First glider solo!

[beaky]

And first solo flight in anything in almost two years! It felt great to pull the release and finally be truly on my own again today.

[Hagar]

Good one. It doesn't seem like two years since your last solo flight.

I'm surprised you landed downwind after that open canopy drill. Turning back was strictly verboten in my day. Of course, the gliders I trained on had open cockpits but we did cable break drills which sound very similar.

[Brett_Henderson]

I'm trying to visualize it all.. you always do a good job relating it, in type.

I just can't get my head past the urgency of un-powered flight. For someone with no glider time; the only thing close, are instructor-induced emergencies

[beaky]

Good one. It doesn't seem like two years since your last solo flight.

I'm surprised you landed downwind after that open canopy drill. Turning back was strictly verboten in my day. Of course, the gliders I trained on had open cockpits but we did cable break drills which sound very similar.

No, you have it mixed up... two different drills.

The open canopy was done at over 2500 AGL... but the real-life hazard is that it may not be latched right, in which case it will open just as you leave runway on tow, if not sooner. The idea is to stay on the stick and just close it when able... a the drill is to familiarize you with doing that. I flew around with it open for a while, even banking a little, then closed it.

The turnaround thing is done only if you have at least 200 ft AGL when the rope breaks or whatever... any lower, and you have to find a decent spot to land ahead with a minimum of banking. This is why it's good practice to call out "200!" as you pass that altitude on tow. Reminds you that you should be thinking about this eventuality before launch and during the tow.

It' rare, but it happens... rope breaks, hook on glide or towplane comes loose, accidental release, emergency release (if the towplane has a problem, the pilot will get rid of you, sometimes without warning). Demonstrating the ability to deal with suddenly being off tow during climbout is a requirement for the PP-glider.

Yesterday I did it from 400 ft. after a simulated rope break (done because I'd forgotten to call  "200"), but I've done it with no trouble from 200.  The key is to get the nose down immediately, then make the turn into the wind. Get those things right, and the rest is gravy, even on our short-ish grass runway.

[beaky]

[quote]I'm trying to visualize it all.. you always do a good job relating it, in type.

I just can't get my head past the urgency of un-powered flight. For someone with no glider time; the only thing close, are instructor-induced emergencies

[Brett_Henderson]

this breeds good habits, and a more intimate feel  for getting the most out of the aircraft.

That's the key  :)

[Mobius]

Sounds like fun, although it still makes me shiver a bit when I think about being up there with no motor.

[beaky]

Sounds like fun, although it still makes me shiver a bit when I think about being up there with no motor.

Try it, and you'll see you're just shivering with  excitement.  

[Hagar]

[quote]The turnaround thing is done only if you have at least 200 ft AGL when the rope breaks or whatever... any lower, and you have to find a decent spot to land ahead with a minimum of banking. This is why it's good practice to call out "200!" as you pass that altitude on tow. Reminds you that you should be thinking about this eventuality before launch and during the tow.

It' rare, but it happens... rope breaks, hook on glide or towplane comes loose, accidental release, emergency release (if the towplane has a problem, the pilot will get rid of you, sometimes without warning). Demonstrating the ability to deal with suddenly being off tow during climbout is a requirement for the PP-glider.

Yesterday I did it from 400 ft. after a simulated rope break (done because I'd forgotten to call

[beaky]

In no circumstances were we allowed to turn back & land downwind.

Interesting. I suppose with winds beyond a certain point, it would be very foolish, but that is the accepted standard here, as far as I know. But we rarely fly if it's blowing above 10 knots, because it's rarely straight down the runway. Never had any difficulty controlling the approach with a light wind behind me- in fact, it helps alleviate the usual change associated with the "wind gradient".

[Hagar]

In no circumstances were we allowed to turn back & land downwind.

Interesting. I suppose with winds beyond a certain point, it would be very foolish, but that is the accepted standard here, as far as I know. But we rarely fly if it's blowing above 10 knots, because it's rarely straight down the runway. Never had any difficulty controlling the approach with a light wind behind me- in fact, it helps alleviate the usual change associated with the "wind gradient".

[Brett_Henderson]

This is one of the reasons I strongly believe that gliding is so important as part of flying training. Basic airmanship can be taught far more cheaply & without the added complication of an engine. Another benefit is removing the fear of engine failure which is apparent from many comments I see on this forum, some from pilots with many hours experience.

Even as a pilot who has never even sat in a glider; I can see where my training would have been, "better" had I spent my first, several, airborne hours with no engine. All those subtle, little things that you never un-learn, would be more fundamentally sound.

The primary argument against it, are logistics. There simply aren't enough gliders, and glider-friendly airports, and tow-planes, and instructors; for every PPL aspirant to fliter through. Of course, that's a "chicken-n-egg" scenario. If it WERE required, there would be many, flourishing soaring schools. So... if the idea ever gained momentum, I'd be fully behind it. Alas, it's just not realistic.

As for a fear of engine failure, "even" from pilots with several hours ? Yeah.. one less thing to be ever-aware of, could help a new pilot concentrate on flying... BUT, with a counter-productive flip-side; that he'd not had that contingency long-since drilled into his sub-conscious (i.e. stuff never un-learned). I've found that the more I fly, the more I, "fear" engine failure. It's not a debilitaing thing.. it's just that more flying, means more time spent running that scenario through your head...every takeoff.. everty tank-change, every pattern entry. Not to mention that by the time you reach 1000hours, you'll have experienced some sort of engine issue.. or met a pilot who has had engine failure and survived it.. or have known a pilot who did not.

[beaky]

It's probably different for you as I realise you operate from a hard runway alongside powered aircraft. Bear in mind that we were trained by RAF instructors on a grass airfield used exclusively for basic glider training. The basic & advanced ATC gliding courses were intended as a basis for later training to PPL standard on powered aircraft in the Flying Scholarship scheme. It was a natural progression from gliding to powered flight. The principle of never attempting to turn back to the airfield in an emergency was instilled into us right from the start & remains imprinted on my little brain even now, more than 50 years later. (Turning back is still the cause of countless serious accidents with powered aircraft following engine failure on take-off. A significant number of these occur during simulated engine failures.)

We take off from the hard runway and land on the grass alongside... certainly wouldn't want to turn back towards the asphalt with traffic taking off!

[Brett_Henderson]

But on the other hand, there is a height, in any airplane, where you might turn around safely, and given enough runway, you might land downwind with any airplane.

If you takeoff from a runway as short as 4000', in a C172 on a cool day.. you won't be far past the departure-end when you reach pattern altitude  :o  A turn-back to the runway (especially in an urban area), is the proper choice ..

[Hagar]

This is one of the reasons I strongly believe that gliding is so important as part of flying training. Basic airmanship can be taught far more cheaply & without the added complication of an engine. Another benefit is removing the fear of engine failure which is apparent from many comments I see on this forum, some from pilots with many hours experience.

Even as a pilot who has never even sat in a glider; I can see where my training would have been, "better" had I spent my first, several, airborne hours with no engine. All those subtle, little things that you never un-learn, would be more fundemantally sound.

The primary argument against it, are logistics. There simply aren't enough gliders, and glider-friendly airports, and tow-planes, and instructors; for every PPL aspirant to fliter through. Of course, that's a "chicken-n-egg" scenario. If it WERE required, there would be many, flourishing soaring schools. So... if the idea ever gained momentum, I'd be fully behind it. Alas, it's just not realistic.

Although I passionately believe it would help I appreciate the logistics of this. Even 50 years ago the ATC gliding courses I went on were backed up by the full resources of the RAF, including airfield, personnel, instructors & aircraft. What was achieved in a week's concentrated course would take several months or even a year at the average civilian gliding club. If gliding was made a mandatory part of the PPL course I'm sure that similar organisations would spring up all over the country. A case of supply meeting demand.

As for a fear of engine failure, "even" from pilots with several hours ? Yeah.. one less thing to be ever-aware of, could help a new pilot concentrate on flying... BUT, with a counter-productive flip-side; that he'd not had that contingency long-since drilled into his sub-conscious (i.e. stuff never un-learned). I've found that the more I fly, the more I, "fear" engine failure. It's not a debilitaing thing.. it's just that more flying, means more time spent running that scenario through your head...every takeoff.. everty tank-change, every pattern entry. Not to mention that by the time you reach 1000hours, you'll have experienced some sort of engine issue.. or met a pilot who has had engine failure and survived it.. or have known a pilot who did not.

Please don't misunderstand me. What I meant was an absolute horror at the thought of engine failure. Enough to cause panic in that situation were it to happen. Far too many people fail to understand that you do not need an engine or a whirling thing up front to remain airborne. An aircraft without an engine is a glider. It might not be a very good glider but the same principles apply. Once that mental block is overcome the situation can be dealt with calmly, instinctively & hopefully with successful results.

If you think about it.. soaring is a lot like sky-diving. They both require help from an engined airplane.. and with good equipment, proper training, and sound judgment... you're safer in the glider (or under the chute), than you were in your car, on the way there  :D

Not sure I agree with your comparison. In the first place a glider can be launched from a winch, a bungee or even by being pushed off a cliff. It doesn't need the assistance of a powered aircraft. Self-launching gliders are also becoming popular these days.