Flying like a gyroplane pilot isn't helping our accident rate is it?
Landing in a manner that is at odds with the design of the airfield you are landing at can not fail to add risk and here it is in two ways. 1) because the approach and over shoot do not offer the same level of safe escape in the event of a failure. I hear you when you say its not that extreme - but it still requires very low level turns either on the approach or any go around. 2) because inevitably the student is less able to land off a normal approach in a cross wind leaving him between a rock and a hard place because he can't fly a normal approach because he doesn't have the technique forcing him to fly this crossed approach.
All this reminds me of conversations I have with students who see a helicopter land at the airfield -Q - "Oh why do they not take off or land vertically?" A - "because the risk is greatly increased".
In the UK the pre-requisite for a flight instructor rating is 150hrs (which in itself is very low) and the course is then another 20hrs of flying. So if we round it all up to 200 hours it probably suggests that you need around 200 hours P1 to have a level of experience where you are becoming reasonably proficient.
I don't think it is unintelligent to suggest that until pilots have their own licence they fly nothing that you wouldn't be happy to see on a first solo. I personally wouldn't encourage any pushing of that boundary until they have not just >100hrs but there needs to be recency in that too. i.e. >10hrs per month. The upside benefits are very marginal to the downside risks in flying anything that might be considered advanced or different to a first solo technique.
Specifically regards landing techniques. I have given detail as to why I see it as a bad idea holding off to an extent of near zero roll and the only benefit seems so as not to touch the nose wheel until zero forward speed - but I can hold the nose wheel off the tarmac until the aircraft has stopped even with a touch down speed of (it seems) around 35mph. So I'm still at a loss as to why we are doing this unless its just to help land across a runway - which isn't without its own risks.
Sport gyroplane trainers common to 2019 are circa 500kg aircraft and as such are sensitive to yaw and drift in the landing phase that needs to be appreciated and until it is then it is difficult to allow the student to move on. If you fudge things by making landings into wind with these crossed approaches they can not learn regardless of the other negative factors I suggest.
Landing in a manner that is at odds with the design of the airfield you are landing at can not fail to add risk and here it is in two ways. 1) because the approach and over shoot do not offer the same level of safe escape in the event of a failure. I hear you when you say its not that extreme - but it still requires very low level turns either on the approach or any go around. 2) because inevitably the student is less able to land off a normal approach in a cross wind leaving him between a rock and a hard place because he can't fly a normal approach because he doesn't have the technique forcing him to fly this crossed approach.
All this reminds me of conversations I have with students who see a helicopter land at the airfield -Q - "Oh why do they not take off or land vertically?" A - "because the risk is greatly increased".
In the UK the pre-requisite for a flight instructor rating is 150hrs (which in itself is very low) and the course is then another 20hrs of flying. So if we round it all up to 200 hours it probably suggests that you need around 200 hours P1 to have a level of experience where you are becoming reasonably proficient.
I don't think it is unintelligent to suggest that until pilots have their own licence they fly nothing that you wouldn't be happy to see on a first solo. I personally wouldn't encourage any pushing of that boundary until they have not just >100hrs but there needs to be recency in that too. i.e. >10hrs per month. The upside benefits are very marginal to the downside risks in flying anything that might be considered advanced or different to a first solo technique.
Specifically regards landing techniques. I have given detail as to why I see it as a bad idea holding off to an extent of near zero roll and the only benefit seems so as not to touch the nose wheel until zero forward speed - but I can hold the nose wheel off the tarmac until the aircraft has stopped even with a touch down speed of (it seems) around 35mph. So I'm still at a loss as to why we are doing this unless its just to help land across a runway - which isn't without its own risks.
Sport gyroplane trainers common to 2019 are circa 500kg aircraft and as such are sensitive to yaw and drift in the landing phase that needs to be appreciated and until it is then it is difficult to allow the student to move on. If you fudge things by making landings into wind with these crossed approaches they can not learn regardless of the other negative factors I suggest.