Not to mix it up too much, but...though I'm primarily a towpark pilot now, I fully intend to start flying the mountains again once I've earned my H3 and my AT rating (this fall). HR is right up the road from me, and since I make my own schedule, I could (and likely will) fly it any day of the week when others can too...
... Scott
*********
At the risk of upsetting our tow park operators and tow park pilots, it's a BAD, BAD idea to tow your way to a Hang 3 and then go fly the mountains as a Hang 3. If you want to fly the mountains as a Hang 3 then you should be flying them as a Hang 2 in addition to any towing. You need to have input from the various Observers and learn how to handle mountain air, as opposed to tow park air. Just because you can fly mid-day at the tow park and deal with turbulence on tow doesn't mean that you have any experience and can handle the turbulence associated with mountain flying. At the tow park, you don't have to worry about hidden venturies, all sorts of rotor, huge wind gradients, changing conditions, etc., etc. And if your foot launching skills aren't current, you need to go to the training hill, just like David Rice recently did, before attempting to launch from a mountain site. If you have a Hang 3 from a tow park and you wish to fly the mountains, you not only need to hit the training hill for foot launch practice. You need to swallow your pride and ask for the assistance of Observers and fly in mellower safer conditions until you build up the experience for handling more difficult air in the mountains.
The same holds true for towing. If you haen't towed forever you shouldn't go to the tow park and try to tackle a mid-day thermic tow without first doing some practice tows in mellower conditions.
Why we don't have some sort of currency requirements (or even just currency recommendations for skills) like in other forms of aviation is beyond me!
Matthew
H3
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
H3
What Matthew said. When you start flying the mountains as a H3 and
haven't done it much as a H2, pick a pilot or two and ask them to talk you
through things as though you were a H2. Continue to do this a half dozen
times for each mountain site and everyone will respect you for demonstrating
great wisdom. Good thing to remember for flying out of area too.
My final word on High Rock donations: it's hard to assess the psychology
of how many folks will sign up for a high rock flat fee. There's a
'bliss point', above which we lose money by increasing the donation. We
may want to try it for one year, then count up the log book and compare how
much we'd make by the daily fee. Then do whatever brings in the most money.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Matthew wrote:
>
> Not to mix it up too much, but...though I'm primarily a towpark pilot now, I fully intend to start flying the mountains again once I've earned my H3 and my AT rating (this fall). HR is right up the road from me, and since I make my own schedule, I could (and likely will) fly it any day of the week when others can too...
>
>
> ... Scott
>
haven't done it much as a H2, pick a pilot or two and ask them to talk you
through things as though you were a H2. Continue to do this a half dozen
times for each mountain site and everyone will respect you for demonstrating
great wisdom. Good thing to remember for flying out of area too.
My final word on High Rock donations: it's hard to assess the psychology
of how many folks will sign up for a high rock flat fee. There's a
'bliss point', above which we lose money by increasing the donation. We
may want to try it for one year, then count up the log book and compare how
much we'd make by the daily fee. Then do whatever brings in the most money.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Matthew wrote:
>
> Not to mix it up too much, but...though I'm primarily a towpark pilot now, I fully intend to start flying the mountains again once I've earned my H3 and my AT rating (this fall). HR is right up the road from me, and since I make my own schedule, I could (and likely will) fly it any day of the week when others can too...
>
>
> ... Scott
>
I agree with your comments 100% Matthew (ad Brian). I certainly don't think that just because I'm a towpark H3 (when I am) that I know all about flying in the mountains. I certainly plan to hit the training hill, and I definitely plan to seek out the advice and guidance of experienced mountain pilots---Observers and non-Observers alike. (To not do that would be foolish!)
It's not essential for training hill work to be done on a CHGPA hill with CHGPA Observers. Steve Wendt has an excellent, all-direction site near Harrisonburg, and though he runs a towpark, I'd put Steve and Tex's footlaunch abilities up against anyone's. (As well as their ability to critique footlaunch skills.)
Though it's easy to perceive it as such, my choice to do most/all of my training work with Steve isn't an "us-versus-them" thing or a prideful thing. I simply like Steve's style of teaching, and I appreciate that he's very demanding and tough to earn a rating from. (Which is not to suggest anyone else isn't as qualified or as tough.)
The other reason I value training at Blue Sky is because I personally believe approaches and landings from altitude are as critical---if not more critical---a part of flying in the mountains as launching. In my opinion, practicing landings from a training hill is inadequate (except for beginning students). Sure, you can flare, but you don't have the speed you have descending from altitude, you don't experience as much of a gradient (if at all), you can't practice different approach patterns, and you can't practice sighting angles to a landing spot. (Unless you have one of those rare soaring flights to 300 over on a training hill!)
A typical mountain-only H2 gets to practice these things maybe twice in a mountain-flying day. I dont think that's enough.
At Blue Sky, truck towing, I can practice 6-10 approaches and landings from 800' in a day, easy. Yes, I know landing in a huge field at a flight park isn't the same as landing in a small mountain LZ with thermals popping. But it beats the heck out of practicing landings on a training hill! When I get my H3 I'll have far more approaches and landings from altitude under my belt than a new mountain-only H3. (That's not said boastfully or to bash mountain-only H3s...it's just a simple fact.)
I haven't even remotely experienced the huge variety of launch conditions more experienced pilots are familiar with. On the other hand, I've done a dozen mountain/cliff launches in smooth, forgiving conditions, and---in smooth conditions---I believe footlaunching is nowhere near as demanding a skill as approaches and landings. Again, emphasis on smooth, forgiving conditions. Of course, as I mentioned above, I'll rely on the guidance of experienced mountain pilots when I do my first less-than-forgiving mountain launches!
Sorry if my post seems defensive or irritated, as I'm neither.
I'm simply making the case that a towpark H3 who spends time on the training hill and has solid launch technique can become a safe, consistent mountain pilot---as long as they're willing to receive the guidance of more experienced mountain pilots. I don't think a potential mountain pilot must fly the mountains as an H2...and further, I think ALL new mountain H3s should have a minimum of 75-100 approaches and landings from high altitude as an H2---which can only be done at a towpark or by a TON of mountain flights as a long-term H2.
Scott
It's not essential for training hill work to be done on a CHGPA hill with CHGPA Observers. Steve Wendt has an excellent, all-direction site near Harrisonburg, and though he runs a towpark, I'd put Steve and Tex's footlaunch abilities up against anyone's. (As well as their ability to critique footlaunch skills.)
Though it's easy to perceive it as such, my choice to do most/all of my training work with Steve isn't an "us-versus-them" thing or a prideful thing. I simply like Steve's style of teaching, and I appreciate that he's very demanding and tough to earn a rating from. (Which is not to suggest anyone else isn't as qualified or as tough.)
The other reason I value training at Blue Sky is because I personally believe approaches and landings from altitude are as critical---if not more critical---a part of flying in the mountains as launching. In my opinion, practicing landings from a training hill is inadequate (except for beginning students). Sure, you can flare, but you don't have the speed you have descending from altitude, you don't experience as much of a gradient (if at all), you can't practice different approach patterns, and you can't practice sighting angles to a landing spot. (Unless you have one of those rare soaring flights to 300 over on a training hill!)
A typical mountain-only H2 gets to practice these things maybe twice in a mountain-flying day. I dont think that's enough.
At Blue Sky, truck towing, I can practice 6-10 approaches and landings from 800' in a day, easy. Yes, I know landing in a huge field at a flight park isn't the same as landing in a small mountain LZ with thermals popping. But it beats the heck out of practicing landings on a training hill! When I get my H3 I'll have far more approaches and landings from altitude under my belt than a new mountain-only H3. (That's not said boastfully or to bash mountain-only H3s...it's just a simple fact.)
I haven't even remotely experienced the huge variety of launch conditions more experienced pilots are familiar with. On the other hand, I've done a dozen mountain/cliff launches in smooth, forgiving conditions, and---in smooth conditions---I believe footlaunching is nowhere near as demanding a skill as approaches and landings. Again, emphasis on smooth, forgiving conditions. Of course, as I mentioned above, I'll rely on the guidance of experienced mountain pilots when I do my first less-than-forgiving mountain launches!
Sorry if my post seems defensive or irritated, as I'm neither.
I'm simply making the case that a towpark H3 who spends time on the training hill and has solid launch technique can become a safe, consistent mountain pilot---as long as they're willing to receive the guidance of more experienced mountain pilots. I don't think a potential mountain pilot must fly the mountains as an H2...and further, I think ALL new mountain H3s should have a minimum of 75-100 approaches and landings from high altitude as an H2---which can only be done at a towpark or by a TON of mountain flights as a long-term H2. Scott
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
-
hang_pilot
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:13 pm
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
H3
Oh, go paint something! ~Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Flying Lobster [mailto:in_a_cloud@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 1:12 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: H3
We already have a currency requirement.
You give me your currency--and I'll tell you what's required.
marcgot art?
http://www.marcfink.com/
wanna fly?
http://www.downeastairsports.com/
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
[ST:XCL]
-----Original Message-----
From: Flying Lobster [mailto:in_a_cloud@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 1:12 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: H3
We already have a currency requirement.
You give me your currency--and I'll tell you what's required.
marcgot art?
http://www.marcfink.com/
wanna fly?
http://www.downeastairsports.com/
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
[ST:XCL]
-
batmanh3
The two most important parts of flight are the takeoff and landing. Scott - until you have mountain experience under adverse conditions (i.e. NOT GENTLE), I advise you to stop making grandiose generalizations under things you obviously know nothing about. There have been quite a few incidents of pilots being injured or gliders broken due to problems experienced on launch. In fact, most of the incidents that have occured in the CHGPA in the past year (mine included) have been blown mountain launches as opposed to problems with pattern work or landings. Get some experience under your belt before you start preaching to us and your ideas will probably carry more weight.
Chris
Chris
H3
Part of the reason there have been so few problems with approaches is
because of towing, though the extra gradient from tree lined fields can
still catch experienced tow pilots. We used to have alot more blown
approaches. Nobody doubts the ability of Blue Sky to train pilots; the point
is that there is no substitute for guided mountain experience.
Since Scott has said he recognizes this need, there shouldn't be a
problem. But it's hard to tell if you're being humble enough until reality
catches up with you. Just ask...uh...any of us.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, batmanh3 wrote:
>
> The two most important parts of flight are the takeoff and landing. Scott - until you have mountain experience under adverse conditions (i.e. NOT GENTLE), I advise you to stop making grandiose generalizations under things you obviously know nothing about. There have been quite a few incidents of pilots being injured or gliders broken due to problems experienced on launch. In fact, most of the incidents that have occured in the CHGPA in the past year (mine included) have been blown mountain launches as opposed to problems with pattern work or landings. Get some experience under your belt before you start preaching to us and your ideas will probably carry more weight.
>
> ChrisBatman
>
because of towing, though the extra gradient from tree lined fields can
still catch experienced tow pilots. We used to have alot more blown
approaches. Nobody doubts the ability of Blue Sky to train pilots; the point
is that there is no substitute for guided mountain experience.
Since Scott has said he recognizes this need, there shouldn't be a
problem. But it's hard to tell if you're being humble enough until reality
catches up with you. Just ask...uh...any of us.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, batmanh3 wrote:
>
> The two most important parts of flight are the takeoff and landing. Scott - until you have mountain experience under adverse conditions (i.e. NOT GENTLE), I advise you to stop making grandiose generalizations under things you obviously know nothing about. There have been quite a few incidents of pilots being injured or gliders broken due to problems experienced on launch. In fact, most of the incidents that have occured in the CHGPA in the past year (mine included) have been blown mountain launches as opposed to problems with pattern work or landings. Get some experience under your belt before you start preaching to us and your ideas will probably carry more weight.
>
> ChrisBatman
>
What Brian said.
As the old saying goes, "Launching is optional, landing is mandatory." My subjective impression is that mountain pilots often make a huge deal out of footlaunching currency...but rarely say a word about approach and landing currency. My point was that most mountain-only H2s don't get as much practice at high-altitude approaches and landings as pilots who truck tow.
My secondary point is that landing on a training hill is at least as different from high-altitude landings as a big towpark field is from a small mountain LZ. And that's just as much a cause for concern as towpark pilots who don't get as much footlaunch practice.
There seems to be an attitude of "well, mountain pilots rarely have problems with approaches and landings so it's not an issue." Okay---if this true, then I'd suggest the reverse can also be true---towpark pilots rarely have problems with launches, so that's not an issue either. (Said somewhat sarcastically.)
We're all on the same page here---I need the guidance of more experienced mountain pilots, and will politely and humbly ask for it. What I'm reacting to is the idea that towpark flying is worth little when you go to the mountains...and vice-versa. I think time launching, time flying, and time landing are all valuable and beneficial---whether in the mountains or at the towpark.
Scott
PS - Sure, there have been incidents at launch...but I'd bet there have been an equal number of serious incidents (in my short experience with the club) on landing. I can think of 3-4 right off the top of my head.
PPS - Believe me---after Holly's accident, I'm very aware that this sport can kill you at any moment, no matter who you are and regardless of how much experience you have. That's humbling. (Heck, I think about that every time I get in a car and drive somewhere!)
As the old saying goes, "Launching is optional, landing is mandatory." My subjective impression is that mountain pilots often make a huge deal out of footlaunching currency...but rarely say a word about approach and landing currency. My point was that most mountain-only H2s don't get as much practice at high-altitude approaches and landings as pilots who truck tow.
My secondary point is that landing on a training hill is at least as different from high-altitude landings as a big towpark field is from a small mountain LZ. And that's just as much a cause for concern as towpark pilots who don't get as much footlaunch practice.
There seems to be an attitude of "well, mountain pilots rarely have problems with approaches and landings so it's not an issue." Okay---if this true, then I'd suggest the reverse can also be true---towpark pilots rarely have problems with launches, so that's not an issue either. (Said somewhat sarcastically.)
We're all on the same page here---I need the guidance of more experienced mountain pilots, and will politely and humbly ask for it. What I'm reacting to is the idea that towpark flying is worth little when you go to the mountains...and vice-versa. I think time launching, time flying, and time landing are all valuable and beneficial---whether in the mountains or at the towpark.
Scott
PS - Sure, there have been incidents at launch...but I'd bet there have been an equal number of serious incidents (in my short experience with the club) on landing. I can think of 3-4 right off the top of my head.
PPS - Believe me---after Holly's accident, I'm very aware that this sport can kill you at any moment, no matter who you are and regardless of how much experience you have. That's humbling. (Heck, I think about that every time I get in a car and drive somewhere!)
Someone said...
Are "mountain air" and "towpark air" like night and day? The one calm, the other violent?
Not said sarcastically, but really curious!
Scott
I tend to agree that "mountain air" is different than "flatland air." But is this statement true? Is flying towparks just a brain-dead-easy, benign experience by comparison? (Wondering what experienced towpark pilots think...)At the tow park, you don't have to worry about hidden venturies, all sorts of rotor, huge wind gradients, changing conditions, etc.
Are "mountain air" and "towpark air" like night and day? The one calm, the other violent?
Not said sarcastically, but really curious!
Scott
H3
Sometimes, yes. Usually when it's soarable.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Scott wrote:
>
> Someone said...
>
>
> Quote:
> At the tow park, you don't have to worry about hidden venturies, all sorts of rotor, huge wind gradients, changing conditions, etc.
> (end of quote)
>
>
> I tend to agree that "mountain air" is different than "flatland air." But is this statement true? Is flying towparks just a brain-dead-easy, benign experience by comparison? (Wondering what experienced towpark pilots think...)
>
> Are "mountain air" and "towpark air" like night and day? The one calm, the other violent?
>
> Not said sarcastically, but really curious!
>
> Scott
>
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Scott wrote:
>
> Someone said...
>
>
> Quote:
> At the tow park, you don't have to worry about hidden venturies, all sorts of rotor, huge wind gradients, changing conditions, etc.
> (end of quote)
>
>
> I tend to agree that "mountain air" is different than "flatland air." But is this statement true? Is flying towparks just a brain-dead-easy, benign experience by comparison? (Wondering what experienced towpark pilots think...)
>
> Are "mountain air" and "towpark air" like night and day? The one calm, the other violent?
>
> Not said sarcastically, but really curious!
>
> Scott
>
-
hepcat1989
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:15 pm
I will try, and chime in here.I agree with Brian. If it's soarable on the ridge, then the wind can be up to 20-25 sometimes.That means things can happen quickly on the launch.I have aerotowed 13 times, and I have been at Smithsburg in real windy conditions during the winter times.I felt I had my hands more full with ground handling, and foot launching on my own- no wire crew at the hill, than any kind of aerotow.Scott, I think the more experienced pilots are just lookin out for ya! Things can, and do go wrong very quickly on launch. I like to think I can read the cycles better by putting in my time on the hills, and hang waiting, and hangin out, and just trying to HEAR the wind.That's what you are doing on launch, judging the cycles. I DON"T KNOW MAN, I'M JUST LEARNING! Shawn.
I HAD FUN !
I HAD FUN !
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Hmmm...as somebody who splits his time equally between towparks, training hills, and mountains, and freeflying and instructing--I'm at a loss as to how the fundamental physics of flying a glider are somehow changed whether you're flying the flats or mountains.
Is it possible that what people mean to say is that when flying a new site--anywhere--getting as much beta as possible as to what the unique meteorlogical/topographical demands are is a good idea??
If it is really as much of a problem as some people seem to think, this implies that the present system of instruction, testing and rating is suspect or lacking. Is this the case?
marc
Is it possible that what people mean to say is that when flying a new site--anywhere--getting as much beta as possible as to what the unique meteorlogical/topographical demands are is a good idea??
If it is really as much of a problem as some people seem to think, this implies that the present system of instruction, testing and rating is suspect or lacking. Is this the case?
marc
Great Googly-moo!
H3
YES
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Flying Lobster" <in_a_cloud@hotmail.com>
>
> Hmmm...as somebody who splits his time equally between towparks, training hills,
> and mountains, and freeflying and instructing--I'm at a loss as to how the
> fundamental physics of flying a glider are somehow changed whether you're flying
> the flats or mountains.
>
> Is it possible that what people mean to say is that when flying a new
> site--anywhere--getting as much beta as possible as to what the unique
> meteorlogical/topographical demands are is a good idea??
>
> If it is really as much of a problem as some people seem to think, this implies
> that the present system of instruction, testing and rating is suspect or
> lacking. Is this the case?
>
> marcgot art?
> http://www.marcfink.com/
> wanna fly?
> http://www.downeastairsports.com/
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Flying Lobster" <in_a_cloud@hotmail.com>
>
> Hmmm...as somebody who splits his time equally between towparks, training hills,
> and mountains, and freeflying and instructing--I'm at a loss as to how the
> fundamental physics of flying a glider are somehow changed whether you're flying
> the flats or mountains.
>
> Is it possible that what people mean to say is that when flying a new
> site--anywhere--getting as much beta as possible as to what the unique
> meteorlogical/topographical demands are is a good idea??
>
> If it is really as much of a problem as some people seem to think, this implies
> that the present system of instruction, testing and rating is suspect or
> lacking. Is this the case?
>
> marcgot art?
> http://www.marcfink.com/
> wanna fly?
> http://www.downeastairsports.com/
Mountains
Yes, it's topography. You know that as well as anyone Marc. Look at the Woodstock Ridge. There are many different spots where the wind speed is higher because of a venturi on the ridge behind the mountain. Same goes for parts of the High Rock ridge. Localized conditions lead to drastically different conditions on the same ridge when winds are moderate to strong. And out in the valley at Jack's there's another mountain ridge in front of the LZ that creates rotor when winds are strong and drills people to the ground. And look again at Woodstock where the ridge out past I-81 combined with the higher ground upwind blocks the wind and you go from a 10mph headwind coming into land on final to zero at 30' off the deck. Or how about Fisher Road? Launch is in a bowl. The ridge bends at a sharp corner. The whole topography is convoluted out in the valley. And when winds are strong and thermals are even just moderate it's like flying in a washing machine.
Now look at a tow park. It's flat.
Matthew
Now look at a tow park. It's flat.
Matthew
I agree with what Marc was suggesting...if flying mountains and towparks is so dramatically different, then I seriously wonder why USHGA doesn't have a "H3M" (Hang 3 Mountain) and "H3T" (Hang 3 Towpark) rating. I wouldn't mind a system like that at all---makes sense!
Is this purely because USHGA doesn't want the hassle of administering an additional ratings category? Or is it because USHGA thinks someone who earns a H3 is qualified to fly both mountains and towparks?
There is a separate rating for aerotowing...which accounts for the techniques/challenges unique to aerotowing...so why isn't there a separate rating for flying the mountains? (Not being sarcastic---but wondering why there is such a glaring deficiency in the system?)
I should also add that I clearly don't know anything about flying the mountains---because in my 3 mountain ridge soaring flights (2 at Woodstock and one at Henson's Gap) I never noticed a thing that was even slightly difficult about ridge soaring. Was I just lucky? (Again, I'm not being sarcastic, but really wondering!)
The other thing that strikes me about the conversation is that people seem almost fatalistic about how rough and challenging mountain conditions can be...if this is so often the case, then would I be wrong in saying that mountain pilots sometimes fly in conditions that are possibly stronger/rougher than they ought to fly in? I mean, I wouldn't be terribly upset about simply not flying when it's 20+. That's why I also fly towparks! (Similarly, though I'm fully qualified to do it, I don't paddle class 4-5 whitewater...for me, it's just not worth the risks. I'm perfectly happy on class 3 water---the river equivalent of smooth, 10-12mph mountain days.)
Scott
Is this purely because USHGA doesn't want the hassle of administering an additional ratings category? Or is it because USHGA thinks someone who earns a H3 is qualified to fly both mountains and towparks?
There is a separate rating for aerotowing...which accounts for the techniques/challenges unique to aerotowing...so why isn't there a separate rating for flying the mountains? (Not being sarcastic---but wondering why there is such a glaring deficiency in the system?)
I should also add that I clearly don't know anything about flying the mountains---because in my 3 mountain ridge soaring flights (2 at Woodstock and one at Henson's Gap) I never noticed a thing that was even slightly difficult about ridge soaring. Was I just lucky? (Again, I'm not being sarcastic, but really wondering!)
The other thing that strikes me about the conversation is that people seem almost fatalistic about how rough and challenging mountain conditions can be...if this is so often the case, then would I be wrong in saying that mountain pilots sometimes fly in conditions that are possibly stronger/rougher than they ought to fly in? I mean, I wouldn't be terribly upset about simply not flying when it's 20+. That's why I also fly towparks! (Similarly, though I'm fully qualified to do it, I don't paddle class 4-5 whitewater...for me, it's just not worth the risks. I'm perfectly happy on class 3 water---the river equivalent of smooth, 10-12mph mountain days.)
Scott
I hear you Shawn---reading cycles is definitely an art form, and one I I've got lots to learn about!hepcat1989 wrote:I will try, and chime in here.I agree with Brian. If it's soarable on the ridge, then the wind can be up to 20-25 sometimes.That means things can happen quickly on the launch.I have aerotowed 13 times, and I have been at Smithsburg in real windy conditions during the winter times.I felt I had my hands more full with ground handling, and foot launching on my own- no wire crew at the hill, than any kind of aerotow.Scott, I think the more experienced pilots are just lookin out for ya! Things can, and do go wrong very quickly on launch. I like to think I can read the cycles better by putting in my time on the hills, and hang waiting, and hangin out, and just trying to HEAR the wind.That's what you are doing on launch, judging the cycles. I DON"T KNOW MAN, I'M JUST LEARNING! Shawn.
I HAD FUN !
Hope you're feeling okay.Scott
Mountains
Yes, Scott. Three mountain flights where you got lucky with ridge lift don't add up to much in the way of experience in mountain flying. Here's an analogy I hope you'll understand. When you're rafting or kayaking on a river, you need to learn how to read the river: the venturis, the currents, strainers, shallow spots, deep spots and how the different depths and obstructions interact with the currrent. When you're kayaking on a lake you don't need to learn how to read the lake. You may have to worry about chop from wind and wakes from other boats and even thermals creating chop in localized spots. But if it's windy, you probably won't go out because you're boat will weather vane too much. Just like when it's windy at the tow park they just don't tow. You rely on wind many times in the mountains. When you fly the mountains you need to learn how to interpret how wind speed and thermic activity interacts with the variety of topography. This takes experience and the assistance of more experienced mountain pilots.
Matthew
Matthew
H3
Some would say that pilots tend to fly in unnecessarily strong conditions...
There are separate special skills for towing and foot launch. AT and FL.
Also FSL CL, and AWCL. Don't forget RLF for landing and Turb for rough air.
I think those are close to correct.
Kev C
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott [mailto:sw@shadepine.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:41 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: H3
There is a separate rating for aerotowing...which accounts for the
techniques/challenges unique to aerotowing...so why isn't there a separate
rating for flying the mountains? (Not being sarcastic---but wondering why
there is such a glaring deficiency in the system?)
The other thing that strikes me about the conversation is that people seem
almost fatalistic about how rough and challenging mountain conditions can
be...if this is so often the case, then would I be wrong in saying that
mountain pilots sometimes fly in conditions that are possibly
stronger/rougher than they ought to fly in?
There are separate special skills for towing and foot launch. AT and FL.
Also FSL CL, and AWCL. Don't forget RLF for landing and Turb for rough air.
I think those are close to correct.
Kev C
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott [mailto:sw@shadepine.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:41 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: H3
There is a separate rating for aerotowing...which accounts for the
techniques/challenges unique to aerotowing...so why isn't there a separate
rating for flying the mountains? (Not being sarcastic---but wondering why
there is such a glaring deficiency in the system?)
The other thing that strikes me about the conversation is that people seem
almost fatalistic about how rough and challenging mountain conditions can
be...if this is so often the case, then would I be wrong in saying that
mountain pilots sometimes fly in conditions that are possibly
stronger/rougher than they ought to fly in?
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Matt et al:
I'm not taking any side in this issue--I'm just wondering what the emotions are behind the apparent insistence on requirements above and beyond the existing system.
My point is that the fundamentals of flying a hang glider are the same everywhere--proper speed, AOA etc. so I don't understand why the present system of ratings, endorsements and site regulations is somehow inadequate and necessitates an ad-hoc implementation of requirements on individual pilots.
marc
I'm not taking any side in this issue--I'm just wondering what the emotions are behind the apparent insistence on requirements above and beyond the existing system.
My point is that the fundamentals of flying a hang glider are the same everywhere--proper speed, AOA etc. so I don't understand why the present system of ratings, endorsements and site regulations is somehow inadequate and necessitates an ad-hoc implementation of requirements on individual pilots.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Perhaps we can all agree on a few things...
One of the most important skills in flying is understanding and respecting conditions. I've heard it said that hang glider pilots make the most dangerous paraglider students because they're too comfortable with stronger conditions... they're used to making that go/nogo decision for a hang glider and use the same scales for paragliding.
I think that's the same thing we're talking about here. We could go on and on about the differences of mountain flying and tow park flying, but what it all boils down to is respecting the conditions you're flying in.
It's the same for a H3 AT showing up at a mountain as it is for a H3 FL showing up at a towpark. If they approach the site with the mindset of an H2, they learn quickly and rapidly work their way into strong conditions safely. If they show up looking to fly in strong conditions right off the bat, someone needs to reign them in before they hurt themselves.
Has it been raining lately or something?
Jim
One of the most important skills in flying is understanding and respecting conditions. I've heard it said that hang glider pilots make the most dangerous paraglider students because they're too comfortable with stronger conditions... they're used to making that go/nogo decision for a hang glider and use the same scales for paragliding.
I think that's the same thing we're talking about here. We could go on and on about the differences of mountain flying and tow park flying, but what it all boils down to is respecting the conditions you're flying in.
It's the same for a H3 AT showing up at a mountain as it is for a H3 FL showing up at a towpark. If they approach the site with the mindset of an H2, they learn quickly and rapidly work their way into strong conditions safely. If they show up looking to fly in strong conditions right off the bat, someone needs to reign them in before they hurt themselves.
Has it been raining lately or something?
Jim
Thanks Jim for the well-stated summary. This all started when I said that after getting my H3 at a towpark I planned to return to the mountains.
Then someone said earning a towpark H3 and then flying the mountains is a BAD, BAD idea. This statement seemed a bit strong, and seemed to suggest that by having a towpark H3 I'd suddenly think I was God of the Mountains and kill myself. So I responded that of course---I intend to fly only in conditions within my abilities and seek guidance (in other words, approach the sites as an H2). I would never just show up at High Rock when it's blowing 20 and jump off, willy-nilly. (I'm not an idiot.)
It was also suggested that to fly the mountains I'd better get to a training hill. I agreed, but also suggested that training hill work is inadequate for approach and landing practice. I said that truck towing at a towpark is probably the best approach/landing practice there is, and that mountain pilots who only practice landings on their 1-2 mountain flights in a day aren't getting enough practice. (Interestingly, nobody tried to argue this point, which suggests that new mountain-only pilots might have an Achilles Heel---their landings.)
On the other hand, if I earn my H3 at a towpark, and I have my FL signoff (which I do), then I'm completely comfortable flying Woodstock in smooth, 10mph conditions. I've done it before, and I'll do it again.
I think much of the debate has been over exactly what "dues" should be paid by towpark pilots aspiring to become mountain pilots...and/or what the proper/allowable procedures are.
So here's a question we should answer collectively: If someone has a towpark H3 and FL signoff and decides to fly the mountains, are they still required by our club to (only) fly the mountains under the tutelage of a CHGPA Observer?
A second club policy question is: Must towpark H3s be required to spend X hours on a CHGPA-approved training hill under the tutelage of a CHGPA Observer?
Scott
Then someone said earning a towpark H3 and then flying the mountains is a BAD, BAD idea. This statement seemed a bit strong, and seemed to suggest that by having a towpark H3 I'd suddenly think I was God of the Mountains and kill myself. So I responded that of course---I intend to fly only in conditions within my abilities and seek guidance (in other words, approach the sites as an H2). I would never just show up at High Rock when it's blowing 20 and jump off, willy-nilly. (I'm not an idiot.)
It was also suggested that to fly the mountains I'd better get to a training hill. I agreed, but also suggested that training hill work is inadequate for approach and landing practice. I said that truck towing at a towpark is probably the best approach/landing practice there is, and that mountain pilots who only practice landings on their 1-2 mountain flights in a day aren't getting enough practice. (Interestingly, nobody tried to argue this point, which suggests that new mountain-only pilots might have an Achilles Heel---their landings.)
On the other hand, if I earn my H3 at a towpark, and I have my FL signoff (which I do), then I'm completely comfortable flying Woodstock in smooth, 10mph conditions. I've done it before, and I'll do it again.
I think much of the debate has been over exactly what "dues" should be paid by towpark pilots aspiring to become mountain pilots...and/or what the proper/allowable procedures are.
So here's a question we should answer collectively: If someone has a towpark H3 and FL signoff and decides to fly the mountains, are they still required by our club to (only) fly the mountains under the tutelage of a CHGPA Observer?
A second club policy question is: Must towpark H3s be required to spend X hours on a CHGPA-approved training hill under the tutelage of a CHGPA Observer?
Scott
> This statement seemed a bit strong
You could probably say that about every discussion on this group ;)
Everyone here is well meaning... the emotional pendulum just swings a bit further.
Something to keep in mind....
PART of the H3 requirement is being able to judge weather conditions and site conditions. This pertains to all sites, mountains or flat. (Consider Lookout Mountain for example). An other part is displaying the maturity and judgement commencerate with the rating.
AT and FL are Special Skill signoffs, not ratings.
Just as AWCL, RLF, X-C, etc.
An H3 should be able to judge their ability to assess a site and their need to seek the advice of other pilots about that site before flying it. Otherwise, they shouldn't be an H3.
Ratings are more than just launching/flying/landing skills.
Jim
You could probably say that about every discussion on this group ;)
Everyone here is well meaning... the emotional pendulum just swings a bit further.
Something to keep in mind....
PART of the H3 requirement is being able to judge weather conditions and site conditions. This pertains to all sites, mountains or flat. (Consider Lookout Mountain for example). An other part is displaying the maturity and judgement commencerate with the rating.
AT and FL are Special Skill signoffs, not ratings.
Just as AWCL, RLF, X-C, etc.
An H3 should be able to judge their ability to assess a site and their need to seek the advice of other pilots about that site before flying it. Otherwise, they shouldn't be an H3.
Ratings are more than just launching/flying/landing skills.
Jim
Thank you Jim! BTW, did you notice you're a rock star now---the cover photo on the latest Skyline?
http://skyline.chgpa.org
Scott
BTW, did you notice you're a rock star now---the cover photo on the latest Skyline?http://skyline.chgpa.org
Scott
H3
As Kevin has pointed out, there are indeed separate ratings for towing and
foot launch. But being rated as AT doesn't mean you can launch in 10
mph thermally air, just like being rated FL doesn't mean you can launch
when it's soarable in the mountains. It might be nice if they came in
beginner, intermediate, and advanced.
I like Jim's point that a H3 means you know enough to ask advice, while a
H2 means you may not even know you have limits so should only fly under
guidance. In that case a H3 aerotow pilot should have no problems going
to the mountains. Just like a H3 mountain pilot *should* take it easy at
the towpark if the tow skills are not current.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
foot launch. But being rated as AT doesn't mean you can launch in 10
mph thermally air, just like being rated FL doesn't mean you can launch
when it's soarable in the mountains. It might be nice if they came in
beginner, intermediate, and advanced.
I like Jim's point that a H3 means you know enough to ask advice, while a
H2 means you may not even know you have limits so should only fly under
guidance. In that case a H3 aerotow pilot should have no problems going
to the mountains. Just like a H3 mountain pilot *should* take it easy at
the towpark if the tow skills are not current.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
H3
So...what rating/qualification system is in place for kayakers? - Hugh
>From: Matthew <adventuretales@yahoo.com>
>Date: Tue Aug 09 22:01:33 CDT 2005
>To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: H3
>
>Yes, Scott. Three mountain flights where you got lucky with ridge lift don't add up to much in the way of experience in mountain flying. Here's an analogy I hope you'll understand. When you're rafting or kayaking on a river, you need to learn how to read the river: the venturis, the currents, strainers, shallow spots, deep spots and how the different depths and obstructions interact with the currrent. When you're kayaking on a lake you don't need to learn how to read the lake. You may have to worry about chop from wind and wakes from other boats and even thermals creating chop in localized spots. But if it's windy, you probably won't go out because you're boat will weather vane too much. Just like when it's windy at the tow park they just don't tow. You rely on wind many times in the mountains. When you fly the mountains you need to learn how to interpret how wind speed and thermic activity interacts with the variety of topography. This takes experience and the assistance
> of more experienced mountain pilots.
>
>Matthew
>From: Matthew <adventuretales@yahoo.com>
>Date: Tue Aug 09 22:01:33 CDT 2005
>To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: H3
>
>Yes, Scott. Three mountain flights where you got lucky with ridge lift don't add up to much in the way of experience in mountain flying. Here's an analogy I hope you'll understand. When you're rafting or kayaking on a river, you need to learn how to read the river: the venturis, the currents, strainers, shallow spots, deep spots and how the different depths and obstructions interact with the currrent. When you're kayaking on a lake you don't need to learn how to read the lake. You may have to worry about chop from wind and wakes from other boats and even thermals creating chop in localized spots. But if it's windy, you probably won't go out because you're boat will weather vane too much. Just like when it's windy at the tow park they just don't tow. You rely on wind many times in the mountains. When you fly the mountains you need to learn how to interpret how wind speed and thermic activity interacts with the variety of topography. This takes experience and the assistance
> of more experienced mountain pilots.
>
>Matthew