William Jacques <> writes:

After being in this sport for only about two years I am convinced that hang glider ratings through the USHPA are dangerous. They are too “simple” and any “special skill ratings” are implicitly advanced along with a pilot’s generalized hang rating.

As an example I received my Hang 3 a month ago. Implicitly, my FL, PL and AT ratings were elevated.

But after spending a lot of time on training hills (in Santa Barabara and in here in Chattanooga) and launching off several mountain sites I can tell you that the FL rating needs to be better defined. Even though I was technically rated to fly several H3 foot launch sites, I can tell you I was not qualified to do so.

I knew nothing about adjusting for crosswinds, proper use of wire crews, adjusting for wing lift during launch, cycles, thin air launches, soft pack vs. hard pack, etc. All these items were introduced to me because I took the time and money to improve my FL skills and sought the advice of experienced pilots / instructors.

I think there should be levels of competency for all these “special skills” (a FL1, FL2 and FL3 instead of just a FL). Otherwise, someone not as conscious and cautious as me will think that they are qualified to do something they really aren’t. And they might get hurt.

As I travel, I often call many of my ex-instructors (James Tindle, Mike Barber, Rob McKenzie and now, Matt Taber) to determine my competency as well as their comfort, with me undertaking certain launches or flying parameters. But, I doubt most pilots do this. They get a beginning FL or AT designation, and as they are revised upward in their “H” rating, they probably just assume they are just as advanced in their special skills.

Pretty dangerous, and stupid, if you ask me.

Discuss Ratings? at the Oz Report forum
   
 
 
del.icio.us