In article ,
Michael wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote
(2) Clubs and commercial operations make it difficult
or impossible to fly X-C? Compared to what? Compared to
having nothing there at all?

Disingenuous in the extreme. You don't need a 40:1 ship to go XC. I
didn't have one. All of my XC flights were in a ship I bought for
less than $7000, ready to go, current annual, roadworthy enclosed
trailer. That ship spent quite a few years as a club ship. Most
clubs and commercial operations have ships suitable for XC. Hell, a
1-26 or Ka-8 is suitable, and plenty of people are still doing their
first XC's in these ships and having great fun.


The number of days and locations an XC is possible is reduced with
less capable equipment. I got my license in two months, then did a dozen
cross-countries in the following six months, in a 32:1 ship.
I also did two cross-countries in a 1-26, but would have avoided a landout
if I had been in the 32:1 sailplane.

Better equipment means one can fly further on more days with
less experience.

Clubs and XC operations make it difficult to go XC by making all sorts
of rules that sound reasonable on paper but add up to making it very
difficult or impossible to get permission. Making the XC required
would force them to change their rules, and that's the reason I think
it's a good idea.

Now THIS is an excellent argument. I agree completely and now
think I see your point. I too have noticed that two local
commercial glider operations have outrageous prices for retrieves,
and don't provide trailers, towcars, and have draconian X-C
requirements for checkouts. Most of this seems to be
because they can make more money by doing lots of tows locally,
and to reduce perceived insurance claims, and "inconvenience."

This is one reason I went to my chosen club (Avenal) where
there are no restrictions at all on X-C, and cheap retrieves, even
though it is 3 hours drive.

From this point of view, this is a good argument. I hadn't
thought of it and I thank Michael for his patience to give
this extra detail...

I still don't know if I'd go as far as requiring it by regulation,
but I can see it does provide a marketing advantage to my
club to make X-C easier and to provide X-C training. Perhaps
the baby steps of a "mini-XC" involving a flight to
an airport 5-10 miles away, to keep costs down.
Hmmm...that sounds like fun, too!

The reduction in XC requirements has failed to increase participation.
The recreational certificate requires no XC at all, and it has also
failed to increase participation. Therefore, I consider all your
arguments that adding a XC requirement to the glider private would
reduce participation wholly unpersuasive.

The recreational license was killed by the insurance industry.
Call them up and see the difference in rates. Many (but
not all) FBO's also require a PPL for rental of some or all
aircraft.

A 5-10 mile X-C might be ok, but
trying to do a 50 mile dual X-C
would be expensive and a "show-stopper"
in the winter where I fly.

61.1(3) definition of X-C for gliders isn't published. Perhaps
adding an X-C requirement and simply having it be
"landing at a location or airport which was not the airport
of departure" might work. And this would test some good
basics on a dual flight...use of compass, pattern entry,
wind direction, judging new altitude, etc...

Another idea is a little more emphasis by examiners and CFI's
on the 61.87(i)(13) requirement for pre-solo training on
assembly and disassembly. Might as well land somewhere else if you
gotta disassemble it anyway, right?

The sport-pilot initiative is the opposite of your
idea, applied to power and gliders.

The sport pilot initiative is meaningless. The reduced training
requirement will not affect participation.

Michael

I have two CFIs who will quickly and eagerly add a "sport-CFI-glider"
endorsement with two signatures if SP goes through. They will not,
on the other hand, get a CFIG.

Again though, the question is: will the insurance companies
cover their "sport" instructional flights? We shall see...