Glider Cross-country signoff & FARs

(Mark James Boyd) wrote
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.

But what's the big deal about landing out in a 1-26? I can't think of
a better ship to have your first landout in. Short wings, very low
touchdown speed, very light, and if you do ding it cheap to fix. You
see it as a bug, I see it as a feature. I wish I had been allowed to
go XC in the club 1-26.

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

Sure, but the point is that even if all a club has is 1-26 class
ships, that's still no reason to make XC difficult.

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.

Sure, to someone who already has a reasonable understanding of the
sport. If I moved to your area, I would of course choose your club.
How would you explain this to someone who has never flown?

Perhaps
the baby steps of a "mini-XC" involving a flight to
an airport 5-10 miles away, to keep costs down.

I never really intended that XC mean 50 nm. That's a big bite for a
first time. As long as you need to make at least 3 climbs to make the
destination and spend at least some time out of glide range of both
home and destination, that's plenty good enough. For a 1-26 with low
cloudbase, that might only be 5-10 miles.

Do you realize that there are not only private glider pilots but even
CFIG's who have never:
(1) Intentionally flown outside gliding range of home base.
(2) Disassembled a glider, put it on a trailer, towed it somewhere,
and reassembled it.
(3) Done an aero retrieve

Personally, I think these are all things that ought to be done at the
private level, lest we produce graduates incapable of anything other
than local flying. If it were up to me, the first XC would be dual,
and terminate with an aero retrieve (also dual), taking off without a
wing runner. The second would be solo and would terminate with a
ground retrieve. Simply include a CFIG or BGI/AGI in the retrieve
crew, and he can asess the student's competence.

The beauty of doing it this way is that both aero retrieves from
airports and ground retrieves would become normal, accepted things,
not some mysterious process that only a few are privileged to
participate in. If students could do it, it would become politically
impossible to deny the privilege to private pilots.

In reality, the cost is minimal. Most instructors are volunteers
anyway, and students can crew for each other. In fact, you can simply
make participation on a ground retrieve (or three) a prerequisite for
flying your solo XC. Now we're just talking gas money.

But this won't happen unless you mandate the XC - too many clubs and
FBO's will not do it.

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.

I have yet to see an FBO that would not rent a C-150 class airplane to
a recreational ticket holder. Of course they won't rent the high
performance or complex airplanes to one - he can't legally fly them.
The recreational was killed because the major cost of the training is
the aircraft, not the instructor. So you save a few hours of dual -
so what? You're going to fly those hours anyway.

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.

A rotorcraft XC need only be 25 nm. Honestly, for gliders I would be
happy with 25 km. An airport 3 miles away that can be reached from
overhead the field on final glide doesn't cut it.

Even with a 1-26, a 25 km downwind dash should be well within the
reach of almost any student.

And this would test some good
basics on a dual flight...use of compass, pattern entry,
wind direction, judging new altitude, etc...

Navigation, finding airports from the air...
Skills that are clearly not being taught, and whose lack is being
covered up by GPS. The situation is so bad that I know a pilot who
landed out on a RECORD flight due to failure of the GPS. Plenty of
lift, and by all accounts the pilot flew over the destination airport
more than once and still failed to find it.

When I took off on glider XC for the first time, I relied almost
exclusively on my powered XC training. At the time, I assumed that I
had never been taught even the rudiments of navigation because my
instructors (correctly) assumed that I already knew how to navigate.
It was only later that I discovered that the ab initio students got no
more navigation training than I did.

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.

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.

Good lord - why not? For any reasonably proficient glider pilot, it's
an absolutely trivial process. I just recently trained a power CFI
for the commercial glider and CFIG. This pilot was trained outside
the US (so was not familiar with our way of doing things), he had not
flown a glider in years, he had never flown the make and model glider
we were using or any other metal glider, and he was not very
experienced in gliders (well under 100 hours). Everything (including
the checkride with a local DE) was done in under 10 flights. The DE
even did both checkrides back-to-back, on the same day. I have to ask
- what are these guys thinking?

Michael

Michael wrote:

But what's the big deal about landing out in a 1-26? I can't think of
a better ship to have your first landout in. Short wings, very low
touchdown speed, very light, and if you do ding it cheap to fix. You
see it as a bug, I see it as a feature. I wish I had been allowed to
go XC in the club 1-26.

All true. My point was not that the 1-26 isn't a great ship (I
really, really love short wingspans for a variety of reasons), it
was simply that flying over that particular terrain would have required
higher thermals, which I didn't have that day...


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

Sure, but the point is that even if all a club has is 1-26 class
ships, that's still no reason to make XC difficult.

I'm sorry you had that experience. If all a club has is 1-26
class ships, then use 'em. We have one and I've flown it X-C, I
just use a higher L/D ship because it's available to me for the same
rental price...


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.

Sure, to someone who already has a reasonable understanding of the
sport. If I moved to your area, I would of course choose your club.
How would you explain this to someone who has never flown?

I don't know that I could. Perhaps I would just say that
for my first X-C, a friend came over to wish me well and
said "I'll see you when you land" and I said "no you won't,
I'm not landing here. I don't know where I'll land, but
no matter what it won't be back here." And the excitement of
making that commitment in an aircraft with no engine, and
knowing I could do it safely, really felt great...

Perhaps
the baby steps of a "mini-XC" involving a flight to
an airport 5-10 miles away, to keep costs down.

I never really intended that XC mean 50 nm. That's a big bite for a
first time. As long as you need to make at least 3 climbs to make the
destination and spend at least some time out of glide range of both
home and destination, that's plenty good enough. For a 1-26 with low
cloudbase, that might only be 5-10 miles.

Excellent. A "mini-XC" doesn't involve the super hard pilotage
stuff, but seems to have all the other elements. I think pilotage is
sometimes really, really hard if the terrain doesn't cooperate
with easy to spot markers. I was a map guy for 12 years in the
Army, and some of the stuff between El Paso and Dallas would be
fantastic soaring, cus everywhere, but just plain FLAT!

Do you realize that there are not only private glider pilots but even
CFIG's who have never:
(1) Intentionally flown outside gliding range of home base.

Ahh...this doesn't bother me. There's a winch club in Northern
Arizona and they seem to give a lot of scenic rides and have
fun doing it...good for them!

(2) Disassembled a glider, put it on a trailer, towed it somewhere,
and reassembled it.

I fully agree with most of this.
If they haven't disassembled and reassembled a glider, that's in direct
violation of US CFR 61.87(i)(13). The CFI who signed them off
is in for some liability, maybe years down the road, if the
pilot assembles something wrong and gets hurt later. We had
a local CFII who didn't teach a single hold, and recommended
someone for an instrument checkride. The DPE's talk, and the FSDO letter,
mentioned stern words about "false endorsements." And the organization
that provided the scholarship and then saw a pink slip was not amused...

As far as towing it somewhere. Gonna be kind of hard for a 14 year
old, eh? Maybe just around the airfield? :P

(3) Done an aero retrieve

LOL...it's AWFUL similar to an aerotow. How about having the
towplane level off for a minute before the release...hehehe
and kinda hard in a Grob 109...but yeah, if you do a super
short X-C, an aero-retrieve isn't too much money or too much to ask.


Personally, I think these are all things that ought to be done at the
private level, lest we produce graduates incapable of anything other
than local flying. If it were up to me, the first XC would be dual,
and terminate with an aero retrieve (also dual), taking off without a
wing runner. The second would be solo and would terminate with a
ground retrieve. Simply include a CFIG or BGI/AGI in the retrieve
crew, and he can asess the student's competence.

Around here, a CFIG or BGI/AGI is like hen's teeth... $80 is
$80 (for a written test), right?

The beauty of doing it this way is that both aero retrieves from
airports and ground retrieves would become normal, accepted things,
not some mysterious process that only a few are privileged to
participate in. If students could do it, it would become politically
impossible to deny the privilege to private pilots.

OK, I'm convinced to do mini-XC as part of the license training at
my home field. Requiring it nationwide by CFR, I'm not supporting, but
doing it here, yeah, that makes sense.

In reality, the cost is minimal. Most instructors are volunteers
anyway,

WHOAA!!! What planet are you on??? Maybe 10% of the clubs
here in California offer free instruction. Time = money. C'mon...

and students can crew for each other. In fact, you can simply
make participation on a ground retrieve (or three) a prerequisite for
flying your solo XC. Now we're just talking gas money.

....and the cost of time. I'm in favor of strongly encouraging,
but the word "prerequisite" has a way too authoritative tone for me :P

But this won't happen unless you mandate the XC - too many clubs and
FBO's will not do it.

Let the market decide. That's why I picked and now cheer
for my particular club...

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.

I have yet to see an FBO that would not rent a C-150 class airplane to
a recreational ticket holder.

Well, I couldn't rent the PW-5 until I had a PPL, and since there is no
recreational glider license anyway, perhaps this is too tangential
to continue here...

I'd like to see Minden allow a soloed pilot to fly the mini-nimbus...
If they'll do that, then I'll buy this argument...

A rotorcraft XC need only be 25 nm. Honestly, for gliders I would be
happy with 25 km. An airport 3 miles away that can be reached from
overhead the field on final glide doesn't cut it.

Be careful with your distance requirements. Different gliders
are VASTLY different.

Even with a 1-26, a 25 km downwind dash should be well within the
reach of almost any student.

In a PW-2 (which we have, and have a trailer for, and is a primary
glider), this would be quite challenging. Again, be careful about
generalizing distance requirements...

Navigation, finding airports from the air...
Skills that are clearly not being taught, and whose lack is being
covered up by GPS. The situation is so bad that I know a pilot who
landed out on a RECORD flight due to failure of the GPS. Plenty of
lift, and by all accounts the pilot flew over the destination airport
more than once and still failed to find it.

Did he have an undercast? ;(


When I took off on glider XC for the first time, I relied almost
exclusively on my powered XC training. At the time, I assumed that I
had never been taught even the rudiments of navigation because my
instructors (correctly) assumed that I already knew how to navigate.
It was only later that I discovered that the ab initio students got no
more navigation training than I did.

Pilotage is quite a subject in itself. GPS is a great tool,
if used to help students CORRELATE and confirm map and compass
and what they see outside. Like any navigation tool,
when used exclusively, it has a downside. I know at least one
racer who wouldn't fly because his GPS didn't have the local
database reloaded yet. "Navigate" is such a fuzzy concept
these days. I think you are specifically just talking about
"pilotage."

They will not,
on the other hand, get a CFIG.

Good lord - why not? For any reasonably proficient glider pilot, it's
an absolutely trivial process.

Interesting use of the word "trivial." $580 for one written and
two flight tests is trivial? Please send me some trivial money...

I just recently trained a power CFI
for the commercial glider and CFIG. This pilot was trained outside
the US (so was not familiar with our way of doing things), he had not
flown a glider in years, he had never flown the make and model glider
we were using or any other metal glider, and he was not very
experienced in gliders (well under 100 hours). Everything (including
the checkride with a local DE) was done in under 10 flights. The DE
even did both checkrides back-to-back, on the same day. I have to ask
- what are these guys thinking?

Michael

Please provide total cost for training and license. If it's under
$500 (no cheating, charge $30 an hour for instruction, and club
initiation and fees), I'd be very surprised.

We can make these guys sport-CFI-glider in two dual flights each,
if SP goes through. Whether that is wise is an entirely
other question...but someone somewhere will offer it, and
if the Southwest flight there and back is less than $500,
they'll get takers...