Objective observations on Hang IIdom

[XCanytime]

???? First off, what is written below is not meant to be a personal attack on anybody.? What is written below is just observations from a pilot who has flown the mountains for 11+ years, and was a Hang II for a good long time.? The incident with Linda at Jacks underscores the dilemma with nurturing Hang IIs along to their Hang IIIdom with a minimum (hopefully zero) of frightening flight situations.? According to the flight training books by Pagen, the first high flights are encouraged to be very low stress flights, with light winds at launch, no appreciable horizontal air movement aloft, and little to no wind in the LZ, making the landing direction immaterial.? The first high flights are encouraged to consist of an agressive, clean takeoff, flying directly out to the LZ with no deviations in course, entering the landing pattern with plenty of altitude (500' recommended), and landing in any direction.? Of course, reality rarely provides such benign conditions.? There is usually some horizontal wind aloft, the winds at launch can be crossing, and the winds can be switchy in the LZ.? However, the flight plan should account for these potential scenarios, and have plenty of margin in case the pilot should experience one or more of these scenarios.? Sometimes things just don't work out the way the way they are planned, even with the best of intentions.
???? However, I feel that there is way too much emphasis on soaring, and not enough on the two most important parts of the flight:? the takeoff and the landing.? The beginner pilot does not have the store of experience and judgement to deal with a lot of variables at one time (altitude judgement, ground speed judgement, glide angle judgement, speed-to-fly judgement, etc.).? The beginner pilot should be building the takeoff and landing skills first, not worrying about soaring.? Soaring will come with time.? There need not be any hurry.? Accurate and consistent approaches and landings are the mark of the skilled flyer, not flying for 5 hours in bulletproof ridge lift.
???? Why is there a hurry to soar amongst some pilots with little to no experience?? Maybe it has to do with sleds being boring, and not exciting enough?? Our list server/forum is replete with exciting accounts of getting high and going far.? I've written plenty in the past 4.5 years.? The tales are at their fingertips nearly every few days.? Very few people, if any, want to read about a 3 minute sled.? Is the beginner pilot affected by these exciting tales of soaring for hours and going XC?? Do these stories play a part in their hurry to soar?
???? In the latest issue of the national magazine, in the Accident Reports column, Joe Gregor gives excellent recommendations for the successful nurturing of Hang IIs to their Hang IIIdom.? We can't afford to have Hang IIs get too scared and maybe get out of the sport.? There are too few pilots already.? Feel free to comment on the observations and questions above, and on Joe's recommendations.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????? Thanks,
???????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bacil

[mcelrah]

One thing that has changed the nature of the training pipeline is
aerotow training. Pilots who have graduated from a combination of
aerotow and training hill work have had many more opportunities to
learn how to set up approaches from altitude than those who are coming
from training hill alone. Agree that the first few mountain flights
should be sleds in low wind, but at some point H-IIs have to graduate
to landing after some soaring. This IS a step up, 'cause one can get
so focused on soaring that a critical aspect of the flight - landing
safely - can get pushed out of the forefront of one's mind.
Fatigue/cold can also interfere with concentration/judgment. Why are
IIs eager to soar? Because it's FUN! The long-awaited reward for a
lot of hard work. As a matter of semantics, a H-II is not a "beginner"
- that's a H-I. So, by definition, a H-II should have serviceable
launch and landing skills and be ready for a gradual accretion of
additional experiences during many flights. As in any skill
development, the "novice"/H-II will have variable success with putting
together all the building blocks, old and new, but a scary flight
doesn't mean the basic launch and landing skills haven't been
adequately practiced - it's the new pieces you enumerated (altitude
judgment, ground speed judgment, glide angle judgment, speed-to-fly
judgment) that need more practice. The new skills will come with time
- air time. - Hugh

On 21 Mar 2005, at 20:41, XCanytime@aol.com wrote:

> ???? First off, what is written below is not meant to be a personal
> attack on anybody.? What is written below is just observations from a
> pilot who has flown the mountains for 11+ years, and was a Hang II for
> a good long time.? The incident with Linda at Jacks underscores the
> dilemma with nurturing Hang IIs along to their Hang IIIdom with a
> minimum (hopefully zero) of frightening flight situations.? According
> to the flight training books by Pagen, the first high flights are
> encouraged to be very low stress flights, with light winds at launch,
> no appreciable horizontal air movement aloft, and little to no wind in
> the LZ, making the landing direction immaterial.? The first high
> flights are encouraged to consist of an agressive, clean takeoff,
> flying directly out to the LZ with no deviations in course, entering
> the landing pattern with plenty of altitude (500' recommended), and
> landing in any direction.? Of course, reality rarely provides such
> benign conditions.? There is usually some horizontal wind aloft, the
> winds at launch can be crossing, and the winds can be switchy in the
> LZ.? However, the flight plan should account for these potential
> scenarios, and have plenty of margin in case the pilot should
> experience one or more of these scenarios.? Sometimes things just
> don't work out the way the way they are planned, even with the best of
> intentions.
> ???? However, I feel that there is way too much emphasis on soaring,
> and not enough on the two most important parts of the flight:? the
> takeoff and the landing.? The beginner pilot does not have the store
> of experience and judgement to deal with a lot of variables at one
> time (altitude judgement, ground speed judgement, glide angle
> judgement, speed-to-fly judgement, etc.).? The beginner pilot should
> be building the takeoff and landing skills first, not worrying about
> soaring.? Soaring will come with time.? There need not be any hurry.?
> Accurate and consistent approaches and landings are the mark of the
> skilled flyer, not flying for 5 hours in bulletproof ridge lift.
> ???? Why is there a hurry to soar amongst some pilots with little to
> no experience?? Maybe it has to do with sleds being boring, and not
> exciting enough?? Our list server/forum is replete with exciting
> accounts of getting high and going far.? I've written plenty in the
> past 4.5 years.? The tales are at their fingertips nearly every few
> days.? Very few people, if any, want to read about a 3 minute sled.?
> Is the beginner pilot affected by these exciting tales of soaring for
> hours and going XC?? Do these stories play a part in their hurry to
> soar?
> ???? In the latest issue of the national magazine, in the Accident
> Reports column, Joe Gregor gives excellent recommendations for the
> successful nurturing of Hang IIs to their Hang IIIdom.? We can't
> afford to have Hang IIs get too scared and maybe get out of the
> sport.? There are too few pilots already.? Feel free to comment on the
> observations and questions above, and on Joe's recommendations.
>
> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? Thanks,
> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bacil
>
>
>
>
>

[jimrooney]

Perhaps it's not that sleds are boring. I think to the beginner, sleds are plenty exciting, any flying is exciting. I still don't think that sleds are boring, they're just not enough. Which one of us couldn't get their feet off the ground enough when they first started? (How many off us still can't?) How many of us drooled at the thought of, any thought of, flying?

How many of us mushed in our first landings on the training hill because pulling in meant the flight was over? And that was for a piddly few seconds more, but who gave them up? I sure as hell didn't... "I'm not done yet!!!!" We all eeked and squeezed out every last second we could. We still do. "There I was, 100ft over the LZ... scratching and clawing...."

God, the frustration of being a hang II. As if this sport isn't weather dependant enough, add in the limitations of being stuck with near to perfect weather only. Not that it should be any other way, but it's still hard. Now, if you can get the right weather on the right day, you still need to convince an observer to come huck you off the mountain... and who knows what honey-do's they have to balance. Coming out to the mountain on a grey day so someone else can sled might not be in the cards. It's not their fault, it's just a fact of life.

Oh how delicious soaring looks. Soaring = more airtime.
Ridge soaring, thermal soaring... whatever... just keep me off the ground!

One of the neatest things I got to do in my hang II days was use a glider trailer. My instructor knew some people that built a tailer that could transport a glider, fully setup, back up the mountain. BRILLIANT! Sled after sled after sled! I didn't even get out of my harness. I still think that would make for a fun day.

A friend of mine always brings two gliders to the mountain, just so he can do a sledride in the morning without having to breadown and setup again.

That was, and still is, the lure of the flight park. I'd still run off the mountains all day if I could just appear back up top with my glider. Lacking magical abilities, I find myself content to appear on the launch dolly instead.

I don't know what the answers are. I think it starts with the people that help out those airhorny H2s, especially the observers. I can't thank the ones that hucked me off the mountains enough. On the other side of the coin, I remember seing a "Guide to being a H2" out there somewhere... with stuff like finding an observer _before_ you go to the mountain advice in it.

Anyway.
.02USD
Jim

[Paul Tjaden]

In a message dated 3/21/2005 9:50:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mcelrah@verizon.net writes:

Pilots who have graduated from a combination of
aerotow and training hill work have had many more opportunities to
learn how to set up approaches from altitude than those who are coming
from training hill alone.? Agree that the first few mountain flights
should be sleds in low wind, but at some point H-IIs have to graduate
to landing after some soaring.?

I'll have to agree with Hugh. H2's with aerotow/ truck tow experience have already accomplished their initial high flights and are usually ready to move on to an easier soaring day at the mountain. Lauren and I both had long, safe?soaring flights in smooth laminar conditions our first time?in the mountains.
?
As far as Linda is concerned, I personally watched?her do nine flights to 2,500 feet at Highland one day last fall and she had many days like that. She also truck towed and spent a great deal of time at the training hill before she was signed off to fly the mountains. I wasn't at Jack's last weekend and I'm not certain why she found herself in some trouble there but I do believe she was more than ready for the challenges she tackled.
?
Paul

[breezyk1d]

" The incident with Linda at Jacks underscores the dilemma with nurturing Hang IIs along to their Hang IIIdom with a minimum (hopefully zero) of frightening flight situations. "

For the record, I feel it is extremely important for me to emphasize that my observer repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, instructed me to FORGET about soaring that day.

One item that pops out from the rest of your commentary, (most of which I couldn't agree with more from a general sense about the slow nurturing of H2's) is that if during an H2's progress there are no circumstances encountered which require making any judgements other than cruising along on a pre-planned flight plan, then the H2 doesn't learn to make snap judgements, nor how to handle potentially frightening circumstances.

I believe the most valuable lesson that an H2 can learn is that nothing, NOTHING, is guaranteed out there, and that you will constantly have to monitor and adjust. If difficult or challenging circumstances are never encountered, then the H2 will get that attitude thing going about how they can handle it all. Due to the nature of training up to the H2 sign-off point, there is not much opportunity to deal with out-of-the-lesson-plan circumstances. Depending on the nature and personality of the student of course, my sense is that the sooner the student learns that partiuclar lesson, the better off the student will be, and the more they will approach their continued education with understanding and wisdom.

In specific, I would like to point out that there was nothing particularly frightening about the circumstances of either of my flights with the possible exception of the moment when I realized that I still had the potential of hitting the fenceline at the end of my landing direction. But that was simply also a matter of realizing the circumstances, and mentally and physically adjusting as seemed necessary. This is due directly to the fact that all my instructors to date have been the finest, toughest, best out there, and that my summer and fall spent aerotowing has paid off in experience.

I'm not pointing out that I wasn't frightened for bravado reasons, but because it is important for the observers to realize that "frightening" circumstances (lets call them "surprising" circumstances rather than frightening) are the ones that force you to respond instinctually, or to think outside the box. I would hate to get to the H3 point without having ever encoutered surprising circumstances.

-Linda B.

[rs54263]

And this is why I believe that *every* hang II should fly with a radio,
and be able to talk to his observer while in flight...

~Ralph


================================================================
from: breezyk1d (03/22/2005 08:29)
================================================================

" The incident with Linda at Jacks underscores the dilemma with
nurturing Hang IIs along to their Hang IIIdom with a minimum (hopefully
zero) of frightening flight situations. " For the record, I feel it is
extremely important for me to emphasize that my observer repeatedly,
REPEATEDLY, instructed me to FORGET about soaring that day. One item
that pops out from the rest of your commentary, (most of which I
couldn't agree with more from a general sense about the slow nurturing
of H2's) is that if during an H2's progress there are no circumstances
encountered which require making any judgements other than cruising
along on a pre-planned flight plan, then the H2 doesn't learn to make
snap judgements, nor how to handle potentially frightening
circumstances. I believe the most valuable lesson that an H2 can learn
is that nothing, NOTHING, is guaranteed out there, and that you will
constantly have to monitor and adjust. If difficult or challenging
circumstances are never encountered, then the H2 will get that attitude
thing going about how they can handle it all. Due to the nature of
training up to the H2 sign-off point, there is not much opportunity to
deal with out-of-the-lesson-plan circumstances. Depending on the nature
and personality of the student of course, my sense is that the sooner
the student learns that partiuclar lesson, the better off the student
will be, and the more they will approach their continued education with
understanding and wisdom. In specific, I would like to point out that
there was nothing particularly frightening about the circumstances of
either of my flights with the possible exception of the moment when I
realized that I still had the potential of hitting the fenceline at the
end of my landing direction. But that was simply also a matter of
realizing the circumstances, and mentally and physically adjusting as
seemed necessary. This is due directly to the fact that all my
instructors to date have been the finest, toughest, best out there, and
that my summer and fall spent aerotowing has paid off in experience.
I'm not pointing out that I wasn't frightened for bravado reasons, but
because it is important for the observers to realize that "frightening"
circumstances (lets call them "surprising" circumstances rather than
frightening) are the ones that force you to respond instinctually, or
to think outside the box. I would hate to get to the H3 point without
having ever encoutered surprising circumstances. -Linda B.

[Scott]

I've been out of the loop all winter, but I thought I'd emphasize a comment Hugh made: towing gives you more practice at approaches and landings from altitude, period. I'm not bashing the training hill or mountain flying, but consider this scenario (assume it's a good month where you can fly every weekend!)...

WEEKEND 1
Mountain pilot: 2-3 landings (on a good day!)
Truck tow pilot: 6-8 landings (on an average day)

WEEKEND 2
Mountain pilot: 2-3 landings (on a good day!)
Truck tow pilot: 6-8 landings (on an average day)

WEEKEND 3
Mountain pilot: 2-3 landings (on a good day!)
Truck tow pilot: 6-8 landings (on an average day)

WEEKEND 4
Mountain pilot: 2-3 landings (on a good day!)
Truck tow pilot: 6-8 landings (on an average day)

AFTER 1 MONTH
Mountain pilot: 8-12 landings (best case)
Truck tow pilot: 24-32 landings (average)

That's a LOT more experience for the truck tow pilot. Which is why---even though I'm dying to fly the mountains again, after a long winter off, I'm headed to Blue Sky to truck tow as many times as possible!

Scott

[rs54263]

Uh, don't let all that truck towing give you a false sense of
confidence either...

There is a world of difference between the approach you make into MFP
or Highland after a truck/pattern tow, and the approach that you make
into the Woodstock or Pulpit LZs on a moderately windy day. It's the
little things that tend to make it more interesting, like flying over a
LOT of trees to even get to the LZ, or the 10-15mph gradient when you
drop below the tree line, or the fact that the ground that you're
landing on isn't level, or all of the other pilots who might be landing
at exactly the same time because they all got flushed at the same time
you did...

~Ralph


================================================================
from: Scott (03/22/2005 18:27)
================================================================
I've been out of the loop all winter, but I thought I'd emphasize a
comment Hugh made: towing gives you more practice at approaches and
landings from altitude, period. I'm not bashing the training hill or
mountain flying, but consider this scenario (assume it's a good month
where you can fly every weekend!)...

WEEKEND 1
Mountain pilot: 2-3 landings (on a good day!)
Truck tow pilot: 6-8 landings (on an average day)

WEEKEND 2
Mountain pilot: 2-3 landings (on a good day!)
Truck tow pilot: 6-8 landings (on an average day)

WEEKEND 3
Mountain pilot: 2-3 landings (on a good day!)
Truck tow pilot: 6-8 landings (on an average day)

WEEKEND 4
Mountain pilot: 2-3 landings (on a good day!)
Truck tow pilot: 6-8 landings (on an average day)

AFTER 1 MONTH
Mountain pilot: 8-12 landings (best case)
Truck tow pilot: 24-32 landings (average)

That's a LOT more experience for the truck tow pilot. Which is
why---even though I'm dying to fly the mountains again, after a long
winter off, I'm headed to Blue Sky to truck tow as many times as
possible!

Scott


========================================================================
===========
========================================================================
===========

[Scott]

Good point Ralph! I agree, there is no substitute for experience in "real" LZs with all the variables. I guess my approach is that I want the "laboratory conditions" landings to be so bombproof they're almost subconscious---because I guarantee that'll make me better-equipped to deal with those "non-laboratory" conditions!

Scott

[breezyk1d]

[Note : Author of this particular reply is Danny B, in spite of the
author name that you see]

From the USHGA site:

"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."

An Observer's duties do not include instruction nor "radio controlling" another pilot; I'm not sure I would want to assume the liability to "instruct" another pilot over a radio. My instructor's rating lapsed years ago. An Observer observes with the intent to issue a rating or at least familiarize himself with a particular H2/H3?s flying as he/she works towards that next rating. Effectively, a H-2 who is being "observed" is working towards a H-3 rating. An Instructor is trained in the art of instructing and requirements are typically much more stringent and ongoing than an Observer (which as an appointment by an Examiner or Director.)

We are muddling the distinction between "Observer" and "Advanced Instructor"? or friends casually helping each other learn to HG more effectively (and sometimes offering our charges conflicting information in the process.)

Danny Brotto

[Matthew]

Everyone screws up. Everyone! The mark of a good pilot or a pontentially good pilot (and by good I mean SAFE) is keeping cool under pressure and flying the glider. The second mark of a good pilot (again SAFE) is underestanding what went wrong and adapting flying techniques and decisions so as to not repeat the error. More importantly, one must recongnize the difference between luck and skill. Bad pilots (AKA DEAD Pilots) are buoyed by surviving mistakes and do not learn from their mistakes. Their is no self-reflection or changing of tactics or judgments. They don't realize that they just got lucky.

It's nice to see some self-reflection.


Matthew

[rs54263]

>> An Observer's duties do not include instruction nor "radio
controlling"?another pilot;?

Let me say this *one more time* for those of you who weren't paying
attention the last dozen times that I've said this...

The point of having H2's fly with a radio is NOT (let me repeat that,
so I'm perfectly clear... NOT) so that the observer can "radio control"
the pilot all the way down to the LZ... it is so that the observer has
the ability to communicate with the H2 after launch *should it become
necessary to do so*. The classic example, which I have seen many
times, is the relatively new H2 who starts drifting too far back behind
the ridge. As an observer, do you want to try to yell to that pilot
from the ground [to get back out in front], or do you think that
talking to them via a radio might be more effective?

Alternatively, if the conditions change unexpectedly, an observer might
tell a H2 that maybe now is a good time to go out and land, before
things get too challenging.

I don't think that either of these examples would be consider
"instruction" or "radio-controlling", but are basically just good
advice, and well within the purview of the observer system.

~Ralph


================================================================
from: breezyk1d (03/22/2005 22:13)
================================================================
>From the USHGA site:

"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."

An Observer's duties do not include instruction nor "radio controlling"
another pilot; I'm not sure I would want to assume the liability to
"instruct" another pilot over a radio. My instructor's rating lapsed
years ago. An Observer observes with the intent to issue a rating or at
least familiarize himself with a particular H2/H3?s flying as he/she
works towards that next rating. Effectively, a H-2 who is being
"observed" is working towards a H-3 rating. An Instructor is trained in
the art of instructing and requirements are typically much more
stringent and ongoing than an Observer (which as an appointment by an
Examiner or Director.)

We are muddling the distinction between "Observer" and "Advanced
Instructor"? or friends casually helping each other learn to HG more
effectively (and sometimes offering our charges conflicting information
in the process.)

Danny Brotto


========================================================================
===========
========================================================================
===========

[Richard Hays]

Good advice Ralph. Good advice!

Rich Hays

>From: "Ralph Sickinger (R2)" <r2@sickinger.net>
>Reply-To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Re: Objective observations on Hang IIdom
>Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:47:42 -0500
>
> >> An Observer's duties do not include instruction nor "radio
>controlling"?another pilot;?
>
>Let me say this *one more time* for those of you who weren't paying
>attention the last dozen times that I've said this...
>
>The point of having H2's fly with a radio is NOT (let me repeat that,
>so I'm perfectly clear... NOT) so that the observer can "radio control"
>the pilot all the way down to the LZ... it is so that the observer has
>the ability to communicate with the H2 after launch *should it become
>necessary to do so*. The classic example, which I have seen many
>times, is the relatively new H2 who starts drifting too far back behind
>the ridge. As an observer, do you want to try to yell to that pilot
>from the ground [to get back out in front], or do you think that
>talking to them via a radio might be more effective?
>
>Alternatively, if the conditions change unexpectedly, an observer might
>tell a H2 that maybe now is a good time to go out and land, before
>things get too challenging.
>
>I don't think that either of these examples would be consider
>"instruction" or "radio-controlling", but are basically just good
>advice, and well within the purview of the observer system.
>
>~Ralph
>
>
>================================================================
>from: breezyk1d (03/22/2005 22:13)
>================================================================
> >From the USHGA site:
>
>"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."
>
>An Observer's duties do not include instruction nor "radio controlling"
>another pilot; I'm not sure I would want to assume the liability to
>"instruct" another pilot over a radio. My instructor's rating lapsed
>years ago. An Observer observes with the intent to issue a rating or at
>least familiarize himself with a particular H2/H3?s flying as he/she
>works towards that next rating. Effectively, a H-2 who is being
>"observed" is working towards a H-3 rating. An Instructor is trained in
>the art of instructing and requirements are typically much more
>stringent and ongoing than an Observer (which as an appointment by an
>Examiner or Director.)
>
>We are muddling the distinction between "Observer" and "Advanced
>Instructor"? or friends casually helping each other learn to HG more
>effectively (and sometimes offering our charges conflicting information
>in the process.)
>
>Danny Brotto
>
>
>========================================================================
>===========
>========================================================================
>===========
>
>
>
>
>

[Flying Lobster]

I have a radio system that works very well.

In the event that I totally miscalculate conditions as an observer and my hapless observed pilot is in trouble, I can yell corrective actions through the radio. Although, for some reason, in many cases the pilot either doesn't hear my directions or for some strange reason does the opposite of what I direct.

It that case, I have programmed a certain frequency that causes the crossbar to fail and the reserve to automatically deploy. This helps to ensure absolutely the pilot's safety. I will publish diagrams of my system in the next newsletter.

Marc

[hepcat1989]

.

[heaviek]

I was a diehard foot launcher first. Now teaching AT you see what a huge jump it is for new mountain pilots to actually know how to fly well in the air, set up approaches, or manage energy in turns.
?
Kev C
?

From: hepcat1989 [mailto:hepcat88@innernet.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 8:50 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Objective observations on Hang IIdom

?
Wow! , let's see! As an aspiring hang 3! I have some things to comment on as a current hang2! When I achieved my hang 2 I was happy.I figured I was on my way to flying the big air.Went to Bill's hill to do my first launch, launch was good,and no biggie from all the "hill" time. "So there I was" (famous last words- not really) flying along no problem, but that damm evil ground is coming up!Decisions need to be made quickly.and mine was sloppy as hell!The landing area is forgiving,but I still butchered the landing. I managed to land on my feet, but the DBF was weak. I got back up to launch to talk to an advanced pilot to ask him what he thought, and his reply was launch was ok ,but the approach wasn't the greatest! Man, I was like oh f#$k.I just shut up, and watched. In hind sight he was dead on. My launch was good, but my approach sucked ass! I am going down to lookout mt. apr.1st to apr.8th. to do some serious towing with an instructor so I can hone my approaches from alt. and fly their cliff launch. I havn't had the added training of setting up at alt. with an instructor, I think it may help some. I think working with a radio may be helpful as well, but I tell you , hooking up with experienced pilots- observers to help you is mega! Thanks - Spark, Brian Vant Halen, Steve K. The observers help bridge the gap in the "Big Picture", but it's up to you ,to ultimately plug in accumulated knowledge, and pull it off! I am learning that to hone our craft we will have to deal with adversity sometimes,- turbulent lz's that try to roll you out into the trees when thermals may be lifting off, uh huh,.. etc. Anything that means so much to us, must require paying- time on the hills, flight parks, in depth discussions with other pilots, PUCKERING, etc.I think the observer- mentor system in place works well, it's up to the individual pilot to figure out what "pet" projects in flying need to be addressed. Shawn.