Cross Country the main focus of soaring?

[mat Redsell]

I have been very concerned about our club, which discourages cross country
in club gliders. My thought is that purpose of soaring is cross country and
if one just concentrates on flying above the airport then ones member ship
tends to end when you have your license.

We have many airports withing a 15 miles radius and many flat fields with
always an option of landing in cut hay fields, harvested bean and corn
fields etc. There is no lack of good landing fields or airports.

Our board is composed of pilots who do not go cross country and surprisingly
none of the instructors have flown cross country ( there may be an
exception.... but none I know of have gone recently). And I am not allowed
to teach since I insist on wearing a parachute for both student and
instructor. ( I have in the past provided a chute for the student).

The thought at our club is that if you want to go cross country you buy
your own ship... a rasther harsh reality for many pilots.

I have found surprisingly ( tonque in cheek here) that if there is lift at
the airport we fly from there is usually lift 10 to 50 miles away but I have
no way of convincing our board members.

Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships for
short cross country runs?

-mat
--
Marske Flying Wings
http://www.continuo.com/marske

[Stefan]

mat Redsell wrote:

> Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships for
> short cross country runs?

I don't think this will convince anybody, but in Europe, everybody takes
the club ships cross country. In many countries, you even need some
cross country experience to get your license. No way somebody could
become an instructor without thorough cross country experience.

In our club, the only pilots that stay near the airfield are the acro
pilots.

Stefan

[Ray Lovinggood]

Matt,

Our club (North Carolina Soaring Association, USA)
encourages club members to fly cross country. After
a member gets settled into flying the club's L-33 Solo
or HpH 304C, they start to venture out from home base.
They may fly with more experienced cross country pilots
or they may make the flight of more than one thermal
away from home on their own.

Our club has a Master Cross Country Instructor and
he has given classes in the art of venturing out on
Cross Country. Members have also taken advantage of
the cross country and competition fun-fly's offered
by the Blue Ridge Soaring Society in Virginia, USA.
They've taken the club's L-33 up there for these courses
and last year, one of our members won a day flying
the L-33. (The Blue Ridge Soaring Society is located
about a four to five hour drive away from the NCSA
field.)

A member who starts going cross country is encouraged
to have a trailer hitch installed on his car or make
arrangements for someone with a tow hitch to retrieve
him, if the need arrises.

But for the past three weekends or more, either passing
hurricanes or the broken towplane (due to normal wear
and tear and not the weather) have kept everyone grounded
:-(

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS-1d

[Malcolm Austin]

Hi Mat,
interesting problem you have there. One point first,
parachutes DEFINITELY !!

My club here in the UK does not have much of a reputation for cross country.
This is a bit historic as the club has only been going 5 years or so and
only have K7's to play with and very little money to update the kit. We are
blessed though with a 20 mile ridge very close to the site, so long flights
are easily achieved with that.

Earlier this year I took the BGA's Cross Country Endorsement tests. Some of
this entails flying a motor glider on a 100 km triangle whilst map reading.
Having not gone XC I found it rather difficult to use the map this first
time, even though an ordnance survey map is like reading to me! To achieve
instructor level I have to complete this level and then the Silver, so no
one in the UK now gets to be an instructor without some XC experience.

One important down side on not going XC is that people generally get a bit
bored with "local" flights. This follows on over time and everyone gets
bored, then they go somewhere else or even out of the sport.

The costs and time factor are of course important for any club, but the
motivation to less experienced pilots of this sort of flying must be a major
benefit.

It would seem you have a difficult task moving the dinosaurs out of the
mud!!

Best of luck, Malcolm...

PS. On parachutes; Last year we got a K8 at the club, which I flew for the
first time one lovely day. It came with a wonderful seat which was better
than my arm chair at home, but no room for a parachute. My flight went to
cloud base at 6200' and after 45 mins I came down to give others a chance.
That evening I returned to find the "Soaring & Gliding" magazine had
arrived. I read first (as always) the accidents. There was a case of a K8
flying into an area for parachutists, and being hit in one wing. The pilot
died only because he didn't have a chute. I have never flown that or
another glider since without a parachute (save definitely winch/circuit
days)



"mat Redsell" > wrote in message
news:0LE6d.36$lf2.15@trnddc09...
> I have been very concerned about our club, which discourages cross country
> in club gliders. My thought is that purpose of soaring is cross country
and
> if one just concentrates on flying above the airport then ones member ship
> tends to end when you have your license.
>
> We have many airports withing a 15 miles radius and many flat fields with
> always an option of landing in cut hay fields, harvested bean and corn
> fields etc. There is no lack of good landing fields or airports.
>
> Our board is composed of pilots who do not go cross country and
surprisingly
> none of the instructors have flown cross country ( there may be an
> exception.... but none I know of have gone recently). And I am not allowed
> to teach since I insist on wearing a parachute for both student and
> instructor. ( I have in the past provided a chute for the student).
>
> The thought at our club is that if you want to go cross country you buy
> your own ship... a rasther harsh reality for many pilots.
>
> I have found surprisingly ( tonque in cheek here) that if there is lift at
> the airport we fly from there is usually lift 10 to 50 miles away but I
have
> no way of convincing our board members.
>
> Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships for
> short cross country runs?
>
> -mat
> --
> Marske Flying Wings
> http://www.continuo.com/marske
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

It is sad, but easy to understand. 'If a dog is owned
in partnership, the dog will starve.' -- An old saying
that illustrates that every one wants someone else
to take responsibility. Club might not be insured.
The trailers might not be maintained. The license
plates for the trailers might not be up to date. The
members don't want the glider gone that long because
someone else wants a flight., etc.

We solved the problem, partially, by buying a PW-5
and encouraging its use for X/C with the normal time
limit of 1 hour excused for badge flights and X/C flights.
Another way is for 2-4 people to buy an old, cheap
glider together. It is not ideal, but at least you
can do the Silver and pursue Gold flights on occasion.
It is better to have a low performer and fly lots
than to have a super machine and be limited in the
amount of flying you can do.


Having instructors who do X/C is a must or it will
never really happen.

At 20:42 29 September 2004, Mat Redsell wrote:
>I have been very concerned about our club, which discourages
>cross country
>in club gliders. My thought is that purpose of soaring
>is cross country and
>if one just concentrates on flying above the airport
>then ones member ship
>tends to end when you have your license.
>
>We have many airports withing a 15 miles radius and
>many flat fields with
>always an option of landing in cut hay fields, harvested
>bean and corn
>fields etc. There is no lack of good landing fields
>or airports.
>
>Our board is composed of pilots who do not go cross
>country and surprisingly
>none of the instructors have flown cross country (
>there may be an
>exception.... but none I know of have gone recently).
>And I am not allowed
>to teach since I insist on wearing a parachute for
>both student and
>instructor. ( I have in the past provided a chute for
>the student).
>
>The thought at our club is that if you want to go
>cross country you buy
>your own ship... a rasther harsh reality for many pilots.
>
>I have found surprisingly ( tonque in cheek here) that
>if there is lift at
>the airport we fly from there is usually lift 10 to
>50 miles away but I have
>no way of convincing our board members.
>
>Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs
>let their ships for
>short cross country runs?
>
>-mat
>--
>Marske Flying Wings
>http://www.continuo.com/marske
>
>
>

[BTIZ]

Mat.. we encourage cross country flying.. especially soon after a student
gets his rating.
We have a SGS 1-26 and an LS-4 for cross country, and a Grob 103 to teach
cross country. Our primary trainer is a 2-33.

The closest airport is 14nm away and on the other side of a 8000ft high
ridge line (ridge is about 5000ft above airport elevation) but we do have a
couple of dry lake beds in season about 5nm away.

First cross countries are encouraged to be Silver Distance in the clubs
1-26.

BT

"mat Redsell" > wrote in message
news:0LE6d.36$lf2.15@trnddc09...
> I have been very concerned about our club, which discourages cross country
> in club gliders. My thought is that purpose of soaring is cross country
and
> if one just concentrates on flying above the airport then ones member ship
> tends to end when you have your license.
>
> We have many airports withing a 15 miles radius and many flat fields with
> always an option of landing in cut hay fields, harvested bean and corn
> fields etc. There is no lack of good landing fields or airports.
>
> Our board is composed of pilots who do not go cross country and
surprisingly
> none of the instructors have flown cross country ( there may be an
> exception.... but none I know of have gone recently). And I am not allowed
> to teach since I insist on wearing a parachute for both student and
> instructor. ( I have in the past provided a chute for the student).
>
> The thought at our club is that if you want to go cross country you buy
> your own ship... a rasther harsh reality for many pilots.
>
> I have found surprisingly ( tonque in cheek here) that if there is lift at
> the airport we fly from there is usually lift 10 to 50 miles away but I
have
> no way of convincing our board members.
>
> Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships for
> short cross country runs?
>
> -mat
> --
> Marske Flying Wings
> http://www.continuo.com/marske
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

>Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships for
>short cross country runs?
>
>-mat

Avenal encourages X-C, but then again it's nothing but flat
fields in all directions for the most part, and our gliders are
very cheap (all under $10k) so there is little financial risk.

Another club, BASA, has quite pricey gliders and lots of X-C,
but requires a minimum Private Glider license to fly the Pegasi or
1-34 or DG-1000 or Grob 103. And requires one maintain a 2/3
glide ratio to a known landable field for all flights.

If X-C isn't alowed in your club's ships, then maybe a
private sub-club with its own glider is in order.
If there's enough folks interested, then the demand is there, right?
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Bruce Greeff]

Stefan wrote:
> mat Redsell wrote:
>
>> Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships
>> for short cross country runs?
>
>
> I don't think this will convince anybody, but in Europe, everybody takes
> the club ships cross country. In many countries, you even need some
> cross country experience to get your license. No way somebody could
> become an instructor without thorough cross country experience.
>
> In our club, the only pilots that stay near the airfield are the acro
> pilots.
>
> Stefan
>
It is a requirement in South Africa - no silver C (at least one 50km XC) - no
instructor brevet. Very simple.

[For Example John Smith]

$0.02 from the Soaring Club of Houston--
We are in the flat coastal plains and the club doesn't have a history of
promoting XC--our instructor staff and club management attitude are much the
same as you describe.

What might be interesting to you is how we are CHANGING.

A sub-group within the club, led by an instructor w/XC experience and a lot
of energy, has been holding training classes and putting the trailers in
shape. Bronze Badge is the club requirement for XC flight and we're holding
Bronze Badge days to help members clear that hurdle. The training classes
have covered topics like Thermalling and XC decision making. They've taken
field trips driving around identifying the best land-out fields.

In general, club ships are reserved for 1:30 slots. Certificated Airmen
with Bronze Badge can reserve ships for up to a full day for XC flights and
badge work. They must also secure a retrieve crew in advance.
Club fleet is:
2 Blanik L-23's
1 Grob
1 Blanik L-33
1 Schwiezer 2-33
1 Lark (on lease-back to club)

Brent



"mat Redsell" > wrote in message
news:0LE6d.36$lf2.15@trnddc09...
> I have been very concerned about our club, which discourages cross country
> in club gliders. My thought is that purpose of soaring is cross country
and
> if one just concentrates on flying above the airport then ones member ship
> tends to end when you have your license.
>
> We have many airports withing a 15 miles radius and many flat fields with
> always an option of landing in cut hay fields, harvested bean and corn
> fields etc. There is no lack of good landing fields or airports.
>
> Our board is composed of pilots who do not go cross country and
surprisingly
> none of the instructors have flown cross country ( there may be an
> exception.... but none I know of have gone recently). And I am not allowed
> to teach since I insist on wearing a parachute for both student and
> instructor. ( I have in the past provided a chute for the student).
>
> The thought at our club is that if you want to go cross country you buy
> your own ship... a rasther harsh reality for many pilots.
>
> I have found surprisingly ( tonque in cheek here) that if there is lift at
> the airport we fly from there is usually lift 10 to 50 miles away but I
have
> no way of convincing our board members.
>
> Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships for
> short cross country runs?
>
> -mat
> --
> Marske Flying Wings
> http://www.continuo.com/marske
>
>

[iPilot]

Basically you can tell to your clu leader board that anyone in r.a.s thinks
that they are plain idiots and shall step down from club management. Banning
XC does not prevent accidents and glider loss, but it can kill local soaring
activity rather fast.

Regards,
Kaido



"mat Redsell" > wrote in message
news:0LE6d.36$lf2.15@trnddc09...
> I have been very concerned about our club, which discourages cross country
> in club gliders. My thought is that purpose of soaring is cross country
and
> if one just concentrates on flying above the airport then ones member ship
> tends to end when you have your license.
>
> We have many airports withing a 15 miles radius and many flat fields with
> always an option of landing in cut hay fields, harvested bean and corn
> fields etc. There is no lack of good landing fields or airports.
>
> Our board is composed of pilots who do not go cross country and
surprisingly
> none of the instructors have flown cross country ( there may be an
> exception.... but none I know of have gone recently). And I am not allowed
> to teach since I insist on wearing a parachute for both student and
> instructor. ( I have in the past provided a chute for the student).
>
> The thought at our club is that if you want to go cross country you buy
> your own ship... a rasther harsh reality for many pilots.
>
> I have found surprisingly ( tonque in cheek here) that if there is lift at
> the airport we fly from there is usually lift 10 to 50 miles away but I
have
> no way of convincing our board members.
>
> Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships for
> short cross country runs?
>
> -mat
> --
> Marske Flying Wings
> http://www.continuo.com/marske
>
>

[MK]

Ah, Politics! It takes patience and lobbying to make a change. First you
need to form a supportive base that will aid in promoting your view of what
the club should be - with reasoned arguments. Try to get like minded
members into officer positions. Most clubs, I believe are run in a fairly
democratic manner, so you need votes. Know your clubs by-laws and rules of
conduct regarding voting and decision making. It can get personal so be
prepared. It is a shame the club does not promote the SSA badge program for
non owners.

Mike

"mat Redsell" > wrote in message
news:0LE6d.36$lf2.15@trnddc09...
> I have been very concerned about our club, which discourages cross country
> in club gliders. My thought is that purpose of soaring is cross country
and
> if one just concentrates on flying above the airport then ones member ship
> tends to end when you have your license.
>
> We have many airports withing a 15 miles radius and many flat fields with
> always an option of landing in cut hay fields, harvested bean and corn
> fields etc. There is no lack of good landing fields or airports.
>
> Our board is composed of pilots who do not go cross country and
surprisingly
> none of the instructors have flown cross country ( there may be an
> exception.... but none I know of have gone recently). And I am not allowed
> to teach since I insist on wearing a parachute for both student and
> instructor. ( I have in the past provided a chute for the student).
>
> The thought at our club is that if you want to go cross country you buy
> your own ship... a rasther harsh reality for many pilots.
>
> I have found surprisingly ( tonque in cheek here) that if there is lift at
> the airport we fly from there is usually lift 10 to 50 miles away but I
have
> no way of convincing our board members.
>
> Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships for
> short cross country runs?
>
> -mat
> --
> Marske Flying Wings
> http://www.continuo.com/marske
>
>

[Marc Till]

Some time ago X-C requirements for instructors in France were even more
stringent : 1000 km XC including at least 1 300-km flight.

Asbjorn Hojmark a écrit:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:01:57 +0200, Bruce Greeff
> > wrote:
>
>
>>It is a requirement in South Africa - no silver C (at least one
>>50km XC) - no instructor brevet. Very simple.
>
>
> It's the same in Denmark: At least one Silver C distance for HI
> (sort of a 'helping hand' instructur, who can't sign anything
> important) and at least two flights over 100 km for the FI.
>
> -A

[Jean]

In France there is a specific qualification for XC instructor, in addition
to basic instructor qualification. Pre-requisite is in-flight skills
assessment + theoretical exam + 1000 XC experience in last 12 months + 2
week course.

For XC pilots an XC qualification delivered by an XC instructor is required,
with mandatory 8-hours, 3 flights, 1 outlanding etc.

However XC is strongly promoted by the federation via a yearly pilots/club
country-wide ranking based on your 5 longest flights. This helps because
number of clubs are frightened by XC activity ...

Jean

"Marc Till" ]> a écrit dans le
message de ...
> Some time ago X-C requirements for instructors in France were even more
> stringent : 1000 km XC including at least 1 300-km flight.
>

[Michael]

"For Example John Smith" > wrote
> We are in the flat coastal plains and the club doesn't have a history of
> promoting XC--our instructor staff and club management attitude are much the
> same as you describe.
>
> What might be interesting to you is how we are CHANGING.

And at what speed.

When I joined that club, nobody had gone XC in a club ship in years -
but things were changing. Club ships were going to go XC that season.
There was a program being put in place. I even remember attending
one of the meetings.

Eventually I got tired of waiting for the club to change. I bought my
own ship (an inexpensive metal one) and started teaching myself XC
flying. I flew some XC, got my commercial glider, eventually got my
CFIG, did some teaching, and even trained a CFIG myself. But I also
bought a twin, got heavily involved in instrument flying, got my CFII,
got heavily involved in instrument instruction, and sort of drifted
out of soaring.

As you might imagine, this is a process that took years.

The club is still changing. Club ships will go XC next season.

Michael

[OscarCVox]

I am amazed that some clubs dont actively encourage XC! In our club virtually
everybody flies XC as soon as they are qualified to do so. OK some people
only do their 50km and never venture out of gliding range ever again.
The single seater club aircraft fly cross country on every possible occasion
and this year we have had 4 entered in regional competitions, 3 in national
competitions and one competing in the European Championships.
Note I said that these are club aircraft not private.
We do get occasional damage from field landings (stone chips etc) but this is
small price to pay.
Everyone who is flying XC on a particular day either arranges their own
retrieves or puts their name on the board for a mutual retrieve.
Nigel

[Bill Daniels]

I can only speak for the USA but here there is a minority with the idea that
gliding exists solely to support tow planes. The rag and tube taildragger
tug drivers want glider pilots to support their hobby by falling out of the
sky ASAP so they can fly another tow and log another takeoff and landing.
This idea goes hand in hand with the preference for Schweizer 2-33 trainers.

XC takes a glider away for the day with only one tow - no fun in that for
the tug drivers. Really good XC pilots release at less than 1500 feet AGL
which is even worse. No XC means more tows.

Bill Daniels

"OscarCVox" > wrote in message
...
> I am amazed that some clubs dont actively encourage XC! In our club
virtually
> everybody flies XC as soon as they are qualified to do so. OK some
people
> only do their 50km and never venture out of gliding range ever again.
> The single seater club aircraft fly cross country on every possible
occasion
> and this year we have had 4 entered in regional competitions, 3 in
national
> competitions and one competing in the European Championships.
> Note I said that these are club aircraft not private.
> We do get occasional damage from field landings (stone chips etc) but this
is
> small price to pay.
> Everyone who is flying XC on a particular day either arranges their own
> retrieves or puts their name on the board for a mutual retrieve.
> Nigel

[tango4]

It's a real pleasure to have a good tuggie up front, usually a glider pilot
with some hours to his name. He'll know right away just how good you are and
will crank the tug around into a thermal if a good one presents itself.

This season I had 3 aerotows tows where I released at or just below 1000'
AGL, one of which was at no more than about 500' AGL. During a right hand
turnout from the initial liftoff in Spain we flew into a real stonker. The
tug climbed high as it flew into the core and I simply could not catch him.
I held on just long enough for the vario to confirm that it was 'off the
clock' pulled the plug and left the tug to complete a right hand circuit and
land. I got charged a cable break price for that one, it probably lasted
only about 1min 30 secs start to off tow.

Ian

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:1Bg7d.150967$MQ5.46505@attbi_s52...
>I can only speak for the USA but here there is a minority with the idea
>that
> gliding exists solely to support tow planes. The rag and tube taildragger
> tug drivers want glider pilots to support their hobby by falling out of
> the
> sky ASAP so they can fly another tow and log another takeoff and landing.
> This idea goes hand in hand with the preference for Schweizer 2-33
> trainers.
>
> XC takes a glider away for the day with only one tow - no fun in that for
> the tug drivers. Really good XC pilots release at less than 1500 feet AGL
> which is even worse. No XC means more tows.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "OscarCVox" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am amazed that some clubs dont actively encourage XC! In our club
> virtually
>> everybody flies XC as soon as they are qualified to do so. OK some
> people
>> only do their 50km and never venture out of gliding range ever again.
>> The single seater club aircraft fly cross country on every possible
> occasion
>> and this year we have had 4 entered in regional competitions, 3 in
> national
>> competitions and one competing in the European Championships.
>> Note I said that these are club aircraft not private.
>> We do get occasional damage from field landings (stone chips etc) but
>> this
> is
>> small price to pay.
>> Everyone who is flying XC on a particular day either arranges their own
>> retrieves or puts their name on the board for a mutual retrieve.
>> Nigel
>

[Jacek Kobiesa]

"MK" > wrote in message >...
> Ah, Politics! It takes patience and lobbying to make a change. First you
> need to form a supportive base that will aid in promoting your view of what
> the club should be - with reasoned arguments. Try to get like minded
> members into officer positions. Most clubs, I believe are run in a fairly
> democratic manner, so you need votes. Know your clubs by-laws and rules of
> conduct regarding voting and decision making. It can get personal so be
> prepared. It is a shame the club does not promote the SSA badge program for
> non owners.
>
> Mike
>
> "mat Redsell" > wrote in message
> news:0LE6d.36$lf2.15@trnddc09...
> > I have been very concerned about our club, which discourages cross country
> > in club gliders. My thought is that purpose of soaring is cross country
> and
> > if one just concentrates on flying above the airport then ones member ship
> > tends to end when you have your license.
> >
> > We have many airports withing a 15 miles radius and many flat fields with
> > always an option of landing in cut hay fields, harvested bean and corn
> > fields etc. There is no lack of good landing fields or airports.
> >
> > Our board is composed of pilots who do not go cross country and
> surprisingly
> > none of the instructors have flown cross country ( there may be an
> > exception.... but none I know of have gone recently). And I am not allowed
> > to teach since I insist on wearing a parachute for both student and
> > instructor. ( I have in the past provided a chute for the student).
> >
> > The thought at our club is that if you want to go cross country you buy
> > your own ship... a rasther harsh reality for many pilots.
> >
> > I have found surprisingly ( tonque in cheek here) that if there is lift at
> > the airport we fly from there is usually lift 10 to 50 miles away but I
> have
> > no way of convincing our board members.
> >
> > Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships for
> > short cross country runs?
> >
> > -mat
> > --
> > Marske Flying Wings
> > http://www.continuo.com/marske
> >
> >


Parachutes- don't fly without them. They seem to be just an expensive
piece of fabric to sit on, but when you need it....is there for you.
And only for you.
And if someone calls you "sissy", well...I'd rather be a "sissy" then
dead. Plain and simple. In addition, if you fly with parachute on your
back, you are more comfortable in flight. And that opens whole
different perspective for you as a pilot of a sailplane....
Now, if your club board members are not permitting XC, get rid of
them...if you can't, change clubs. Not permitting XC is the most
stupid thing...it teaches the pilot art of navigation, decision
making, much better weather analysis and interpretation, your skills
are becoming sharper, etc. When you fly around your airport don't you
know where the lift is? So, if you going low you fly to known to
everybody spot, you go up and wander around the neighborhood....sounds
familiar? All power to you for trying to change the club (stupid)
rules. Promote XC, it is good for every pilot...and then comes the
contest.

[Jacek Kobiesa]

"MK" > wrote in message >...
> Ah, Politics! It takes patience and lobbying to make a change. First you
> need to form a supportive base that will aid in promoting your view of what
> the club should be - with reasoned arguments. Try to get like minded
> members into officer positions. Most clubs, I believe are run in a fairly
> democratic manner, so you need votes. Know your clubs by-laws and rules of
> conduct regarding voting and decision making. It can get personal so be
> prepared. It is a shame the club does not promote the SSA badge program for
> non owners.
>
> Mike
>
> "mat Redsell" > wrote in message
> news:0LE6d.36$lf2.15@trnddc09...
> > I have been very concerned about our club, which discourages cross country
> > in club gliders. My thought is that purpose of soaring is cross country
> and
> > if one just concentrates on flying above the airport then ones member ship
> > tends to end when you have your license.
> >
> > We have many airports withing a 15 miles radius and many flat fields with
> > always an option of landing in cut hay fields, harvested bean and corn
> > fields etc. There is no lack of good landing fields or airports.
> >
> > Our board is composed of pilots who do not go cross country and
> surprisingly
> > none of the instructors have flown cross country ( there may be an
> > exception.... but none I know of have gone recently). And I am not allowed
> > to teach since I insist on wearing a parachute for both student and
> > instructor. ( I have in the past provided a chute for the student).
> >
> > The thought at our club is that if you want to go cross country you buy
> > your own ship... a rasther harsh reality for many pilots.
> >
> > I have found surprisingly ( tonque in cheek here) that if there is lift at
> > the airport we fly from there is usually lift 10 to 50 miles away but I
> have
> > no way of convincing our board members.
> >
> > Can anyone give me some ideas.... and do other clubs let their ships for
> > short cross country runs?
> >
> > -mat
> > --
> > Marske Flying Wings
> > http://www.continuo.com/marske
> >
> >


Parachutes- don't fly without them. They seem to be just an expensive
piece of fabric to sit on, but when you need it....is there for you.
And only for you.
And if someone calls you "sissy", well...I'd rather be a "sissy" then
dead. Plain and simple. In addition, if you fly with parachute on your
back, you are more comfortable in flight. And that opens whole
different perspective for you as a pilot of a sailplane....
Now, if your club board members are not permitting XC, get rid of
them...if you can't, change clubs. Not permitting XC is the most
stupid thing...it teaches the pilot art of navigation, decision
making, much better weather analysis and interpretation, your skills
are becoming sharper, etc. When you fly around your airport don't you
know where the lift is? So, if you going low you fly to known to
everybody spot, you go up and wander around the neighborhood....sounds
familiar? All power to you for trying to change the club (stupid)
rules. Promote XC, it is good for every pilot...and then comes the
contest.

[Jack]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> ...here [in the USA] there is a minority with the idea that
> gliding exists solely to support tow planes.

[....]


> Really good XC pilots release at less than 1500 feet AGL
> which is even worse. No XC means more tows.

Au Contraire, Buttercup. There is nothing more boring than dragging some
poor schmuck to 3500' agl so he can stay up for an extra 5 minutes.

In reality, we tow pilots can hardly wait to get back down for the next
pattern-tow so we can maximize our exposure to the more dangerous phase
of the sport. It's the self-sacrficial aspect that draws us to those
beloved "rag and tube" tugs. And if someone builds a better tug, you'll
probably complain that the tows have become too expensive.

Your nemeses are no doubt substantially in the minority, and not very
good at accounting, either.


Jack

[Bill Daniels]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...

> Your nemeses are no doubt substantially in the minority, and not very
> good at accounting, either.
>
>
> Jack

Yup, that's about my take on it too.

Bill Daniels

[Gerhard Wesp]

Mark James Boyd > wrote:
> 1-34 or DG-1000 or Grob 103. And requires one maintain a 2/3
> glide ratio to a known landable field for all flights.

A 2/3 glide ratio??

-Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp o o Tel.: +41 (0) 43 5347636
Bachtobelstrasse 56 | http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~gwesp/
CH-8045 Zuerich \_/ See homepage for email address!

[Bert Willing]

If your ship has 30:1, you keep within 20:1 to a landable field.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Gerhard Wesp" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Mark James Boyd > wrote:
>> 1-34 or DG-1000 or Grob 103. And requires one maintain a 2/3
>> glide ratio to a known landable field for all flights.
>
> A 2/3 glide ratio??
>
> -Gerhard
> --
> Gerhard Wesp o o Tel.: +41 (0) 43 5347636
> Bachtobelstrasse 56 | http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~gwesp/
> CH-8045 Zuerich \_/ See homepage for email address!

[Mark James Boyd]

>Au Contraire, Buttercup. There is nothing more boring than dragging some
>poor schmuck to 3500' agl so he can stay up for an extra 5 minutes.
>
>Jack

Well, the comercial op at Tehachapi doesn't allow X-C in their
ships either. Here's a hint why: BASA, the club in the
SF Bay Area with Pegasi and 103s and DG-100, eventually could
not obtain hull insurance after too many claims. Eventually they
overcame this by self-insuring for hull damage.

I can't tell you if restricting X-C is a good idea or not for any
particular organization, but there are reasons on both sides.

I must say, however, that with the price of some 30:1 or better
gliders in the $10k-$15k range (US), making an XC "sub-club" or
syndicate seems to be warranted. Then when the competition eats into
the club's monies, they'll buy the syndicate glider from you
and all will be well ;)

I'm reasonably sure X-C is the main focus of Soaring, and
NOT X-C is the main focus of gliding. I've yet to hear of
someone who did 5 hours for the Silver duration right over the airport.
That would be REALLY boring ;)
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[tango4]

I did my 5 hours within gliding distance of the field. Certainly no more
than 10 to 15 km from it. Boring? Hell no, I contacted wave and made my gold
height in the same flight and I had less than 20 hours solo at the time.

:-)

Ian


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4165da99$1@darkstar...
> >Au Contraire, Buttercup. There is nothing more boring than dragging some
>>poor schmuck to 3500' agl so he can stay up for an extra 5 minutes.
>>
>>Jack
>
> Well, the comercial op at Tehachapi doesn't allow X-C in their
> ships either. Here's a hint why: BASA, the club in the
> SF Bay Area with Pegasi and 103s and DG-100, eventually could
> not obtain hull insurance after too many claims. Eventually they
> overcame this by self-insuring for hull damage.
>
> I can't tell you if restricting X-C is a good idea or not for any
> particular organization, but there are reasons on both sides.
>
> I must say, however, that with the price of some 30:1 or better
> gliders in the $10k-$15k range (US), making an XC "sub-club" or
> syndicate seems to be warranted. Then when the competition eats into
> the club's monies, they'll buy the syndicate glider from you
> and all will be well ;)
>
> I'm reasonably sure X-C is the main focus of Soaring, and
> NOT X-C is the main focus of gliding. I've yet to hear of
> someone who did 5 hours for the Silver duration right over the airport.
> That would be REALLY boring ;)
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Stefan]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> I've yet to hear of
> someone who did 5 hours for the Silver duration right over the airport.
> That would be REALLY boring ;)

Our club asks for the 5 hour duration flight before it would let you go
cross country in a club ship. Boring? Maybe, but then, at that stage of
your pilot's career, maybe not. And in our club, part of the game.

Stefan

[Clint]

"tango4" > wrote in message >...
> I did my 5 hours within gliding distance of the field. Certainly no more
> than 10 to 15 km from it. Boring? Hell no, I contacted wave and made my gold
> height in the same flight and I had less than 20 hours solo at the time.
>

I did my 300km Diamond Goal flight last weekend. At no point was I out
of gliding range of the airport. 134km final glide from 15 500ft! Does
this count as a X/C flight?

Clinton
LAK 12

[Eric Greenwell]

Clint wrote:
> "tango4" > wrote in message >...
>
>>I did my 5 hours within gliding distance of the field. Certainly no more
>>than 10 to 15 km from it. Boring? Hell no, I contacted wave and made my gold
>>height in the same flight and I had less than 20 hours solo at the time.
>>
>
>
> I did my 300km Diamond Goal flight last weekend. At no point was I out
> of gliding range of the airport. 134km final glide from 15 500ft! Does
> this count as a X/C flight?

My opinion: If you had to navigate with paper maps, yes; or, if there
was a good chance weather would cut you off from your home field, yes;
otherwise, the informal rule is you need to be at least one thermal away
for it to count as a XC flight. But what a great flight, right?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Stefan > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> I've yet to hear of
>> someone who did 5 hours for the Silver duration right over the airport.
>> That would be REALLY boring ;)
>
>Our club asks for the 5 hour duration flight before it would let you go
>cross country in a club ship. Boring? Maybe, but then, at that stage of
>your pilot's career, maybe not. And in our club, part of the game.

In my experience, a Bronze badge is a fairly common requirement
(or informal recommendation) before a student pilot X-C attempt.

The Bronze badge precision landings and written test and
two flights of over two hours are a better prep for X-C than
a sole 5 hour duration flight, in my opinion.

I actually really like the Bronze badge SSA instructor
packet I got. And I was REALLY impressed by the
LOW price :) I'm looking forward to handing out pins and
giving written tests next soaring season...

And as far as the 5 hours, if you can't actually see the airport
because you're so far from it (or below a ridgeline) then
that may count as not "right over the airport." ;PPPPPPP


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Nyal Williams]

At 11:00 08 October 2004, Clint wrote:
>'tango4' wrote in message news:...
>> I did my 5 hours within gliding distance of the field.
>>Certainly no more
>> than 10 to 15 km from it. Boring? Hell no, I contacted
>>wave and made my gold
>> height in the same flight and I had less than 20 hours
>>solo at the time.
>>
>
>I did my 300km Diamond Goal flight last weekend. At
>no point was I out
>of gliding range of the airport. 134km final glide
>from 15 500ft! Does
>this count as a X/C flight?
>
>Clinton
>LAK 12
>

Congratulations!

Your question about X/C flight indicates that you did
not feel the same level of accomplishment as those
who did it in a 1950s glider.

This is not a putdown; I've not yet done a 300K flight
and I have a Discus. My longest flight was in a K-8
- 175mi. and that was a more substantial accomplishment
than a 186. mi. will be in my present glider.

[tango4]

I agree, a lot of badges are easier to acheive these days and it's a little
amusing to hear student pilots worrying about whether they can make 50km in
a Discus. I did my 500 as an out and return, just a little more challenging.
I going to try doing my ( UK ) 750 km as an FAI triangle. Get a map and try
to fit a damned 750 FAI triangle onto the UK bit of it !

But does it matter if its easier these days? I don't think there is any less
personal sense of acheivement. Did anyone who has recently soloed feel any
less elated the day they put their first solo in their logbook marking K-21,
Grob or any of the other plastic ship than the older generation did when
they marked KA7, Bergfalke or 2-33? I think not. Apart from providing a
rough guideline as to the ability of a soaring pilot the badges are just
personal landmarks. Claiming badges is a personal thing.

My 500km took about 8 years to get, a couple of years of little soaring, bad
weather, a new family and countless failed attempts. When I wrote it up in
my logbook it marked a personal acheivement. When a club I'm visiting ask me
about my 'qualifications' I can say I've got 3 diamonds but that doesn't
tell the whole story does it?

Ian

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> At 11:00 08 October 2004, Clint wrote:
>>'tango4' wrote in message news:...
>>> I did my 5 hours within gliding distance of the field.
>>>Certainly no more
>>> than 10 to 15 km from it. Boring? Hell no, I contacted
>>>wave and made my gold
>>> height in the same flight and I had less than 20 hours
>>>solo at the time.
>>>
>>
>>I did my 300km Diamond Goal flight last weekend. At
>>no point was I out
>>of gliding range of the airport. 134km final glide
>>from 15 500ft! Does
>>this count as a X/C flight?
>>
>>Clinton
>>LAK 12
>>
>
> Congratulations!
>
> Your question about X/C flight indicates that you did
> not feel the same level of accomplishment as those
> who did it in a 1950s glider.
>
> This is not a putdown; I've not yet done a 300K flight
> and I have a Discus. My longest flight was in a K-8
> - 175mi. and that was a more substantial accomplishment
> than a 186. mi. will be in my present glider.
>
>
>

[Stefan]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> The Bronze badge precision landings and written test and
> two flights of over two hours are a better prep for X-C than
> a sole 5 hour duration flight, in my opinion.

Nowhere I said we'd require *only* 5 hours duration!

If you're interested: We require the 5 hours before the first cross
country. A cross country with an istructor has already been a
requirement for the license. Then, the first cross country has to be
prepared, and the preparation presented to an instructor. Preparation
means preparing the map (drawing circles, indicating outlanding fields),
estimating a schedule, knowing about the actual weather etc. etc.
Organizing a retreive crew is also compulsory. During the flight, you
take a logger with you. After the flight, there will be a debriefing
with the instructor which includes an analysis of the logger track. This
first cross country often is 50km silver distance, but need not be. Of
course, it is flown with our primary solo trainer (happens to be a Junior).

After this, you're allowed to take the Junior where ever you want.

The next step on the ladder is silver badge. As soon as you have gained
the silver badge (which is not trivial, as our airfield lies underneath
a TMA, so you need to go cross country to climb), you are allowed to
take the LS4s cross country.

And the ladder goes on: For the better single seaters, a 300 km flight
is asked for. Double seaters have their own requirements.

Stefan

[Robert Ehrlich]

Stefan wrote:
> ...
> After this, you're allowed to take the Junior where ever you want.
>
> The next step on the ladder is silver badge. As soon as you have gained
> the silver badge (which is not trivial, as our airfield lies underneath
> a TMA, so you need to go cross country to climb), you are allowed to
> take the LS4s cross country.
>
> And the ladder goes on: For the better single seaters, a 300 km flight
> is asked for. Double seaters have their own requirements.
>

While this kind of rules is very common in numerous clibs, including mine,
I think there is a serious drawback. I am not against a hierarchy among club
ships, according to which you are allowed to fly a given ship after gaining
some experience and hours on the previous on the hierachy. The drawback is
in setting rigid rules, like the need for a silver badge or a 300 km distance.
The consequence is that we see ships in the top of the hierarchy remaining
in the hangars, while pilots remain on the ground because they don't already
meet the creteria for the better ships while others are already flown by
other pilots, although their experience and skills would allow them to fly
these better ships without risk or problem.

[hannu]

"Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
...
> Stefan wrote:
> > ...
> While this kind of rules is very common in numerous clibs, including mine,
> I think there is a serious drawback. I am not against a hierarchy among
club
> ships, according to which you are allowed to fly a given ship after
gaining
> some experience and hours on the previous on the hierachy. The drawback is
> in setting rigid rules, like the need for a silver badge or a 300 km
distance.
> The consequence is that we see ships in the top of the hierarchy remaining
> in the hangars, while pilots remain on the ground because they don't
already
> meet the creteria for the better ships while others are already flown by
> other pilots, although their experience and skills would allow them to fly
> these better ships without risk or problem.

As opposed as having those "low-level" gliders either in the hangar or just
close to the airport. Which is better? I basically support at least the idea
of ladders , if not extreemly rigid rules. The worst scenario is that the
high-level gliders fly around the airfield and the low-levels in the hangar
and the cross-country pilots have a hay-straw in the mouth as they wait for
their 1:30 hour slot...

Now, real men fly cross-country with K-8b if nothing else is available, but
now the mindset seems to be that only LS-4+ gliders are good enough for
anything. Of course another question is, if the cross-country is for
everyone (and as I see, it isn't) and if those also should be able to fly
the higher level ships. Basically it's about the same to fly a local flight
in Grob 102 as LS-4 or even LS-8 - meaning it is normally not more
difficult. But flying with higher level gliders is sexier and so these good
cross-country gliders are used for anything.

And some of us, really dumb ones, even fly competitions with Astir CS
against Discuses and LS-7+ :/ And yes, occasionally cross-country with K-8b
as well, just because I can ;)

Best regards, hannu

[Stefan]

Robert Ehrlich wrote:

> ... The drawback is
> in setting rigid rules, like the need for a silver badge or a 300 km distance.
....

Well, such is club life. There are times with no human problems, and
there are times with huge human problems. Such rules are needed for the
latter. Rigid rules help to avoid conflicts. (You know: Why is he
allowed and I'm not?)

Besides, our rules make some sense. There is no point in flying silver
distance in a 1:50 ship. But by doing it in a Junior you learn
something. As a side effect, if a youngster happens to break a Junior,
we can live with that. An LS 8 would be another story... not only for
the club, but also for the (unexperienced) pilot. Chances are this would
stop him from going further.

> The consequence is that we see ships in the top of the hierarchy
> remaining in the hangars, while pilots remain on the ground because
> they don't already meet the creteria for the better ships while others

I don't remember a single day when this scenario occured. But then, this
is my club, yours may be different.

Stefan

[Christian Husvik]

Hei,

hannu wrote:

> [...] The worst scenario is that the high-level gliders fly around the
> airfield and the low-levels in the hangar and the cross-country pilots
> have a hay-straw in the mouth as they wait for their 1:30 hour slot...
>
> Now, real men fly cross-country with K-8b if nothing else is available,[...]

It usually helps to just "threaten" to fly the K-8 cross-country and
kindly request that the one(s) claiming the Discus for local flights
retreive you when you inevitably land out after just 200 of your
intended 300km. Then they'll quite happily let you have the Discus and
rather fly the K-8 locally themselves ;-)

Regards,

Christian 8-)

[hannu]

"Christian Husvik" > wrote in message
...
> Hei,
>
> hannu wrote:
>
> > [...] The worst scenario is that the high-level gliders fly around the
> > airfield and the low-levels in the hangar and the cross-country pilots
> > have a hay-straw in the mouth as they wait for their 1:30 hour slot...
> >
> > Now, real men fly cross-country with K-8b if nothing else is
available,[...]
>
> It usually helps to just "threaten" to fly the K-8 cross-country and
> kindly request that the one(s) claiming the Discus for local flights
> retreive you when you inevitably land out after just 200 of your
> intended 300km. Then they'll quite happily let you have the Discus and
> rather fly the K-8 locally themselves ;-)

Only, ONE DAY I'll fly that 300k in K-8b. All the way... ;)

hannu

[Mark James Boyd]

Stefan > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> The Bronze badge precision landings and written test and
>> two flights of over two hours are a better prep for X-C than
>> a sole 5 hour duration flight, in my opinion.
>
>Nowhere I said we'd require *only* 5 hours duration!
>
>If you're interested: We require the 5 hours before the first cross
>country. A cross country with an istructor has already been a
>requirement for the license. Then, the first cross country has to be
>prepared, and the preparation presented to an instructor. Preparation
>means preparing the map (drawing circles, indicating outlanding fields),
>estimating a schedule, knowing about the actual weather etc. etc.
>Organizing a retreive crew is also compulsory. During the flight, you
>take a logger with you. After the flight, there will be a debriefing
>with the instructor which includes an analysis of the logger track. This
>first cross country often is 50km silver distance, but need not be. Of
>course, it is flown with our primary solo trainer (happens to be a Junior).

I'm not personally a fan of requiring a 5 hour flight before the
first cross-country. I think this is excessive (in our area).
But of course our thermals are quite regularly spaced and there
are tons of landouts.

I think the Bronze Badge training is quite sufficient before a first X-C.
And two flights of two hours is enough, I'm not sure what more
is gained by a 5 hour flight before ones first 50km attempt.

I also think a first X-C which takes longer than 2 hours or is
further than a bit over 50km is an overtask. I really like a
straight out, downwind to a landing at a pre-scouted airport
as a first X-C task. KISS.

But I could see instances and locations where other tasks or
training might be a better preparation. So if your club's requirements
don't seem overly restrictive, there's probably some
other details you are leaving out (the 5 hours includes a mini-X-C,
and different types of lift, and some navigation, and hydration
and "pee" practice).

>And the ladder goes on: For the better single seaters, a 300 km flight
>is asked for. Double seaters have their own requirements.

LOL. One would think that youd need more skills and hence
better qualifications to take the WORSE single-seaters X-C.

It sounds like an incentive program rather than a safety issue ;P
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

>And two flights of two hours is enough, I'm not sure what more
>is gained by a 5 hour flight before ones first 50km attempt.
>
>I also think a first X-C which takes longer than 2 hours or is
>further than a bit over 50km is an overtask. I really like a
>straight out, downwind to a landing at a pre-scouted airport
>as a first X-C task. KISS.

I should also add that personally I flew maybe half-dozen X-Cs
and landed out three times (at planned and scouted airports)
before I flew 5 hours.

I think I even flew a 200km (4:19?) before my first 5 hour flight.

But I had a lot of power experience before that, and I
was really bored by the idea of flying near the
gliderport for more than about a half hour, so maybe
mine is not a typical case.

Hmmm...lemme see how next season goes...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Stefan]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> I think the Bronze Badge training is quite sufficient before a first X-C.
> And two flights of two hours is enough, I'm not sure what more
> is gained by a 5 hour flight before ones first 50km attempt.

What's gained by 5 hours compared by 2 times 2 hours? Two things: First,
during 5 hours, the weather conditions will change. Everybody can stay
up between 13:00 and 15:00. 5 hours is a little bit more difficult. And
more educating. Of course, this depends on where you fly. Second, it's
the proof that you can stand it for 5 hours. Thermals get weaker in the
evening. Incidentally, this is the time when you get tired. Both
increase the chance of an outlanding... for which you should be
concentrated.

> I really like a
> straight out, downwind to a landing at a pre-scouted airport
> as a first X-C task. KISS.

KISS for you. Less KISS for the club who has to retrieve 10 members at
the evening. Cross country, as we understand it, is not just flying out
with the wind, but also returnig in the evening.

> LOL. One would think that youd need more skills and hence
> better qualifications to take the WORSE single-seaters X-C.

Of course. This skill is achieved by forcing the new pilots doing their
first cross countries in "worse" gliders.

> It sounds like an incentive program rather than a safety issue ;P

To some extent, yes. We push the new pilots to go cross country. But
then, it's also a financial consideration. As I wrote in an earlier
post: A youngster breaking a Junior in an outlanding is annoying, but
not relally a big problem. The same youngster breaking an LS8 is
somewhat different.

Of course it depends on where you fly and how your club works.

Stefan

[Bert Willing]

Landing on an airfield is not outlanding. What we refer to as outlanding
typically in Europe is 1000ft (if lucky) of unknown pasture.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Mark James Boyd" > a écrit dans le message de news:
416dc11d$1@darkstar...
>
> I should also add that personally I flew maybe half-dozen X-Cs
> and landed out three times (at planned and scouted airports)
> before I flew 5 hours.

[Stefan]

Bert Willing wrote:

> Landing on an airfield is not outlanding. What we refer to as outlanding
> typically in Europe is 1000ft (if lucky) of unknown pasture.

I just tried to remember when an outlanding field I had to use actually
offered 1000 ft. Can't think of one. But then, this is the reason that
in our club, "each landing is a precision landing", no matter how
generous the runway might be. The precicion we require at our annual
check flight is touching down and coming to a full stop within a
predefined area of 150m.

Stefan

[Bert Willing]

In the Alps, fields listed in the outlanding catalogues are typically 250m /
750ft long. But the last fields I landed on were 300ft (clear approach, but
trees on the far end...) and 500ft (telephone line on entry).

That's why I like the Calif and the ASW20 :-)

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Stefan" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Bert Willing wrote:
>
>> Landing on an airfield is not outlanding. What we refer to as outlanding
>> typically in Europe is 1000ft (if lucky) of unknown pasture.
>
> I just tried to remember when an outlanding field I had to use actually
> offered 1000 ft. Can't think of one. But then, this is the reason that in
> our club, "each landing is a precision landing", no matter how generous
> the runway might be. The precicion we require at our annual check flight
> is touching down and coming to a full stop within a predefined area of
> 150m.
>
> Stefan
>

[goneill]

Our club has a white marker post at 100 meters from threshhold
the target is to stop before that.
"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Bert Willing wrote:
>
>> Landing on an airfield is not outlanding. What we refer to as outlanding
>> typically in Europe is 1000ft (if lucky) of unknown pasture.
>
> I just tried to remember when an outlanding field I had to use actually
> offered 1000 ft. Can't think of one. But then, this is the reason that in
> our club, "each landing is a precision landing", no matter how generous
> the runway might be. The precicion we require at our annual check flight
> is touching down and coming to a full stop within a predefined area of
> 150m.
>
> Stefan
>

[Stefan]

goneill wrote:

> Our club has a white marker post at 100 meters from threshhold
> the target is to stop before that.

Yeah. No problem with a Junior (or KA8 or similiar), but try this with
an ASH25 ...

Stefan

[Z Goudie]

At 09:18 14 October 2004, Goneill wrote:
>Our club has a white marker post at 100 meters from
>threshhold
>the target is to stop before that.

How many finish up in the fence?

[Michael]

"goneill" > wrote
> Our club has a white marker post at 100 meters from threshhold
> the target is to stop before that.

I used to belong to a club that had a blue marker about 200 meters
from threshold. If you landed short of it (never mind stopped), you
were supposed to fly with an instructor before taking a club ship
solo.

Michael

[Bert Willing]

That obviously depends on the area in front of the threshold...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Michael" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> "goneill" > wrote
>> Our club has a white marker post at 100 meters from threshhold
>> the target is to stop before that.
>
> I used to belong to a club that had a blue marker about 200 meters
> from threshold. If you landed short of it (never mind stopped), you
> were supposed to fly with an instructor before taking a club ship
> solo.
>
> Michael

[goneill]

> Our club has a white marker post at 100 meters PAST threshhold
> the target is to stop before that.
I realised the wording could confuse , the change is in capitals
gary



"goneill" > wrote in message
...
> Our club has a white marker post at 100 meters from threshhold
> the target is to stop before that.
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bert Willing wrote:
>>
>>> Landing on an airfield is not outlanding. What we refer to as outlanding
>>> typically in Europe is 1000ft (if lucky) of unknown pasture.
>>
>> I just tried to remember when an outlanding field I had to use actually
>> offered 1000 ft. Can't think of one. But then, this is the reason that in
>> our club, "each landing is a precision landing", no matter how generous
>> the runway might be. The precicion we require at our annual check flight
>> is touching down and coming to a full stop within a predefined area of
>> 150m.
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>
>

[Stefan]

Michael wrote:

>> Our club has a white marker post at 100 meters from threshhold
>> the target is to stop before that.

> I used to belong to a club that had a blue marker about 200 meters
> from threshold. If you landed short of it (never mind stopped), you
> were supposed to fly with an instructor before taking a club ship
> solo.

In my club, students are supposed to touch down between two markers
(about 50 m apart) to learn spot landings. As a side effect, the
instructors know whether they hit or missed the target. The same rules
apply to check flights.

Licensed pilots however are strongly encouraged to change their touch
down point with each landing. The idea is to not get used to a
particular picture. You can train spot landings everywhere on the
runway, just pick a point and then attempt to hit it. Of course this
requires you to be honest with yourself.

Stefan

[mat Redsell]

Thanks for all of the good responses to my original quesiton on Cross
Country... unfortunately the board members have decided to eject me from the
club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.

Please send me personal emails in future.

-mat

[goneill]

I changed the wording to "past" threshhold .
We have no fence only a irrigation ditch and a
little used road so effectively landing area is longer.
In the northern area of the North Island of New Zealand
most flatter land is used for dairy production so most
suitable landing paddocks are 40-60 meters wide
by 120-150 meters long.
Where I fly if you cannot consistantly bring your glider
to a halt within a space of 100 meters from the fence
with a clear approach for finals then crosscountry may
not be a good idea.
In our club we have a Twin Astir and a PW6, both go regularly
xcountry with younger pilots. On our Instructors panel are 2 who
have rated in the top 10 in the worlds and a number of other senior
pilots who have been in the top 20 at the worlds and a few
ex National champions most of them happy to fly in the 2seaters
xcountry. It is not uncommon to meet up with a club glider
100 kms or more from home base.
All first single seater xcountries are usually done in a PW5 or single Astir
both easy gliders to land and very tolerant of errors.
This "culture" of xcountry helps a lot .

so
"Z Goudie" > wrote in message
...
> At 09:18 14 October 2004, Goneill wrote:
>>Our club has a white marker post at 100 meters from
>>threshhold
>>the target is to stop before that.
>
> How many finish up in the fence?
>
>
>

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> unfortunately the board members have decided to eject me from the
> club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.

My suggestion would be a different club. If at all possible.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn.
Fon +49 228 624013, Fax +49 228 624031.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"FOUR MORE BEERS!"

[For Example John Smith]

The idea of the blue marker was the opposite of the white marker.
The blue marker was a "virtual threshold"--the idea being to provide plenty
of clearance over the ships lining up on the grid.


"Bert Willing" > wrote in
message ...
> That obviously depends on the area in front of the threshold...
>
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"
>
>
> "Michael" > a écrit dans le message de
> news: ...
> > "goneill" > wrote
> >> Our club has a white marker post at 100 meters from threshhold
> >> the target is to stop before that.
> >
> > I used to belong to a club that had a blue marker about 200 meters
> > from threshold. If you landed short of it (never mind stopped), you
> > were supposed to fly with an instructor before taking a club ship
> > solo.
> >
> > Michael
>
>

[For Example John Smith]

Another consequence of the PATRIOT ACT?

"mat Redsell" > wrote in message
news:Zaybd.63$7h.61@trnddc07...
> Thanks for all of the good responses to my original quesiton on Cross
> Country... unfortunately the board members have decided to eject me from
the
> club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.
>
> Please send me personal emails in future.
>
> -mat
>
>

[Tony Verhulst]

mat Redsell wrote:
> unfortunately the board members have decided to eject me from the
> club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.

Amazing!

[Jim Vincent]

>Thanks for all of the good responses to my original quesiton on Cross
>Country... unfortunately the board members have decided to eject me from the
>club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.

Tragic. I don't recall seeing you around the field Mat..how long have you been
flying here?

Jim Vincent
N483SZ

[Bill Daniels]

I have had experiences very similar to Uli' and Mat's and I know of many
others. The following comments apply only to USA glider clubs since I am
not familiar with clubs outside the US but I have the impression that non-US
clubs have far better governance.

The pattern I have noticed is that soaring clubs are not infrequently 'taken
over' by non-aviators or, at least, pilots without any current significant
achievements. Lacking these accomplishments, their attempts at club
management are, to say the least, counterproductive. At worst, they drive
away new members and glider pilots who could make a significant contribution
to the organization if allowed to do so. This starts a downward spiral
where bad pilots drive away good ones and attract the bad ones.

There is a group of people who see their mission as simply running things.
They see no need to be actually involved with soaring beyond one or two
flights a year wherein they scare themselves silly. This flight 'checks the
box' and provides them with a topic for discussion over beers at a local
dive for the subsequent 12 months.

With the view that the best clubs are governed by active XC glider pilots
with advanced ratings, badges and contest standings, I propose that any new
clubs still writing their bylaws and those in a position to re-write theirs
consider setting minimum competency requirements for club officers and board
members.

For example:

1. Keep the dead wood cleared by requiring that every officer and board
member will have flown every glider as in the club fleet solo within the
preceding 12 months. Failure to do so will be considered a letter of
resignation. (This, at least, proves they CAN fly. It also requires that
an instructor certify them competent in the club fleet.)

2. In a shift from a pure democracy to a semi-meritocracy, handicap
candidates for club office with reference to their achievements as pilots.
For example an instructor with a Diamond badge and current contest ranking
would outrank a student pilot. This instructor would have his vote total
multiplied by a factor of say, 2. Appropriate multipliers for lesser
achievements would also apply.

When all positions of power are filled with accomplished, competent people,
bureaucratic obstacles to cross country, advanced training, winch launch
etc.. are likely to vanish.

I would further propose that any club without a clear pro-growth mission
statement and evidence of performance in the form of actual new members be
denied the annual SSA dues rebate and suffer any other sanctions as are
possible such as ineligibility for SSA insurance discounts.

Bill Daniels



"Marian Aldenhövel" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> > unfortunately the board members have decided to eject me from the
> > club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.
>
> My suggestion would be a different club. If at all possible.
>
> Ciao, MM
> --
> Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn.
> Fon +49 228 624013, Fax +49 228 624031.
> http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
> "FOUR MORE BEERS!"

[Ray Lovinggood]

Bill,

I like and understand your concept, but will add my
two-cent's.

We do have members on our club's Board who don't fly
much if at all, but contribute mightily to the club's
wellfare.

I think our club has also recruited at least one of
the younger (age and low flying time) members to run
for Board Member. We want to hear 'their' voice too,
not just the voices from the crusty old-timers.

What IS amazing (probably not really) is that on club
meetings, held once every two months, the same crowd
shows up and not the younger group. It would be interesting
to talk to ALL members about opportunities to fly cross-country,
attend contests or fun-fly's with a club ship, or safety
issues, etc. with more than the same old choir, but
folks don't seem to show for the meetings.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d 'W8'

At 19:36 14 October 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:
>I have had experiences very similar to Uli' and Mat's
>and I know of many
>others. The following comments apply only to USA glider
>clubs since I am
>not familiar with clubs outside the US but I have the
>impression that non-US
>clubs have far better governance.
>
>The pattern I have noticed is that soaring clubs are
>not infrequently 'taken
>over' by non-aviators or, at least, pilots without
>any current significant
>achievements. Lacking these accomplishments, their
>attempts at club
>management are, to say the least, counterproductive.
> At worst, they drive
>away new members and glider pilots who could make a
>significant contribution
>to the organization if allowed to do so. This starts
>a downward spiral
>where bad pilots drive away good ones and attract the
>bad ones.
>
>There is a group of people who see their mission as
>simply running things.
>They see no need to be actually involved with soaring
>beyond one or two
>flights a year wherein they scare themselves silly.
> This flight 'checks the
>box' and provides them with a topic for discussion
>over beers at a local
>dive for the subsequent 12 months.
>
>With the view that the best clubs are governed by active
>XC glider pilots
>with advanced ratings, badges and contest standings,
>I propose that any new
>clubs still writing their bylaws and those in a position
>to re-write theirs
>consider setting minimum competency requirements for
>club officers and board
>members.
>
>For example:
>
>1. Keep the dead wood cleared by requiring that every
>officer and board
>member will have flown every glider as in the club
>fleet solo within the
>preceding 12 months. Failure to do so will be considered
>a letter of
>resignation. (This, at least, proves they CAN fly.
> It also requires that
>an instructor certify them competent in the club fleet.)
>
>2. In a shift from a pure democracy to a semi-meritocracy,
>handicap
>candidates for club office with reference to their
>achievements as pilots.
>For example an instructor with a Diamond badge and
>current contest ranking
>would outrank a student pilot. This instructor would
>have his vote total
>multiplied by a factor of say, 2. Appropriate multipliers
>for lesser
>achievements would also apply.
>
>When all positions of power are filled with accomplished,
>competent people,
>bureaucratic obstacles to cross country, advanced training,
>winch launch
>etc.. are likely to vanish.
>
>I would further propose that any club without a clear
>pro-growth mission
>statement and evidence of performance in the form of
>actual new members be
>denied the annual SSA dues rebate and suffer any other
>sanctions as are
>possible such as ineligibility for SSA insurance discounts.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>
>
>'Marian Aldenhövel' wrote in message
...
>> Hi,
>>
>> > unfortunately the board members have decided to eject
>>>me from the
>> > club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.
>>
>> My suggestion would be a different club. If at all
>>possible.
>>
>> Ciao, MM
>> --
>> Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn.
>> Fon +49 228 624013, Fax +49 228 624031.
>> http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
>> 'FOUR MORE BEERS!'
>
>

[Michel Talon]

Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
> The pattern I have noticed is that soaring clubs are not infrequently 'taken
> over' by non-aviators or, at least, pilots without any current significant
> achievements. Lacking these accomplishments, their attempts at club
> management are, to say the least, counterproductive. At worst, they drive
> away new members and glider pilots who could make a significant contribution
> to the organization if allowed to do so. This starts a downward spiral
> where bad pilots drive away good ones and attract the bad ones.
>
> There is a group of people who see their mission as simply running things.
> They see no need to be actually involved with soaring beyond one or two
> flights a year wherein they scare themselves silly. This flight 'checks the
> box' and provides them with a topic for discussion over beers at a local
> dive for the subsequent 12 months.
>

This is a vivid description of things i have personnally seen ...



--

Michel TALON

[Bill Daniels]

"Ray Lovinggood" > wrote in message
...
> Bill,
>
> I like and understand your concept, but will add my
> two-cent's.
>
> We do have members on our club's Board who don't fly
> much if at all, but contribute mightily to the club's
> wellfare.

No doubt this happens. However, a non-flyer will not have the same
perspective as a current, active pilot. This risks, even if inadvertantly,
leading the club in a direction at odds with the present needs of active
pilots.

>
> I think our club has also recruited at least one of
> the younger (age and low flying time) members to run
> for Board Member. We want to hear 'their' voice too,
> not just the voices from the crusty old-timers.
>
> What IS amazing (probably not really) is that on club
> meetings, held once every two months, the same crowd
> shows up and not the younger group. It would be interesting
> to talk to ALL members about opportunities to fly cross-country,
> attend contests or fun-fly's with a club ship, or safety
> issues, etc. with more than the same old choir, but
> folks don't seem to show for the meetings.

You really need to find out why the younger members don't show. It is
critical to attracting younger people to soaring. I have asked young people
why they didn't participate the answer went like this: "Aw, it's just a
bunch of grumpy old control freaks fighting for control - I don't need the
hassle." That was a dead-on observation.

When was the last time you asked a young person for their opinion and then
acted on it? Let me say without reservation, I LIKE the current generation
of young people - tattoos and all. They have very good ideas and they will
tell you if you ask and will really appreciate it if you listen to them.

I have learned a little ritual with young student pilots. I take them aside
to a quiet place and ask, "tell me what we are doing wrong and what we are
doing right - I really want to know". I always get an earfull, most of it
spot on. Then I act on that information.

By listening to young people you make friends. It's really an ego boost for
an old coot to have a young friend who thinks you're cool.

Bill Daniels

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Bert Willing > wrote:
>Landing on an airfield is not outlanding. What we refer to as outlanding
>typically in Europe is 1000ft (if lucky) of unknown pasture.

A good point and (I think) a good distinction. Maybe for clarity
I should use different terms. An airport is a public use
airport, an airfield or airstrip is not public use but
is intended for aircraft, and an "outlanding" is anything
that isn't an airport or airstrip.

In that sense I've never had an "outlanding" and I'm really looking
forward to continuing that trend. But I can certainly
see how that would be different in other places, where
airstrips are very uncommon but flat, landable pastures are
frequent.

>
>--
>Bert Willing
>
>ASW20 "TW"
>
>
>"Mark James Boyd" > a écrit dans le message de news:
>416dc11d$1@darkstar...
>>
>> I should also add that personally I flew maybe half-dozen X-Cs
>> and landed out three times (at planned and scouted airports)
>> before I flew 5 hours.
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:
>Bert Willing wrote:
>
>> Landing on an airfield is not outlanding. What we refer to as outlanding
>> typically in Europe is 1000ft (if lucky) of unknown pasture.
>
>I just tried to remember when an outlanding field I had to use actually
>offered 1000 ft. Can't think of one. But then, this is the reason that
>in our club, "each landing is a precision landing", no matter how
>generous the runway might be. The precicion we require at our annual
>check flight is touching down and coming to a full stop within a
>predefined area of 150m.

It's really struck home to me the difference between stall speeds
of various aircraft and the importance of headwind. With a recent
student we did precision landings with tail and headwind,
only 5-10 knot difference, and it was startling to him
the huge difference.

And the 1-26 with me at 160# in it? Talk about a short
landing! With 5-10 knots on the nose, 50 feet isn't hard to
muster.

The hardest thing for me has always been determining wind direction
when in an unfamiliar area. With no vegetation or water or
dust or flags, etc., I have a real hard time doing it without
GPS or a wind circle (ground ref).

The effects of wind were probably the biggest new surprise to
me as a transition pilot to gliders. And I can see how always practicing
precision landings into a known headwind with known obstacles could
weaken my judgement skills for the (hope I never do it) outlanding.


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Stefan]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> The hardest thing for me has always been determining wind direction
> when in an unfamiliar area.

Do one circle and you'll know.

> The effects of wind were probably the biggest new surprise to
> me as a transition pilot to gliders.

Actually, it *is* one of the biggest new surprises. As I always say:
Glider pilots fly with the weather, power pilots fly despite the weather.

Stefan

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> I think the Bronze Badge training is quite sufficient before a first X-C.
>> And two flights of two hours is enough, I'm not sure what more
>> is gained by a 5 hour flight before ones first 50km attempt.
>
>What's gained by 5 hours compared by 2 times 2 hours? Two things: First,
>during 5 hours, the weather conditions will change. Everybody can stay
>up between 13:00 and 15:00.
Sounds good. Send 'em on their X-C between 13:00 and 15:00.

>5 hours is a little bit more difficult. And
>more educating.

I completely agree. I think it's educational, but unneccessary
in our particular case. I also think there are some people
(myself included) who would generally rather fly less than 5
hours on every flight, but enjoy mild X-Cs (less than 300km).

Personally, if a five hour duration flight was required
before I could fly my first X-C (meaning out of glide
range from the gliderport), I would likely have chosen a different
club.

>Of course, this depends on where you fly. Second, it's
>the proof that you can stand it for 5 hours. Thermals get weaker in the
>evening. Incidentally, this is the time when you get tired. Both
>increase the chance of an outlanding... for which you should be
>concentrated.

Depends on where you fly. Yep, I believe this. I can see
places where testing a student's endurance before letting them
fly X-C could be important. I remember a lot of situations where
I launched too early, or encountered an inversion, or was
in the wrong place struggling to stay aloft. But I'm not sure "5 hours"
is a magic number. I was personally very satisfied with a lot
of 1-3 hour flights before my first 50km X-C.

Although there is one very valid need for endurance: after my
first successful 50k (which took maybe 1.5 hours) I had
to circle in fading lift for over an hour waiting for the
retrieve tug so he could witness my landing as my O/O !

;P

Different strokes, I guess...

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think there
should be at least one board spot for the LEAST
qualified member. The youngest licensee,
the guy who just got his Silver Badge, the newest
member, the newest CFI, etc. should be given
a seat on the youth committee, the retrieve committee,
the membership committee, the flight committee, etc.

Sort of a "reverse seniority." I've seen this work
particularly well in helping introduce new
blood, but in a small enough dose to not be disruptive.

It is tougher for younger members to attend:
being a grandparent is sometimes easier than being a parent,
being a retiree is sometimes easier than starting a
fledgling career, refinancing a house is sometimes
easier than buying one.

Based on this, maybe the board meeting Tuesday at
2pm isn't such a great idea? How about the Catalyst
nightclub at 7pm right before the band starts? :P

In article >,
Ray Lovinggood > wrote:
>Bill,
>
>I like and understand your concept, but will add my
>two-cent's.
>
>We do have members on our club's Board who don't fly
>much if at all, but contribute mightily to the club's
>wellfare.
>
>I think our club has also recruited at least one of
>the younger (age and low flying time) members to run
>for Board Member. We want to hear 'their' voice too,
>not just the voices from the crusty old-timers.
>
>What IS amazing (probably not really) is that on club
>meetings, held once every two months, the same crowd
>shows up and not the younger group. It would be interesting
>to talk to ALL members about opportunities to fly cross-country,
>attend contests or fun-fly's with a club ship, or safety
>issues, etc. with more than the same old choir, but
>folks don't seem to show for the meetings.
>
>Ray Lovinggood
>Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
>LS1-d 'W8'
>
>At 19:36 14 October 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:
>>I have had experiences very similar to Uli' and Mat's
>>and I know of many
>>others. The following comments apply only to USA glider
>>clubs since I am
>>not familiar with clubs outside the US but I have the
>>impression that non-US
>>clubs have far better governance.
>>
>>The pattern I have noticed is that soaring clubs are
>>not infrequently 'taken
>>over' by non-aviators or, at least, pilots without
>>any current significant
>>achievements. Lacking these accomplishments, their
>>attempts at club
>>management are, to say the least, counterproductive.
>> At worst, they drive
>>away new members and glider pilots who could make a
>>significant contribution
>>to the organization if allowed to do so. This starts
>>a downward spiral
>>where bad pilots drive away good ones and attract the
>>bad ones.
>>
>>There is a group of people who see their mission as
>>simply running things.
>>They see no need to be actually involved with soaring
>>beyond one or two
>>flights a year wherein they scare themselves silly.
>> This flight 'checks the
>>box' and provides them with a topic for discussion
>>over beers at a local
>>dive for the subsequent 12 months.
>>
>>With the view that the best clubs are governed by active
>>XC glider pilots
>>with advanced ratings, badges and contest standings,
>>I propose that any new
>>clubs still writing their bylaws and those in a position
>>to re-write theirs
>>consider setting minimum competency requirements for
>>club officers and board
>>members.
>>
>>For example:
>>
>>1. Keep the dead wood cleared by requiring that every
>>officer and board
>>member will have flown every glider as in the club
>>fleet solo within the
>>preceding 12 months. Failure to do so will be considered
>>a letter of
>>resignation. (This, at least, proves they CAN fly.
>> It also requires that
>>an instructor certify them competent in the club fleet.)
>>
>>2. In a shift from a pure democracy to a semi-meritocracy,
>>handicap
>>candidates for club office with reference to their
>>achievements as pilots.
>>For example an instructor with a Diamond badge and
>>current contest ranking
>>would outrank a student pilot. This instructor would
>>have his vote total
>>multiplied by a factor of say, 2. Appropriate multipliers
>>for lesser
>>achievements would also apply.
>>
>>When all positions of power are filled with accomplished,
>>competent people,
>>bureaucratic obstacles to cross country, advanced training,
>>winch launch
>>etc.. are likely to vanish.
>>
>>I would further propose that any club without a clear
>>pro-growth mission
>>statement and evidence of performance in the form of
>>actual new members be
>>denied the annual SSA dues rebate and suffer any other
>>sanctions as are
>>possible such as ineligibility for SSA insurance discounts.
>>
>>Bill Daniels
>>
>>
>>
>>'Marian Aldenhövel' wrote in message
...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> > unfortunately the board members have decided to eject
>>>>me from the
>>> > club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.
>>>
>>> My suggestion would be a different club. If at all
>>>possible.
>>>
>>> Ciao, MM
>>> --
>>> Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn.
>>> Fon +49 228 624013, Fax +49 228 624031.
>>> http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
>>> 'FOUR MORE BEERS!'
>>
>>
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Stefan]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> But I'm not sure "5 hours"
> is a magic number.

It's not. A neighbour club asks for "either once 5 hours or twice 4
hours", and I'm certain that other clubs have even other rules. Our club
happens to require 5 hours, and this is neither better nor worse than
other rules.

The point is, in a real world club, you need strict rules. Otherwise it
will be the source of eternal discussions ("why is he allowed and I'm
not"). Yes, there are good times when everything works well and it would
do so without rules. But unevitably there will be bad times, and all
those rules are for those times.

I live well with our rules, if I were in an other club, I supposedly
would live well with their rules.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think there
> should be at least one board spot
....

I don't know about your club. But in our, the problem isn't that there
is no place in the board. We are ever so happy if somebody volunteers to
do the work! Because all we want to do is fly. (Cross country, to stay
on topic.)

Stefan

[Jack]

mat Redsell wrote:

> Thanks for all of the good responses to my original quesiton on Cross
> Country... unfortunately the board members have decided to eject me from the
> club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.

Count your blessings and move on. There must be clubs in your area with
rational members/directors.

Good luck.


Jack

[Jim Vincent]

>Count your blessings and move on. There must be clubs in your area with
>rational members/directors.
>

A few weeks ago, my club had a certain review performed by an established
authority in our hobby. The President, some directors, some instructors, and a
member from the safety committee had a meeting with the review people at a
picnic table just a few feet from where I was working on my sailplane.

It was funny to hear some of the half truths told my the president. For
instance, "One of our members is a Airframes and Instruments (AI)". While this
is true, the AI is actually an inactive member. None of the president's
cronies clarified that point.

Every time I walked towards the tail of the glider, one of the board members in
particular would look at me like a deer caught in the headlights, scared that I
would say something...I just smiled because I knew it was such a fiasco.

About an hour into this meeting, the head of the safety committee got up,
grabbed me by the shoulder and walked me off about 15 feet, yet still in full
view of the authorities. He told me that if I knew what was good for me I
would keep my mouth shut. I denied that I was going to say anything. He said
I was going to! He then told me to stop smiling!

It was obvious to all what had transpired, based on the body language, but no
apology was forthcoming.

Welcome to the wonderful "brotherhood" of gliding.

Most students take over two years to get their tickets at my club, so after a
year, they are voting members. The instructors then basically tell them who to
vote for. Of our current board, I think over 80% are instructors, and I think
only one of them has earned a 50k. Pretty sad.

So bring it on...you've kicked me off the instruction committee and told
students that I'm dangerous, don't know what I'm talking about, and don't
follow the FAR's...so what's next in you ball of tricks?

Jim Vincent
N483SZ

[hannu]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:OaAbd.258002$3l3.231270@attbi_s03...
>
> For example:
>
> 1. Keep the dead wood cleared by requiring that every officer and board
> member will have flown every glider as in the club fleet solo within the
> preceding 12 months. Failure to do so will be considered a letter of
> resignation. (This, at least, proves they CAN fly. It also requires that
> an instructor certify them competent in the club fleet.)

Whether the officials have or not current flying qualification doesn't
necessarily correlate the way the club is operated.

Our president has flown alone in sixties after which he had to end because
of health reasons and our secretary haven't ever had a license, as a matter
of fact he just happened to come and see a competition we had and after
seeing him there for three days a row our president just asked if he might
as well participate in the competition organisation.

Neither has ever been any hinder to anybodys flying, were it cross-country
or not. As a matter of fact, I normally call him before going cross-country
and ask, if he can come to rescue me in case of outlanding ;)

So, I'd oppose this rule as an absolute rule. I also know about some clubs
headed by "current" pilots that basically look after their own flying and
even erstrict others to have the club ship available and not broken...

As a summary: it depends ;)

hannu

[Janos Bauer]

mat Redsell wrote:
> Thanks for all of the good responses to my original quesiton on Cross
> Country... unfortunately the board members have decided to eject me from the
> club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.
>
> Please send me personal emails in future.
>
> -mat
>
>

Welcome to the club:) I'm already ejected from a club mainly because I
wrote about the strange internal affairs of that club on the net...
Now I'm a happy member of another club (and a third one also)! Feel
free to move on!
My previous club also forced our planes (new club's) out of the hangar
in middle of winter (I suspect partly because I joined that club). Of
course I created a "nice" page with full of pictures (empty hangar
opposite the wet place where we had to store our gliders...) and we were
allowed to move back. Don't underestimate the power of publicity;)
It's sad...

/Janos

[Tony Verhulst]

> ....An airport is a public use
> airport, an airfield or airstrip is not public use but
> is intended for aircraft, and an "outlanding" is anything
> that isn't an airport or airstrip.

I once landed a glider on a sod farm that was smoother and at least as
level as the field I took off from. Does that count? :-)

Tony V.

[Andy Durbin]

"Bert Willing" > wrote in message >...
> Landing on an airfield is not outlanding. What we refer to as outlanding
> typically in Europe is 1000ft (if lucky) of unknown pasture.
>
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"


For me a landout, or outlanding, is any landing that was not at the
intended goal. I log both landouts and off airport landouts. Over
90% of my flying is contests so any time I don't make it back to the
finish gate I landed out. The only exception to that is if I land at
the contest site without completing the task. I don't consider that a
landout.

Non-contest pilots may have a different perspective

Andy

[Eric Greenwell]

Tony Verhulst wrote:
>
>> ....An airport is a public use
>> airport, an airfield or airstrip is not public use but
>> is intended for aircraft, and an "outlanding" is anything
>> that isn't an airport or airstrip.
>
>
> I once landed a glider on a sod farm that was smoother and at least as
> level as the field I took off from. Does that count? :-)

Sure! I say any field not examined and selected in advance counts as an
outlanding.

In our area, the farm fields are typically a mile square, soft powdery
dirt, and safer to land on than a runway. Why? You can always land into
the wind, there is no other traffic, and forgetting to lower your gear
doesn't result in any damage. It IS very inconvenient, however.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

> Now I'm a happy member of another club (and a third one also)! Feel
>free to move on!
>
>/Janos

I'm was extremely pleased with the first club I joined mainly
perhaps because I spent a lot of time researching what
club to join.

Yes, my main club is 100nm and a 3 hour drive from my house,
but I wanted a low key club with few restrictions, very available gliders,
low cost, and encouraging for X-C.

There was another option closer, but I didn't see a benefit
for me at the time of the higher cost, lower availability,
closer location, nicer aircraft.

I'm fortunate to have three outstanding (each in their own way)
glider clubs and one commercial operator within 100nm.
I chose one because it suited my X-C desires more closely,
and I was able to be part of a wonderful sub-group in that
club.

For those who are having trouble, I hope you've shopped around a bit,
and perhaps accepted the idea that you may need to drive
a bit further away to find an atmosphere that is compatible...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Janos Bauer]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> There was another option closer, but I didn't see a benefit
> for me at the time of the higher cost, lower availability,
> closer location, nicer aircraft.

I learned that low cost often means: no parachute, no fuel for tow
plane or winch, no instrument, no trailer, no tow vehicle, no spare
parts etc-etc.:( When I suggested to increase the membership fees
suddenly became an enemy of the members...
I also visit a commercial operator and it's good to get what you pay
for. Of course they can't provide the same feeling of a self serving
club, but could be a good extension. All sailplanes equipped with good
instruments, new parachute, logger. You can fly high performance
gliders, even Discus2!;)

/Janos

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Janos Bauer > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>
>> There was another option closer, but I didn't see a benefit
>> for me at the time of the higher cost, lower availability,
>> closer location, nicer aircraft.
>
> I learned that low cost often means: no parachute, no fuel for tow
>plane or winch, no instrument, no trailer, no tow vehicle, no spare
>parts etc-etc.:( When I suggested to increase the membership fees
>suddenly became an enemy of the members...

Absolutely correct. Higher cost = more stuff. It sounds like your club
is at the low cost/minimal features price point.

> I also visit a commercial operator and it's good to get what you pay
>for. Of course they can't provide the same feeling of a self serving
>club, but could be a good extension. All sailplanes equipped with good
>instruments, new parachute, logger. You can fly high performance
>gliders, even Discus2!;)

Yes, this is true here as well. And just like going to the Spa instead
of bathing in my own tub, I occasionally pay a bit more and
enjoy the luxuries.

>
>/Janos


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd