Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:

"Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"

A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.

But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.

Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
>
> "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device.. Old Bob, The Purist"
>
> A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
>
> But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
>
> Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.

Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> >
> > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> >
> > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> >
> > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> >
> > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist

_You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.

Eric

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > >
> > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > >
> > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > >
> > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > >
> > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
>
> Eric
Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > >
> > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > >
> > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > >
> > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean.. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> >
> > Eric
> Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist
Ok Bob you said It and opened the door. "Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist"
So my ASH26 is for sail.
GB

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 8:34:06 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > >
> > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > >
> > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > >
> > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > >
> > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
>
> Eric
While an off airport landing doesn't guarantee a crash, it increases the odds substantially. There is about a 10x increase in chances of damage in a landing off airport, compared to an airport landing. You can quickly calculate this from the Soaring Safety foundation figures.

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:55:54 AM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > >
> > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > >
> > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > >
> > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean.. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> >
> > Eric
> Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist
Please, just stop using "save your ass" unless you mean "avoiding physical injury from a glider crash". It's totally unnecessary to use the phrase and leads to confusion about what you mean because you've been using it in the context of safety; for example, "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together."

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:55:54 AM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail..com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > > >
> > > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > > >
> > > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist
> Please, just stop using "save your ass" unless you mean "avoiding physical injury from a glider crash". It's totally unnecessary to use the phrase and leads to confusion about what you mean because you've been using it in the context of safety; for example, "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together."

Eric, SYAG is like putting lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig regardless of how you dress it up. Don't take this thread so serious, Fitch seems to have this discussion in the right frame of mind. I was hoping that Bud Light would have a motorglider on their new can, it might just get them out of a deep hole. So, here we are getting into spring around the country and those motorgliders are coming out of the trailers, I am sure that none of them will be late for dinner this year.
On another note the SSA was very kind to us here on the Treasure Coast and sent John Godfrey over to Fly-In-Ranches, AKA FD25 to install a OGN system that is a nice compliment to soaring activities here in South Florida, thanks John and Davis, the system is helping us keep track of our gliders that are flying our challenging triangles deep into the Everglades.
I have flown my Lowly 27 a few times this spring, threaded the needle a few times and made my 5th trip around Lake O, without a motor. It is also important to notice that the SYAG's at Seminole have been flying a few nice triangles this year as opposed to past years, I guess we must be putting the pressure on the SYAG's!
The mango orchard is looking good, the finally needed rain has arrives and the fruit is looking good for a June and July harvest, I will have a box headed your way as soon as they are ready to ship. OBTP

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:55:54 AM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> > > >
> > > > Eric
> > > Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist
> > Please, just stop using "save your ass" unless you mean "avoiding physical injury from a glider crash". It's totally unnecessary to use the phrase and leads to confusion about what you mean because you've been using it in the context of safety; for example, "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together."
> Eric, SYAG is like putting lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig regardless of how you dress it up. Don't take this thread so serious, Fitch seems to have this discussion in the right frame of mind. I was hoping that Bud Light would have a motorglider on their new can, it might just get them out of a deep hole. So, here we are getting into spring around the country and those motorgliders are coming out of the trailers, I am sure that none of them will be late for dinner this year.
> On another note the SSA was very kind to us here on the Treasure Coast and sent John Godfrey over to Fly-In-Ranches, AKA FD25 to install a OGN system that is a nice compliment to soaring activities here in South Florida, thanks John and Davis, the system is helping us keep track of our gliders that are flying our challenging triangles deep into the Everglades.
> I have flown my Lowly 27 a few times this spring, threaded the needle a few times and made my 5th trip around Lake O, without a motor. It is also important to notice that the SYAG's at Seminole have been flying a few nice triangles this year as opposed to past years, I guess we must be putting the pressure on the SYAG's!
> The mango orchard is looking good, the finally needed rain has arrives and the fruit is looking good for a June and July harvest, I will have a box headed your way as soon as they are ready to ship. OBTP

A long time ago I listened to Tom Knauff talk about a record flight he had made in the Adriondacks the previous season. At the last stretch of the flight back home he was joined by 3 other gliders. It was late in the day, of course, and lift was scarce. They encountered a heavily forested stretch with no possibility of land out whatsoever. ALL of them ventured on w/o anyone saying on the radio that this is stupid, or questioning the wisdom of this reckless move. They were just silent. Well, one of them found a weak thermal and they all climbed up and made it home. If this thermal had not been found ALL of them would have gone down into the trees, with a high probability of a fatality by at least one of them. No one in the audience, including me, questioned Knauff's decision-making, perhaps because it was in the past. But, here you have a nationally-recognized authority on glider instruction and safety admit to one of the most reckless and dangerous examples of glider flying that I have ever heard of. While he had the possibility of setting a world record, the others didn't. And even a world record is NOT worth dying over.

Landing out is inherently risky (with the possible exception of a large, flat, plowed field) as you can't possibly see all of the potential hazards from even pattern altitude. One should expect some kind of damage once in every 10 landouts. With a motorglider, the landout is a backup to the motor. If motor failure is on the order of one in a hundred, then you could expect damage in one out of a thousand restarts (10 times 100). A typical pilot will likely never encounter this as I typically do one restart a year.

Tom

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:20:27 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 8:34:06 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > >
> > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > >
> > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > >
> > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean.. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> >
> > Eric
> While an off airport landing doesn't guarantee a crash, it increases the odds substantially. There is about a 10x increase in chances of damage in a landing off airport, compared to an airport landing. You can quickly calculate this from the Soaring Safety foundation figures.

While the average might be 10X, I'm sure there are large variations, depending on the flying area and the pilot, and those are some reasons we can not conclude the motor is a "safety device". I can't think of any way we can estimate the outcome of every pilot being equipped with a motor. I suggest the results might be worse, not better, for a number of reasons. Some are...

* pilots may fly much more aggressively, increasing the number of times they are faced with an outlanding, and the number of failed starts will be larger
* the fields they pick may not be as good as they are now, if they think the motor will save them, increasing the 10x to say 15x or more
* there will be more launch accidents, as the motorglider pilots will not be as experienced as the tow pilots

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 2:50:05 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:13:54 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:55:54 AM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > > > > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > > > > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > > > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eric
> > > > > Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > Please, just stop using "save your ass" unless you mean "avoiding physical injury from a glider crash". It's totally unnecessary to use the phrase and leads to confusion about what you mean because you've been using it in the context of safety; for example, "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together."
> > > Eric, SYAG is like putting lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig regardless of how you dress it up. Don't take this thread so serious, Fitch seems to have this discussion in the right frame of mind. I was hoping that Bud Light would have a motorglider on their new can, it might just get them out of a deep hole. So, here we are getting into spring around the country and those motorgliders are coming out of the trailers, I am sure that none of them will be late for dinner this year.
> > > On another note the SSA was very kind to us here on the Treasure Coast and sent John Godfrey over to Fly-In-Ranches, AKA FD25 to install a OGN system that is a nice compliment to soaring activities here in South Florida, thanks John and Davis, the system is helping us keep track of our gliders that are flying our challenging triangles deep into the Everglades.
> > > I have flown my Lowly 27 a few times this spring, threaded the needle a few times and made my 5th trip around Lake O, without a motor. It is also important to notice that the SYAG's at Seminole have been flying a few nice triangles this year as opposed to past years, I guess we must be putting the pressure on the SYAG's!
> > > The mango orchard is looking good, the finally needed rain has arrives and the fruit is looking good for a June and July harvest, I will have a box headed your way as soon as they are ready to ship. OBTP
> > A long time ago I listened to Tom Knauff talk about a record flight he had made in the Adriondacks the previous season. At the last stretch of the flight back home he was joined by 3 other gliders. It was late in the day, of course, and lift was scarce. They encountered a heavily forested stretch with no possibility of land out whatsoever. ALL of them ventured on w/o anyone saying on the radio that this is stupid, or questioning the wisdom of this reckless move. They were just silent. Well, one of them found a weak thermal and they all climbed up and made it home. If this thermal had not been found ALL of them would have gone down into the trees, with a high probability of a fatality by at least one of them. No one in the audience, including me, questioned Knauff's decision-making, perhaps because it was in the past. But, here you have a nationally-recognized authority on glider instruction and safety admit to one of the most reckless and dangerous examples of glider flying that I have ever heard of. While he had the possibility of setting a world record, the others didn't. And even a world record is NOT worth dying over.
> >
> > Landing out is inherently risky (with the possible exception of a large, flat, plowed field) as you can't possibly see all of the potential hazards from even pattern altitude. One should expect some kind of damage once in every 10 landouts. With a motorglider, the landout is a backup to the motor. If motor failure is on the order of one in a hundred, then you could expect damage in one out of a thousand restarts (10 times 100). A typical pilot will likely never encounter this as I typically do one restart a year.
> >
> > Tom
> I don't know what the restart rate is for "typical" motorglider pilots, but I restart 5+ times year, and when I flew towed gliders, I'd land away from home a few times a year. I know how to cut that number down to one (or even none, like OBTP), but it means flying so conservatively, I wouldn't have as much fun as I do now. How often do you other motorglider pilots restart? Piston, rotary, jet, electric - I'm interested in replies from all pilots.

Eric, you certainly look at things through rose colored glasses, the only thing about me are my political views and my appreciation for the dollar! You may find many people among this group that know me and have flown with me many times and I am sure they will certainly correct you on the flying of OBTP, who else would roll the Pawnee??? You can go to Soaring Forum Group on Facebook and see it yourself. Old Bob, The Purist

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:32:02 PM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 2:50:05 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:13:54 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:55:54 AM UTC-7, youngbl....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed.. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight.. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > > > > > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > > > > > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > > > > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eric
> > > > > > Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > > Please, just stop using "save your ass" unless you mean "avoiding physical injury from a glider crash". It's totally unnecessary to use the phrase and leads to confusion about what you mean because you've been using it in the context of safety; for example, "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together."
> > > > Eric, SYAG is like putting lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig regardless of how you dress it up. Don't take this thread so serious, Fitch seems to have this discussion in the right frame of mind. I was hoping that Bud Light would have a motorglider on their new can, it might just get them out of a deep hole. So, here we are getting into spring around the country and those motorgliders are coming out of the trailers, I am sure that none of them will be late for dinner this year.
> > > > On another note the SSA was very kind to us here on the Treasure Coast and sent John Godfrey over to Fly-In-Ranches, AKA FD25 to install a OGN system that is a nice compliment to soaring activities here in South Florida, thanks John and Davis, the system is helping us keep track of our gliders that are flying our challenging triangles deep into the Everglades.
> > > > I have flown my Lowly 27 a few times this spring, threaded the needle a few times and made my 5th trip around Lake O, without a motor. It is also important to notice that the SYAG's at Seminole have been flying a few nice triangles this year as opposed to past years, I guess we must be putting the pressure on the SYAG's!
> > > > The mango orchard is looking good, the finally needed rain has arrives and the fruit is looking good for a June and July harvest, I will have a box headed your way as soon as they are ready to ship. OBTP
> > > A long time ago I listened to Tom Knauff talk about a record flight he had made in the Adriondacks the previous season. At the last stretch of the flight back home he was joined by 3 other gliders. It was late in the day, of course, and lift was scarce. They encountered a heavily forested stretch with no possibility of land out whatsoever. ALL of them ventured on w/o anyone saying on the radio that this is stupid, or questioning the wisdom of this reckless move. They were just silent. Well, one of them found a weak thermal and they all climbed up and made it home. If this thermal had not been found ALL of them would have gone down into the trees, with a high probability of a fatality by at least one of them. No one in the audience, including me, questioned Knauff's decision-making, perhaps because it was in the past. But, here you have a nationally-recognized authority on glider instruction and safety admit to one of the most reckless and dangerous examples of glider flying that I have ever heard of. While he had the possibility of setting a world record, the others didn't. And even a world record is NOT worth dying over.
> > >
> > > Landing out is inherently risky (with the possible exception of a large, flat, plowed field) as you can't possibly see all of the potential hazards from even pattern altitude. One should expect some kind of damage once in every 10 landouts. With a motorglider, the landout is a backup to the motor. If motor failure is on the order of one in a hundred, then you could expect damage in one out of a thousand restarts (10 times 100). A typical pilot will likely never encounter this as I typically do one restart a year.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > I don't know what the restart rate is for "typical" motorglider pilots, but I restart 5+ times year, and when I flew towed gliders, I'd land away from home a few times a year. I know how to cut that number down to one (or even none, like OBTP), but it means flying so conservatively, I wouldn't have as much fun as I do now. How often do you other motorglider pilots restart? Piston, rotary, jet, electric - I'm interested in replies from all pilots.
> Eric, you certainly look at things through rose colored glasses, the only thing about me are my political views and my appreciation for the dollar! You may find many people among this group that know me and have flown with me many times and I am sure they will certainly correct you on the flying of OBTP, who else would roll the Pawnee??? You can go to Soaring Forum Group on Facebook and see it yourself. Old Bob, The Purist
Should have said the only conservative thing about me.

This, to me, is an interesting question Eric G. raises. I am on my 3rd motorglider. In order, they are an ASH 26E with Wankel rotary engine, Carat A, with Sauer 4-stroke engine, and now a DG808C with a Solo 2-stroke engine. In the ASH 26E I had 71 flights; in the Carat, 42; in the DG808C, only 3 since purchase.

Flying the ASH 26E, the only time, other than one, I did air restarts was to check that the system was working. The only time I needed it to keep from landing out, it would not start due to a sticky microswitch. Both the mast extended and retracted lights were green and the default logic was apparently do nothing, even though I could see the fully extended mast. I flew the ASH like a motorless glider, assuming the engine would never start when needed. The time it would not start when needed, I had already picked out a plowed field for outlanding, and I had a thousand feet of altitude to try different options before committing. The only one I didn't think of was doing a windmill start. I don't know whether that would have worked or not. It might be the prop rotating would have unstuck the stuck microswitch and all would have been good for getting back to the airport. So, in the ASH, one attempted air restart out of 71 flights.

The Carat is a completely different machine. The engine is a bored-out VW air-cooled, 4 cylinder gem. I found it to be super reliable. I also found that I was aggressively pushing the envelope, relying on the engine reliability for starting right up rather than having a safe outlanding site within glider. A couple of times, flying over unlandable terrain with no escape should the engine quit, I had to remind myself that this was really dumb. The times I needed an air restart, it always started. It was so easy to fly, there were times I started the engine just to make sure that is was running if I might need it. Always started up to 16 kft MSL and subzero temps. Out of my 42 Carat flights, how many restarts did I need to avert a landout? Maybe 2.

The DG with its Solo engine is another breed of cat. I will be flying it like the engine is going to self-destruct at any time (gross hyperbole). The Solo users group demonstrates that there are any number of mechanical and electrical issues with these engines and the 800 model line. However, many of those issues occur on the ground, not in the air, and prevent a self-launch. In such a case, I can generally take an aerotow. In each of my first three flights, the engine has been flawless in self-launch, and I've done air restarts each flight with no issues. But, I will be flying the glider this first season as if there is no engine available for self-retrieve.

In going from the ASH to the Carat, I made a reliability/performance trade, giving up considerable glide performance in the ASH for high reliability in the Carat. I found that, for me, this was a different type of soaring in the Carat as to style and mindset. It was absolutely too easy to stop worrying about finding a thermal, and start the engine and motor away - something I never did in the ASH, and won't do in the DG. Soaring is about finding the lift, staying up, and going places, not about using the engine as a crutch. As much as I loved the Carat and its actually quite good glide performance, I found I wanted to go back to the basics of soaring, which means emphasizing the self-launch capability of a motorglider from wherever, whenever, regardless of tow availability, and, after retracting the engine, soaring as if there is no engine behind me. I also like the idea that if I have to landout at another airfield due to weather or whatever, I can relaunch myself without having to get the trailer or a tow plane from the home field.

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:05 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:13:54 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:55:54 AM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > > > > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > > > > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > > > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eric
> > > > > Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > Please, just stop using "save your ass" unless you mean "avoiding physical injury from a glider crash". It's totally unnecessary to use the phrase and leads to confusion about what you mean because you've been using it in the context of safety; for example, "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together."
> > > Eric, SYAG is like putting lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig regardless of how you dress it up. Don't take this thread so serious, Fitch seems to have this discussion in the right frame of mind. I was hoping that Bud Light would have a motorglider on their new can, it might just get them out of a deep hole. So, here we are getting into spring around the country and those motorgliders are coming out of the trailers, I am sure that none of them will be late for dinner this year.
> > > On another note the SSA was very kind to us here on the Treasure Coast and sent John Godfrey over to Fly-In-Ranches, AKA FD25 to install a OGN system that is a nice compliment to soaring activities here in South Florida, thanks John and Davis, the system is helping us keep track of our gliders that are flying our challenging triangles deep into the Everglades.
> > > I have flown my Lowly 27 a few times this spring, threaded the needle a few times and made my 5th trip around Lake O, without a motor. It is also important to notice that the SYAG's at Seminole have been flying a few nice triangles this year as opposed to past years, I guess we must be putting the pressure on the SYAG's!
> > > The mango orchard is looking good, the finally needed rain has arrives and the fruit is looking good for a June and July harvest, I will have a box headed your way as soon as they are ready to ship. OBTP
> > A long time ago I listened to Tom Knauff talk about a record flight he had made in the Adriondacks the previous season. At the last stretch of the flight back home he was joined by 3 other gliders. It was late in the day, of course, and lift was scarce. They encountered a heavily forested stretch with no possibility of land out whatsoever. ALL of them ventured on w/o anyone saying on the radio that this is stupid, or questioning the wisdom of this reckless move. They were just silent. Well, one of them found a weak thermal and they all climbed up and made it home. If this thermal had not been found ALL of them would have gone down into the trees, with a high probability of a fatality by at least one of them. No one in the audience, including me, questioned Knauff's decision-making, perhaps because it was in the past. But, here you have a nationally-recognized authority on glider instruction and safety admit to one of the most reckless and dangerous examples of glider flying that I have ever heard of. While he had the possibility of setting a world record, the others didn't. And even a world record is NOT worth dying over.
> >
> > Landing out is inherently risky (with the possible exception of a large, flat, plowed field) as you can't possibly see all of the potential hazards from even pattern altitude. One should expect some kind of damage once in every 10 landouts. With a motorglider, the landout is a backup to the motor. If motor failure is on the order of one in a hundred, then you could expect damage in one out of a thousand restarts (10 times 100). A typical pilot will likely never encounter this as I typically do one restart a year.
> >
> > Tom
> I don't know what the restart rate is for "typical" motorglider pilots, but I restart 5+ times year, and when I flew towed gliders, I'd land away from home a few times a year. I know how to cut that number down to one (or even none, like OBTP), but it means flying so conservatively, I wouldn't have as much fun as I do now. How often do you other motorglider pilots restart? Piston, rotary, jet, electric - I'm interested in replies from all pilots.

I was referring only to away-from-airport restarts where the only other option is an off-field landing. I probably also restart half a dozen times near the airport.

Tom

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:07:58 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:20:27 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 8:34:06 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > > >
> > > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > > >
> > > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > While an off airport landing doesn't guarantee a crash, it increases the odds substantially. There is about a 10x increase in chances of damage in a landing off airport, compared to an airport landing. You can quickly calculate this from the Soaring Safety foundation figures.
> While the average might be 10X, I'm sure there are large variations, depending on the flying area and the pilot, and those are some reasons we can not conclude the motor is a "safety device". I can't think of any way we can estimate the outcome of every pilot being equipped with a motor. I suggest the results might be worse, not better, for a number of reasons. Some are....
>
> * pilots may fly much more aggressively, increasing the number of times they are faced with an outlanding, and the number of failed starts will be larger

I don't have hard data to back this up, just personal experiences and those of others. Obviously there can be a great variation between pilots and where they fly.

> * the fields they pick may not be as good as they are now, if they think the motor will save them, increasing the 10x to say 15x or more
> * there will be more launch accidents, as the motorglider pilots will not be as experienced as the tow pilots

That is totally unsupported. Many motorglider pilots ARE also tow pilots, as well as airline and military pilots. A towed glider launch is inherently more complex and hazardous than a motorglider launch. I know of several tow pilots who have been killed by a kiting glider but know of NO motorglider pilots killed during the launch.

Tom

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:05 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:13:54 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:55:54 AM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > > > > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > > > > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > > > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eric
> > > > > Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > Please, just stop using "save your ass" unless you mean "avoiding physical injury from a glider crash". It's totally unnecessary to use the phrase and leads to confusion about what you mean because you've been using it in the context of safety; for example, "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together."
> > > Eric, SYAG is like putting lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig regardless of how you dress it up. Don't take this thread so serious, Fitch seems to have this discussion in the right frame of mind. I was hoping that Bud Light would have a motorglider on their new can, it might just get them out of a deep hole. So, here we are getting into spring around the country and those motorgliders are coming out of the trailers, I am sure that none of them will be late for dinner this year.
> > > On another note the SSA was very kind to us here on the Treasure Coast and sent John Godfrey over to Fly-In-Ranches, AKA FD25 to install a OGN system that is a nice compliment to soaring activities here in South Florida, thanks John and Davis, the system is helping us keep track of our gliders that are flying our challenging triangles deep into the Everglades.
> > > I have flown my Lowly 27 a few times this spring, threaded the needle a few times and made my 5th trip around Lake O, without a motor. It is also important to notice that the SYAG's at Seminole have been flying a few nice triangles this year as opposed to past years, I guess we must be putting the pressure on the SYAG's!
> > > The mango orchard is looking good, the finally needed rain has arrives and the fruit is looking good for a June and July harvest, I will have a box headed your way as soon as they are ready to ship. OBTP
> > A long time ago I listened to Tom Knauff talk about a record flight he had made in the Adriondacks the previous season. At the last stretch of the flight back home he was joined by 3 other gliders. It was late in the day, of course, and lift was scarce. They encountered a heavily forested stretch with no possibility of land out whatsoever. ALL of them ventured on w/o anyone saying on the radio that this is stupid, or questioning the wisdom of this reckless move. They were just silent. Well, one of them found a weak thermal and they all climbed up and made it home. If this thermal had not been found ALL of them would have gone down into the trees, with a high probability of a fatality by at least one of them. No one in the audience, including me, questioned Knauff's decision-making, perhaps because it was in the past. But, here you have a nationally-recognized authority on glider instruction and safety admit to one of the most reckless and dangerous examples of glider flying that I have ever heard of. While he had the possibility of setting a world record, the others didn't. And even a world record is NOT worth dying over.
> >
> > Landing out is inherently risky (with the possible exception of a large, flat, plowed field) as you can't possibly see all of the potential hazards from even pattern altitude. One should expect some kind of damage once in every 10 landouts. With a motorglider, the landout is a backup to the motor. If motor failure is on the order of one in a hundred, then you could expect damage in one out of a thousand restarts (10 times 100). A typical pilot will likely never encounter this as I typically do one restart a year.
> >
> > Tom
> I don't know what the restart rate is for "typical" motorglider pilots, but I restart 5+ times year, and when I flew towed gliders, I'd land away from home a few times a year. I know how to cut that number down to one (or even none, like OBTP), but it means flying so conservatively, I wouldn't have as much fun as I do now. How often do you other motorglider pilots restart? Piston, rotary, jet, electric - I'm interested in replies from all pilots.
This is my 23rd year with the motorglider, I think I have restarted (to avoid an away-from-home landing) 6 times. All of them over the pattern of a large airport listed on the sectional. Yes I fly conservatively, but I go the same places others go, I just stay higher. I started it maybe 10 or 12 times in that 23 years to avoid a relight, usually before the engine is even stowed. It has failed to start exactly once, first start after winter layup on the ground.

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:12:17 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:05 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:13:54 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:55:54 AM UTC-7, youngbl....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed.. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight.. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > > > > > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > > > > > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > > > > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eric
> > > > > > Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > > Please, just stop using "save your ass" unless you mean "avoiding physical injury from a glider crash". It's totally unnecessary to use the phrase and leads to confusion about what you mean because you've been using it in the context of safety; for example, "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together."
> > > > Eric, SYAG is like putting lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig regardless of how you dress it up. Don't take this thread so serious, Fitch seems to have this discussion in the right frame of mind. I was hoping that Bud Light would have a motorglider on their new can, it might just get them out of a deep hole. So, here we are getting into spring around the country and those motorgliders are coming out of the trailers, I am sure that none of them will be late for dinner this year.
> > > > On another note the SSA was very kind to us here on the Treasure Coast and sent John Godfrey over to Fly-In-Ranches, AKA FD25 to install a OGN system that is a nice compliment to soaring activities here in South Florida, thanks John and Davis, the system is helping us keep track of our gliders that are flying our challenging triangles deep into the Everglades.
> > > > I have flown my Lowly 27 a few times this spring, threaded the needle a few times and made my 5th trip around Lake O, without a motor. It is also important to notice that the SYAG's at Seminole have been flying a few nice triangles this year as opposed to past years, I guess we must be putting the pressure on the SYAG's!
> > > > The mango orchard is looking good, the finally needed rain has arrives and the fruit is looking good for a June and July harvest, I will have a box headed your way as soon as they are ready to ship. OBTP
> > > A long time ago I listened to Tom Knauff talk about a record flight he had made in the Adriondacks the previous season. At the last stretch of the flight back home he was joined by 3 other gliders. It was late in the day, of course, and lift was scarce. They encountered a heavily forested stretch with no possibility of land out whatsoever. ALL of them ventured on w/o anyone saying on the radio that this is stupid, or questioning the wisdom of this reckless move. They were just silent. Well, one of them found a weak thermal and they all climbed up and made it home. If this thermal had not been found ALL of them would have gone down into the trees, with a high probability of a fatality by at least one of them. No one in the audience, including me, questioned Knauff's decision-making, perhaps because it was in the past. But, here you have a nationally-recognized authority on glider instruction and safety admit to one of the most reckless and dangerous examples of glider flying that I have ever heard of. While he had the possibility of setting a world record, the others didn't. And even a world record is NOT worth dying over.
> > >
> > > Landing out is inherently risky (with the possible exception of a large, flat, plowed field) as you can't possibly see all of the potential hazards from even pattern altitude. One should expect some kind of damage once in every 10 landouts. With a motorglider, the landout is a backup to the motor. If motor failure is on the order of one in a hundred, then you could expect damage in one out of a thousand restarts (10 times 100). A typical pilot will likely never encounter this as I typically do one restart a year.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > I don't know what the restart rate is for "typical" motorglider pilots, but I restart 5+ times year, and when I flew towed gliders, I'd land away from home a few times a year. I know how to cut that number down to one (or even none, like OBTP), but it means flying so conservatively, I wouldn't have as much fun as I do now. How often do you other motorglider pilots restart? Piston, rotary, jet, electric - I'm interested in replies from all pilots.
> This is my 23rd year with the motorglider, I think I have restarted (to avoid an away-from-home landing) 6 times. All of them over the pattern of a large airport listed on the sectional. Yes I fly conservatively, but I go the same places others go, I just stay higher. I started it maybe 10 or 12 times in that 23 years to avoid a relight, usually before the engine is even stowed. It has failed to start exactly once, first start after winter layup on the ground.
>
> One thing about motorgliders is they are more complex than towed gliders, and require perhaps 3 or 4x the maintenance. In my experience glider pilots - many of them at least - are not very good at maintenance. That makes those pilots possibly dangerous in a motorglider, certainly if they are depending on the engine.

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:05 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:13:54 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
....
> > I don't know what the restart rate is for "typical" motorglider pilots, but I restart 5+ times year, and when I flew towed gliders, I'd land away from home a few times a year. I know how to cut that number down to one (or even none, like OBTP), but it means flying so conservatively, I wouldn't have as much fun as I do now. How often do you other motorglider pilots restart? Piston, rotary, jet, electric - I'm interested in replies from all pilots.
> I was referring only to away-from-airport restarts where the only other option is an off-field landing. I probably also restart half a dozen times near the airport.
>
> Tom
My numbers are for all restarts away from the home airport: most are over an airport, perhaps two a year over a field.

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:23:44 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:07:58 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
....
> > > While an off airport landing doesn't guarantee a crash, it increases the odds substantially. There is about a 10x increase in chances of damage in a landing off airport, compared to an airport landing. You can quickly calculate this from the Soaring Safety foundation figures.
> > While the average might be 10X, I'm sure there are large variations, depending on the flying area and the pilot, and those are some reasons we can not conclude the motor is a "safety device". I can't think of any way we can estimate the outcome of every pilot being equipped with a motor. I suggest the results might be worse, not better, for a number of reasons. Some are...
> >
> > * pilots may fly much more aggressively, increasing the number of times they are faced with an outlanding, and the number of failed starts will be larger
> I don't have hard data to back this up, just personal experiences and those of others. Obviously there can be a great variation between pilots and where they fly.
> > * the fields they pick may not be as good as they are now, if they think the motor will save them, increasing the 10x to say 15x or more
> > * there will be more launch accidents, as the motorglider pilots will not be as experienced as the tow pilots
> That is totally unsupported. Many motorglider pilots ARE also tow pilots, as well as airline and military pilots. A towed glider launch is inherently more complex and hazardous than a motorglider launch. I know of several tow pilots who have been killed by a kiting glider but know of NO motorglider pilots killed during the launch.
>
> Tom
My list described pilots who are _not_ motorglider pilots now. The demographics of these pilots is likely younger and less experienced in all aircraft, compared to current motorglider pilots.

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:13:54 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:54:10 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail..com wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:55:54 AM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 PM UTC-7, youngbl....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > Recently, Old Bob the Purist wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together.. What is interesting is the reliability of the motorglider when needed. I can only recall two instances where the motor did not start when called upon that resulted in land outs. Once was during a Seniors event when some guy left an airport area low and was going to rely on the motor and it did not start when called upon and the other there was a malfunction of the engine and it would not start and also resulted in a land out. So with that said I would like for you to give me some idea as to the percentage of reliability that you would put on a motorglider start when needed, I would say that the reliability is probably 98%, which certainly makes it a save your ass safety device. Old Bob, The Purist"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A motor does not automatically give you safety or convenience.. For some pilots, the additional complexity and cost of a motor exceeds the convenience of tows when desired, and for others, that complexity decreases their safety when low and under pressure to avoid a landout.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But it's good question: just how reliably does a motorglider start? That's a bit like asking "how reliable is the L/D on your glider", because L/D is what most of us depend on to keep us safe during a flight. The answer to both questions is "it depends"; for example, the type of motorglider, it's maintenance, and pilot ability can all strongly affect the success of an attempted start in stressful conditions (and knowing you will crash if the engine doesn't start is definitely stressful). The older (before the DG400, say) two stroke motorgliders are, I think, worse than 98%, but the modern FES glider is much better than 98%, possibly enough better that many pilots would be safer depending it starting than the safety of a field they pick out from the air.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Using your 98% reliability for starting, I'd expect to have a failed in-flight start about once every 10 years. A crash every 10 years sounds like very poor odds to me! No crashes for me, however, even though I made a lot use of the convenience of my motorglider to enhance my soaring experience, as I maintain my safety because I don't count on it starting to "save my ass". You, on the other hand, would gain neither convenience nor safety with a motorglider, unless you change the way you've been flying the last 5+ years.
> > > > > > Eric, I appreciate the compliment that you gave me about flying without a motor, instead of 5 + years please make it 45+ years. Why do you refer to landing out as crashing??? Landing out is not crashing rather an inevitable event as all PURIST must be capable of performing, if you cannot accomplish that objective then you need a motorglider. Even if two stroke engines are less reliable than 98% they offset the purist by whatever percentage you choose to tag them with, remember the purist has zero %.
> > > > > > The pure glider has zero reliability and relies only on sound decision making and pilot performance, we do not have that get me home button, even 50% is better than zero%. Until the time comes that I need a motorglider I will continue to fly my Lowly 27 and give the Big Dogs a run for their money. Old Bob, The Purist
> > > > > _You_ are the one using the phrase "save your ass safety device", implying the pilot will crash if the engine doesn't start. I do not think landing out rises to the "risking your ass" category, as all of us take that risk when the launch is over. Say "risking a retrieve", if that's what you mean. The motor counts as a "safety device" only if the pilot intends to fly where it might be required to avoid a landing that will be a crash with glider damage as a minimum, or fatal as a maximum.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric
> > > > Yes, I did use the term, Save Your Ass", only as a reference to enhancing your flight to look better rather than do the manly thing like being a PURIST and dealing with what you are dealt. Maybe I should just use the acronym, SYAG, or AKA as "Save Your Ass Glider". Old Bob, The Purist
> > > Please, just stop using "save your ass" unless you mean "avoiding physical injury from a glider crash". It's totally unnecessary to use the phrase and leads to confusion about what you mean because you've been using it in the context of safety; for example, "Eric, you must admit that convenience and safety go together."
> > Eric, SYAG is like putting lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig regardless of how you dress it up. Don't take this thread so serious, Fitch seems to have this discussion in the right frame of mind. I was hoping that Bud Light would have a motorglider on their new can, it might just get them out of a deep hole. So, here we are getting into spring around the country and those motorgliders are coming out of the trailers, I am sure that none of them will be late for dinner this year.
> > On another note the SSA was very kind to us here on the Treasure Coast and sent John Godfrey over to Fly-In-Ranches, AKA FD25 to install a OGN system that is a nice compliment to soaring activities here in South Florida, thanks John and Davis, the system is helping us keep track of our gliders that are flying our challenging triangles deep into the Everglades.
> > I have flown my Lowly 27 a few times this spring, threaded the needle a few times and made my 5th trip around Lake O, without a motor. It is also important to notice that the SYAG's at Seminole have been flying a few nice triangles this year as opposed to past years, I guess we must be putting the pressure on the SYAG's!
> > The mango orchard is looking good, the finally needed rain has arrives and the fruit is looking good for a June and July harvest, I will have a box headed your way as soon as they are ready to ship. OBTP
> A long time ago I listened to Tom Knauff talk about a record flight he had made in the Adriondacks the previous season. At the last stretch of the flight back home he was joined by 3 other gliders. It was late in the day, of course, and lift was scarce. They encountered a heavily forested stretch with no possibility of land out whatsoever. ALL of them ventured on w/o anyone saying on the radio that this is stupid, or questioning the wisdom of this reckless move. They were just silent. Well, one of them found a weak thermal and they all climbed up and made it home. If this thermal had not been found ALL of them would have gone down into the trees, with a high probability of a fatality by at least one of them. No one in the audience, including me, questioned Knauff's decision-making, perhaps because it was in the past. But, here you have a nationally-recognized authority on glider instruction and safety admit to one of the most reckless and dangerous examples of glider flying that I have ever heard of. While he had the possibility of setting a world record, the others didn't. And even a world record is NOT worth dying over.
>
> Landing out is inherently risky (with the possible exception of a large, flat, plowed field) as you can't possibly see all of the potential hazards from even pattern altitude. One should expect some kind of damage once in every 10 landouts. With a motorglider, the landout is a backup to the motor. If motor failure is on the order of one in a hundred, then you could expect damage in one out of a thousand restarts (10 times 100). A typical pilot will likely never encounter this as I typically do one restart a year.
>
> Tom
I don't know what the restart rate is for "typical" motorglider pilots, but I restart 5+ times year, and when I flew towed gliders, I'd land away from home a few times a year. I know how to cut that number down to one (or even none, like OBTP), but it means flying so conservatively, I wouldn't have as much fun as I do now. How often do you other motorglider pilots restart? Piston, rotary, jet, electric - I'm interested in replies from all pilots.

Here is a spreadsheet with narrative details of 21 motorglider accidents involving engine reliability/performance problems in the last 14 years:
https://www.milletsoftware.com/Download/Motor_Glider_Accidents_with_Engine_Problems_2008_2022.xlsx

I extracted the data from my USA glider accident web pivot charts at:
https://www.milletsoftware.com/Data/Glider_Events.html

In total, there were 75 motorglider accidents during that time frame.
So engine reliability/performance issues make up 28% of motorglider accidents.

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:32:01 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:18:03 AM UTC-7, Ido Millet wrote:
> > Here is a spreadsheet with narrative details of 21 motorglider accidents involving engine reliability/performance problems in the last 14 years:
> > https://www.milletsoftware.com/Download/Motor_Glider_Accidents_with_Engine_Problems_2008_2022.xlsx
> >
> > I extracted the data from my USA glider accident web pivot charts at:
> > https://www.milletsoftware.com/Data/Glider_Events.html
> >
> > In total, there were 75 motorglider accidents during that time frame.
> > So engine reliability/performance issues make up 28% of motorglider accidents.
> Stated more properly, misplaced pilot expectations of engine reliability/performance issues contribute to 28% of motorglider accidents. "One must always be prepared for the possibility that the engine will not provide the hoped for propulsion". Verbatim from the ASH operator's manual. In your research, did you find many cases (or even one) of the presence of an engine by itself directly causing an accident? I know of none. On the other hand, I have has several friends die or nearly die in a SG, trying to make in home to avoid an inconvenient retrieve. A SYAG will largely eliminate that risk. Maybe the acronym should be SYFIR - Save Yourself From an Inconvenient Retrieve. I'll start using that instead.
Fitch, I would love to sit at the bar and have a few drinks with you, we would both walk away with an appreciation for each other. Eric continues to berate my flights into the swamp and always thinks that I make it back home, it is not true, he just overlooks things, something I would not expect from an engineer like Eric. That 28% is a big number, us purist could never reach 28%, we could not even reach 1%, so that puts is a a much better class of statistics than the SYAG guys.
Hope things are good up there in the liberal land, things down here in Trump land are quiet well. Old Bob, The Purist

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:05 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:13:54 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> ...
> > > I don't know what the restart rate is for "typical" motorglider pilots, but I restart 5+ times year, and when I flew towed gliders, I'd land away from home a few times a year. I know how to cut that number down to one (or even none, like OBTP), but it means flying so conservatively, I wouldn't have as much fun as I do now. How often do you other motorglider pilots restart? Piston, rotary, jet, electric - I'm interested in replies from all pilots.
> > I was referring only to away-from-airport restarts where the only other option is an off-field landing. I probably also restart half a dozen times near the airport.
> >
> > Tom
> My numbers are for all restarts away from the home airport: most are over an airport, perhaps two a year over a field.
Eric, there is no doubt about the safety of a motorglider vs a towed glider, the SYAG offers a safety factor just by the engine itself that the towed glider does not have. The only exception to this would be the sustainer SYAG and not the self launch. The sustainer still relies on a tow whether it is aero, winch or auto, and that in an of itself is much more challenging than a self launch. As a past tow pilot you should certainly be cognizant of the possible issues during towing, especially having a solo first time glider pilot at the end of your rope, I still do 99% of the tows at our club and I do continue to be vigilant and evaluate most every person that I tow, and there are times when the words on the ground are not very kind, I guess at my old age has made me a bit less tolerant.
I have watched self launch SYAG's take off and get airborne and it has been quiet impressive in most cases unless the SYAG has a solo engine especially in a duel seat, those dinosaurs are to say the least quiet anemic.
I would really like to ask the question about motorglider accidents and if the motorglider pilot was so much more experienced than other glider pilots do the accident numbers reflect that? Old Bob, The Purist

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:59:35 AM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:53:34 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:05 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:13:54 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > ...
> > > > I don't know what the restart rate is for "typical" motorglider pilots, but I restart 5+ times year, and when I flew towed gliders, I'd land away from home a few times a year. I know how to cut that number down to one (or even none, like OBTP), but it means flying so conservatively, I wouldn't have as much fun as I do now. How often do you other motorglider pilots restart? Piston, rotary, jet, electric - I'm interested in replies from all pilots.
> > > I was referring only to away-from-airport restarts where the only other option is an off-field landing. I probably also restart half a dozen times near the airport.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > My numbers are for all restarts away from the home airport: most are over an airport, perhaps two a year over a field.
> Eric, there is no doubt about the safety of a motorglider vs a towed glider, the SYAG offers a safety factor just by the engine itself that the towed glider does not have. The only exception to this would be the sustainer SYAG and not the self launch. The sustainer still relies on a tow whether it is aero, winch or auto, and that in an of itself is much more challenging than a self launch. As a past tow pilot you should certainly be cognizant of the possible issues during towing, especially having a solo first time glider pilot at the end of your rope, I still do 99% of the tows at our club and I do continue to be vigilant and evaluate most every person that I tow, and there are times when the words on the ground are not very kind, I guess at my old age has made me a bit less tolerant.
> I have watched self launch SYAG's take off and get airborne and it has been quiet impressive in most cases unless the SYAG has a solo engine especially in a duel seat, those dinosaurs are to say the least quiet anemic.
> I would really like to ask the question about motorglider accidents and if the motorglider pilot was so much more experienced than other glider pilots do the accident numbers reflect that? Old Bob, The Purist
I think we need a nice acronym for the motorless towed gliders, as a counterpoint to Old Bob's SYAG. How about SG for Suicide Glider? After all, in one of those things, what do you do when the wind quits? And aren't you depending on a (minimum) 50 year old PA-25 to get it off the ground? What else would you fly 300 km over alligator infested swamps never getting above pattern altitude?

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:33:22 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:32:01 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:18:03 AM UTC-7, Ido Millet wrote:
> > > Here is a spreadsheet with narrative details of 21 motorglider accidents involving engine reliability/performance problems in the last 14 years:
> > > https://www.milletsoftware.com/Download/Motor_Glider_Accidents_with_Engine_Problems_2008_2022.xlsx
> > >
> > > I extracted the data from my USA glider accident web pivot charts at:
> > > https://www.milletsoftware.com/Data/Glider_Events.html
> > >
> > > In total, there were 75 motorglider accidents during that time frame.
> > > So engine reliability/performance issues make up 28% of motorglider accidents.
> > Stated more properly, misplaced pilot expectations of engine reliability/performance issues contribute to 28% of motorglider accidents. "One must always be prepared for the possibility that the engine will not provide the hoped for propulsion". Verbatim from the ASH operator's manual. In your research, did you find many cases (or even one) of the presence of an engine by itself directly causing an accident? I know of none. On the other hand, I have has several friends die or nearly die in a SG, trying to make in home to avoid an inconvenient retrieve. A SYAG will largely eliminate that risk. Maybe the acronym should be SYFIR - Save Yourself From an Inconvenient Retrieve. I'll start using that instead.
> Fitch, I would love to sit at the bar and have a few drinks with you, we would both walk away with an appreciation for each other. Eric continues to berate my flights into the swamp and always thinks that I make it back home, it is not true, he just overlooks things, something I would not expect from an engineer like Eric. That 28% is a big number, us purist could never reach 28%, we could not even reach 1%, so that puts is a a much better class of statistics than the SYAG guys.
> Hope things are good up there in the liberal land, things down here in Trump land are quiet well. Old Bob, The Purist
Old Bob, 28% is a big number compared to what? 28% of what? What I do know is that 100% of SG crash because they don't have a motor. Prove me wrong: every one that crashes doesn't have a motor. Giving a percent probability without citing the reference class is a favorite of serial statistical liars, most notably the pharmaceutical industry and politicians.

I'll drink a beer with you but not in steamy Florida, land of DeSantis. I'm currently enjoying 41 deg and rain, here in the lib PNW.