Open Discussion; Creating XC pilots

All,

I presented at the SSA conference this last winter on the efforts of our club to build XC soaring pilots. This has been an emphasis for me for many years (hence my moniker SoaringXCellence), to the point I went and personally bought a G103 just so I could provide the training (since been sold, congratulations Coastal Soaring).

In the last 12 years the Willamette Valley club has gone from an average of 50-60 active pilots, to over 80 (we finished the last year with over 120, out of Portland Oregon!!)

I attribute this growth to the support the club now gives to members that want to go XC. Fifteen years ago we did NOT permit club gliders to be flown XC. This meant that potential XC pilots had to get their own ship before attempting ANY XC flights. Quite a deterrent! We had a few syndicates but most XC flights were in single owner ships. It was the only way to participate.

Several years ago several of us began an XC soaring Special Interest Group (SIG) in the club and met frequently to discuss flights and generally support each others efforts (we agreed that we would retrieve for each other as needed). Several of the club officers were in that group and slowly steered the direction of the club to embrace and allow XC flight.

We now have 3 single-place ships that are set up and available for XC flights (another if you count the SGS 1-26) and there is competition for their time on any reasonable soaring day. We have a Twin Astir for dual XC flights (as well as the Blanik 1-23, which I do take XC!).

The result is that from 2004 to 2014 we have grown from 6 pilots trying OLC to over 20 on any given year. We also have champions in the region 8 Sports class (congratulations, Joe Steele) that only begin flying 4 years ago.

I'm still the primary XC training instructor and could fill my time with XC students most days the field is open.

Another factor in the growth is a special training program called the "5-pack". This is a program that provide more than just a single "sled-ride" flight where skills can be developed and a more complete exposure of the sport can occur. For a cost of $450 the student gets a 3-month club membership, 5 tows to 3000 feet, aircraft rental and instructor for up to an hour. The 3-month membership allows the student more time to complete the flights (rather than just one weekend). This year we are currently restricting the number of 5-packs due to the instructor's student load. We can't handle more at the moment! I think we're teaching 10-15 currently. This is in addition to the other club pilots moving through the training from Student to Commercial.

We have about a 70-80% conversion of the 5-pack to a full club membership. Most are still with the club after 5 years.

SO that's the Willamette Valley effort to grow the XC pilot pupolation. I'd like to hear other efforts and ideas.

Sorry for the long post,

MB

MB -

Does Willamette Valley assign an instructor to a student in some fashion, or are you on a purely-rotation basis for instructors? Also, I understand that Tow Pilots may get compensated for towing... Are instructors compensated somehow as well? You seem to be doing well compared to some other clubs in your region (like my local club near Seattle); and we'd love to hear more about your operations.

In my experience one of the issues leading to a lack of XC pilots is that basic training (especially in club environments) tends to be a very drawn-out affair. First, weekends and good weather limit the number of days people are interested in flying (or, in some clubs, interest in running field operations despite student interest). Second, there are often major inconsistencies between instructors; who are often volunteers that mean well, but have little incentive to work on unified instructional standards or close cooperation with fellow CFIGs or their students. Many clubs (including my local one) use rotating instructors, so students must constantly re-adapt to different instructing styles and methods. Plus, in that system, each instructor has to spend a flight evaluating where the student is at before new instruction can actually take place.

Also, many clubs operate on a "first-come, first-served" basis for training.. I've seen that lead to instructors doing 8-10 flights in a day, but each student only getting 1 flight. This is horrible for everyone: it wears out the instructors _and_ it doesn't give the students much of a learning opportunity. Furthermore, students feel like they've wasted their entire day for only a small return on their investment of time... And time is a big deal these days for most folks - regardless of your age or income-level.

Bottom-line: Soaring is already at a handicap when compared to other activities, because it requires you to build several layers of skills before having lasting fun experiences (i.e. staying loft for long periods, going XC, flying badges, and generally feeling independent & confident). We don't need to insert extra barriers that slow down the opportunities for learning and involvement.

--Noel

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:41:40 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
MB -



Does Willamette Valley assign an instructor to a student....

Noel, et al,

I've been on the road all week and not able to respond to questions or comments in a timely manner, my apologies.

The WVSC does not exactly assign students, the chief instructor just asks who can take another student and that's where they go! We have a policy that students that are flying before 12PM can take three flights or one hour. That works pretty well in the morning before the lift begins. The students can get in at least a couple 3000 tows and a pattern in the hour. If they hang areound the rest of the day they may get in one or two more. We're open 4 days a week, Wed. Fri. and weekends. Students that can do their flying on Wed. or Fri. can really make progress as the demand for ships is lower on those days.

As I said, this year we are constrained and are not accepting more students until some of the pre-solo students have soloed. Instructors are "normal" members of the club, they pay dues and work Ops days. They are also independent in most of their financial dealings with their students. The exception is the 5-pack where payment comes from the club. Last year I went over the $600 IRS limit (with 5-packs) and got a 1099 from the club!

I think most instructors in the club are charging $35 per hour and the population is happy with the rates.

Regarding XC use of club planes, we also require that all pilots have a Private certificate and complete the Bronze badge before attempting solo. I also think that many complete the duration leg of the Silver badge before heading out XC.

As I noted in the OP, I bought a higher performance dual-seat glider just so I could teach the XC elements "for real". Once the club got a ship that was able to be used, I sold mine.

Regarding the use of Condor, I've had great success in the past year getting student using Condor and making great progress. I bought a copy of Frank's book at the convention and am still trying to get into it, I'm a professional flight instructor, it's my daily job, and this time of year we fly from sun-up to sun-down at the flight school. I don't get much reading time!

I have used a C-150 to do area flights, getting students looking at the potential land-out sites and just getting a broader view of the world.

Another long post but I was just catching up!

MB

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:41:40 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:

one of the issues leading to a lack of XC pilots is that basic training (especially in club environments) tends to be a very drawn-out affair. First, weekends and good weather limit the number of days people are interested in flying ...

I've seen too many students with 'go for it' personalities abandon their soaring training for want of more rapid progress. What about getting promising students on XC flights before they drop out of soaring? Maybe this would help reduce the drop out rate and transition people to XC before they get bored. It might accelerate basic training.

How many XC pilots flew XC (in tandem) before they finished their basic training? I'd guess that that happens at some clubs.

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:24:58 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:41:40 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:



one of the issues leading to a lack of XC pilots is that basic training (especially in club environments) tends to be a very drawn-out affair. First, weekends and good weather limit the number of days people are interested in flying ...



I've seen too many students with 'go for it' personalities abandon their soaring training for want of more rapid progress. What about getting promising students on XC flights before they drop out of soaring? Maybe this would help reduce the drop out rate and transition people to XC before they get bored. It might accelerate basic training.



How many XC pilots flew XC (in tandem) before they finished their basic training? I'd guess that that happens at some clubs.

Student dual XC of more than 50km is happening more and more as high performance trainers become widely available - something that just wasn't practical with 2-33's. Note that fairly extensive dual and solo XC is required for all airplane student pilots.

" What about getting promising students on XC flights before they drop out of soaring?"

Last month one of my solo students offered to back-seat while I did a short XC flight in the Blanik. All of the common comments:

"Wow, you fly faster than I did!" and "You really bank much more than I did.", airspeed management while thermaling, etc.

I have done that with many of the pre-private students and a couple of long-time private pilots. One can read all the presentations, and listen to the hanger talk, but getting them into a glider and just letting them watch can be a great experience.

MB (Mike Bamberg)

PS, personal note, I just got confirmation of my contest number for my H301, 4M, Love it!

'PS, personal note, I just got confirmation of my contest number for my H301, 4M, Love it!'

My Arcus M has comp no 4M. In the UK you can choose any comp no which is not already taken. Some of my non-engine equipped friends have starred to call it 4 Motor.

Noel wade wrote:
one of the issues leading to a lack of XC pilots is that basic training (especially in club environments) tends to be a very drawn-out affair


Noel, you are quite right barriers and inconsistent instruction is the name of the game in most club environments, but there is a way around this problem. Contiguous instruction over a short period of time achieves best results. Course instruction would achieve this but the objection is always we don't have the resources to run week long courses. So don't run week long courses run the course over a number of weekends and reduce the tow height to 1,200-1,500 feet or better still run a winch operation. Another refinement would be to charge up front for the course and add as an option a small fee to cover the first years membership. The benefits:

Consistent instruction
Rapid advancement
Guaranteed attendance by both instructors and students
Ground school in the non flyable periods
Students learn the operation and the benefits of group cooperation
Instructors and Students are guaranteed their time is not wasted
I am sure you can add a few more

Andy Gough

Andy - Yes I have many of the same thoughts & opinions. You talk of charging a fee: I think some people are overly-concerned about making soaring "cheap", but this is a false approach when there are so many less-expensive hobbies out there (including R/C plans and paragliding/hang-gliding). I think we should try to keep costs reasonable; but c'mon people, a Cessna with an instructor costs around $200/hr these days!

Even if costs rise some from their present levels, Soaring is way more money-efficient than that. Its just way less time-efficient, due to the manner in which many clubs/field-operations are run. I've got no problem with the idea of throwing up a (low) fiscal bar for entry, if it enables better operations or training. And requiring an upfront commitment (such as you're proposing) helps discourage the folks who aren't passionate and motivated. HOWEVER, if you offer such a program and get a commitment from students then you *must* be able to follow through with it. And you have to make sure that people feel they're getting their money's worth or you've done more harm than good. Providing that value takes organization and dedication, though - and securing those commitments from people in an existing embedded culture is tough...

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). 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).

--Noel

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.