Glider Cross-country signoff & FARs

[Jamey Jacobs]

In discussions with other US glider pilots recently, and based on a
quick search of the FARs, I believe that US pilots with PPL-Glider
rating do not need any endorsements or sign-off to go cross country.
If anyone knows differently, let me know.

Before there's lots of advice to get training, fly dual x-c, etc - I
agree, and am not talking about what is the appropriate training. I
just want to verify that a PPL-G includes x-c priveledges. Of course,
clubs and rentals have their own sets of rules.

[Vaughn]

"Jamey Jacobs" > wrote in message
om...
> In discussions with other US glider pilots recently, and based on a
> quick search of the FARs, I believe that US pilots with PPL-Glider
> rating do not need any endorsements or sign-off to go cross country.
> If anyone knows differently, let me know.

Perhaps Judy will confirm, but the only cross country endorsement I
know of pertains to student pilots, a PPL needs no further permission to go
cross country. That said, cross country training is highly recommended.

There are many things that a PPL can do without permission or further
training that may not be a good idea,

Vaughn

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Jamey Jacobs > wrote:
>In discussions with other US glider pilots recently, and based on a
>quick search of the FARs, I believe that US pilots with PPL-Glider
>rating do not need any endorsements or sign-off to go cross country.
>If anyone knows differently, let me know.
>
>Before there's lots of advice to get training, fly dual x-c, etc - I
>agree, and am not talking about what is the appropriate training. I
>just want to verify that a PPL-G includes x-c priveledges. Of course,
>clubs and rentals have their own sets of rules.

Jamey,

Correct. The PPL-glider has no X-C restrictions. Whether X-C
is safe for this person is entirely up to them. I personally
think that the Silver badge is fun, and if one can fly for 5+
hours then one can likely achieve the distance for X-C (30+ NM).
Finding and landing at an airport you've never seen before
is the biggest challenge for brand new pilots.

Of course you can always drive to the prospective landing spot and
see if the runway is wide enough/where the taxiways are, etc. Or
you can fly there in a powered airplane. I scouted all of
my landouts before I used any of them.

From there, if you want to be extra cautious, just take a high
tow. At Avenal, for $100, one can get a 10,000 ft tow and
with the typical 15 knot tailwind, fly to Lost Hills airport
as a final glide (with a lot of safety margin). With an $80
GPS on board, it would be hard to miss the destination airport...

I did my first dozen cross-country glider flights solo
(but I did have a PPL-airplane first). I spent a lot of time
on the ground planning and talking to other pilots and
marking the map with landouts and scouting the landouts
though. What you do depends a lot on what glider, what conditions,
what terrain, what skills you have, etc. However you do
it, good luck!

[Michael]

(Jamey Jacobs) wrote
> In discussions with other US glider pilots recently, and based on a
> quick search of the FARs, I believe that US pilots with PPL-Glider
> rating do not need any endorsements or sign-off to go cross country.

You are correct. A pilot in the US is presumed competent for glider
XC on the day he gets his private glider.

Michael

[BTIZ]

> Correct. The PPL-glider has no X-C restrictions. Whether X-C
> is safe for this person is entirely up to them. I personally
> think that the Silver badge is fun, and if one can fly for 5+
> hours then one can likely achieve the distance for X-C (30+ NM).
> Finding and landing at an airport you've never seen before
> is the biggest challenge for brand new pilots.
>

If you do Silver X-C in anything more than a 1-26.. you're cheating..

BT

[Libelle Driver]

Your 10,000 ft tow would invalidate your 59.02 km flight to Lost Hills. The
1% rule is below.

From the SSA site:
For flights of less than 100 km, the loss of height between the Start
altitude,(release from tow or altitude at the Start Point) and the Finish
altitude (altitude at the Finish Point or the elevation of the landing
place) must not exceed 1% of the distance flown. IF IT DOES, ANY CLAIM WILL
NOT BE VALID

For the 59.02 km, your lose of altitude between tow release and landing
would be about 1936 ft.

Not sure which airport in Lost Hills you are heading to, but these numbers
are for Lost Hills - Kern.


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4002cdf1$1@darkstar...
> In article >,
> Jamey Jacobs > wrote:
> >In discussions with other US glider pilots recently, and based on a
> >quick search of the FARs, I believe that US pilots with PPL-Glider
> >rating do not need any endorsements or sign-off to go cross country.
> >If anyone knows differently, let me know.
> >
> >Before there's lots of advice to get training, fly dual x-c, etc - I
> >agree, and am not talking about what is the appropriate training. I
> >just want to verify that a PPL-G includes x-c priveledges. Of course,
> >clubs and rentals have their own sets of rules.
>
> Jamey,
>
> Correct. The PPL-glider has no X-C restrictions. Whether X-C
> is safe for this person is entirely up to them. I personally
> think that the Silver badge is fun, and if one can fly for 5+
> hours then one can likely achieve the distance for X-C (30+ NM).
> Finding and landing at an airport you've never seen before
> is the biggest challenge for brand new pilots.
>
> Of course you can always drive to the prospective landing spot and
> see if the runway is wide enough/where the taxiways are, etc. Or
> you can fly there in a powered airplane. I scouted all of
> my landouts before I used any of them.
>
> From there, if you want to be extra cautious, just take a high
> tow. At Avenal, for $100, one can get a 10,000 ft tow and
> with the typical 15 knot tailwind, fly to Lost Hills airport
> as a final glide (with a lot of safety margin). With an $80
> GPS on board, it would be hard to miss the destination airport...
>
> I did my first dozen cross-country glider flights solo
> (but I did have a PPL-airplane first). I spent a lot of time
> on the ground planning and talking to other pilots and
> marking the map with landouts and scouting the landouts
> though. What you do depends a lot on what glider, what conditions,
> what terrain, what skills you have, etc. However you do
> it, good luck!

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Libelle Driver > wrote:
>Your 10,000 ft tow would invalidate your 59.02 km flight to Lost Hills. The
>1% rule is below.

This is absolutely correct. I was not suggesting anyone get a 10,000
foot tow for the silver distance flight. I was simply pointing
out that if landing out scares someone for a first
cross-country (not a Silver distance attempt), the alternative
is just a super high tow the first time to get a good feel for
the terrain and pilotage and feel for the aircraft and then
get there and land without many hours of looking for lift or
the uncertainty of when are you gonna land/coordinating with crew.

On my first X_C (to Lost Hills-Kern), I promised myself (and told my
crew) I would not land back at my home airport, no matter what.
This gave me the courage to leave the local area.

On my first retrieve from Lost Hills, the tow pilot said "don't
release until you're really sure you can make it back."
I ended up halfway back (15 miles out) at 8000 ft (!). I got
back to the airport at 6500 feet, and then had an AMAZING and fun
smooth sunset flight, and even caught some of that mysterious
and elusive "convergence" lift.

>From the SSA site:
> For flights of less than 100 km, the loss of height between the Start
>altitude,(release from tow or altitude at the Start Point) and the Finish
>altitude (altitude at the Finish Point or the elevation of the landing
>place) must not exceed 1% of the distance flown. IF IT DOES, ANY CLAIM WILL
>NOT BE VALID
>
>For the 59.02 km, your lose of altitude between tow release and landing
>would be about 1936 ft.

[Ed Beers]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:52:29 -0800, Michael wrote:
> You are correct. A pilot in the US is presumed competent for glider
> XC on the day he gets his private glider.

More like "A pilot in the US is presumed competent to self evaluate his
competence to make XC flights on the day he gets his private glider".

Ed

[Hank Nixon]

Ed Beers > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:52:29 -0800, Michael wrote:
> > You are correct. A pilot in the US is presumed competent for glider
> > XC on the day he gets his private glider.
>
> More like "A pilot in the US is presumed competent to self evaluate his
> competence to make XC flights on the day he gets his private glider".
>
> Ed

A review of the Practical Test Standards includes the knowledge
elements required to fly cross country. Also required for PP is an
endorsement approving cross country flights.
In order to be better prepared, it is avery good idea to do the SSA
Bronze Badge whicch is focused on elements required for cross country
including simulated off field landings.
Satisfying these and maybe a little personal prep with your CFI or
even another skilled XC pilot and you can safely begin the adventure
of XC
UH

[Mark James Boyd]

Hank Nixon > wrote:

>Also required for PP is an
>endorsement approving cross country flights.

Nuh-uh. You're makin' that up.

US CFIG's have the OPTION of signing off a student pilot
for X-C, but there is no requirement. And there is no requirement
to do an X-C for the glider PPL to meet flight experience
minimums (at least in the US).

[Michael]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote
> >Also required for PP is an
> >endorsement approving cross country flights.
>
> Nuh-uh. You're makin' that up.

It's not right, but he may not be making this up. In the Houston area
we have (or at least had) a DE who would not ride with a student who
lacked the XC solo endorsement. His logic was that if you (as a CFIG)
were not willing to endorse the student for XC flight, clearly you
must not have given him adequate instruction in XC flying, which is
required.

Michael

[Tony Verhulst]

Michael wrote:
> ..... if you (as a CFIG)
> were not willing to endorse the student for XC flight, clearly you
> must not have given him adequate instruction in XC flying, which is
> required.


Assuming the U.S. and glider ratings, there is no XC requirement in the
Practical Test Standard.

Tony V.

[Judy Ruprecht]

At 21:54 14 January 2004, Todd Pattist wrote:

>Moreover, a U.S.
>Private Pilot Glider rated pilot who wishes to transition
>and add an airplane category to his private certificate
>will
>not be tested on navigation or cross country procedures
>listed in the Airplane PTS when he takes his practical
>test
>for the airplane category add-on. The airplane PTS
>specifically excludes those areas (as well as weather)
>for
>the glider-rated transition pilot.

This is certainly what the PTS 'matrix' seems to show,
but with minor variations, 'Use if the PTS Book,' is
a text passage common to all PTSs. This passage indicates:

'...An applicant who holds (a/at least a) private pilot
certificate seeking an additional (category/ class)
rating, will be evaluated in at least the areas of
operation and tasks listed in the Additional Rating
Task Table located on page 9 of this practical test
standard. At the discretion of the examiner, an evaluation
of the applicant’s competence in the remaining areas
of operation and tasks may be conducted.'

I believe many DPEs delve into the non-mandatory tasks
when examining transition pilots because (1) a satisfactory
exam means the DPE's signature will forever be in the
applicant's logbook. In ink and (2) requisite skills
can and do vary with aircraft category.

Judy

[Michael]

Tony Verhulst > wrote
> Assuming the U.S. and glider ratings, there is no XC requirement in the
> Practical Test Standard.

Take another look at Area of Operation VIII - Navigation. That's
where the XC stuff lives.

Michael

[Mark James Boyd]

Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>> ..... if you (as a CFIG)
>> were not willing to endorse the student for XC flight, clearly you
>> must not have given him adequate instruction in XC flying, which is
>> required.
>
>Assuming the U.S. and glider ratings, there is no XC requirement in the
>Practical Test Standard.
>
>Tony V.

Area VIII: Navigation
A. Task: Flight Preparation and Planning
4. Constructs a flight profile to determine minimum flight
altitude at go-ahead points.

This is probably the clearest requirement for ORAL testing of
X-C planning proficiency. Can't tell go-ahead points without
wind effects, need to read a TAF for that, etc...

As far as an examiner requiring an XC endorsement for a practical test,
DPE's can make up their own rules and do whatever they want.
Some DPE's won't fly certain planes (a Tomahawk) or refuse
to fly in actual IFR even for an IFR checkride, or require that
the CFI applicant have spin training from the instructor that
signs them off. DPE's that make their additional requirements
known BEFORE the flight test I would think were wholly within their
discretion. On the other hand, taking someone's $250 and then
telling them they need a XC signoff and another $250 at a later
date is dirty pool and would get a response from me if I were the
recommender.

And different FSDO's get some leeway in "interpretation."
In Alaska, the examiner's include "defrosting the freakin'
engine" as part of the tested preflight. In Hawaii, overwater
operations and using their flight tracking system is tested.
So yes, there seems to be a lot of discretion given...

But is an XC 61.93 endorsement required for all glider practical
tests? No way. Neither is a "B" airspace endorsement, or
a "night" endorsement, or an endorsement to land at every airport
that pilot may select in the future. Can someone legally fly a glider
at night into B airspace to a completely new airport after getting
the glider PPL? Yes (if they have enough money for all the
electric things). But requiring sign-offs for this generally
of all applicants across the country would be absurd.

I read somewhere that only 20% of glider PPL's ever do a
cross-country. This matches my personal observations.
I'm also keenly aware that in the US, one gets a "glider"
license, not a "soaring" license. If all you have is a winch,
a 2-33, and stable air when the student has time to fly, how
are you gonna fly a dual cross-country? Is there really
any reason to make getting a glider license harder?

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <400ae103$1@darkstar>,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> If all you have is a winch, a 2-33, and stable air when the student
> has time to fly, how are you gonna fly a dual cross-country?

More to the point: why do you bother having a "gliding" club there at
all?

-- Bruce

[Michael]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote
> I read somewhere that only 20% of glider PPL's ever do a
> cross-country. This matches my personal observations.

The question is why. I don't believe it's because only 20% of glider
pilots WANT to do a XC. I think it's because (1) they feel unprepared
and (2) most clubs and commercial operations make it difficult or
impossible to do without buying your own ship.

If a solo XC was required for the private, I think this would change.
I think it would be a good thing.

When I learned to fly in power 10 years ago, a student had to do a 300
nm XC flight. In those days, newly minted private pilots went places.
I flew from the Midwest to the East Coast two weeks after getting my
ticket, and this was normal. Going away from home gave me the skills
and confidence to do it.

These days, you can be a private pilot in power without ever going 80
miles from home. I've noticed that this has failed to actually
increase the number of pilots by any appreciable amount, but it has
changed the culture - negatively. Most private pilots I know rarely
venture far from home, and do so only under ideal conditions. Only
about 20% ever go more than one fuel tank from home at all.
Interestingly, they are the same people who stick with flying for the
long term.

Thus I have to believe that requiring a solo XC for gliders would not
actually reduce the number of pilots significantly, but it would give
us a very different culture - one where XC soaring was the norm rather
than the exception. Might improve retention too.

Michael

[Mark James Boyd]

Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>In article <400ae103$1@darkstar>,
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>
>> If all you have is a winch, a 2-33, and stable air when the student
>> has time to fly, how are you gonna fly a dual cross-country?
>
>More to the point: why do you bother having a "gliding" club there at
>all?
>
>-- Bruce

Let's see, because some people like to get a "glider" license
so they can take up friends and family on calm days at sunset
on high tows and glide in quiet and serenity.

Because the local "glider" operation is close and you can get
a license there in the winter when CFIG's and gliders are
easy to schedule and if you had to go to a "soaring" site
200 miles away for all your training you'd never get a license
and never get to fly with your friends and family.

Because the 80% of the glider pilots that never go X-C
are willing to spend money there in the winter so that the
operation makes enough money so that it is alive in the
summer/soaring season and the tow pilots and CFIG's are
well rehearsed and current in flying takeoffs and
landings.

Because takeoffs and landings are the majority of accidents
in gliding and practicing these things during the off
months gives more experience for the later soaring months.

Etc...

....but I'm sure you could come up with more reasons if
you thought about it...

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Michael > wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote
>> I read somewhere that only 20% of glider PPL's ever do a
>> cross-country. This matches my personal observations.
>
>The question is why. I don't believe it's because only 20% of glider
>pilots WANT to do a XC. I think it's because (1) they feel unprepared
>and (2) most clubs and commercial operations make it difficult or
>impossible to do without buying your own ship.
>

Partially correct. (1) Many are unprepared, because they don't
want to spend the extra money and time required to fly X-C.
They have made a choice to not make the additional investment.
I'm happy to have them at the gliderport anyway.

(2) Clubs and commercial operations make it difficult
or impossible to fly X-C? Compared to what? Compared to
having nothing there at all? That's kind of like saying
having a sole Cessna 152 for rent at a deserted airfield
is keeping student from doing commercial training. I'm
having a lot of trouble with this logic...

>If a solo XC was required for the private, I think this would change.

Yes, less people would have the time and money to complete
the glider PPL. And the remaining ones would have done a X-C.

>I think it would be a good thing.

Well, that depends on your viewpoint. If you're offended
by all that silly local glider traffic in the pattern,
and you wanted to reduce the number of passengers carried in
gliders, then it would be a good thing.
And it would certainly be safer if there were fewer glider
pilots flying gliders, and fewer passengers.

>When I learned to fly in power 10 years ago, a student had to do a 300
>nm XC flight. In those days, newly minted private pilots went places.
> I flew from the Midwest to the East Coast two weeks after getting my
>ticket, and this was normal. Going away from home gave me the skills
>and confidence to do it.

And it was both ways, uphill, in the snow, right? :P

>These days, you can be a private pilot in power without ever going 80
>miles from home. I've noticed that this has failed to actually
>increase the number of pilots by any appreciable amount, but it has
>changed the culture - negatively. Most private pilots I know rarely
>venture far from home, and do so only under ideal conditions. Only
>about 20% ever go more than one fuel tank from home at all.
>Interestingly, they are the same people who stick with flying for the
>long term.

Most private pilots I know would love to rent an airplane and fly a
very long distance, but the tripling of commercial insurance in four
years, reflected in the rental price, has cooled their enthusiasm.
Four years ago I could rent a two seat airplane for $32 an hour at
WVI. Today $60 an hour is the cheapest. I think cost is
the driving behavior...

>
>Thus I have to believe that requiring a solo XC for gliders would not
>actually reduce the number of pilots significantly, but it would give
>us a very different culture - one where XC soaring was the norm rather
>than the exception. Might improve retention too.
>
>Michael

Raise the cost and the demand will increase? Interesting
theory (I suppose it works for Versace). I can't say I buy the
logic here, however. Encouraging pilots to fly X-C, making it
easier and safer for them, volunteering to crew, making
excellent maps of landouts, acting as a mentor, etc.
sound great, but requiring it for the PPL just increases the cost
(time and money) and reduces the chance of completing the license.

> - one where XC soaring was the norm rather
>than the exception.

Well, if you want fewer pilots, all of which are more hard core,
and into X-C, that'll do it. If all you offer is a burger
with everything, all the remaining customers will like burgers,
with everything.

>Might improve retention too.

I agree with this. If a pilot spent 5 times as much time and money
for a license, they'd be darned sure to be the most motivated cream of the
crop, and get use out of it...

But retention at the cost of recruitment? Hmmm...not something I
favor. For certain clubs, probably a good idea (many
clubs have training requirements before going X-C solo in their
gliders), but for the general population, no.

The sport-pilot initiative is the opposite of your
idea, applied to power and gliders. Commercial operators
and sellers of aircraft have pushed to lessen the
requirements (including X-C) to reduce barriers to
entry into sport aviation.

Like sport pilot, I'd like to see the requirements
remain the same, or be reduced (reducing barriers to
entry). Then the additional effort can go towards
ENCOURAGING optional flying, like X-C, formation,
racing, IFR, night, etc.

I must say, however, that I don't realistically see the
hours required ever being reduced. Learning how to
launch and land safely in a glider is going to take
at least the minimum required by the US CFR in any case,
from my experience. Granted, there will be a few
youngsters who have flown with dad a lot but haven't
logged it, who can aerotow and land after three lessons,
but for the most part, the US CFR minimums
do a good job of matching the licenses (and privileges)
granted.

I'm just really glad that sport pilot is coming along,
so that power pilots aren't required to fly any X-C
before taking a passenger in a Cub or something like that.
I've seen a lot of perfectly good pilots solo, but go no
further due to money constraints. Solo was $1000 vs.
an additional $4000 to finish all the additional
training (night, IFR, X-C, towered airports, etc.).
If it had been just another $250 for a checkride and
then they could take a friend around the local area,
I think some would have remained in aviation.

[Michael]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote
> (2) Clubs and commercial operations make it difficult
> or impossible to fly X-C? Compared to what? Compared to
> having nothing there at all?

Disingenuous in the extreme. You don't need a 40:1 ship to go XC. I
didn't have one. All of my XC flights were in a ship I bought for
less than $7000, ready to go, current annual, roadworthy enclosed
trailer. That ship spent quite a few years as a club ship. Most
clubs and commercial operations have ships suitable for XC. Hell, a
1-26 or Ka-8 is suitable, and plenty of people are still doing their
first XC's in these ships and having great fun.

Clubs and XC operations make it difficult to go XC by making all sorts
of rules that sound reasonable on paper but add up to making it very
difficult or impossible to get permission. Making the XC required
would force them to change their rules, and that's the reason I think
it's a good idea.

> >If a solo XC was required for the private, I think this would change.
>
> Yes, less people would have the time and money to complete
> the glider PPL.

This is the core of your entire argument downstream from here. All I
can say is what I already said:

> >These days, you can be a private pilot in power without ever going 80
> >miles from home. I've noticed that this has failed to actually
> >increase the number of pilots by any appreciable amount

The reduction in XC requirements has failed to increase participation.
The recreational certificate requires no XC at all, and it has also
failed to increase participation. Therefore, I consider all your
arguments that adding a XC requirement to the glider private would
reduce participation wholly unpersuasive.

> The sport-pilot initiative is the opposite of your
> idea, applied to power and gliders.

The sport pilot initiative is meaningless. The reduced training
requirement will not affect participation. What WILL affect
participation is the driver's license medical (a little - and be aware
that much of it will be at the cost of participation in soaring) and
the LSA. THAT is what matters - having a new crop of ready-to-fly new
aircraft that can be built and maintained without the costs of
certification. If we really start seeing new airplanes at the cost of
a new car and the ability to fly power without a medical, that's going
to make a real difference. If we don't, sport pilot will have as much
impact as recreational pilot - none.

> I'm just really glad that sport pilot is coming along,
> so that power pilots aren't required to fly any X-C
> before taking a passenger in a Cub or something like that.
> I've seen a lot of perfectly good pilots solo, but go no
> further due to money constraints. Solo was $1000 vs.
> an additional $4000 to finish all the additional
> training (night, IFR, X-C, towered airports, etc.).

So? Recreational pilot requires none of this. How many recreational
pilots are there?

Michael

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Michael > wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote
>> (2) Clubs and commercial operations make it difficult
>> or impossible to fly X-C? Compared to what? Compared to
>> having nothing there at all?
>
>Disingenuous in the extreme. You don't need a 40:1 ship to go XC. I
>didn't have one. All of my XC flights were in a ship I bought for
>less than $7000, ready to go, current annual, roadworthy enclosed
>trailer. That ship spent quite a few years as a club ship. Most
>clubs and commercial operations have ships suitable for XC. Hell, a
>1-26 or Ka-8 is suitable, and plenty of people are still doing their
>first XC's in these ships and having great fun.
>

The number of days and locations an XC is possible is reduced with
less capable equipment. I got my license in two months, then did a dozen
cross-countries in the following six months, in a 32:1 ship.
I also did two cross-countries in a 1-26, but would have avoided a landout
if I had been in the 32:1 sailplane.

Better equipment means one can fly further on more days with
less experience.

>Clubs and XC operations make it difficult to go XC by making all sorts
>of rules that sound reasonable on paper but add up to making it very
>difficult or impossible to get permission. Making the XC required
>would force them to change their rules, and that's the reason I think
>it's a good idea.

Now THIS is an excellent argument. I agree completely and now
think I see your point. I too have noticed that two local
commercial glider operations have outrageous prices for retrieves,
and don't provide trailers, towcars, and have draconian X-C
requirements for checkouts. Most of this seems to be
because they can make more money by doing lots of tows locally,
and to reduce perceived insurance claims, and "inconvenience."

This is one reason I went to my chosen club (Avenal) where
there are no restrictions at all on X-C, and cheap retrieves, even
though it is 3 hours drive.

From this point of view, this is a good argument. I hadn't
thought of it and I thank Michael for his patience to give
this extra detail...

I still don't know if I'd go as far as requiring it by regulation,
but I can see it does provide a marketing advantage to my
club to make X-C easier and to provide X-C training. Perhaps
the baby steps of a "mini-XC" involving a flight to
an airport 5-10 miles away, to keep costs down.
Hmmm...that sounds like fun, too! :)

>The reduction in XC requirements has failed to increase participation.
> The recreational certificate requires no XC at all, and it has also
>failed to increase participation. Therefore, I consider all your
>arguments that adding a XC requirement to the glider private would
>reduce participation wholly unpersuasive.

The recreational license was killed by the insurance industry.
Call them up and see the difference in rates. Many (but
not all) FBO's also require a PPL for rental of some or all
aircraft.

A 5-10 mile X-C might be ok, but
trying to do a 50 mile dual X-C
would be expensive and a "show-stopper"
in the winter where I fly.

61.1(3) definition of X-C for gliders isn't published. Perhaps
adding an X-C requirement and simply having it be
"landing at a location or airport which was not the airport
of departure" might work. And this would test some good
basics on a dual flight...use of compass, pattern entry,
wind direction, judging new altitude, etc...

Another idea is a little more emphasis by examiners and CFI's
on the 61.87(i)(13) requirement for pre-solo training on
assembly and disassembly. Might as well land somewhere else if you
gotta disassemble it anyway, right?

>> The sport-pilot initiative is the opposite of your
>> idea, applied to power and gliders.
>
>The sport pilot initiative is meaningless. The reduced training
>requirement will not affect participation.
>
>Michael

I have two CFIs who will quickly and eagerly add a "sport-CFI-glider"
endorsement with two signatures if SP goes through. They will not,
on the other hand, get a CFIG.

Again though, the question is: will the insurance companies
cover their "sport" instructional flights? We shall see...

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <400d8fb4$1@darkstar>,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> In article >,
> Michael > wrote:
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote
> >> (2) Clubs and commercial operations make it difficult
> >> or impossible to fly X-C? Compared to what? Compared to
> >> having nothing there at all?
> >
> >Disingenuous in the extreme. You don't need a 40:1 ship to go XC. I
> >didn't have one. All of my XC flights were in a ship I bought for
> >less than $7000, ready to go, current annual, roadworthy enclosed
> >trailer. That ship spent quite a few years as a club ship. Most
> >clubs and commercial operations have ships suitable for XC. Hell, a
> >1-26 or Ka-8 is suitable, and plenty of people are still doing their
> >first XC's in these ships and having great fun.
> >
>
> The number of days and locations an XC is possible is reduced with
> less capable equipment. I got my license in two months, then did a dozen
> cross-countries in the following six months, in a 32:1 ship.
> I also did two cross-countries in a 1-26, but would have avoided a landout
> if I had been in the 32:1 sailplane.

Well, the good news is that 32:1 gliders are cheap and plentiful.


> Better equipment means one can fly further on more days with
> less experience.

Most people who say things like this seem to think you need considerably
*more* than Ka6/PW5 performance to go cross country. Are you saying
that it is in fact enough? (I think it is)

-- Bruce

[Jack]

On 04/01/20 13:29, in article 400d8fb4$1@darkstar, "Mark James Boyd"
> wrote:

> I have two CFIs who will quickly and eagerly add a "sport-CFI-glider"
> endorsement with two signatures if SP goes through. They will not,
> on the other hand, get a CFIG.

Why not?

Are we wasting our time catering to people who are not motivated enough or
economically able to continue in the sport, just because we want to see some
raw numbers? This may aid the commercial training operations, as it does in
the power world, but it doesn't help retention.

The SSA, too, seems to be caught up in the general hand-wringing over
declining numbers, but that's the nature of organizations. I think the idea
of requiring a x-c is a good one, both from a motivation/retention point of
view and from a safety point of view -- any glider pilot can be forced to
divert, or land out on any given flight, because of winds, weather, field
operations, etc., and it shouldn't be the first time he has been somewhere
other than the home field, especially if he is the type that only flys the
two-seater because he only glides in order to take friends for a quiet ride.

As matter of fact, it might not be a bad idea for clubs to require on an
annual basis that every member prove he can go somewhere else and land in
order to maintain his qualifications to use club aircraft.

Towing out of the chosen divert field to return to the home 'drome would be
a nice change of pace for everybody. CFIGs, tow pilots, and supervisors all
need to blow the cobwebs out and get some new perspective from time to time.
Nearby clubs could conduct this training on the same weekend and serve as
the recovery fields for each other, simplifying the process, reducing the
costs, and providing an opportunity to cement ties between clubs, as well as
enhancing pilot capabilities.

Telling people they are not likely to be successful in x-c work unless they
go for glass is not going to help retention either. Fly what you can afford
to fly often. If you don't have a club supportive of your x-c efforts in a
lower performance, affordable sailplane, perhaps what you really need is a
new club.

The records for the 1-26 in Region 7, of all places, are:

Distance in a Straight Line James E. Hard MN 413.68 mi. 4- 6-1990
Distance to a Goal James E. Hard MN 320.24 mi. 6-24-1984
Out and Return Distance James E. Hard MN 192.10 mi. 5- 2-1995
100 Km Triangle Speed James E. Hard MN 33.87 mph 5-26-1998
200 Km Triangle Speed James E. Hard MN 29.30 mph 7-30-1997
150 Km Out and Return Speed Kevin B. Ford IL 26.40 mph 5-28-1992
Absolute Altitude Kevin B. Ford IL 9,500 ft. 5-28-1992
Gain of Height Kevin B. Ford IL 6,950 ft. 5-23-1994

There's no wave or ridge in MN, nor in IL, as far as I know.



Jack


Sent using the Entourage X Test Drive.

[Mark James Boyd]

Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
>Well, the good news is that 32:1 gliders are cheap and plentiful.
>
>
>> Better equipment means one can fly further on more days with
>> less experience.
>
>Most people who say things like this seem to think you need considerably
>*more* than Ka6/PW5 performance to go cross country. Are you saying
>that it is in fact enough? (I think it is)
>
>-- Bruce

At Avenal, 32:1 is enough a lot of the time. And on the days
when 32:1 isn't enough, 50:1 usually isn't enough either.

Okay. How about some terms? What is cross-country?
I'd say any flight where some part of the flight is beyond
final glide back to the departure airport is a cross-country.
A bit ambiguous, but hey, I'm going with it.

ANSWER:
-------

"Seldom" an SGS 2-33 is enough. "Much more often" a DG-1000 is
enough.

Given the same pilot experience:

With a tailwind, frequent markers, high thermals (AGL), benign
terrain, and a short distance (in that order of importance)
I think a 2-33 is fine. Heck, even some lower thermals are fine
if they are frequent enough (the southeast US states seem to have this
quite a bit). This seems to be a recipe for 1-26 cross-countries
that I've read about.

Into a headwind, no markers, low thermals, unlandable terrain,
and a long way to go make a DG-1000 look much more attractive.
Somewhere in between, the Blanik L-13 and the Grob-103 are going to
be ok.

1. Tailwind/headwind has a HUGE effect on glide if you
have a curvy polar.

2. Markers are the difference between a no-brainer "connect-the-dots"
flight and searching the ground for sources.

3. Thermal height determines if you are going to be able to
make it to the next thermal, or land out.

4. Benign terrain gives you more time to look for lift instead of
worrying about landing out.

5. Distance = pilot fatigue. A 300km in a 40:1 sailplane seems to
take twice the time 20:1 will take, from what I've read of pilots
who've tried both.

Good L/D, flatness of the polar, and ease of trailering really
help increase the number of soarable days (given the same experience
level).

From my point of view, I started soaring in the winter. Lift
was just weak as could be for my first 5 days/sessions. Then there
was a fantastic day with two huge cumulus clouds and my two
friends went back and forth between them in a 2-33 and 1-26 while
I did 3 hours of ground training for my license! But I had my eye
on the PW-5, and the insurance required a PPL-glider to fly it.

So I got a license, and got in. Boy what a difference! I could
really explore the area, and even though the L-13 was pretty good,
I was terrified of landing out in the huge metal thing with nuts
and bolts to disassemble (yikes!). The PW-5 was something two
small/weak people could lift over a fence (pieces anyway)!

That glider really eliminated a lot of hard "cost based"
decisions for me. If it had been a $50,000 glider I never
WOULD have gone into some of those valleys, and if
it was a $6,000 glider, I never COULD have gone there (well,
on that day anyway). And the PW-5 was different from the
1-26, because the stick controlled the airspeed, not JUST the
vario ;)

As it was I got 30-40 flights for about $350 for my share for the
syndicate for the year (about $10 a flight in rent). And I got
a lot further, with less fatigue, with less training, on marginal
days, than in a 1-26.

So there are a LOT of gliders that are between $10,000-$20,000
that are 30:1 to 40:1 in glide, and are pretty easy to disassemble.
Beyond that, there are some with flaps and ballast and retract,
but the added cost of insurance, maintenance, and training
haven't yet met my price point.

Do I think a 30:1 ship is enough for me for X-C? Usually. Could I
do an X-C in a 20:1 ship? Well, a downwind dash with markers
and high thermals close together, 30NM to Lost Hills, sure. But who
wants to wait around for those conditions? :)

[Kirk Stant]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<400dc113$1@darkstar>...

> Okay. How about some terms? What is cross-country?
> I'd say any flight where some part of the flight is beyond
> final glide back to the departure airport is a cross-country.
> A bit ambiguous, but hey, I'm going with it.

Mark,

That is the usual accepted definition of a cross-country. Of course,
out here in the west it can result in some unusual interpretations:
being too low a few miles away from the gliderport on a local flight
in a 2-33 would be a cross-county, while a quick 100km flight in wave
to a specific destination and back (say for a speed record) in glass
would be a local flight - always in landing range of the home field.

I use at least silver distance, specific destination(s), and out of
gliding range of the home field to decide what I log as XC.

Semantics, really.

But more to the point of this discussion: The real equipment
requirement for XC is a good trailer! If you are not willing to land
out, you will be really reluctant to push out XC, regardless of the
glider you are flying. A 1-26 with a good trailer is a lot of fun
(you can land anywhere), but a Grob 103 that is never disassembled
(and nobody knows where the trailer is) is a real disincentive to XC.

I started real XC in a 1-34, and quickly got tired of watching the
glassholes fly off into the distance - so I joined them. Sure the
1-34 is a fine XC ship, especially if all your friends are flying
similar performance ships, but so is glass. 2-33s, G-103s, ASK-21s
are not good XC ships because no-one really uses them for that so they
are not usually equipped for it (Instruments, radio, trailer, etc).
(there are exceptions, of course...).

Kirk

[Michael]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote
> The number of days and locations an XC is possible is reduced with
> less capable equipment. I got my license in two months, then did a dozen
> cross-countries in the following six months, in a 32:1 ship.
> I also did two cross-countries in a 1-26, but would have avoided a landout
> if I had been in the 32:1 sailplane.

But what's the big deal about landing out in a 1-26? I can't think of
a better ship to have your first landout in. Short wings, very low
touchdown speed, very light, and if you do ding it cheap to fix. You
see it as a bug, I see it as a feature. I wish I had been allowed to
go XC in the club 1-26.

> Better equipment means one can fly further on more days with
> less experience.

Sure, but the point is that even if all a club has is 1-26 class
ships, that's still no reason to make XC difficult.

> I still don't know if I'd go as far as requiring it by regulation,
> but I can see it does provide a marketing advantage to my
> club to make X-C easier and to provide X-C training.

Sure, to someone who already has a reasonable understanding of the
sport. If I moved to your area, I would of course choose your club.
How would you explain this to someone who has never flown?

> Perhaps
> the baby steps of a "mini-XC" involving a flight to
> an airport 5-10 miles away, to keep costs down.

I never really intended that XC mean 50 nm. That's a big bite for a
first time. As long as you need to make at least 3 climbs to make the
destination and spend at least some time out of glide range of both
home and destination, that's plenty good enough. For a 1-26 with low
cloudbase, that might only be 5-10 miles.

Do you realize that there are not only private glider pilots but even
CFIG's who have never:
(1) Intentionally flown outside gliding range of home base.
(2) Disassembled a glider, put it on a trailer, towed it somewhere,
and reassembled it.
(3) Done an aero retrieve

Personally, I think these are all things that ought to be done at the
private level, lest we produce graduates incapable of anything other
than local flying. If it were up to me, the first XC would be dual,
and terminate with an aero retrieve (also dual), taking off without a
wing runner. The second would be solo and would terminate with a
ground retrieve. Simply include a CFIG or BGI/AGI in the retrieve
crew, and he can asess the student's competence.

The beauty of doing it this way is that both aero retrieves from
airports and ground retrieves would become normal, accepted things,
not some mysterious process that only a few are privileged to
participate in. If students could do it, it would become politically
impossible to deny the privilege to private pilots.

In reality, the cost is minimal. Most instructors are volunteers
anyway, and students can crew for each other. In fact, you can simply
make participation on a ground retrieve (or three) a prerequisite for
flying your solo XC. Now we're just talking gas money.

But this won't happen unless you mandate the XC - too many clubs and
FBO's will not do it.

> The recreational license was killed by the insurance industry.
> Call them up and see the difference in rates. Many (but
> not all) FBO's also require a PPL for rental of some or all
> aircraft.

I have yet to see an FBO that would not rent a C-150 class airplane to
a recreational ticket holder. Of course they won't rent the high
performance or complex airplanes to one - he can't legally fly them.
The recreational was killed because the major cost of the training is
the aircraft, not the instructor. So you save a few hours of dual -
so what? You're going to fly those hours anyway.

> 61.1(3) definition of X-C for gliders isn't published. Perhaps
> adding an X-C requirement and simply having it be
> "landing at a location or airport which was not the airport
> of departure" might work.

A rotorcraft XC need only be 25 nm. Honestly, for gliders I would be
happy with 25 km. An airport 3 miles away that can be reached from
overhead the field on final glide doesn't cut it.

Even with a 1-26, a 25 km downwind dash should be well within the
reach of almost any student.

> And this would test some good
> basics on a dual flight...use of compass, pattern entry,
> wind direction, judging new altitude, etc...

Navigation, finding airports from the air...
Skills that are clearly not being taught, and whose lack is being
covered up by GPS. The situation is so bad that I know a pilot who
landed out on a RECORD flight due to failure of the GPS. Plenty of
lift, and by all accounts the pilot flew over the destination airport
more than once and still failed to find it.

When I took off on glider XC for the first time, I relied almost
exclusively on my powered XC training. At the time, I assumed that I
had never been taught even the rudiments of navigation because my
instructors (correctly) assumed that I already knew how to navigate.
It was only later that I discovered that the ab initio students got no
more navigation training than I did.

> >> The sport-pilot initiative is the opposite of your
> >> idea, applied to power and gliders.
> >
> >The sport pilot initiative is meaningless. The reduced training
> >requirement will not affect participation.

> I have two CFIs who will quickly and eagerly add a "sport-CFI-glider"
> endorsement with two signatures if SP goes through. They will not,
> on the other hand, get a CFIG.

Good lord - why not? For any reasonably proficient glider pilot, it's
an absolutely trivial process. I just recently trained a power CFI
for the commercial glider and CFIG. This pilot was trained outside
the US (so was not familiar with our way of doing things), he had not
flown a glider in years, he had never flown the make and model glider
we were using or any other metal glider, and he was not very
experienced in gliders (well under 100 hours). Everything (including
the checkride with a local DE) was done in under 10 flights. The DE
even did both checkrides back-to-back, on the same day. I have to ask
- what are these guys thinking?

Michael

[Mark James Boyd]

Kirk Stant > wrote:
>
>I use at least silver distance, specific destination(s), and out of
>gliding range of the home field to decide what I log as XC.

I personally think that differences among gliders are so great that
any specific distance measurement is inequitable. So I'm going
to stick with my previous definition.

>But more to the point of this discussion: The real equipment
>requirement for XC is a good trailer! If you are not willing to land

In my experience, a trailer and crew were actually more "costly" than
an aero-retrieve. The trailer had no legal lights, no license
plate, no brakes, and I had the wrong size hitch. I towed it
around the airfield once (on the too small hitch), and convinced
myself I'd loaded it right (C.G.) and could do this if I had to.
Because I flew on weekdays, when there was less/no competition for the
schedule of the glider, crew meant one guy (the towpilot).

I always packed the trailer for a retrieve (C.G.) before my flights,
but I dreaded ever making someone use it (and getting a traffic ticket!)

Instead I flew all my X-C within gliding range of some airport.
I even stopped progress on one dying day at 5000 ft AGL with
tons of landouts to instead go to an airport with an easy, cheap
aero-tow out.

I'm a sucker for convenience...and with aerotow rates being so cheap,
I had to look at it and since only 1/4 of my X-C has been landouts
(at an airport), aerotow each time has been less "costly."

>I started real XC in a 1-34, and quickly got tired of watching the
>glassholes fly off into the distance - so I joined them. Sure the
>1-34 is a fine XC ship, especially if all your friends are flying
>similar performance ships, but so is glass. 2-33s, G-103s, ASK-21s
>are not good XC ships because no-one really uses them for that so they
>are not usually equipped for it (Instruments, radio, trailer, etc).
>(there are exceptions, of course...).
>
>Kirk

I think ease of assembly/disassembly is a big one for me too. I
wasn't about to try to disassemble and trailer a 2-33 with two people.
Much less the Blanik. Yeah, we have the trailers for that, but
all those goshdanged bits and pieces and those heavy wings
and MAN could you really screw up an L-13!

There are those who say "just get more people!" Yeah, like "poof"
I got some kinda majic wand that gives me more money, more time,
more manpower to help. I prefer to think that I have done
an excellent job making choices that have maximized my enjoyment
of this sport with the resources I had available. I should
write a book, "the Budget Soarer." ;P

Having assembled the PW-5 three dozen times in a year, and
helped with a few heavier assemblies, a Russia or Silent or
Sparrowhawk is lookin' pretty good to me about now!

[Mark James Boyd]

Michael > wrote:

>But what's the big deal about landing out in a 1-26? I can't think of
>a better ship to have your first landout in. Short wings, very low
>touchdown speed, very light, and if you do ding it cheap to fix. You
>see it as a bug, I see it as a feature. I wish I had been allowed to
>go XC in the club 1-26.

All true. My point was not that the 1-26 isn't a great ship (I
really, really love short wingspans for a variety of reasons), it
was simply that flying over that particular terrain would have required
higher thermals, which I didn't have that day...

>
>> Better equipment means one can fly further on more days with
>> less experience.
>
>Sure, but the point is that even if all a club has is 1-26 class
>ships, that's still no reason to make XC difficult.

I'm sorry you had that experience. If all a club has is 1-26
class ships, then use 'em. We have one and I've flown it X-C, I
just use a higher L/D ship because it's available to me for the same
rental price...

>
>> I still don't know if I'd go as far as requiring it by regulation,
>> but I can see it does provide a marketing advantage to my
>> club to make X-C easier and to provide X-C training.
>
>Sure, to someone who already has a reasonable understanding of the
>sport. If I moved to your area, I would of course choose your club.
>How would you explain this to someone who has never flown?

I don't know that I could. Perhaps I would just say that
for my first X-C, a friend came over to wish me well and
said "I'll see you when you land" and I said "no you won't,
I'm not landing here. I don't know where I'll land, but
no matter what it won't be back here." And the excitement of
making that commitment in an aircraft with no engine, and
knowing I could do it safely, really felt great...

>> Perhaps
>> the baby steps of a "mini-XC" involving a flight to
>> an airport 5-10 miles away, to keep costs down.
>
>I never really intended that XC mean 50 nm. That's a big bite for a
>first time. As long as you need to make at least 3 climbs to make the
>destination and spend at least some time out of glide range of both
>home and destination, that's plenty good enough. For a 1-26 with low
>cloudbase, that might only be 5-10 miles.

Excellent. A "mini-XC" doesn't involve the super hard pilotage
stuff, but seems to have all the other elements. I think pilotage is
sometimes really, really hard if the terrain doesn't cooperate
with easy to spot markers. I was a map guy for 12 years in the
Army, and some of the stuff between El Paso and Dallas would be
fantastic soaring, cus everywhere, but just plain FLAT!

>Do you realize that there are not only private glider pilots but even
>CFIG's who have never:
>(1) Intentionally flown outside gliding range of home base.

Ahh...this doesn't bother me. There's a winch club in Northern
Arizona and they seem to give a lot of scenic rides and have
fun doing it...good for them!

>(2) Disassembled a glider, put it on a trailer, towed it somewhere,
>and reassembled it.

I fully agree with most of this.
If they haven't disassembled and reassembled a glider, that's in direct
violation of US CFR 61.87(i)(13). The CFI who signed them off
is in for some liability, maybe years down the road, if the
pilot assembles something wrong and gets hurt later. We had
a local CFII who didn't teach a single hold, and recommended
someone for an instrument checkride. The DPE's talk, and the FSDO letter,
mentioned stern words about "false endorsements." And the organization
that provided the scholarship and then saw a pink slip was not amused...

As far as towing it somewhere. Gonna be kind of hard for a 14 year
old, eh? Maybe just around the airfield? :P

>(3) Done an aero retrieve

LOL...it's AWFUL similar to an aerotow. How about having the
towplane level off for a minute before the release...hehehe
and kinda hard in a Grob 109...but yeah, if you do a super
short X-C, an aero-retrieve isn't too much money or too much to ask.

>
>Personally, I think these are all things that ought to be done at the
>private level, lest we produce graduates incapable of anything other
>than local flying. If it were up to me, the first XC would be dual,
>and terminate with an aero retrieve (also dual), taking off without a
>wing runner. The second would be solo and would terminate with a
>ground retrieve. Simply include a CFIG or BGI/AGI in the retrieve
>crew, and he can asess the student's competence.

Around here, a CFIG or BGI/AGI is like hen's teeth... $80 is
$80 (for a written test), right?

>The beauty of doing it this way is that both aero retrieves from
>airports and ground retrieves would become normal, accepted things,
>not some mysterious process that only a few are privileged to
>participate in. If students could do it, it would become politically
>impossible to deny the privilege to private pilots.

OK, I'm convinced to do mini-XC as part of the license training at
my home field. Requiring it nationwide by CFR, I'm not supporting, but
doing it here, yeah, that makes sense.

>In reality, the cost is minimal. Most instructors are volunteers
>anyway,

WHOAA!!! What planet are you on??? Maybe 10% of the clubs
here in California offer free instruction. Time = money. C'mon...

>and students can crew for each other. In fact, you can simply
>make participation on a ground retrieve (or three) a prerequisite for
>flying your solo XC. Now we're just talking gas money.

....and the cost of time. I'm in favor of strongly encouraging,
but the word "prerequisite" has a way too authoritative tone for me :P

>But this won't happen unless you mandate the XC - too many clubs and
>FBO's will not do it.

Let the market decide. That's why I picked and now cheer
for my particular club...

>> The recreational license was killed by the insurance industry.
>> Call them up and see the difference in rates. Many (but
>> not all) FBO's also require a PPL for rental of some or all
>> aircraft.
>
>I have yet to see an FBO that would not rent a C-150 class airplane to
>a recreational ticket holder.

Well, I couldn't rent the PW-5 until I had a PPL, and since there is no
recreational glider license anyway, perhaps this is too tangential
to continue here...

I'd like to see Minden allow a soloed pilot to fly the mini-nimbus...
If they'll do that, then I'll buy this argument...

>A rotorcraft XC need only be 25 nm. Honestly, for gliders I would be
>happy with 25 km. An airport 3 miles away that can be reached from
>overhead the field on final glide doesn't cut it.

Be careful with your distance requirements. Different gliders
are VASTLY different.

>Even with a 1-26, a 25 km downwind dash should be well within the
>reach of almost any student.

In a PW-2 (which we have, and have a trailer for, and is a primary
glider), this would be quite challenging. Again, be careful about
generalizing distance requirements...

>Navigation, finding airports from the air...
>Skills that are clearly not being taught, and whose lack is being
>covered up by GPS. The situation is so bad that I know a pilot who
>landed out on a RECORD flight due to failure of the GPS. Plenty of
>lift, and by all accounts the pilot flew over the destination airport
>more than once and still failed to find it.

Did he have an undercast? ;(

>
>When I took off on glider XC for the first time, I relied almost
>exclusively on my powered XC training. At the time, I assumed that I
>had never been taught even the rudiments of navigation because my
>instructors (correctly) assumed that I already knew how to navigate.
>It was only later that I discovered that the ab initio students got no
>more navigation training than I did.

Pilotage is quite a subject in itself. GPS is a great tool,
if used to help students CORRELATE and confirm map and compass
and what they see outside. Like any navigation tool,
when used exclusively, it has a downside. I know at least one
racer who wouldn't fly because his GPS didn't have the local
database reloaded yet. "Navigate" is such a fuzzy concept
these days. I think you are specifically just talking about
"pilotage."

>>They will not,
>> on the other hand, get a CFIG.
>
>Good lord - why not? For any reasonably proficient glider pilot, it's
>an absolutely trivial process.

Interesting use of the word "trivial." $580 for one written and
two flight tests is trivial? Please send me some trivial money...

>I just recently trained a power CFI
>for the commercial glider and CFIG. This pilot was trained outside
>the US (so was not familiar with our way of doing things), he had not
>flown a glider in years, he had never flown the make and model glider
>we were using or any other metal glider, and he was not very
>experienced in gliders (well under 100 hours). Everything (including
>the checkride with a local DE) was done in under 10 flights. The DE
>even did both checkrides back-to-back, on the same day. I have to ask
>- what are these guys thinking?
>
>Michael

Please provide total cost for training and license. If it's under
$500 (no cheating, charge $30 an hour for instruction, and club
initiation and fees), I'd be very surprised.

We can make these guys sport-CFI-glider in two dual flights each,
if SP goes through. Whether that is wise is an entirely
other question...but someone somewhere will offer it, and
if the Southwest flight there and back is less than $500,
they'll get takers...

[Eric Greenwell]

Kirk Stant wrote:

> But more to the point of this discussion: The real equipment
> requirement for XC is a good trailer! If you are not willing to land
> out, you will be really reluctant to push out XC, regardless of the
> glider you are flying. A 1-26 with a good trailer is a lot of fun
> (you can land anywhere), but a Grob 103 that is never disassembled
> (and nobody knows where the trailer is) is a real disincentive to XC.
>

I'd expand this: it's not just the trailer, but a willing and eager crew
that really encourage a pilot to go cross-country (a good trailer will
make it easier to find that "willing and eager" crew!). Readily
available aerotow retrieves qualify as "willing and eager" crew, too.
You've got to be able to concentrate on your flight without worrying
about the retrieve, which is one reason I now have a motorglider (my
crew is still willing but not so eager anymore).

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Kirk Stant wrote:
>
>> But more to the point of this discussion: The real equipment
>> requirement for XC is a good trailer! If you are not willing to land
>> out, you will be really reluctant to push out XC, regardless of the
>> glider you are flying. A 1-26 with a good trailer is a lot of fun
>> (you can land anywhere), but a Grob 103 that is never disassembled
>> (and nobody knows where the trailer is) is a real disincentive to XC.
>>
>
>I'd expand this: it's not just the trailer, but a willing and eager crew
>that really encourage a pilot to go cross-country (a good trailer will
>make it easier to find that "willing and eager" crew!). Readily
>available aerotow retrieves qualify as "willing and eager" crew, too.
>You've got to be able to concentrate on your flight without worrying
>about the retrieve, which is one reason I now have a motorglider (my
>crew is still willing but not so eager anymore).
>
>Eric Greenwell

An excellent point. Whichever way one decides to retrieve, making this
easier and more flexible really helps. Imagine having a motorglider,
and you can self-launch, aerotow, OR trailer
for the retrieve. Lots of flexibility :) for night, bumpy air,
high altitude, etc. retrieves.

Another point, about "you can land a 1-26 anywhere" is that since
the thing may only be $6,000, one is more able to fly over
questionable landouts. A lot of landouts seem to be
benign for the pilot, but damage the glider. If I was
looking at a $30,000 ASW-20 vs. a $15,000 PW-5, I might
accept lower performance just so I'm not "hangin' out the
$15,000." Even if I got it by buying a raffle ticket! (PEZ).

There are a lot of things I've done in my $6,000 airplane that I
would never do in my $40,000 airplane. None of them seemed
all that risky to the pilot (both have a real low landing speed),
but the risk to the airplane (chips in the tail, ground
loops on takeoff from catching a wing, gear collapsing,
etc.) in terms of $$$$s looked high. Lucky so far,
but I'll tell you the price of what I'm flying often
changes some of my decisions...

Man, if I flew a $40,000 or $120,000 glider, regardless of the
performance, you can bet I'd be REAL cautious and conservative
to make sure I didn't land somewhere "interesting."

So perhaps somewhere in there is why the $10,000 - $20,000
gliders are popular. Just a few LD points under the "good
stuff," but a lot less $$$$s risked.

[303pilot]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote
>
> Clubs and XC operations make it difficult to go XC by making all sorts
> of rules that sound reasonable on paper but add up to making it very
> difficult or impossible to get permission. Making the XC required

C'mon Michael, the club req's were to have a bronze badge and call on a
Thursday night to reserve the ship for a day on the weekend.

The club currently has a very active bronze badge program and an XC training
and mentoring program.

Things sometimes change for the better.

[Judy Ruprecht]

At 19:30 21 January 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
....
>If (student pilots) haven't disassembled and reassembled
>a glider, that's in direct
>violation of US CFR 61.87(i)(13).

No, it's not. The FAR cited requires pre-solo training
in procedures for assembly/disassembly. This can be
done by thorough ground instruction & reference to
one or more pertinent flight manuals. It's also good
practice to discuss personnel & equipment required
and remove interior panel(s) as needed to show students
the main pins, control connections and other items,
but an actual assembly or disassembly is not required.


Judy

[Mark James Boyd]

303pilot <brentUNDERSCOREsullivanATbmcDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>> (Mark James Boyd) wrote
>>
>> Clubs and XC operations make it difficult to go XC by making all sorts
>> of rules that sound reasonable on paper but add up to making it very
>> difficult or impossible to get permission. Making the XC required
>
>C'mon Michael, the club req's were to have a bronze badge and call on a
>Thursday night to reserve the ship for a day on the weekend.

Well, I still don't have a bronze badge, between a barograph that
broke after a flight and during calibration, lack of O/Os
during the end of my flights, the SSA not sending out
badge packets three months after getting a CFIG, and the shortness
of the silver badge distance flight, I have a Silver badge, but
no bronze badge (but I did take the quiz at least!).

Ask how many of your newbie pilots have flown two hours+ twice,
then how many have a bronze badge, then ask them why they don't.
Paperwork, cost/time/breakage of calibration, lack of equipment
(baro or logger) and lack of O/O's. Of course all of this is
solved by simply increasing the cost/hassle to the pilot...

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
>At 19:30 21 January 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>...
>>If (student pilots) haven't disassembled and reassembled
>>a glider, that's in direct
>>violation of US CFR 61.87(i)(13).
>
>No, it's not. The FAR cited requires pre-solo training
>in procedures for assembly/disassembly. This can be
>done by thorough ground instruction & reference to
>one or more pertinent flight manuals. It's also good
>practice to discuss personnel & equipment required
>and remove interior panel(s) as needed to show students
>the main pins, control connections and other items,
>but an actual assembly or disassembly is not required.
>
>
>Judy

61.87(i) requires flight training for the procedure...
but who does assembly or disassembly in flight?

OK Judy, I'll bite. Is the word "procedures" what allows
someone to talk about it but not actually do it? Following
this logic, is it OK to solo someone without ever having
them actually do a "pattern entry" 61.87(i)(5), since only
"pattern entry procedures" are required? Just have them
do nothing but fly in the pattern? Or to never have them actually
fly the aerotow, ground tow, or self-launch because all one
had to teach was the "procedure" 61.87(i)(12)?

In practice and practical interpretation, you may be
absolutely correct, but this is certainly NOT a
clear interpretation of the printed wording...

Of course requiring "flight training" in disassembly procedures
seems a little strange too...since I would think flight
training would be conducted in flight :P

[Libelle Driver]

I don't think the price of the glider has ever been part of the calculation
for landout spots. Many landouts that damage the glider are going to damage
you.

> Another point, about "you can land a 1-26 anywhere" is that since
> the thing may only be $6,000, one is more able to fly over
> questionable landouts. A lot of landouts seem to be
> benign for the pilot, but damage the glider. If I was
> looking at a $30,000 ASW-20 vs. a $15,000 PW-5, I might
> accept lower performance just so I'm not "hangin' out the
> $15,000." Even if I got it by buying a raffle ticket! (PEZ).
>

[Kirk Stant]

"Libelle Driver" > wrote in message >...
> I don't think the price of the glider has ever been part of the calculation
> for landout spots. Many landouts that damage the glider are going to damage
> you.

I agree; the price of the glider has nothing to do with it; that's
what insurance is for (heck, out here landing out and breaking your
glider is a time-honored method of moving up to something nicer!).
Damaging a glider in a landout is most of all a nuisance issue
(assuming no injuries, of course) because it will put the glider out
of commission until it is fixed and that is a real pain if it happens
early in the season - when landouts are common!

You can land a 1-26 almost anywhere because of the short wings, low
landing speed, and rugged construction/skid. Not so my LS6 - I can't
use roads, and have a relatively small main gear wheel with a lousy
brake, so I have to keep a reasonable landing site in range at all
times - preferably an airport or dirt strip (or nice fields). With a
little planning, and a good database of landing locations in my
computer, that is really not too hard out here in the desert. For the
past few years I have averaged 2 landouts a year, every one at an
airfield or dirt strip, no damage to the glider.

Whenever we fly we all hook up our cars, knowing that if we landout
the herd will gleefully rush home to pile in our rig and rush out to
get the poor slob who couldn't keep it up - and now has to buy them
all dinner, AFTER they drink all his beer! We occasionally aerotow
retrieve, for convenience, but it is a LOT more expensive (and usually
less fun) than a ground retrieve party.

My own record is two retrieves on one day, during a contest: Landed
out in a Grob 102 at a gliderport on the first leg due to lack of
skill, got an aerotow launch and rejoined the gaggle on the return
leg, then promptly landed out again - in a wheat field this time! -
when a stratus deck moved in and cut off all lift (13 gliders landed
out within 15 minutes of each other; only 2 made it home). That ended
up in a midnight "carry the glider out of the field" ground retrieve.
Didn't seem to bother my crew too much, she married me a few years
later, but then again I havn't landed in a wheat field since then
either...

It did, however, earn me the club's "Lead C" award for that year.

Motorgliders may be convenient, and in some places without reliable
towplanes even necessary, but it must be a bit lonelier...I LIKE all
the people and activities needed to make soaring work.

Kirk

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Libelle Driver" > wrote:

> I don't think the price of the glider
> has ever been part of the calculation
> for landout spots. Many landouts that
> damage the glider are going to damage
> you.

Maybe not ever _for you_. It's sure been a factor for me on occasion.

[Michael]

"303pilot" <brentUNDERSCOREsullivanATbmcDOTcom> wrote
> C'mon Michael, the club req's were to have a bronze badge and call on a
> Thursday night to reserve the ship for a day on the weekend.
>
> The club currently has a very active bronze badge program and an XC training
> and mentoring program.
>
> Things sometimes change for the better.

How many non-owner pilots are now flying XC?

How many have flown their Silver distance (with or without
documentation) without buying a ship?

If you're going to claim change, show me results.

Michael

[303pilot]

My point is I don't think it's the club that's standing in the way of people
getting started going XC.
With the Bronzes earned last season and the winter XC training going on,
this coming season will tell the tale. I think the one other thing a club
would need to do to really encourage XC in club ships would be to have a
solid single seater fleet. The club recently placed an order for another
2-place. I think buying 2 good Libelles or 3 1-34's with the same amount of
$$ would have gone a long way towards really encouraging XC.

The problem with XC flying is that it gets in your blood. If you get the
bug, and then find that the club doesn't have a ship available when you want
to go, you end up being highly motivated to find a way to buy a ship.

Brent

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "303pilot" <brentUNDERSCOREsullivanATbmcDOTcom> wrote
> > C'mon Michael, the club req's were to have a bronze badge and call on a
> > Thursday night to reserve the ship for a day on the weekend.
> >
> > The club currently has a very active bronze badge program and an XC
training
> > and mentoring program.
> >
> > Things sometimes change for the better.
>
> How many non-owner pilots are now flying XC?
>
> How many have flown their Silver distance (with or without
> documentation) without buying a ship?
>
> If you're going to claim change, show me results.
>
> Michael

[Michael]

"303pilot" <brentUNDERSCOREsullivanATbmcDOTcom> wrote
> My point is I don't think it's the club that's standing in the way of people
> getting started going XC.
> With the Bronzes earned last season and the winter XC training going on,
> this coming season will tell the tale.

I seem to recall that I heard the same thing a year ago. Or was it two? Or three?

Michael

[Mark James Boyd]

Libelle Driver > wrote:
>I don't think the price of the glider has ever been part of the calculation
>for landout spots. Many landouts that damage the glider are going to damage
>you.

I looked up the past 60 accidents on the NTSB database.

11 Fatal
11 Serious
11 Minor
27 Uninjured

38 Minor or uninjured vs. 22 Serious or fatal.
And in "most" of these reports, the glider had
"substantial" damage (otherwise why report it if the
dollar amount is less than $25,000 and there
were no injuries?).

I suspect 4-10 times as many damaging incidents (with
no injuries) occur than the ones reported.

From anectdotal reports, I've also heard specifically that
landouts have a much higher rate of gear-up incidence.
And in all of these that I've heard of (5), the glider
was damaged, but the pilot was completely unharmed.

By "landout" I mean didn't land at the airport of departure...

[Mark James Boyd]

Kirk Stant > wrote:
>
>I agree; the price of the glider has nothing to do with it; that's
>what insurance is for (heck, out here landing out and breaking your
>glider is a time-honored method of moving up to something nicer!).

I would guess that the insurance premium for expensive gliders is
er..more expensive. And if you have a claim (or several),
your insurance goes up. The more expensive the glider,
the bigger the claim, and the bigger the premium increase.

Somebody tell me if I'm making this up...

And if you believe the NTSB reports, a LOT of the accidents
were landouts (OK, some are just "crashouts," so maybe this is
a little skewed).

>We occasionally aerotow
>retrieve, for convenience, but it is a LOT more expensive (and usually
>less fun) than a ground retrieve party.

Well, the distances YOU fly, aerotow wouldn't be an option anyway
without several towplane refuelings ;)

For me, it's under $100 every time. ;(

>
>Kirk

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Kirk Stant > wrote:
>
>>I agree; the price of the glider has nothing to do with it; that's
>>what insurance is for (heck, out here landing out and breaking your
>>glider is a time-honored method of moving up to something nicer!).
>
>
> I would guess that the insurance premium for expensive gliders is
> er..more expensive. And if you have a claim (or several),
> your insurance goes up. The more expensive the glider,
> the bigger the claim, and the bigger the premium increase.

The premium is not a constant percentage of the glider value, because it
costs just as much to repair the wing of new ASW 28 as an old ASW 24.
These less-than-total-loss claims are the big majority of payouts. In
other words, the more expensive the glider, usually not a bigger claim.

There is a chance of a greater total loss, so the premium is a bit
higher to account for that. For example, my ASW 20 C insured for about
$900 (value $35K), but my ASH 26 E insured for $2K (value $110K).

I have no idea how premium increases are affected by the insured value.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> Kirk Stant > wrote:
>>
>>>I agree; the price of the glider has nothing to do with it; that's
>>>what insurance is for (heck, out here landing out and breaking your
>>>glider is a time-honored method of moving up to something nicer!).
>>
>>
>> I would guess that the insurance premium for expensive gliders is
>> er..more expensive. And if you have a claim (or several),
>> your insurance goes up. The more expensive the glider,
>> the bigger the claim, and the bigger the premium increase.
>
>The premium is not a constant percentage of the glider value, because it
>costs just as much to repair the wing of new ASW 28 as an old ASW 24.
>These less-than-total-loss claims are the big majority of payouts. In
>other words, the more expensive the glider, usually not a bigger claim.
>
>There is a chance of a greater total loss, so the premium is a bit
>higher to account for that. For example, my ASW 20 C insured for about
>$900 (value $35K), but my ASH 26 E insured for $2K (value $110K).
>
>I have no idea how premium increases are affected by the insured value.
>
>Eric Greenwell

Perhaps I have overstated the effect of a higher price glider on
caution. Thanks for the figures! I'm a bit surprised.
I'd have thought insurance would be more expensive than what
you have noted.

But then again, I'm still not quite to the point where I'm
ready to voluntarily land off-airport in ANY glider.
I'll need to do a few retrieves (of OTHER pilots)
before I get to this stage...

[Kirk Stant]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<40125065$1@darkstar>...
>
> Perhaps I have overstated the effect of a higher price glider on
> caution. Thanks for the figures! I'm a bit surprised.
> I'd have thought insurance would be more expensive than what
> you have noted.
>
> But then again, I'm still not quite to the point where I'm
> ready to voluntarily land off-airport in ANY glider.
> I'll need to do a few retrieves (of OTHER pilots)
> before I get to this stage...

Mark, you actually get into an interesting situation; if you start out
with an inexpensive (read: low performance) glider, then you will
probably land out more often, but as XC experience mounts, and you
move up to a higher performance ship (trust me, L/D is real
addictive!) you will probably land out less off-airfield, due to the
greater options made available by the ship, and also due to greater
skill (assuming at least a basic maintaining of proficiency, which is
crucial to safety as in all aspect of aviation). No one wants to
damage a glider, or get hurt, and that is a big factor when flying XC
- but it is also a big part of the fun - the challenge of going places
safely! I feel now that an off-field landing (not just a landout; but
a landout in a "risky" location (you - as the PIC - have to decide
what is risky based on glider and skill) is the gliding equivalent of
running a powerplane out of gas - A REAL DUMB PILOT ERROR! But at
the same time, landing out safely once and a while is like falling
down while skiing - if you aint doing it, you aint trying, and it is
part of the fun; a real adventure some times...

I don't worry about cost because I now refuse to get out of safe
gliding range of a good landout place (which for me means known
airfields, known good dirt strips, and known good agricultural areas,
in that order). So I spend a lot of time (and money!) on good
navigation systems that give me a lot of info in real time on possible
and reachable landout locations. And during the off-season I get out
and explore for more safe landout sites to add to my data. Some people
joke about GPS, glide computers, and moving maps taking the fun out of
soaring - I think the exact opposite - they take away the worry! Plus
I enjoy setting up and using the toys - I find it fascinating that I
fly with more and better comm and nav systems than I ever did while
flying F-4s in the Air Force.

FYI, I fly with an Ilec SN10 and a Garmin GPS 3 Pilot (redundant
nav/glide info), and my backup vario is a Westerboer VW900. No
mechanical - but two separate and redundant electrical systems.

Absolutely go on as many retrieves for other pilots as you can - it's
the best way to check out a landout location first hand for when you
may need it - Plus it's a free dinner!

And someday you will have to help a friend put his (or her) glider
back into it's trailer in more pieces than it came out, and that too
will help you make smarter decisions in the air, believe me!

Cheers!

Kirk

[Jack]

On 1/24/04 10:01 AM, in article
, "Kirk Stant"
> wrote:

> And someday you will have to help a friend put his (or her) glider
> back into it's trailer in more pieces than it came out, and that too
> will help you make smarter decisions in the air, believe me!

Note to self:

Add work gloves (for all personnel) to retrieve kit.


Torn aluminum can cause bad cuts.


-------
Jack
-------