Glider Cross-country signoff & FARs

Tony Verhulst wrote:
Michael wrote:
..... if you (as a CFIG)
were not willing to endorse the student for XC flight, clearly you
must not have given him adequate instruction in XC flying, which is
required.

Assuming the U.S. and glider ratings, there is no XC requirement in the
Practical Test Standard.

Tony V.

Area VIII: Navigation
A. Task: Flight Preparation and Planning
4. Constructs a flight profile to determine minimum flight
altitude at go-ahead points.

This is probably the clearest requirement for ORAL testing of
X-C planning proficiency. Can't tell go-ahead points without
wind effects, need to read a TAF for that, etc...

As far as an examiner requiring an XC endorsement for a practical test,
DPE's can make up their own rules and do whatever they want.
Some DPE's won't fly certain planes (a Tomahawk) or refuse
to fly in actual IFR even for an IFR checkride, or require that
the CFI applicant have spin training from the instructor that
signs them off. DPE's that make their additional requirements
known BEFORE the flight test I would think were wholly within their
discretion. On the other hand, taking someone's $250 and then
telling them they need a XC signoff and another $250 at a later
date is dirty pool and would get a response from me if I were the
recommender.

And different FSDO's get some leeway in "interpretation."
In Alaska, the examiner's include "defrosting the freakin'
engine" as part of the tested preflight. In Hawaii, overwater
operations and using their flight tracking system is tested.
So yes, there seems to be a lot of discretion given...

But is an XC 61.93 endorsement required for all glider practical
tests? No way. Neither is a "B" airspace endorsement, or
a "night" endorsement, or an endorsement to land at every airport
that pilot may select in the future. Can someone legally fly a glider
at night into B airspace to a completely new airport after getting
the glider PPL? Yes (if they have enough money for all the
electric things). But requiring sign-offs for this generally
of all applicants across the country would be absurd.

I read somewhere that only 20% of glider PPL's ever do a
cross-country. This matches my personal observations.
I'm also keenly aware that in the US, one gets a "glider"
license, not a "soaring" license. If all you have is a winch,
a 2-33, and stable air when the student has time to fly, how
are you gonna fly a dual cross-country? Is there really
any reason to make getting a glider license harder?

In article 400ae103$1@darkstar,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

If all you have is a winch, a 2-33, and stable air when the student
has time to fly, how are you gonna fly a dual cross-country?

More to the point: why do you bother having a "gliding" club there at
all?

-- Bruce

Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article 400ae103$1@darkstar,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

If all you have is a winch, a 2-33, and stable air when the student
has time to fly, how are you gonna fly a dual cross-country?

More to the point: why do you bother having a "gliding" club there at
all?

-- Bruce

Let's see, because some people like to get a "glider" license
so they can take up friends and family on calm days at sunset
on high tows and glide in quiet and serenity.

Because the local "glider" operation is close and you can get
a license there in the winter when CFIG's and gliders are
easy to schedule and if you had to go to a "soaring" site
200 miles away for all your training you'd never get a license
and never get to fly with your friends and family.

Because the 80% of the glider pilots that never go X-C
are willing to spend money there in the winter so that the
operation makes enough money so that it is alive in the
summer/soaring season and the tow pilots and CFIG's are
well rehearsed and current in flying takeoffs and
landings.

Because takeoffs and landings are the majority of accidents
in gliding and practicing these things during the off
months gives more experience for the later soaring months.

Etc...

....but I'm sure you could come up with more reasons if
you thought about it...

(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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

(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.

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.

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.

This is the core of your entire argument downstream from here. All I
can say is what I already said:

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

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 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. What WILL affect
participation is the driver's license medical (a little - and be aware
that much of it will be at the cost of participation in soaring) and
the LSA. THAT is what matters - having a new crop of ready-to-fly new
aircraft that can be built and maintained without the costs of
certification. If we really start seeing new airplanes at the cost of
a new car and the ability to fly power without a medical, that's going
to make a real difference. If we don't, sport pilot will have as much
impact as recreational pilot - none.

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.).

So? Recreational pilot requires none of this. How many recreational
pilots are there?

Michael

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...

In article 400d8fb4$1@darkstar,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

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.

Well, the good news is that 32:1 gliders are cheap and plentiful.


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

Most people who say things like this seem to think you need considerably
*more* than Ka6/PW5 performance to go cross country. Are you saying
that it is in fact enough? (I think it is)

-- Bruce

Bruce Hoult wrote:

Well, the good news is that 32:1 gliders are cheap and plentiful.


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

Most people who say things like this seem to think you need considerably
*more* than Ka6/PW5 performance to go cross country. Are you saying
that it is in fact enough? (I think it is)

-- Bruce

At Avenal, 32:1 is enough a lot of the time. And on the days
when 32:1 isn't enough, 50:1 usually isn't enough either.

Okay. How about some terms? What is cross-country?
I'd say any flight where some part of the flight is beyond
final glide back to the departure airport is a cross-country.
A bit ambiguous, but hey, I'm going with it.

ANSWER:
-------

"Seldom" an SGS 2-33 is enough. "Much more often" a DG-1000 is
enough.

Given the same pilot experience:

With a tailwind, frequent markers, high thermals (AGL), benign
terrain, and a short distance (in that order of importance)
I think a 2-33 is fine. Heck, even some lower thermals are fine
if they are frequent enough (the southeast US states seem to have this
quite a bit). This seems to be a recipe for 1-26 cross-countries
that I've read about.

Into a headwind, no markers, low thermals, unlandable terrain,
and a long way to go make a DG-1000 look much more attractive.
Somewhere in between, the Blanik L-13 and the Grob-103 are going to
be ok.

1. Tailwind/headwind has a HUGE effect on glide if you
have a curvy polar.

2. Markers are the difference between a no-brainer "connect-the-dots"
flight and searching the ground for sources.

3. Thermal height determines if you are going to be able to
make it to the next thermal, or land out.

4. Benign terrain gives you more time to look for lift instead of
worrying about landing out.

5. Distance = pilot fatigue. A 300km in a 40:1 sailplane seems to
take twice the time 20:1 will take, from what I've read of pilots
who've tried both.

Good L/D, flatness of the polar, and ease of trailering really
help increase the number of soarable days (given the same experience
level).

From my point of view, I started soaring in the winter. Lift
was just weak as could be for my first 5 days/sessions. Then there
was a fantastic day with two huge cumulus clouds and my two
friends went back and forth between them in a 2-33 and 1-26 while
I did 3 hours of ground training for my license! But I had my eye
on the PW-5, and the insurance required a PPL-glider to fly it.

So I got a license, and got in. Boy what a difference! I could
really explore the area, and even though the L-13 was pretty good,
I was terrified of landing out in the huge metal thing with nuts
and bolts to disassemble (yikes!). The PW-5 was something two
small/weak people could lift over a fence (pieces anyway)!

That glider really eliminated a lot of hard "cost based"
decisions for me. If it had been a $50,000 glider I never
WOULD have gone into some of those valleys, and if
it was a $6,000 glider, I never COULD have gone there (well,
on that day anyway). And the PW-5 was different from the
1-26, because the stick controlled the airspeed, not JUST the
vario

As it was I got 30-40 flights for about $350 for my share for the
syndicate for the year (about $10 a flight in rent). And I got
a lot further, with less fatigue, with less training, on marginal
days, than in a 1-26.

So there are a LOT of gliders that are between $10,000-$20,000
that are 30:1 to 40:1 in glide, and are pretty easy to disassemble.
Beyond that, there are some with flaps and ballast and retract,
but the added cost of insurance, maintenance, and training
haven't yet met my price point.

Do I think a 30:1 ship is enough for me for X-C? Usually. Could I
do an X-C in a 20:1 ship? Well, a downwind dash with markers
and high thermals close together, 30NM to Lost Hills, sure. But who
wants to wait around for those conditions?

On 04/01/20 13:29, in article 400d8fb4$1@darkstar, "Mark James Boyd"
wrote:

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.

Why not?

Are we wasting our time catering to people who are not motivated enough or
economically able to continue in the sport, just because we want to see some
raw numbers? This may aid the commercial training operations, as it does in
the power world, but it doesn't help retention.

The SSA, too, seems to be caught up in the general hand-wringing over
declining numbers, but that's the nature of organizations. I think the idea
of requiring a x-c is a good one, both from a motivation/retention point of
view and from a safety point of view -- any glider pilot can be forced to
divert, or land out on any given flight, because of winds, weather, field
operations, etc., and it shouldn't be the first time he has been somewhere
other than the home field, especially if he is the type that only flys the
two-seater because he only glides in order to take friends for a quiet ride.

As matter of fact, it might not be a bad idea for clubs to require on an
annual basis that every member prove he can go somewhere else and land in
order to maintain his qualifications to use club aircraft.

Towing out of the chosen divert field to return to the home 'drome would be
a nice change of pace for everybody. CFIGs, tow pilots, and supervisors all
need to blow the cobwebs out and get some new perspective from time to time.
Nearby clubs could conduct this training on the same weekend and serve as
the recovery fields for each other, simplifying the process, reducing the
costs, and providing an opportunity to cement ties between clubs, as well as
enhancing pilot capabilities.

Telling people they are not likely to be successful in x-c work unless they
go for glass is not going to help retention either. Fly what you can afford
to fly often. If you don't have a club supportive of your x-c efforts in a
lower performance, affordable sailplane, perhaps what you really need is a
new club.

The records for the 1-26 in Region 7, of all places, a

Distance in a Straight Line James E. Hard MN 413.68 mi. 4- 6-1990
Distance to a Goal James E. Hard MN 320.24 mi. 6-24-1984
Out and Return Distance James E. Hard MN 192.10 mi. 5- 2-1995
100 Km Triangle Speed James E. Hard MN 33.87 mph 5-26-1998
200 Km Triangle Speed James E. Hard MN 29.30 mph 7-30-1997
150 Km Out and Return Speed Kevin B. Ford IL 26.40 mph 5-28-1992
Absolute Altitude Kevin B. Ford IL 9,500 ft. 5-28-1992
Gain of Height Kevin B. Ford IL 6,950 ft. 5-23-1994

There's no wave or ridge in MN, nor in IL, as far as I know.



Jack


Sent using the Entourage X Test Drive.