How do we inspire pilots to truly take up cross country soaring ?

Not really. The actual EASA requirement is for a solo 50km flight or a dual 100km flight.

These do not have to be FAI silver badge qualifying flights. It is possible to fly a 50km quadrilateral without getting more than 15km from the airfield, ie local soaring on a half decent day. Also, the cross country flight is training, not a test; the student can be a passenger while the instructor goes for a jolly & points out a few landmarks, the flight still qualifies. The dual flight can be done in a TMG so it's all a bit of a joke.

The likelihood in my part of EASA-land is that we will continue to do 100km dual cross country flights as a test & if flown in a TMG to simulate typical gliding flight (ie not in straight lines at a constant altitude.) The legal minimum & what is sensible are not necessarily the same.

Ed


On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:02:06 PM UTC+1, Sean Fidler wrote:
That is FANTASTIC NEWS!

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:48:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:20:55 AM UTC-6, Tango Whisky wrote:
Very good point.
Under the new EASA rules, students have to demonstrate xc-capabilities before earning their licence.
In Germany, that has been mandatory ever since. And in Germany or France, a candidate for FI had to prove a total XC experience of at least 500 km (and the total training time obtaining the FI level is one year, typically).

Bert
Ventus cM TW

Am Mittwoch, 19. August 2015 16:43:14 UTC+2 schrieb Sean Fidler:
One big glaring issue I see in regards to encouraging XC is that a short cross country flight is not a requirement for earning a glider private rating (or a commercial rating for that matter)?

If we let students earn their "glider rating" purely by flying within gliding range of the airport, we unsurprisingly get a large portion of "rated" glider pilots who become very comfortable not venturing outside of gliding range of the airport. This is really no surprise, is it?

"Train how you fight, fight how you train..."

If students (and their instructors), as part of their training, never have to truly think about, plan or execute XC skills are we not setting them up for XC failure? More importantly, our CFIGs can happily exists as CFIGs without any skill, experience or desire for cross country flight! You can get a CFIG rating and keep it today without ever having ventured outside of "gliding range" of the airport! In fact, many CFIGs openly discourage XC flight as irresponsible, etc. Land outs are bad...mmm-Kay! The same goes for most FAA glider "examiners(?)." This is incredible to me and probably a little frustrating to many of us.

Many (most?, but not all!) glider "instructors" simply never learn XC skills and therefore never really teach it (or meaningfully encourage it). They often don't have a great LOVE for cross country. They often don't understand it. Many see glider flight close to the airport as normal and how it "should" be. Many are not passionate about moving their students towards cross country. Obviously, these glider "instructors" are not the greatest "spark-plugs" for preparing new glider pilots to get into the more advanced levels of the sport of soaring (XC). In certain cases they are "allowed" to actively discourage developing cross country skills (that's dangerous, etc). They know who they are.

This broken dynamic is a major problem that we face with soaring today. It is at least part of the reason why we are seeing fewer new pilots joining us on cross country's.

If I was "king" ;-) I would fundamentally change this FAA glider instruction dynamic.

1) Students would have to plan for and complete a short 50km cross country as part of the flight training process. Instructors would have to truly teach this XC skill, and help the student practice it! This short XC would be a required element. The student would not have to do this solo. Waivers for instruction in difficult terrain (why get flight training here?) or poor weather (why get glider training in the winter?) would be allowed, but in general XC would be an important highlight of the glider flight training experience (vs something that is just glanced over). Just like the long cross country is a highlight of a private power rating, the XC element of the glider rating would be the most memorable (and inspirational) for the student! If I remember correctly the long cross country (power) is done both with an instructor and solo! Why is this short XC not at least a requirement with the instructor with gliders? It makes no sense to me. Even a 20 km cross country would be better than nothing.

2) CFIGs would need to compete a 100km cross country (with a student or solo) every 2 years to remain current. This would need to be verified like a silver badge is today with witnesses, etc. Period! No exceptions. You either love the sport of soaring (XC) and are competent at it OR you are not. We need CFIGs to be ambassadors for cross country soaring and truly love it. Don't tell me...SHOW ME! Prove it.

3) FAA examiners would also need to have a 100km cross country every 2 years. They need to be able to evaluate the students ability to understand cross country soaring in the oral examination. Without some minimum cross country experience themselves, this is a total pushover.

I'll retreat to my bunker for the fallout this post will create! ;-). But I have to say we need some changes in this area of the sport.

Sean

I expect the FAA will eventually change Part 61 to fall in line with EASA.

FWIW, the EASA experience requirements for the equivalent of a PP-G a


10 hours of dual instruction
-
2 hours supervised solo flight time
-
45 launches and landings
-
1 cross country flight of at least 100km under the supervision of an instructor

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Not really. The actual EASA requirement is for a solo 50km flight or a dual 100km flight.

Those experience requirements were copy and pasted directly from the current EASA regulations without edit.

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 6:33:43 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Why do you have to wait for the FAA to mandate it? Can't clubs implement a similar policy of their own accord?

I can understand a commercial organisation employing any qualified instructor regardless of actual soaring experience, they're not interested in renting gliders for solo cross country.

True. Many instructors at commercial operation don't have XC qualifications. Unfortunately, commercial operations train more than 80% of US glider pilots simply because they are bigger and operate more days a year than clubs. To do much good, I think XC requirements have to be in the regulations.

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 2:46:04 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Not really. The actual EASA requirement is for a solo 50km flight or a dual 100km flight.

Those experience requirements were copy and pasted directly from the current EASA regulations without edit.

You're reading something wrong. FCL.110.S:
(4) 1 solo cross-country flight of at least 50 km (27 NM) or 1 dual cross-country flight of at least 100 km (55 NM).

Straight from EASA:
http://easa.europa.eu/document-libra...eu-no-11782011

I think that it is unfair to give a bad rap to GFIC's who are not cross country pilots! In my opinion, the primary responsibility of an Instructor is to train and develop a safe, competent pilot. My Instrutors taught me well.. They taught me to fly with precision and most importantly I was taught had to make good decisions. When I started flying, 5 miles miles from the Field might as well have been 50 miles. I was taught how to thermal, land using TLAR. These are skill sets which allowed me to later "get away" from the field. I'll always remember the first time one of my instructors had me thermal at 1500 ft Agl. He said " You need to know what this looks like". We were within one mile of the runway.

I became partners in a 1-26 will still a student, later I moved to another partnership in a Standard Libelle.
It wasn't until I bought my own ship, a LS4, that I began to go cross country. It was my ship. I didn't have to answer to anybody but myself if I damaged the Ship. I have since moved to a ASW 27 with one other Partner.

My home Club is CCSC in southern Ohio. The people who made the difference were the experienced cross country pilots who took me under their wing. They offered encouragement. They have helped me evaluate my skill sets. We discuss weather, set turn points, and talk about the day afterwards. I was taught how to think of the next airport as my new " Home Field". They told me not to worry if I landed out. I knew they would retrieve me.They took me in with open arms. These are the people who have the skills and experience to help Folks to the next level. I have my Gold Badge with one Diamond.

OLC has provided an incentive to me to set goals and review my flights comparing to the Others I flew with that day. Racing isn't the only way.

The answer to our diminishing membership is not resolved by solely developing cross country pilots. An individual needs to make that decision on his own. In fact, cross county pilots, can a discourage individuals by showing "superior attitudes"

It takes a broad range of talents to run a successful Club. Retention might be improved by welcoming and acknowledging all contributions including non cross country Instructors.

BTW, a lot of revenue is generated for Clubs from Folks who just " Fly around the Patch"

Just my Thoughts and Experiece.

I agree that all instructors do not need to be XC qualified. First you need students flying, then you need them soaring. As long as the "general" policy, is to support XC training your club will fledge more pilots. In our club, much XC "instruction" is done by non instructors.

One other policy we put in place is your first aero retrieve is free. This was to help eliminate "get homeites". Don't sweat it, land safely, we will come get you...

RR

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 4:12:43 AM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:21:16 AM UTC+3, son_of_flubber wrote:
A highly respected CFI-G says "I NEVER want to land out" (to budding pilots gathered around the picnic table). "That's just dumb. Why would you get off tow below 1500 AGL? Why take that risk?"

I have a number of times had tow pilots approach me after I landed from a multi-hour flight and ask why I got off at 800 ft or 1000 ft above launch height. Was there something wrong with the tow? No -- we flew through a big fat thermal!

I'm actually amazed, when I fly with other pilots, how many carry on through juicy thermals to the launch height they already had in their heads.

If you're flying along and suddenly the towplane shoots up above you, start counting. If the vario is now reading 10 (5 for euros) and you've counted past ten before the townplane suddenly drops away below you then just release and turn back hard.

Of course, there's increased risk of it not really working and landing back for a relight. But I can't actually think of a time when it happened to me on a day when others were successfully soaring.

One of the closest was when I was visiting the US and found a club near Joliet IL. Jumped in a Duo (a type I hadn't flown before, though I knew the Janus pretty well) with an instructor and surprised the heck out of him by releasing at 700 ft AGL. It very nearly didn't work, with about 15 min of scratching at around launch height. But then I got away to 4000 ft and we went on a nice tour of the area. (there was never any question of not being able to make it back, of course)

Bruce,
Thanks for mentioning our Chicago Glider Club near Joliet IL - and your flight in our Duo. I practice what you are preaching all the time and our tow-pilots sometimes ask the "what was wrong" question if I stay on tow all the way up to 2,000'. But then, I was trained on a winch back in Germany, we were lucky to get 1,500'.
Herb

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 8:26:04 AM UTC-4, RR wrote:
I agree that all instructors do not need to be XC qualified.

But I'd suggest that all instructors should be able and ready to:

1)land out close to the airport (it happens) and

2)have the skills to climb in a weak and ragged thermal.


The two most useful comments that I gotten from XC pilots (well after I earned my PPL-Glider):

1)You suck at thermal centering. You need to get into the core.

2)You need to bank steeper and fly slower.

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:43:14 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
One big glaring issue I see in regards to encouraging XC is that a short cross country flight is not a requirement for earning a glider private rating (or a commercial rating for that matter)?

If we let students earn their "glider rating" purely by flying within gliding range of the airport, we unsurprisingly get a large portion of "rated" glider pilots who become very comfortable not venturing outside of gliding range of the airport. This is really no surprise, is it?

"Train how you fight, fight how you train..."

If students (and their instructors), as part of their training, never have to truly think about, plan or execute XC skills are we not setting them up for XC failure? More importantly, our CFIGs can happily exists as CFIGs without any skill, experience or desire for cross country flight! You can get a CFIG rating and keep it today without ever having ventured outside of "gliding range" of the airport! In fact, many CFIGs openly discourage XC flight as irresponsible, etc. Land outs are bad...mmm-Kay! The same goes for most FAA glider "examiners(?)." This is incredible to me and probably a little frustrating to many of us.

Many (most?, but not all!) glider "instructors" simply never learn XC skills and therefore never really teach it (or meaningfully encourage it). They often don't have a great LOVE for cross country. They often don't understand it. Many see glider flight close to the airport as normal and how it "should" be. Many are not passionate about moving their students towards cross country. Obviously, these glider "instructors" are not the greatest "spark-plugs" for preparing new glider pilots to get into the more advanced levels of the sport of soaring (XC). In certain cases they are "allowed" to actively discourage developing cross country skills (that's dangerous, etc). They know who they are.

This broken dynamic is a major problem that we face with soaring today. It is at least part of the reason why we are seeing fewer new pilots joining us on cross country's.

If I was "king" ;-) I would fundamentally change this FAA glider instruction dynamic.

1) Students would have to plan for and complete a short 50km cross country as part of the flight training process. Instructors would have to truly teach this XC skill, and help the student practice it! This short XC would be a required element. The student would not have to do this solo. Waivers for instruction in difficult terrain (why get flight training here?) or poor weather (why get glider training in the winter?) would be allowed, but in general XC would be an important highlight of the glider flight training experience (vs something that is just glanced over). Just like the long cross country is a highlight of a private power rating, the XC element of the glider rating would be the most memorable (and inspirational) for the student! If I remember correctly the long cross country (power) is done both with an instructor and solo! Why is this short XC not at least a requirement with the instructor with gliders? It makes no sense to me. Even a 20 km cross country would be better than nothing.

2) CFIGs would need to compete a 100km cross country (with a student or solo) every 2 years to remain current. This would need to be verified like a silver badge is today with witnesses, etc. Period! No exceptions. You either love the sport of soaring (XC) and are competent at it OR you are not. We need CFIGs to be ambassadors for cross country soaring and truly love it. Don't tell me...SHOW ME! Prove it.

3) FAA examiners would also need to have a 100km cross country every 2 years. They need to be able to evaluate the students ability to understand cross country soaring in the oral examination. Without some minimum cross country experience themselves, this is a total pushover.

I'll retreat to my bunker for the fallout this post will create! ;-). But I have to say we need some changes in this area of the sport.

Sean

Sean,
While I fully agree with you regarding making x-country training a part of the instruction toward a private rating... That's what it's still like in Germany, I had to do my 50 km Überlandflug as part of my license there back in 1981 (and in an old Ka 8 to boot). However, when I asked for a club glider to go x-country on a regular basis I encountered all kinds of obstacles. I overcame those but still found appallingly few other club members interested in joining me.
Having the 50-100 km x-country experience does not seem to affect many pilots' view of doing it on a regular basis. As was said here before, you have to be motivated deep inside. I found that reading about long flights did that for me, today I guess YouTube would get new pilots hooked.
Herb

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:26:57 PM UTC+3, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 4:12:43 AM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:21:16 AM UTC+3, son_of_flubber wrote:
A highly respected CFI-G says "I NEVER want to land out" (to budding pilots gathered around the picnic table). "That's just dumb. Why would you get off tow below 1500 AGL? Why take that risk?"

I have a number of times had tow pilots approach me after I landed from a multi-hour flight and ask why I got off at 800 ft or 1000 ft above launch height. Was there something wrong with the tow? No -- we flew through a big fat thermal!

I'm actually amazed, when I fly with other pilots, how many carry on through juicy thermals to the launch height they already had in their heads.

If you're flying along and suddenly the towplane shoots up above you, start counting. If the vario is now reading 10 (5 for euros) and you've counted past ten before the townplane suddenly drops away below you then just release and turn back hard.

Of course, there's increased risk of it not really working and landing back for a relight. But I can't actually think of a time when it happened to me on a day when others were successfully soaring.

One of the closest was when I was visiting the US and found a club near Joliet IL. Jumped in a Duo (a type I hadn't flown before, though I knew the Janus pretty well) with an instructor and surprised the heck out of him by releasing at 700 ft AGL. It very nearly didn't work, with about 15 min of scratching at around launch height. But then I got away to 4000 ft and we went on a nice tour of the area. (there was never any question of not being able to make it back, of course)

Bruce,
Thanks for mentioning our Chicago Glider Club near Joliet IL - and your flight in our Duo. I practice what you are preaching all the time and our tow-pilots sometimes ask the "what was wrong" question if I stay on tow all the way up to 2,000'. But then, I was trained on a winch back in Germany, we were lucky to get 1,500'.
Herb

Herb,

Seemed like a nice operation. Nice fleet and I liked the way some members had houses nestled in the trees on the edge of the field. If my job in Chicago had worked out (.com bust happened .. this was early 2001) I'd have been looking to join the club. As it was, I went back to New Zealand a few weeks before 9/11.

One other interesting point from that flight. We had radio trouble in the circuit. I did a high speed final glide to about 700 ft on the non circuit side (on the runway heading), then a military-style "break and pull" turn onto downwind, bleeding speed. The guy in back got distracted fiddling with the radio while I carried on flying the aircraft. I turned final where I would in the Janus, pulled brakes and ... holy cow ... nothing is happening!! Seems they didn't improve the brakes on the Duo to compensate for the lack of landing flap. Oops.

As it turned out, full brake was sufficient to come down to more or less the threshold, and then we closed the brakes and did a hangar landing anyway. So no big deal. And there was always sideslip available if needed.