FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1950
1950 - 0708.PDF
460 FLIGHT, 13 April 195c GLIDING in FRANCE Success with a Subsidy : Comments on the French Training Syllabus : British Practice Compared The attractive Arsenal Air 100 hgh-perform-nee sailplane is one of the ,oUi oan.types selected as standard equ'pment for the French national gliding movement|- GLIDING training in France was the subject of a finpirread by Mr. Peter Brooks, JB.Sc, A.C.G.i.,A.F.R.Ae.S., before the Instructors' Conference o£ the British Gliding Association, held recently at Redhill. The lecturer is at present an instructor with the Surrey Gliding Club. Introducing his paper, Mr. Brooks produced the follow- ing statistics for 1949, illustrating the comparative scale of gliding in Britain and the larger, subsidized French move- ment:— U.K. and British totals as France B.A.F.O. percentages of French " A" Certificate — 1,763 — "B" Certificate . . 1,903 493 26 "C" Certificate 1,159 331 9 Silver " C" badge .. 448 65 14 Gold "C" badge .29 3 0 "A" Certificates were no longer issued in France, but the number of '" Bs " awarded was an accurate measure of the useful pupil-intake in 1949. The "quite respectable"' British "A" Certificate total was misleading, because of the large number of A.T.C. Cadets who went no farther than the early stages of training. It was apparent that whereas our elementary training output was a quarter of that of the French, our advanced instruction was at only an eighth of the French rate. The lecturer noted that one French pupil in four gained his Silver " C " ; in Britain the rate was one in 27, although a few of our clubs probably approached the French ratio. Since 1940, the French had used dual instruction exclu sively, contending that it was safer, cheaper, quicker and less weather-sensitive, and that it produced sounder basic pilots. The seeds of this present policy—and of the present, gliding movement—were sown by the Vichy Government in 1940. The possibilities of dual training were recognized, and large numbers of gliders were ordered-from the then idle French aircraft industry, notably the Caudron C.800 two-seater. Some 300 of this type were ordered, and it became the backbone of gliding training. For early sol) training, the Arsenal SA.103 Emouchet was adopted, and about 200 were built. In the intermediate class were the Nord 1300 (250 built), the Castel 301S (225 built) and Castel 301P (60 built). For advanced dual instruction in soaring, 100 Castel 25S side-by-side two-seaters were con- structed. At the end of the war, glider strength was in creased by the acquisition of 450 German sailplanes. Since the war, the French had tended, as with powered aircraft development, to produce too many glider design- to meet a particular requirement. (A data table compilevl by the author shows a total of 14 different makes, sub divided into 32 individual types.) The authorities now proposed to cut down expenditure and concentrate on production of four basic types. These were : The Caudron C.800 two-seater ; the Arsenal Emouchet trainer ; the Castel 311, a development of the 310P intermediate-sailplane : and the Arsenal Air TOO high-performancp sailplane. Mr. Brooks stated that, as far as aircraft were concerned, the strong French position was undoubtedly due to large Government orders. In addition, ancillary equipment had also received consideration, and the Ford double-cable winch, as built by the French in large numbers, was probably the best production winch in the world. As mentioned earlier, the foundation of the French glid- ing movement was laid in 1940, when the Armistice terms prevented the use of power-driven aircraft. The revival was stopped in 1942, when the Germans moved into the Unoccupied Zone, but the training organization was kept in being. Basically, that organization—which was still in being—consisted of five national centres, giving advanced instruction and facilities for high-performance soaring, and several hundred gliding clubs scattered throughout the country. Several closely neighbouring clubs had since joined to form "inter-club centres" which to-day were, in srtme places, as large as the national centres. Clubs frequently operated in conjunction with local flying clubs, also state-subsidized; often the same instructor gave both gliding and power instruction. The dual winch circuit, said Mr. Brooks, was the basis oi the French elementary training syllabus. On average, a pupil was given 80 dual circuits, amounting' to about six hours' fiying, before being sent solo. There followed dual aero-tow instruction and a further 20 flights (alternate^ winch-launched and aero-towed) before the attainment of " C " standard. The pupil reached a minimum of 30 hours' experience, including solos on intermediate types and dual flights to study soaring, before winning his Silver " C." A Standard Training Syllabus The lecturer then outlined the elementary training sylla- bus drawn up at the Montagne Noire Centre and now standardized throughout France The sequence was * divided under the three main headings of (a) straight flight and gentle turns, (b) medium turns and (c) steep turns. There were two particularly noteworthy features of the sequence, said Mr. Brooks: the horizon-datum conception (now regarded as out of date in this country), and the use from the beginning of basic instruments to check flying accuracy. Here, Service flying training was at variance with current British gliding practice ; the French seemed to be on the R.A.F. side of the fence. Who was right ? *•' French gliding was in a healthier state than our own for three reasons: It was a single, subsidized movement instead of the separate civilian, Service and A.T.C. entities in this country; the French did not treat gliding as a "carrot" to attract Service recruits as did the A.T.C.; even when compared solely with the club side of British gliding, it achieved relatively double our rate of advanced training. The lecturer did not propose to consider the first two points, which were matters of Air Ministry policy. In the third reason was reflected the relative training facili- ties provided in the two countries. Until recently, th • French had a fourth advantage over us ; they were using dual elementary training while we were still tied to th'' obsolete solo method. This was gradually being put right. If we could in time be provided with a high performance two-seater also, we should be well on the way to improving our standards of advanced training. But to establish those standards aircraft alone were not enough. We needed conscientious instructors teaching to an adequate an<l universally recognized syllabus. The French, with their instructors' school and their body of highly experienced professional instructors using a standard method, were showing us what could be done with a Government subsidy. It was up to us, Mr. Brooks concluded, to do likewise with- out one.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
