AFA Cadet XC Team - MIA at Montegue?

At 21:24 03 July 2008, Rick Culbertson wrote:

I love seeing the Cadets at the Regional=92s but I've questioned in the
past and once again I surly question the AFA commands narrowly focused
mindset and pre-contest preparation at these civilian events.

This is an example of your basic "military intelligence"
at work.

Jim Beckman

It's difficult and dangerous to criticize the US Air Force soaring
competition program from the outside. I don't know what their
objectives are or how they measure success. I did have the opportunity
to observe the fleet competing at the regional contest during the
Hobbs Standard Class Nationals last year. I chatted with a number of
the cadets and was impressed with their enthusiasm and surprisingly
good (given their relatively brief exposure to soaring in most cases)
skills. I was also struck by the regimented nature of the flying.
Missions were planned in a structured way before takeoff (though
obviously the cadets were capable of adapting to the inevitable
changes in conditions during the day). The most frustrating--to me--
event was where a cadet pilot was ordered to turn back and land at an
airport along with a large number of non-finishers even though,
apparently, he could have completed the task. Whether that was known
at the time or only in hindsight, I don't know, nor do I know the
qualifications of the individual who gave that order.

In any case, the AF's objectives and constraints are doubtless quite
different from, say, mine. While it was obviously frustrating to a lot
of us (including the cadet pilot) to see the AF miss an opportunity to
be among a small number of finishers in difficult weather, the risk/
reward ratio might have been in conflict with their program's
objectives. They're flying state-of-the-art gliders that are very
expensive--especially in terms of tax payers' dollars. And the AF
pilots may not have the same experience as most civilian pilots at
these contests, in particular in landing off the airport in high-
performance sailplanes. In Hobbs, I tried not to judge and just to
encourage the young pilots there hoping that some of them would
continue in soaring long term.

As for whether an AF order resulted in the day being devalued for the
Parawan competitors, every day of every contest has the potential for
one or more individual's personal objectives, risk profiles, and
decisions influencing the scores of others. I hope we continue to
welcome the AF program to our contests and do everything we can to
encourage them. If change is warranted, it's likely to take time and
best come from within as a result of the learning process.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:49:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It's difficult and dangerous to criticize the US Air Force soaring
competition program from the outside. I don't know what their
objectives are or how they measure success. I did have the opportunity
to observe the fleet competing at the regional contest during the
Hobbs Standard Class Nationals last year. I chatted with a number of
the cadets and was impressed with their enthusiasm and surprisingly
good (given their relatively brief exposure to soaring in most cases)
skills. I was also struck by the regimented nature of the flying.
Missions were planned in a structured way before takeoff (though
obviously the cadets were capable of adapting to the inevitable
changes in conditions during the day). The most frustrating--to me--
event was where a cadet pilot was ordered to turn back and land at an
airport along with a large number of non-finishers even though,
apparently, he could have completed the task. Whether that was known
at the time or only in hindsight, I don't know, nor do I know the
qualifications of the individual who gave that order.

In any case, the AF's objectives and constraints are doubtless quite
different from, say, mine.

The AA soaring program has varied all over the map in the three
decades I've been soaring at Black Forest or Owl Canyon...the officer
in charge of it doesn't stay long in the job, and generally seems not
to come from a soaring background. I remember Dave Allen as the best
-- fine soaring pilot, teacher and motivator.

Circa 1974, they were making cadets fly the 1-26 in crash helmets,
which made things a bit tough for the big guys...

At one BFGP Labor Day Contest, the flight line closed on the day of
the barbecue with everybody accounted for except one cadet in a 1-26
who had been out of radio contact for hours. Rather than drive the
trailer endlessly around the course, the CO announced that the team
would settle down for the barbecue and the cadet would be credited
with a day of survival training. With meat going on the fire and
darkness descending, there was a low whistle and the cadet entered the
pattern...he had made it around the course at approximately no knots.

Few years later, I had just finished one day in a contest at Las Vegas
NM and heard a cadet call in from the AFA's 1-34. We watched her come
nicely down a final glide, visibly gaining on the glide slope, nice
safe finish in the bag...and then she racked it over, opened the
brakes, and landed in the sagebrush. 1000 AGL was the Academy's "hard
deck" -- when you were down to that altitude and not in the pattern
you landed out, period.

rj

At 18:49 04 July 2008, wrote:

The most frustrating--to me--
event was where a cadet pilot was ordered to turn back and land at an
airport along with a large number of non-finishers even though,
apparently, he could have completed the task. Whether that was known
at the time or only in hindsight, I don't know, nor do I know the
qualifications of the individual who gave that order.

Most likely the person who gave the order had the only
qualification that really matters in that situation: rank.

They're flying state-of-the-art gliders that are very
expensive--especially in terms of tax payers' dollars.

But relative to the other tax payer financed machines
that the AF flies (and occasionally wrecks) those gliders
are practically free.

No doubt the AF operates under restrictions we don't
realize, and they won't tell us about. Avoiding damage
of any kind is probably more of a Public Relations ploy
than any consideration of expense. Also a CYA
maneuver for whoever commands the glider program.

Back in the day (not so long ago) when the AF cadets
flew 1-26s, I flew in a 1-26 Championships hosted by
the AF Academy in Colorado Springs. The cadets were
hugely impressive guys. As I recall, their officers also
flew some of the contest tasks. And none of them seemed
averse to the occasional landout. Each of their 1-26s had
a little row of emblems below the canopy rail, where a
fighter of 65 years ago might have painted swastikas
to tally shootdowns. In the case of the 1-26s, they were
little Holstein cows. The implication was obvious.

One of the real old-timers in 1-26 racing is Vern Hutchison,
who was in submarines during WWII. I well remember one
late afternoon after the flying when the keg was tapped
and Vern was surrounded by a group of cadets, hanging
on his every word as he told his tales of submarine
combat.

[BTW, that contest was one the rare, perhaps unique,
glider meets that started with a low pass down the
contest runway by a formation of four f-16s, just for
us. We appreciated the gesture.]

Jim Beckman

On Jul 5, 4:27 am, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 18:49 04 July 2008, wrote:



The most frustrating--to me--
event was where a cadet pilot was ordered to turn back and land at an
airport along with a large number of non-finishers even though,
apparently, he could have completed the task. Whether that was known
at the time or only in hindsight, I don't know, nor do I know the
qualifications of the individual who gave that order.

Most likely the person who gave the order had the only
qualification that really matters in that situation: rank.

They're flying state-of-the-art gliders that are very
expensive--especially in terms of tax payers' dollars.

But relative to the other tax payer financed machines
that the AF flies (and occasionally wrecks) those gliders
are practically free.

No doubt the AF operates under restrictions we don't
realize, and they won't tell us about. Avoiding damage
of any kind is probably more of a Public Relations ploy
than any consideration of expense. Also a CYA
maneuver for whoever commands the glider program.

Back in the day (not so long ago) when the AF cadets
flew 1-26s, I flew in a 1-26 Championships hosted by
the AF Academy in Colorado Springs. The cadets were
hugely impressive guys. As I recall, their officers also
flew some of the contest tasks. And none of them seemed
averse to the occasional landout. Each of their 1-26s had
a little row of emblems below the canopy rail, where a
fighter of 65 years ago might have painted swastikas
to tally shootdowns. In the case of the 1-26s, they were
little Holstein cows. The implication was obvious.

One of the real old-timers in 1-26 racing is Vern Hutchison,
who was in submarines during WWII. I well remember one
late afternoon after the flying when the keg was tapped
and Vern was surrounded by a group of cadets, hanging
on his every word as he told his tales of submarine
combat.

[BTW, that contest was one the rare, perhaps unique,
glider meets that started with a low pass down the
contest runway by a formation of four f-16s, just for
us. We appreciated the gesture.]

Jim Beckman

According to the Contest Manager at Region 11, Noelle Mayes, they had
a vehicle accident and withdrew. no one was hurt.

On Jul 5, 8:26*am, "
wrote:
On Jul 5, 4:27 am, Jim Beckman wrote:



At 18:49 04 July 2008, wrote:

The most frustrating--to me--
event was where a cadet pilot was ordered to turn back and land at an
airport along with a large number of non-finishers even though,
apparently, he could have completed the task. Whether that was known
at the time or only in hindsight, I don't know, nor do I know the
qualifications of the individual who gave that order.

Most likely the person who gave the order had the only
qualification that really matters in that situation: *rank.

They're flying state-of-the-art gliders that are very
expensive--especially in terms of tax payers' dollars.

But relative to the other tax payer financed machines
that the AF flies (and occasionally wrecks) those gliders
are practically free.

No doubt the AF operates under restrictions we don't
realize, and they won't tell us about. *Avoiding damage
of any kind is probably more of a Public Relations ploy
than any consideration of expense. *Also a CYA
maneuver for whoever commands the glider program.

Back in the day (not so long ago) when the AF cadets
flew 1-26s, I flew in a 1-26 Championships hosted by
the AF Academy in Colorado Springs. *The cadets were
hugely impressive guys. *As I recall, their officers also
flew some of the contest tasks. *And none of them seemed
averse to the occasional landout. *Each of their 1-26s had
a little row of emblems below the canopy rail, where a
fighter of 65 years ago might have painted swastikas
to tally shootdowns. *In the case of the 1-26s, they were
little Holstein cows. *The implication was obvious.

One of the real old-timers in 1-26 racing is Vern Hutchison,
who was in submarines during WWII. *I well remember one
late afternoon after the flying when the keg was tapped
and Vern was surrounded by a group of cadets, hanging
on his every word as he told his tales of submarine
combat.

[BTW, that contest was one the rare, perhaps unique,
glider meets that started with a low pass down the
contest runway by a formation of four f-16s, just for
us. *We appreciated the gesture.]

Jim Beckman

According to the Contest Manager at Region 11, Noelle Mayes, they had
a vehicle accident and withdrew. *no one was hurt.

Nor was the D2 damaged, though the tow vehicle and trailer sustained
some.

The AFA still puts those little Holsteins on their gliders. But I
didn't see very many of them at PR9. Maybe one, on one of the Duos.

One of the great things about this sport is learning more about the
oldtimers like Vern. At 83, he was the oldest pilot at Parowan. I hope
he's at the next one, so I can listen to some of those stories!

I do want to chime in with 21. As a contest pilot (taking off the
scorer's hat), it was disappointing to see the AFA, an institution I
admire and support, disregard the contest task on 3 days, devaluing
one of them, including not turning in log files on the final day (a
violation of contest rules). The contest management worked hard to fit
them into the contest, doing things like moving the launch point on
the grid so they could launch from the end every day. It isn't asking
too much to expect them to take the contest seriously, and if they
want to do leadership training, they should find a different venue for
it and let those contest slots go to pilots who will be there to fly
the contest first.

~ted/2NO

snip
I do want to chime in with 21. As a contest pilot (taking off the
scorer's hat), it was disappointing to see the AFA, an institution I
admire and support, disregard the contest task on 3 days, devaluing
one of them, including not turning in log files on the final day (a
violation of contest rules). The contest management worked hard to fit
them into the contest, doing things like moving the launch point on
the grid so they could launch from the end every day.snip
~ted/2NO

File a complaint with the Rule Committee.

snip File a complaint with the Rule Committee. /snip

Did that already.

Not a complaint as much as a request that if the AFA is going to take
slots at an over-subscribed contest, that they agree to abide by
contest rules.

On Jul 6, 10:54*am, Tuno wrote:
snip File a complaint with the Rule Committee. /snip

Did that already.

Not a complaint as much as a request that if the AFA is going to take
slots at an over-subscribed contest, that they agree to abide by
contest rules.

I'm usually a lurker on this group, but I have to respond to this
thread. You guys are missing the whole point of the AFA soaring
program. It's to give some (lucky) cadets a headstart on their flying
careers, and begin to teach them the basics of flight. The program is
conducted in a specific way for several reasons. Most cadets are very
low-time pilots, so conservatism is in order. In addition, they are
flying taxpayer-financed gliders, and they have to be good custodians
of that public property. Finally, they are training to be military
pilots, which means they must fly with discipline and according to
their regulations. They must obey orders, because they are training
to be combat pilots, and that is what is necessary for them to be
effective in that environment. It's unfortunate that, for whatever
reason, they didn't comply with some contest rule on occasion, but the
fact is that they must comply with their own rules. Accusations of
CYA or lack of understanding of the sport are simply nonsense.