CHGPA Board meeting agenda request

[Dan T]

I request that the CHGPA BoD introduce a motion to eliminate the phrase (with observer) from all our sites that currently currently contain this qualifier for the H2/P2 sites. I suggest that in its place we attach a notice stating words to the effect of; "Novice rated pilots are encouraged to obtain site awareness briefings from Intermediate and above rated pilots who are familiar with the site.) I believe that this change in language will work to the benefit of our Chapter and our Novice pilots for the following reasons:

1) It will reinforce the idea that it is the Novice pilot who is in command and not the observer. While we are all aware that this is the intent, in actual practice exactly who has the last word, and therefore who is in command, is usually not so clear. If the observer can direct the Novice not to fly in the present conditions, then he is effectively "in command." If he is not in command then his role is advisory and the decision on whether or not to obtain his advice should be up to the discretion of the Novice pilot.

2) There are a significant number of highly experienced pilots in our chapter who willing and qualified to engage in a site assessment dialog with our Novice pilots but have elected not to pursue an appointment as a USHPA sanctioned Observer. Providing our Novice pilots with a broader pool of individuals who are willing to assist them in assessing the suitability of conditions on a given day will increase their opportunities to fly on those days. Denying the Novice pilot the opportunity to fly our novice rated sites simply he or she could not arrange to meet with an official observer when an equally qualified pilot is present and willing to consult simply increases the duration of the Novice's learning curve without any tangible increase in the pilot's safety. In fact the longer duration between flying opportunities results in some degradation in previously acquired skills and may increase the novice pilot's risk of an accident.

3) It reduces the burden on our current pool of official observers. Most if not all of our official observers sacrifice a significant portion of their own flying opportunities while observing the Novices who have sought their assistance. Since our pool of official observers is very small they are often heavily burdened with these duties. Providing a wider pool of willing pilots to assist the Novices would more equitably spread the workload.

The official observers are also empowered with promoting the Novice pilots once they have demonstrated sufficient skills and judgement to achieve an Intermediate rating. My suggestion to eliminate the "with observer" qualifier from the site requirements for our novice rated sites is not a suggestion to eliminate the function of observers. The current method of vesting promotion responsibilities primarily through the pool of official observers seems to be working very well and I see no need to expand it.

Dan Tomlinson
H4/P3

[Danny Brotto]

Hi Dan,

Is your proposal consistent with USHGPA guidelines?

6.02 Recommended Operating Limitations for Novice Pilots

B. It is highly recommended that all flights be made under the direct supervision of a USHGA Certified Basic or Advanced Instructor or Observer.

Best regards,
Danny Brotto

[Dan T]

Danny,

Here is a quote from the USHPA President, Rich Haas on the matter. It is extracted from a lengthy letter that I just received with regard to the pending decision not to extend the Observer appointments of two of our most active PG observers.

From Rich Hass, USHPA President: "For example, when a P-2 pilot can only fly at a site if an Observer is present. In my opinion, this is a stretch of what the Observer is supposed to be doing and I think the Observer SOP should be amended if this is what USHPA wants Observers to be doing."

While the portion of the letter that I quoted is only a small segment of a lengthy letter on a largely unrelated subject I believe that I have applied it in context and that it gets right to the point.

Dan

[pvanoevelen]

Dan,

I do support your proposition but with the caveat that for those (P2 and P3s) who are unfamiliar with or new to the site a site introduction is required (and we need to address protocol for that, what to do when it gets ignored for example!!). This is as much about safety as it is about site preservation (the do's and don'ts).

Cheers Peter

[SHORTCUT]

i think that the Crestline Soaring Society (Marshall/Crestline) has pretty darn solid guidelines for their Sites and Airpark.

Their sites are rated as H3/P3; but they allow some of the sites to be flown by Novice Pilots (H2/P2) if they have an Instructor Endorsement. From that point on, he should fly under observation....by an observer.
This makes sense to me is several ways. (just a couple here)

First, that the Novice has been Trained to fly that site...through the whole process..protocol, departure and approach, technique, etc.
Has demonstrated the ability to handle that site, under instruction, that is consistent with the H2/P2 limitations.

Second, the observer can ask for, and read, the endorsement before proceeding; and, not be in a position to "Teach" the Novice how to fly that Intermediate rated site. The observer will not just taking the highly motivated Novice' word for it.

I think there is great value for the Novice with the Observers' involvement, and the mentoring from senior pilots. The value that the Observers provide should not be discounted. The query, advice on conditions, traffic, expectations...all those things that help the Novice toward making their own good decisions is a critical part of the Pilot development. The debriefing, and logbook endorsements will also help advance the Pilot toward their intermediate rating.

-Greg
Staunton

[theflyingdude]

i think that the Crestline Soaring Society (Marshall/Crestline) has pretty darn solid guidelines for their Sites and Airpark.

Their sites are rated as H3/P3; but they allow some of the sites to be flown by Novice Pilots (H2/P2) if they have an Instructor Endorsement. From that point on, he should fly under observation....by an observer.
This makes sense to me is several ways. (just a couple here)

First, that the Novice has been Trained to fly that site...through the whole process..protocol, departure and approach, technique, etc.
Has demonstrated the ability to handle that site, under instruction, that is consistent with the H2/P2 limitations.

Second, the observer can ask for, and read, the endorsement before proceeding; and, not be in a position to "Teach" the Novice how to fly that Intermediate rated site. The observer will not just taking the highly motivated Novice' word for it.

I think there is great value for the Novice with the Observers' involvement, and the mentoring from senior pilots. The value that the Observers provide should not be discounted. The query, advice on conditions, traffic, expectations...all those things that help the Novice toward making their own good decisions is a critical part of the Pilot development. The debriefing, and logbook endorsements will also help advance the Pilot toward their intermediate rating.

-Greg
Staunton

This is pretty much the way it works now for those sites rated as H2/P2 with an Observer present. It's functioned fairly well for the past 30 - 40 years and has served the interests of both the Novice-rated pilots and the flying community, as a whole. Observers are appointed by Examiners based upon their willingness to serve the community and hopefully their experience, good sense and maturity of judgement. The H2/P2 always becomes the pilot-in-command once they launch, but most lack the knowledge and experience to judge flying conditions. The "go or no go" decision will be the single most important decision in the process and an overly zealous Novice may become a danger to themselves and to the site if they don't err on the side of caution. This would be especially true when there are already more experienced pilots launching and flying which then might give the Novice the false impression that everything is hunky dory for them to fly.

If the PG portion of the flying community needs more Observers, I'm sure that Ben Herrick would gladly consider appointing some of the more experienced pilots to the position if they're willing to make the occasional sacrifice of time and effort. I've been a hang gliding Observer for over 25 years and other than occasional frustration of having to delay my own launch until conditions improved for the Novice and/or having to resist the urge to just say it was too strong and the Novice should consider being a driver that day, it's been a pleasure helping others experience the joy that's been such a large part of my life.

JR

[Matthew]

I agree with JR. I also think that Dan's plan would lead to having lots of Novice pilots in the trees or worse. The biggest criteria for me as an Observer, both HG and PG, for granting a Novice pilot an Intermediate rating is not the hours or the spot landings. It's when a when a Novice pilot declines to fly in strong or hazardous conditions even if other pilots are flying. Novice pilots are eager to fly in anything. It's only when they gain wisdom under the Observer system that they recognize when it's best to not fly. I've had several experiences where Novice pilots would have flown and gotten themeselvers hurt at our Novice with Observer Requred sites had I not been there to rein them in.

As to PG Observers, we've got a ton of them.

Matthew

[Danny Brotto]

Hi Dan,

You wrote:

"From Rich Hass, USHPA President: "For example, when a P-2 pilot can only fly at a site if an Observer is present. In my opinion, this is a stretch of what the Observer is supposed to be doing and I think the Observer SOP should be amended if this is what USHPA wants Observers to be doing.""

I read Rich's comment as having to do with the ongoing discussion about the role of an Observer. The official Observer SOP is to observe and sign off tasks of a pilot working towards a rating and not as an advisor or mentor. This is a separate discussion and, in all due respect, is taken out of context IMO in this discussion.

Your point is that the P-2's will suffer due to the upcoming action (actually lack of action to renew the 2 Observerships) as it will limit P-2 access to Observers. Mathew says there are plenty of qualified P-Observers so no P-2 should be adversely affected.

Danny Brotto

[pvanoevelen]

Hi Danny,

I disagree maybe on paper there are enough observers but not in practice. We have had now several occasions where no observers were available (and yes having two less at the moment certainly directly affects this). Most of us travel quite a bit and have demanding jobs which makes the availability in practice a lot less. I do not know how this is for HG but certainly the case for PG.
If you read the SOP for observer ship it states that the observer is supposed to be monitoring visually the flight of the P-2 which for many of our sites is practically not doable.
If the HG community is satisfied than they should keep things as they are. I see much value in the proposition by Dan (with my previous caveats taken care off).

Peter

[Matthew]

Check the USHPA Observer page. There are not two less Observers.

The problem is not lack of Observers-- yes we could use more-- the problem is the lack of a few ill-prepared Novice pilots actually calling or emailing the Observers. Showing up at site and expecting to be Observed is not a fault relating to lack of Observers.

Prepared pilots contact Observers first. When I was a Novice pilot I always arranged to have a back-up Observer and I worked with other Novice pilots to coordinate flying, drop off cars, walk the LZ and work with Observers.

Matthew

[pvanoevelen]

Again, Matthew I disagree.
Since Ben sent out out the list this week I have checked it . At this point we are missing two of our most flying observers (for PG). With the new observers coming aboard (not yet in that list) that is in part remedied.
I personally get contacted regularly directly and even more through our mailing list. And I do not know of many cases where people just showed up and expected to be observed and if they did it was because some other observer already indicated he/she would be flying/be present.
Even if all of what you say is true than still the problem remains we cannot as observers strictly adhere to the requirements as seth forth in the SOP regarding observing the novice pilots. The suggestion by Dan is in my view a very acceptable solution. I am all for maintaining safety and site preservation but sticking wit the current practice is not helpful. Continuing what we have been doing just because it seems to work (many times it did not!) is in my view not a way forward in addressing any of the issues.

Cheers Peter

[Dan T]

The civility and logic of this debate is refreshing. Good points are being made on all sides. It's what I hoped would occur when I introduced the topic. Let's hear from some of the rest of you.

Thanks,
Dan

[Matthew]

I'm glad to hear that Peter has not had incidents of pilots showing up without first contacting an Observer. I do, however, disagree with Peter and Dan in that I do not see a problem with the current system. I do not know of any Novice pilots being unable to fly for lack of Observers- both HG and PG. And I've been an HG Oberver close to 20 years and PG Observer for about a decade. Maybe there have been a few times where a novice pilot has wanted to fly on a weekeday and could not find an Observer. Otherwise, I've always found the time to act as an Observer when contacted by Novice pilots on days when I was going to a flying site. And on days that I was not planning on flying, I always led the Novice pilots to an Observer who would be on site.

Thus, it appears that a propasal has been made to solve a problem that does not exist.

Matthew

[dbodner]

The civility and logic of this debate is refreshing.

Let's see what I can do to change that.

Whether there are enough Observers is irrelevant to the question Dan asks. If a site is inappropriate for a 2 without an Observer or Mentor, it's still inappropriate even in the complete absence of Observers and Mentors. Conversely, if it's an unnecessary restriction, then it ought to be changed regardless of how easy it is to be observed.

I'm sympathetic to Dan's argument, though I'm not sure I'm completely there.

I've had several experiences where Novice pilots would have flown and gotten themeselvers hurt at our Novice with Observer Requred sites had I not been there to rein them in.

Were these instances in which the 2 would've been flying outside of USHPA-recommended conditions? If so, that's not really an Observer issue, either.

If our sites were currently straight 2 sites, would we be moving to up the sites' ratings? And would such a change actually address the problem? I think in many cases, issues with launches and landings at particular sites aren't really 2 vs 3 issues. They'd be issues for any outsider (e.g. difficulty reading the swirling air at Woodstock launch). The actual flying part is a different issue. Sure, there are times when a 2 shouldn't be in the air. But is that controlled just as effectively by enforcing the USHPA restrictions for 2s?

Let's keep in mind that we may have agreements with outside authorities that practically limit our ability to downgrade a site. I think the Pulpit charter would have to be amended to change the rating for the Pulpit. And that's never been done.

Looks like I've just argued for both sides. I think the request needs to be narrowed to a specific site, so we can better argue the issue.

[sailin]

DanT,
I am trying to put this in relevant , tangible terms so I can try to understand exactly what you are saying. Is your proposed proposal to make Woodstock H2/P2, Pulpit H2/P2, Daniels H3/P3 ??

thanks,
Jon

[pvanoevelen]

I like David's response that highlights there are several issues at stake here and not all of them are directly relevant to Dan's proposition but do deal with how USHPA sees what an observer is. Below my perspective from the view of a PG observer.

Regarding site ratings (independently of outsiders restrictions like e.g. Pulpit, Dickies) the most obvious criteria for the difference between a P2 or P3 for me would be regarding where is the LZ with respect to the Launch. A novice pilot should when launching have a LZ within visible range and within glide of his/her glider. So most of our sites would currently be P2 sites given that criteria. Exception is Fisher Rd where the current LZ is not within visible range (obstructed view) and probably not within straight glide of a 1-2 glider (definitely not a DHV-1/EN-A). Dickies Ridge is a different discussion. The Pulpit this year with the secondary LZ planted with corn (which is the main PG LZ) was also a bit more trickier but a bail out option was still there within glide of an EN-A wing. The main LZ is within glide for a EN-C but I doubt if it is for the older EN-B's and certainly not for EN-A's (of course our wings do get better glides it seem every year)
Flat top is another case which in principle is fine for P2 but has a tricky LZ and a tricky Launch. Tricky is not enough to degrade the sites rating.
Most of our Launches are slot launches and tight and have issues but depending on the circumstances they are perfectly fine for P2 pilots. A site introduction where several of the safety and other issues are discussed (plus all that info needs to be in our site guide) is a minimum.

From USHPA regarding observers duties: 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.

To me that sounds like we should not have our sites P2 plus observer indicated as it makes no sense. An observer is not a safety precaution! Observers are not pilots in command they are however pilots that can 'judge' other pilots performance.

P2's are supposed to learn from others when and where not to fly. Observers like any other -more experienced- fellow pilot can help in that process. It should take away the responsibility from the P2's.
I have said this before but on the East Coast we tend to fly midday even during summer and that can make for very turbulent LZ's. That has nothing to do with the rating of the site, but all with the proficiency (skill and judgement) of the pilot. Again not an issue that should affect a sites rating.

The proposal from Dan addresses the inherent problem of making observers responsible for allowing or not allowing flights at many of our sites (brit by being present or not present or telling they 'should' not fly). Observers can only judge, advise and that is what it should be.

Does this position potentially increase the risk that a novice pilot after a site introduction goes off on his own and lands in a tree? Maybe it does. But in that case we should not appoint observers but site police with a mandate to stop people from taking off?

In my view the following ratings are appropriate: WS P2, Pulpit P2, Daniels P2, Flattop P2, Fisher Rd. P3, Dickies P3, (Hogback P3)

Again that does not mean any novice pilot can just go and fly there!

Cheers Peter

[pvanoevelen]

Essential type missing NOT:
P2's are supposed to learn from others when and where not to fly. Observers like any other -more experienced- fellow pilot can help in that process. It should NOT take away the responsibility from the P2's.

Sorry about that, Peter

[theflyingdude]

The problem with Peter's suggestion is that these flying sites don't exist in a vacuum. Woodstock, for example, may very well be a H2/P2 site in some conditions, but not in other conditions, i.e. stronger winds, crossed winds, etc. The Novice pilots generally lack the knowledge and experience to make informed decisions about the conditions and how they might affect the site on a given day. And it's not only a safety issue for the Novice pilots, but it is also a safety issue for the sites themselves. Sites like Woodstock, the Pupit, Daniels, etc. were opened 30 - 40 years ago by club members and they've remained open and available since that time as a result of due diligence and an emphasis on safe operation. Allowing Novice pilots to fly these sites without oversight of an Observer and based upon their own metrics is a recipe for losing valuable flying sites which are already in short supply. We have a system that has worked well for decades and I can see no compelling reason to change that absent better arguments than have been put forth thus far.

JR

[mingram]

JR, I tend to agree with Jeff's opinion on Responsibilities of Pilots and Observers that conditions don't change the rating of a site.

I propose we start rating sites as P2 with more specific requirements for site intro from an observer and then sponsorship by an observer until they become familiar with the site. Such as:

Observer or Instructor must perform walk through and sponsor the 1st flight for P2’s. P2s must be sponsored for a minimum of X flights.
P3s also require intro by an observer and sponsorship at this site.

It would also be helpful to make information about our sites more public like the do in other clubs so that pilots have all the information up front and with very specific guidelines about how/who to go to get an in person site intro.

Lookout mountain in Colorado is very specific about site rules because they have a lot of visiting pilots and the LZ can be challenging due to rotor in certain wind directions. http://www.rmhpa.org/site_guide/lookout/

The problem I see is that P2s are put under more pressure to get the P3 so that they don't have to ask for an observer for a site they've flown 100 times. In practice if I know a P2 has flown a site X number of times and I'm comfortable with their skills then I let them know they're good to go on their own without an observer (we're all flying together and watching out for each other, but it's not the Observer that controls if/when they fly a known site). A P3 requires 20 hours of airtime which can be challenging. Repetition at a particular site under the supervision of an experienced pilot in a variety of conditions is really what we should be after.

[theflyingdude]

I think I'm going to have to go with Matthew on this one.

Thus, it appears that a propasal has been made to solve a problem that does not exist.

Matthew

JR

[mingram]

My operating procedure is to let P2s who I know are familiar with a site fly it without direct supervision by an observer. That goes against the strict interpretation of the site rules, but it works. If people are ok with my interpretation of the rules, then I agree there's no problem.

[markc]

This thought of Peter's was a big eyebrow-raiser for me:

Regarding site ratings [....] the most obvious criteria for the difference between a P2 or P3 for me would be regarding where is the LZ with respect to the Launch. A novice pilot should when launching have a LZ within visible range and within glide of his/her glider. So most of our sites would currently be P2 sites given that criteria

My perspective, as an HG pilot, is completely, 180-degrees different. The primary concern that I always have for new HG pilots regards the ***launch*** : The appropriateness of the conditions, whether the pilot can handle the wind speed and gust factor, if s/he knows how to deal with a cross-wind, or ramp-suck, or the wing getting tossed around in turbulence, etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong: Absolutely, in-flight conditions/decisions are just as vital for a successful flight, as are the landing conditions/decisions.

But assuming that the day seems generally "ok" : The first, most obvious thing that comes to my mind when I think of new-ish pilots flying a site are the launch conditions, and whether the pilot is prepared for them.

Could it be that the new-P2-experience fundamentally differs from the new-H2-experience? I don't fly PG, so I can only speculate.... But one big difference I've observed is that PG pilots can abort a launch (intentionally, or unintentionally) with far fewer consequences (to equipment, or to person) than HG. And I've also observed that very strong/cross conditions tend to be 'self-limiting' : Newer pilots often don't have the skills to get the canopy cleanly-inflated and over their head in gnarly winds, so they can't launch in the first place.

There are significant differences between HG and PG when it comes to launching and to landing, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. So people might want to give consideration both to what they *do* know, and to what they *don't* know when it comes to this discussion. I can't say that I buy into the argument that the observer/mentor rules should be fundamentally changed... But I'll certainly listen, and maybe I'll learn something surprising.

MarkC

[Matthew]

As someone who flies both and Observes both-- launch, in air, and landing conditions are all equally important to me when flying and Observing both HG and PG. Distance to landing field is only part of the landing component. I err on the side of caution for flying conditions for PG. For example, Woodstock can be blowing like stink and then lull down for about 20-30 minutes-- and then ramp up even stronger than it had been blowing earlier. Anyone who has been flying a while knows this as a sucker lull. I tend to wait such cycles out before launching or Observing either an HG or PG in such conditions. An HG pilot who would chose to launch in a sucker lull will likely be able to handle the stronger air. A PG pilot would not. So I tend to wait longer at Woodstock mid-day before considering launching or Observing a PG.

Woodstock is one of our trickiest sites even though the LZ is close and there are closer bail-out fields. We still have highly experienced, local P3s and P4s being blown over the back because they do not respect the three rules of Woodstock. Ergo, distance to the LZ is not the most important criteria.

Matthew

PS Maybe we should make Woodstock a P5 site

[theflyingdude]

My operating procedure is to let P2s who I know are familiar with a site fly it without direct supervision by an observer. That goes against the strict interpretation of the site rules, but it works. If people are ok with my interpretation of the rules, then I agree there's no problem.

I think that's a problem of an entirely different nature. To paraphrase a line from the movie, Billy Jack, "When a club officier/Observer breaks the site rules, there are no site rules!"

JR

[kcarra]

Back before we were all slaves to the Internet, we would have the occasional Observer meeting. Maybe we should have an Observer meeting-- in person-- no WebEx.

Matthew