Sylmar Hang Gliding Association

It appears that the Hang 3 requirements used at Sylmar are more than double the official modern USHGPA requirements. What do you think?

The 16+ year old requirement.

The 2009 requirements.

Excuse my ignorance and laziness - on second thought don't bother excusing me.

It would help if you expanded/clarified your question. I thought the minimum age was 18 - is 16 now the minimum?

What other "requirements" are you referring to in your question?

Having seen several other pilots from other locations I think Windsport's requirements are acceptable as the minumum standards considering the conditions we have here. I can't imagine a low hour H3 from the Midwest or Florida coming here and flying/landing at mid-day. I'm would not want to be in their general vicinity and I don't think I would want to see the carnage when they attempted to land.

I think The site dangers justify the requirement's Kagel is a dangerous place to fly. and the requirement's are there for our safety, they will only make you a better H3 .

To me this is largely a non-issue. If your thermalling skills are progressing you will likely reach the twenty hours by the time you reach the required number of flights, or very shortly thereafter. I don't think this puts an undue burden on the pilot going for the H-3 rating.

Don, the differences are

Sylmar Hang 3 v. USHGPA Hang 3
20 hours v. 10 hours
90 flights of which 40 are mountain flight v. 90 flights in general.

Using the typical student progression and the USHGPA, the sign off for kagel would be very near a hang 3.

Comparing Kagel, an inland 3500' desert mountain soaring site with strong conditions, power lines and a narrow LZ, against east coast conditions isn't really fair. So perhaps that is why the more stringent conditions.

OP,
Keep in mind that the requirements of the SHGA that Windsports enforces are to protect the site as well as the pilots. I met the local FAA liaison a few Dahlsens ago and she remarked that she was both thrilled and surprised that a flying site such as Sylmar could exist in the L.A. metropolitan area. It isn't just the tough landing conditions but the crowded skies and suburban surroundings. The fewer the mishaps attributable to inexperience, the better.

I agree with Don: I wouldn't want to fly in his vicinity when he's on his LiteSpeed either. Oh, sorry, he is a Hang IV. There's a lesson there, somewhere.

The argument I was hoping to hear was...

Yes... Kagel is a difficult site to fly.

The choice we have is...

Locally modify the Hang 3 USHGPA requirements to double the national standard.

or

Change the site rating to fit the national standard? This approach will best serve our guests and members.



Yes Kagel is difficult. Lets just call it a Hang 4 site. Hang 3 after a walk through and sign off. And a Hang 2 site only under limited situations and close supervision.



Either way... I don't mind being a "super hang 3" I will personally retard my rating to doubly insure my skills meet muster. However in the long run... It seems most beneficial and safe to our members and guests that we keep with the national rating system and adjust our site rating to meet that same standard. That way when a hang 3 guest arrives we don't have to qualify their rating as... "Well a hang 4 on the east coast is a hang 2 on the left coast"

Don wrote:Excuse my ignorance and laziness - on second thought don't bother excusing me.

It would help if you expanded/clarified your question. I thought the minimum age was 18 - is 16 now the minimum?

Hey Don. The reference to 16+ years appears to be regarding the age of the policy/guideline and not the minimum age requirement for pilots.

The possibility that our site is really a Hang 4 site if compared to Eastern sites or their pilot training may be a valid point. But, I would be surprised if our club and trainers would have let our site remain a Hang 3 site for so many years if it were indeed a more restrictive or dangerous site to fly.
I certainly would agree that someone (association reps, etc...) with high levels of knowledge and skills should ensure that all "rated" sites should be using the same standards no matter the location.

I have no reason to question the Hang 3 requirements as a Hang 2 with fewer than 50 hours of high altitude flight time.

Thanks for the thought provoking post.

Just as a point of reference. When I FINALLY got my H3 - I had ~70 mountain flights and ~40 hours air time. I suspect that I was on the high-end of the first deviation (statistically speaking). At that time I really felt that my skill level matched the minimum expectations for the rating. Today, I still believe that.

I doubt anyone (OK, I'm sure there has been an exception) has gotten their H3 with less than 40 flights. I believe the common experience is 40-80 flights with 25 - 50 hours airtime.

[quoteI doubt anyone (OK, I'm sure there has been an exception) has gotten their H3 with less than 40 flights. I believe the common experience is 40-80 flights with 25 - 50 hours airtime. [/quote] I was at 52 nd mountain solo ,36 Hours of mountain airtime ,12 hours beach ridge soaring when I made H3 .I could probably make H4 in a 5 months or less If I moved to Florida

The trend these days is for things to become safer,not more dangerous. Seatbelts, airbags, side airbags, reverse video cameras for backing up, bike helmets, nascar head restraints, car tail gate sensors, gluten free playdough, etc. To modify the lesson program is possible but the first few pilots through would in effect be guinea pigs. More training in specialized flight simulators could reduce flights and airtime needed. Students could be held to more rigid performance goals and fly with video cams and gps that could be put online for other instructors to comment. I know the airline industry uses simulators to train reactions to specific situations and events like loss of power down drafts etc. You can try to save money on training but when you compare the medical cost to patch you up, any savings disappears at least ten fold depending on your insurance deductible.
Currently you can be signed off to fly with restrictions as a hang 2. This works well and provides accountability as the instructor has to answer for the student and the privilege can be revoked easily. The club also reserves the right to revoke any pilot from the LZ when that pilot jeopardizes the flying site. Yes it would be cool to modify the lesson program and requirements to fly Sylmar, but ummmmmm, you go first. Experimental aviation has the highest risks of any sport.

the real question isn't one of ratings or tighter control on an already tightly controlled site. the rating is just a little badge to add to your girl scout sash. the real, and only point is this:

Are you steadily improving your skills and preparing yourself for the upcoming launch, flight, landing in which it all goes to shit?

do you have the skill to land out in a field with rocks and bushes? can you land in the middle of the day? can you set up an appx and put it down right where you want to? do you have to use a vario / altimeter to land? do you have to have a vario to know if you can make it back to the l/z?
are you prepared to set up an appx and landing from the opposite direction? can you land in an l/z without everything being laid out for you in white rocks? how many times have you practiced throwing your reserve? do you notice who else is appxing the l/z when you are? can you thermal nicely with others? how well do you use others for chum?


the rating is arbitrary; in some ways it's not even a measure of your skill.
mine certainly wasn't!

the only goal that matters is becoming the best pilot that you can be and staying alive in the process.

Hello All,

Being relatively new to this I can say that I do like the method in which Windsports uses to teach where safety is paramount. Since Hangliding is more about flying and less to do about checklists and such I can see how it can be easy to become complacent which could lead to unsafe habits being developed. I have a friend learning elsewhere and his instructor is very laid back, and when I question him about things I have learned from those at Windsports he seems to not have any experience in it or even been asked to practice. I prefer the more regimented form of learning which gets a good foundation of skills in place from the beginning, rather then the laid back approch where I could possibly find myself in a situation where I have no prior experience in because I had a less than attentive instructor or just one with less emphasis on safety. I'd say we are lucky to have someone ever willing to lend a hand and ask advice and I am in no hurry to rush towards a rating. I intend to be a hang 2 for some time.

Best regards,

Marc

Why is the difference between the SHGA and USHPA rating a problem for anyone? Hang IIs with an instructor sign-off fly Kagel. No one questions the validity of the 3 or above rating of visitng pilots. When a Kagel instructor grants a 3 rating, it is according to the USHPA standard using that examination.

Why are we talking about this?

OP (whoever he is), is bringing up a very good point; one that deserves explanation. Since I'm one of the few pilots that's been around Los Angeles since the early 70's, and since I've been a USHG(P)A Regional Director and Examiner for many years, I'm in as good a position as any to try to explain it to the best of my memory.

During the late 1970's and early 80's the USHGA's Safety and Training (S&T) Committee, the committee would receive nearly annual requests to repair what was being called a "broken" Pilot Proficiency Rating Program. The primary complaint seemed to come from the pilots and instructors in southern California and the west. Their beef was that the USHGA basic minimum requirements for a Hang 3 Rating, contained a clause, requiring only 2 logged hours of airtime. This, they claimed was causing accidents, and injuries from visiting pilots, and causing southern California flying sites to become shut down due to lawsuits and fear of them.

To these southern California USHGA Examiners, Observers, and many pilots, 2 hours total, seemed ridiculous. Their argument was that a so Cal pilot would normally accrue more that 2 hours airtime in just a few short weeks after beginning the training process. Couple this with the fact that USHGA Pilot Recommendations implied that hang 3's should be allowed to launch in winds up to 25 miles per hour (a feat truly requiring some time and experience to develop. Were these people really to be considered "intermediate" pilots?

The solution it seemed, was to present this problem to the USHGA and have them increase the minimum logged requirement to something more reasonable. More reasonable it seemed to many was a number floating around 25 hours.

The first step in proposing the change was to discuss it with some of the Regional Directors on the Safety and Training Committee. It was during these discussions the this group learned not everyone agreed with them. In fact, many of the eastern pilots, instructors, and eastern Observers felt that any attempt to raise the minimum hour requirement would unfairly penalize the eastern pilots as they had far less soarable flying conditions in the east.

They further claimed that while it was true eastern pilots didn't accrue airtime as quickly as western pilots, they instead accrued more more flights in a shorter time, therefore compensating for the lack of hours. They saw no need to increase the minimum hourly requirement.

A change of this type would certainly require discussion at the USHGA annual board meeting before any changes could be made, and there was now some doubt as to what it would take to gain a consensus. In the meantime, the western Examiners, Observers, Instructor's and Pilots were reminded by the USHGA that the USHGA Pilot Proficiency Requirements are to be considered "basic minimums", and the any USHGA Observer should feel free to require higher standards, if in their opinion it was necessary for safety, or to preserve and preserve the rapidly diminishing number of flying sites. By the way, in 1975 there were dozens of flying sites in Los Angeles. In 2007, there were 2. Fatalities and lawsuits were common, as were accidents involving spinal injuries, broken bones and property damage. One popular flying site in southern California had so many weekend injuries, that the local ambulance service stationed one of their ambulances there on summer Saturdays and Sundays. Like fishing a dependable trout stream, they were not often disappointed.

In an attempt to minimize the possible confusion of different Los Angeles based Observers applying different standard than others, the local USHGA Examiners asked the LA Observers to meet together and discuss the rating requirements and decide which if any were to be raised. I suspect this was in the late 1970's or early 1980's. After study, discussion, and a vote, it was agreed that each USHGA Observer that was rating pilots to fly in Los Angeles, would adhere to a 25 hour minimum requirement for a hang 3 (Intermediate) rating, until such a time that the USHGA chose to remedy what they felt was a problem.

Year after year, western states regional directors tried to get the minimum hour requirement changed from 2 hours to 25 hours, but they never could win a majority in the general session of the BOD meetings. So this tradition lingered.

Finally, one year in the early 90's, there was a compromise. The request was again made to raise it to 25 hours and it failed. The request went through again for a 20 hour minimum and it too failed. What passed was a compromise change to a 10 hour minimum requirement. It remains that way today.

So, there you have it. The official USHGA minimum requirement is 10 hours. USHPA Observers and Special Observers all over the world are given the latitude and liberty to increase rating requirements in the interest of safety or site preservation, but never lower them. In the case of Los Angeles, the Observers have relaxed their original 25 hr. requirement down only to 20 hrs.

Now, people can still argue whether this is the best way of solving a problem, and I can see faults with it. It's clunky, and inconsistent with others. In Los Angeles every couple years when there's an Observer meeting, the Observers re-address this minimum hour requirement and vote as to whether it's serving the local flying community well, or whether it needs to be changed. This is the way it's being done and it will likely remain that way until the USHGA Observers are persuaded to change it. So far it's holding firm.

I hope I've provide you some more background on why one is required to have a minimum of 20 hours to achieve a hang 3 in Los Angeles. I'm glad to see the thoughtful discussion and since I'm a USHGA Examiner, I welcome anyone to propose well thought out changes to the way things are currently being done. Feel free to call me if you like.

Joe Greblo
USHPA Region 3 Examiner.

Excellent exposition Joe.

I had always wondered about that (having gotten my H3 through your school myself).

Thanks for shedding some light on the subject.

Hey, I'm not even an H2 yet. I think a higher standard means better safety and better pilots. I'm in no hurry.

Excellent explanation. You need to understand the history to reconcile the differences. Certainly 2 hours is inadequate. 20-25 does really seem to be more like the reasonable amount.

It’s as the saying goes. Laws are like sausage, they are nice yet you wouldn’t want to see how either is made.

In the end… I think a rating is only a tool that help communicates your ability to others who are unfamiliar with your skill. It seems like it would be in the interest of the community to eventually define and adhere to a national standard, what ever it may be.

OP
I agree, that would be better. It's unfortunate that this organization has been unable to do that. We seem to limp around trying to make a broken system work better.

Joe

Joe, please clarify: which organization is limping?

The SHGA or the USHPA? I couldn't tell from the context.