Should all pilots have some flying time in gliders?

Question

There was a case in Canada, in 1983, where a passenger jet ran out of fuel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider. Luckily the pilot was a former glider pilot. Otherwise the plane would have crashed. The incident was put into simulators, and all other pilots 'crashed' the plane. Flying a glider is not the same as flying an airplane. I've also been up in both - as a passenger.

So, my question is should all pilots have some flying time in gliders? It can just be up to 2 or 3 solo trips. I'd say so. Things can go wrong with the engine(s) - like running out of fuel, or failing. (Helicopter pilots included, as they can usually also fly airplanes.)

I'd like mainly pilots, and former pilots, to answer.

Answer 1

Personally I believe that training in gliders enhances certain knowledge and skills that make for better pilots. For one it improves time-speed-distance judgement, increases awareness of important aerodynamic concepts such as lift vs drag. The "Gimli Glider" incident is proof of that. The majority of German pilots in WWII had glider training. read into that what you will. While glider training doesn't need to be required, any pilot who wants to be a better pilot can benefit from glider training, just as they can benefit from aerobatic training.

Answer 2

No. The answer is more training and practice landing airplanes with an engine inoperative.



The reason many pilots suck at power-off landings is because they never practice it. They do it just enough to get their certificate and hardly ever again. Forcing them to fly gliders wouldn't help. They would get good at power off landings but once they're done with their glider training, they would never touch a glider again and would thus loose their edge. The reason a real glider pilot would be better is because they are constantly flying an aircraft without an engine.



It takes constant practice to remain good at engine out landings. Even flight instructors and airline pilots get rusty at it if they don't practice.

Answer 3

No. A glider has less in common with a large jet transport than a light powered aircraft with the engine idling.



And flying a glider isn't much different than a plane. In a plane, you control your descent path with the throttle, flaps, or forward slips. In a glider, you control your descent with spoilers (which act like a throttle, but far more directly affect your glide path), flaps, and forward slips. In a power plane, you can go from 7:1 (best glide) to perhaps 5:1 glide ratio with some work. In a high performance glider, you can go instantly from 40:1 to 5:1--or any glide ratio in between--just by extending the spoilers.



The pilots of Air Transat Flight 236 did not have any glider experience, and completed a much longer glide to a much smaller target (the Azores) and saved the plane.



Everything a power pilot needs to learn how to glide a powered aircraft is available to him in a light trainer. Pull the power off (or set partial power with some flaps) don't touch anything, and make it to the required spot.



The problem is in training. Forced approaches are not taught effectively enough and don't go low enough IMHO to be effective. You should not be allowed to solo before you have done a forced approach to landing at an airport.



Which brings up another problem, the typical training airport. Five planes in the circuit making county sized patterns so you wind up dragging it in on a three degree slope on a three mile final. Here in Canada, they've realized this problem and added the 180 degree precision approach to the flight test. Power is pulled at downwind, and you've got about a 500' patch to touch down on.



So no, I don't think that all pilots should have time in gliders. All pilots should be able to practice energy management though--which includes not running out of gas.

Answer 4

In your first sentence "unless the pilot was a glider pilot, the plane would have crashed" I find that offensive. Your psychic powers can determine that no other pilot except a former glider pilot could do that....? I read all the reports on that and actually wrote a term paper on the incident. It's not like if you're a seasoned airline captain with no glider experience, that the second the engine go out, the pilot goes brain dead. Not only that, but a glider flies nothing at all like an airliner.. It's not like he'd be doing circles in thermals and stuff. Glider pilots should be required to have experience in gliders.. That's about it in my opinion.

And I'd like to see documentation about the simulator recreations you mention.

In an engine failure the pilot just has to maintain best glide speed and keep the drag to a minimum. Training the pilots to glide engines off in the (in this case, 767) simulator would be more helpful than a little soaring in a glider. But hey that's just my opinion.



Helicopter pilots cant glide them... They do an autorotation. Something they can't teach in a glider..

Answer 5

Be aware that glider training is still popular among "future pilots" teenagers in Europe - Belgium or Switzerland have "Air Cadets" schemes (free of charge) where 13-14 years old learn to fly gliders during "summer camps" of 2-3 weeks -



I would recommend glider training option as the first step in learning to be a pilot -

FYI - a 747 has a glide ratio of 16:1 - I think the C-172 has a glide ratio of 9:1 -

.

Answer 6

i say ********.



"all other pilots 'crashed' the plane".



my dead engine landings with a basic trainer were real enough, with the shutdown engine. anyways, a GLIDER experience with glide rate of 50 to 1 or even 20 to 1 can hardly give you a proper judgement for a plane with glide rate 15 or so.



glider training is a lot more about judging termals than about forced landings (well, ANY landing of a glider is a forced landing by powered aircraft definitions LOL)..

Answer 7

It would be instructive, but I don't know that it's really necessary. It's highly unlikely that a powered aircraft would ever be flown as a glider unless an engine fails, and then the objective is to get onto the ground safely as quickly as possible, which requires knowing only a few basic rules.



The Gimli Glider would have been better off if the captain had refused to fly (as he was legally required to do with fuel gauges inoperative), instead of departing anyway and running out of gas half way.

Answer 8

I don't see much cross over from flying a sailplane to a powered plane with an engine out. Flying a sailplane will make you a better pilot, but training in power off approaches would help you more in an engine failure situation.

Answer 9

no. the big thing with air canada 143 was that the pilot slipped the plane on approach to adjust the altitude.



forward slips, side slips and slipping turns are a ppl training requirement - thanks, in part, to air canada 143. so are forced approaches. you do them until they're completely automatic. the very first thing you do is configure the plane for best glide speed.



how many times has this sort of thing happened? other than air canada 143, the only other all-engines-out incident i can think of is air transat 236. there is little point in training for something that has no significant probability of happening.



later: i didn't solo until i had done forced approaches in the circuit. nobody does. you have to get it right.

Answer 10

I don't think it should be required, but it is nice to have. Don't forget that forced landings are part of your PPL training, so all pilots are required to glide to a field.

Answer 11

Properly trained powered aircraft -- no, could it hurt either -- no. But I don't think it should be required.