Open Discussion; Creating XC pilots

All,

I presented at the SSA conference this last winter on the efforts of our club to build XC soaring pilots. This has been an emphasis for me for many years (hence my moniker SoaringXCellence), to the point I went and personally bought a G103 just so I could provide the training (since been sold, congratulations Coastal Soaring).

In the last 12 years the Willamette Valley club has gone from an average of 50-60 active pilots, to over 80 (we finished the last year with over 120, out of Portland Oregon!!)

I attribute this growth to the support the club now gives to members that want to go XC. Fifteen years ago we did NOT permit club gliders to be flown XC. This meant that potential XC pilots had to get their own ship before attempting ANY XC flights. Quite a deterrent! We had a few syndicates but most XC flights were in single owner ships. It was the only way to participate.

Several years ago several of us began an XC soaring Special Interest Group (SIG) in the club and met frequently to discuss flights and generally support each others efforts (we agreed that we would retrieve for each other as needed). Several of the club officers were in that group and slowly steered the direction of the club to embrace and allow XC flight.

We now have 3 single-place ships that are set up and available for XC flights (another if you count the SGS 1-26) and there is competition for their time on any reasonable soaring day. We have a Twin Astir for dual XC flights (as well as the Blanik 1-23, which I do take XC!).

The result is that from 2004 to 2014 we have grown from 6 pilots trying OLC to over 20 on any given year. We also have champions in the region 8 Sports class (congratulations, Joe Steele) that only begin flying 4 years ago.

I'm still the primary XC training instructor and could fill my time with XC students most days the field is open.

Another factor in the growth is a special training program called the "5-pack". This is a program that provide more than just a single "sled-ride" flight where skills can be developed and a more complete exposure of the sport can occur. For a cost of $450 the student gets a 3-month club membership, 5 tows to 3000 feet, aircraft rental and instructor for up to an hour. The 3-month membership allows the student more time to complete the flights (rather than just one weekend). This year we are currently restricting the number of 5-packs due to the instructor's student load. We can't handle more at the moment! I think we're teaching 10-15 currently. This is in addition to the other club pilots moving through the training from Student to Commercial.

We have about a 70-80% conversion of the 5-pack to a full club membership. Most are still with the club after 5 years.

SO that's the Willamette Valley effort to grow the XC pilot pupolation. I'd like to hear other efforts and ideas.

Sorry for the long post,

MB

MB -

Does Willamette Valley assign an instructor to a student in some fashion, or are you on a purely-rotation basis for instructors? Also, I understand that Tow Pilots may get compensated for towing... Are instructors compensated somehow as well? You seem to be doing well compared to some other clubs in your region (like my local club near Seattle); and we'd love to hear more about your operations.

In my experience one of the issues leading to a lack of XC pilots is that basic training (especially in club environments) tends to be a very drawn-out affair. First, weekends and good weather limit the number of days people are interested in flying (or, in some clubs, interest in running field operations despite student interest). Second, there are often major inconsistencies between instructors; who are often volunteers that mean well, but have little incentive to work on unified instructional standards or close cooperation with fellow CFIGs or their students. Many clubs (including my local one) use rotating instructors, so students must constantly re-adapt to different instructing styles and methods. Plus, in that system, each instructor has to spend a flight evaluating where the student is at before new instruction can actually take place.

Also, many clubs operate on a "first-come, first-served" basis for training.. I've seen that lead to instructors doing 8-10 flights in a day, but each student only getting 1 flight. This is horrible for everyone: it wears out the instructors _and_ it doesn't give the students much of a learning opportunity. Furthermore, students feel like they've wasted their entire day for only a small return on their investment of time... And time is a big deal these days for most folks - regardless of your age or income-level.

Bottom-line: Soaring is already at a handicap when compared to other activities, because it requires you to build several layers of skills before having lasting fun experiences (i.e. staying loft for long periods, going XC, flying badges, and generally feeling independent & confident). We don't need to insert extra barriers that slow down the opportunities for learning and involvement.

--Noel

Noel wade wrote:
one of the issues leading to a lack of XC pilots is that basic training (especially in club environments) tends to be a very drawn-out affair


Noel, you are quite right barriers and inconsistent instruction is the name of the game in most club environments, but there is a way around this problem. Contiguous instruction over a short period of time achieves best results. Course instruction would achieve this but the objection is always we don't have the resources to run week long courses. So don't run week long courses run the course over a number of weekends and reduce the tow height to 1,200-1,500 feet or better still run a winch operation. Another refinement would be to charge up front for the course and add as an option a small fee to cover the first years membership. The benefits:

Consistent instruction
Rapid advancement
Guaranteed attendance by both instructors and students
Ground school in the non flyable periods
Students learn the operation and the benefits of group cooperation
Instructors and Students are guaranteed their time is not wasted
I am sure you can add a few more

Andy Gough

Andy - Yes I have many of the same thoughts & opinions. You talk of charging a fee: I think some people are overly-concerned about making soaring "cheap", but this is a false approach when there are so many less-expensive hobbies out there (including R/C plans and paragliding/hang-gliding). I think we should try to keep costs reasonable; but c'mon people, a Cessna with an instructor costs around $200/hr these days!

Even if costs rise some from their present levels, Soaring is way more money-efficient than that. Its just way less time-efficient, due to the manner in which many clubs/field-operations are run. I've got no problem with the idea of throwing up a (low) fiscal bar for entry, if it enables better operations or training. And requiring an upfront commitment (such as you're proposing) helps discourage the folks who aren't passionate and motivated. HOWEVER, if you offer such a program and get a commitment from students then you *must* be able to follow through with it. And you have to make sure that people feel they're getting their money's worth or you've done more harm than good. Providing that value takes organization and dedication, though - and securing those commitments from people in an existing embedded culture is tough...

On a separate note, I'm still working on earning my CFIG but I am surprised folks don't use varying tow-heights based on the phase of instruction the student is in. For example: I think instructors should consider 4,000 to 5,000 foot tows when they're working on things like rudder coordination, steep turns, stalls, slips, and slow-flight. Give the student a long-enough flight to practice maneuvers 2 or 3 times in a row (similar to many SEL airplane training flights, which are often 1 - 1.5 hours in length and involve practicing a maneuver a couple of times in succession). When training changes its focus and the landing pattern becomes a point of emphasis, there's certainly a strong case for pattern-height tows and/or winch-launches. In fact, there's even a case for setting aside some part of the day's operations to let a student and his/her instructor do these practice landings back-to-back (i.e. they land, pull up to the front of the line, and immediately take another pattern tow).

--Noel

Just to mention the baby elephant with very big ears that is circling just above pattern altitude:

www.glidercfi.com and http://www.condorxcsoaring.com/

"isn't that exactly what the European 20M class is for?"

BIll, as that's a racing class which to me is an even more demanding set of instruction, that wouldn't be a feasible instruction means for volume processing of co-pilots. I think you may mean that such a class would foster more dual XC soaring in general. That I'd agree with esp. given the aging pilot population (older pilots flying with a safety pilot), and more people enjoying two seat flying, I know I do..... so long as they don't smell bad....

It still comes down to bringing together at least 4 variables at once: two pilots, weather and ship availability. The tightest constraint I see is the PIC who would do the mentoring, paid or not. How to incent more of them to provide time in this role?

I wonder if the old hands in XC have forgotten how big the issue of safely landing out looms in the mind of the aspiring XC pilot?

My perspective is that efforts to foster XC should focus on thoroughly preparing novices to land out (in fields and at unfamiliar airports). XC novices are not babies. We will take the initiative to learn all the other fine points of XC and to initiate all the necessary changes in club guidelines and structure. Your coaching is invaluable, and we will ask for it once we get the XC bug.

I'd love to do more simulated landout training in my area like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAOCd18Bv8Y

Everything about XC beyond land outs seems very doable to me. I'm an XC pre-novice until I'm prepared to safely land out. Get me over that hurdle and I can manage the rest.

And from what I gather in my area, the restrictions on using my club's aircraft for XC followed from bad experiences with landouts in the past. QED

As I understand the 20M racing class is the hope it to pair rookie racing pilots with veterans.

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:46:25 PM UTC-6, Kemp wrote:
"isn't that exactly what the European 20M class is for?"



BIll, as that's a racing class which to me is an even more demanding set of instruction, that wouldn't be a feasible instruction means for volume processing of co-pilots. I think you may mean that such a class would foster more dual XC soaring in general. That I'd agree with esp. given the aging pilot population (older pilots flying with a safety pilot), and more people enjoying two seat flying, I know I do..... so long as they don't smell bad...



It still comes down to bringing together at least 4 variables at once: two pilots, weather and ship availability. The tightest constraint I see is the PIC who would do the mentoring, paid or not. How to incent more of them to provide time in this role?

On 7/16/2014 6:46 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
I wonder if the old hands in XC have forgotten how big the issue of safely
landing out looms in the mind of the aspiring XC pilot?

Maybe some, but not all/this guy! I've long thought "the off-field-landing
hurdle" probably THE most significant one "on the normal road to XC soaring
competence."

My perspective is that efforts to foster XC should focus on thoroughly
preparing novices to land out (in fields and at unfamiliar airports).

I completely agree...and my training (very informally, but also very
effectively) did. My "pre-XC" training consisted entirely of: 1) instruction
(patterns/spot landings/verbal advice); 2) reading/brain-picking; and 3)
imagination. The first glider I ever saw in a field was the one I'd just
piloted there; it had not been one of the day's goals at takeoff time.

XC
novices are not babies. We will take the initiative to learn all the other
fine points of XC and to initiate all the necessary changes in club
guidelines and structure. Your coaching is invaluable, and we will ask for
it once we get the XC bug.

I suspect "the magic poll" would overwhelmingly concur your attitude is
"ideal" and "just what the XC Soaring Doctor ordered." It reflects my own when
I was convincing myself thermals weren't airport-centric...an attitude in my
case probably somewhat self-constructed and instructor-influenced. My primary
CFIG was a very matter-of-fact sort who tended to see humor in the very many
self-inflicted situations almost certain to accompany XC soaring. He certainly
laughed a lot at my eager, silly questions!

I'd love to do more simulated landout training in my area like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAOCd18Bv8Y

"Go for it!" if you have the opportunity...but know such training & exposure
is far from necessary, to safely learn - and apply! - the basics: rudimentary
navigation; always keeping a perceived safe landing field within conservative
reach; being mentally prepared to USE that area (sooner, rather than later,
should that little voice in your skull begin talking to you); applying what
your instruction conveyed to you about "the proper way[s]" to asses how any
approach is progressing; spot selection, speed control; etc.

Everything about XC beyond land outs seems very doable to me. I'm an XC
pre-novice until I'm prepared to safely land out. Get me over that hurdle
and I can manage the rest.

And - though there's many ways to "get there" - you can probably get yourself
over "that hurdle" much more easily than you may presently imagine. All it'll
take is being a hair below "prudently making it back to your home-base
pattern" height, and not connect with expected lift. (BTDT! As have many
others, I suspect...) In safety, pattern, and actual landing terms, everything
was a non-event. In MENTAL terms, not so much! And all I'd set out to do that
day was (very briefly, and one time only) get one thermal beyond the home
base, simply to convince myself that thermals DID in fact exist in that region
surrounding my home-base training area (i.e. go from "pre-novice" to
"experienced"). Everything worked as I'd imagined, planned and discussed with
my instructor, except that the SECOND thermal I needed to get back home didn't
exist (a timing thing - a new, blue, stable airmass was literally on my tail
as I chased my first cloud-n-thermal beyond the training area). I was more
embarrassed than alarmed at the turn of events, especially when my
instructor/crew brought ME the brewskis on the retrieve (saved until after
reassembly at the airport), a whopping two or so road miles from the training
field.

And from what I gather in my area, the restrictions on using my club's
aircraft for XC followed from bad experiences with landouts in the past.
QED

"Sigh." In my observational experience an all-too-common reaction to what
usually is some blend of
inadequate-instruction/poor-interpersonal-dynamics...rather than "upping
everyone's game," the easy/coward's/predictably-self-defeating way out is
chosen. Having been a member of three clubs in three widely separated regions
of the country, insofar as encouraging tyro XC in club equipment is concerned,
two "did things right" and one "applied the frightened turtle approach.".
Fortunately the turtle club was my SECOND club experience, by which time I
owned a 1-26. Still, their (understandable, but deplorable) attitude made me
hesitate a season or so before joining that club. (Happily, things/they
changed not too long after my job took me to my 3rd club.)

YMMV.

Bob W.

MB,

Thanks for the talk you gave at Reno. It was good and would have really dovetailed well into what Kemp and I were going to talk about with the XC Mentoring that we have done. I agreed that Hugh and Gordo had just done something amazing and deserved a stage to talk about that.

As Kemp mentioned, we really need to get the Dual XC capable fleet active. I know of too many amazing ships for XC training that sit idle in their trailer almost all of the time. Insuring them commercially is essentially not viable, so just give away the knowledge for the betterment of soaring.

Noel, for your club issues around instruction, do the instructors get paid? While I am a fan of low cost instruction, our instructors all charge for their time and we don't have any lack of willingness to pay for that time. The payments are direct to the instructor, not through the club and I think that works. Instructors are free to set their own rates, although we have a special deal for instructors to get free monthly membership if they limit their rates and are available on the field a couple of days a month.

One frustration I have in trying to motivate and introduce XC to people is a lack of interest/motivation. I've asked about interest in XC, send out forms to collect information from interested pilots on what they want to learn, but very few take the initiative to self assess and highlight elements that they want or need to work on.

There are exceptions to that of course. Those people are usually making huge leaps forward once strapped in the front of the Duo and being forced to think two or three moves farther ahead than they've ever been thinking in a club ship like a 1-26.

The answer for me is to continue to throw the offers out there and really pour the energy into those people that show initiative and promise. Ignite that fire. For others that are somewhat interested, I still try to get them up with me and show them what a 30 mile final glide is like when they've never been 6 miles from the runway before. You never know who might suddenly get the bug from seeing life beyond a 2-33.

One important thing. You don't need to be a CFIG to teach XC soaring. If the person is a licensed pilot, there is almost no benefit to the CFIG aspect. You need to be a good teacher, but the certificate is mostly irrelevant unless the person really needs to log instruction time for some reason. I think we rely too heavily on our limited CFIG for what really is mentoring.

Morgan