Open Discussion; Creating XC pilots

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:47:59 AM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
On Friday, July 18, 2014 10:58:48 PM UTC-6, BobW wrote:

On 7/18/2014 3:53 PM, wrote:



I am curious. How many people in this discussion were hand held every step



of the way of starting to fly XC or just went out and tried it for



themselves?



Snip







...I am just asking because at



least here in Utah, my observation is that the only XC pilots I know taught



themselves. Those who are waiting for someone to take them.......are still



waiting.







Assuming by "self-taught" you mean something along the lines of absorbing



basic instruction goal-oriented essentially toward one's ticket, during which



perhaps the mentioning of badges and a broad-brush intro to the basics of XC



flight/landing concepts occurred...along with the obvious expectation that of



COURSE every trainee would eventually go XC, then self-taught worked for me.







The only mental hurdle of any significance in my mind was the off-field



landing aspect, and the thought of hand-holding never occurred to me, even had



it been a possibility in the early 1970s (which it wasn't). A person either



elected to fly XC or chose not to, and I recall being surprised that there



were people who chose NOT to go XC. I didn't realize there were until after I



had my license...and by then it struck me as quite odd!







The concept/possibility of "hand-holding-based XC training" reminds me of



something engineers (my degree) are often accused of in the



manufacturing-oriented industries with which I'm familiar. Namely, engineers



need managers/sales-types/whomever around to pry from their designing,



grasping hands the widgets...or else said widgets would never go into



production, design perfection being arguably endemic to many engineers.



("Better" is the enemy of "good enough.")







Might there be a similar effect at work in some wannabe XC pilots where the



concept of "learning perfection" is substituted for "design perfection?" One



can always learn more, but "forever learning" can also inhibit learning's



application. At some point, "Just do it!" makes sense. Distance falls out in



the wash once Joe Pilot knows how to safely pick fields.







Bob W.



Fear of out landings just didn't occur to me as a student pilot. The "airfield" at lake Elsinore, CA was smaller, rougher with bigger weeds than the surrounding farm fields (This was in the early 1960's.) so land outs actually seemed safer than coming back to the home field.



Then, as now, there were a minority of pilots who loudly declared that anyone who went XC was "crazy" - unfortunately some were instructors who made sure their students felt that way too. That got me thinking that all instructors should be required to have at least some XC experience to weed out the anti-XC types.

At when I was in the UK, an FAI Silver C was a prerequisite. I wonder if EASA has mucked that up. That is so far detached from the FAA as to be almost unthinkable.

Frank Whiteley

Then, as now, there were a minority of pilots who loudly declared that anyone who went XC was "crazy" - unfortunately some were instructors who made sure their students felt that way too. That got me thinking that all instructors should be required to have at least some XC experience to weed out the anti-XC types.

Bill Daniels

At when I was in the UK, an FAI Silver C was a prerequisite. I wonder if EASA has mucked that up. That is so far detached from the FAA as to be almost unthinkable.



Frank Whiteley

The FAA has been considering revising glider flight instructor experience requirements upward for a number of years but just what form that will take will have to wait for the official NPRM. I do know that XC experience as a prerequisite is at least under discussion.

I've tried to dig through the EASA pilot experience requirements to find a referencible document without any luck. I expect EASA requirements will mirror German requirements which do require XC for even a private pilot certificate.

On 7/19/2014 7:47 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Saturday, July 19, 2014 12:58:48 AM UTC-4, BobW wrote:

Might there be a similar effect at work in some wannabe XC pilots where
the concept of "learning perfection" is substituted for "design
perfection?"

I view my pronounced and long-recognized tendency to 'gold-plate' (aka
'design perfection') as a personality asset in the domain of soaring. It
is only tedious for onlookers.

No tedium here, simply a question that popped into my skull.

If I was making a product to sell, I would need to push it out the door.
But as long as I'm making rapid and steady progress (log book shows
decrease in tow release heights and increase in average speed), I see no
drawback to my systematic and incremental approach...
Snip
Excellent - if it works for you, keep after it!

If you have the personality type that is systematic and not easily bored,
gold plating works well in a self-paced hobby. Sure, some people have more
'go for it' in their personality mix and we need to structure and
facilitate their progress or they will get frustrated and quit.

An old hand wisely pointed out that I should savor all of the stages of
learning to soar (for example, the 1-26 phase) and not be in a rush. It's
all fun.

Indeed!

Bob W.

At 23:23 19 July 2014, Bill D wrote:

Then, as now, there were a minority of pilots who loudly declared
that
=
anyone who went XC was "crazy" - unfortunately some were instructors who
ma=
de sure their students felt that way too. That got me thinking that all
in=
structors should be required to have at least some XC experience to weed
ou=
t the anti-XC types.

Bill Daniels

At when I was in the UK, an FAI Silver C was a prerequisite. I wonder
if EASA has mucked that up. That is so far detached from the FAA as to
be
almost unthinkable.



Frank Whiteley

The FAA has been considering revising glider flight instructor experience
requirements upward for a number of years but just what form that will
take
will have to wait for the official NPRM. I do know that XC experience as
a prerequisite is at least under discussion.

I've tried to dig through the EASA pilot experience requirements to find
a
referencible document without any luck. I expect EASA requirements will
mirror German requirements which do require XC for even a private pilot
certificate.


The XC flight is not the same as an IGC Silver distance flight - you can
fly a licence qualifying 50km without getting out of gliding range of your
airfield.

The BGA Silver badge requirement for instruction is not a legal or
regulatory requirement of course, it's a BGA choice & is likely to continue
under EASA.

Before I offer my 2¢, let me first say congratulations to MB on a job well done. I would argue that all of our sport's problems (mostly membership and participation) would be solved if every club had a 'MB,' and equally important, for those clubs to support their MB's efforts.

In the USA, we do pretty well in attracting new members, but we are pathetic at keeping them. Why? Because most clubs focus on the wrong thing: low-cost basic training. But we ignore, and in many cases discourage, the progression to cross-country soaring. If clubs offered good equipment and training, and the freedom, support, and encouragement to fly further and farther, we would go a long way in growing our clubs' rosters by not losing the members we already have.

Soaring is a product, and it competes with other products for our target market's interest. Flying a 50-year-old glider above the airport may be fun for a year or two, but without a new challenge (that doesn't come with a $20,000+ entry fee) most are going to quit the sport.

Chris Fleming

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 06:47:55 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:

If you have the personality type that is systematic and not easily
bored, gold plating works well in a self-paced hobby. Sure, some people
have more 'go for it' in their personality mix and we need to structure
and facilitate their progress or they will get frustrated and quit.

An old hand wisely pointed out that I should savor all of the stages of
learning to soar (for example, the 1-26 phase) and not be in a rush.
It's all fun.

Have you added flying mini-triangles to your repertoire yet?

By that I mean a small 3 or 4 turnpoint task with your airport at its
centre and legs or around 12-16km (8-10 miles), so the entire task counts
as local soaring and that you can easily go round more than once during a
flight. You'll find that flying round mini-triangles teaches you skills,
particularly if you use them as practise for staying high while going
faster, that you won't get from flying between randomly picked thermals.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 6:54:17 AM UTC-4, Fox Two wrote:
Before I offer my 2¢, let me first say congratulations to MB on a job well done. I would argue that all of our sport's problems (mostly membership and participation) would be solved if every club had a 'MB,' and equally important, for those clubs to support their MB's efforts.



In the USA, we do pretty well in attracting new members, but we are pathetic at keeping them. Why? Because most clubs focus on the wrong thing: low-cost basic training. But we ignore, and in many cases discourage, the progression to cross-country soaring. If clubs offered good equipment and training, and the freedom, support, and encouragement to fly further and farther, we would go a long way in growing our clubs' rosters by not losing the members we already have.



Soaring is a product, and it competes with other products for our target market's interest. Flying a 50-year-old glider above the airport may be fun for a year or two, but without a new challenge (that doesn't come with a $20,000+ entry fee) most are going to quit the sport.



Chris Fleming

Post Mills (Vermont) Soaring has a Glasflugel 304C. This glider has brought a number of new pilots into our club, but remains highly available. After a season or two sharing the 304 with other pilots, the hook is set and people go on and buy their own sailplanes. In this respect, it has been very successful.

Evan Ludeman / T8

St Louis Soaring Association is taking the XC task (pun intended) seriously:

- Just acquired a sweet Grob Astir CS (with radio, varios, & good trailer) specifically for members to take XC and chase OLC points.
- Is upgrading XC-suitable our fleet; we now have a 1-34, G-102 Club III, and the Astir CS for XC (all with trailers available), and for the read die-hards a couple of very basic 1-26s (one with an open canopy for that "Otto Lilienthal" experience!). In process of equipping all the fleet with radios and audio varios, and looking at providing some sort of power outlet for simple PDA/PNA/Phones.
- Has purchased several simple IGC loggers (FR300s) and encourage members to use them on every flight - and post to OLC.
- Have a G-103 and ASK-21 available for dual XC coaching (with a new Cobra trailer just in case!)
- And finally - we have a club OLC contest going this season: For the private owners (8 are participating), we each chipped in $100 to the pot, and the club is matching that; the pilot with the best 3 OLC plus scores (flights this year originating from our field, H07) takes it all....! For the pilots flying club ships, no ante up front is needed, but the club is putting up the same as for the private owners - $800 for the winner who uses club ships from our field.

No surprise - Lot's of interest in XC and OLC at our club now!

Kirk
66

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 7:15:06 AM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 06:47:55 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:

An old hand wisely pointed out that I should savor all of the stages of learning to soar (for example, the 1-26 phase) and not be in a rush.

It's all fun.



Have you added flying mini-triangles to your repertoire yet?



By that I mean a small 3 or 4 turnpoint task with your airport at its

centre and legs or around 12-16km (8-10 miles), so the entire task counts

as local soaring and that you can easily go round more than once during a

flight. You'll find that flying round mini-triangles teaches you skills,

particularly if you use them as practise for staying high while going

faster, that you won't get from flying between randomly picked thermals.


A qualified yes. I'm working on coring thermals quickly and flying fast on headings. The local terrain and lift/sink is asymmetrical. I can play 'how far can I fly beyond that ridge line and still get home' going E W or S. There is a similar decision point to the north caused by a zone of dependable sink.

It's an interesting beautiful place to fly and I've never felt bored. http://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=44.10...81698&z=13&b=t

MB, thank you for branching off a comment of mine in the contest improvement thread and starting this one! I'm sorry to be late to the discussion - a trip made posting before now impossible, though.

The comments in this thread are quite good, quite wide ranging, and quite inspiring. But most are aimed at a much higher level than what I consider to be the fundamental problem: how to get glider pilots to even consider trying XC? Broadly speaking, only about 10% of glider pilots in US clubs fly XC. Contest participation is even smaller, perhaps about 3%. These are not good numbers! What can we do?

MB's commendable efforts over about 10 years basically doubled his club's size member-wise, tripled his club's XC pilot contingent, and built a capable XC fleet for non-glider owners to take XC. I think one of the keys to this growth is his comment that several club officers "slowly steered the direction of the club to embrace and allow XC flight", ie, they changed the club culture. This may be the prime ingredient towards generating XC pilots.

For example, my club has (in addition to four G103 training ships) a Duo, an ASW-19, and a G102. Club rules permit using Duo and the single seaters for XC. Here are their 5 year utilization rates in hours (flights):

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
Duo 18(11) 27(29) 72(94) 80(67) 89(101)
19 25(24) 13(9) 25(19) 51(43) 59(48)
102 22(27) 66(65) 44(59) 5(10) 51(44)

What you cannot see in the numbers is that most of these are local flights, not XC flights. Add in the fact that for 2010 through 2013 only 9 pilots each year (out of about 120 club members) flew XC (determined by their flights appearing on the OLC, on the local Governor's Cup contest, or on a contest score sheet). Two further interesting facts are that 90% of these 9 XC pilots flew ASEL before flying gliders XC, 80% of them own their own glider, and only 20% of them learned to fly gliders at my club. In other words, we've had very little club generation of XC pilots.

Morgan mentioned his frustration is "trying to motivate and introduce XC to people". He's not alone. Like him, we use non-CFIG pilots to introduce people to XC. Also like him, we've given introductory XC flights a number of people. This year we're glad that we've enticed 3 new pilots to fly XC, but these folks bought their own gliders and they were not among our XC introductory flight participants!

Chris Fleming mentioned that he believes the problem in the US might be due to focusing on "low-cost basic training" and ignoring or discouraging "the progression to XC soaring". Perhaps so, my club's experience certainly bears this out. However, Martin Gregorie said that in his UK club "more members go XC than don't". Is the experience at other UK clubs similar to that at Martin's club? I have anecdotal evidence that in several Dutch and German glider clubs only about 10% of their members soar XC, similar to the US. What is the general European glider experience?

Does generating XC pilots come down to club culture?

-John, Q3