or two is
required to explain this, but the right wing in this case is creating
more drag and the tail needs to be slightly outside the arc of the
turn as the CG is exactly on the arc.)
Back stick pressure. The glider weighs more in a turn, and the center
of mass is ahead of the center of lift.

During a left turn on aerotow, the glider pilot should see the left
side of the towplane’s fuselage. The suggested analogy of sitting in
an aft car of a railroad train during a turn is a good mental image.

Finally, what color field is most desirable on an off field landing?

The answer as so often happens is – “It depends.”

But, if you had to pick one answer, it would be the color of the
earth. There is an adage stated as, “You won’t get hurt if you land it
dirt.”

However, this does not mean a freshly plowed field, which has deep
furrows, rocks and giant clods of hard earth.

You want a freshly cultivated field that has been plowed, harrowed and
the rocks have been removed for generations.

In some parts of the planet, this is not possible. It never happens,
so you must go to plan B.

Freshly harvested fields usually have one major problem. Time has gone
by and animals have dug landing gear burrows in the ground just
waiting for the next glider landing gear. Erosion can also be a
problem.

Some crops are planted in nice earth color, but on top of prepared
mounds. You must be familiar with the farming practices of your local
area to choose wisely.

In the NE USA, farmers have an adage, “Knee high by the 4th of July.”
This means corn should be this high by the 4th if the crop is to be a
good one. For glider pilots, it means you generally can no longer land
in a fresh corn field. The good news, is the alfalfa crop is being
harvested about this same time, by then animal holes are a high risk.

Well, there is a lot more to this subject and Doris is taking me to
see fireworks. I suppose I omitted something important in the above,
and I am equally sure there will be some who will blast away as that
seems to be the tenure of the medium. I probably won’t respond.

Frankly, everything you need to know to fly safely has been written. A
small library would include excellent books by Derek Piggott, Wolfgang
Langeweische, Anne & Lorne Welch and others. For those of you who
abhor self-promotion in this forum, I’ll avoid telling you my books
have everything required by the FAA flight training requirements, have
been described as “the best training manuals of any kind,” and are
easy to read and understand. I also won’t mention you can find them on
our web site: www.eglider.org

At the bottom of our web site you will find links to several flight
safety newsletters I have written over recent years. They are free!

Happy fourth of July!!!

Tom Knauff
http://www.eglider.org
***@earthlink.net

[Jim Logajan]

[posted and mailed]

Post by t***@earthlink.net
Simply dividing the number of fatalities
into the membership gives a fatality rate that can be compared with
other activities. The NTSB has web sites listing comparisons of
fatality rates for many activities. Gliding is the worst of all.

I've done an analogous computation and your assertion above appears to
be surprisingly incorrect (or the source of my data or methodology is
highly corrupted - you decide.) By my calculations the metric you
mention actually shows aviation accidents of all types to be
approximately _over three times greater then gliding_. The single worst
accident rate in aviation appears to be helicopters, which is seven
times worse than gliding!

My own conclusion is that gliding, by your suggested metric, is actually
safer than aviation in general!

I'm afraid I can't reconcile my results with your assertion, since you
haven't provided specifics on your methodology or data. But for the
record (and critique) here's the methodology I used (numeric results are
at bullet point (7) for the impatient):

(1) I used the NTSB accident query database as my data source for
accident counts: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

(2) I used the FAA Civil Airman Statistics web page to get an estimate
of the number of all active airmen certificates, those holding rotocraft
class, and those holding glider class (Tables 1, 7, and 8 at this site):

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/2007/

(3) In the NTSB web site I selected a large enough range that a single
bad or good year wouldn't cause unexpected outliers to dominate, but not
so large as to encompass long term trends. So I selected the 8 year
range of 2000-1-1 to 2007-12-31.

(4) I elected to count only the number of fatal accident records, rather
than attempt to add up the fatalities in all the matching records. There
were simply too many accidents in the entire period to manually do the
arithmetic for this exercise (maybe some other time.) In any case, since
glider accidents rarely involve more than 1 fatality per accident, this
method actually should work against the gliders since other aviation
accidents, on average, involve more fatalities per accident.

(5) As of 2007, the FAA estimates 590,349 active airmen certificates of
all classes. It estimates 30,853 pilots with rotocraft and 29,513 with
glider. Of those 29,513 with glider, 14,955 hold nothing but glider.

(6) In the 8 year range, selecting only for "Fatal" accident severity,
then subselecting for "Category: All" I get 3407 accident records. For
"Category: Helicopter" I get 356 accident records. For "Category:
Glider" I get 46 accident records.

(7) Using the above sources and method, my results are:

(A) For all aviation accidents:
(3407 fatal accidents/8 years)/590,349 pilots =

0.00072 fatal accidents/(pilot-year)

(R) For rotorcraft accidents:
(356 fatal accidents/8 years)/30,853 =

0.00144 fatal accidents/(pilot-year)

(G) For glider accidents:
(46 fatal accidents/8 years)/29,513 =

0.00020 fatal accidents/(pilot-year)

(G.1) If all the glider accidents were due only to those who could only
fly gliders:
(46 fatal accidents/8 years)/14,955 =

0.00038 fatal accidents/(pilot-year)

While my computations seem to imply gliders are actually safer than
other methods of flying, the metric is of course highly suspect.

Lastly, for the record, an Australian cross modal safety comparison
found that motorcycling was probably the least safe mode of transport:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/Cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf

(Unfortunately gliders weren't broken out into their own category.)

[Andy]

On Jul 4, 4:56 pm, Jim Logajan <***@Lugoj.com> wrote:

I think that for a meaningful risk analysis the number of fatalities
should be compared to either the hours of risk exposure, or the number
of risk exposure events. This means either the number of flights, or
the number of flight hours, should be used rather than the number of
people qualified to participate.

FAA atempts to gather data on power pilots flight hours at every
medical exam. That data is not collected for pilots with only a
glider rating.


Andy

[Wayne Paul]

As Andy noted, the FAA does not systematically collect glider pilot related
flight data. This is also true for Ultra-light, balloon, and the rapidly
growing Sport Pilot communities.

Without knowing the number of flights and flight hours, it is very difficult
to develop meaningful statistical based risk analysis.

There is even a problem using the FAA database to identify the number of
pilots with a specific rating. It appears from doing a couple "spot check"
that pilots who have died are not being removed. So, currently the only way
to identify active pilots is to identify those with active medicals. The
only solution that I can think of is for the FAA to start recording biannual
flight review dates. A pilot's flight history could be part of the biannual
report.

Wayne
HP-14 "Six Foxtrot"
http://www.soaridaho.com/



"Andy" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:ac54e481-3cbc-4b9e-bbb0-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 4, 4:56 pm, Jim Logajan <***@Lugoj.com> wrote:

I think that for a meaningful risk analysis the number of fatalities
should be compared to either the hours of risk exposure, or the number
of risk exposure events. This means either the number of flights, or
the number of flight hours, should be used rather than the number of
people qualified to participate.

FAA atempts to gather data on power pilots flight hours at every
medical exam. That data is not collected for pilots with only a
glider rating.


Andy

[Frank Whiteley]

I did the annual report on glider pilot trends for the SSA world
report for 2007. The FAA stats on US glider pilot ratings are just
estimates, which aren't adjusted until about April of the following
year. At that point there was about decline of about 2,000 from the
one January number, and about 400 lower than my guessimate. We are
losing many senior glider rated, and mostly inactive, pilots each
year. The more appalling statistic was the lowish number of new
glider only ratings and the very low number of add-on ratings.

That said, requiring CFI's to input flight review dates would help us
really understand our activity and only add one or two fields to the
database. Since many take their FR's in other aircraft types, it
would mean capturing those dates for all pilots. It might meet with
some resistance and only slightly clarify our perspective, since many
may not exercise their glider rating.

As we no longer require the use of the SSN with the pilot's license, I
don't see any simple method for the FAA to cull their records by using
the other SSA's death records.

You can find all sorts of statistics to justify about any perspective.

Frank Whiteley

Post by Wayne Paul
As Andy noted, the FAA does not systematically collect glider pilot related
flight data.  This is also true for Ultra-light, balloon, and the rapidly
growing Sport Pilot communities.
Without knowing the number of flights and flight hours, it is very difficult
to develop meaningful statistical based risk analysis.
There is even a problem using the FAA database to identify the number of
pilots with a specific rating.  It appears from doing a couple "spot check"
that pilots who have died are not being removed.  So, currently the only way
to identify active pilots is to identify those with active medicals. The
only solution that I can think of is for the FAA to start recording biannual
flight review dates. A pilot's flight history could be part of the biannual
report.
Wayne
HP-14 "Six Foxtrot"http://www.soaridaho.com/
I think that for a meaningful risk analysis the number of fatalities
should be compared to either the hours of risk exposure, or the number
of risk exposure events.  This means either the number of flights, or
the number of flight hours, should be used rather than the number of
people qualified to participate.
FAA atempts to gather data on power pilots flight hours at every
medical exam.  That data is not collected for pilots with only a
glider rating.
Andy

[Brian]

A few years ago I spent the good portion of an afternoon reviewing
NTSB accidents for GA (single engine) aircraft. As has already been
mentioned the find the number of flight hours is the most difficult
and suspect but using the best number I thought I could find here is
what if found.

Actually what initated this project was the phrase "The most dangerous
part of flying is driving to the airport" I wanted to see how true
this phrase was.

He is the summary as I recall it. Unfortunatly I didn't look into
glider accident and I suspect this would be very difficult to
determine the amount of hours flown.

I tried to compare how dangerous spending 1 hour in and Airplane was
compared to spending one hour in a Car or on a Motorcycle.

I determined that overall flying single engine aircraft was more
dangerous than driver hour for hour.

Overall Flying single engine was about equally dangerous to riding a
motorcycle. The point I make to my students is that on a motor cycle
the majority of accidents are not caused by the motorcyclist. Flying
accidents are usually caused by the pilot. So for flying you have a
lot more control over how dangerous it is.

If you eliminated cropdusters (and other intentional low flying) and
flight into IMC conditions then the flying is about equally dangerous
to driving

I dont recall if I did this based on Fatal accident (I think I did) or
on Fatailities or on just reported Accidents.

The issue is there are quite a few ways to measure at how dangerous it
is, and different measurement methods produce significantly different
results.

Wish I had good numbers for Soaring for an hour to hour comparison.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL.

[Bill Daniels]

"Andy" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:ac54e481-3cbc-4b9e-bbb0-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 4, 4:56 pm, Jim Logajan <***@Lugoj.com> wrote:

I think that for a meaningful risk analysis the number of fatalities
should be compared to either the hours of risk exposure, or the number
of risk exposure events. This means either the number of flights, or
the number of flight hours, should be used rather than the number of
people qualified to participate.

FAA atempts to gather data on power pilots flight hours at every
medical exam. That data is not collected for pilots with only a
glider rating.


Andy


Actually, I don't think there is any possibility of a meaningful risk
analysis since the overwhelming determinant is pilot skill. You can't
simply lump all pilots in the same statistical pool and try to extract a
"risk analysis" of soaring while ignoring the "800 pound gorilla in the
room" which is pilot knowledge and skill.

The only meaningful analysis is the one an individual pilot makes when
asking if todays flight consitiutes an acceptable risk.

Bill Daniels
"Soaring is very safe if you don't crash."

[Nyal Williams]

This is certainly what makes hand launched gliders work. For a right
handed person they are built for a left turn and thrown into the air in a
climbing right turn, which, if done correctly will round out at the top
and begin a left turn just as the extra energy is dissipated.

To build one it is necessary to put in a little left rudder and a little
right aileron to stabilize the turn. Done properly, they will fly away in
a thermal and probably not be found again.


At 22:10 04 July 2008, ***@earthlink.net wrote:

<snip>

Post by t***@earthlink.net
During a steep left turn, how are the controls held?
Right aileron to counteract the overbanking tendency.
Left Rudder in the direction of the turn. (A paragraph or two is
required to explain this, but the right wing in this case is creating
more drag and the tail needs to be slightly outside the arc of the
turn as the CG is exactly on the arc.)
Back stick pressure. The glider weighs more in a turn, and the center
of mass is ahead of the center of lift.

<snip>

Post by t***@earthlink.net
Happy fourth of July!!!
Tom Knauff
http://www.eglider.org

[Nyal Williams]

OK, I don't do trig. How much difference would it make if the speed were
45kts at a 45 deg bank?

Post by Tony Verhulst

Post by Nyal Williams
I notice from the back seat in a left turn that the yaw string for the
front cockpit is slightly more to the right than the one in the back; I
believe this to be because the front one is farther from the center of
lift -- or the tangent of the turning radius.

I suspect not. Assuming the following: 1. on a 2 seater, the front yaw
string is about 6 ft (2m) ahead of the center of lift. 2. According to
the American Soaring handbook, a 45 degree banked turn at 60 mph (52
kts) has a radius of 240 feet (73m).
High school level geometry and trigonometry (I've been out of high
school for a looong time :-) ) shows that this results in an error of
only 1.4 degrees - small enough to be ignored for all practical

purposes.

Post by Tony Verhulst
I suspect that a yaw string, typically taped to the canopy, may have
errors because the string is in the boundary layer.
Tony V.

[Nyal Williams]

OK, I don't do trig. How much difference would it make if the speed were
45kts at a 45 deg bank?

Post by Tony Verhulst

Post by Nyal Williams
I notice from the back seat in a left turn that the yaw string for the
front cockpit is slightly more to the right than the one in the back; I
believe this to be because the front one is farther from the center of
lift -- or the tangent of the turning radius.

I suspect not. Assuming the following: 1. on a 2 seater, the front yaw
string is about 6 ft (2m) ahead of the center of lift. 2. According to
the American Soaring handbook, a 45 degree banked turn at 60 mph (52
kts) has a radius of 240 feet (73m).
High school level geometry and trigonometry (I've been out of high
school for a looong time :-) ) shows that this results in an error of
only 1.4 degrees - small enough to be ignored for all practical

purposes.

Post by Tony Verhulst
I suspect that a yaw string, typically taped to the canopy, may have
errors because the string is in the boundary layer.
Tony V.

[u***@ix.netcom.com]

Post by p***@gmail.com
Has anyone read this? What is your opinion? Tom Knauff certainly
doesn't provide any facts to support his conclusions. The following
statement in particular should anger each glider pilot, CFIG and
examiner: "The point of this is the demonstrable fact that most glider
pilots do not have the fundamental knowledge to fly safely. (Perhaps
with the exception of very controlled circumstances.)"
When I questioned him on this he simply offered the following:“Oh, by
the way, the test results demonstrate the point.”
Really? What tests? Where’s the empirical data?  Has he just perused
NTSB reports or is it firsthand knowledge? Does he speak of transition
pilots or “from scratch” students. Why does he only mention glider
pilots and not general aviation? What has he done to change the FAA
PTS?
I personally know two CFIG’s who have crashed with passengers on
board. One passenger died and the other passenger will never be the
same. One CFIG continues to fly and the other has withdrawn from the
glider community and, quite possibly, aviation altogether. Are they to
be included in Tom’s categorical statements? I think not.
It is not just glider pilots. It isn’t just the low time pilot.
Everyone makes mistakes. For Tom to make such broad statements just to
sell some books is reckless and doesn’t provide any real help to our
small community.
Is there a gap in training and real flying? You bet. So why isn’t he
tapping on the shoulder of every CFIG, DPE, and the FAA?
His offhand comments smack in the same style as John Scherer’s
commercials for the Video Professor; “Buy my product.”
Warren
Several of you have asked for answers to the questions, and want more
questions.
At the end of most chapters of the first training manual, "Glider
Basics From First Flight To Solo," there are important end of chapter
questions.
Also, "The Bronze Badge Book" has nearly 300 important questions and
answers.
You can order these and other books from our web site listed below.
The point of this is the demonstrable fact that most glider pilots do
not have the fundamental knowledge to fly safely. (Perhaps with the
exception of very controlled circumstances.)
I recently had a person contact me about flight training. He explained
that he did not need any ground school because he was going to take
the FAA written test before arriving at our school. I expect him to go
elsewhere for his training.
Everyone gets a score on the FAA test in the high 90s because the
questions and answers are available to them. Unfortunately, the FAA
written test does not ask questions like, "Why does an aircraft have a
rudder?"  Or, "What color field is generally best for an off field
landing?"  Or, "At what altitude can you see cow's legs?"
Thomas Knauff
Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
Ridge Soaring Gliderport
3523 S Eagle Valley Rd
Julian, Pa 16844
Phone [phone]

While one might decate the degree, my opinion after 35 years of
training is that Tom is much more right than wrong.
Flight reviews and recurrent training are a great way to help improve
this situation.
Yes- he sells some books and promotes them.
Too bad more people don't buy and read them- or others like them.
UH

[DP]

Post by p***@gmail.com
Has anyone read this? What is your opinion? Tom Knauff certainly
doesn't provide any facts to support his conclusions. The following
statement in particular should anger each glider pilot, CFIG and
examiner: "The point of this is the demonstrable fact that most glider
pilots do not have the fundamental knowledge to fly safely. (Perhaps
with the exception of very controlled circumstances.)"
When I questioned him on this he simply offered the following:“Oh, by
the way, the test results demonstrate the point.”
Really? What tests? Where’s the empirical data?  Has he just perused
NTSB reports or is it firsthand knowledge? Does he speak of transition
pilots or “from scratch” students. Why does he only mention glider
pilots and not general aviation? What has he done to change the FAA
PTS?
I personally know two CFIG’s who have crashed with passengers on
board. One passenger died and the other passenger will never be the
same. One CFIG continues to fly and the other has withdrawn from the
glider community and, quite possibly, aviation altogether. Are they to
be included in Tom’s categorical statements? I think not.
It is not just glider pilots. It isn’t just the low time pilot.
Everyone makes mistakes. For Tom to make such broad statements just to
sell some books is reckless and doesn’t provide any real help to our
small community.
Is there a gap in training and real flying? You bet. So why isn’t he
tapping on the shoulder of every CFIG, DPE, and the FAA?
His offhand comments smack in the same style as John Scherer’s
commercials for the Video Professor; “Buy my product.”
Warren
Several of you have asked for answers to the questions, and want more
questions.
At the end of most chapters of the first training manual, "Glider
Basics From First Flight To Solo," there are important end of chapter
questions.
Also, "The Bronze Badge Book" has nearly 300 important questions and
answers.
You can order these and other books from our web site listed below.
The point of this is the demonstrable fact that most glider pilots do
not have the fundamental knowledge to fly safely. (Perhaps with the
exception of very controlled circumstances.)
I recently had a person contact me about flight training. He explained
that he did not need any ground school because he was going to take
the FAA written test before arriving at our school. I expect him to go
elsewhere for his training.
Everyone gets a score on the FAA test in the high 90s because the
questions and answers are available to them. Unfortunately, the FAA
written test does not ask questions like, "Why does an aircraft have a
rudder?"  Or, "What color field is generally best for an off field
landing?"  Or, "At what altitude can you see cow's legs?"
Thomas Knauff
Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
Ridge Soaring Gliderport
3523 S Eagle Valley Rd
Julian, Pa 16844
Phone [phone]

I think Tom should be commended for speaking out about this subject.
It's certainly not the first time he's raised these points. After
reading similar comments from him years ago I traveled to Ridge
Soaring to be trained by him and learned first hand some of the
deficiencies embedded in my knowlege, technique, judgment, and prior
training. I have continued to try and meet the high bar he set for me
during those lessons. I've also had the opportunity to fly at many
locations, both clubs and commercial, and have observed activities
that seem to be totally in line with what Tom says. It seems to be
quite a stretch to think that his comments are merely a marketing plan
for his books! As for the scientific basis of his comments or of any
studies related to glider safety, you don't need to be in the sport
very long to know that they are certainly directionaly correct....and
that we should all strive to be better, safer pilots.