Soaring and Critical Mass of Participation.

[plasticguy]

In another thread it was noted that Television
drives (apparently) many sports. The sad fact
is that unless there is an extreme element to it,
most of those "sports" have reached critical
mass as far as participation levels are concerned.
The exceptions, indoor motocross freestyle jumping,
street luge and such all seem to have a few common
threads. You can get seriously messed up doing it, there is
a way to know,attach yourself to the participant and
get a rush vicariously thru the actions of others.

Soaring needs TV time. To get it it is goint to
have to compete with stuff like I mentioned until
it gets to a critical mass of participation.

I can think of no better example then PROFESSIONAL
DART TOSSING, live from Ceasars Palace....

Why on earth does this work? Because of the HUGE
installed base of 25cent a game dart boards in almost
any bar/pool hall I've seen. There are a BUNCH
of people doing it.

Soaring doesn't have this installed base of viewers, so it needs
to get extreme or edgy. REVIVE the Smirnov derby. Cross country
racing gliders is really no different than cross country racing antique
cars.
There is the equipment story, the pilot story, the where an I going to land
story all of which can be twisted into TV drama. THATS what needs to
happen to get the exposure. Give an advertiser a vehicle to hook a
viewer to sell his stuff.

Sorry to be so long winded.

Scott.

[Nyal Williams]

At 16:30 30 January 2005, Plasticguy wrote:
>In another thread it was noted that Television
>drives (apparently) many sports. The sad fact
>is that unless there is an extreme element to it,
>most of those 'sports' have reached critical
>mass as far as participation levels are concerned.
>The exceptions, indoor motocross freestyle jumping,
>street luge and such all seem to have a few common
>threads. You can get seriously messed up doing it,
>there is
>a way to know,attach yourself to the participant and
>get a rush vicariously thru the actions of others.
>
>Soaring needs TV time. To get it it is goint to
>have to compete with stuff like I mentioned until
>it gets to a critical mass of participation.
>
>I can think of no better example then PROFESSIONAL
>DART TOSSING, live from Ceasars Palace....
>
>Why on earth does this work? Because of the HUGE
>installed base of 25cent a game dart boards in almost
>any bar/pool hall I've seen. There are a BUNCH
>of people doing it.
>
>Soaring doesn't have this installed base of viewers,
>so it needs
>to get extreme or edgy. REVIVE the Smirnov derby.
> Cross country
>racing gliders is really no different than cross country
>racing antique
>cars.
>There is the equipment story, the pilot story, the
>where an I going to land
>story all of which can be twisted into TV drama. THATS
>what needs to
>happen to get the exposure. Give an advertiser a vehicle
>to hook a
>viewer to sell his stuff.
>
>Sorry to be so long winded.
>
>Scott,

You should go back and read John Shelton's posts.
He tried very hard to take us down that path and he
hit a stone wall.

My own observation is that those sports are not overseen
by the FAA or other governmental agencies. We can't
get too edgy and yet proclaim to the world and the
bureaucracy that we are a safe, sane sport that doesn't
need to be regulated out of the sky. Those sports
are localized within boundaries that everyone recognizes
(if you are threatened or frightened by them, stay
out of the building). We fly over the heads of an
unsuspecting public and they get paranoid and demand
that the politicians protect them from us.

[Mark James Boyd]

I think any kind of targeted marketing will always do better
than any generally aimed aviation publicity.

Every single pilot I have ever met, power, glider,
helicopter, etc. all have one thing always in common:
they did SOMETHING in psuedo-aviation before getting
into FAA aviation.

Model aircraft, junior Civil Air Patrol, ultralights,
NASA space camp, visiting aviation museums, subscriptions
to aviation magazines/organization newsletter,
aviation related school courses, working the fuel truck
at the airport, etc.

I have recruited students from each one of these places
and gotten them to fly in an actual aircraft.

Sure, the walk-ins are important too. We had a family of
5 walk in yesterday, and we took one of the kids and
stuck him in the PW-2 with the goggles on and the family
laughed a lot and took a picture. And we gave a ride to
another friend who came with a pilot. Because all the
instructors were booked, we had her fly with one of our
Private Pilot - glider guys who'd been checked out for
backseat. They split the cost ( $37/2 ) and both had
a blast.

I worked the angles hard yesterday trying to get as
many people in the air as I could. I've noticed a LOT
of times people are just milling about. Like any
social setting, it just takes a catalyst. I say "how
'bout you go up with me," or I say "hey, I'm still
workin' with ground prep, why don't you get together
with Jerry/Jonathan/Roque/Mike/Joe and they'll
show you how it's done?"

Do you have 5 guys hangin' out a lot who are pilots but
not instructors? Have you checked them out in the
back seat? Do they understand how to brief brand
new passengers who've never flown in anything before?
Do they take airsick bags, keep the flights short,
do flights in nice smooth air, let the passenger pull the
release so it doesn't go unexpectedly BANG?
Can they give a nice, short, enjoyable flight?

Do these guys appreciate that they can fly twice as
much because they can split the direct cost with a passenger?

Then get them up there! I think they're more
impressed when they go up with a regular ol' license
holder than a CFIG anyway. I think because some people
have their first flight with a CFI they subconsciously
think only CFIs can carry passengers.
I know it sounds silly, but I've noticed a difference...

Get 'em in the air!

In article >,
plasticguy > wrote:
>In another thread it was noted that Television
>drives (apparently) many sports. The sad fact
>is that unless there is an extreme element to it,
>most of those "sports" have reached critical
>mass as far as participation levels are concerned.
>The exceptions, indoor motocross freestyle jumping,
>street luge and such all seem to have a few common
>threads. You can get seriously messed up doing it, there is
>a way to know,attach yourself to the participant and
>get a rush vicariously thru the actions of others.
>
>Soaring needs TV time. To get it it is goint to
>have to compete with stuff like I mentioned until
>it gets to a critical mass of participation.
>
>I can think of no better example then PROFESSIONAL
>DART TOSSING, live from Ceasars Palace....
>
>Why on earth does this work? Because of the HUGE
>installed base of 25cent a game dart boards in almost
>any bar/pool hall I've seen. There are a BUNCH
>of people doing it.
>
>Soaring doesn't have this installed base of viewers, so it needs
>to get extreme or edgy. REVIVE the Smirnov derby. Cross country
>racing gliders is really no different than cross country racing antique
>cars.
>There is the equipment story, the pilot story, the where an I going to land
>story all of which can be twisted into TV drama. THATS what needs to
>happen to get the exposure. Give an advertiser a vehicle to hook a
>viewer to sell his stuff.
>
>Sorry to be so long winded.
>
>Scott.
>
>


--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

Well, ultralights are just barely regulated by the federal
government, and their numbers are perhaps roughly the
same as soaring. The difference is that they hand out
"Basic Flight Instructor" certifications much more
readily.

If there is one part of the FAA regulation that has really
confounded this whole thing, it has been the barriers to entry for
instructors. And the barriers to Airplane instructors are
important too, because there is a lot of instructor spillover.

Sport pilot fixes this, some.

Before:
------------------
Airplane SEL Private Pilot Practical Test
Airplane SEL Instrument Practical Test
Airplane SEL Commercial Practical Test
Airplane SEL Instructor Practical Test
Glider Private Pilot Practical Test
Glider Commercial Practical Test
Glider Instructor Practical Test

Airplane SEL Private Pilot written test
Airplane Commercial written test
Airplane Instrument written test
Airplane Instructor written test
Glider instructor written test


After Sport Pilot:
------------------
Sport, Recreational, or Private Practical Test in any cat/class
Sport Pilot Instructor Practical Test in any cat/class

SP written test in any cat/class
SP Instructor written test in any cat/class

Add any new cat/class to your Sport Pilot instructor privileges
by flying with 2 CFIs and having them endorse you.

Seven practical tests with a DPE, and five written tests?
vs.
2 practical tests and two written tests.

There's a lot of crossover from airplane instructors to
glider instructors, so this is relevant.

If you're reading this and you can't see how reducing
the number of tests to about one-third is a significant
reduction to barriers to entry, then I'm surprised.

I for one see this as an opportunity to get the
younger crowds who like less "hassle" into flying.
And in slow, easy to fly aircraft, it doesn't bother me
a bit that they won't go through 12 FAA mandated tests to
get there.

Grow your pool of instructors! If you have to, snatch them
from the 80,000 airplane CFIs, and transition them to glider instructors
under the sport pilot rules without taking a practical test.
And get them a 2-33 or SZD 50-3 to fly.

I know, I know, it's kind of like asking the grass to grow faster :)

In article >,
Nyal Williams > wrote:
>At 16:30 30 January 2005, Plasticguy wrote:
>>In another thread it was noted that Television
>>drives (apparently) many sports. The sad fact
>>is that unless there is an extreme element to it,
>>most of those 'sports' have reached critical
>>mass as far as participation levels are concerned.
>>The exceptions, indoor motocross freestyle jumping,
>>street luge and such all seem to have a few common
>>threads. You can get seriously messed up doing it,
>>there is
>>a way to know,attach yourself to the participant and
>>get a rush vicariously thru the actions of others.
>>
>>Soaring needs TV time. To get it it is goint to
>>have to compete with stuff like I mentioned until
>>it gets to a critical mass of participation.
>>
>>I can think of no better example then PROFESSIONAL
>>DART TOSSING, live from Ceasars Palace....
>>
>>Why on earth does this work? Because of the HUGE
>>installed base of 25cent a game dart boards in almost
>>any bar/pool hall I've seen. There are a BUNCH
>>of people doing it.
>>
>>Soaring doesn't have this installed base of viewers,
>>so it needs
>>to get extreme or edgy. REVIVE the Smirnov derby.
>> Cross country
>>racing gliders is really no different than cross country
>>racing antique
>>cars.
>>There is the equipment story, the pilot story, the
>>where an I going to land
>>story all of which can be twisted into TV drama. THATS
>>what needs to
>>happen to get the exposure. Give an advertiser a vehicle
>>to hook a
>>viewer to sell his stuff.
>>
>>Sorry to be so long winded.
>>
>>Scott,
>
>You should go back and read John Shelton's posts.
>He tried very hard to take us down that path and he
>hit a stone wall.
>
>My own observation is that those sports are not overseen
>by the FAA or other governmental agencies. We can't
>get too edgy and yet proclaim to the world and the
>bureaucracy that we are a safe, sane sport that doesn't
>need to be regulated out of the sky. Those sports
>are localized within boundaries that everyone recognizes
>(if you are threatened or frightened by them, stay
>out of the building). We fly over the heads of an
>unsuspecting public and they get paranoid and demand
>that the politicians protect them from us.
>
>
>


--

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

[f.blair]

I don't think that the current procedures and regs should be viewed as a
"barrier" for new instructors. I worked very hard to become an Instructor
and want new Instructors to have the same type of training. Even with all
my work and continual studying, I still know that there are things that I
can improve on.

Lessening the requirements would only lead to bad training and more
accidents. The goal is not to have more people in the air, but more well
trained people in the air.

Fred Blair

> same as soaring. The difference is that they hand out
> "Basic Flight Instructor" certifications much more
> readily.
>
> If there is one part of the FAA regulation that has really
> confounded this whole thing, it has been the barriers to entry for
> instructors. And the barriers to Airplane instructors are
> important too, because there is a lot of instructor spillover.
>

[Centurion]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

** Snipped **

> Do you have 5 guys hangin' out a lot who are pilots but
> not instructors? Have you checked them out in the
> back seat? Do they understand how to brief brand
> new passengers who've never flown in anything before?
> Do they take airsick bags, keep the flights short,
> do flights in nice smooth air,
> let the passenger pull the release so it doesn't go unexpectedly BANG?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a very interesting point. I've been flying for almost 20 years,
been an airline pilot and flying instructor, but never been passenger rated
in a glider. Everything else you mentioned I sat here nodding knowingly
(been there, done that, cleaned the chunder from the panel...), until the
point about the cable release.

Have to remember that when I get pax rated soon ;) Or at least make sure
they (the punters) know exactly what to expect if club policy wont allow a
"non-pilot" to pull the bung.

Cheers,

James
--
You've been leading a dog's life. Stay off the furniture.

[BTIZ]

"Centurion" > wrote in message
...
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> ** Snipped **
>
>> Do you have 5 guys hangin' out a lot who are pilots but
>> not instructors? Have you checked them out in the
>> back seat? Do they understand how to brief brand
>> new passengers who've never flown in anything before?
>> Do they take airsick bags, keep the flights short,
>> do flights in nice smooth air,
>> let the passenger pull the release so it doesn't go unexpectedly BANG?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is a very interesting point. I've been flying for almost 20 years,
> been an airline pilot and flying instructor, but never been passenger
> rated
> in a glider. Everything else you mentioned I sat here nodding knowingly
> (been there, done that, cleaned the chunder from the panel...), until the
> point about the cable release.
>
> Have to remember that when I get pax rated soon ;) Or at least make sure
> they (the punters) know exactly what to expect if club policy wont allow a
> "non-pilot" to pull the bung.
> Cheers,
> James
> You've been leading a dog's life. Stay off the furniture.

Most clubs and insurance companies would look at this type of operation as a
"Demo" flight and require a Commercial rated glider pilot to "give the ride"
as stated in the insurance policy. I think the only way you could actually
do a "shared expense ride" with a Private Pilot, would be if the Pvt PIC
actually knew the person before that day, and was not taking the "ride" for
a flight except at the suggestion of someone else and not have it questioned
by the insurance company in the event of an incident.

I'll agree that the original suggestion did not differentiate between Comm
or Pvt, just the "back seat checkout", and yes.. we also require back seat
checkouts on all our pilots who wish to exercise PIC privileges from the aft
pilot compartment.

When flying the SGS 2-33, the release is a BANG if "soft release techniques"
are not used
with the Grob103, it is more of a thud.. but then again.. soft release and
almost nothing is heard.

BT

[stephanevdv]

Sometimes I wonder if soaring hasn't already reached a kind of critical
mass.

Apart from other competing interests and local availability factors,
the cost will always limit many people in their endeavours to become a
soaring pilot.

To get the costs down sufficiently to really interest a new kind of
public, you would have to multiply the number of sailplanes and pilots
so much, that our already cluttered airspace would be completely
saturated.


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

[Eric Greenwell]

stephanevdv wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder if soaring hasn't already reached a kind of critical
> mass.
>
> Apart from other competing interests and local availability factors,
> the cost will always limit many people in their endeavours to become a
> soaring pilot.
>
> To get the costs down sufficiently to really interest a new kind of
> public, you would have to multiply the number of sailplanes and pilots
> so much, that our already cluttered airspace would be completely
> saturated.

Surely you aren't talking about Australian airspace? Or USA airspace for
that matter. Europe maybe?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Nyal Williams]

At 12:00 01 February 2005, Stephanevdv wrote:
>
>Sometimes I wonder if soaring hasn't already reached
>a kind of critical
>mass.
>
>Apart from other competing interests and local availability
>factors,
>the cost will always limit many people in their endeavours
>to become a
>soaring pilot.
>
>To get the costs down sufficiently to really interest
>a new kind of
>public, you would have to multiply the number of sailplanes
>and pilots
>so much, that our already cluttered airspace would
>be completely
>saturated.
>
>
>--
>stephanevdv

Lots of truth in that statment; we can't expect the
numbers to quadruple.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>------
>Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au
>]
>- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when,
>why, or what they fly -
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

Fred,

I agree completely since I worked hard to become an instructor too.
And I wnat new instructors to have the same type of training. And
I want them to meet the same standards I met.

What I don't want is barriers to new instructors that have NOTHING
to do with meeting that standard. Having to schedule months out for
a DPE test, not having a DPE within 200 miles to give the test,
having no idea what the weather or glider or towplane or topilot
or own medical capability will be several months away all are barriers
that have nothing to do with maintaining the standards.

Let me give you an example of "barriers." I recently wanted to
get checked out as an instructor in the back seat of a G103 at
a local club. I called the regular instructor, and she mentioned she
was having an unexpected adverse reaction to a medication and couldn't
fly. I called the club, and the towplane was in annual, which may
be completed that day. But even if it was, the other instructor
was going to be busy training a new towpilot, since two towpilots
had recently quit.

Imagine if I had scheduled several weeks out for a practical test.
No towplane, no towpilot, and no examiner. And a delayed practical test.
How does this improve the standards or training of the student?

Now a contrast. I had me, a second instructor, a towplane, pilot,
student, good weather, and freshly annualled 2-33 just coincidentally at
the gliderport. We happened to have an 8710-11 and a FAR/AIM handy.

The student was an ASEL pilot transitioning to gliders, and
had soloed the 2-33. The other CFIG did a few more flights with him,
signed him off for a "Sport Pilot proficiency check for glider"
and then I flew with him. His flights were flawless, and he met
every standard in the Sport Pilot PTS close enough that I couldn't
see a single mistake.

What would have been gained by having him pay $250 instead?
And scheduling 2-8 weeks out? Nothing. Just hassles, breakdowns,
and barriers to entry.

Instead he's happy, we're happy, and since he is a college professor,
we're trying to convince him to become a CFIG. He's so amped
up on the VALUE he has gotten, he is looking to become more active in our
club.

Fred, I think there are many, many barriers in our sport that
do nothing to improve or even maintain safety or standards.
The perhaps 50 to 1 ratio of instructors to examiners is one barrier.

Other barriers include not enough instructors, or perfectly safe and
flyable aircraft that are out of annual waiting for an IA.

Sport Pilot allows a reduction in barriers, with what I percieve
as NO reduction in standards. And Light Sport Aircraft allows a
reduction in barriers to maintenance, again with what I consider no
reduction in standards or safety.

Morris Yoder has been building dozens of powered parachutes for
customers for over a decade. Now the FAA wants him to take the A&P
written and practical tests so he can become a DAR. Morris asked me
why the FAA wants him to study how to reskin aluminum wings,
or study turbines, to work on powered parachutes?

Barriers to entry. No added safety. No added skill. Pure and
simple just some blanket requirement. The Man, getting you down.

I told Morris to just keep making the FAA inspector come out, time and
time again, and look blankly at the vehicle he knows little about,
and look to Morris every so often to see if he nods yes or no.

After a few months of this pointless exercise, the FAA will
issue a special letter of authorization so Morris can be a DAR,
and common-sense will once again reign...

Fred, I suggest that making something harder to do doesn't
necessarily mean the standards are higher. Sometimes it's just a barrier...

In article t>,
f.blair > wrote:
>I don't think that the current procedures and regs should be viewed as a
>"barrier" for new instructors. I worked very hard to become an Instructor
>and want new Instructors to have the same type of training. Even with all
>my work and continual studying, I still know that there are things that I
>can improve on.
>
>Lessening the requirements would only lead to bad training and more
>accidents. The goal is not to have more people in the air, but more well
>trained people in the air.
>
>Fred Blair
>
>> same as soaring. The difference is that they hand out
>> "Basic Flight Instructor" certifications much more
>> readily.
>>
>> If there is one part of the FAA regulation that has really
>> confounded this whole thing, it has been the barriers to entry for
>> instructors. And the barriers to Airplane instructors are
>> important too, because there is a lot of instructor spillover.
>>
>
>


--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

I guess we all know each other so well, and our 2-33 is so
easy to fly, and the terrain is so flat and landable in every
direction, and our towpilot so experienced, that we
tend to get lax.

I have no idea what our insurer thinks. Other than sending them checks,
I don't think we've ever talked to them.

I've never heard of an insurer denying coverage for a flight
where a private pilot paid at least his fair share of the direct costs,
regardless of how long he'd known the passenger. I'd sure like
to hear an example of this in a glider. When I was a Private Pilot,
I flew plenty and split costs with passengers.

But come to think of it, I've never had any insurance claims :)

In article <87CLd.791$Tt.788@fed1read05>,
BTIZ > wrote:
>"Centurion" > wrote in message
...
>> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>
>> ** Snipped **
>>
>>> Do you have 5 guys hangin' out a lot who are pilots but
>>> not instructors? Have you checked them out in the
>>> back seat? Do they understand how to brief brand
>>> new passengers who've never flown in anything before?
>>> Do they take airsick bags, keep the flights short,
>>> do flights in nice smooth air,
>>> let the passenger pull the release so it doesn't go unexpectedly BANG?
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> This is a very interesting point. I've been flying for almost 20 years,
>> been an airline pilot and flying instructor, but never been passenger
>> rated
>> in a glider. Everything else you mentioned I sat here nodding knowingly
>> (been there, done that, cleaned the chunder from the panel...), until the
>> point about the cable release.
>>
>> Have to remember that when I get pax rated soon ;) Or at least make sure
>> they (the punters) know exactly what to expect if club policy wont allow a
>> "non-pilot" to pull the bung.
>> Cheers,
>> James
>> You've been leading a dog's life. Stay off the furniture.
>
>Most clubs and insurance companies would look at this type of operation as a
>"Demo" flight and require a Commercial rated glider pilot to "give the ride"
>as stated in the insurance policy. I think the only way you could actually
>do a "shared expense ride" with a Private Pilot, would be if the Pvt PIC
>actually knew the person before that day, and was not taking the "ride" for
>a flight except at the suggestion of someone else and not have it questioned
>by the insurance company in the event of an incident.
>
>I'll agree that the original suggestion did not differentiate between Comm
>or Pvt, just the "back seat checkout", and yes.. we also require back seat
>checkouts on all our pilots who wish to exercise PIC privileges from the aft
>pilot compartment.
>
>When flying the SGS 2-33, the release is a BANG if "soft release techniques"
>are not used
>with the Grob103, it is more of a thud.. but then again.. soft release and
>almost nothing is heard.
>
>BT
>
>


--

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

[John Shelton]

The numbers will continue to shrink in the current environment.

BUT, there is a way that soaring can move into the forefront. And, in this
way, the numbers of pilots could indeed quadruple. But the status quo itself
is the main impediment. There are too many entities that have a vested
interest in keeping things exactly the same...presiding over their own
eventual disappearance.

It is not that these entities know what they are doing. In fact, they are
just trying to survive in some cases and doing what they see are the best
methods for improving and expanding the sport. In any endeavor, the
establishment acts in this manner.

And, in any endeavor with a steady input of youth, the status quo is
eventually either replaced or swept aside. As one of many, many examples,
take snowboards. Skills derived from skateboarding went to the ski slopes
over the dead bodies of the skiers. Now, the growth is in shredding, not
skiing. It is not because the establishment of skiers decided to switch. It
is because the young wanted them out of the way and when they did not move,
they were ignored.

This analogy can be replaced with dozens more but how does it apply to
soaring and what I see as a dilemna in participation? I think a similar act
by ANY young pilots could revive the sport...or reverse it in certain ways.
First, they must ignore sailplane racing as it exists today. It is, in fact,
a baseball game being played with a corked bat.

First, a hundred grand for an airplane that you cannot fly but four months a
year is a luxury and one that youth cannot afford and most people cannot
justify. It is hard enough justifying an airplane that actually goes places.
Sailboats can sail year round even if they don't. There are cheaper
alternatives, though. The 13M ship is that alternatives. Still not cheap, it
costs less than many of the cars that kids drive today.

But how can a less capable aircraft compete against more capable ones? It
cannot. So screw them. Play your own game. Instead of competing in "vacation
eating", death-march-tasked boredom festivals in desolate back country, hold
sprint races wherever you can find lift.

A Sprint Race (invented by ME) involves a few aircraft starting in a
cylinder at the same time (yes, i know the Euros are doing something similar
now but I proposed it long before them), flying a short task (to quarter
mile AST turnpoints) designed to last no more than an hour and a half, and
finishing at a FINISH LINE in front of the gate/audience/crews. The time
limit is important for several reasons; not the least of which is the
boredom that exists back at the strip while you are out in your ship
scratching around in two knots. Fellows: She isn't coming back out to help
you ever again after you put her through that. But if she doesn't have to
commit the family vacation and the entire lifestyle, gets to visit with
other people who are excited about a race they are watching, then she just
might. And with 30:1 ships, you just might need a crew again.....

The ships and trailers will be painted in a variety of bright colors and
covered with vinyl advertisements not unlike the vehicles of the most
popular sport in America. If one wants to push it, then the production
methods proposed by me for a televised race bought by Fox to be shown ten
times could be employed. Lipstick cameras, camera ships, computer images
(held to a minimum) and all that stuff could be used to create a venue that
is watchable, exciting and inviting...especially when a young pilot crawls
out of the winning ship to stand on the podium to collect his/her check and
put his Red Bull cap on for the cameras to see.

It is a race that favors skill just like it does now. You have to find lift.
You have to have situation awareness. You have to practice. But you don't
need anyone to call a PST so you can stay in the lead over a week of racing.
The guy in front is in the lead. Got it? Like a RACE! Local eliminations
create a hierarchy that competes in the Nationals.

In two years, I could have the National Champion of Sprint Racing on the
front cover of Outside Magazine. That's when it would quadruple. Sky Racing.
Cloud Sprints. Skyluges. Not gliders. Crash helmets. Not silly old man's
doofus hats. Reflexes. Not reflection. And the cool thing is that there is
no reason that the same people cannot compete. It just favors gamblers a
little more than bookies like the current thing does.

No. It's not the kindly old gentleman's sport that is now dying of
constipation. But, on the other hand, it kicks ass. It is something that
someone (spelled A M E R I C A N) would want to do. We couldn't beat the
Euros at open wheel Formula One racing. So what did we do? We started drag
racing. Honestly, the idea of being alone way the hell out in nowhere while
all my friends are getting laid is not exactly what I have in mind for a fun
weekend. On the other hand, winners get laid. Right. Get laid.

Don't be so naive as to ask what the relevance of that phrase is to growth,
attraction of youth, attraction of sponsors and money, or survival of the
fittest sport. Winners get laid and they get rewarded and they get famous.
Think about all the dead guys you know in soaring while I think about all
the dead guys I know in aviation in general. The other guys were trying to
make money, win a prize, or do the impossible. In soaring, you can lose big
but you cannot ever win big.

Cost too much for what you get. Requires too much time for what you get.
Involves too risk for what you get. It is not all those things that everyone
says about money, time and risk. It is WHAT YOU GET that your fellow
Americans don't recognize as worth it. Ever notice how their eyes glaze over
when you try to tell them about the beauty of flying with an eagle? Now tell
them about passing someone in the final stretch of a race in your bright red
Sparrowhawk to finish just out of the money and see how they follow every
word. They are the market.

Duh.

So, we have the manufacturers of 13M gliders. They have to wait until the
infrastructure creates enough pilots before they start to sell gliders in
any numbers. And the infrastructure cannot do it. And the status quo will
just want to start yet another class thereby burying these less capable
machines. No. If they want to sell, they have to sell into their own sport
with their own marketing. And they need someone like me to do it. Otherwise,
they will be a minor footnote. They must separate now, in my not so humble
opinion.

Ahhh. That felt good.

[Mark James Boyd]

Say, John,

Have you seen the latest gliders? $4,000 and they look real, real cool.
Well, at least the pilot and the FAA think it's a glider.
But don't tell anybody, ok, this will just be our little secret...shhhhh

www.soe.ucsc.edu/~mjboyd/cfi/glider/QuicksilverGlider.jpg

Shhhhhh...

In article et>,
John Shelton > wrote:
>The numbers will continue to shrink in the current environment.
>
>BUT, there is a way that soaring can move into the forefront. And, in this
>way, the numbers of pilots could indeed quadruple. But the status quo itself
>is the main impediment. There are too many entities that have a vested
>interest in keeping things exactly the same...presiding over their own
>eventual disappearance.
>
>It is not that these entities know what they are doing. In fact, they are
>just trying to survive in some cases and doing what they see are the best
>methods for improving and expanding the sport. In any endeavor, the
>establishment acts in this manner.
>
>And, in any endeavor with a steady input of youth, the status quo is
>eventually either replaced or swept aside. As one of many, many examples,
>take snowboards. Skills derived from skateboarding went to the ski slopes
>over the dead bodies of the skiers. Now, the growth is in shredding, not
>skiing. It is not because the establishment of skiers decided to switch. It
>is because the young wanted them out of the way and when they did not move,
>they were ignored.
>
>This analogy can be replaced with dozens more but how does it apply to
>soaring and what I see as a dilemna in participation? I think a similar act
>by ANY young pilots could revive the sport...or reverse it in certain ways.
>First, they must ignore sailplane racing as it exists today. It is, in fact,
>a baseball game being played with a corked bat.
>
>First, a hundred grand for an airplane that you cannot fly but four months a
>year is a luxury and one that youth cannot afford and most people cannot
>justify. It is hard enough justifying an airplane that actually goes places.
>Sailboats can sail year round even if they don't. There are cheaper
>alternatives, though. The 13M ship is that alternatives. Still not cheap, it
>costs less than many of the cars that kids drive today.
>
>But how can a less capable aircraft compete against more capable ones? It
>cannot. So screw them. Play your own game. Instead of competing in "vacation
>eating", death-march-tasked boredom festivals in desolate back country, hold
>sprint races wherever you can find lift.
>
>A Sprint Race (invented by ME) involves a few aircraft starting in a
>cylinder at the same time (yes, i know the Euros are doing something similar
>now but I proposed it long before them), flying a short task (to quarter
>mile AST turnpoints) designed to last no more than an hour and a half, and
>finishing at a FINISH LINE in front of the gate/audience/crews. The time
>limit is important for several reasons; not the least of which is the
>boredom that exists back at the strip while you are out in your ship
>scratching around in two knots. Fellows: She isn't coming back out to help
>you ever again after you put her through that. But if she doesn't have to
>commit the family vacation and the entire lifestyle, gets to visit with
>other people who are excited about a race they are watching, then she just
>might. And with 30:1 ships, you just might need a crew again.....
>
>The ships and trailers will be painted in a variety of bright colors and
>covered with vinyl advertisements not unlike the vehicles of the most
>popular sport in America. If one wants to push it, then the production
>methods proposed by me for a televised race bought by Fox to be shown ten
>times could be employed. Lipstick cameras, camera ships, computer images
>(held to a minimum) and all that stuff could be used to create a venue that
>is watchable, exciting and inviting...especially when a young pilot crawls
>out of the winning ship to stand on the podium to collect his/her check and
>put his Red Bull cap on for the cameras to see.
>
>It is a race that favors skill just like it does now. You have to find lift.
>You have to have situation awareness. You have to practice. But you don't
>need anyone to call a PST so you can stay in the lead over a week of racing.
>The guy in front is in the lead. Got it? Like a RACE! Local eliminations
>create a hierarchy that competes in the Nationals.
>
>In two years, I could have the National Champion of Sprint Racing on the
>front cover of Outside Magazine. That's when it would quadruple. Sky Racing.
>Cloud Sprints. Skyluges. Not gliders. Crash helmets. Not silly old man's
>doofus hats. Reflexes. Not reflection. And the cool thing is that there is
>no reason that the same people cannot compete. It just favors gamblers a
>little more than bookies like the current thing does.
>
>No. It's not the kindly old gentleman's sport that is now dying of
>constipation. But, on the other hand, it kicks ass. It is something that
>someone (spelled A M E R I C A N) would want to do. We couldn't beat the
>Euros at open wheel Formula One racing. So what did we do? We started drag
>racing. Honestly, the idea of being alone way the hell out in nowhere while
>all my friends are getting laid is not exactly what I have in mind for a fun
>weekend. On the other hand, winners get laid. Right. Get laid.
>
>Don't be so naive as to ask what the relevance of that phrase is to growth,
>attraction of youth, attraction of sponsors and money, or survival of the
>fittest sport. Winners get laid and they get rewarded and they get famous.
>Think about all the dead guys you know in soaring while I think about all
>the dead guys I know in aviation in general. The other guys were trying to
>make money, win a prize, or do the impossible. In soaring, you can lose big
>but you cannot ever win big.
>
>Cost too much for what you get. Requires too much time for what you get.
>Involves too risk for what you get. It is not all those things that everyone
>says about money, time and risk. It is WHAT YOU GET that your fellow
>Americans don't recognize as worth it. Ever notice how their eyes glaze over
>when you try to tell them about the beauty of flying with an eagle? Now tell
>them about passing someone in the final stretch of a race in your bright red
>Sparrowhawk to finish just out of the money and see how they follow every
>word. They are the market.
>
>Duh.
>
>So, we have the manufacturers of 13M gliders. They have to wait until the
>infrastructure creates enough pilots before they start to sell gliders in
>any numbers. And the infrastructure cannot do it. And the status quo will
>just want to start yet another class thereby burying these less capable
>machines. No. If they want to sell, they have to sell into their own sport
>with their own marketing. And they need someone like me to do it. Otherwise,
>they will be a minor footnote. They must separate now, in my not so humble
>opinion.
>
>Ahhh. That felt good.
>
>


--

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

[Steve Hill]

Dear John...( I've always liked that line)

It sounds like you have this all thought and planned out...why don't you
just proceed and get your contest going...? I mean, it's not as though you
need permission from us to do it. Plan the event and go to town. It's sort
of an "If you build it, they will come" type of approach. Setup the contest,
and then start inviting everyone who qualifies to come participate. It could
work out well.

Of course I won't be able to participate because you've excluded me, due to
my extra few meters of wing and a bit more L/D...so I'll just sit and sulk
and apparently not get laid...

I guess my real thought, is that there is no single thing that's going to
change our sport, because there's no one single draw to the sport. For me,
it's time alone in the mountains, enjoying my sailplane and the majestic
scenery that is all mine. I don't expect you or anyone else to get it, but
for me it's enough to keep me coming back again and again. For others, it
clearly is about racing. Maybe by not frowning on the status quo, quite so
much, but offering alternative venues, you would have a positive impact,
without offending the die hard purists who will always have their own vision
of soaring. In my opinion, it's all good...just let's get guys butts in the
seats and work to reduce the hassle of accomplishing that goal...I really
believe growth will come in incremental ways.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly on one thing and that is that soaring is
more of an extreme sport, than an old fuddy duddy sport. We don't tout
enough, it's adventurous side...I know there's a million reasons for that,
but I think we should share a bit more of what it CAN be...than what it
isn't.


respectfully,


Steve.

[John Shelton]

Why frown at the status quo? Because even the stupidest person in soaring
knows that the numbers are not keeping up with either population growth or
leisure spending or public exposure of "extreme sports". That is almost a
pure definition of the phrase "it is NOT WORKING." If you do not grow, you
die. If you do not add on youth at a much greater rate than you lose to
death and drop outs, you die.

And, no, I don't need permission to do any of this. I need 6 or 8 ships. Got
some extra money? I need to promote it outside the "community". Got some
extra money, time, connections? I need to run headlong over the top of
almost everything in existence except the guys who sell Sectionals. Got an
infrastructure?

Bang. Bang. Bang. ouch! my head.

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Say, John,
>
> Have you seen the latest gliders? $4,000 and they look real, real cool.
> Well, at least the pilot and the FAA think it's a glider.
> But don't tell anybody, ok, this will just be our little secret...shhhhh

I doubt _anyone_ thinks it's a glider, but apparently they do registered
that way sometimes. It's certainly not going to work for what John wants
to do. It might serve to introduce pilots to slope soaring and
thermalling, especially if there are two seaters, and maybe this would
whet the appetite of someone for glider that could fly cross country (or
even just to the next thermal occasionally).

Potentially, having aircraft that aren't gliders being registered as
gliders could cause us problems, such as rules and regulations (FAA,
airport, insurance) that address their operation and safety record,
which could screw up sailplane operations. I think we've been lucky that
touring motorgliders have been included in the glider category for so
long without causing apparent problems, and maybe having ultralight
airplanes in the mix won't either. Maybe all the players will understand
these are gliders by registration only, and treat them appropriately,
rather that treating all registered gliders the same.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Stewart Kissel]

At 09:00 02 February 2005, John Shelton wrote:
>The numbers will continue to shrink in the current
>environment.

The elephant in the corner of the room no one seems
to want to acknowledge...I agree that you are unfortunately
correct.
>
As one of many, many examples,
>take snowboards. Skills derived from skateboarding
>went to the ski slopes
>over the dead bodies of the skiers. Now, the growth
>is in shredding, not
>skiing. It is not because the establishment of skiers
>decided to switch. It
>is because the young wanted them out of the way and
>when they did not move,
>they were ignored.

A beautiful analogy...skiers still don't get it. 70k
spectators at Aspen for WinterX, 1k at Vail being bored
watching World Cup.

Ever notice how their eyes glaze over
>when you try to tell them about the beauty of flying
>with an eagle? >


John, please never stop posting here...it gives some
of us hope. You definitely let the left brain work
on soaring...something it does not do enough. Personally
I think you are missing out on some other wonderful
competition scenarios..starting with the Ipaq Olympics...prettiest
colors, best able to reconfigure, most efficient use
of battery, cleanest cables, most cluttered and unusable
screen, to be most accurate this all happens on the
ground at the airport...where Ipaq pecking order seems
to be an attraction for many.

>So, >
>Ahhh. That felt good.
>
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

I think it's a glider. The pilot thinks it's a glider. The AC
defines it as a glider. The DAR thinks it's a glider. The FAA
thinks it's a glider. The instructor who signed him off
for self-launch thinks it's a glider.

And there are now at least several dozen ultralight pilots who
think it is a glider. Eric, if you're so sure it isn't a glider,
you better get in and STOP this craziness, before it ruins gliding!
Call and write the people who make the rules and tell them how
wrong it is to use span and weight calculations to define a glider.
And how wrong it is to use minimum sink as a parameter, and
how penetration is what really matters.

Of course, you might want to be careful. If you're too
convincing, they'll cancel making ultralights gliders, but
will start certifying jet airliners all as gliders. Then
you'll need a type rating and part 121 check to fly
your self-launcher!!!!

:P

Hmmm...thinking about John's idea, yeah I'd love to watch
a half dozen of these gliders jamming around a short triangle course
at Avenal. And a toilet paper cutting contest too...

But that's ok, Eric. If you don't want them, we'll take them.
After all, they have to spend their money SOMEWHERE, right?

:PPPPP

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> Say, John,
>>
>> Have you seen the latest gliders? $4,000 and they look real, real cool.
>> Well, at least the pilot and the FAA think it's a glider.
>> But don't tell anybody, ok, this will just be our little secret...shhhhh
>
>I doubt _anyone_ thinks it's a glider, but apparently they do registered
>that way sometimes. It's certainly not going to work for what John wants
>to do. It might serve to introduce pilots to slope soaring and
>thermalling, especially if there are two seaters, and maybe this would
>whet the appetite of someone for glider that could fly cross country (or
>even just to the next thermal occasionally).
>
>Potentially, having aircraft that aren't gliders being registered as
>gliders could cause us problems, such as rules and regulations (FAA,
>airport, insurance) that address their operation and safety record,
>which could screw up sailplane operations. I think we've been lucky that
>touring motorgliders have been included in the glider category for so
>long without causing apparent problems, and maybe having ultralight
>airplanes in the mix won't either. Maybe all the players will understand
>these are gliders by registration only, and treat them appropriately,
>rather that treating all registered gliders the same.
>
>--
>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA


--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

The actuaries think that these gliders are the same risk as even the
safest gliders available. Fortunately there are enough already registered
as experimentals they already have a track record.

Avemco quotes about $280 for the single seat Quicksilver glider,
about $330 for two seat Quicksilver glider.
1-800-874-9125 (I don't have any financial interest in this company,
but I am a customer).

This is similar to what it charges for the same coverage in 1-26 and 2-33.
And similar to the coverage of Baby Ace and Cessna 172.

The rates quoted are for basic liability only, $100,000/$400,000.

As far as I can tell, as an insurance outsider, it seems that
these gliders fall into the same "lowest risk group"
as the other aircraft mentioned.

Could there be a rash of accidents in Quicksilver gliders that
might damage the sport of gliding as a whole? Require transponders
and ELTs in all gliders? Perhaps. But I don't see this.

*******Transponders become mandatory?*******

If transponders (especially mode S) and ELTs end up becoming mandated
in gliders, I don't see the Quicksilver gliders being the cause.
If transponders become mandatory, I'd point my finger directly at
Delta, Continental, regional airlines, etc. The ones that brought
you the 10,000 foot limit for Rec pilot, and who have a large
number of "retirees" who are FSDO employess now. Get a list of your
local FSDO ASI names and check:
http://registry.faa.gov/amquery.asp

A typical entry:
ATP
Type ratings: A/AVR-146 A/BAE-146 A/EMB-110 A/EMB-120 A/SD-3

Many FAA ASIs have airline time. The thought of a non-transpondered
aircraft doing mach .05 while they are closing with 100+ passengers
at mach .50+ makes them a bit nervous even to talk about.

Fortunately for soaring, airliners seem to generally avoid turbulence,
while sailplanes seek it, so there seems to be some natural tendency
towards separation already. And something like the Quicksilver glider
just isn't going to fly above 10,000 anyway with the power on, since
the engine doesn't have that much UMPH!

I think if we see transponders, it will be TSA or maybe a jet/glider midair
precipitating it. I don't think Quicksilver is gonna make that happen...

>Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>>
>>Potentially, having aircraft that aren't gliders being registered as
>>gliders could cause us problems, such as rules and regulations (FAA,
>>airport, insurance) that address their operation and safety record,
>>which could screw up sailplane operations. I think we've been lucky that
>>touring motorgliders have been included in the glider category for so
>>long without causing apparent problems, and maybe having ultralight
>>airplanes in the mix won't either. Maybe all the players will understand
>>these are gliders by registration only, and treat them appropriately,
>>rather that treating all registered gliders the same.
>>
>>--
>>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>>Eric Greenwell
>>Washington State
>>USA
>
>
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd


--

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

[Tim.Ward]

John Shelton wrote:
<snippage>
>
> A Sprint Race (invented by ME) involves a few aircraft starting in a
> cylinder at the same time (yes, i know the Euros are doing something
similar
> now but I proposed it long before them), flying a short task (to
quarter
> mile AST turnpoints) designed to last no more than an hour and a
half, and
> finishing at a FINISH LINE in front of the gate/audience/crews. The
time
> limit is important for several reasons; not the least of which is the
> boredom that exists back at the strip while you are out in your ship
> scratching around in two knots. Fellows: She isn't coming back out to
help
> you ever again after you put her through that. But if she doesn't
have to
> commit the family vacation and the entire lifestyle, gets to visit
with
> other people who are excited about a race they are watching, then she
just
> might. And with 30:1 ships, you just might need a crew again.....
>
> The ships and trailers will be painted in a variety of bright colors
and
> covered with vinyl advertisements not unlike the vehicles of the most
> popular sport in America. If one wants to push it, then the
production
> methods proposed by me for a televised race bought by Fox to be shown
ten
> times could be employed. Lipstick cameras, camera ships, computer
images
> (held to a minimum) and all that stuff could be used to create a
venue that
> is watchable, exciting and inviting...especially when a young pilot
crawls
> out of the winning ship to stand on the podium to collect his/her
check and
> put his Red Bull cap on for the cameras to see.

Gee, John. It sounds like you're volunteering to CD the 1-26
Championships.
We already have "Soaring in full color". (Buy the T-shirt at the 1-26
site). It's not 30:1, but hey, put 'em in the Owens Valley in the
summertime (so you have those spectacular Sierra views and booming
lift), and nobody at home will know the difference.
Not a laminar flow wing, so put all the sponsor stickers you can afford
on 'em. A vinyl edge here and there won't hurt a thing but the gross
weight.
You can even mention that getting into competition with these things is
cheaper than some hang gliders. (The ATOS VX is about 15 grand US, a
good 1-26 is probably less than 10. That difference even pays for the
instruction, for most people.

Tim Ward

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:


>
> Could there be a rash of accidents in Quicksilver gliders that
> might damage the sport of gliding as a whole? Require transponders
> and ELTs in all gliders? Perhaps. But I don't see this.
>
> *******Transponders become mandatory?*******
>
> If transponders (especially mode S) and ELTs end up becoming mandated
> in gliders, I don't see the Quicksilver gliders being the cause.

It would depend on the numbers, I think. A few hundred won't enlarge the
number "gliders" flying, and hence the increased risk of causing a
serious accident that would be attributed to a glider are small. But if
a few thousand become "gliders"...

Any idea of the numbers we might be talking about? How many Quicksilver
type aircraft are there out there?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

I meant to write

>The ASTM standards committee for gliders could perhaps attract
>these Quicksilver aircraft to become SLSA Gliders instead of
>certifying as

AIRPLANES.

Sorry...

In article <4202b0be$1@darkstar>, Mark James Boyd > wrote:
>I believe there are thousands of kits that have been sold.
>In the current FAA climate, I think at most dozens of them
>will become experimental-amatuer built or ELSA gliders
>by 2010.
>
>Anywhere from hundreds to thousands will become ex-AB or ELSA
>or SLSA airplanes by 2010.
>
>The ASTM standards committee for gliders could perhaps attract
>these Quicksilver aircraft to become SLSA Gliders instead of
>certifying as aircraft.
>
>The upside for gliding is growth and a lot of glider takeoffs
>and landings at airports that attract funds by numbers of operations.
>
>The upside for the Quicksilvers is the reduced equipment requirements,
>access to runways which are friendly to lightweight
>aircraft, and a community with something to share.
>
>If ASA wanted to push for them to come into the glider fold,
>I think these disenfranchised Ultralight pilots
>would slowly enter our ranks and be grateful.
>
>But this may just be a case of water and oil. I personally
>find the LSA stuff fascinating for the same reasons
>I like soaring. But there seem to be quite a few glider
>pilots who seem to prefer the status quo.
>
>If left without any catalyst, the Quicksilver gliders will
>end up being very, very few. With a catalyst, they
>could number perhaps a thousand, or a few thousand if SLSA,
>best case.
>
>I don't know which SHOULD happen. But there is
>an opportunity here that deserves a look anyway.
>
>In article >,
>Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Could there be a rash of accidents in Quicksilver gliders that
>>> might damage the sport of gliding as a whole? Require transponders
>>> and ELTs in all gliders? Perhaps. But I don't see this.
>>>
>>> *******Transponders become mandatory?*******
>>>
>>> If transponders (especially mode S) and ELTs end up becoming mandated
>>> in gliders, I don't see the Quicksilver gliders being the cause.
>>
>>It would depend on the numbers, I think. A few hundred won't enlarge the
>>number "gliders" flying, and hence the increased risk of causing a
>>serious accident that would be attributed to a glider are small. But if
>>a few thousand become "gliders"...
>>
>>Any idea of the numbers we might be talking about? How many Quicksilver
>>type aircraft are there out there?
>>
>>
>>--
>>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>>Eric Greenwell
>>Washington State
>>USA
>
>
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd


--

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> I think it's a glider.

Really? If that's a glider, then the term "glider" is a worthless one,
isn't it? It becomes the name of catch-all category, not a description
of the aircraft.

The pilot thinks it's a glider.

Why does the pilot think it's a glider? Has he never seen even a 2-33?

> The AC
> defines it as a glider. The DAR thinks it's a glider.

He may accept is as fitting in the glider category, but I doubt that he
thinks it's a glider.

> The FAA
> thinks it's a glider.

And I'm sure they know it's not a glider, but some of them are willing
to go along with registering it that way.

> The instructor who signed him off
> for self-launch thinks it's a glider.

I'd like to hear the instructor say that with a straight face.

>
> And there are now at least several dozen ultralight pilots who
> think it is a glider.

I suspect they are also willing to go along with the charade. Bonus
time! It doesn't have to make sense if you get to do what you want.

> Eric, if you're so sure it isn't a glider,
> you better get in and STOP this craziness, before it ruins gliding!

The glider category has a number of regulatory perks we treasure, and I
don't want these to disappear by filling the category with such
enormously different aircraft. I'm not sure that they will disappear,
especially if the numbers of ultralights remains low. It might even be
an asset, if it leads those pilots to discover soaring and the aircraft
that do it (I call them gliders and sailplanes, almost interchangeably),
but it's an experiment that likely can't be undone if it goes badly.

> Call and write the people who make the rules and tell them how
> wrong it is to use span and weight calculations to define a glider.
> And how wrong it is to use minimum sink as a parameter, and
> how penetration is what really matters.

Isn't this the problem? None of these criteria apply to experimentally
licensed aircraft. Surely, the Quicksilver is not _certified_ as glider?


> Of course, you might want to be careful. If you're too
> convincing, they'll cancel making ultralights gliders, but
> will start certifying jet airliners all as gliders.

Jet airliners don't meet the certification requirements for gliders,
regardless of how convincing I am.

Then
> you'll need a type rating and part 121 check to fly
> your self-launcher!!!!

In some European countries (maybe all), a self-launcher is NOT treated
like a glider, but instead requires a license much like a power plane. I
hope that never happens here, but I get very uneasy when I see such
non-glider aircraft like the Quicksilver being considered
"motorgliders". If problems occur because of "motorgliders" of any sort
(ultralight or powered sailplanes), it's easy to imagine that an FAA
solution might be separating them from the glider category and treating
them more like airplanes. That would be loss for everyone and sport. I
think we've been lucky so far that powered sailplanes and touring
motorgliders are still in the glider category.

>
> :P
>
> Hmmm...thinking about John's idea, yeah I'd love to watch
> a half dozen of these gliders jamming around a short triangle course
> at Avenal. And a toilet paper cutting contest too...
>
> But that's ok, Eric. If you don't want them, we'll take them.
> After all, they have to spend their money SOMEWHERE, right?

I like John's idea, but I don't think he had Quicksilvers in mind. They
would not be able to soar around the course. To me, this not analogous
to having snow boarders show up at the ski hill: it's more like ATVs
showing up at the ski hill.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Wayne Paul]

This talk about the Quicksilver becoming a certified glider got my
attention.

Isn't a glider defined as: "A fixed-wing aircraft specially designed to
glide, or to glide and soar."

FAA AC 21.17-2A "Type Certification --- Fixed Wing Gliders (Sailplanes),
Including Powered Gliders." indicates that powered gliders are aircraft for
which the number of occupants does not exceed two, the maximum weight does
not exceed 1,874 pounds, and the maximum weight-to-wing span squared does
not exceed 0.62 lb/ft^2.

Well the Quicksilver is definitely less then 1,874 lbs.; however, the
Quicksilver web site (http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/sport.htm) states
that the Quicksilver's wing span is 28 feet and max takeoff weight is 525
lbs. That makes the wings squared equal 784 ft^2. When divided into 525
lbs you end up with 0.67 lb/ft^2. Not much over weight; however,
overweight.

In conclusion, I don't think the Quicksilver meets the basic definition of a
glider and is too heavy to be certified as such. Of course, when you get
into the "amateur built" airworthiness arena, the aircraft is experimental
and, as such, is what every the builder says it is. If the inspector will
go along with you. (I have seen a Windrose motor gliders licensed as
airplanes. I believe this was done so the builder could avoid having to get
a glider rating.)

Respectfully,
Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Could there be a rash of accidents in Quicksilver gliders that
> > might damage the sport of gliding as a whole? Require transponders
> > and ELTs in all gliders? Perhaps. But I don't see this.
> >
> > *******Transponders become mandatory?*******
> >
> > If transponders (especially mode S) and ELTs end up becoming mandated
> > in gliders, I don't see the Quicksilver gliders being the cause.
>
> It would depend on the numbers, I think. A few hundred won't enlarge the
> number "gliders" flying, and hence the increased risk of causing a
> serious accident that would be attributed to a glider are small. But if
> a few thousand become "gliders"...
>
> Any idea of the numbers we might be talking about? How many Quicksilver
> type aircraft are there out there?
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:

>Isn't this the problem? None of these criteria apply to experimentally
>licensed aircraft. Surely, the Quicksilver is not _certified_ as glider?

Scrivner Quicksilver MX, tail number N69QT, experimental glider.
Chuck Scrivner is a glider pilot, initially trained in aerotowed gliders.
He now has a self-launch endorsement and exercises this privilege
whenever he launches his Quicksilver glider.

It meets the span to weight criteria, so he certified it as a glider.

>Why does the pilot think it's a glider? Has he never seen even a 2-33?

He has. He has also looked at his airworthiness certificate.
And he has thermalled and ridge soared this Quicksilver glider.

>The glider category has a number of regulatory perks we treasure, and I
>don't want these to disappear by filling the category with such
>enormously different aircraft. I'm not sure that they will disappear,
>especially if the numbers of ultralights remains low. It might even be
>an asset, if it leads those pilots to discover soaring and the aircraft
>that do it (I call them gliders and sailplanes, almost interchangeably),
>but it's an experiment that likely can't be undone if it goes badly.

Again, I didn't say this SHOULD happen, just that it IS happening,
and it is worth looking into. I'd like to see the ASA consciously
decide to help accelerate, decelerate, or ignore this certification
of Quicksilver aircraft as gliders vs. airplanes.

I for one see these as hang gliders that have simply added an
engine to self-launch, much like your glider. I personally would
like to see them welcomed to soaring. But without organizational
encouragement from ASA and perhaps SSA, Quicksilver gliders will
come into soaring in ones and twos, not in any significant numbers.

>In some European countries (maybe all), a self-launcher is NOT treated
>like a glider, but instead requires a license much like a power plane. I
>hope that never happens here,

I hope it doesn't either. But I'm not willing to actively exclude a
whole group of eager pilots to avoid this "maybe."

******I have changed a few words from Eric's post to make a point****

>but I get very uneasy when I see such
>non-glider aircraft like the ASH-26E being considered
>"gliders".

******Changes end*******

I wonder how the "pure glider" folks felt when the early "self-launch"
gliders started appearing. I wonder if they had some of the same
comments. In fact, isn't this kind of discrimination something we still
face today, just a little more under the surface? Tell me, Eric,
how does it feel when someone snickers at your "non-glider" ?

>If problems occur because of "motorgliders" of any sort
>(ultralight or powered sailplanes), it's easy to imagine that an FAA
>solution might be separating them from the glider category and treating
>them more like airplanes. That would be loss for everyone and sport. I
>think we've been lucky so far that powered sailplanes and touring
>motorgliders are still in the glider category.

I wonder if the pure glider pilots wondered the same thing about
the first motorgliders too?

>I like John's idea, but I don't think he had Quicksilvers in mind. They
>would not be able to soar around the course. To me, this not analogous
>to having snow boarders show up at the ski hill: it's more like ATVs
>showing up at the ski hill.

If Quicksilver gliders are ATVs on the ski hill, then you
are looking a little naked there on your ASH snowmobile. :O brrrrrrrr

>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA

I dunno where this is going to end up, but there is an opportunity
here, that I am sure. Whether it is an opportunity the gliding community
wants to take, hmmmmmm...., that's something clubs and airports
across the country are going to have to decide a little at a time.

To quote one local club President:
"There will be no problem about the insured UL's landing at
the field. The rule is as long as they are coming to participate
in club activities they are welcome (that goes for any non-club aircraft)."
--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

Wayne,

I think right near the limit there is leeway as to what to
certify it. I also could see someone lowering the factory
recommended gross weight a tiny bit as needed, especially
if the pilot/owner is a bit lighter.

Beyond that, whether something is "supported in flight
by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces
and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine"
is a loose call. Cessna 182 pilots have soared the Sierra
wave, right? If they do it more than 50% of the time, does
that make it a glider?

I'm not going to call it right or wrong. But it is possible,
and it will happen again that a Quicksilver will be a glider.
Will there be a dozen or a thousand? I guess we'll see
in the next decade or so...

In article >,
Wayne Paul > wrote:
>This talk about the Quicksilver becoming a certified glider got my
>attention.
>
>Isn't a glider defined as: "A fixed-wing aircraft specially designed to
>glide, or to glide and soar."
>
>FAA AC 21.17-2A "Type Certification --- Fixed Wing Gliders (Sailplanes),
>Including Powered Gliders." indicates that powered gliders are aircraft for
>which the number of occupants does not exceed two, the maximum weight does
>not exceed 1,874 pounds, and the maximum weight-to-wing span squared does
>not exceed 0.62 lb/ft^2.
>
>Well the Quicksilver is definitely less then 1,874 lbs.; however, the
>Quicksilver web site (http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/sport.htm) states
>that the Quicksilver's wing span is 28 feet and max takeoff weight is 525
>lbs. That makes the wings squared equal 784 ft^2. When divided into 525
>lbs you end up with 0.67 lb/ft^2. Not much over weight; however,
>overweight.
>
>In conclusion, I don't think the Quicksilver meets the basic definition of a
>glider and is too heavy to be certified as such. Of course, when you get
>into the "amateur built" airworthiness arena, the aircraft is experimental
>and, as such, is what every the builder says it is. If the inspector will
>go along with you. (I have seen a Windrose motor gliders licensed as
>airplanes. I believe this was done so the builder could avoid having to get
>a glider rating.)
>
>Respectfully,
>Wayne
>http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder
>
>
>"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
>> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Could there be a rash of accidents in Quicksilver gliders that
>> > might damage the sport of gliding as a whole? Require transponders
>> > and ELTs in all gliders? Perhaps. But I don't see this.
>> >
>> > *******Transponders become mandatory?*******
>> >
>> > If transponders (especially mode S) and ELTs end up becoming mandated
>> > in gliders, I don't see the Quicksilver gliders being the cause.
>>
>> It would depend on the numbers, I think. A few hundred won't enlarge the
>> number "gliders" flying, and hence the increased risk of causing a
>> serious accident that would be attributed to a glider are small. But if
>> a few thousand become "gliders"...
>>
>> Any idea of the numbers we might be talking about? How many Quicksilver
>> type aircraft are there out there?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>> Eric Greenwell
>> Washington State
>> USA
>
>


--

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

[Tim Ward]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:42030e13$1@darkstar...
> Wayne,
<snip discussion of whether the Quick is a glider or not>
Well, Dave Cronk won the rigid-wing World Champioship on a Quicksilver C
(essentially the same wing) some years ago.
So if a Quicksilver with a motor isn't a glider, then neither is any other
motor glider.

Tim Ward

[Mark James Boyd]

I really, really think ultralights becoming FAA aircraft
has MUCH more in common with gliders than airplanes.

The rules the ultralight community have lived by are MUCH more
alike the glider rules than the airplane rules.

All of the following characteristics match gliders AND ultralights.
NONE of the following characteristics match the majority of airplanes.

Ultralight aircraft (fixed wing, weight shift, powered parachute):

1) Have minimal instrumentation
2) Fly 99% day VFR
3) Fly 90% within 50nm of home
4) Have very light weight
5) Have very slow landing speeds
6) Have minimal training requirements
7) Have excellent motorized climb in FT per NM ratios
8) Need to be aware of the effects of turbulence, slope lift, etc.
9) Used to be hang gliders
10) Never required ELTs or Transponders
11) Fly frequently out of private, dirt, and cropduster strips
12) Remove or assemble wings without a mandatory mechanic signoff
13) Fly for fun instead of practical transportation
14) Wear chutes or install BRS parachutes commonly
15) Have a very high ratio of experimentals vs. standard aircraft
16) Commonly use a stick or bar instead of a yoke
17) Don't require any medical, and a denied medical is no problem

Airplanes don't have ANY of this in common with ultralights.
Gliders have ALL of this in common. Think about it.

Look at that Quicksilver picture again. It's a glider.
USUA, ASC, and the Ultralight part of EAA are
gonna need support to get these things into the FAA system by
Jan 31, 2010. SSA and ASA seem to me the BEST fit these guys have.
Do you really think they'll fit into AOPA? Do you think
EAA is a good fit?

www.usua.org
www.aerosports.org
www.eaa.org/ultralights

In article t>,
Tim Ward > wrote:
>
>"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
>news:42030e13$1@darkstar...
>> Wayne,
><snip discussion of whether the Quick is a glider or not>
>Well, Dave Cronk won the rigid-wing World Champioship on a Quicksilver C
>(essentially the same wing) some years ago.
>So if a Quicksilver with a motor isn't a glider, then neither is any other
>motor glider.
>
>Tim Ward
>
>

--

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> I really, really think ultralights becoming FAA aircraft
> has MUCH more in common with gliders than airplanes.
>
> The rules the ultralight community have lived by are MUCH more
> alike the glider rules than the airplane rules.
>
> All of the following characteristics match gliders AND ultralights.
> NONE of the following characteristics match the majority of airplanes.
>
> Ultralight aircraft (fixed wing, weight shift, powered parachute):
>
> 1) Have minimal instrumentation
> 2) Fly 99% day VFR
> 3) Fly 90% within 50nm of home
> 4) Have very light weight
> 5) Have very slow landing speeds
> 6) Have minimal training requirements
> 7) Have excellent motorized climb in FT per NM ratios
> 8) Need to be aware of the effects of turbulence, slope lift, etc.
> 9) Used to be hang gliders
> 10) Never required ELTs or Transponders
> 11) Fly frequently out of private, dirt, and cropduster strips
> 12) Remove or assemble wings without a mandatory mechanic signoff
> 13) Fly for fun instead of practical transportation
> 14) Wear chutes or install BRS parachutes commonly
> 15) Have a very high ratio of experimentals vs. standard aircraft
> 16) Commonly use a stick or bar instead of a yoke
> 17) Don't require any medical, and a denied medical is no problem

I can see why we disagree: we have very different opionions of what a
glider characteristic is.
Of those in your list, I'd say only # 8 is characteristic of a glider. I
certainly don't think ELT or transponder
usage has anything to do with being a glider, but is just pilot
preference, nor do medicals, pilot rescue systems,
and so on. In fact, I'd say the list fits _ultralights_ a lot better
than gliders. The craft we fly are
markedly different from a Quicksilver

>
> Airplanes don't have ANY of this in common with ultralights.

For me, the essence of airplane is not the instruments, ELTs, medicals,
etc. These are just features of
regulations, as "airplane" can go from an Aeronca Champ to a 747. What's
common is the use of the motor
to sustain flight.

> Gliders have ALL of this in common. Think about it.

So do model airplanes and their pilots. Think about it.

>
> Look at that Quicksilver picture again. It's a glider.
> USUA, ASC, and the Ultralight part of EAA are
> gonna need support to get these things into the FAA system by
> Jan 31, 2010. SSA and ASA seem to me the BEST fit these guys have.

Best Fit still does not mean "good enough". If they don't fit with those
other folks, either, maybe by 2010,
there will be a place for them. I don't think it's in soaring. We can
and should be friends with them, as with other
aviators.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

I think ultralight pilots also capture the soaring spirit.
So, let me try something a little less concrete and
go a little more ethereal:

A sample post typical of UltralightTrikes on Yahoo! Groups:

From Windrydr:

Yesterday I spent the morning flying all over here in my home town
for the first time , it was a blast, and i learned a lot more being
by myself. I even hit 1000+ ft per minute lift a couple of times at
around 10,000 feet. That was a new trip. Soon i will post more pics
of my area on my website and looking forward to doing some videos also.
I want to thank all of the group posters with wisdom and
experience for all of ur posts which help educate us rookies:)
Been quite a transition from stick and rudder to flying a trike
wing, I love it, I am hoping I can be like manfred and his swift
gliders and adapt to either side, depending on which i choose to fly
that day( cuz da dream here is to own a motorized swift because of my
loving to soar:)....maybe some serious time in trikes will tell
though, and i just may end up with a lite trike under my big wing:)



From Mark A. Taylor:

Saturday afternoon I'm out in the Racer, thermaling over
a burnt out area of ridge line just SW of the airport. The
engine is still running as I have the throttle pulled back
so that my sink rate is around 150 ft/min. Engine off the
Racer is a rock so this is how I soar my trike... Anyway,
the lift is light and I'm just barely maintaining my
altitude. I had made several circles when off towards another
nearby ridge I see that a bird is heading my way. Thinking
it is a Turkey Vulture I really didn't think much about it.
I've often had vultures join me in lift in the past. I
continued turning and as I come back around the bird settles
off my left wing tip. I almost wet myself at what I saw.
It was fully mature American Bald Eagle! We circled around
each other a few times playing in the light lift but he
eventually got the better of me and climbed out above my wing.
When I saw him last he was flying off towards the NW. I don't
know about him but for me it's going to be a long long time
before I forget that flight. Awesome!


Eric, I think these pilots are a "good fit" with
gliders. I feel more connected to them and their aircraft
than to the Grob 109 I flew last weekend.

I can see them perhaps not being part of the
"sailplane" association. But I certainly think they
fit into the "Soaring" association...

I am still interested in more opinions too. I hope some others
will chime in with what they think as well. Dennis Wright seems
to have already formed some opinions.

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> I really, really think ultralights becoming FAA aircraft
>> has MUCH more in common with gliders than airplanes.
>>
>> The rules the ultralight community have lived by are MUCH more
>> alike the glider rules than the airplane rules.
>>
>> All of the following characteristics match gliders AND ultralights.
>> NONE of the following characteristics match the majority of airplanes.
>>
>> Ultralight aircraft (fixed wing, weight shift, powered parachute):
>>
>> 1) Have minimal instrumentation
>> 2) Fly 99% day VFR
>> 3) Fly 90% within 50nm of home
>> 4) Have very light weight
>> 5) Have very slow landing speeds
>> 6) Have minimal training requirements
>> 7) Have excellent motorized climb in FT per NM ratios
>> 8) Need to be aware of the effects of turbulence, slope lift, etc.
>> 9) Used to be hang gliders
>> 10) Never required ELTs or Transponders
>> 11) Fly frequently out of private, dirt, and cropduster strips
>> 12) Remove or assemble wings without a mandatory mechanic signoff
>> 13) Fly for fun instead of practical transportation
>> 14) Wear chutes or install BRS parachutes commonly
>> 15) Have a very high ratio of experimentals vs. standard aircraft
>> 16) Commonly use a stick or bar instead of a yoke
>> 17) Don't require any medical, and a denied medical is no problem
>
>I can see why we disagree: we have very different opionions of what a
>glider characteristic is.
>Of those in your list, I'd say only # 8 is characteristic of a glider. I
>certainly don't think ELT or transponder
>usage has anything to do with being a glider, but is just pilot
>preference, nor do medicals, pilot rescue systems,
>and so on. In fact, I'd say the list fits _ultralights_ a lot better
>than gliders. The craft we fly are
>markedly different from a Quicksilver
>
>>
>> Airplanes don't have ANY of this in common with ultralights.
>
>For me, the essence of airplane is not the instruments, ELTs, medicals,
>etc. These are just features of
>regulations, as "airplane" can go from an Aeronca Champ to a 747. What's
>common is the use of the motor
>to sustain flight.
>
>> Gliders have ALL of this in common. Think about it.
>
>So do model airplanes and their pilots. Think about it.
>
>>
>> Look at that Quicksilver picture again. It's a glider.
>> USUA, ASC, and the Ultralight part of EAA are
>> gonna need support to get these things into the FAA system by
>> Jan 31, 2010. SSA and ASA seem to me the BEST fit these guys have.
>
>Best Fit still does not mean "good enough". If they don't fit with those
>other folks, either, maybe by 2010,
>there will be a place for them. I don't think it's in soaring. We can
>and should be friends with them, as with other
>aviators.
>
>--
>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA


--

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