How different are glider landings to convention powered aircraft?

[Mike Borgelt]

You wrote:" I think at the present time a court process is dealing with this matter so I'd tend to discourage any careless or uninformed comment.. Nev"
Show me the law that says anyone can't comment - careless, uninformed or otherwise. The official accident report has been published. You are free to disagree with it.
You then wrote: "i agree with all of that except my being careless or uninformed about modern flight control systems"
I wasn't commenting on your knowledge of modern flight control systems just the idea that some vague mention of a possible legal action should silence people.
There's ongoing legal action about MH370 in London, I'm told. Doesn't seem to have stopped any speculation, some for pay.

[Mike Borgelt]

New2flying: Most modern sailplanes are taildraggers. Main wheel and tailwheel (fixed, non steerable and non castoring). Need a tail dolly which is castoring to move around relatively easily on the ground which has to be taken to the glider.
The solution was the three wheel configuration which make ground handling easier when nobody is in the cockpits. Try to land on the main and tail, it is what you'll be doing if you stay gliding.

[F10]

On 18/05/2021 at 9:34 AM, biggles said:

F10, there’s a guy to the North of you near Glenmaggie with a Motorfalke . He occasionally does ccts. at YBNS. ..... Bob 

Will keep a lookout!

[facthunter]

Mike, my only concern was for this site. I never intended to stir up a hornet's nest.  Nev

[lee-wave]

17 hours ago, Mike Borgelt said:

Just countering the stupid theme that these folks handling emergencies had a better outcome because they had flown gliders, in many cases in the distant past.

It would be equally stupid to say that the gliding experience of the pilots involved in the abovementioned emergencies had no part to play in the successful outcome.....

[graham brown]

Bighting the hand that feeds you? I threw my Borgelt vario away years ago.

Cheers a “not even a bootlace”

(who has not killed anyone in 30 years of instructing and volunteered my time for nothing.)

Edited May 19, 2021 by graham brown

[Markdun]

My comments about my experience flying gliders was based on flying in NZ.  I agree with Mike’s comments about the GFA...strictly rule based, not safety conscious.  I stopped after a check flight with an instructor in strong winds and heavy turbulent sink who was pissed I didn’t landed short instead of putting brakes away to risk a long landing among other gliders and people. He hopped out, pushed the tail through the 25kt wind, the rudder jibing savagely as you would expect, and with the rudder cable exiting the aircraft....an oversized or improperly swaged Nicopress sleeve gave way, and of-course, that glider was unairworthy both before and after this!  This was the last straw for me. That club were discouraging of any family attending, particularly children, and expected everyone to attend a full day or not at all.  I’m not surprised at all that the GFA has declining membership....they certainly weren’t fun to fly with for me.....a stark contrast to the people of Wellington Gliding Club in NZ based at Paraparaumu aerodrome.....and I’m an Australian and was only in NZ for a job for a few years!

[lee-wave]

On 19/05/2021 at 11:00 PM, graham brown said:

Biting the hand that feeds you? I threw my Borgelt vario away years ago.

Cheers a “not even a bootlace”

(who has not killed anyone in 30 years of instructing and volunteered my time for nothing.)

I quickly checked in my log book dating back to 1970...it appears I have not killed any of my students...although there were quite a few that I made puke up....  'not even a bootlace 2'....

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well my Borgelt vario was the best I ever had. But for once I have to disagree with Mike, cos I reckon that even a bit of gliding many years ago helps the power pilot if the engine stops.

Why? because it will make the power pilot less likely to panic if the noise stops. I have seen pics of crashed power planes in good paddocks. They died on board because the plane hit at a very nose-down attitude.

The only way this could have happened is if the power pilot forgot about flying ( gliding ) the plane at the wrong moment.  Yes, there have been pure power pilots who have done well here and I am sure that there would be a few with glider experience who have done poorly.  It is a matter of probability.

It seems reasonable to me to think that this type of crash would be less likely if the pilot had been given some gliding experience.

On the subject of Neil Armstrong, I read that it was the solo nature of his glider flying which led the NASA management to think that he would be a safer bet than those of his peers who had always been part of a team, in the unlikely event that he had to come home solo.

[Methusala]

On 19/05/2021 at 10:12 AM, facthunter said:

Airbus aim was always to make the plane pilot proof.. Combine that with bad weather and unserviceabilities and you get problems. Automatics can't predict every emergency situation.

I don't get this implied antagonism towards AB. I have read praise of Airbus from many eminent captains for their aircraft. Richard  de Crespigny, Captain of QF32 had nothing but the highest praise for the Airbus engineers, responsible for writing the POH, on the A380. In particular he was astonished that every question he asked during the 5 hrs preparatory to landing the crippled jet was answered. 'Automatics' did not prevent the crew from managing a nightmare occurrence into saving the plane. 

Others comment that the workspace is far more user friendly than Boeings because of the side stick controller. A350's have the quietest cabins I've experienced and have a lower cabin altitude than others. Seems that criticism of Airbus may be based more on prejudice than experience. Remember: "If it's not Boeing - I'm not going!"

[facthunter]

That criticism of my post is not justified at all and I totally refute it. Both FMS systems (Boeing & Airbus) are made by the same manufacturer in the USA but the logic is different. Airbus had the view that some pilots do cause the plane to crash and tried to get that problem solved by not having the  Pilot's controls direct to ANY control surface. (The side stick is really just like a glorified Auto pilot almost  in that respect.) It had to be modified by the microprocessors so you could not for instance overstress it , or exceed bank angles easily. I have spent over two months at Toulouse on Airbus's own in house course. so one gets to know the thought music . It's NOT hidden. It's a marketing point.

  I generally prefer Airbus but Boeing have made some excellent planes  The 777 was particularly well regarded.

   The A380 incident was something else. Most Airlines said their Crew and the level of Training  given would not have saved the plane. There was a tremendous amount of damage done and many systems not functioning and outcomes not assured. The level of crew co-operation probably saved the day. Boeing latest efforts have dispensed with any loyalty they may have hitherto been entitled to.  Nev

[Methusala]

Nev, I'm sorry if my reading of your words was in error. I cannot see how the Air France accident near the Azores was anything but pilot error. Whatever software fixes embedded in the FMS systems to prevent pilots from crashing obviously were not enough to prevent catastrophe. Nothing can prevent bad outcomes resulting from profoundly incorrect actions.

Airbus seem to be doing well and 'fly by wire' is set to become universal as greater efficiency demands more technological inputs.

[facthunter]

There appears to be a mix up of posts here. My point was to leave two relatively junior pilots there when you were going to go through the Intertropic  Convergence Zone was a command decision  error particularly when a known unserviceability existed on the Pitot Heat?  Weren't you blaming me for AB Bashing? . I get called away from my PC all the time so I could be getting something askew.. I still think you should be aware of the logic some of this stuff operates. I'm not going to elaborate as I don't have the abnormal ops details  but I know there's a maintain height safely procedure  and I THINK it's full back stick and the plane decides what is the best attitude for you. If an AoA vane was inop this might not be the best idea. but that may be the way things work.  I've had 3 phone interruptions with this so bear with me somewhat. Nev

[Methusala]

Nev, I have apologised for mistaking the gist of your post. I am an amateur pilot with less than 1,000 hrs in basic planes over the past who knows how long. I read de Crespigny's book and agree that a lot of very fancy footwork only just avoided disaster. I have not read more than one tech report on the Air France disaster but it left me (and others) wondering why the crew thought holding full back stick would have been wise under the circumstances. You have provided a plausible reason for this and I thank you. 

) 

[facthunter]

Don't be "problemed" at all Meth,  It's a "basic  affordable plane type forum  and I know I have to be aware of the limited interest in some high techstuff.  so I actually am very wary of dealing with it. There has been a widely held view the airline blokes know little about flying. With the multi-crew licence there is a lot of truth in that possibility existing. but most of them have an adequate time spent on more basic planes and some fly their own. on days off.. Most three pilot crewing situations used to be 2 captains and one F/O. Today it seems that a Captain free cockpit is OK. in flight but not when landing or taking off.  Anything to save money. Of course there have been  some notable situations of 2 Captains being unsure of WHO is PIC /CM! at certain times..

  My main interest here is U/Ls and the hopes and aspirations of those who pilot them ,be assured.. .  Nev

[Yenn]

I have been one of those who think airline pilots abilities are not up to scratch in some places. There have been several crashes when it was apparent that the crew were not competent. Airbus tried to prevent this by trying to make the pilot redundant, but they still had problems. Boeing tried to cut corners and make themselves more affordable by not getting pilots trained correctly. I used to consider Boeing safer to fly in as a passenger, but not now. I also find that Airbus are better for the passenger, being quieter and as far as I have found, more spacious. I would fly in either Airbus or Boeing, but not with some airlines and especially not an Indonesian line nor Thai.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yenn, I read that corruption is so bad  in Pakistan that  many pilots hired a professional  exam sitter to act for them in tests. So many airline pilots had no real qualifications....  hard to believe huh.

[Bosi72]

On 16/05/2021 at 7:45 PM, lee-wave said:

In powered aircraft the throttle controls your rate of descent and the elevators control your airspeed.  In a glider the airbrakes control the rate of descent, elevators control airspeed. 

Instructors will normally teach students to arrive at base leg in an overshoot situation with airbrakes about half open.  On final the aiming point (not the touchdown point) is kept stationery on a point on the canopy using airbrakes. Airspeed is controlled using the elevators.  Your eyes remain on the aiming point until round out when you then look up to the far end of the strip.  Using peripheral vision you are then able to finely judge the landing and touchdown with the elevator.

In the early days of your training it is best to leave the airbrakes at a constant setting and concentrate completely on the landing. With more experience both the airbrakes and elevator are used almost simultaneously to achieve pinpoint landing precision.

 

Don't "cut the power" (extend airbrakes) above the threshold when landing ! 

Common mistake when transitioning from powered aircrafts to gliders.