[aus-soaring] Accident Prevention & Reducing Injury.

[Colin & Yvonne Campbell]

I have followed the thread of discussion on accident statistics with some interest, although the extract from the text book on statistical method went completely over my head.   The analysis of accidents is fine and may highlight some weaknesses of the present system, but it is history. What has been lacking to date is a sound, reasoned strategy for the future.   I do not accept the proposal that all training should be concentrated in a small number of professional glider training schools. My reasons for adopting this stance are as follows: Observation of the skill level of pilots, trained during a  full time club's short course to first solo, and the need for additional training prior to further solo at club level. There has been no supporting evidence to suggest the employment of full-time instructors produce pilots who are more competent than volunteer instructors. In fact it is realistic to assume that commercial pressure could influence an instructor's attitude and technique, ie. to take shortcuts. It may be illuminating to do statistical analysis of the accident history of  fulltime clubs compared with weekend operations. This should be qualified to separate any flying and accidents involving pilots trained in other countries.     There is an advantage for a glider pilot to experience a variety of weather conditions during training. There is anecdotal evidence of a pilot attending a fulltime course and training to first solo, but only experiencing cross winds from left to right. Upon attending her first weekend operation, the crosswind was in the opposite direction. The result was a collision with gliders lined up on the runway waiting for a launch. Result, 3 damaged gliders. The increased cost of fulltime instructors and tug pilots would deter a number of potential pilots joining the sport. This would be more critical than power flying, where the potential for a career in aviation or use as a mode of transport are common motivations for learning to fly! Gliding is competing for the recreation dollar, the area of discretionary spending which is first reduced during an economic downturn. (At this time of declining membership, the sport needs this like a hole in the head). Training at small clubs provides operational consistency. A club comprising only cross-country pilots would quickly become dysfunctional. Pilots would not attend if the weather was not soarable, and would  be frustrated if, on 10,000ft days, they were rostered for ground duty. Let us recognise that the present system does provide for other than competition pilots and record breakers. While I may seem overcritical of fulltime schools, I am not blind to the shortcomings of the weekend clubs: The lack of students and low annual instructor hours can lead to a conservative approach by individual instructors. There is an ongoing need for refresher training of instructors and training of new instructors to consistent standards. Poor utilisation of training aircraft, restricted revenue, and pressure on clubs for higher performance single seaters, can result in the use of older (obsolete) aircraft being retained in the training role longer than desirable. Dependence upon a small number of key personnel, and failure of consistent operation if a number of these are absent or do not show up until after lunch or netball etc. Dependence on either one tow plane or winch and failure of operation in the event of unserviceability. Poor transition from first solo to competent cross country pilot (and competition pilot). While the instructor currency and training are matters of concern to the GFA, introduction of a self launching training glider, designed to a new paradigm, could assist overcome the latter problems. In earlier correspondence I termed this the Kookaburra Mk 5. This was interpreted by some people as a  1950's retro glider. This was not intended. The only common elements with the 1950's glider would be versatility and affordability. Would anybody care to add to the design criteria:                             Side by side seating`                        Self launching                             Inexpensive, both capital cost and operating cost.                             Available as complete aircraft or kit construction.                             Minimum 30/1 glide angle and a rate of climb under power greater than 500ft/min.                             Optional engine to allow use as glider tug.                             Good handling qualities.                                                        Must present to student as a glider, rather than a powerplane with long wings.                             Safety capsule surrounding cockpit. You could ask, "Why not buy a used Motor Falke?" I have only flown one some years ago and was not impressed with neither the climb nor glide performance plus the handling. The aircraft I imagine closest to the design criteria would be an SZD Olgar if you put the engine on steriods and installed a folding propellor. Neither use modern materials in their structure.   You might think I have strayed from the original topic of safety! Let me assure you that my interest is in the training of new pilots; equiping them with the skills to be safe competent cross-country pilots, in the most efficient and practical method possible.  Any response?   colinc