On 9/6/2011 5:32 PM, RAS56 wrote:
As a relative newcomer to the sport, my 2 cents on why there's a general
decline in participation in contest soaring is that there is a general
lack of a structure and interest of "passing XC knowledge" along in the
soaring community to new guys. Folks just want to go to the gliderport
on Saturday, assemble and fly, and I can't necessarily blame them.

You seem to have this aspect of weekend (U.S., club-based) soaring accurately
diagnosed, IMO. The time some (not all) folks want to BS is *after* the day's
soaring. *Then* is a great time to listen in and occasionally prime the pump
with ad-hoc questions of personal interest. You'll soon figure out which
pilots are genuinely interested in helping you ascend to the next level by
sharing their own experience(s); bug 'em, they'll be happy to share.


Frank Paynter detailed many of these problems very precisely in the
latest issue of Soaring Magazine in the Condor column. Go read it...I've
encountered most of the problems he highlights and in fact have
communicated with him about my experiences and thoughts.

I started a thread about obtaining XC instruction a while back on this
forum in search of info. Sure, it's out there commercially if I want to
drop 3 grand (plus airfare and expenses) for a week's instruction....or
if I want to trailer my rig 1/2 way across country I might be able to
attend some "XC camps"...but why shouldn't we be able to obtain some of
this knowledge "locally" (or regionally) or perhaps by doing some online
training sponsored by the SSA? I don't want to "learn under fire" by
participating in a actual contest without picking up basic skills to
keep me out of trouble first.

Others have already shared lots of insightful, usable info regarding the
issues raised in the preceding paragraph. I'll second the observations that:
a) making the time/personal commitment to safely and sanely (which is not to
say 100% risk-freely [but darned close to it!]) learn how to choose/land-in
fields is perhaps THE largest actual hurdle to flying XC, and b) it really is
self-taught in the sense that nothing about it can be short-cutted, in an
experience sense. You can learn from others most of the (easily avoidable)
'dumb mistakes' to avoid, but the difference between 'book learning' and
'usable knowledge' comes only with the actual making of OFLs. Retrieving
others is a darned good approximation, though...


You want more contest participation? Get more guys comfortable with
leaving the local area and going XC and I'll bet contest participation
will increase as well.

FWIW, that's exactly what I've seen in my club from ~1983 until ~2000 (at
which time some formalization of training also began available for the first
time). So far as I'm aware, the club has always (via its bylaws) encouraged
members to take club ships XC, but few did who had not also made the personal
commitment on their own to do so. For many years there were no instructors who
regularly (or even actually) flew XC, and formal XC-dual training consisted
mostly of performing an 'OFL' at an airport about 8 miles distant.
Encouragingly, very few club ships were ever damaged in farm-field-based landings.

Eventually, some instructors, almost certainly encouraged by a cycle of
XC-wannabe pilots (perhaps in situations similar to yours), began to offer
actual dual XC, and in the past 5-10 years the club has seen a blossoming of
XC-/contest-mentorship, using club 2-seaters. Time will tell how long this
lasts, but in the absence of 'disaster based scenarios,' history suggests that
- in this club, anyway - change and 'near-stasis' have years-long time constants.

One constant throughout the years has been that it has always been motivation
from the individual pilot that underlay growth of XC skills and comfort level.
FWIW, I 'self-taught' myself XC, almost exclusively in the intermountain west,
and almost exclusively alone (in shared flight path terms). Rarely scared
myself. Even more rarely ever put the ship at known risk (and then only once
per scenario, rueful head shaking). Had gobs of fun doing so. The only OFL
damage ever inflicted were minor fabric holes in the belly of a 1-26 from poor
choice of a plowed (only! - not disked) field. Never felt others were
hindering my learning. Eventually realized that no amount of proselytizing on
my part could induce anyone who was not yet ready to 'make the commitment' (to
learn XC) to join me, even when they were flying their own ships.


I'm not anywhere near ready to fly a contest yet...but I want to be!
But, from my perspective, it appears the barriers to "getting there" on
developing good XC skills currently require a level of commitment (in
time and money) that many weekend flyers look at...and walk away from.

Almost certainly exactly right, though I suspect many pilots don't actually
formalize the thought process so clearly.

All anyone needs, in order to be able to find some level of contest in which
their skills wouldn't guarantee them last place, is the genuine ability to 'be
comfortable with' making an off-field landing choice. The first contest in
which I ever flew (Marion, OH, in a 1-26), I finished 4th (of 12) and
absolutely crushed the reigning national 1-26 champion. My strategy was simply
to complete the course; da champ landed out on my flying day (there were 3 of
us sharing the ship). My next contest flight (the old Black Forest, CO) in an
HP-14 I again finished 4th because most everyone else landed out; I'd been
ready to numerous times, but was motivated by a dismal trailer to keep
plugging away. Both - and all other XC - flights were made 'easily mentally
possible' simply by previously-learning how to 'relaxedly' pick fields then -
if necessary - land in them. I'd made exactly 1 OFL prior to the Ohio flight,
and 3 more prior to the Colorado flight.


Frank's article confirms this and offers some thoughts on fixing it
(Condor)...but that won't solve all the problems. Maybe every Region
should sponsor a Thermal/XC course for newbies (something like the folks
up at Air Sailing put on) before each contest season????? Sounds like a
good idea to me..


RS


Have fun!
Bob W.

P.S. I've long used S-O-A-R as a mnemonic for choosing landing fields. "S" for
surface. If it's no good, no need to continue to the..."O" for obstructions
(on/to the surface, e.g. a lone tree, piece of farm equipment, oil well,
field-eating wires, etc.). Next to evaluate is..."A" for the approach. (I've
always [conservatively?] figured each field-edging obstruction [tree, fence,
whatever] makes 10 times its estimated height of the field unusable. The "R"
is for a rectangular approach; it's your insurance against landing downwind,
and insurance *for* choosing the best roundout spot, if the surface isn't uniform.