Flying Plans: Sat02Aug

[mcelrah]

I think that's the point: an observer is not an instructor. - Hugh

[brianvh]

Wow, shawn. For those who've only been around a few years, I fell out of a tree and crushed a vertebrate because I ignored the wisdom to never attempt to climb down without external anchorage, which usually means a rope brought by your friends. Glad you got through it okay, shawn. Don't anyone else try it! I was out for nearly a year.

[mcelrah]

And a H2 is not a "student". - Hugh

[deveil]

i'll make this short and sweet for now and maybe come back later to bore the pants off of you.
from what i can discern, and it's probably also apparent to everyone, where janni is comin' from is, ya know man, it's a good place man. (i figured that silly was better than sappy).
it's a recurring concern and a recurring issue and there are good reasons for that. and there's also good reason for his passion and for his impatience (same as there was for shawn's). and of course that's also reason why pointed responses would come back at him. janni apparently has the drive to push the issue and if he has the drive to try to see if there is a way to, collectively, make any progress on this issue, well more power to him is my take on it. and hey, regardless, you have to stir the pot and maybe rile things up a bit just to get past inertia and see what there is to see. might be that the focus goes somewhere other than the initial or the expected, but room should be allowed for that also. and Do keep markC's admonitions in mind (remember him? the moderator who's good nature some of us inadvertently abuse?)
yep, the parallels between parts of that statement and those of a certain, err, 'innovator's' don't escape me. But, the delivery needs to not obscure the message.

garyD

[deveil]

don't worry, it's hard to say something like that and not make Somebody gag. though, if i made anyone lose their breakfast i apologize.
garyD

[KirkLewis]

As a not yet even H2 pilot, this just reinforces my decision to get as much practice at Highland as possible before going to the mountains. I'll especially be focusing on my landing approaches. I'd prefer never to land in trees or hit solid objects

[RedBaron]

As a not yet even H2 pilot, this just reinforces my decision to get as much practice at Highland as possible before going to the mountains. I'll especially be focusing on my landing approaches. I'd prefer never to land in trees or hit solid objects

Good call. The Highland crew has an outstanding safety record and will assist you at every level of your training rather than expect you to pull off H3 or even H4 skills from scratch.

[Matthew]

Landing in the Pulpit Secondary is not that difficult. If it looks like you are too high on base, just add a 180 or two on base in a figure 8 pattern and then turn on final. The same applies for landing at Woodstock. If you are still too high at the Pulpit Secondary once you turn on final and it looks like you will fly over the crest of the hill in the middle of the LZ, then turn 45 degrees towards the mountain and land in the upper portion of the field. The upper portion of the field slopes uphill towards the mountain. Doing this essentially doubles the size of the landable area in the field. Thus you will be landing uphill with slight cross wind component-- no big deal. And landing to the North provides a longer runway than landing to the South at the Pulpit Secondary.


These options were discussed with Tony. Winds were coming from the North in the LZ. His mistake was to make a 360 to lose altitude on base. When doing a 360 low, you lose visual contact with the field and can go off course. Thus, always turn towards the field with 180's to keep track of where you are in relation to the field. Figure 8 patterns are thoroughly discussed in the hang gliding manuals. There are two approach patterns-- aircraft and figure 8. Everyone should be familiar with and comfortable with both.

Matthew

[deveil]

Landing in the Pulpit Secondary is not that difficult. . . The same applies for landing at Woodstock. t-- no big deal. . . Everyone should be familiar with and comfortable. . .
Matthew

matthew,
i know this is going to sound provocative, but hey. i'm not trying to pick a fight.
that's seems a bit of a simplification, no? isn't it somewhat akin to saying that flying and landing hang gliders is not that difficult? plus the conversation seems to have moved a little past those specifics on to the more general theme of looking at what all might be considered as regards newbies. i can get more expansive on the point if necessary.
garyD

[deveil]

i hadn't seen janni's post and yeah, that was already provocative, dammit.
i know, nobody Asked me to stick my foot in here but i thought it might be novel for folks try to play nice this one time in particular because of the more General & Broader topic. if there's going to be hitting and biting? i'd have to get my rabies booster and i really don't like needles.
garyD

[Matthew]

As to newbies, mentoring, et cet. We were all newbies once. Finding an Observer to work with in order to get your hang 3 just sort of happens. Each new pilot eventually falls into working with one or two Observers and then starts working with one of those to be a mentor towards getting a hang 3.

A few suggestions that have been repeated over the years--

Check out the H2/P2 Protocols--

http://www.chgpa.org/Education/h2p2_guide.html

PIck up the phone and call the Obervers.

Work together with other hang 2s in order to coordinate where to fly and find out the availability of Observers. Flying is a lot like going to the gym. You are more likely to do it if you go with friends. So make friends with fellow hang 2s, work together and learn together and you will get in a lot more flying.

Matthew

[deveil]

(matthew, when i came on i saw that you'd posted but i purposely didn't read it. so this is just me picking up from where i'd ended my last post.)
(i should probably step away for a moment but i'm going with my gut)

okay, this will be My parting shot.

hugh was pretty much just rolling with things when he first posted and didn't mean anything other than what he said.
shawn when a bit far in his response,for the reasons he explained AND he apologized.
janni has previously indicated his concerns about the broader topic in the past and seemed to want to turn things in that direction but he gets a little hot.
I thought the subject was important so i came in and played the long winded blatherer to sort of spread things out a bit - or so i'd hoped.

instructing and observing? an inherently dangerous sport? where it's ALL about judgment?
things like this are always under the surface and have erupted before - To No Ones Benefit.

Nobodies looking to do other than there best for christs' sake.
you got issues with someone about how they're doing their business?
be a frickin Man about it and do it face to face, where it has a chance of accomplishing something.

and No, i don't think i'm taking this all too seriously.
feel free to chew on My ass. i assure you, you can dine undisturbed.


gary devan

[RedBaron]

Gary. I'm putting my concerns up for discussion. That's what we've got this forum for. I believe I've been very civil. I'm not pointing fingers, I'm not criticizing individuals, I'm criticizing the system. All the observers we have are good guys and follow protocol. It's the protocol I've got my problems with. If that makes me the bad guy, so be it. I've presented an alternative and safer protocol and am confronted with interpretations of the terms instructors and students. I've got a massive problem with H2's making the trip to the ER. That sucks for the individual and destroys this sport quicker than anything else. I'm amazed I get all this resistance for trying to raise our safety standards. As for Matthew's description of how to land in the secondary. That reads like an emergency landing procedure to me.

[mcelrah]

I came from powered flying - if you don't like your approach, you can give it gas and go around for another try (ask Ellis if I'm shy about waving off an approach under power). In unpowered aviation, you get one try. So you HAVE to make adjustments to bring your glideslope to the surface within the LZ - or a hastily chosen alternate. Yup, it's an emergency procedure - your engine stopped!

The point about observers vs. instructors and the definition of students is not just semantic. When an instructor - someone who has the training and experience to do things like radio-controlling - signs off a Hang 2 and releases him/her to go to the mountains, he is saying that this PILOT has the mental furniture and has sufficiently practiced setting up approaches (plural: DBF and figure "with the training wheels on".

My understanding of the observer's task is to provide site familiarization (walk the LZs, discuss decision points for, inter alia, when to head out to land, point out site-specific hazards), guide evaluation of wind conditions, discuss the flight plan (e.g. turn left after launch and head down the ridge to ensure you can make the primary; since the primary is unlandable, set up your approach to the secondary based on a prevailing northerly valley flow and go downwind over the downhill treeline, come in low to clear the fence so you can be going uphill before the crest, if not turn half-right and continue uphill), go over site-specific launch technique (how far forward on the ramp/rock, how to deal with wirecrew, how to choose a cycle, angle of attack on ramp/rock etc.).

I'm not smart enough to rebuild the whole syllabus for H1 to H3. Sometimes, in spite of the best training and hand-holding, people make mistakes. We have all made them - even after we became H3s. If this stuff were easy, anybody could do it...

"I propose we pass a rule prohibiting crashing."

- Hugh

[bustedwing2]

Matthews pulpit secondary approach post is what they teach at highland and is the correct approach for the specific circumstance youse guys are discussing.Highland is a good place for low airtime 2's to practice setups and approach's,and learn "when" to bleed altitude with 360's or figure 8s.Good place to practice flare timing too(who me?).Hope to be able to fly soon.Later ya'll.RichB

[CraginS]

Hugh,
you said:
[quote]And a H2 is not a "student".[/quote]
and then in a second post said:
[quote]I came from powered flying[/quote]

I disagree a little with your first statement. From the second one, I know you will understand my analogy here, even if you may not agree.

For about ten years, when describing the hang-rating system to folks who have been around powered flight, I have used this analogy:

H1 - Means you have learned enough to know how dangerous hang gliding is, and truly know you need to listen to your instructor. USHPA gives you the title and card to make you truly feel like a member of the club of pilots.

H2 - Is roughly equivalent to a solo sign off. You don't really have all the skills needed to be safe in a wide range of conditions, but your instructor sees you as ready to finish your learning without direct over-the-shoulder back up and instruction. You need to confirm conditions and situations sometimes (e.g. H2 with Observer sites), but pretty much are ready to test your wings and push your limits, learning by doing.

H3 - This is close to equivalent to getting your private pilot ticket.

So, in this model, an H2 is a form of student, just an advanced student.

Observers: Danny is right. There is absolutely nothing in the official appointment and guidance for Observers that lets them teach. In fact, Observers are enjoined from instructing. The official reason for Observers is to do exactly that: observe when pilots successsfully complete rating-requirement events and sign off that completion.
That said, the Capital and Maryland clubs have been using Observers as mentors since before I ran down the dunes at Kitty Hawk the first time. I think that overall, it works well.

[mcelrah]

Like you said, observers observe the demonstrated proficiency of...pilots. - Hugh

[Danny Brotto]

5.07 OBSERVERS

General Information:

Observers are appointed by an Examiner for one or more craft (hang glider/paraglider/both) for which they are an Examiner. Observers are only appointed by Examiners within his/her region and must be USHPA Full Members with Intermediate or higher pilot standing. The Observer's duties are to observe pilots' flying skills for rating Intermediate and Advanced ratings, Special Skills, administration of oral (optional) and written (mandatory) tests for those ratings and skills, and to write letters of recommendation for Master Rating applicants to indicate that he/she has known of the applicant's good judgment, safe practices, etc. for a period of three years, or less if indicated. Observers are to actively work to establish proficiency ratings for any flying sites in their area which are presently non-rated.

Observers are renewable each calendar year by the Examiner. If there is a change of residence, the Observer can rate pilots anywhere in the U.S., but must be renewed by the Examiner in the 'new region' in the following year. An identification card, half-moon patch and materials will be sent to all Observers by the USHPA office upon receipt of notification of appointment or re-appointment, and receipt of signed acceptance of appoint form.

5.08 OPERATIONS (OBSERVERS)

A. Administration of Ratings:

Observers may rate all levels of Intermediate, Advanced, Special Skills and make Master recommendations for their craft. An Observer may not issue a rating or special skill that he/she does not possess.
Pilots being observed must be Full Members of USHPA or be in the process of obtaining membership, and must have a previous rating one level below the rating being observed.
The pilot's flying skills, as required in Part 104, must be actually observed. The appropriate oral (optional) and written (required) tests can be administered at any time during the rating process.
The written test is corrected, using the appropriate Key Answer Sheet, after which the pilot is informed of his/her score.
The Observer completes the rating application, being sure to circle the proper rating level. The pilot (student) completes and signs the waiver and receives the rating portion of the form. The Observer retains the Instructor portion of the form for his/her records.
The Observer's signature on the rating application designates that the pilot has passed the flying and written test.
The pilot's portion of the rating application is only valid for 30 days, so the pilot should be informed that he/she must send in the waiver/application and appropriate rating fee (if needed).
It is the pilot's responsibility to send in the paperwork. Observers should not take the responsibility for sending a pilot's application to USHPA.
Foreign pilots may be rated for any level deemed appropriate. (See foreign rating policy.)
Specific foreign equivalent ratings are accepted for conversion to the USHPA system, as noted in USHPA SOP 12-6.
B. Rating Filing Fees:

Effective August 1st, 1998.
$15.00 fee per membership card generated.


Beginner (H-1, P-1) - $ 15.00, payable to USHPA
Novice (H-2, P-2) - $ 15.00, payable to USHPA
Intermediate (H-3, P-3) - $ 15.00, payable to USHPA
Advanced (H-4, P-4) - $ 15.00, payable to USHPA
Master (H-5, P-5) - $ 15.00, payable to USHPA
TOW (by ICPelf) - $ 15.00, payable to USHPA
FL (by ICPelf) - $ 15.00, payable to USHPA
Special Skills - $ 15.00, payable to USHPA
Portable Radio Authorization (PA) - $ 15.00, payable to USHPA
Vehicular Radio Authorization (VA) - $ 15.00, payable to USHPA
5.09 POLICIES (OBSERVERS)

A. Log Books:

Observers are encouraged to use, and suggest that pilots use, log books.
B. Revocation/Reduction of Ratings:

Ratings may be revoked or reduced; see SOP 12-7.
C. Observer Ratings:

Observers may NOT rate themselves for any rating level. They must be rated by another Observer or Advanced Instructor for the appropriate craft

[davidtheamazing1]

sure Danny, by the book, observers don't have to mentor new pilots... but they can and in our clubs, they do. So given that new h2 pilots often make mistakes on landing approach, and sometimes get injured, is everyone happy with the current system and the existing safety margin of the transition to becoming experienced in mountain site LZ landings?

[markc]

I haven't read every post in this thread, but my overall impression is that people
are keeping things fairly positive, in spite of having very strong opinions about
Observing, Mentoring, appropriate H-2 gliders, etc.

As a general strategy for avoiding moderator wrath, I suggest phrasing like this:

I think you are wrong, and here's why....

As opposed to :

You are stupid. You are an idiot for suggesting that. Shut up.

It's ok to get hot about something that you feel strongly about. But just
remember, take a deep breath and compose your posts in a calm and
reasoned way, prior to hitting that Submit button.

You will make a far better impression, and be heard much more clearly.

MarkC

[markc]

And of course, I can't resist chiming in with a few observations of my own about
what's being discussed here....

CHGPA's Observer system has been "more than" what is officially described in the USHPA
procedures for the entire 14 years I've been flying. Observers walk LZs with new pilots,
discuss flight plans, request logbook information to get an idea about their skills,
debrief them after their launches and landings, etc.

Much more than just a passive observation of a pilot, solely for the purpose of checking
items off a skills list.

And yet, CHGPA's system is "less than" a true mentoring system. The club's Observers
have pretty much been winging-it, without a detailed model to draw on. In the mid/late-90's,
there were occasional meetings of Observers to discuss new pilots and how best to guide them.
But that was short-lived, and no rules-of-thumb which could be communicated to future Observers
ever came out of the meetings. AFAIK.

Could we do more? Eg: Require 2's to have radios and wired helmets? Require 2's to have
Observers at launch and in the LZ? Establish flight minimums for various combinations of
flying-site/wind-velocities/glider-type? Require regular Observer meetings and creation
of some SOPs?

Sure, that could all be done. But you have to balance what is theoretically possible
against what is practical, given the resources at hand (eg, the number of Observers,
and the amount of time they can put toward being an Observer). Otherwise you run
the risk of creating a system that actually prevents new H-2s from progressing.

Also, I think that we need hard data before we can make any conclusions about the frequency
of Hang-2 landing incidents. Perhaps someone who feels strongly that the Observer system
needs improvement would volunteer to start compiling some stats?

MarkC

[mcelrah]

I would welcome an opportunity to meet with other observers and the examiners who appointed us for "standardization" etc. (Someone else will have to schedule such a meeting and dragoon everyone into showing up - witness the difficulty we had scheduling BoD/general meetings recently! Several observers are not among the core group who show up at meetings...) I think some of the ideas for improving things could be implemented on a "best practice" basis, rather than passing new rules which would inevitably have unintended consequences. Mentoring should have *some* structure, but individual H2s will find their own network of relationships and the "program" should allow for that. Sometimes getting advice and instruction from a different person with a different way of expressing ideas - and even different ideas - is helpful. - Hugh

[deveil]

observer/mentor:
these discussions are indeed a necessary ongoing thing. what i recall from my era was that it was felt to be important to keep the 'official' description of an observer very clear (thus my mea culpa). this indeed does result in more people signing up and more people being available for H2's. it serves to give the club's imprimatur and designation to a pool of people that an unfamiliar H2 can look to. as an H2 is required to have that basic assistance and approval, it provides to the H2 a starting group of people to look to as they start flying high. then as they become familiar they are able to turn to those they become comfortable with and those who feel comfortable putting themselves forward. along the way and in the end it's rare that they don't pick up help from everyone they meet along the way, including other H2s with whom they share experiences and impressions of those who have been helpful.
by providing a clear definition and description of what an Observer is and what can properly be expected when someone presents themself as an Observer, it helps both the observer and the H2. beyond that description of what an Observer does, it becomes very difficult and perhaps counter productive to codify things.
after that and along the way it becomes clear why everyone counts on everyone else. that's why, ya know, they call it a club - cause everyone acts sort of, ya know, clubby and friendly like. but it ain't no club of flower arrangers or tax lawyers that's for sure.
garyD

[hepcat1989]

I would welcome an opportunity to meet with other observers and the examiners who appointed us for "standardization" etc. Several observers are not among the core group who show up at meetings...)

Hugh, I think that's a good idea. I'll show. It's important.... Let's set a date, even if it's You and I talking about things over a few micro brews.
Peace, Shawn.

[deveil]

and let me say this about that when and prior to but not after, but maybe after, i mean it could be depending on what is being talked about before that was referred to, which i myself found to be very confusing:

observers are integral to da spoit and a volunteer position. thus i believe that particular care should be taken before they start being chewed on, taken to task, or their behavior is questioned in public, no matter how politely. i know that was worrisome to people in my day. 'don't want to make others become wary of offering their help. i think that that is very important, just as important as the more general things being discussed.
garyD