In article ,
Michael wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote
I read somewhere that only 20% of glider PPL's ever do a
cross-country. This matches my personal observations.

The question is why. I don't believe it's because only 20% of glider
pilots WANT to do a XC. I think it's because (1) they feel unprepared
and (2) most clubs and commercial operations make it difficult or
impossible to do without buying your own ship.


Partially correct. (1) Many are unprepared, because they don't
want to spend the extra money and time required to fly X-C.
They have made a choice to not make the additional investment.
I'm happy to have them at the gliderport anyway.

(2) Clubs and commercial operations make it difficult
or impossible to fly X-C? Compared to what? Compared to
having nothing there at all? That's kind of like saying
having a sole Cessna 152 for rent at a deserted airfield
is keeping student from doing commercial training. I'm
having a lot of trouble with this logic...

If a solo XC was required for the private, I think this would change.

Yes, less people would have the time and money to complete
the glider PPL. And the remaining ones would have done a X-C.

I think it would be a good thing.

Well, that depends on your viewpoint. If you're offended
by all that silly local glider traffic in the pattern,
and you wanted to reduce the number of passengers carried in
gliders, then it would be a good thing.
And it would certainly be safer if there were fewer glider
pilots flying gliders, and fewer passengers.

When I learned to fly in power 10 years ago, a student had to do a 300
nm XC flight. In those days, newly minted private pilots went places.
I flew from the Midwest to the East Coast two weeks after getting my
ticket, and this was normal. Going away from home gave me the skills
and confidence to do it.

And it was both ways, uphill, in the snow, right? :P

These days, you can be a private pilot in power without ever going 80
miles from home. I've noticed that this has failed to actually
increase the number of pilots by any appreciable amount, but it has
changed the culture - negatively. Most private pilots I know rarely
venture far from home, and do so only under ideal conditions. Only
about 20% ever go more than one fuel tank from home at all.
Interestingly, they are the same people who stick with flying for the
long term.

Most private pilots I know would love to rent an airplane and fly a
very long distance, but the tripling of commercial insurance in four
years, reflected in the rental price, has cooled their enthusiasm.
Four years ago I could rent a two seat airplane for $32 an hour at
WVI. Today $60 an hour is the cheapest. I think cost is
the driving behavior...


Thus I have to believe that requiring a solo XC for gliders would not
actually reduce the number of pilots significantly, but it would give
us a very different culture - one where XC soaring was the norm rather
than the exception. Might improve retention too.

Michael

Raise the cost and the demand will increase? Interesting
theory (I suppose it works for Versace). I can't say I buy the
logic here, however. Encouraging pilots to fly X-C, making it
easier and safer for them, volunteering to crew, making
excellent maps of landouts, acting as a mentor, etc.
sound great, but requiring it for the PPL just increases the cost
(time and money) and reduces the chance of completing the license.

- one where XC soaring was the norm rather
than the exception.

Well, if you want fewer pilots, all of which are more hard core,
and into X-C, that'll do it. If all you offer is a burger
with everything, all the remaining customers will like burgers,
with everything.

Might improve retention too.

I agree with this. If a pilot spent 5 times as much time and money
for a license, they'd be darned sure to be the most motivated cream of the
crop, and get use out of it...

But retention at the cost of recruitment? Hmmm...not something I
favor. For certain clubs, probably a good idea (many
clubs have training requirements before going X-C solo in their
gliders), but for the general population, no.

The sport-pilot initiative is the opposite of your
idea, applied to power and gliders. Commercial operators
and sellers of aircraft have pushed to lessen the
requirements (including X-C) to reduce barriers to
entry into sport aviation.

Like sport pilot, I'd like to see the requirements
remain the same, or be reduced (reducing barriers to
entry). Then the additional effort can go towards
ENCOURAGING optional flying, like X-C, formation,
racing, IFR, night, etc.

I must say, however, that I don't realistically see the
hours required ever being reduced. Learning how to
launch and land safely in a glider is going to take
at least the minimum required by the US CFR in any case,
from my experience. Granted, there will be a few
youngsters who have flown with dad a lot but haven't
logged it, who can aerotow and land after three lessons,
but for the most part, the US CFR minimums
do a good job of matching the licenses (and privileges)
granted.

I'm just really glad that sport pilot is coming along,
so that power pilots aren't required to fly any X-C
before taking a passenger in a Cub or something like that.
I've seen a lot of perfectly good pilots solo, but go no
further due to money constraints. Solo was $1000 vs.
an additional $4000 to finish all the additional
training (night, IFR, X-C, towered airports, etc.).
If it had been just another $250 for a checkride and
then they could take a friend around the local area,
I think some would have remained in aviation.