Catherine, This is the second time (in 12 months) that I have had to suffer your little ego trip about your forced landing training experience.
It is in my opinion quite naughty for you to suggest that cross country gliding experience makes you somehow bullet proof when it comes to forced landing a powered aircraft. Like you I have considerable experience in cross country gliding and real and simulated outlandings. In fact over 5000 hours gliding time, and probably more than 300 actual paddock landings, plus many others flying the tug on retrieves. The last time that I was required to do a forced landing, at my biannual flight review, I stuffed it up, albeit in an unfamiliar aircraft. I consider that powered aircraft forced landings and glider outlandings have about as much in common as chalk and cheese. Certainly some of our gliding experience translates to making us better power pilots, but epistles such as yours are in my experience quite irresponsible. 1954 in Queensland ? Well perhaps we prefer it that way. We are the fastest growing state. Our club does 400hours annually with each of its five club aircraft, cross hires several more to share the load and supports about twenty private owners who do thousands of hours annually. Doesn't really leave much time for chat, a la SA style association meetings. Given the choice, I prefer flying to chat every time. Most other Queenslanders do too! Have a good summer. Kind regards Bob Ward ----- Original Message ----- From: Catherine Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 10:41 PM Subject: [aus-soaring] Restructuring GFA (was Gliding Joke) - warning LONG > Hi all > > I can't resist telling a little story prompted by the lines below. > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > >Finally I do not think a PPL pilot is as well qualified and tested as > a > > >glider pilot.Example:How many PPL pilots have ever done a full > spin,or a > > >real outlaanding in a strange field.Don't bring our standards down to > the > > >PPL level bring PPL up this will require ppl owners to remove head > from > > you > > >know where! > > > > When you've done your GFPT and also unrestricted PPL test I'll listen > to > > you on this topic. > > ----- > > Years ago, when I went to get my PPL, I flew a little taildragger > skyfox. One day I dropped in to the flying school to book my lesson (I > worked near the airfield in those days) and there was a new instructor. > He said the one I'd been flying with had been "promoted" to charter > flying, and that he'd fly with me for my next lesson which would be > Forced Landings. > > I commented that was fine and since he was new and young, asked him > conversationally how long he'd been instructing. > > Now this was a Friday and my lesson was booked for the Tuesday. > > He looked sheepish and said "Ummm got my instructor rating this > morning". > > The next Tuesday, he must have thought I was worried about it because > while we DI'd the plane, he went into great detail about how many hours > he had done to get his instructors rating - 350 so I shouldn't worry. > This was significantly less than my gliding hours, and I'd been > instructing for quite a while, including conducting outlanding training > in a Falke. He then joked about my being a glider pilot and every > landing being a forced one - ha ha. > > I got the lecture on high and low key points but since he didn't ask > about my gliding/outlanding experience, I didn't say anything except > join the above joke. After all, I didn't want to appear to be a > smartarse and I wanted to learn how GA taught forced landings. > > I must admit I was a bit surprised that everything was taught with > reference to height above the ground and flying the numbers. There was > no mention of angles, flexibility of the circuit etc. > > So we went flying. > > He picked the paddock himself and demonstrated a forced landing. When > we were still quite high and nowhere near the end fence, the power came > on. I thought we had a slight undershoot. > > I commented on his early application of power (quite politely) and he > got a little huffy and suggested I do the next one. > > So I did. > > No one told me I wasn't allowed lower than 200' so I ran the wheels > through the grass before applying power. > > I think he expected me to stuff it up so he was still a little huffy. > He suggested that the exercise was not very realistic because most > engine failures occur on take-off below 500'. > > I offered to conduct that exercise and reached for the throttle. > > He grabbed his seat and started worrying that if we did, we might stall > if we didn't get the nose down. > > I pulled the power and did a nice winch cable break recovery at 400' (he > continued to hold onto the sides of his seat with both hands). > > He's a braver soul than me. He had no idea of my background apart from > some gliding - but no idea how much. I think I might have taken control > from a student like me that was doing weird stuff, rather than holding > my seat. > > I guess at this point we had a little role reversal as I explained that > there was insufficient length in this paddock to land but with a slight > turn and sideslip we could go diagonally into another paddock, and that > the diagonal track gave us more landing room and options for crosswinds. > > We pulled out of the sideslip and ran the wheels through the grass > again. He was still holding his seat until well into the power-on and > climb-out. > > He didn't want to do any more forced landings. > > But he made me fly back under the hood so he got his own back :-) > (We also had a constructive chat about it afterwards. You should have > seen his face at the thought of how many times I'd really landed in a > paddock.) > > A few lessons later, the tower asked us to turn early and do a close in > circuit to get on the ground as quickly as we could. He commented that > we were a little high for this change in plan. I said I thought I could > fix that and he said "Oh no, I know what you're going to do" as he > grabbed his seat again. Poor boy really didn't like sideslips! > > ---------- > > So my comment from all of this? > > I'm not impressed with the GA level of instructors. If this 18yr old > kid is an example of forced landing training, no wonder we see splatted > GA planes in the middle of perfectly landable paddocks on the TV news. > > I was also really surprised that I could take my shiny new PPL and fly a > little, needing only 3 take-off and landings in the last 90 days to > carry passengers, and that I'd be check-flown only every 2 years. I'm > surprised the accident rate isn't higher. Then again, maybe they are. > I know there are a lot of accidents in GA (harder to find out about them > in the absence of the old BASI crash-comic). But there are also a lot > more light aircraft movements. > > So percentage-wise? I don't know. I do think I'd have more chance of > surviving a prang in a glider. > > > > Now my comments on the GFA > > Tricky > > There are merits in both types of operation I feel. > > There is a place for club's, but I understand that there are lots of > different types of clubs and they don't service all demographics in > gliding. > > Particularly the experienced private owner that has spent many years > contributing to a club and now just wants to be left alone to fly. > > I don't think we have the population base for too much commercial > activity as they do in the USA. > > I do feel we have a lot of inertia in GFA that causes problems. > > I recognise that much of GFA is run by volunteers and most of these do > their best to do the right thing. > > Here in SA we have a really good state association. The meetings are > well attended and some very good suggestions come out of our meetings. > > This is not the same in other states. QLD and NSW in particular. Maybe > SA is simply behind? (Nah - SA couldn't possibly be behind QLD - it's > 1954 there isn't is?) > > But I'm really not sure that some of the decisions out of GFA have been > for the best. The magazine is an example. I don't know if that was > politically driven, financial driven or done for warm fuzzies. > Certainly the finances don't seem to add up as well as they used to. > > But having flown a little bit in the US (and the UK), and having dealt > with CASA with the plane, I'm not sure I want to go that way either. I > feel I have more chance of convincing an officer of GFA to see sense > than a bureaucrat. > > > What we need is an organisation or organisations that can do the > following > > 1. Provide an operational and airworthiness framework for all types of > glider pilots to enable us to fly as much as possible with as little > cr*p as possible to deal with. > > 2. Represent us to and fend off the external forces that try to > threaten #1 above. > > I'm sure any officer of GFA will tell you that the GFA is already doing > that which leads to the question > > "Why then so much disgruntlement?" > > We need to go back to square #1 and refine the objectives of our GFA to > suit the modern world. > > We then need agreement on those objectives. Much harder. Just look at > the efforts to reach agreement on restructure currently within the GFA. > > There must be points awarded to those doing that work for recognising > that something had to happen but I feel they need to take it further - > right back to basics. > > This exercise can only succeed if the people conducting it are centred > on the good of the organisation and have no personal goals/ambitions. > > I already said tricky. > > So is the GFA at fault or are we at fault for not getting in there to > effect the change? > > I know I grumble and then say I'm too busy to get involved. I also know > that grumbling on this news group is useful because it makes me feel > better (or worse - depending on how scorched I get when the flaming > starts), because I can bounce ideas off other glider pilots. > > But we are not all here unfortunately. > > But what I'd like to see is us try to develop our own framework on how > we think the new GFA should look. > > You never know - it might help the current efforts and we might actually > cause something wonderful to happen. Then instead of us sniping at each > other about what it should be, we can have some input into how it will > be. > > OK > > Who's going to start? (I'm too busy ;-) > > <ziiippp> flame suit on > > -Cath > > > > > > > > > > -- > * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. > * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message > * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information. > > -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
