New H2 Skill Required - 180's

[CraginS]

USHGA just announced a few changes to the rating program.

First, all ratings and appointments can now be revoked without cause. Interesting. I guess that will let troublesome ratings be pulled without a food fight over due process.

Next, there is now a special skill sign off for for 360 degree turns. I'm not sure of the reason for this. Doing 360's is a base skill for H3, so this really is only meaningful for H2s. I wonder what the background is on this change.

Finally, Instructors, but not Observers, will have to deal with a new requirement for H2:
"Demonstrates 180o turns in both directions, and at various speeds and bank angles. "
I can kind of understand this one. The trick will be figuring out how to do this safely with pure training hill instruction. Relatively easy to have enough altitude and ground clearance for a 180 when tow training. However, I am trying to imagine fitting a 180 into a flight at Taylor or Oregon Ridge.

I'd be interested in thoughts from John and Richard on this H2 change.

[jimrooney]

I'd be interested in thoughts from John and Richard on this H2 change.

Agreed.
Seems out of left field. Raising the bar on training hill requirements? You've got to be kidding me.

There are so many other issues with our rating process (that actually matter). Why they've chosen to change these things mystifies me. Maybe someone else sees the reasons, but I'm in the dark here.

Jim

[Flying Lobster]

I think there's some confusion here.

ONLY an instructor can issue a hang 1 or 2--so there's no issue about observers issuing H2 tasks.

Part of the problem is recognizing "USHPA-speak" for what is actually required. A task is a required demonstration, as opposed to optional observed or recommended skills or knowledge. My take is that the requirement has become easier--a 180 as opposed to a 360.

The real biggie, as I see it, is the change in revocation policies. While the standard SOP's go to great length to avoid the possibility of "conflict of interest" revocations and/or reductions, there appears to be a loophole in the language of the revised revocation SOP's. Taken literally (as I read them), SOP 12-05 says any appointment or certification may be revoked by the issuing person at any time without any review process. Instructors, tandem instructors etc. are certifications which apparently fall under this category. Further confusing the issue is whether or not a regional director, if not the issuer of the appointment or certification, can also revoke an appointment or certification. Some of the language seems to suggest yes--other language in the standard SOPs say no.

marc

[CraginS]

Marc,
You said,
"ONLY an instructor can issue a hang 1 or 2--so there's no issue about observers issuing H2 tasks.
"Part of the problem is recognizing "USHPA-speak" for what is actually required. A task is a required demonstration, as opposed to optional observed or recommended skills or knowledge. My take is that the requirement has become easier--a 180 as opposed to a 360."

I agree and understood all along that the H2 requirement only affects Instructors. That is why I said "Instructors, but not Observers, will have to deal..."

But there are two changes .
In the Requirements for H2, USHPA added a requirement to do multiple 180 degree turns in both directions. Previously there were no requirements for 360 or 180 degree turns for H2. The only turn requirement before was the one tied to spot landings. So this is not an easing of a requirement, it is adding a new one. And I reiterate - I'll be interested in comments from Instructors who teach by foot launch how they will handle the new requirement, and why they (you) think it was added.

There has all along been a requirement for H3 to do 360's. That does not change.

In addition to the new 180 degree turn requirement, USHPA added a special skill sign off for 360 degree turns. This makes a 360 turn a skill like Cliff Launch. However, since all H3s had to do 360's for the rating, the new skill only really applies to H2s. Further, there IS an Observer action here. Observers will be able to sign off this 360 skill for H2's we observe. I suppose H3s and H4s could pay $15 and have the 360 added to the alphabet soup on our cards... but why would we?

[Batman]

Maybe H3/H4 pilots will be required to do their 360 in the vertical plane vice the horizontal...

[RedBaron]

I don't see the need for additional sign-off's, the system is ridiculous enough as it is. Let's see,
ST, CL, AT, FSL, PL, AWCL, RLF, TUR, XC and now 180o and 360o as it seems. And what is turbulence (TUR) anyway? Do I have to fly into a thunderstorm to get that? And no, don't you think you can get every boxed checked and pay for all the sign-off's with one $15 check, it's $15 for every sign-off. Don't USHPA ever look at the DHV and realize there's a professional way of organizing a nation's HG and PG community?

[jimrooney]

No, you can do it as $15 for all of them. They just have to be issued at the same time.

This has some twilight zone stuff to it... a 360 turn used to be considered a dangerous move!
It's in the manuals... from the 70's!

I'm curious Mark... how does this get into conflict of interest if the guy that can pull a rating is the guy that issued it?
Now if someone else can pull it, then yeah... that could get ugly fast.

Jim

[Matthew]

Okay. This is a bit off-topic. It still, however, drives me crazy! In diving you get additional sign-offs after taking a course, demonstrating the skills and passing a test. I'm not suggesting that there be a requirement for additinal instruction for the umpteen ratings offered by USHPA. However, it's very strange that we have little to no continuing education in hang gliding and paragliding. You need more trainging for tow ratings and instructor and tandem ratings... and there are safety in flight clinics out west for paragliding. Once in a blue moon you can find an XC clinic.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had availability to instruction for Restricted Landings, or XC Flight, or Weather. We don't even have classes for studying for your H3 or H4. You're on your own with the books for H3 and P3. But what about advanced ratings. Ellis and I want to take the P4 test. There's not even a study guide. How stupid is it that we don't offer instruction to teach pilots what they need to know for an advanced rating? We have lots of people who have problems either launching and landing because they've picked up bad habits. With SCUBA, you can take a couple hour refresher course. With skiing, you can take a lesson any time to correct problems. We have bupkis. When Greg DeWolf offered L&L clinics, they filled right up. So there is a market. Ugh!!!

Matthew

[CraginS]

I just added a moderately pontificating reply on this topic to a thread I started on the Oz Forum. Mark Forbes explained from the BoD level why the new rules on 180 and 360 turns (nothing on the revocation rules). My responding analysis suggests a lack of real thinking in that decision. It's a little long long, so I won't replay here.
Go read the threat at
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54069#54069

I'd be very interested in Rooney's and Matthew's thoughts on Forbes' explanation and my response.

Teaser - the Board changed the HG rules because the PG folks asked for a change. Huh???

[Matthew]

Hi Craig,

I agree whole-heartedly with your analysis and conclusions. You argument is logical and to the point. But when has anyone ever won an argument because logic prevailed?

Matthew

[DanTuck]

Hey, Cragin
I notice that he didn't address #3. Revocation. I think that does need some clarification, IMHO.

[Flying Lobster]

Craigin: technically, I don't believe the training hills you mentioned qualify as being adequately high for the demonstrated flying tasks involving H2 turns.
Jim: The "without cause" is worrisome--but the "without recourse" is really worrisome--I wonder if it's even legal.

marc

[CraginS]

[quote="Flying Lobster"]Craigin: technically, I don't believe the training hills you mentioned qualify as being adequately high for the demonstrated flying tasks involving H2 turns.
Jim: The "without cause" is worrisome--but the "without recourse" is really worrisome--I wonder if it's even legal.

marc[/quote]

marc,
i very much agree with you. that is a major part of my concern about the impact of the new requirement

[jimrooney]

Hrm... interesting stuff.
Though I find it about as meaningful as rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

So, we had a look at the training program and decided to update it? Yeay! Long overdue.
But THIS is what we chose?

Sorry, I have to go look up the H2 flying requirements again. All my students do 360s on flight #1, so it kinda doesn't cross into my realm all that often. If I'm reading MarkF right... we've gone from 360s to 180s, not 180s to 360s. So 360s are now linked 180s... sorry... but... big deal. I really couldn't care less why.

I never did a 360 for my H2. H2 was your "ok for the mountains" ticket. In other words... an instructor could huck you off a mountain in smooth stuff and you're not likely to die. Seemed pretty on the money to me then... and still does. Same criteria I use to solo people... "is he going to die?"

Hrm... might be a reason I'm not writing the SOPs

My point is... it's not a big deal. Keep in mind the "instructor's catchall"... the "requirements" are minimums. We can set the bar as high as we feel necessary.

Marc...
Yup, definitely the bigger issue IMHO2 and yeah, the wording does come from the school of Vader.
Sounds like the idea is to give the instructor as much authority in removing a rating as they have in giving one... absolute. "without recourse" follows on from "without cause"... if you have no recourse, no cause is implicit. Should you require cause, you incur recourse.

Sounds like you're smelling the old "absolute power corrupts"... yup, makes sense.
Kinda makes ratings worthless and instructors gods. Yeah, could be a problem there.
Is this revocation restricted to the issuing official?

Jim

[CraginS]

Mark Forbes responded to my comments - but only one aspect of the 180. He ignored totally the issue of the Catch-22 on the 180s.
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11775

[Flying Lobster]

Hmmm...from the perspective of someone who has taught new pilots--I have to say I kinda do see the need for a 180 task for H-2's and don't feel it's a bad thing. The principal objection I see here is that it is difficult given the limitations of some training hills. I feel this is a constraint in altitude--and the requirement for the demonstrated task--whether 90 or 180--has always been to go off of 250 ft agl to ensure safety and room to complete.

The H 2 flying tasks have been developed to not necessarily have a pilot prove that they know how to do linked turns for the sake of ridge soaring--but to demonstrate that the pilot can safely set up and execute good approaches. Traditionally, this has been associated with big aircraft patterns with less than 180 turns for the novice pilot--but I think a very good argument can be made that base to final turns are often a loosely executed 180.

I don't agree these turns are just a matter of degree. There is a HUGE difference between a "bump-and-nudge" input that gets a glider to alter it's course 90 degrees or less and a well executed, coordinated and efficient 180, which also requires some notion of management of the glider's inertia.

When I train with scooter tows it's easy to get these turns in, but I would agree that linking two of them should not be done until the student can truly master one of them--250 feet is not a lot of room in case of less-than-perfect turns. This probably will raise the bar somewhat on getting the novice rating--but in my opinion a far more useful requirement than the spot landing requirements.

As for the changes in revocation policy I still have trouble reconciling SOP's but thinking about this from a legal perspective I think the changes are profound. My take is that the new policy is in response to past difficulties or reticence on getting rid of "bad" instructors. To simply declare new SOP's, which I presume are retroactive regardless of time of rating or appointment, I think is a slight of hand which will further endanger the instructor's program and provide yet another reason for the prospective instructor to carefully weigh the potential losses for time and money invested in becoming an instructor. I wonder about the potential for "nepotism" given the all-or-nothing relationship between the rater and "ratee."

With the sky-rocketing costs in transportation and equipment, I don't see much in the way of practical ideas to make things easier for students and instructors--maybe the lights are on but nobody is home.

marc