Glider Cross-country signoff & FARs

(Mark James Boyd) wrote
Also required for PP is an
endorsement approving cross country flights.

Nuh-uh. You're makin' that up.

It's not right, but he may not be making this up. In the Houston area
we have (or at least had) a DE who would not ride with a student who
lacked the XC solo endorsement. His logic was that if you (as a CFIG)
were not willing to endorse the student for XC flight, clearly you
must not have given him adequate instruction in XC flying, which is
required.

Michael

Michael wrote:
..... if you (as a CFIG)
were not willing to endorse the student for XC flight, clearly you
must not have given him adequate instruction in XC flying, which is
required.


Assuming the U.S. and glider ratings, there is no XC requirement in the
Practical Test Standard.

Tony V.

At 21:54 14 January 2004, Todd Pattist wrote:

Moreover, a U.S.
Private Pilot Glider rated pilot who wishes to transition
and add an airplane category to his private certificate
will
not be tested on navigation or cross country procedures
listed in the Airplane PTS when he takes his practical
test
for the airplane category add-on. The airplane PTS
specifically excludes those areas (as well as weather)
for
the glider-rated transition pilot.

This is certainly what the PTS 'matrix' seems to show,
but with minor variations, 'Use if the PTS Book,' is
a text passage common to all PTSs. This passage indicates:

'...An applicant who holds (a/at least a) private pilot
certificate seeking an additional (category/ class)
rating, will be evaluated in at least the areas of
operation and tasks listed in the Additional Rating
Task Table located on page 9 of this practical test
standard. At the discretion of the examiner, an evaluation
of the applicant’s competence in the remaining areas
of operation and tasks may be conducted.'

I believe many DPEs delve into the non-mandatory tasks
when examining transition pilots because (1) a satisfactory
exam means the DPE's signature will forever be in the
applicant's logbook. In ink and (2) requisite skills
can and do vary with aircraft category.

Judy

Tony Verhulst wrote
Assuming the U.S. and glider ratings, there is no XC requirement in the
Practical Test Standard.

Take another look at Area of Operation VIII - Navigation. That's
where the XC stuff lives.

Michael

Tony Verhulst wrote:
Michael wrote:
..... if you (as a CFIG)
were not willing to endorse the student for XC flight, clearly you
must not have given him adequate instruction in XC flying, which is
required.

Assuming the U.S. and glider ratings, there is no XC requirement in the
Practical Test Standard.

Tony V.

Area VIII: Navigation
A. Task: Flight Preparation and Planning
4. Constructs a flight profile to determine minimum flight
altitude at go-ahead points.

This is probably the clearest requirement for ORAL testing of
X-C planning proficiency. Can't tell go-ahead points without
wind effects, need to read a TAF for that, etc...

As far as an examiner requiring an XC endorsement for a practical test,
DPE's can make up their own rules and do whatever they want.
Some DPE's won't fly certain planes (a Tomahawk) or refuse
to fly in actual IFR even for an IFR checkride, or require that
the CFI applicant have spin training from the instructor that
signs them off. DPE's that make their additional requirements
known BEFORE the flight test I would think were wholly within their
discretion. On the other hand, taking someone's $250 and then
telling them they need a XC signoff and another $250 at a later
date is dirty pool and would get a response from me if I were the
recommender.

And different FSDO's get some leeway in "interpretation."
In Alaska, the examiner's include "defrosting the freakin'
engine" as part of the tested preflight. In Hawaii, overwater
operations and using their flight tracking system is tested.
So yes, there seems to be a lot of discretion given...

But is an XC 61.93 endorsement required for all glider practical
tests? No way. Neither is a "B" airspace endorsement, or
a "night" endorsement, or an endorsement to land at every airport
that pilot may select in the future. Can someone legally fly a glider
at night into B airspace to a completely new airport after getting
the glider PPL? Yes (if they have enough money for all the
electric things). But requiring sign-offs for this generally
of all applicants across the country would be absurd.

I read somewhere that only 20% of glider PPL's ever do a
cross-country. This matches my personal observations.
I'm also keenly aware that in the US, one gets a "glider"
license, not a "soaring" license. If all you have is a winch,
a 2-33, and stable air when the student has time to fly, how
are you gonna fly a dual cross-country? Is there really
any reason to make getting a glider license harder?

In article 400ae103$1@darkstar,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

If all you have is a winch, a 2-33, and stable air when the student
has time to fly, how are you gonna fly a dual cross-country?

More to the point: why do you bother having a "gliding" club there at
all?

-- Bruce

(Mark James Boyd) wrote
I read somewhere that only 20% of glider PPL's ever do a
cross-country. This matches my personal observations.

The question is why. I don't believe it's because only 20% of glider
pilots WANT to do a XC. I think it's because (1) they feel unprepared
and (2) most clubs and commercial operations make it difficult or
impossible to do without buying your own ship.

If a solo XC was required for the private, I think this would change.
I think it would be a good thing.

When I learned to fly in power 10 years ago, a student had to do a 300
nm XC flight. In those days, newly minted private pilots went places.
I flew from the Midwest to the East Coast two weeks after getting my
ticket, and this was normal. Going away from home gave me the skills
and confidence to do it.

These days, you can be a private pilot in power without ever going 80
miles from home. I've noticed that this has failed to actually
increase the number of pilots by any appreciable amount, but it has
changed the culture - negatively. Most private pilots I know rarely
venture far from home, and do so only under ideal conditions. Only
about 20% ever go more than one fuel tank from home at all.
Interestingly, they are the same people who stick with flying for the
long term.

Thus I have to believe that requiring a solo XC for gliders would not
actually reduce the number of pilots significantly, but it would give
us a very different culture - one where XC soaring was the norm rather
than the exception. Might improve retention too.

Michael

Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article 400ae103$1@darkstar,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

If all you have is a winch, a 2-33, and stable air when the student
has time to fly, how are you gonna fly a dual cross-country?

More to the point: why do you bother having a "gliding" club there at
all?

-- Bruce

Let's see, because some people like to get a "glider" license
so they can take up friends and family on calm days at sunset
on high tows and glide in quiet and serenity.

Because the local "glider" operation is close and you can get
a license there in the winter when CFIG's and gliders are
easy to schedule and if you had to go to a "soaring" site
200 miles away for all your training you'd never get a license
and never get to fly with your friends and family.

Because the 80% of the glider pilots that never go X-C
are willing to spend money there in the winter so that the
operation makes enough money so that it is alive in the
summer/soaring season and the tow pilots and CFIG's are
well rehearsed and current in flying takeoffs and
landings.

Because takeoffs and landings are the majority of accidents
in gliding and practicing these things during the off
months gives more experience for the later soaring months.

Etc...

....but I'm sure you could come up with more reasons if
you thought about it...

In article ,
Michael wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote
I read somewhere that only 20% of glider PPL's ever do a
cross-country. This matches my personal observations.

The question is why. I don't believe it's because only 20% of glider
pilots WANT to do a XC. I think it's because (1) they feel unprepared
and (2) most clubs and commercial operations make it difficult or
impossible to do without buying your own ship.


Partially correct. (1) Many are unprepared, because they don't
want to spend the extra money and time required to fly X-C.
They have made a choice to not make the additional investment.
I'm happy to have them at the gliderport anyway.

(2) Clubs and commercial operations make it difficult
or impossible to fly X-C? Compared to what? Compared to
having nothing there at all? That's kind of like saying
having a sole Cessna 152 for rent at a deserted airfield
is keeping student from doing commercial training. I'm
having a lot of trouble with this logic...

If a solo XC was required for the private, I think this would change.

Yes, less people would have the time and money to complete
the glider PPL. And the remaining ones would have done a X-C.

I think it would be a good thing.

Well, that depends on your viewpoint. If you're offended
by all that silly local glider traffic in the pattern,
and you wanted to reduce the number of passengers carried in
gliders, then it would be a good thing.
And it would certainly be safer if there were fewer glider
pilots flying gliders, and fewer passengers.

When I learned to fly in power 10 years ago, a student had to do a 300
nm XC flight. In those days, newly minted private pilots went places.
I flew from the Midwest to the East Coast two weeks after getting my
ticket, and this was normal. Going away from home gave me the skills
and confidence to do it.

And it was both ways, uphill, in the snow, right? :P

These days, you can be a private pilot in power without ever going 80
miles from home. I've noticed that this has failed to actually
increase the number of pilots by any appreciable amount, but it has
changed the culture - negatively. Most private pilots I know rarely
venture far from home, and do so only under ideal conditions. Only
about 20% ever go more than one fuel tank from home at all.
Interestingly, they are the same people who stick with flying for the
long term.

Most private pilots I know would love to rent an airplane and fly a
very long distance, but the tripling of commercial insurance in four
years, reflected in the rental price, has cooled their enthusiasm.
Four years ago I could rent a two seat airplane for $32 an hour at
WVI. Today $60 an hour is the cheapest. I think cost is
the driving behavior...


Thus I have to believe that requiring a solo XC for gliders would not
actually reduce the number of pilots significantly, but it would give
us a very different culture - one where XC soaring was the norm rather
than the exception. Might improve retention too.

Michael

Raise the cost and the demand will increase? Interesting
theory (I suppose it works for Versace). I can't say I buy the
logic here, however. Encouraging pilots to fly X-C, making it
easier and safer for them, volunteering to crew, making
excellent maps of landouts, acting as a mentor, etc.
sound great, but requiring it for the PPL just increases the cost
(time and money) and reduces the chance of completing the license.

- one where XC soaring was the norm rather
than the exception.

Well, if you want fewer pilots, all of which are more hard core,
and into X-C, that'll do it. If all you offer is a burger
with everything, all the remaining customers will like burgers,
with everything.

Might improve retention too.

I agree with this. If a pilot spent 5 times as much time and money
for a license, they'd be darned sure to be the most motivated cream of the
crop, and get use out of it...

But retention at the cost of recruitment? Hmmm...not something I
favor. For certain clubs, probably a good idea (many
clubs have training requirements before going X-C solo in their
gliders), but for the general population, no.

The sport-pilot initiative is the opposite of your
idea, applied to power and gliders. Commercial operators
and sellers of aircraft have pushed to lessen the
requirements (including X-C) to reduce barriers to
entry into sport aviation.

Like sport pilot, I'd like to see the requirements
remain the same, or be reduced (reducing barriers to
entry). Then the additional effort can go towards
ENCOURAGING optional flying, like X-C, formation,
racing, IFR, night, etc.

I must say, however, that I don't realistically see the
hours required ever being reduced. Learning how to
launch and land safely in a glider is going to take
at least the minimum required by the US CFR in any case,
from my experience. Granted, there will be a few
youngsters who have flown with dad a lot but haven't
logged it, who can aerotow and land after three lessons,
but for the most part, the US CFR minimums
do a good job of matching the licenses (and privileges)
granted.

I'm just really glad that sport pilot is coming along,
so that power pilots aren't required to fly any X-C
before taking a passenger in a Cub or something like that.
I've seen a lot of perfectly good pilots solo, but go no
further due to money constraints. Solo was $1000 vs.
an additional $4000 to finish all the additional
training (night, IFR, X-C, towered airports, etc.).
If it had been just another $250 for a checkride and
then they could take a friend around the local area,
I think some would have remained in aviation.

(Mark James Boyd) wrote
(2) Clubs and commercial operations make it difficult
or impossible to fly X-C? Compared to what? Compared to
having nothing there at all?

Disingenuous in the extreme. You don't need a 40:1 ship to go XC. I
didn't have one. All of my XC flights were in a ship I bought for
less than $7000, ready to go, current annual, roadworthy enclosed
trailer. That ship spent quite a few years as a club ship. Most
clubs and commercial operations have ships suitable for XC. Hell, a
1-26 or Ka-8 is suitable, and plenty of people are still doing their
first XC's in these ships and having great fun.

Clubs and XC operations make it difficult to go XC by making all sorts
of rules that sound reasonable on paper but add up to making it very
difficult or impossible to get permission. Making the XC required
would force them to change their rules, and that's the reason I think
it's a good idea.

If a solo XC was required for the private, I think this would change.

Yes, less people would have the time and money to complete
the glider PPL.

This is the core of your entire argument downstream from here. All I
can say is what I already said:

These days, you can be a private pilot in power without ever going 80
miles from home. I've noticed that this has failed to actually
increase the number of pilots by any appreciable amount

The reduction in XC requirements has failed to increase participation.
The recreational certificate requires no XC at all, and it has also
failed to increase participation. Therefore, I consider all your
arguments that adding a XC requirement to the glider private would
reduce participation wholly unpersuasive.

The sport-pilot initiative is the opposite of your
idea, applied to power and gliders.

The sport pilot initiative is meaningless. The reduced training
requirement will not affect participation. What WILL affect
participation is the driver's license medical (a little - and be aware
that much of it will be at the cost of participation in soaring) and
the LSA. THAT is what matters - having a new crop of ready-to-fly new
aircraft that can be built and maintained without the costs of
certification. If we really start seeing new airplanes at the cost of
a new car and the ability to fly power without a medical, that's going
to make a real difference. If we don't, sport pilot will have as much
impact as recreational pilot - none.

I'm just really glad that sport pilot is coming along,
so that power pilots aren't required to fly any X-C
before taking a passenger in a Cub or something like that.
I've seen a lot of perfectly good pilots solo, but go no
further due to money constraints. Solo was $1000 vs.
an additional $4000 to finish all the additional
training (night, IFR, X-C, towered airports, etc.).

So? Recreational pilot requires none of this. How many recreational
pilots are there?

Michael