Glider Cross-country signoff & FARs

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:400dc113$1@darkstar...

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.

Mark,

That is the usual accepted definition of a cross-country. Of course,
out here in the west it can result in some unusual interpretations:
being too low a few miles away from the gliderport on a local flight
in a 2-33 would be a cross-county, while a quick 100km flight in wave
to a specific destination and back (say for a speed record) in glass
would be a local flight - always in landing range of the home field.

I use at least silver distance, specific destination(s), and out of
gliding range of the home field to decide what I log as XC.

Semantics, really.

But more to the point of this discussion: The real equipment
requirement for XC is a good trailer! If you are not willing to land
out, you will be really reluctant to push out XC, regardless of the
glider you are flying. A 1-26 with a good trailer is a lot of fun
(you can land anywhere), but a Grob 103 that is never disassembled
(and nobody knows where the trailer is) is a real disincentive to XC.

I started real XC in a 1-34, and quickly got tired of watching the
glassholes fly off into the distance - so I joined them. Sure the
1-34 is a fine XC ship, especially if all your friends are flying
similar performance ships, but so is glass. 2-33s, G-103s, ASK-21s
are not good XC ships because no-one really uses them for that so they
are not usually equipped for it (Instruments, radio, trailer, etc).
(there are exceptions, of course...).

Kirk

Kirk Stant wrote:

I use at least silver distance, specific destination(s), and out of
gliding range of the home field to decide what I log as XC.

I personally think that differences among gliders are so great that
any specific distance measurement is inequitable. So I'm going
to stick with my previous definition.

But more to the point of this discussion: The real equipment
requirement for XC is a good trailer! If you are not willing to land

In my experience, a trailer and crew were actually more "costly" than
an aero-retrieve. The trailer had no legal lights, no license
plate, no brakes, and I had the wrong size hitch. I towed it
around the airfield once (on the too small hitch), and convinced
myself I'd loaded it right (C.G.) and could do this if I had to.
Because I flew on weekdays, when there was less/no competition for the
schedule of the glider, crew meant one guy (the towpilot).

I always packed the trailer for a retrieve (C.G.) before my flights,
but I dreaded ever making someone use it (and getting a traffic ticket!)

Instead I flew all my X-C within gliding range of some airport.
I even stopped progress on one dying day at 5000 ft AGL with
tons of landouts to instead go to an airport with an easy, cheap
aero-tow out.

I'm a sucker for convenience...and with aerotow rates being so cheap,
I had to look at it and since only 1/4 of my X-C has been landouts
(at an airport), aerotow each time has been less "costly."

I started real XC in a 1-34, and quickly got tired of watching the
glassholes fly off into the distance - so I joined them. Sure the
1-34 is a fine XC ship, especially if all your friends are flying
similar performance ships, but so is glass. 2-33s, G-103s, ASK-21s
are not good XC ships because no-one really uses them for that so they
are not usually equipped for it (Instruments, radio, trailer, etc).
(there are exceptions, of course...).

Kirk

I think ease of assembly/disassembly is a big one for me too. I
wasn't about to try to disassemble and trailer a 2-33 with two people.
Much less the Blanik. Yeah, we have the trailers for that, but
all those goshdanged bits and pieces and those heavy wings
and MAN could you really screw up an L-13!

There are those who say "just get more people!" Yeah, like "poof"
I got some kinda majic wand that gives me more money, more time,
more manpower to help. I prefer to think that I have done
an excellent job making choices that have maximized my enjoyment
of this sport with the resources I had available. I should
write a book, "the Budget Soarer." ;P

Having assembled the PW-5 three dozen times in a year, and
helped with a few heavier assemblies, a Russia or Silent or
Sparrowhawk is lookin' pretty good to me about now!

Kirk Stant wrote:

But more to the point of this discussion: The real equipment
requirement for XC is a good trailer! If you are not willing to land
out, you will be really reluctant to push out XC, regardless of the
glider you are flying. A 1-26 with a good trailer is a lot of fun
(you can land anywhere), but a Grob 103 that is never disassembled
(and nobody knows where the trailer is) is a real disincentive to XC.


I'd expand this: it's not just the trailer, but a willing and eager crew
that really encourage a pilot to go cross-country (a good trailer will
make it easier to find that "willing and eager" crew!). Readily
available aerotow retrieves qualify as "willing and eager" crew, too.
You've got to be able to concentrate on your flight without worrying
about the retrieve, which is one reason I now have a motorglider (my
crew is still willing but not so eager anymore).

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Kirk Stant wrote:

But more to the point of this discussion: The real equipment
requirement for XC is a good trailer! If you are not willing to land
out, you will be really reluctant to push out XC, regardless of the
glider you are flying. A 1-26 with a good trailer is a lot of fun
(you can land anywhere), but a Grob 103 that is never disassembled
(and nobody knows where the trailer is) is a real disincentive to XC.


I'd expand this: it's not just the trailer, but a willing and eager crew
that really encourage a pilot to go cross-country (a good trailer will
make it easier to find that "willing and eager" crew!). Readily
available aerotow retrieves qualify as "willing and eager" crew, too.
You've got to be able to concentrate on your flight without worrying
about the retrieve, which is one reason I now have a motorglider (my
crew is still willing but not so eager anymore).

Eric Greenwell

An excellent point. Whichever way one decides to retrieve, making this
easier and more flexible really helps. Imagine having a motorglider,
and you can self-launch, aerotow, OR trailer
for the retrieve. Lots of flexibility for night, bumpy air,
high altitude, etc. retrieves.

Another point, about "you can land a 1-26 anywhere" is that since
the thing may only be $6,000, one is more able to fly over
questionable landouts. A lot of landouts seem to be
benign for the pilot, but damage the glider. If I was
looking at a $30,000 ASW-20 vs. a $15,000 PW-5, I might
accept lower performance just so I'm not "hangin' out the
$15,000." Even if I got it by buying a raffle ticket! (PEZ).

There are a lot of things I've done in my $6,000 airplane that I
would never do in my $40,000 airplane. None of them seemed
all that risky to the pilot (both have a real low landing speed),
but the risk to the airplane (chips in the tail, ground
loops on takeoff from catching a wing, gear collapsing,
etc.) in terms of $$$$s looked high. Lucky so far,
but I'll tell you the price of what I'm flying often
changes some of my decisions...

Man, if I flew a $40,000 or $120,000 glider, regardless of the
performance, you can bet I'd be REAL cautious and conservative
to make sure I didn't land somewhere "interesting."

So perhaps somewhere in there is why the $10,000 - $20,000
gliders are popular. Just a few LD points under the "good
stuff," but a lot less $$$$s risked.

I don't think the price of the glider has ever been part of the calculation
for landout spots. Many landouts that damage the glider are going to damage
you.

Another point, about "you can land a 1-26 anywhere" is that since
the thing may only be $6,000, one is more able to fly over
questionable landouts. A lot of landouts seem to be
benign for the pilot, but damage the glider. If I was
looking at a $30,000 ASW-20 vs. a $15,000 PW-5, I might
accept lower performance just so I'm not "hangin' out the
$15,000." Even if I got it by buying a raffle ticket! (PEZ).

"Libelle Driver" wrote in message ...
I don't think the price of the glider has ever been part of the calculation
for landout spots. Many landouts that damage the glider are going to damage
you.

I agree; the price of the glider has nothing to do with it; that's
what insurance is for (heck, out here landing out and breaking your
glider is a time-honored method of moving up to something nicer!).
Damaging a glider in a landout is most of all a nuisance issue
(assuming no injuries, of course) because it will put the glider out
of commission until it is fixed and that is a real pain if it happens
early in the season - when landouts are common!

You can land a 1-26 almost anywhere because of the short wings, low
landing speed, and rugged construction/skid. Not so my LS6 - I can't
use roads, and have a relatively small main gear wheel with a lousy
brake, so I have to keep a reasonable landing site in range at all
times - preferably an airport or dirt strip (or nice fields). With a
little planning, and a good database of landing locations in my
computer, that is really not too hard out here in the desert. For the
past few years I have averaged 2 landouts a year, every one at an
airfield or dirt strip, no damage to the glider.

Whenever we fly we all hook up our cars, knowing that if we landout
the herd will gleefully rush home to pile in our rig and rush out to
get the poor slob who couldn't keep it up - and now has to buy them
all dinner, AFTER they drink all his beer! We occasionally aerotow
retrieve, for convenience, but it is a LOT more expensive (and usually
less fun) than a ground retrieve party.

My own record is two retrieves on one day, during a contest: Landed
out in a Grob 102 at a gliderport on the first leg due to lack of
skill, got an aerotow launch and rejoined the gaggle on the return
leg, then promptly landed out again - in a wheat field this time! -
when a stratus deck moved in and cut off all lift (13 gliders landed
out within 15 minutes of each other; only 2 made it home). That ended
up in a midnight "carry the glider out of the field" ground retrieve.
Didn't seem to bother my crew too much, she married me a few years
later, but then again I havn't landed in a wheat field since then
either...

It did, however, earn me the club's "Lead C" award for that year.

Motorgliders may be convenient, and in some places without reliable
towplanes even necessary, but it must be a bit lonelier...I LIKE all
the people and activities needed to make soaring work.

Kirk

Kirk Stant wrote:

I agree; the price of the glider has nothing to do with it; that's
what insurance is for (heck, out here landing out and breaking your
glider is a time-honored method of moving up to something nicer!).

I would guess that the insurance premium for expensive gliders is
er..more expensive. And if you have a claim (or several),
your insurance goes up. The more expensive the glider,
the bigger the claim, and the bigger the premium increase.

Somebody tell me if I'm making this up...

And if you believe the NTSB reports, a LOT of the accidents
were landouts (OK, some are just "crashouts," so maybe this is
a little skewed).

We occasionally aerotow
retrieve, for convenience, but it is a LOT more expensive (and usually
less fun) than a ground retrieve party.

Well, the distances YOU fly, aerotow wouldn't be an option anyway
without several towplane refuelings

For me, it's under $100 every time. ;(


Kirk

Mark James Boyd wrote:

Kirk Stant wrote:

I agree; the price of the glider has nothing to do with it; that's
what insurance is for (heck, out here landing out and breaking your
glider is a time-honored method of moving up to something nicer!).


I would guess that the insurance premium for expensive gliders is
er..more expensive. And if you have a claim (or several),
your insurance goes up. The more expensive the glider,
the bigger the claim, and the bigger the premium increase.

The premium is not a constant percentage of the glider value, because it
costs just as much to repair the wing of new ASW 28 as an old ASW 24.
These less-than-total-loss claims are the big majority of payouts. In
other words, the more expensive the glider, usually not a bigger claim.

There is a chance of a greater total loss, so the premium is a bit
higher to account for that. For example, my ASW 20 C insured for about
$900 (value $35K), but my ASH 26 E insured for $2K (value $110K).

I have no idea how premium increases are affected by the insured value.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Earlier, "Libelle Driver" wrote:

I don't think the price of the glider
has ever been part of the calculation
for landout spots. Many landouts that
damage the glider are going to damage
you.

Maybe not ever _for you_. It's sure been a factor for me on occasion.

Libelle Driver wrote:
I don't think the price of the glider has ever been part of the calculation
for landout spots. Many landouts that damage the glider are going to damage
you.

I looked up the past 60 accidents on the NTSB database.

11 Fatal
11 Serious
11 Minor
27 Uninjured

38 Minor or uninjured vs. 22 Serious or fatal.
And in "most" of these reports, the glider had
"substantial" damage (otherwise why report it if the
dollar amount is less than $25,000 and there
were no injuries?).

I suspect 4-10 times as many damaging incidents (with
no injuries) occur than the ones reported.

From anectdotal reports, I've also heard specifically that
landouts have a much higher rate of gear-up incidence.
And in all of these that I've heard of (5), the glider
was damaged, but the pilot was completely unharmed.

By "landout" I mean didn't land at the airport of departure...