AFA Cadet XC Team - MIA at Montegue?

At the risk of being harshly chastised, can anyone tell me or
factually clarify what happened to the AFA Cadet XC Team attending
R-11 or any of the info. presented below? I was informed (by a AFA
team member) in Parowan during the Region 9 comp. the reason why all
five AFA XC team members blew off the Final (Day 7) was to get to the
Region 11 contest in time, perhaps I was misinformed as to the
destination but not the reason for leaving early.

I and others also noticed during the Parowan contest, on one day, all
but one of the five Cadet teams curiously didnt come close to
completing the task. On another day all but one zeroed. I was told the
Cadets were ordered not to exceed a 40 mile distance from the Parowan
airport on one day, negating any possibility of completing the task. I
don’t know what happened the other day. The rumor (?) is the commander
was disciplining the entire team for an individual’s mistake. This
somewhat myopic action was the likely reason the entire Sports class
was devalued that day, affecting all participants, not cool in my
book.

I love seeing the Cadets at the Regional’s but I've questioned in the
past and once again I surly question the AFA commands narrowly focused
mindset and pre-contest preparation at these civilian events. These
fine AFA Cadets have so much they can learn and positively take away
from this civilian contest experience by earnestly taking part from
the beginning to completion of such an event. I find it a bit
disappointing that they seem to be short changed with this unique and
fleeting opportunity. That’s three wasted days out of a seven day
maximum subscribed contest, IM not so HO, One should be all in or all
out.

Respectfully,
21

If they are going to fly with an extra set of rules the rest of us
don't have, maybe we should put them in their own class?

Mike

At 21:24 03 July 2008, Rick Culbertson wrote:

I love seeing the Cadets at the Regional=92s but I've questioned in the
past and once again I surly question the AFA commands narrowly focused
mindset and pre-contest preparation at these civilian events.

This is an example of your basic "military intelligence"
at work.

Jim Beckman

It's difficult and dangerous to criticize the US Air Force soaring
competition program from the outside. I don't know what their
objectives are or how they measure success. I did have the opportunity
to observe the fleet competing at the regional contest during the
Hobbs Standard Class Nationals last year. I chatted with a number of
the cadets and was impressed with their enthusiasm and surprisingly
good (given their relatively brief exposure to soaring in most cases)
skills. I was also struck by the regimented nature of the flying.
Missions were planned in a structured way before takeoff (though
obviously the cadets were capable of adapting to the inevitable
changes in conditions during the day). The most frustrating--to me--
event was where a cadet pilot was ordered to turn back and land at an
airport along with a large number of non-finishers even though,
apparently, he could have completed the task. Whether that was known
at the time or only in hindsight, I don't know, nor do I know the
qualifications of the individual who gave that order.

In any case, the AF's objectives and constraints are doubtless quite
different from, say, mine. While it was obviously frustrating to a lot
of us (including the cadet pilot) to see the AF miss an opportunity to
be among a small number of finishers in difficult weather, the risk/
reward ratio might have been in conflict with their program's
objectives. They're flying state-of-the-art gliders that are very
expensive--especially in terms of tax payers' dollars. And the AF
pilots may not have the same experience as most civilian pilots at
these contests, in particular in landing off the airport in high-
performance sailplanes. In Hobbs, I tried not to judge and just to
encourage the young pilots there hoping that some of them would
continue in soaring long term.

As for whether an AF order resulted in the day being devalued for the
Parawan competitors, every day of every contest has the potential for
one or more individual's personal objectives, risk profiles, and
decisions influencing the scores of others. I hope we continue to
welcome the AF program to our contests and do everything we can to
encourage them. If change is warranted, it's likely to take time and
best come from within as a result of the learning process.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:49:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It's difficult and dangerous to criticize the US Air Force soaring
competition program from the outside. I don't know what their
objectives are or how they measure success. I did have the opportunity
to observe the fleet competing at the regional contest during the
Hobbs Standard Class Nationals last year. I chatted with a number of
the cadets and was impressed with their enthusiasm and surprisingly
good (given their relatively brief exposure to soaring in most cases)
skills. I was also struck by the regimented nature of the flying.
Missions were planned in a structured way before takeoff (though
obviously the cadets were capable of adapting to the inevitable
changes in conditions during the day). The most frustrating--to me--
event was where a cadet pilot was ordered to turn back and land at an
airport along with a large number of non-finishers even though,
apparently, he could have completed the task. Whether that was known
at the time or only in hindsight, I don't know, nor do I know the
qualifications of the individual who gave that order.

In any case, the AF's objectives and constraints are doubtless quite
different from, say, mine.

The AA soaring program has varied all over the map in the three
decades I've been soaring at Black Forest or Owl Canyon...the officer
in charge of it doesn't stay long in the job, and generally seems not
to come from a soaring background. I remember Dave Allen as the best
-- fine soaring pilot, teacher and motivator.

Circa 1974, they were making cadets fly the 1-26 in crash helmets,
which made things a bit tough for the big guys...

At one BFGP Labor Day Contest, the flight line closed on the day of
the barbecue with everybody accounted for except one cadet in a 1-26
who had been out of radio contact for hours. Rather than drive the
trailer endlessly around the course, the CO announced that the team
would settle down for the barbecue and the cadet would be credited
with a day of survival training. With meat going on the fire and
darkness descending, there was a low whistle and the cadet entered the
pattern...he had made it around the course at approximately no knots.

Few years later, I had just finished one day in a contest at Las Vegas
NM and heard a cadet call in from the AFA's 1-34. We watched her come
nicely down a final glide, visibly gaining on the glide slope, nice
safe finish in the bag...and then she racked it over, opened the
brakes, and landed in the sagebrush. 1000 AGL was the Academy's "hard
deck" -- when you were down to that altitude and not in the pattern
you landed out, period.

rj

At 18:49 04 July 2008, wrote:

The most frustrating--to me--
event was where a cadet pilot was ordered to turn back and land at an
airport along with a large number of non-finishers even though,
apparently, he could have completed the task. Whether that was known
at the time or only in hindsight, I don't know, nor do I know the
qualifications of the individual who gave that order.

Most likely the person who gave the order had the only
qualification that really matters in that situation: rank.

They're flying state-of-the-art gliders that are very
expensive--especially in terms of tax payers' dollars.

But relative to the other tax payer financed machines
that the AF flies (and occasionally wrecks) those gliders
are practically free.

No doubt the AF operates under restrictions we don't
realize, and they won't tell us about. Avoiding damage
of any kind is probably more of a Public Relations ploy
than any consideration of expense. Also a CYA
maneuver for whoever commands the glider program.

Back in the day (not so long ago) when the AF cadets
flew 1-26s, I flew in a 1-26 Championships hosted by
the AF Academy in Colorado Springs. The cadets were
hugely impressive guys. As I recall, their officers also
flew some of the contest tasks. And none of them seemed
averse to the occasional landout. Each of their 1-26s had
a little row of emblems below the canopy rail, where a
fighter of 65 years ago might have painted swastikas
to tally shootdowns. In the case of the 1-26s, they were
little Holstein cows. The implication was obvious.

One of the real old-timers in 1-26 racing is Vern Hutchison,
who was in submarines during WWII. I well remember one
late afternoon after the flying when the keg was tapped
and Vern was surrounded by a group of cadets, hanging
on his every word as he told his tales of submarine
combat.

[BTW, that contest was one the rare, perhaps unique,
glider meets that started with a low pass down the
contest runway by a formation of four f-16s, just for
us. We appreciated the gesture.]

Jim Beckman

On Jul 5, 4:27 am, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 18:49 04 July 2008, wrote:



The most frustrating--to me--
event was where a cadet pilot was ordered to turn back and land at an
airport along with a large number of non-finishers even though,
apparently, he could have completed the task. Whether that was known
at the time or only in hindsight, I don't know, nor do I know the
qualifications of the individual who gave that order.

Most likely the person who gave the order had the only
qualification that really matters in that situation: rank.

They're flying state-of-the-art gliders that are very
expensive--especially in terms of tax payers' dollars.

But relative to the other tax payer financed machines
that the AF flies (and occasionally wrecks) those gliders
are practically free.

No doubt the AF operates under restrictions we don't
realize, and they won't tell us about. Avoiding damage
of any kind is probably more of a Public Relations ploy
than any consideration of expense. Also a CYA
maneuver for whoever commands the glider program.

Back in the day (not so long ago) when the AF cadets
flew 1-26s, I flew in a 1-26 Championships hosted by
the AF Academy in Colorado Springs. The cadets were
hugely impressive guys. As I recall, their officers also
flew some of the contest tasks. And none of them seemed
averse to the occasional landout. Each of their 1-26s had
a little row of emblems below the canopy rail, where a
fighter of 65 years ago might have painted swastikas
to tally shootdowns. In the case of the 1-26s, they were
little Holstein cows. The implication was obvious.

One of the real old-timers in 1-26 racing is Vern Hutchison,
who was in submarines during WWII. I well remember one
late afternoon after the flying when the keg was tapped
and Vern was surrounded by a group of cadets, hanging
on his every word as he told his tales of submarine
combat.

[BTW, that contest was one the rare, perhaps unique,
glider meets that started with a low pass down the
contest runway by a formation of four f-16s, just for
us. We appreciated the gesture.]

Jim Beckman

According to the Contest Manager at Region 11, Noelle Mayes, they had
a vehicle accident and withdrew. no one was hurt.

The AFA still puts those little Holsteins on their gliders. But I
didn't see very many of them at PR9. Maybe one, on one of the Duos.

One of the great things about this sport is learning more about the
oldtimers like Vern. At 83, he was the oldest pilot at Parowan. I hope
he's at the next one, so I can listen to some of those stories!

I do want to chime in with 21. As a contest pilot (taking off the
scorer's hat), it was disappointing to see the AFA, an institution I
admire and support, disregard the contest task on 3 days, devaluing
one of them, including not turning in log files on the final day (a
violation of contest rules). The contest management worked hard to fit
them into the contest, doing things like moving the launch point on
the grid so they could launch from the end every day. It isn't asking
too much to expect them to take the contest seriously, and if they
want to do leadership training, they should find a different venue for
it and let those contest slots go to pilots who will be there to fly
the contest first.

~ted/2NO

On Jul 5, 8:26*am, "
wrote:
On Jul 5, 4:27 am, Jim Beckman wrote:



At 18:49 04 July 2008, wrote:

The most frustrating--to me--
event was where a cadet pilot was ordered to turn back and land at an
airport along with a large number of non-finishers even though,
apparently, he could have completed the task. Whether that was known
at the time or only in hindsight, I don't know, nor do I know the
qualifications of the individual who gave that order.

Most likely the person who gave the order had the only
qualification that really matters in that situation: *rank.

They're flying state-of-the-art gliders that are very
expensive--especially in terms of tax payers' dollars.

But relative to the other tax payer financed machines
that the AF flies (and occasionally wrecks) those gliders
are practically free.

No doubt the AF operates under restrictions we don't
realize, and they won't tell us about. *Avoiding damage
of any kind is probably more of a Public Relations ploy
than any consideration of expense. *Also a CYA
maneuver for whoever commands the glider program.

Back in the day (not so long ago) when the AF cadets
flew 1-26s, I flew in a 1-26 Championships hosted by
the AF Academy in Colorado Springs. *The cadets were
hugely impressive guys. *As I recall, their officers also
flew some of the contest tasks. *And none of them seemed
averse to the occasional landout. *Each of their 1-26s had
a little row of emblems below the canopy rail, where a
fighter of 65 years ago might have painted swastikas
to tally shootdowns. *In the case of the 1-26s, they were
little Holstein cows. *The implication was obvious.

One of the real old-timers in 1-26 racing is Vern Hutchison,
who was in submarines during WWII. *I well remember one
late afternoon after the flying when the keg was tapped
and Vern was surrounded by a group of cadets, hanging
on his every word as he told his tales of submarine
combat.

[BTW, that contest was one the rare, perhaps unique,
glider meets that started with a low pass down the
contest runway by a formation of four f-16s, just for
us. *We appreciated the gesture.]

Jim Beckman

According to the Contest Manager at Region 11, Noelle Mayes, they had
a vehicle accident and withdrew. *no one was hurt.

Nor was the D2 damaged, though the tow vehicle and trailer sustained
some.

snip
I do want to chime in with 21. As a contest pilot (taking off the
scorer's hat), it was disappointing to see the AFA, an institution I
admire and support, disregard the contest task on 3 days, devaluing
one of them, including not turning in log files on the final day (a
violation of contest rules). The contest management worked hard to fit
them into the contest, doing things like moving the launch point on
the grid so they could launch from the end every day.snip
~ted/2NO

File a complaint with the Rule Committee.