Hi I've just been reading Cath Conway's excellent diary from the Women's Worlds and was struck in particular by
"The biggest eye opener was how small the paddocks are. They are not fenced and there are no swer lines which helps but there can be high trees on approach. What is considered to be a good landing field can be as short as 300m or even less if the approaches are good. This started us thinking about the differences in flying an approach between Australia and Germany. Our 1.5Vs plus wind (we haven't seen any wind yet and have been told that 30 kph (15 knts) is a strong wind. We looked at the gliders' manual's and noted that the LS4 recommended minimum approach speed is 90 kph which is less than 50 knts. There are some paddocks that a higher approach speed will mean you will not get in." As I was trained (and did my first XC) in the UK, this is not news to me. It does however raise an issue very close to my heart - the way we train people for XC. Back in the UK, I was trained for XC to fly the last part of the approach and landing full airbrake and full flap _every_ landing, passing over any approach obstacles with the minimum safe clearance - and this is the way I fly Alice. Effectively, every landing is a short field landing, which ensures that when you need to do it, you are in current practice and really know how best to get your aircraft down safely in a restricted space. Here in Australia, the post solo/pre XC training syllabus does not however explicitly include short field landing, nor do we encourage XC pilots to practice short field landings. Various people I have spoken with about this subject have suggested that this is largely irrelevant as Australian paddocks are so large. But that is not the case everywhere. What do others feel about this issue? -- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)438 385 533 Brisbane, Australia http://www.hart.wattle.id.au _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
