If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Ray Lovinggood" wrote in message ... Bill, I like and understand your concept, but will add my two-cent's. We do have members on our club's Board who don't fly much if at all, but contribute mightily to the club's wellfare. No doubt this happens. However, a non-flyer will not have the same perspective as a current, active pilot. This risks, even if inadvertantly, leading the club in a direction at odds with the present needs of active pilots. I think our club has also recruited at least one of the younger (age and low flying time) members to run for Board Member. We want to hear 'their' voice too, not just the voices from the crusty old-timers. What IS amazing (probably not really) is that on club meetings, held once every two months, the same crowd shows up and not the younger group. It would be interesting to talk to ALL members about opportunities to fly cross-country, attend contests or fun-fly's with a club ship, or safety issues, etc. with more than the same old choir, but folks don't seem to show for the meetings. You really need to find out why the younger members don't show. It is critical to attracting younger people to soaring. I have asked young people why they didn't participate the answer went like this: "Aw, it's just a bunch of grumpy old control freaks fighting for control - I don't need the hassle." That was a dead-on observation. When was the last time you asked a young person for their opinion and then acted on it? Let me say without reservation, I LIKE the current generation of young people - tattoos and all. They have very good ideas and they will tell you if you ask and will really appreciate it if you listen to them. I have learned a little ritual with young student pilots. I take them aside to a quiet place and ask, "tell me what we are doing wrong and what we are doing right - I really want to know". I always get an earfull, most of it spot on. Then I act on that information. By listening to young people you make friends. It's really an ego boost for an old coot to have a young friend who thinks you're cool. Bill Daniels |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Bert Willing wrote: Landing on an airfield is not outlanding. What we refer to as outlanding typically in Europe is 1000ft (if lucky) of unknown pasture. A good point and (I think) a good distinction. Maybe for clarity I should use different terms. An airport is a public use airport, an airfield or airstrip is not public use but is intended for aircraft, and an "outlanding" is anything that isn't an airport or airstrip. In that sense I've never had an "outlanding" and I'm really looking forward to continuing that trend. But I can certainly see how that would be different in other places, where airstrips are very uncommon but flat, landable pastures are frequent. -- Bert Willing ASW20 "TW" "Mark James Boyd" a écrit dans le message de news: 416dc11d$1@darkstar... I should also add that personally I flew maybe half-dozen X-Cs and landed out three times (at planned and scouted airports) before I flew 5 hours. -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Stefan wrote: Bert Willing wrote: Landing on an airfield is not outlanding. What we refer to as outlanding typically in Europe is 1000ft (if lucky) of unknown pasture. I just tried to remember when an outlanding field I had to use actually offered 1000 ft. Can't think of one. But then, this is the reason that in our club, "each landing is a precision landing", no matter how generous the runway might be. The precicion we require at our annual check flight is touching down and coming to a full stop within a predefined area of 150m. It's really struck home to me the difference between stall speeds of various aircraft and the importance of headwind. With a recent student we did precision landings with tail and headwind, only 5-10 knot difference, and it was startling to him the huge difference. And the 1-26 with me at 160# in it? Talk about a short landing! With 5-10 knots on the nose, 50 feet isn't hard to muster. The hardest thing for me has always been determining wind direction when in an unfamiliar area. With no vegetation or water or dust or flags, etc., I have a real hard time doing it without GPS or a wind circle (ground ref). The effects of wind were probably the biggest new surprise to me as a transition pilot to gliders. And I can see how always practicing precision landings into a known headwind with known obstacles could weaken my judgement skills for the (hope I never do it) outlanding. -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd wrote:
The hardest thing for me has always been determining wind direction when in an unfamiliar area. Do one circle and you'll know. The effects of wind were probably the biggest new surprise to me as a transition pilot to gliders. Actually, it *is* one of the biggest new surprises. As I always say: Glider pilots fly with the weather, power pilots fly despite the weather. Stefan |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Stefan wrote: Mark James Boyd wrote: I think the Bronze Badge training is quite sufficient before a first X-C. And two flights of two hours is enough, I'm not sure what more is gained by a 5 hour flight before ones first 50km attempt. What's gained by 5 hours compared by 2 times 2 hours? Two things: First, during 5 hours, the weather conditions will change. Everybody can stay up between 13:00 and 15:00. Sounds good. Send 'em on their X-C between 13:00 and 15:00. 5 hours is a little bit more difficult. And more educating. I completely agree. I think it's educational, but unneccessary in our particular case. I also think there are some people (myself included) who would generally rather fly less than 5 hours on every flight, but enjoy mild X-Cs (less than 300km). Personally, if a five hour duration flight was required before I could fly my first X-C (meaning out of glide range from the gliderport), I would likely have chosen a different club. Of course, this depends on where you fly. Second, it's the proof that you can stand it for 5 hours. Thermals get weaker in the evening. Incidentally, this is the time when you get tired. Both increase the chance of an outlanding... for which you should be concentrated. Depends on where you fly. Yep, I believe this. I can see places where testing a student's endurance before letting them fly X-C could be important. I remember a lot of situations where I launched too early, or encountered an inversion, or was in the wrong place struggling to stay aloft. But I'm not sure "5 hours" is a magic number. I was personally very satisfied with a lot of 1-3 hour flights before my first 50km X-C. Although there is one very valid need for endurance: after my first successful 50k (which took maybe 1.5 hours) I had to circle in fading lift for over an hour waiting for the retrieve tug so he could witness my landing as my O/O ! ;P Different strokes, I guess... -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think there
should be at least one board spot for the LEAST qualified member. The youngest licensee, the guy who just got his Silver Badge, the newest member, the newest CFI, etc. should be given a seat on the youth committee, the retrieve committee, the membership committee, the flight committee, etc. Sort of a "reverse seniority." I've seen this work particularly well in helping introduce new blood, but in a small enough dose to not be disruptive. It is tougher for younger members to attend: being a grandparent is sometimes easier than being a parent, being a retiree is sometimes easier than starting a fledgling career, refinancing a house is sometimes easier than buying one. Based on this, maybe the board meeting Tuesday at 2pm isn't such a great idea? How about the Catalyst nightclub at 7pm right before the band starts? :P In article , Ray Lovinggood wrote: Bill, I like and understand your concept, but will add my two-cent's. We do have members on our club's Board who don't fly much if at all, but contribute mightily to the club's wellfare. I think our club has also recruited at least one of the younger (age and low flying time) members to run for Board Member. We want to hear 'their' voice too, not just the voices from the crusty old-timers. What IS amazing (probably not really) is that on club meetings, held once every two months, the same crowd shows up and not the younger group. It would be interesting to talk to ALL members about opportunities to fly cross-country, attend contests or fun-fly's with a club ship, or safety issues, etc. with more than the same old choir, but folks don't seem to show for the meetings. Ray Lovinggood Carrboro, North Carolina, USA LS1-d 'W8' At 19:36 14 October 2004, Bill Daniels wrote: I have had experiences very similar to Uli' and Mat's and I know of many others. The following comments apply only to USA glider clubs since I am not familiar with clubs outside the US but I have the impression that non-US clubs have far better governance. The pattern I have noticed is that soaring clubs are not infrequently 'taken over' by non-aviators or, at least, pilots without any current significant achievements. Lacking these accomplishments, their attempts at club management are, to say the least, counterproductive. At worst, they drive away new members and glider pilots who could make a significant contribution to the organization if allowed to do so. This starts a downward spiral where bad pilots drive away good ones and attract the bad ones. There is a group of people who see their mission as simply running things. They see no need to be actually involved with soaring beyond one or two flights a year wherein they scare themselves silly. This flight 'checks the box' and provides them with a topic for discussion over beers at a local dive for the subsequent 12 months. With the view that the best clubs are governed by active XC glider pilots with advanced ratings, badges and contest standings, I propose that any new clubs still writing their bylaws and those in a position to re-write theirs consider setting minimum competency requirements for club officers and board members. For example: 1. Keep the dead wood cleared by requiring that every officer and board member will have flown every glider as in the club fleet solo within the preceding 12 months. Failure to do so will be considered a letter of resignation. (This, at least, proves they CAN fly. It also requires that an instructor certify them competent in the club fleet.) 2. In a shift from a pure democracy to a semi-meritocracy, handicap candidates for club office with reference to their achievements as pilots. For example an instructor with a Diamond badge and current contest ranking would outrank a student pilot. This instructor would have his vote total multiplied by a factor of say, 2. Appropriate multipliers for lesser achievements would also apply. When all positions of power are filled with accomplished, competent people, bureaucratic obstacles to cross country, advanced training, winch launch etc.. are likely to vanish. I would further propose that any club without a clear pro-growth mission statement and evidence of performance in the form of actual new members be denied the annual SSA dues rebate and suffer any other sanctions as are possible such as ineligibility for SSA insurance discounts. Bill Daniels 'Marian Aldenhövel' wrote in message ... Hi, unfortunately the board members have decided to eject me from the club if I partipate any more in this discussion online. My suggestion would be a different club. If at all possible. Ciao, MM -- Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. Fon +49 228 624013, Fax +49 228 624031. http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de 'FOUR MORE BEERS!' -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd wrote:
But I'm not sure "5 hours" is a magic number. It's not. A neighbour club asks for "either once 5 hours or twice 4 hours", and I'm certain that other clubs have even other rules. Our club happens to require 5 hours, and this is neither better nor worse than other rules. The point is, in a real world club, you need strict rules. Otherwise it will be the source of eternal discussions ("why is he allowed and I'm not"). Yes, there are good times when everything works well and it would do so without rules. But unevitably there will be bad times, and all those rules are for those times. I live well with our rules, if I were in an other club, I supposedly would live well with their rules. Stefan |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think there should be at least one board spot .... I don't know about your club. But in our, the problem isn't that there is no place in the board. We are ever so happy if somebody volunteers to do the work! Because all we want to do is fly. (Cross country, to stay on topic.) Stefan |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
mat Redsell wrote:
Thanks for all of the good responses to my original quesiton on Cross Country... unfortunately the board members have decided to eject me from the club if I partipate any more in this discussion online. Count your blessings and move on. There must be clubs in your area with rational members/directors. Good luck. Jack |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Count your blessings and move on. There must be clubs in your area with
rational members/directors. A few weeks ago, my club had a certain review performed by an established authority in our hobby. The President, some directors, some instructors, and a member from the safety committee had a meeting with the review people at a picnic table just a few feet from where I was working on my sailplane. It was funny to hear some of the half truths told my the president. For instance, "One of our members is a Airframes and Instruments (AI)". While this is true, the AI is actually an inactive member. None of the president's cronies clarified that point. Every time I walked towards the tail of the glider, one of the board members in particular would look at me like a deer caught in the headlights, scared that I would say something...I just smiled because I knew it was such a fiasco. About an hour into this meeting, the head of the safety committee got up, grabbed me by the shoulder and walked me off about 15 feet, yet still in full view of the authorities. He told me that if I knew what was good for me I would keep my mouth shut. I denied that I was going to say anything. He said I was going to! He then told me to stop smiling! It was obvious to all what had transpired, based on the body language, but no apology was forthcoming. Welcome to the wonderful "brotherhood" of gliding. Most students take over two years to get their tickets at my club, so after a year, they are voting members. The instructors then basically tell them who to vote for. Of our current board, I think over 80% are instructors, and I think only one of them has earned a 50k. Pretty sad. So bring it on...you've kicked me off the instruction committee and told students that I'm dangerous, don't know what I'm talking about, and don't follow the FAR's...so what's next in you ball of tricks? Jim Vincent N483SZ illspam |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cross country time | clyde woempner | Owning | 5 | February 2nd 05 10:36 PM |
Cross Country Logging time | Jim | Piloting | 14 | April 21st 04 09:58 PM |
ADV: World Air Power Journal collection on Ebay | Jeb Hoge | Military Aviation | 1 | March 16th 04 02:18 AM |
US cross country flight | S Narayan | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | January 7th 04 02:58 PM |
US cross country flight | S Narayan | Piloting | 0 | January 7th 04 02:58 PM |