Re: Glider Safety, etc.

[None[_2_]]

Comments about the instructor pool are misleading in part. At one
point we were so desperate for instructors that we considered hiring
outsiders for our club. We searched the FAA directory and came up
with 52 rated CFI-Gs here in Indiana. I went through the list,
recognized the names of many of them and was amazed to learn they had
the certificate. That list included people who were ratings
collectors, got the certificate years and years ago - many of them
grandfathered in, and had not been near a glider since. They are not
interested and would not entertain a discussion about it. My point is
that the FAA list is not an appropriate group about which to make
judgments-- either of activity or quality. Maybe there should be a
weeding process to eliminate those who have been inactive for ten
years or more. Of course, those inactive ones have not been re-
validated but they are still on the list; it is this list that should
be weeded.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, None > wrote:
> Comments about the instructor pool are misleading in part. *At one
> point we were so desperate for instructors that we considered hiring
> outsiders for our club. *We searched the FAA directory and came up
> with 52 rated CFI-Gs here in Indiana. *I went through the list,
> recognized the names of many of them and was amazed to learn they had
> the certificate. *That list included people who were ratings
> collectors, got the certificate years and years ago - many of them
> grandfathered in, and had not been near a glider since. *They are not
> interested and would not entertain a discussion about it. *My point is
> that the FAA list is not an appropriate group about which to make
> judgments-- either of activity or quality. *Maybe there should be a
> weeding process to eliminate those who have been inactive for ten
> years or more. *Of course, those inactive ones have not been re-
> validated but they are still on the list; it is this list that should
> be weeded.

Supports Bill's observations sorta, but given the number of chapters
(130-132) and additional clubs that are SSA business members (4) and
non-SSA clubs out there (at least 4, easily twice that) plus
commercial operators (two less in the past twelve months as well as
one less total chapters, as a new one this year), the number of
'active' CFIG's must approach 800. By 'active' I mean those that can
legally instruct. There are at least two 'inactive' CFIG's in my club
that normally wouldn't offer up that information to most members.
There are five active CFI-G's. I know some CFI-G's that won't
instruct for clubs at all. I'm aware of clubs and commercial
operators that don't endear themselves to instructors either.

The FAA has much difficulty with glider pilot statistics, more so
since SSN's are no longer required. Makes it it hard to reconcile
deceased pilots against Social Security Administration death records.
As of 1/1/2010, there were 31,143 domestic glider pilot in the FAA
database. This is inaccurate as there were only 29,214 on 1/1/2009.
When the FAA data is sanitized around 5/1/2010, we'll have a better
view of the trends. We've been losing 500-800 annually in recent
years and adding about 250. Of course, a majority of those with the
rating are not exercising the privileges.

We could start getting more accurate activity reports, primarily from
clubs, but I've been told that many commercial operators will not
willingly give over such information.

Frank Whiteley

[delboy]

On 27 Feb, 06:30, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, None > wrote:
>
> > Comments about the instructor pool are misleading in part. *At one
> > point we were so desperate for instructors that we considered hiring
> > outsiders for our club. *We searched the FAA directory and came up
> > with 52 rated CFI-Gs here in Indiana. *I went through the list,
> > recognized the names of many of them and was amazed to learn they had
> > the certificate. *That list included people who were ratings
> > collectors, got the certificate years and years ago - many of them
> > grandfathered in, and had not been near a glider since. *They are not
> > interested and would not entertain a discussion about it. *My point is
> > that the FAA list is not an appropriate group about which to make
> > judgments-- either of activity or quality. *Maybe there should be a
> > weeding process to eliminate those who have been inactive for ten
> > years or more. *Of course, those inactive ones have not been re-
> > validated but they are still on the list; it is this list that should
> > be weeded.
>
> Supports Bill's observations sorta, but given the number of chapters
> (130-132) and additional clubs that are SSA business members (4) and
> non-SSA clubs out there (at least 4, easily twice that) plus
> commercial operators (two less in the past twelve months as well as
> one less total chapters, as a new one this year), the number of
> 'active' CFIG's must approach 800. *By 'active' I mean those that can
> legally instruct. *There are at least two 'inactive' CFIG's in my club
> that normally wouldn't offer up that information to most members.
> There are five active CFI-G's. *I know some CFI-G's that won't
> instruct for clubs at all. *I'm aware of clubs and commercial
> operators that don't endear themselves to instructors either.
>
> The FAA has much difficulty with glider pilot statistics, more so
> since SSN's are no longer required. *Makes it it hard to reconcile
> deceased pilots against Social Security Administration death records.
> As of 1/1/2010, there were 31,143 domestic glider pilot in the FAA
> database. *This is inaccurate as there were only 29,214 on 1/1/2009.
> When the FAA data is sanitized around 5/1/2010, we'll have a better
> view of the trends. *We've been losing 500-800 annually in recent
> years and adding about 250. *Of course, a majority of those with the
> rating are not exercising the privileges.
>
> We could start getting more accurate activity reports, primarily from
> clubs, but I've been told that many commercial operators will not
> willingly give over such information.
>
> Frank Whiteley

It seems that the more or less voluntary British Gliding Association
has a much better handle on its UK gliding instructors than the FAA.
We have to register through our clubs each year, and also achieve a
minimum number of instructing and solo hours, with periodic reviews of
our flying and instructing skills.

Derek Copeland

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 27, 12:25*am, delboy > wrote:

> It seems that the more or less voluntary British Gliding Association
> has a much better handle on its UK gliding instructors than the FAA.
> We have to register through our clubs each year, and also achieve a
> minimum number of instructing and solo hours, with periodic reviews of
> our flying and instructing skills.

I don't doubt that is true. There is no requirement in US to have
even been within sight of an aircraft to maintain a valid, current,
instructor rating. It is possible, for example, to take an "on line"
instructor re-validation course every 2 years to maintain the
rating.

That's not all bad though. I would take advantage of that rule if I
returned to UK and resumed instructing there. I would still be able
to keep my FAA instructor rating current even while out of the
country. Letting it lapse requires a new certification test, just the
same as initial issuance, which is why many instructors keep the
rating current even if they don't use it. There is always the chance
they will need it some time in the future.

Note that club's may impose more stringent conditions. To instruct
for one local club requires an annual flight check with the chief
flying instructor, as well as a current FAA instructor certificate,
but has no requirement for minimum glider flight time or instructing
time.


Andy