[Willmrx]

Should the amount of airtime for getting a H3 be changed? To me 10 hours is not enough of airtime to be flying some of the current H3 gliders. Maybe the gliders ratings need to be changed? I would think 25 hours would be better. IMO. This quote, is why I am asking the question. Quote from Steve Pearson(I don’t know what to do about things like this—this pilot would be better served (more airtime, skills development, fun and safety) by another 50 hours on a Falcon, then a Sport 2. Why is it that so many pilots associate fun with glide performance? Why is it that so many friends and instructors don’t know better—how many times does this have to happen? We should have learned this lesson by 1974.)


12-02.08 Intermediate Hang Gliding Rating (H-3)
A. General Description – The pilot has the knowledge and skills to fly most sites in mild to moderate soaring conditions, and to judge when the site and conditions are within the pilot's skill, knowledge, and experience level. The pilot understands the USHPA hang gliding rating system and recommended operating limitations, and the FARs and other flying rules applicable to his/her flying (ridge rules, thermal right of way, FAR 103, aircraft sectional use and regulated airspace avoidance, etc.).
The pilot shall use good judgment and have a level of maturity commensurate with the rating.
B. Intermediate Rating - Required Witnessed Tasks
1. Logged Requirements
a. Must have logged a minimum of 30 flying days.
b. Must have logged a total of at least 90 flights.
c. Must have logged a minimum of ten hours of solo airtime.
2. Demonstrated Skills and Knowledge.........

[NMERider]

I thought it was 25 hours in California and 10 in the rest of the country? It's not in the SOP book but my understanding is that's the way it's done. The rationale I was given is that it is far less work and far fewer launches and landings to achieve 10 hours in CA than the rest of the US and so there is this practice of not signing off unless the 25-hour mark has been met. I see plenty of pilots gets lots of airtime where the primary skill practiced is floating around. They aren't even working on basics and essentials like turn reversals or coordination and they aren't diving for RLF landings or working on their landing patterns at a safe altitude. I don't think this is an issue back East.

[DocSoc]

A Hang Three is determined by the pilots' ability to make educated decisions! Time doesn't guarantee that.

Putting a requirement on a rating is about as appropriate as an arse hole on an elbow.

You have to fly, fly under the supervision and instruction of your instructor or other instructors, that is the meaning of a Hang Two!

If there is and issue it's the lack of interested instructors. Instructors that are truly involved in the evolution of their or any student for that matter. Just because someone has an opinion and speaks as if they are informed in how one should behave in the sport and in each of the ratings, doesn't mean they walk the talk.

My .00002 cents...

-DocSoc

[flybop]

Ten hours is a minimum. The candidate still needs to demonstrate the required skills and knowledge to a qualified intructor.

In general aviation, when I was flying, the minimum hours for a private license was 40 total. 20 with an instructor and 20 solo. I can not remember the average hours that a newly licensed pilot has, but I think it is 50 to 60.

There is a minimum number of flights: ie launches and landings, as well as days of flying. These along with the discretion of an instructor/examiner should be adequate.

I do not believe that we should take an isolated incident and use it to change a system that has been working.

Flying, no matter what the card says, comes down to individual responsibility. Sure, our fellow pilots can and should play a role, but the individual is the ultimate decision maker. By individual I mean the pilot and especially the one who signs a new H3's card.

Personally, I have the ten hours as well as the number of flights and days. However, I am in no hurry and I know there are some areas I need to work on.

[CRV]

Voted yes...based upon observations at Funston and a few other sites.

I think it (the H3 rating) should be bumped up to 25 to 30 hours.

My .02...

BTW...California does not require more airtime than the rest of the country...let's stop that rumor NOW!

[gluesniffer]

[Mavi Gogun]

[atag]

I do not think the number of hours should be increased. I believe these guidelines are meant to be minimum requirements, not a checklist on the path to the H3. Ultimately, it's the instructor's responsibility to not foist an unprepared pilot on the world regardless of how eager the student is for the new rating.

10 hours can mean very different things for pilots flying at different sites. 10 hours from Funston could mean they had a good weekend of ridge soaring, while 10 hours from Ed Levin could mean years of launch and landing practice in a variety of conditions. Maybe ridge soaring hours should count 1/2 or 1/3 of mountain thermaling hours?

As for gliders- maybe the U2 should be listed as an H4 glider? Moyes and Icaro already list their high-performance kingposted gliders as suitable for "advanced pilots". New pilots browsing the websites may come away with the impression that the Sport 2 and U2 are "H3" gliders and would be tempted to opt for the "cooler", higher-performance one as soon as they get their rating. I know I was a couple years ago.

For myself, I easily satisfy the minimum requirements for the H4 (sans spot landing, which should be easy for me), but I know I am not ready and may require years before I consider applying for that rating. I don't think it's a checklist- it's the absolute minimum required.

[SeeHoweToFly]

My 2 cents says no, it's hard enough for H-2s to get airtime as it is. In Northern Californis about the only places 2s can gain airtime now is McClure, Hat Creek and just a couple of other places, all long drives from the Sacramento area. Instead of increasing airtime needed for a 3 rating, how about mentoring the 2s more and help them in their short comings.

[Spitfire]

[Stoubie]

Increase the number of hours? That's easy. No! There is a reason why instructors are given the title instructor. They have the judgment necessary to assess where their students are at in their progression and if they are ready to move on or not. It’s the age old debate of quality vs. quantity. Hours should not dictate if someone is ready to progress or not, only a qualified instructor should do that.

[Willmrx]

[FlyBig]

I too believe 10 hours is not enough experience to have the leash completely taken off. As an alternative I think their could be a "probationary" period once a pilot receives their H3. The probationary period would allow them to fly H3 rated sites but would require they do so under the guidance of an "experienced pilot". The "experienced pilot" doesn't necessarily need to be an instructor but some who can take the new H3 to multiple sites and safely build their experience.

In practice this happens in most cases but codifying it in the rating system would ensure new H3s are looked after and not running off the nearest hillside on their own.

The "probationary" period could end at 25 hours.

[lepikhin]

Hey old and experienced pilots.

I just got my h3 last year so it's fresh in my memory.

10h is hard as it is already.

Remember Funston -- you're restricred to soar that crappy small piece of ridge and not the great north part of it for no reason, and no one wants to sponsor you unless you know them personally.

So I'm really greatful for Greg's help in Dunlap -- that where most of my hours are from, despite I live 40 min from Funston. Also Eric Hinrics took me on a road trip. Terry from Modesto also offered some help by that time.

With your 30h barrier you'll push new pilots to unregulated sites like Hull or Slide -- which are definitely less suitable for a newbie.

I'd focus more on a mentorship institute, not on a barriers. It's hard to find a mentor. It's hard to join a road trip. So it's great that say WingMan is starting to change that.

Also some site restrictions are ridiculous, say H4 only Mission, seriously dude? Yeah, it's fun to get some towing money from newbies so they get their 30h but it's not fun for them.

Also it's nice to have differenct restrictions for morning and day flights, like in say Owen's.

Also remember -- the more barriers, the more people will choose PG. PG is already having most of the young people, because it's more adgile and has less of a learning curve. And more girl pilots than we do That's my major concern :-)

[Mavi Gogun]

[psilyguy]

Ours up here in Canada has been 25 hrs. for a while now. We need a few more things for our intermediate rating as well. Check the hpac site for all our requirements.

[CHassan]

USHPA SOPS list the MINIMUM requirements a pilot SHOULD meet.

At best the USHPA are strong suggestions about pilot skill.

[CAL]

i think it should be skilled base, if you have it you have it, like me i have a lot of hours but still not as skilled as most pilots, hours do not help if you are making the same mistakes flight after flight, trouble can creep in even if at one time you had good skills, you can develop bad habits, the rating system is difficult but it should be based more on the pilots skills rather than the time he or she puts in, i have seen pilots that have a lot of hours look rusty and seen pilots that have just a few shine.

[jyoder111]

No no no!

Number of flights is more important than airtime. The airtime requirement pushes new pilots to take risks and stay up till their dead tired so they can get more time on their log.

Once you're in the air, you shouldn't be thinking about anything more than flying safely, not how long you need to stay up so you can clear x number of hours.

That said, new pilots also want to launch in bad conditions just so they can add it to their log.

I became a much safer pilot when I got my H3-- less prone to try to fly when I shouldn't.

I got it at 11 hours, 30 some mountain flights, and 200 some training hill flights. I was ready not because I had boated around in smooth conditions for 11 hours, but because I had flown many short flights in a variety of conditions, I had planned approaches, launched and landed, and setup and broke down enough to get the experience I needed.

Jesse

[Blue]