Open Discussion; Creating XC pilots

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.

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.

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. It's not for everyone.

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.

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:47:55 AM UTC-5, 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.

Well said! Keep us posted on your progress (the ups and the downs - which are usually more interesting!)

Cheers,

Kirk
66

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.

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 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

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 07:35:38 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:

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

Looks interesting (I peeked at your area on Google Earth) but it is
significantly different from the flay area I fly over. I have to say that
my main gains, while still restricted to local soaring, came from
mentally pre-declaring local mini-triangles and then flying round the
course they define. Yes, this means that you fly round each turnpoint (so
you can see it over the inside canopy edge as you fly round it) rather
than going (almost) to it. The gains, apart from learning that you don't
need to use every thermal you come to, are all concerned with developing
the judgement needed to get high enough on the last climb on a task leg
to get round the turnpoint and into the next climb without needing to dig
yourself out of a hole. Of course, you also need to know about digging
yourself out of holes because for sure you'll get it wrong and fall into
one from time to time. This skill tends to develop from experience salted
with sheer necessity.


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

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.

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.