Open Discussion; Creating XC pilots

On Monday, July 21, 2014 11:54:49 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
Thanks, Waremark, that's interesting data. I'd love to see others post in this thread what their club XC participation rates are (with an XC pilot being defined as someone who posted a flight trace for a sanctioned contest, a fun meet, the OLC or a badge distance leg). Up until now my figures of merit were that only 10% of club members fly XC, and only 3% fly in contests..



Really understanding why people do not start flying XC is difficult. Some of it is personality (Type A's and self-starters probably predominate the XC ranks), but self-doubt must also factor in (people are unsure of their ability to find and use thermals and to properly land out, they're fearful of wrecking their glider, or they feel they'll be mocked). Another big factor has to be available time. Access to equipment can be an issue (suitable glider, proper trailer, car with a hitch), which is probably why most XC pilots own their own plane. Negative comments from instructors can also figure in, as does the lack of knowledge about the incredible satisfaction, sense of achievement and pilot skill growth that comes from flying XC. Naturally, all of these reasons can be addressed and minds changed, but we need to know what the issues are!



In past years my club made the process of flying XC too complicated. It's much better now, only a PPG and a Bronze badge are required. Still, very few people try it, even with our XC pilots talking it up, giving informal seminars, offering XC flights in the Duo, making written material available, etc. Any insights about what has worked elsewhere will be gratefully accepted!



-John, Q3

At Post Mills, about 2/3 of our current glider flying membership has some XC experience and about half of those fly XC regularly. Most of the "irregulars" will go out and fly XC on the very best days. The 1/3 with no XC experience are mostly low time, not yet ready. Of the three (IIRC) guys in the club who are active and have flown at least one contest, only one does so regularly.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Monday, July 21, 2014 9:27:46 AM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:
Instructors can have a lot to do with a new pilot developing a fear of XC in that even if they aren't overtly hostile to XC, they convey their own fears of XC in many subtle ways such as tone of voice, body language, or just the way a training syllabus is presented. Primacy embeds this fear in students

We've seen this with some of our local instructors.

Another issue that I think is subtly at-play: in the Club environment where instruction is already slow, students may naturally make the assumption that XC training - being an "advanced" topic - is going to be even slower than primary training was.

Noel, that's an interesting observation, and one I've never heard before. My club does lose people to the long training process, and that might indeed bias others to not try XC. We'll have to start pointing out that if they've earned a ticket they're 90% of the way towards becoming XC pilots. Thanks!

-John, Q3

On Monday, July 21, 2014 9:49:49 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:
Another issue that I think is subtly at-play: in the Club environment where instruction is already slow, students may naturally make the assumption that XC training - being an "advanced" topic - is going to be even slower than primary training was.

In the UK:
I would say for me lack of XC is due to:

Lack of any possibility for a retrieve crew and no, the fact that I have
recovered others from a field has no relevance whatsoever when trying to
find anyone to retrieve me....It's understandable - people really do have
other things to do in the evening rather than be called out to rescue
someone from a field....particularly if going to be a mega-difficult one
with added aggro' and difficult access, not to mention sitting in the
traffic jams just to get there.

Lack of suitable fields to land in - many either too small or with standing
crop at certain times of the year. Makes you very nervous when looking
down. Some apparently OK fields can be very high risk with the possibility
of overhead wires on the approach or even worse almost invisible barbed
wire fences in the middle of the field.

Abuse and aggro' when landing in a field. The worst was one where the farm
manager was livid and almost foaming at the mouth. Then guess what -
another glider landed in the field seeing that mine had landed
safely...sort of.
The police ended up being called. I could really do without this sort of
thing while ?enjoying? a hobby.

Complex airspace as to where you can and can't go and at what altitude.
Pages of notams to be poured over for all the special last minute
modifications. (The good weather will always be inside restricted
airspace!)

Then there is the fact I always get lost, I'm ever scanning the skies for
the crazed RAF fast jet about to cut me in two....and who cannot possibly
see me

It is simply not worth the aggro.

One word: ADVENTURE!

Dan Marotta

On 7/24/2014 3:03 PM, John Howell wrote:
In the UK:
I would say for me lack of XC is due to:

Lack of any possibility for a retrieve crew and no, the fact that I have
recovered others from a field has no relevance whatsoever when trying to
find anyone to retrieve me....It's understandable - people really do have
other things to do in the evening rather than be called out to rescue
someone from a field....particularly if going to be a mega-difficult one
with added aggro' and difficult access, not to mention sitting in the
traffic jams just to get there.

Lack of suitable fields to land in - many either too small or with standing
crop at certain times of the year. Makes you very nervous when looking
down. Some apparently OK fields can be very high risk with the possibility
of overhead wires on the approach or even worse almost invisible barbed
wire fences in the middle of the field.

Abuse and aggro' when landing in a field. The worst was one where the farm
manager was livid and almost foaming at the mouth. Then guess what -
another glider landed in the field seeing that mine had landed
safely...sort of.
The police ended up being called. I could really do without this sort of
thing while ?enjoying? a hobby.

Complex airspace as to where you can and can't go and at what altitude.
Pages of notams to be poured over for all the special last minute
modifications. (The good weather will always be inside restricted
airspace!)

Then there is the fact I always get lost, I'm ever scanning the skies for
the crazed RAF fast jet about to cut me in two....and who cannot possibly
see me

It is simply not worth the aggro.

On 2014-07-16 22:19:12 +0000, noel.wade said:

On a separate note, I'm still working on earning my CFIG but I am
surprised folks don't use varying tow-heights based on the phase of
instruction the student is in. For example: I think instructors should
consider 4,000 to 5,000 foot tows when they're working on things like
rudder coordination, steep turns, stalls, slips, and slow-flight. Give
the student a long-enough flight to practice maneuvers 2 or 3 times in
a row (similar to many SEL airplane training flights, which are often 1
- 1.5 hours in length and involve practicing a maneuver a couple of
times in succession).

I guess we are fortunate where I fly that there is a good percentage of
days on which at least one of the local ridges is working well enough
for even beginning students to stay up for as long as you're prepared
to let them have the glider. And plenty more where you can let the
student lose 1000 or 2000 ft and then the instructor can get it back
(whether close in ridge flying or thermal) and let them have another
try.


When training changes its focus and the landing pattern becomes a
point of emphasis, there's certainly a strong case for pattern-height
tows and/or winch-launches. In fact, there's even a case for setting
aside some part of the day's operations to let a student and his/her
instructor do these practice landings back-to-back (i.e. they land,
pull up to the front of the line, and immediately take another pattern
tow).

That happens naturally for us. There's a line of single seaters between
11 and 1. Outside that, there's mostly only the two DG1000 trainers
taking tows and even on the worst days the flights are more than twice
the length of the tow plane turnaround time, so there's no queue.

Try tiddly winks

Nearly all the problems you mention are mitigated by practice and planning.
Top xc pilots do 000's of k without landing in farmer's fields outside of
competition every year.

Even in comps they tend to land on airfields, especially in the UK where
there are plenty. Many now have engines and don't land out at all!

Practice and planning, or tiddly winks.



At 21:03 24 July 2014, John Howell wrote:

In the UK:
I would say for me lack of XC is due to:

Lack of any possibility for a retrieve crew and no, the fact that I have
recovered others from a field has no relevance whatsoever when trying to
find anyone to retrieve me....It's understandable - people really do have
other things to do in the evening rather than be called out to rescue
someone from a field....particularly if going to be a mega-difficult one
with added aggro' and difficult access, not to mention sitting in the
traffic jams just to get there.

Lack of suitable fields to land in - many either too small or with
standing
crop at certain times of the year. Makes you very nervous when looking
down. Some apparently OK fields can be very high risk with the
possibility
of overhead wires on the approach or even worse almost invisible barbed
wire fences in the middle of the field.

Abuse and aggro' when landing in a field. The worst was one where the
farm
manager was livid and almost foaming at the mouth. Then guess what -
another glider landed in the field seeing that mine had landed
safely...sort of.
The police ended up being called. I could really do without this sort of
thing while ?enjoying? a hobby.

Complex airspace as to where you can and can't go and at what altitude.
Pages of notams to be poured over for all the special last minute
modifications. (The good weather will always be inside restricted
airspace!)

Then there is the fact I always get lost, I'm ever scanning the skies for
the crazed RAF fast jet about to cut me in two....and who cannot possibly
see me

It is simply not worth the aggro.

On Friday, July 25, 2014 2:36:39 AM UTC-4, Jim White wrote:
Try tiddly winks

Or perhaps some dual time in a high performance twin with a good XC pilot on (here's the key) a good day. 90% of keeping "recreational XC" recreational is keeping your plans and expectations in line with what mother nature gives you to work with.


Evan Ludeman

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:03:21 +0000, John Howell wrote:

In the UK:
Me also.

I would say for me lack of XC is due to:

Lack of any possibility for a retrieve crew and no, the fact that I have
recovered others from a field has no relevance whatsoever when trying to
find anyone to retrieve me....

We tend to use mutual retrieval agreements.

Lack of suitable fields to land in - many either too small or with
standing crop at certain times of the year.

Fair comment.

Abuse and aggro' when landing in a field.

I've been in a few and flown competition free flight models for longer
than I've been gliding. Never had that reaction, in either case.

Complex airspace as to where you can and can't go and at what altitude.
Pages of notams to be poured over for all the special last minute
modifications.

Use SPINE - its much quicker than scanning through printed NOTAM lists.
Better yet, if the NOTAM is plottable SPINE can save it in a file your nav
system can display.

Then there is the fact I always get lost,

Both LK8000 and XCSoar are open source, hence free, navigation programs
that run on reasonably priced/inexpensive satnav kit and can display both
NOTAMs saved by SPINE and landout field details. Both are also useful for
local soaring: just set up a task with your home field as the only
turnpoint and, as well as keeping book on whether have the height to get
home, they'll show any restricted airspace/NOTAMs in the area.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 7:33:14 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 1:26:40 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:46:50 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

I wonder if the old hands in XC have forgotten how big the issue of safely landing out looms in the mind of the aspiring XC pilot?



Whoa, wait a minute - what does XC have to do with landing out?
.
Sure, a landout for me at this stage grows more inevitable with every flight. But novices make a very conservative estimation of final glide to pattern altitude, they only fly upwind of the airport, they stay above 'the funnel' etc..


What you are saying is that our (USA) training system does not put enough emphasis on a basic skill in flying gliders - the technique for picking a suitable landout field and accomplishing a safe pattern, landing, and recovery of the glider to the home field.

I'm not saying that at all. Maybe that's true on average, but I've trained extensively with some of the best CFIs in the USA. Several are active or former XC pilots. I understand the theory very well and I habitually evaluate landout fields from the air and the ground.

But I've also done an hour of simulated landout training in a LSA with a CFI who has done many landouts. I learned that that kind of training is invaluable. The experience started to integrate the book learning and discussion into concrete flying ability. Several people suggest that I should do that integration on-the-fly on my own in a field some day. That's what they did. Good luck pal!

I've read Tom Knauff's opinion that many active XC pilots are unprepared to land out and over-confident in their ability to land out. I've read Tom's opinion that simulated landout training in a motorglider is very cost-effective training and that people make huge gains in their ability to select good fields and properly set up patterns with just a few hours of practice, and that simulated landout training justifiably increases confidence and reduces mistake-inducing land out stress.

I've spoken with a top shelf CFI from the UK who emphatically states "training to land out in a motor glider is the ONLY sensible approach". The CFIs who have access to motorgliders probably agree with that, and those who don't have access to motorgliders naturally say that "simulated landout training is good" but not necessary.

I've done an hour of simulated landout training in an LSA and based on that experience I'd like to do more in the rather difficult to landout region where I fly. I think that if that sort of training was more generally available and promoted, that it would increase the number of pilots interested in XC.

BTW, I've also done a few hours in a Duo with a top-shelf XC pilot at a world class soaring location. The general thrust of this thread is to make those opportunities more available, and I would certainly like to see that happen. It is something that I would like to do more of in the future, but that level of flying is so far above my level that it hardly seems relevant at that the moment.

Great thread and wonderful comments.

One thing I haven't really seen discussed is...... what are the "low time pilots like" before XC?

My example, I started as a young teenager, we have NO FEAR!
My major instructor also did XC & racing (it was Hank Nixon..... maybe you've heard of him?).
Beyond the basic "airmanship" I learned, I was itching to "go somewhere". Once I could get into a 1-26 (my Mom's 1-26, Dianne Black-Nixon), I went where ever I could go.
Again, I was a kid and had no fear.

After I got older (maybe not grown up), I finally became an instructor. By then I had flown a number of different gliders, ABC route through silver & parts of gold/diamond.

I did basic instructing, but also did some XC in a 2-33 if the weather allowed.
Later on, I did mid-level/higher level instructing while others did basic instruction. Hank did the same kind of teaching as I.
So now, we had at least 2 XC backed instructors teaching students through the "Schweitzer route". We started in a 2-33, solo in a 2-33, build time and then onto the 1-26. The goal was a safe airplane that sorta forced you to use a lot of thermals. After some flying time, you could move up more to "more horsepower" meaning a better L/D. But at least you could find & USE thermals.

Every Thanksgiving we went to HHSC for the Snowbird. Part of that "contest" was showing how well you could consistently spotland a glider with good energy control (rules link & discussion in another thread here) compared to others.
Prior to the Snowbird, we would practice at home, more than our "day to day flying".
As an instructor, I (as well as other instructors) made a point of having the student pick a spot on the airport to land on. This was pushing the "how does it look, how does it sound, how does it feel" part of decision making..
As they got better, the students were doing patterns with the altimeter covered and still going for the spot.

This would help ease some of the, "What if I don't make it back?" angst for a potential XC pilot.
We would state, "You can be consistent spot landing here, same as out in the wild".

But there are still some that won't go anywhere. One "older gent" told me he wouldn't go anywhere until he could afford a GPS/flight computer.
I looked at him and stated, "Do you know how many miles I've flown with a ruler & paper map....especially in a 1-26?"

I applaud Hank, Karl and others that have made a seat in a glass 2 seater available for regional contests. It's a great way to help "shove along" some pilots just so they can see what's possible even on "crappy looking days". Hank usually uses a ASK-21, not high on the list of XC gliders, but way better than a 2-33.

Since Valley Soaring is a club, I guess we are a little different than a lot of commercial operations in terms of going XC.
But prior to the club, the Valley Soaring Corp. also promoted XC, again sorta driven by Hank & Dianne.

There are multiple reasons for pilots to not go XC, thus there are multiple ways to get them going (if they will even go.....).
No single method will work 100% of the time, but identifying possible issues and having a plan to work through them is the way to go.

-Training geared towards XC down the road (thermaling, spot landing EVERY FLIGHT)
-Some XC in a low performance 2 place (2-33 is a start)
-Having a path geared towards better performance flying (low performance to better performance, time & ability based)
-"Lead follow" or "mid/high performance 2 place XC" sessions
-Actually ANSWERING questions of pilots thinking about XC

Enough from me, hope it all made sense.