On 9 Jul 2003 09:18:42 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

First of all, I don't know if "bollocking" is a nasty word,
but I certainly wouldn't want one.

That would be a "chewing out" in American.

Next, I want to make it clear that my main issue is that the
rules seem to be complex to account for the old "barograph
and people watching" style of badge flying, and have a lot of
requirements that are superceded by GPS loggers.

I'm certain there are hang overs from the old days, but under the
current rules you can do the distance with an uncalibrated barograph
and witnesses to the take-off and landing. The barograph is only there
to make sure you didn't get a relight along the way.

That said, the remaining rules about witnesses and the barograph are
to stop the trace being faked with a pressure chamber.

I also want to make clear that there is a large drop in
numbers as we go from local flying to XC, and I think that
some of it is because the Silver is daunting, and made moreso
by the complexity of the rules and the realities like mine.

Sure, but the Silver isn't the cause - after all you don't HAVE to get
one, but its nice to have, both for the reasons you give below and
because its a good skill indication if you visit another club and want
to fly.

Example 1: I'm visiting the Wasserkuppe in Germany later this month. I
rang to check on flying requirements and mentioned I had Silver. Their
reaction was: "Oh, well just bring your license and medical and you
can fly".

Example 2: When I rolled up at Avenal in Oct, 2001, having Silver got
me an immediate area familiarisation flight in a 2-33. If I'd had
longer I'm certain I could have flown the 1-26 as well. Its on my
to-do list... next time!

It's also important to note that a Silver badge is a way to
qualify for Sports regionals and that plus gold 300km gets
one qualified for other classes.

I have heard my own club members naysay the badge program
because of the complexity, and when my PW-5 syndicate talked
about the Avenal regionals, I was surprised how few had
Silver badges and wouldn't even enter a sport class if it
had been available (in the 1-26 or 2-33).

That's a club thing. In my club its expected that new solo pilots will
go for their Bronze XC Endorsement (UK prerequisite for xc) and Silver
as they learn to go xc. It is expected that the club Discii and Pegase
will be flown xc - why else would we have them? However, not all UK
clubs have this attitude.

So I really like the badge program for encouraging X-C,
and would like to see what I think are more consistent rules
which make common sense and are simpler (mostly with
regard to gps). I think this would ease that transition from
local to X-C flying.

First, despite the threat of a "good bollocking," if a pilot does
wander 50km from start and then lands (without having any
declaration), that meets the Silver.

Only if he can get both the take-off and landing witnessed by an OO or
two other persons and had a logger on board . If he just 'wandered
off' that's rather unlikely.

I interpret this to mean
that Silver is more about the X-C skill than the finding the
exact turnpoint and doing photos, but also that this was the
only way to validate (historically) that the flight was done.

That's true enough.

Only the altitude of the landing airport was known (how
can one show from a baro trace that the pilot was above
the airport at X feet?).

You can't. The height rules are intended to stop things like being
towed to 10,000 ft AGL and then gliding 50 km from there. This is why
the start height and destination ground level are important.

If the pilot did an out and
return without a declaration, and took a photo of some
random point, how can it be verified?

Of course it can't be verified. Photo verification only works with the
crayon mark on the canopy showing in a photographic declaration pre
launch and the post-landing photo evidence. The OO must remove the
camera after landing and get the film developed as a single strip.
Digital cameras are not legal. 'Random points' don't cut it either -
the photo must be of a recognizable TP and taken from a point within
the FAI sector so that an OO can look at the photo and recognise the
TP and where the glider was when it was photographed.

A gps logger solves these problems. We don't need to
use the airport altitude, we can find a point 50km away
and see what it's altitude was. We don't need to look
at random photos, we know where the glider went.

All true, but there are still novices who don't have a GPS. The
current rules allow them to do a valid Silver using only witnesses and
a barograph or pressure-only logger. If they are flying a club's
post-solo glider (Junior, K-8, PW-5, 1-26 ...) that may be all its
equipped with. Would you really want to change the rules to exclude
them just because they don't have a GPS available?

There are other reasons too: my club prefers the Silver distance to be
done using only a map and pressure logger or barograph and to land at
a declared gliding field. The reasoning is to prove to the pilot (and
those who sent him off) that he can navigate on pure VFR and land on a
previously unseen airfield. Having done it that way gives an enormous
confidence boost to the newly minted Silver pilot.

Does it make common sense that a pilot who flies
50km out, then makes it halfway back and lands out
has less skill than the pilot who landed at the 50km
away point?

Yes. It shows that he understands the task, which is to fly a straight
line distance of 50 km or more. If the glider ends up closer than that
its not made the straight line distance regardless of how far it flew
or where it went in getting there.

If one ends up over the landout
airport with altitude gain but then lands there
with too much loss, does this show less skill than
a pilot who lands at an airport 300 feet higher but
never made any gain?

It shows the pilot didn't understand the task requirements and either
picked too close a destination or started too high.

Is a wandering flight to a 50km away landing really
better than a wandering 50km x 2 out and return? No.

No, but the rules are clear on this. If you use a remote start or
finish and don't land there you MUST get home carrying proof that you
did in fact get there.

If you think the 50km undeclared flight to a landing is
wrong and would like this eliminated, I'd understand,
and this would make the rules consistent. Then
there is a goal flight required in the Silver just like
the Gold (which very specifically says pre-declared
O&R or triangle).

Actually, I think I would prefer it to be a goal flight for the same
reasons that my club prefers it to be flown as if it is one.

I think that a pilot
who can show on a gps that there were two points during
a flight which were 50km apart and met the altitude
rules has earned Silver distance.

Definitely not. This would eliminate the intention to fly to a
predetermined point and so would allow the clueless to drift off
downwind and earn a silver distance by default, not knowing where they
were or how they got there.

I think that you're possibly missing the point that the Silver is
pretty well designed to demonstrate that its holder is competent pilot
who has acquired the basic skills for xc flying. IMO it works this
way:

- 1000m height gain demonstrates the ability to find and ride thermals
to a significant height

- 5 hour duration shows the ability to stay airborne long enough to
complete tasks of up to 300 km and to maintain concentration over that
period

- 50 km xc shows that the pilot can navigate well enough to find a
destination or at least to go in a fairly straight line for a
significant distance.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :