NormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 2761 times:
For discussion: What would be the most beneficial for the general pilot population to make them more skilled as aviators; aerobatics training or glider training. And since I'm trying to stimulate thought, please give your reasons.
ThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1691 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 2743 times:
Almost any flight training that you do helps to make you a better pilot but, given the choice, I'd say that aerobatic training is a priority over sailplane training. The chance that you can get over on your back, enter a spin, get in an unusual attitude or have to perform some maneuver with precision means that aerobatics can save your life.
I've dabbled in some things that I didn't go on and get the rating for, like seaplanes, and found that I had learned something that applied to my "real world" flying every time.
If you don't have an Instrument Rating yet, get to work on that one first.
Skyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 16 hours ago) and read 2725 times:
I just finished an aerobatics course... I probably learned more about flying in those hours than I have since my first presolo days.
It's amazing how damn precise you can really be... I had no idea you could even recover from a spin on heading before starting (don't laugh!)... during the course I learned that along with about a million other invaluable things.
Plus it was a hell of a lot of fun. I'd really love to teach the stuff one day!
Can't really count this vote towards aerobatics though... because I've never flown a glider though that's another goal!!
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 15 hours ago) and read 2730 times:
Does it have to be "either/or"? I've taken aerobatics courses, I teach spin entry and recoveries to all my students, and I'm a glider CFI. In my opinion, each is a necessary suppliment, but not a legal requirement. The skill set that you learn in each activity could come in real handy out there in the cold cruel world.
Case in point, the pilot of the Air Canada B-767 "Gimli Glider" that dead-sticked on to a drag strip several years ago. He was an active glider pilot. In my case, I had a total power failure in a C-172 15 years ago and I credit the skills that I developed flying gliders in saving my butt that afternoon. Aerobatic training is no less important. Having the skill to instinctively know what to do when you get into wake turbulence could also be a real life saver.
Neither activity is very expensive. Both types of flying are extremely enjoyable. Most aerobatic courses that I've seen are billed out in 1/4 hour increments. (That's an indication as to how long most people can handle active aerobatic instruction. Believe me, 15 minutes is a lot of time to be flinging yourself around the sky when you're "green and sweaty". ) However it doesn't take very many short training sessions before you really start to enjoy it. As far as glider training goes, the add-on rating isn't all that expensive - if you're interested, check out this web site: http://www.ssa.org.
Liamksa From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 13 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
I've done a fair bit of aerobatics training but no gliding so I can't make a proper case for either one, but I can definitely say that the aerobatics training I've done has been awesome! You hone your skills so much while just flying the plane, nothing in the back of the mind thinking about your next waypoint or radio call.
For aeros I've flown the Decathlon and the Zlin and each has its place. Flying (or maybe landing/taxiing ) a taildragger is great fun, and it requires much more accuracy than a tricycle setup. Not having any flaps (obviously can slip but there's a company SOP on the minimum height) highlighted the value of flying a proper approach, on slope and on speed, and how important that is in nailing that landing.
And once you're up in the air with a few hours of aeros you really get to know the plane and expect what's going to happen next. I buggered up a stall turn the day other day and could feel the plane about to spin and without thinking reacted. That there I reckon is the real value in doing aeros -> the instinctive reactions you develop. I found that I really started to understand the aircraft - I could feel what was going on. Although i've never had to apply it in normal cross-country flight i'm confident that if (when) i come across that situation i'll react quickly and effectively.
Anyway, a bit of a ramble, but from me a HUGE thumbs up for aeros, although I'm definitely planning on gliding training in the future. Ideally i'd say do both.
B747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2651 times:
What I would personally recommend is to get glider training first in learning to fly, through PVT level, or at least through your first solo, then start learning to fly powered airplanes.
As far as aerobatics, maybe some 10 to 20 hours of training, when you near the end of your training for the CPL. Some countries require aerobatics as part of the CPL curriculum.
KAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1969 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2628 times:
I'd go for the glider training. I don't see any urgent need to learn aerobatics in civil aircraft, other than basic spin training. Gliders seem like more fun, plus there's another rating you can add to your license.
Goboeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2768 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2607 times:
I think both are very beneficial. I've done more aerobatics training than gliding, but I can see the advantages to each.
I've flown a "real" glider once, at Van Sant airport. That was before I started PPL lessons. After the private license, I did about 6 hours of flying in a Grob-109 motorglider. We had to keep the engine on for some of the flights because of the cold, but I did experience some of the glider things people talk about.
I also flew about 15 hours worth of aerobatics training in the Avions Mudry Cap-10. I think that if I'm ever in a situation where I'm in an "unusual" attitude, I'll be able to quickly react and get out of it without damaging the aircraft or panicing until it's too late. Unusual attitude training makes any attitude "usual." After loops, snap rolls, hammerheads, knife edge turns, and inverted flat spins, stalls don't seem scary any more.
One of the Caps I flew actually still had the French Connection paint job on it; it was obtained from that aerobatic team after they had an accident.
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2597 times:
Both have very beneficial qualities and both will make you a better pilot. I've done both and can say that I'd prefer to do more soaring. Maybe it's because I had an instructor who had more time in sailplanes than powered aircraft, maybe it's because I'm one of those guys mentioned earlier who made it 20 minutes before blowing chunks.
Almost any rating or sign off will help you in your career. The instructor I had would always show me cloud formations that were turbulent. In a glider, you want that, in an airliner, you want to avoid them. He was also from the mountains and being in the midwest some of the weather phenomina we discussed never happens here. That will come in handy some day when I'm in a region that isn't just corn fields.
All that being said, I'll add one more to the mix. I think that everybody should get a tailwheel endorsement. My landings have gotten MUCH better since then. Tricycle gear is much more forgiving. If you mess up a crosswind landing in a taildragger you are more than likely going to ground loop. They also only take a couple hours in an aircraft that won't be much more expensive than what you fly now. No check rides or special forms to fill out, just a signoff in your log book and a whole new world of aircraft is opened up to you.
Wingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2465 times:
6 years ago in while on AEG (air experience gliding) with the air training corps I was taken up in a Viking glider, I was 13 at the time. I was whinch launched(thats scary enough, 0-60mph in about 3 seconds), and was then subjected to loops and neg-G maneouvres at the hands of my instructor (sat behind me). As an aviation experience, combining both unpowered flight and aerobatics was truly memorable, I loved it
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2451 times:
Well lets see if my old password works.
I say do both. And do aerobatics in gliders if you can too (much more graceful aerobatics compared to the traditional sport acro in power aircraft). Now you can do 2-3 times more soaring for the same price as Acro.