Re: Silver Badge Fun (?)

[Mark Zivley]

I think badges do serve a useful purpose to soaring, but I'm guessing
that Al's comment is more geared toward the paperwork, documentation
side of badges rather than the benefit that having a structured seat of
goals established

Badges keep many pilots focused on soaring where a lack of established
goals and objectives would allow some pilots to become less focused,
then bored, and then less active in soaring, then no longer soaring pilots.

[Al]

Thats part of it Mark.

At the end of the day you fly for your own satisfaction.
If getting badges is your bag baby then so be it.

Mine is just the shear fun excitement and fear involved in long distance
flying with a bit of Acro thrown in for fun.

Al



"Mark Zivley" > wrote in message
...
> I think badges do serve a useful purpose to soaring, but I'm guessing
> that Al's comment is more geared toward the paperwork, documentation
> side of badges rather than the benefit that having a structured seat of
> goals established
>
> Badges keep many pilots focused on soaring where a lack of established
> goals and objectives would allow some pilots to become less focused,
> then bored, and then less active in soaring, then no longer soaring
pilots.
>

[Mark James Boyd]

First of all, I don't know if "bollocking" is a nasty word,
but I certainly wouldn't want one.

Next, I want to make it clear that my main issue is that the
rules seem to be complex to account for the old "barograph
and people watching" style of badge flying, and have a lot of
requirements that are superceded by GPS loggers.

I also want to make clear that there is a large drop in
numbers as we go from local flying to XC, and I think that
some of it is because the Silver is daunting, and made moreso
by the complexity of the rules and the realities like mine.

It's also important to note that a Silver badge is a way to
qualify for Sports regionals and that plus gold 300km gets
one qualified for other classes.

I have heard my own club members naysay the badge program
because of the complexity, and when my PW-5 syndicate talked
about the Avenal regionals, I was surprised how few had
Silver badges and wouldn't even enter a sport class if it
had been available (in the 1-26 or 2-33).

So I really like the badge program for encouraging X-C,
and would like to see what I think are more consistent rules
which make common sense and are simpler (mostly with
regard to gps). I think this would ease that transition from
local to X-C flying.

First, despite the threat of a "good bollocking," if a pilot does
wander 50km from start and then lands (without having any
declaration), that meets the Silver. If one disagrees with this
rule, please start a new thread. I interpret this to mean
that Silver is more about the X-C skill than the finding the
exact turnpoint and doing photos, but also that this was the
only way to validate (historically) that the flight was done.
Only the altitude of the landing airport was known (how
can one show from a baro trace that the pilot was above
the airport at X feet?). If the pilot did an out and
return without a declaration, and took a photo of some
random point, how can it be verified?

A gps logger solves these problems. We don't need to
use the airport altitude, we can find a point 50km away
and see what it's altitude was. We don't need to look
at random photos, we know where the glider went.

Does it make common sense that a pilot who flies
50km out, then makes it halfway back and lands out
has less skill than the pilot who landed at the 50km
away point? No. If one ends up over the landout
airport with altitude gain but then lands there
with too much loss, does this show less skill than
a pilot who lands at an airport 300 feet higher but
never made any gain? No.

Is a wandering flight to a 50km away landing really
better than a wandering 50km x 2 out and return? No.

If you think the 50km undeclared flight to a landing is
wrong and would like this eliminated, I'd understand,
and this would make the rules consistent. Then
there is a goal flight required in the Silver just like
the Gold (which very specifically says pre-declared
O&R or triangle).

But I think the Silver distance is NOT a Silver goal
flight, and should not be treated as one. I think the
inconsistency violates common sense. I think that a pilot
who can show on a gps that there were two points during
a flight which were 50km apart and met the altitude
rules has earned Silver distance. That pilot either
flew twice that distance during the flight or had a
landout. Either way, that pilot's flight was just
as noteworthy as the pilot that wandered exactly 50km
away and landed. GPS loggers allow us to validate and
recognise this flight.

[Brent Sullivan \SAM\]

In my opinion it's silly for the Silver Badge flight documentation to be
more onerous than the documentation of a flight in a (US) regional or
national competition.
Declare it
Fly it
Turn in the gps log
Put the pin on your funny hat

Brent

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
...
> First of all, I don't know if "bollocking" is a nasty word,
> but I certainly wouldn't want one.
>
> Next, I want to make it clear that my main issue is that the
> rules seem to be complex to account for the old "barograph
> and people watching" style of badge flying, and have a lot of
> requirements that are superceded by GPS loggers.
>
> I also want to make clear that there is a large drop in
> numbers as we go from local flying to XC, and I think that
> some of it is because the Silver is daunting, and made moreso
> by the complexity of the rules and the realities like mine.
>
> It's also important to note that a Silver badge is a way to
> qualify for Sports regionals and that plus gold 300km gets
> one qualified for other classes.
>
> I have heard my own club members naysay the badge program
> because of the complexity, and when my PW-5 syndicate talked
> about the Avenal regionals, I was surprised how few had
> Silver badges and wouldn't even enter a sport class if it
> had been available (in the 1-26 or 2-33).
>
> So I really like the badge program for encouraging X-C,
> and would like to see what I think are more consistent rules
> which make common sense and are simpler (mostly with
> regard to gps). I think this would ease that transition from
> local to X-C flying.
>
> First, despite the threat of a "good bollocking," if a pilot does
> wander 50km from start and then lands (without having any
> declaration), that meets the Silver. If one disagrees with this
> rule, please start a new thread. I interpret this to mean
> that Silver is more about the X-C skill than the finding the
> exact turnpoint and doing photos, but also that this was the
> only way to validate (historically) that the flight was done.
> Only the altitude of the landing airport was known (how
> can one show from a baro trace that the pilot was above
> the airport at X feet?). If the pilot did an out and
> return without a declaration, and took a photo of some
> random point, how can it be verified?
>
> A gps logger solves these problems. We don't need to
> use the airport altitude, we can find a point 50km away
> and see what it's altitude was. We don't need to look
> at random photos, we know where the glider went.
>
> Does it make common sense that a pilot who flies
> 50km out, then makes it halfway back and lands out
> has less skill than the pilot who landed at the 50km
> away point? No. If one ends up over the landout
> airport with altitude gain but then lands there
> with too much loss, does this show less skill than
> a pilot who lands at an airport 300 feet higher but
> never made any gain? No.
>
> Is a wandering flight to a 50km away landing really
> better than a wandering 50km x 2 out and return? No.
>
> If you think the 50km undeclared flight to a landing is
> wrong and would like this eliminated, I'd understand,
> and this would make the rules consistent. Then
> there is a goal flight required in the Silver just like
> the Gold (which very specifically says pre-declared
> O&R or triangle).
>
> But I think the Silver distance is NOT a Silver goal
> flight, and should not be treated as one. I think the
> inconsistency violates common sense. I think that a pilot
> who can show on a gps that there were two points during
> a flight which were 50km apart and met the altitude
> rules has earned Silver distance. That pilot either
> flew twice that distance during the flight or had a
> landout. Either way, that pilot's flight was just
> as noteworthy as the pilot that wandered exactly 50km
> away and landed. GPS loggers allow us to validate and
> recognise this flight.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

To answer a few other posts...

Yes I'm now hooked on X-C. I now understand the idea of
interthermal sink. When I was flying the 1-26 and 2-33,
penetration was such a problem that X-C days were few
and far between, and X-C was less a matter of skill than
weather. High L/D and penetration really do help for
creating hope and X-C. Having few soarable days can
be very disappointing. Lower performing ships are great
trainers, but I'd encourage new pilots to step up
quickly for (mainly) psychological reasons. The PW-5
was perfect for this (no ballast, no flaps, no retracts,
easy to assemble). I have two 1-26 X-C and nine PW-5
X-C. A trailer and easy-to-assemble glider are a
big deal. Still dunno what the fuss is about
automatic hookups though...the manual ones seem
to work fine so far and they are right in plain view
and easy to inspect...

My Volkslogger had some courses in it, and I had declared
one by pressing buttons. I changed my mind, disconnected
power, and wrote a written declaration. I reconnected
power and flew the flight. Much to my chagrin, the logger
had the old declaration on the .IGC file. Yep, I tested
this a couple more times. Bad feature. I've now eliminated
all courses from the logger. Problem solved, no more
electronic declarations. Since you have to provide the .igc
file with the paperwork, and the electronic declaration
is more recent, no way around this otherwise. Also be careful
because a small power interruption can cause this same redeclaration.
I use a seperate battery for the VL (actually a drill battery).
I like the idea of a written declaration anyway so my
towpilot and crew know the plan.

Yes the towpilot is usually my OO. Technically I think tampered
with means and includes removing power from the VL. Also, if
you run out of memory before the OO disconnects the logger, how
can the OO verify the trace? So I have the OO note the time
the logger is disconnected and then it is consistent with an
uninterrupted .IGC file. I don't have the slightest idea how
one could tamper with an .IGC file (isn't this like
a public key cipher? No-one has figured out how to
crack these, right? Factoring two large primes' product?
Yikes), but apparently this is a concern to someone.

Landing witnesses? OK this is also just silly. Violates
common sense when using a GPS logger. Way back in the good
ol' days, maybe you could convince some farmer to lift
your glider on the back of a trailer and drive it over
flat ground to the next airport. Unbroken baro in hand,
your OO got suspicious and called the FAI and asked them to
change the rule. But with a logger? If the logger was
put in the glider with the pilot, and the towpilot
released, what, was there some kind of midair pilot
switch? OK, assume no-one saw the landing, but the GPS says
you were there and the .IGC file is uninterrupted
(leave the battery connected until your non-ssa
crew and you get back to the home field and the
OO towpilot disconnects it). How do you fake a longer flight?
What does the landing witness add to this that
a towpilot release statement would not? Common sense
means a towpilot release statement should be a fine
substitute for a landing witness.

How about GPS altitudes? I suspect all new GPS's will
have WAAS, and if it's good enough for the 767 landing
0/0, it'll be good enough for us. 3-7 meters of
accuracy is darned good. I'm betting Garmin can easily
be swayed to put .IGC capability in their $200 GPS's
and this will be a non-issue quickly. Using pressure
altitudes for badges and records is simply outdated.
The FAI I'm certain will see this and accept either
form of proof, once the first WAAS and .igc producing
gps is manufactured.

[Mark James Boyd]

The badge program really did keep me going, but the
complexity was really a downside. Also, hearing about a
pilot attempt an out and return, but then make a
landout less than 50km away from start, and not get credit
for a Silver distance (I think the pilot made the
turnpoint first, but am not sure) was disappointing.
I thought the pilot had made a good Silver distance,
and didn't think this should be treated as a
Silver goal flight and therefore not count. Keep
in mind that declaring an out and return from
a certain turnpoint means one must make the turnpoint
at start too, not just tow release. This is
another complexity that would be eliminated
by a change allowing post-flight turnpoint
selection for distance (not goal) flights.

[Martin Gregorie]

On 9 Jul 2003 09:18:42 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>First of all, I don't know if "bollocking" is a nasty word,
>but I certainly wouldn't want one.
>
That would be a "chewing out" in American.

> Next, I want to make it clear that my main issue is that the
>rules seem to be complex to account for the old "barograph
>and people watching" style of badge flying, and have a lot of
>requirements that are superceded by GPS loggers.
>
I'm certain there are hang overs from the old days, but under the
current rules you can do the distance with an uncalibrated barograph
and witnesses to the take-off and landing. The barograph is only there
to make sure you didn't get a relight along the way.

That said, the remaining rules about witnesses and the barograph are
to stop the trace being faked with a pressure chamber.

> I also want to make clear that there is a large drop in
>numbers as we go from local flying to XC, and I think that
>some of it is because the Silver is daunting, and made moreso
>by the complexity of the rules and the realities like mine.
>
Sure, but the Silver isn't the cause - after all you don't HAVE to get
one, but its nice to have, both for the reasons you give below and
because its a good skill indication if you visit another club and want
to fly.

Example 1: I'm visiting the Wasserkuppe in Germany later this month. I
rang to check on flying requirements and mentioned I had Silver. Their
reaction was: "Oh, well just bring your license and medical and you
can fly".

Example 2: When I rolled up at Avenal in Oct, 2001, having Silver got
me an immediate area familiarisation flight in a 2-33. If I'd had
longer I'm certain I could have flown the 1-26 as well. Its on my
to-do list... next time!

> It's also important to note that a Silver badge is a way to
>qualify for Sports regionals and that plus gold 300km gets
>one qualified for other classes.
>
> I have heard my own club members naysay the badge program
>because of the complexity, and when my PW-5 syndicate talked
>about the Avenal regionals, I was surprised how few had
>Silver badges and wouldn't even enter a sport class if it
>had been available (in the 1-26 or 2-33).
>
That's a club thing. In my club its expected that new solo pilots will
go for their Bronze XC Endorsement (UK prerequisite for xc) and Silver
as they learn to go xc. It is expected that the club Discii and Pegase
will be flown xc - why else would we have them? However, not all UK
clubs have this attitude.

> So I really like the badge program for encouraging X-C,
>and would like to see what I think are more consistent rules
>which make common sense and are simpler (mostly with
>regard to gps). I think this would ease that transition from
>local to X-C flying.
>
> First, despite the threat of a "good bollocking," if a pilot does
>wander 50km from start and then lands (without having any
>declaration), that meets the Silver.
>
Only if he can get both the take-off and landing witnessed by an OO or
two other persons and had a logger on board . If he just 'wandered
off' that's rather unlikely.

> I interpret this to mean
>that Silver is more about the X-C skill than the finding the
>exact turnpoint and doing photos, but also that this was the
>only way to validate (historically) that the flight was done.
>
That's true enough.

>Only the altitude of the landing airport was known (how
>can one show from a baro trace that the pilot was above
>the airport at X feet?).
>
You can't. The height rules are intended to stop things like being
towed to 10,000 ft AGL and then gliding 50 km from there. This is why
the start height and destination ground level are important.

> If the pilot did an out and
>return without a declaration, and took a photo of some
>random point, how can it be verified?
>
Of course it can't be verified. Photo verification only works with the
crayon mark on the canopy showing in a photographic declaration pre
launch and the post-landing photo evidence. The OO must remove the
camera after landing and get the film developed as a single strip.
Digital cameras are not legal. 'Random points' don't cut it either -
the photo must be of a recognizable TP and taken from a point within
the FAI sector so that an OO can look at the photo and recognise the
TP and where the glider was when it was photographed.

> A gps logger solves these problems. We don't need to
>use the airport altitude, we can find a point 50km away
>and see what it's altitude was. We don't need to look
>at random photos, we know where the glider went.
>
All true, but there are still novices who don't have a GPS. The
current rules allow them to do a valid Silver using only witnesses and
a barograph or pressure-only logger. If they are flying a club's
post-solo glider (Junior, K-8, PW-5, 1-26 ...) that may be all its
equipped with. Would you really want to change the rules to exclude
them just because they don't have a GPS available?

There are other reasons too: my club prefers the Silver distance to be
done using only a map and pressure logger or barograph and to land at
a declared gliding field. The reasoning is to prove to the pilot (and
those who sent him off) that he can navigate on pure VFR and land on a
previously unseen airfield. Having done it that way gives an enormous
confidence boost to the newly minted Silver pilot.

> Does it make common sense that a pilot who flies
>50km out, then makes it halfway back and lands out
>has less skill than the pilot who landed at the 50km
>away point?
>
Yes. It shows that he understands the task, which is to fly a straight
line distance of 50 km or more. If the glider ends up closer than that
its not made the straight line distance regardless of how far it flew
or where it went in getting there.

> If one ends up over the landout
>airport with altitude gain but then lands there
>with too much loss, does this show less skill than
>a pilot who lands at an airport 300 feet higher but
>never made any gain?
>
It shows the pilot didn't understand the task requirements and either
picked too close a destination or started too high.

> Is a wandering flight to a 50km away landing really
>better than a wandering 50km x 2 out and return? No.
>
No, but the rules are clear on this. If you use a remote start or
finish and don't land there you MUST get home carrying proof that you
did in fact get there.

> If you think the 50km undeclared flight to a landing is
>wrong and would like this eliminated, I'd understand,
>and this would make the rules consistent. Then
>there is a goal flight required in the Silver just like
>the Gold (which very specifically says pre-declared
>O&R or triangle).
>
Actually, I think I would prefer it to be a goal flight for the same
reasons that my club prefers it to be flown as if it is one.

> I think that a pilot
>who can show on a gps that there were two points during
>a flight which were 50km apart and met the altitude
>rules has earned Silver distance.
>
Definitely not. This would eliminate the intention to fly to a
predetermined point and so would allow the clueless to drift off
downwind and earn a silver distance by default, not knowing where they
were or how they got there.

I think that you're possibly missing the point that the Silver is
pretty well designed to demonstrate that its holder is competent pilot
who has acquired the basic skills for xc flying. IMO it works this
way:

- 1000m height gain demonstrates the ability to find and ride thermals
to a significant height

- 5 hour duration shows the ability to stay airborne long enough to
complete tasks of up to 300 km and to maintain concentration over that
period

- 50 km xc shows that the pilot can navigate well enough to find a
destination or at least to go in a fairly straight line for a
significant distance.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Mark James Boyd]

I think pilots can get the same things from soaring on their
own as from the Badge program, but I am grateful it was there for
me. And man am I grateful for thebadgelady.

>Thats part of it Mark.
>At the end of the day you fly for your own satisfaction.
>If getting badges is your bag baby then so be it.
>Mine is just the shear fun excitement and fear involved in long distance
>flying with a bit of Acro thrown in for fun.
>Al

There are some other motivations for me than own satisfaction.

I'd like to fly in competitions and Silver plus gold distance is
required (For me this also means Diamond goal. I've
thought about this so much I almost think they're the same.)
Is there a way to fly in a regional without this?

I like publicizing my home gliderport. Badge and record flights
seem to be an accepted way to generate publicity. Sure I
like having a record or badge, but getting more people
to come out and soar is even better.

I think it is a concise way of explaining experience.
And it provides a focus for discussion about aspects of gliding.
When I talk about these badges, each element is
interesting to newcomers.

Lastly, for me it provides structure to continue developing
my pilot skills, and select courses and tasks that are
reasonable. I've come to realize that flying the PW-5
great distances is pretty hard (although William Snead
might disagree). So I'm being pulled into interesting
tasks and ideas. Without the Gold altitude, I wouldn't
have tried to max out a thermal a few weeks ago. The Diamond
goal has really got me thinking about routes over good
thermalling terrain.

Anyway, this IS my bag, baby. Yeahhh!
Thanks to all you cool cats who've put
your mummblies out there to make this a swinging
sport. Yeahhh! Smashing!

P.S.

I don't use the word "fear." I call it
a "moment of great concern."

And it isn't a "cloud,"
it's an "area of limited visibility."

It isn't "expensive dental work" it's a
"firm landing."

I don't say "he brought
most of the field back with him in the gear well,"
I say he "landed out."


Mark


"Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes."

[Kirk Stant]

Mark,

Congratulations on getting your Silver - It only gets better!

Sounds like you managed to find all the ways to not get it first!

Actually, now with GPS loggers, it's really easy. But you definitely
have to understand the rules, jump through the hoops (in the right
direction), and finish the paperwork. That's why it's a badge, after
all. Otherwise, just go out and fly 50 km and be happy! (What's
wrong, Al, scared you might make a mistake?).

While on the subject of badges, I wonder why we don't have any speed
badges to go with the distance ones - since speed is what is now one
of the main objectives of XC soaring. Something like 50 kph (30 mph)
over 50 km for Silver Speed, 100 kph (60mph) over 150 km for Gold
Speed, and 150 kph (90 mph) over 300 km for Diamond Speed.

Just a thought...

Kirk
66

[Martin Gregorie]

On 9 Jul 2003 09:59:04 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

> My Volkslogger had some courses in it, and I had declared
>one by pressing buttons. I changed my mind, disconnected
>power, and wrote a written declaration. I reconnected
>power and flew the flight. Much to my chagrin, the logger
>had the old declaration on the .IGC file. Yep, I tested
>this a couple more times. Bad feature. I've now eliminated
>all courses from the logger. Problem solved, no more
>electronic declarations. Since you have to provide the .igc
>file with the paperwork, and the electronic declaration
>is more recent, no way around this otherwise. Also be careful
>because a small power interruption can cause this same redeclaration.
>I use a seperate battery for the VL (actually a drill battery).
>I like the idea of a written declaration anyway so my
>towpilot and crew know the plan.
>
Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense now.

I'm surprised with what you say about the time stamp on the electronic
declaration. The EW model D manual says that the declaration is time
stamped from the logger's internal clock when the declaration is
recorded and that this time stamp is retained until the logger's
internal clock is reset, at which time the task declaration is wiped
and must be re-entered.

If the VL doesn't treat the declaration time stamp the same as the EW
model D then I'm certain you've done the right thing by clearing all
declaration information out of it. However, it may be worth double
checking that it really does reset the time stamp on power recycling
before giving up on electronic declaration.

I don't use electronic declarations, but then I use the EW model D,
which is a portable device that can only have a declaration recorded
via a computer (no keyboard - only one button on it) and I don't own a
glider, so may not always fly the same one. This just means that a
paper declaration is more convenient for me, but ymmv.

> Technically I think tampered
>with means and includes removing power from the VL.
>
That varies with the type of logger. Most loggers that use external
GPS receivers also include disconnecting the GPS as tampering. The EW
model D could care less about power (it has a 9v built-in backup
battery) but it records GPS disconnect/connect events, so
tamper-proofing includes looping the GPS data line round a permanent
part of the glider structure in such a way that it must be
disconnected to remove GPS and/or logger from the aircraft.

> Also, if
>you run out of memory before the OO disconnects the logger, how
>can the OO verify the trace?
>
Is the VL so memory limited? The EW model D will record GPS and
pressure for 24 hours at a 4 second sample interval. I'd assumed this
was pretty standard.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Martin Gregorie]

On 9 Jul 2003 12:41:55 -0700, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

>While on the subject of badges, I wonder why we don't have any speed
>badges to go with the distance ones - since speed is what is now one
>of the main objectives of XC soaring. Something like 50 kph (30 mph)
>over 50 km for Silver Speed, 100 kph (60mph) over 150 km for Gold
>Speed, and 150 kph (90 mph) over 300 km for Diamond Speed.
>
Interesting idea. Sounds fun too.

We sort of have that in the UK at a fairly low level: there's a
national 100 km diploma which has two parts. Part (a) is just doing
the 100 km task and part (b) requires a handicapped speed of greater
than 65 kph, using the standard BGA glider handicapping.

OTOH, although you can get away with being slow for the 300 km
Gold/Diamond Goal flight, I'd have thought its self limiting after
that: you just can't do 500 km or further unless you've learnt to fly
fast.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Martin Gregorie
> writes
>I'm certain there are hang overs from the old days, but under the
>current rules you can do the distance with an uncalibrated barograph
>and witnesses to the take-off and landing. The barograph is only there
>to make sure you didn't get a relight along the way.
>
That is just the point! The soaring performance is just as valid if it
is done with a Flight Recorder or with Camera & Barograph. The rules
have to allow for both.

Declarations: It is the last declaration before Takeoff that is the only
valid declaration, It does not matter if it is a Paper Declaration or an
Electronic Declaration, both do/should have a Time/date stamp (but make
sure that any paper declaration has the time zone as well as the time),
and the latest one is the one and only true declaration. If you happen
to declare something inadvertently by a bad attack of button pushing,
then you have only yourself to blame.

It would seem from the experience of the originator of this thread that
at least part of the failure was due to his peers not giving sufficient
instruction on the do's and Don'ts required to verify the flight. There
is a basic assumption that a pre-silver pilot (except Al) does not have
an in depth understanding of the requirements and it is up to whoever
briefs him/her on the flight to advise on who preparations to make.

If you get it wrong on a Silver attempt (which is fairly easy to do
again) you should learn how to get it right for more difficult flights.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Nyal Williams]

At 16:48 09 July 2003, Mark James Boyd wrote:

<snip>


> If you think the 50km undeclared flight to a landing
>is
>wrong and would like this eliminated, I'd understand,
>and this would make the rules consistent. Then
>there is a goal flight required in the Silver just
>like
>the Gold (which very specifically says pre-declared
>
>O&R or triangle).


Are you saying that the 300km straight distance flight
no longer qualifies for gold distance? The last sentence
above describes a diamond goal flight as well as a
gold distance flight.

[Mark James Boyd]

Running out of memory is from the %^&** pilot not clearing the memory
before the flight. I set it for 9 second intervals and get 24 hours or
so I think.

So make sure the logger doesn't have any courses in it,
make sure you have enough battery power for the flight (or
seperate power source), and make sure you've cleared the
memory so there is some for the flight. Surprisingly
complex, not just a "turn it on and everything
will be fine" deal.

I can't wait for eTrex or Garmin to make
one with oooodles of memory, doesn't use much battery,
uses WAAS so no calibration, and has a good interface (that
doesn't auto-declare either). Oh and does .igc real well.
And costs <$200.

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >, says...
>
> Running out of memory is from the %^&** pilot not clearing the memory
> before the flight. I set it for 9 second intervals and get 24 hours or
> so I think.
>
> So make sure the logger doesn't have any courses in it,
> make sure you have enough battery power for the flight (or
> seperate power source), and make sure you've cleared the
> memory so there is some for the flight. Surprisingly
> complex, not just a "turn it on and everything
> will be fine" deal.

Some flight recorders, such as the Cambridge units, don't require the
flight traces to be deleted, but simply start overwriting the oldest
ones. Also, the recorder automatically records only during flight
(plus a minute or two before and after), so it won't run out memory
even if it's left on before and after the flight. And, at least for
the "secure" recorders, there is no need to keep it powered after
landing while waiting for your OO to show up. So, at least for the
Cambridge recorders, it is a "turn it on and everything will be fine"
deal. In fact, I have my recorder switch on with the master switch so
I can't forget to turn it on.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Mike Borgelt]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:15:05 -0700, "Al" >
wrote:

>Thats part of it Mark.
>
>At the end of the day you fly for your own satisfaction.
>If getting badges is your bag baby then so be it.
>
>Mine is just the shear fun excitement and fear involved in long distance
>flying with a bit of Acro thrown in for fun.
>
>Al

I am perpetually amazed at how the speech enabled chimpanzees of Sol
III keep erecting artifical hoops for themselves to jump through. Most
of these hoops have little to do with the real task at hand. It's as
if the physical universe isn't difficult enough as it is.

Mike

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> > Third attempt
> >
> > It was the day after the 5 hour flight. Figured out how to
> > declare electronically. Got off tow, flew the out and return
> > total over 160+ km. Didn't have a landing witness. Apparently
> > towpilot verifying the logger is in the glider and then
> > towing and releasing is not enough.
> >
>
> This should have qualified as well. I don't believe the landing
> witness has to actually see you land.

When using GPS flight recorders, IGC requires the witness to see your
takeoff and landing, and record the time and location on the runway
that you lifted off and set down. The witness doesn't have to be the
official observer, but someone acceptable to them. The idea, I
believe, is to have at least two points of actual observation (a
reality check so to speak) to match to the flight file.

Personally, I'd like the requirement to be changed to only one
observed point for badges, at least for 500K and below. The tow pilot
can usually serve as the witness at the start; and it avoids the
problems of getting a witness at the landing, when you might land off-
field or at a different airport, or after everyone has gone home.

I find the simplest thing to do is to seal the recorder to the glider
in accordance with IGC procedures, then the OO doesn't have to be
present for the landing or takeoff, as control of the recorder is
assured by the sealing.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[BTIZ]

aren't electronics fun... just do it the old fashion way.. with cameras and
baro..

can't help a baro spring breaking during calibration.. Sh%% happens..

your crew finding you at the remote airport is not a "landing witness"??
hmmm

BT

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
...
> I really think that a pilot who flies from release
> to a point more than 50km away should get Silver
> distance (as long as that point meets the altitude
> loss requirements).
>
> I also think it's probably so hard to falsify an
> .IGC file that verifying the logger and the pilot
> are in the plane for takeoff can be an alternate
> method instead of needing a landing witness.
>
>
>
> My first Silver badge attempt
>
> flew to an airport 55km away. Circled for an
> hour waiting for the tow/retrieve pilot to
> show up and witness the landing. Sent in the
> paperwork, sent the baro for calibration. Baro spring
> broke during calibration. Couldn't calibrate.
>
> Second attempt
>
> Volklogger auto-declared some random course for me. Invalidated
> previous declaration on paper. Flew 5+ hours, furthest point
> was 80+ km away. Came back and landed. Sent in paperwork.
> Got altitude and duration only, no distance. (Fortunately
> the logger altimeter calibrated fine).
>
> Third attempt
>
> It was the day after the 5 hour flight. Figured out how to
> declare electronically. Got off tow, flew the out and return
> total over 160+ km. Didn't have a landing witness. Apparently
> towpilot verifying the logger is in the glider and then
> towing and releasing is not enough.
>
> Fourth attempt
>
> Took off for an out and return of 300km. Made it halfway,
> then started back and landed out about 60+ km from off tow.
> Since I got off tow at 2800, despite hovering over the
> landout at 5000 for a while, at landing there was too
> much altitude loss. No Silver distance.
>
> Fifth attempt
>
> Plugged the logger in, then got the declaration signed.
> Flew a 120km+ triangle just as declared, including 10K+
> altitude gain. Since the more recent declaration (written)
> counted and the flight was completed, and one leg was greater
> than 50km, it counted for silver distance. Observer watched
> the landing (but had to wait around to witness it).
>
> Does this seem a little complex?
>
>
>
>
>

[Matt Herron]

I got my Silver about a week ago at AirSailing x-c camp in Nevada.
There's no fancy equipment in my LS-4, so I did it the old fashioned
way with a barograph, official observer, etc. Meeting all the
requirements seemed important, so I put some energy into getting them
right. I'd like to say the distance/altitude was a piece of cake, but
I was flying a good glider in good conditions -- not everyone is so
fortunate.

I suppose as xcountry flights go, the Silver is a baby step, but for a
low time pilot like myself, it was a big deal. I think Silver is
really about cutting the aprion strings to Mother Airport -- I know
there was a lump in my throat as I made the big leap across Highway
80. From there on, I was amazed at how easy it was.

The 5.5 hour flight gave me a pain in my right arm (from tight
thermalling), a lot of time to appreciate the high desert country, and
a tremendous sense of satisfaction when I came down.

When I first started flying I thought badges were stupid, but I no
longer feel that way. Badges are good clear markers along the route to
becoming a competent pilot. They help to tell you where you are (so
long as you don't get hung up on that). I don't fly for badges, but I
like to fly with something concrete in mind, and sometimes that's a
badge.

Flying seems completely different to me after completing Silver. It's
not that I'm a good x-country pilot (I'm not), but I'm heading off in
a new direction with a lot of fascinating new stuff to master, and
I've got a big enthusiasm for it.

[BTIZ]

check out www.lvcm.com/btiz for a Silver Cross country and a Gold Distance
Attempt (Jean to Lone Pine)

BT

"Matt Herron" > wrote in message
om...
> I got my Silver about a week ago at AirSailing x-c camp in Nevada.
> There's no fancy equipment in my LS-4, so I did it the old fashioned
> way with a barograph, official observer, etc. Meeting all the
> requirements seemed important, so I put some energy into getting them
> right. I'd like to say the distance/altitude was a piece of cake, but
> I was flying a good glider in good conditions -- not everyone is so
> fortunate.
>
> I suppose as xcountry flights go, the Silver is a baby step, but for a
> low time pilot like myself, it was a big deal. I think Silver is
> really about cutting the aprion strings to Mother Airport -- I know
> there was a lump in my throat as I made the big leap across Highway
> 80. From there on, I was amazed at how easy it was.
>
> The 5.5 hour flight gave me a pain in my right arm (from tight
> thermalling), a lot of time to appreciate the high desert country, and
> a tremendous sense of satisfaction when I came down.
>
> When I first started flying I thought badges were stupid, but I no
> longer feel that way. Badges are good clear markers along the route to
> becoming a competent pilot. They help to tell you where you are (so
> long as you don't get hung up on that). I don't fly for badges, but I
> like to fly with something concrete in mind, and sometimes that's a
> badge.
>
> Flying seems completely different to me after completing Silver. It's
> not that I'm a good x-country pilot (I'm not), but I'm heading off in
> a new direction with a lot of fascinating new stuff to master, and
> I've got a big enthusiasm for it.

[Mark James Boyd]

> If you happen
>to declare something inadvertently by a bad attack of button pushing,
>then you have only yourself to blame.

and the converse (or is it contrapositive), if you happen to declare
something inadvertently by attaching power to the logger, you have only
the manufacturer to blame.

>It would seem from the experience of the originator of this thread that
>at least part of the failure was due to his peers not giving sufficient
>instruction on the do's and Don'ts required to verify the flight. There
>is a basic assumption that a pre-silver pilot (except Al) does not have
>an in depth understanding of the requirements and it is up to whoever
>briefs him/her on the flight to advise on who preparations to make.

I almost laughed when I read this. Got quite a smile. The pilots
here who've been doing this 30 years haven't the slightest idea
what any of this badge mumbo jumbo means. There are so many
landmines, including loggers that self-declare when power is applied, and
broken springs, and questions about whether a tow release
start-point is also a turnpoint, that eyes glaze over and
most pilots just drool and twitch when this subject comes up.

I may not have the in depth understanding of the requirements,
but I'm smart enough to be surprised by anyone who does...

I'm also smart enough that I'll run my prospective future
badge distance flights by thebadgelady BEFORE the flight.

;)

[Bruce Greeff]

My LX20 has >80hours of memory as do most of the decent loggers. Running
out of memory is a "pilot error" unless you are making 1000+km flights
with short intervals for recording.

Pity the cost - even second hand is >> $200

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Running out of memory is from the %^&** pilot not clearing the memory
> before the flight. I set it for 9 second intervals and get 24 hours or
> so I think.
>
> So make sure the logger doesn't have any courses in it,
> make sure you have enough battery power for the flight (or
> seperate power source), and make sure you've cleared the
> memory so there is some for the flight. Surprisingly
> complex, not just a "turn it on and everything
> will be fine" deal.
>
> I can't wait for eTrex or Garmin to make
> one with oooodles of memory, doesn't use much battery,
> uses WAAS so no calibration, and has a good interface (that
> doesn't auto-declare either). Oh and does .igc real well.
> And costs <$200.

[Bruce Greeff]

Interesting.

I am waiting in anticipation having (unintentionally) challenged a few
of these issues.

Let's look at the sequence of events.
I am a recent convert to a XC capable aircraft, of which there are only
two at our club. Similarly I own the only data logger in the club.
Ergo there is very little available in the way of guidance.

My third flight in the Cirrus provided Silver height and duration. The
next logical step is to start going places. So a nice Autumn day offers
the opportunity to explore some XC, and in accordance with club rules I
notify the duty instructor and OO of my intention to practice my XC
skills, in preparation for my formal Silver distance flight.

Our club also has a "Silver goal" approach to this because until I put
my logger in, there was only the camera and baro option available. Hende
the standard Silver Distance task at our club is a 62 Km flight to
another airfield and land and retrieve. We know it works - so nobody has
tried anything different for years...

My intention was to fly in the other direction, a slightly shorter route
around a power/glider field to our west and return. Intention was to get
some more navigation experience, and improve my XC speed. The reason for
the choice of turn point was simple. I wanted the option to land and to
be able to launch from there if I was unable to get home. Our "standard
airfield" is a little further, and has no launch facilities. So the
shorter route with the option of aerial retrieve won. I made
arrangements with the operators at the turn point airfield for
accomodation for my glider in case I failed, and planned the flight.

As a first flight with my new (second hand LX20) logger I wanted to test
if the thing actually worked. I did not have a mount for it yet so it
was wired in and secured to the bulkhead. This means that I was
navigating by map and compass on the flight.

The flight was delayed by various airfield problems, and I was
distracted and not thinking as well as I should have been . By the time
I launched it was 13:30 local time, in autumn that means there is a
strong possibility of the day dying after only a couple of hours. I
failed to think about this and launched with my objective in mind.
Overconfident because of the 150 Km polygon I had achieved on my last
flight. This was not quite bumbling around aimlessly, but was undeclared
and I simply went where the conditions looked good and flew a
rectangluar course.

The actual flight was fine, starting at a remote point to the east of
the field I flew over the field and on to my TP. I was pleased with my
speed and followed the landmarks happily. Problem was I was not watching
the time and spent too long climbing at my last thermal before heading
for the TP. There was a lot of sink, and by the time I had returned to
the thermal I was below it. Realisation starts to occur that the day may
be dying, and I am now 45Km from home and 3000" AGL - a Standard Cirrus
flown expertly can't do that - and I am no expert...

After much scratching the day really did die and, eventually, I was
forced to concede and made a decent circuit and landing at the remote
airfield.

This resulted in the expected lecture from the CFI - including the part
about it being a better decision to land safely, no matter how
inconveniently than to make a bad outlanding. General consensus was that
it was probably not neccessary, as conditions were probably good enough
to get home. General consensus was also that it was a good decision as I
was unconfident of my ability to get home.

The retrieve was much delayed so I ended up using the offered hangar and
collecting the Cirrus later. We ended the day very pleasantly under the
stars with our hosts - and that was it. Until we looked at the logger
trace.

Now the LX20 showed 53Km flown between the furthest points, and that I
was higher at the destination point than at launch. I did not know
anything about the rules other than that a 50Km flight needed to be
flown so I asked our badge person, who is new to the job and was not
sure. So I submitted the claim. The local view is that the log shows
>50km flown to a goal with greater altitude at the destination than at
release. However the landing was <50Km from the takeoff and the landing
airfield is >1% lower than the release altitude. Whether this will be
accepted is doubtful, but since we sent in the application already we
can only see what happens.

What I do know is a lot more about my personal capabilites, and a little
more about weather reading. I am also a little more grateful for the
LX20 in it's mount on the panel because now navigation is a lot easier,
and I can use more attention for other things. Like thermalling a little
better so I don't end landing out...

Personally I find the badge system useful and fun. It is a structured
set of goals with some kind of impartial affirmation. It is one way of
getting some objective feel for your relative development, and what
would your funny hat look like with nothing to adorn it?

As with many things the progress of technology makes rules and
procedures obsolete or at least nonsensical. This is true of the soaring
badge system, but it does not meant that the system is invalid. Only
that it is perhaps a little less convenient than we may like. In the
probable event that the trace is not accepted (having now studied the
rules), I will hopefully have done a couple of longer flights that do
meet the rules. Since I enjoy the soaring anyway, it is fun doing it
again. I learned a lot, found a whole area I did not know much about,
and am now challenged to get it right.

As a development tool the badge system works, even if it is in need of
some modernisation.

Fly safe.
Bruce

[Janos Bauer]

I'm looking for a wave camp this autumn or winter in Europe, where I
could fly my first 3000 or 5000m.
Any advice!

/Janos

[Bert Willing]

Sisteron and Vinon keep flying during the winter. With the Mistral blowing,
Sisteron is a no-brainer to do 3000m, and fairly simple to do 5000m. The
latter means that you have to descent below release altitude to somewhat
around 200m AGL, but doing that at a north facing slope nearby is not that
tough...

"Janos Bauer" > a écrit dans le
message de . ..
>
> I'm looking for a wave camp this autumn or winter in Europe, where I
> could fly my first 3000 or 5000m.
> Any advice!
>
> /Janos
>

[Martin Gregorie]

On 9 Jul 2003 22:06:26 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

> As far as O/O vs. crew goes, as far as I know, not all crew are
>qualified O/O. So if I've got 1 crew, and he's not a qualified
>O/O, then I may have a problem (the form says two landing witnesses,
>and I ASSUME I can't be the second witness myself).
>
You're right, of course. Last time I retrieved a club mate after a
Silver distance it was on a week day and from an airfield that is only
active at weekends. The CFI sent two of us to do the pickup, which
solved the witness problem. It strikes me as a right neighbourly thing
to do if the club makes an effort to send two retrievers in similar
circumstances.

> There are
>many crew who are not SSA members, pilots, or in any way
>associated with an airport. Another land mine.
>
I don't think that matters.

If the person(s) know where they are, can recognise a glider, read its
registration and sign their name they'll do as witnesses.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Tim]

Martin Gregorie >s comments read:

>
>> There are
>>many crew who are not SSA members, pilots, or in any way
>>associated with an airport. Another land mine.
>>
>I don't think that matters.
>
>If the person(s) know where they are, can recognise a glider, read its
>registration and sign their name they'll do as witnesses.

I take it you didn't do your Silver distance in a NNE direction from
Gransden then ;-)
--
Tim - ASW20CL "20"

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Mark James Boyd
> writes
>My first Silver badge attempt
>
>flew to an airport 55km away. Circled for an
>hour waiting for the tow/retrieve pilot to
>show up and witness the landing. Sent in the
>paperwork, sent the baro for calibration. Baro spring
>broke during calibration. Couldn't calibrate.
>
Two things. I thought that two independent witnesses who weren't
registered observers would do. Also, unless you want to claim the
sliver height I though that calibration wasn't necessary for distance as
the plot is just proving that you haven't landed on the way.

But well done on getting there

Robin

--
Robin Birch

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Kirk Stant
> writes
>Mark,
>
>Congratulations on getting your Silver - It only gets better!
>
>Sounds like you managed to find all the ways to not get it first!
>
>Actually, now with GPS loggers, it's really easy. But you definitely
>have to understand the rules, jump through the hoops (in the right
>direction), and finish the paperwork. That's why it's a badge, after
>all. Otherwise, just go out and fly 50 km and be happy! (What's
>wrong, Al, scared you might make a mistake?).
>
>While on the subject of badges, I wonder why we don't have any speed
>badges to go with the distance ones - since speed is what is now one
>of the main objectives of XC soaring. Something like 50 kph (30 mph)
>over 50 km for Silver Speed, 100 kph (60mph) over 150 km for Gold
>Speed, and 150 kph (90 mph) over 300 km for Diamond Speed.
>
>Just a thought...
>
>Kirk
>66
We have two stages to the 100km ticket. The first is untimed, the
second is to do it in better than 60 km/h. A suitable drive towards
getting round 300 in time

Robin

--
Robin Birch

[Martin Gregorie]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:33:15 +0100, Tim
> wrote:

>Martin Gregorie >s comments read:
>
>>
>>> There are
>>>many crew who are not SSA members, pilots, or in any way
>>>associated with an airport. Another land mine.
>>>
>>I don't think that matters.
>>
>>If the person(s) know where they are, can recognise a glider, read its
>>registration and sign their name they'll do as witnesses.
>
>I take it you didn't do your Silver distance in a NNE direction from
>Gransden then ;-)

Indeed. Is Hus.Bos ever empty? I went to Rattlesden on an August Bank
Holiday, so there were plenty of observers on the field when I
arrived. I did it in a Junior in blue condtions and took 3 1/2 hours
over it. I used to be *very* slow in blue conditions and am not a lot
faster now.

The Silver distance I mentioned also went to Rattlesden, but arrived
to find a deserted airfield.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Brent Sullivan \SAM\]

"dennis brown" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
> I believe the rules for regional sports class do not require more
> than the Silver badge.
I beg to disagree. In regionals, you can fly w/a $100 Garmin 12 and just
hand it in after you fly. You certainly can't just send in the trace from a
handheld GPS for a Silver badge.
> BTW, did you just happen to notice who won the sports class
> at Hobbs? 6 days. Finished first on 4 of the 6 days. The last
> day he didn't have to worry much, just needed to not land out
> because he was so far ahead in points.
> So much for your handicapping argument.
>
> Good pilot. Good plane. Hard to beat. Ask me how I know.
>
> mail address somewhat spoofed. Dennis
>
> >There are some other motivations for me than own satisfaction.
> >
> >I'd like to fly in competitions and Silver plus gold distance is
> >required (For me this also means Diamond goal. I've
> >thought about this so much I almost think they're the same.)
> >Is there a way to fly in a regional without this?
> >
>
> >
> >Mark

[Marc Ramsey]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote...
> I can't wait for WAAS and $200 GPS loggers so this complexity
> goes away.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Remember, WAAS is only usable in the US, EGNOS
is still being tested in Europe, Japan is just putting theirs together, and
much of the rest of the world will likely be without such systems for quite
a long time. The IGC can't/won't approve use of systems that aren't
available, in some form, worldwide.

> On the good side, my Volkslogger calibration says it is good
> for TWO years, not just one.

This is true, calibrations for all IGC approved flight recorders are now
good for two years...

[Kirk Stant]

Al,

Nice flight.

Now, for a challenge, lets see you get all your badge legs (Silver,
Gold, and 3 Diamonds) in one flight, without using wave (kiddie lift).

See Silver badge #6233, Gold badge # 2327, and Diamond badge #898, 9
May 2001 (.igc file available on request).

That's how I cut down the paperwork - to one sheet of paper (the
declaration)!

Kirk

[Al]

well apart from the insanely stupid Diamond altitude I think you will find
that flight and a bunch of other flights surpass all badge requirements
right there.

Al


"Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
om...
> Al,
>
> Nice flight.
>
> Now, for a challenge, lets see you get all your badge legs (Silver,
> Gold, and 3 Diamonds) in one flight, without using wave (kiddie lift).
>
> See Silver badge #6233, Gold badge # 2327, and Diamond badge #898, 9
> May 2001 (.igc file available on request).
>
> That's how I cut down the paperwork - to one sheet of paper (the
> declaration)!
>
> Kirk

[Tim]

Martin Gregorie >s comments read:

>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:33:15 +0100, Tim
> wrote:
>
>>Martin Gregorie >s comments read:
>>>>
>>>I don't think that matters.
>>>
>>>If the person(s) know where they are, can recognise a glider, read its
>>>registration and sign their name they'll do as witnesses.
>>
>>I take it you didn't do your Silver distance in a NNE direction from
>>Gransden then ;-)
>
>Indeed. Is Hus.Bos ever empty? I went to Rattlesden on an August Bank
>Holiday, so there were plenty of observers on the field when I
>arrived. I did it in a Junior in blue condtions and took 3 1/2 hours
>over it. I used to be *very* slow in blue conditions and am not a lot
>faster now.

Fingers crossed for a nice atypical August for the Gransden Regionals
then!

>The Silver distance I mentioned also went to Rattlesden, but arrived
>to find a deserted airfield.

I've noticed they don't fly much during the week - my Silver distance
was to Wormingford where they greeted me with open arms, took me to
the pub and left me unable to help the crew derig when they arrived at
10pm ;-) That's a great reason for Silver Distances to a foreign
field!
--
Tim - ASW20CL "20"

[Tim]

Martin Gregorie >s comments read:

>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:33:15 +0100, Tim
> wrote:
>
>>Martin Gregorie >s comments read:
>>
>>>
>>>> There are
>>>>many crew who are not SSA members, pilots, or in any way
>>>>associated with an airport. Another land mine.
>>>>
>>>I don't think that matters.
>>>
>>>If the person(s) know where they are, can recognise a glider, read its
>>>registration and sign their name they'll do as witnesses.
>>
>>I take it you didn't do your Silver distance in a NNE direction from
>>Gransden then ;-)
>
>Indeed. Is Hus.Bos ever empty? I went to Rattlesden on an August Bank
>Holiday, so there were plenty of observers on the field when I
>arrived. I did it in a Junior in blue condtions and took 3 1/2 hours
>over it. I used to be *very* slow in blue conditions and am not a lot
>faster now.
>
>The Silver distance I mentioned also went to Rattlesden, but arrived
>to find a deserted airfield.

--
Tim - ASW20CL "20"

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Al
> writes
>I would not fly anything wood when I have a perfectly good carbon Ventus
>sitting there for me to use.
>
>When was the last time people made wooden gliders like the K6? late 60's?
>
>Al

The nearest thing to a K6 is a PW5 ;¬)

We have received a report that Adrian Emck has just done 750k in his K6,
anyone done that in a PW5?

[Kirk Stant]

With today's gliders, and especially out here in the west, you are
right that the existing badges are not much of a challenge for someone
with experience and a good glider.

But for a beginner, just spreading his wings, so to speak, they do
provide a set of goals to aim for.

In the US, it is really hard for a beginner to get badges unless he
has his own ship, which most do not, so we have a bit of a vicious
circle. By the time I had the time and equipment to get my badges, in
a sense it was a "fill in the squares" exercise. I kind of regret
that...

But the Grand Canyon sure looks nice from 17,999ft!

Hope you are having better soaring weather than us this weekend - too
hot out here!

Kirk

"Al" > wrote in message >...
> well apart from the insanely stupid Diamond altitude I think you will find
> that flight and a bunch of other flights surpass all badge requirements
> right there.
>
> Al

[Mark James Boyd]

> I suggest for every Silver attempt using a GPS logger that the
> pilot fill out a declaration. I can see no downside.

>>The downside: using a paper declaration requires an OO; using an
>>electronic declaration in a recorder sealed to the glider doesn't.

OK, two things. First of all, my point was that there is no
downside compared to doing no declaration at all. That was the
context. I was also assuming the pilot was getting a tow (not
self-launch).

Second, I'll bet you I can find ten random pilots who've never
flown a badge, and using any logger and any computer you like,
five minutes later my group will have the paper form
filled out and the logger power hooked up. Your five pilots
will either have no declaration, have done it wrong, or
will have begun drooling and wandering in circles,
begging for more help. ;)

There's nothing as user friendly and satisfying as paper
and pen for a novice.

Reminds me of the space race story. The Americans spent
a million dollars designing a pen which could write in zero
gravity. The Russians used a pencil.

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> I would not fly anything wood when I have a perfectly good carbon Ventus
> sitting there for me to use.

But don't pass up an opportunity to fly a Ka-6. It is a lovely
handling glider, and I wish my plastic gliders could thermal low like
it could.

> When was the last time people made wooden gliders like the K6? late 60's?

My Ka-6E was made in 1969, likely the last year for it. By then, the
factories were using fiberglass for it's lower cost when making high
performance gliders.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >, says...
> > I suggest for every Silver attempt using a GPS logger that the
> > pilot fill out a declaration. I can see no downside.
>
> >>The downside: using a paper declaration requires an OO; using an
> >>electronic declaration in a recorder sealed to the glider doesn't.
>
> OK, two things. First of all, my point was that there is no
> downside compared to doing no declaration at all. That was the
> context.

Sorry, that wasn't clear to me. I thought "fill out" implied you were
recommending a only paper declaration, not just a declaration of any
form.

> I was also assuming the pilot was getting a tow (not
> self-launch).

Perhaps in your situation, all the towpilots are qualified, and want
to be, and have the time to be, official observers while towing, but
that is not true everywhere. By having the recorder sealed to the
glider, you avoid the need for the OO/towpilot. Getting it sealed is a
simple step that can be done any time before the flight, even months
in advance, and can serve for all flights afterwards, until the seal
is broken.

> Second, I'll bet you I can find ten random pilots who've never
> flown a badge, and using any logger and any computer you like,
> five minutes later my group will have the paper form
> filled out and the logger power hooked up. Your five pilots
> will either have no declaration, have done it wrong, or
> will have begun drooling and wandering in circles,
> begging for more help. ;)

If you are starting with the recorder in an unopened box, that would
be true. A more common situation is a recorder already installed, with
a database, and a set of tasks to choose from. If you use the same
task each time, no action at all is required, since the previous
electronic declaration is still valid.

I've only used Cambridge equipment, and think it's easy to select a
new task if the current one isn't suitable, or to enter a new one on
the spot. Other recorders may not be as easy, and certainly someone
unfamiliar with the equipment would do better with a paper
declaration.

I think you've moved beyond the novice group, so I was encouraging you
(and other post-novices) to make more use of the GPS recorder
features.

> There's nothing as user friendly and satisfying as paper
> and pen for a novice.

Still, there is the opportunity to declare one thing and fly another,
because you didn't enter the task in the recorder and use if for
navigation. That's a reason I like the electronic declaration: then I
know my navigation points and my task are really the same. And, as
long as I'm going to enter the points for navigation, I might as well
go the one extra step to declare them.

Nonetheless, the important thing is have a system that is simple and
convenient for you to use. I'm not against paper declarations for
anyone (except me!), but only pointing out the advantages of
electronic declarations.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> Reminds me of the space race story...

Ah, yes, a story of the type Urban Legend:

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

Where Barbara Mikkelson writes:

> Fisher did ultimately develop a pressurized
> pen for use by NASA astronauts (now known
> as the famous "Fisher Space Pen"), but both
> American and Soviet space missions initially
> used pencils, NASA did not seek out Fisher
> and ask them to develop a "space pen,"
> Fisher did not charge NASA for the cost of
> developing the pen, and the Fisher pen was
> eventually used by both American and Soviet
> astronauts.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.

[Richard Brisbourne]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:10:08 -0700, "Al"
> wrote:


>
>When was the last time people made wooden gliders like the K6? late 60's?
>
>Al
>
Didn't you own a Cobra once?
--
"Curmudgeonly is the new cool" (Terry Wogan)
(The real name at the left of the e-mail address is richard)

[Janusz Kesik]

I'm not sure, but someone in the US had done it already.


--
Janusz Kesik



> We have received a report that Adrian Emck has just done 750k in his K6,
> anyone done that in a PW5?
>
>