Wake Up Motorgliders !

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Was I seeing things on OLC yesterday? Tell me I must be dreaming! As I was looking at the scores from yesterday I noticed a huge flight in a LS6, that was actually better that the EB-29 flown out of Ely yesterday. Some PURIST, laid down a huge flight and even with regard to the huge performance difference between the EB the purist in the LS6, a 40 year old PURIST platform smoked that 300K plus EB and set the standard for the day. Are you motor glider guys paying attention to the PURIST these days, if so you better trade those expensive motorgliders in for a 40 year old LS6 and become part of the PURIST revolution. This could be part of the critical glider theory. Old Bob, The PURIST!

[Roy B.]

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 5:19:24 PM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Was I seeing things on OLC yesterday?

It really was one great flight by the 15m LS-6 guy (Thorsen Streppel), and he did smoke (without regard to handicap) the EB-29 and an ASG-32mi (and lots of other hardware). The top OLC flight in the world on 7/7 out of Ely Nevada.
1237 km distance
1155 km FAI triangle
136.2 kph (84.6 mph)
9:05 hours total time
https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8501453

A great flight in a 40 year old design.

ROY

[Eric Greenwell]

On 7/9/2021 3:19 PM, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Was I seeing things on OLC yesterday? Tell me I must be dreaming! As I was looking at the scores from yesterday I noticed a huge flight in a LS6, that was actually better that the EB-29 flown out of Ely yesterday. Some PURIST, laid down a huge flight and even with regard to the huge performance difference between the EB the purist in the LS6, a 40 year old PURIST platform smoked that 300K plus EB and set the standard for the day. Are you motor glider guys paying attention to the PURIST these days, if so you better trade those expensive motorgliders in for a 40 year old LS6 and become part of the PURIST revolution. This could be part of the critical glider theory. Old Bob, The PURIST!
>

It appears you don't understand the basics of glider performance, Bob. Thorsten didn't do
well because he didn't have a motor, but because he's a terrific pilot, flying on a
terrific day, in an area that routinely produces terrific days. We ALL should examine his
flights carefully, so we might do better ourselves.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[RR]

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 5:19:24 PM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:

> Was I seeing things on OLC yesterday? Tell me I must be dreaming! As I was looking at the scores from yesterday I noticed a huge flight in a LS6, that was actually better that the EB-29 flown out of Ely yesterday. Some PURIST, laid down a huge flight and even with regard to the huge performance difference between the EB the purist in the LS6, a 40 year old PURIST platform smoked that 300K plus EB and set the standard for the day. Are you motor glider guys paying attention to the PURIST these days, if so you better trade those expensive motorgliders in for a 40 year old LS6 and become part of the PURIST revolution. This could be part of the critical glider theory. Old Bob, The PURIST!

Say it ain't so Bob. You mean to tell me that without an engine over pucker producing Terran the tremendous advantage that motorgliders have did not prevail. How can that be.

Congratulations Thorsen, a great flight!

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Yes we can all confirm by taking a look at OLC and seeing how a 40 year old glider made the motorgliders look like a 1-26. Please, this is no disrespect to a great bunch of 1-26 purist.
Looks like ole Amos is making excuses and has a hard time looking at the numbers and understanding defeat. Yes, pucker producing terrain, with no motor to get him home in a 40 year old design. Thorsen, great flight and one for the purist team. Old Bob, The Purist

[Eric Greenwell]

Are you suggesting Thorsten took serious risks with his safety, and that is why he was
able to do so well?

[Airport Bum]

This is trolling, folk, just ignore…..

[kinsell]

Yes of course it's trolling. Kill files work well, except when people
keep responding to this garbage, then you have to kill individual threads.

Daryl Sabatoff, 'Dee', and now Youngblood.

Dave

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Kinsell. I thought the least you motorglider guys could do would be to congratulate the purist for such a great flight. Amos did pose a very good question about risk. Eric, if you believe that there is no risk involved in a purist flight vs a motorglider you should probably go back to the basics and try to understand the difference in the two modes of flight. Just last week I was about 15 miles offshore over the Atlantic, I have a great picture that you should see. Were there no greater risk in my flight vs being in that situation in a motorglider? What really is somewhat comical is that many of the motorglider fliers that opine in this format deny any motor advantage. Old Bob, The Purist

[Eric Greenwell]

[s.bral...@gmail.com]

How can it be a great flight when he didn't fly around the swamp? I thought that was how you judged flights.

[Charles Longley]

It was a fantastic flight!

Purist Charlie

[bumper]

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 2:19:24 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Was I seeing things on OLC yesterday? Tell me I must be dreaming! As I was looking at the scores from yesterday I noticed a huge flight in a LS6, that was actually better that the EB-29 flown out of Ely yesterday. Some PURIST, laid down a huge flight and even with regard to the huge performance difference between the EB the purist in the LS6, a 40 year old PURIST platform smoked that 300K plus EB and set the standard for the day. Are you motor glider guys paying attention to the PURIST these days, if so you better trade those expensive motorgliders in for a 40 year old LS6 and become part of the PURIST revolution. This could be part of the critical glider theory. Old Bob, The PURIST!

You are using "purist", like some contrived badge of honor when it really means lame, needing assistance to get off the ground. The real purists being the soaring birds, who without self launch could not survive. BTW, sorry about your disability. :c)

[Eric Greenwell]

On 7/9/2021 3:19 PM, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:

> Was I seeing things on OLC yesterday? Tell me I must be dreaming! As I was looking at the scores from yesterday I noticed a huge flight in a LS6, that was actually better that the EB-29 flown out of Ely yesterday. Some PURIST, laid down a huge flight and even with regard to the huge performance difference between the EB the purist in the LS6, a 40 year old PURIST platform smoked that 300K plus EB and set the standard for the day. Are you motor glider guys paying attention to the PURIST these days, if so you better trade those expensive motorgliders in for a 40 year old LS6 and become part of the PURIST revolution. This could be part of the critical glider theory. Old Bob, The PURIST!
>

I skimmed through your OLC postings for the last two years, and it appears you always land
back at your home airport, but I could easily have missed a flight where you landed
elsewhere. When was the last time you needed a retrieve?

[Herbert Kilian]

Please note that "purist" Bob didn't even mention Thorsten Streppel by name in his posting opening this thread. Then later he misspelled Thorsten's first name. Thorsten is a good German friend of mine who should be in the record books for flying on 5 consecutive days out of Parowan over 1,000 km in that old LS6. I called him an Überflieger then in my write-up of the motor-glider meet that we both were flying in with our pure gliders. Blabbing about how that all diminishes gliders with engines is typical for a short-sighted hater like the above mentioned self declared "Purist".
Herb

[andy l]

I'm just amazed you folks can keep on having the same argument

And when this kiss is over, it will start again
Will not be any different, will be exactly the same
It's hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, could be this much fun

lyrics from Heaven, by Talking Heads

[biff the dotard]

The self-appointed "The PURIST!" label appeared very recently. New label aptly describing the same OLD BS.

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Now Eric, I am glad that I have captured your imagination, no, I do not always land back at my home airport, you missed something. About landing out, hell yes I have landed out, it really doesn't bother me, Oh, last year I need a retrieve, I always prepare for a landout rather than hitting the start button, which I do not have and never will.
I made some good landouts in my days, once landed in a prison yard in Arcadia , Florida, that was about 1976 and I came in over the baseball field fence and made a stop just before the backstop just behind the catcher. The entire event was kind of comical, all the guards and inmates were extremely helpful in getting my Std. Cirrus over the fence so that a nice Englishman named Derek Johnson could pull me out of the prison grounds. Another time I landed my ASW20 on the access road to Shark River Valley in the middle of the Everglades, even Alfonso, E9, was very complimentary of that landing. So, to answer your question landing out is something the purist must be prepared for unlike the motorglider guys and girls, don't want to be called a sexist. Oh, last year I needed a retrieve, from a field close to the airport, but, . that was after circumnavigating Lake O for the second time. Old Bob, The Purist

[howard...@gmail.com]

I know a long time motorglider pilot who says that any sensible one plans and prepares when low and lift is scarce for a landout just like a plain ol' glider driver. Simple reality, for all those motor issues, maybe starting a bit higher. Them iron thermal types have to be aware that their security blanket might not start or work right or any of those other malarkies endlessly described in these parts.
On the other hand I recall being green with envy as one of those smelly things taxies to the front of the tow queue and toddles off at the best possible time while us lillywhites have to wait for our turn to be yoiked up by a monster (nice, powerful) fuel burner.

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Herb, sorry I misspelled his name, please send me to the back of the spelling class for punishment. Old Bob , The Purist.

[Eric Greenwell]

One retrieve in 38 flights suggests you fly very conservatively for the conditions. That's
a choice many pilots make, for various reasons. Why do you choose to fly so conservatively?

[Charles Longley]

Eric,
I’ve landed out once while flying close to 300 hours in the last two years. You’ve seen my flying is it conservative?
Charlie L

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Ok Amos, your getting comical again, if you think getting 1000 AGL in the middle of a swamp going around the second largest lake in the country is conservative the you need a realization check. Once again, be my guest here in Florida, stay here enjoy the fine life of Florida living and we will have fun flying together. I anxiously await your arrival, all the tows are on me, October would be a good month. Old Bob , The Purist

[Eric Greenwell]

On 7/11/2021 2:54 PM, Charles Longley wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 1:33:36 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:

...

>>>>>
>>>> I skimmed through your OLC postings for the last two years, and it appears you always land
>>>> back at your home airport, but I could easily have missed a flight where you landed
>>>> elsewhere. When was the last time you needed a retrieve?
>>>> --
>>>> Eric Greenwell - USA
>>>> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>>>
>>> Now Eric, I am glad that I have captured your imagination, no, I do not always land back at my home airport, you missed something. About landing out, hell yes I have landed out, it really doesn't bother me, Oh, last year I need a retrieve, I always prepare for a landout rather than hitting the start button, which I do not have and never will.
>>> I made some good landouts in my days, once landed in a prison yard in Arcadia , Florida, that was about 1976 and I came in over the baseball field fence and made a stop just before the backstop just behind the catcher. The entire event was kind of comical, all the guards and inmates were extremely helpful in getting my Std. Cirrus over the fence so that a nice Englishman named Derek Johnson could pull me out of the prison grounds. Another time I landed my ASW20 on the access road to Shark River Valley in the middle of the Everglades, even Alfonso, E9, was very complimentary of that landing. So, to answer your question landing out is something the purist must be prepared for unlike the motorglider guys and girls, don't want to be called a sexist. Oh, last year I needed a retrieve, from a field close to the airport, but, . that was after circumnavigating Lake O for the second time. Old Bob, The Purist
>>>
>> One retrieve in 38 flights suggests you fly very conservatively for the conditions. That's
>> a choice many pilots make, for various reasons. Why do you choose to fly so conservatively?
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - USA
>> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> Eric,
> I’ve landed out once while flying close to 300 hours in the last two years. You’ve seen my flying is it conservative?
> Charlie L

The remark to Bob was "...you fly very conservatively for the conditions". That's an
incomplete conclusion, and there should be a reference to the pilot, not just the
conditions; ie, Bob is apparently not challenging himself. In your case, I think one
landout in 300 hours also suggests you are not really challenging yourself, either, and
you don't know the boundaries of your abilities. While we are waiting for Bob's
self-awareness to kick in, maybe you could tell us why you don't need retrieves more often.

Now I'm wondering how often Thorsten lands out, and if he feels he is challenging himself
enough :^)

[Eric Greenwell]

Still avoiding the question, Bob. I hope you are not embarrassed about the possibility you
are not challenging yourself as a soaring pilot. There many reasons for flying gliders,
and "challenging" doesn't have to be one of them.

[Charles Longley]

I feel like I am pushing it pretty hard Eric. My speeds continue to improve. It’s been mostly luck that I haven’t landed out more. I am often out of glide from a runway and looking at field landing particularly during Region 8. Just been managing to find a thermal when I need it.

Charlie

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Amos, when the time comes to challenging myself I have no problem accepting that task. Flying around Lake O twice, which I did, think that I am the only person to do that, is a challenge in and of itself. Hopefully you will be so fortunate to do the same when you come to Florida. Amos, there is a huge difference in staying 3 to 4 hours at 3000 AGL and below than cruising at 12000 AGL out in Ely. With all your wisdom and experience your scores should be double of what they were, maybe you were too conservative. Old Bob , The Purist

[Eric Greenwell]

Charlie, I should be clear the flying you are doing is challenging, compared to the
average pilot, but is still not "challenging" your abilities. I think you could have some
better flights than you do now, if you pushed harder and failed more often. THere are many
ways pilots can challenge themselves; in this case, I'm mostly mean "faster and farther",
and exploring difficult areas.

[Roy B.]

Gentlemen:
Let's not get so caught up in the animosity that we lose our brains along with our civility.

The number of landouts compared to the number of flights is no measure of whether a pilot is "conservative" or not. The pure glider pilot who scrapes it home at 200' with no room or time for a pattern - like the motor guy who punches "start" at 500' are not being "conservative" because they didn't land out. They are just idiots who got away with it. What IS being "conservative" in XC flying is giving up at a sane altitude, executing the landout safely, or getting the engine out & started with a safe margin for failure.

And, it does not contribute to a culture of safety in this sport to chide somebody about possibly being "embarrassed" about supposedly not "challenging himself" enough (arbitrarily measured by number of landouts). That is exactly the type of macho crap this sport has tried to get away from - and needs to keep trying to get away from.

Now back to the original point. Take a look at the last 5 minutes of Thorsten's flight. After 1237 km and 9 hours of flying what do we see? He gets back to Ely at a reasonable altitude, circles it off, flys a real pattern, and puts it safely on the ground all in a complete professional manner. That's both "conservative" - and it's "challenging yourself". Landout ratio is meaningless.

ROY

[Eric Greenwell]

Use my name to rewrite the above, and we can continue the discussion.

[Eric Greenwell]

I purposely used "needing a retrieve" instead of landout, because I wanted to include
landing at airports. I didn't chide Bob for being embarrassed if he didn't challenge
himself, but the reverse, that he shouldn't be embarrassed if he chose not to challenge
himself. I agree pushing your flying abilities in the landing phase is a bad idea, and was
not what I intended with the "challenge yourself" remark. I was thinking of flying faster,
stopping a climb sooner than later as the lift decreases, cutting across a blue area
instead of taking a longer route with clouds, setting yourself longer tasks that require
taking off earlier and flying later rather using only the best hours of the day.
"Challenging the weather", not your basic piloting skills.

But really, if a person rarely needs a retrieve, doesn't that suggest he's "leaving some
money on the table"? Regardless of his skill level, newby or a Thorsten, doesn't a low
retrieval ratio suggest he isn't be quite as bold as he might be?

[Roy B.]

Eric Wrote:
> But really, if a person rarely needs a retrieve, doesn't that suggest he's "leaving some
> money on the table"? Regardless of his skill level, newby or a Thorsten, doesn't a low
> retrieval ratio suggest he isn't be quite as bold as he might be?
> --

Eric:
No it does not suggest that. Rarely needing a retrieve suggests to me a mature, balanced and careful approach to XC which is what I've been trying to teach for years. Do the pilots who win contests land out a lot? Do the pilots who obtain records land out a lot? A guy in my club this year landed out twice in the same day - does that make him a good XC pilot?

My comment was as much directed to your "advice" to Charlie L. as your comments to Bob. You told Charlie he should "push harder and fail more often" - well, in my view Charlie is doing just fine. In your book you write about the effect that some of our "low save" mythology and folklore has on the newbies who hear it and emulate it. Well, the same is true about the macho mythology that "real men land out because they are pushing themselves"

Land outs (airport and farm) are a part of XC. If you do a lot of XC you are going to do a lot of land outs over time. But indexing the number of land outs to a pilot's level of "boldness" promotes (to the new pilots) a mythology we really don't need - just like "low saves" promoted a mythology that we didn't need.

ROY

[2G]

Bobby, PLEASE stop with your RACIST comments - they are VERY UNWELCOME on RAS!!!!

Tom

[Eric Greenwell]

By your measure, I am not a mature, balanced and careful pilot. I flew towed gliders for
20 years, and needed some retrieves every year, ditto for the 26 years I've flown a
motorglider (I'm counting a motor restart as a retrieve). And yet, no glider damage, no
close calls.

I've been careful to use the term "suggests", not "proves", for retrieve ratio ("RR").
Perhaps a better measure of "boldness" is how often the pilot goes into "survival mode",
which can happen long before the landing/engine start. But maybe boldness isn't a good
measure of anything, though I do think Charlie is a bold pilot and Bob isn't.

Good contest pilots don't need retrieves very often because the scoring system
significantly rewards getting back, and current tasking is weighted to getting pilots
home, unlike the pre-1980s tasks. I don't know the RR for record pilots, but it may be low
because a record is all-or-nothing, and tasks are routinely abandoned if they are going
too slow, or appears they are likely to.

The only reason I brought it up was my suspicion Bob's obsession with motorglider
"advantage" might be his feeling "it's just not fair" that he has to constrain his soaring
while motorglider pilots can just fly around, willy-nilly, without any concerns.

[Roy B.]

Eric wrote:
"By your measure, I am not a mature, balanced and careful pilot."

Eric:
That is an example of personalizing a discussion that does not need to be personalized. I am not writing about your competence or manner of flying - and I have intentionally not mentioned my own statistics. Neither of us should need to prove anything about ourselves.

What I am talking about is "What are the newer and less experienced pilots taking away from your comments?" You say often, "what I was thinking was . . " or what I was "suggesting . . ." But what the new pilots are HEARING is different and that is what concerns me. You said to Charlie, ". . .[ you are] not "challenging" your abilities" and "I think you could have some better flights than you do now, if you pushed harder and failed more often". You are telling new XC pilots that "good XC pilots are bolder and land out more" or "to be good at XC one must push and land out more". That's an ego driven myth and the opposite is usually true: as pilots gain experience and skill in cross country ( and graduate to better equipment) they land out less often than they did at the beginning. And, I would think that you have been around flying long enough to have heard the cliche about "old and bold" pilots. Nobody should be criticized or categorized based on their frequency of land outs (or motor restarts).

Let's not get so caught up in the "purist vs. motorglider" personal attack arguments that we lose sight of the message we are sending to the newer pilots. That's my point.

ROY

[2G]

This whole thread is totally ridiculous started by a racist who hasn't had an intelligent thought this century. The method of launch has nothing to do with the flight. In fact, Racist Bobby has argued that MGs have an unfair advantage: Thorsen's flight improved just the exactly the opposite. And his outrageous claim that we didn't congratulate him is total bullshit: I am at Ely and ALL of the MG pilots did EXACTLY THAT!

Tom

[Herbert Kilian]

Good point, Eric.
Just little old me and just at Parowan over the years I retrieved Thorsten twice. Both times from air strips, by trailer. Landing out should be no big deal for purists and for us engine-handicapped.
Herb

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Eric, your challenge comments are not those I would expect from a CFIG like yourself. I would love for the Soaring Safety Foundation to do an article for Soaring in regard to your comments and see how most CFIG and XC glider pilots would react to your suggestion on challenging yourself in a glider flight.
I was not always successful on my XC flights, I failed miserably the first time I tried my 300K, and yes I landed out. I did complete my Diamond Goal and Gold Distance back in the day when we had no GPS and only carried a map and a couple of turnpoint cameras. I never said to myself that I did not challenge myself, but rather accomplished my goal.
Anyway, the door is always open here in Florida, come on down and enjoy our hospitality and nice winter weather. Old Bob, The Purist

[Tango Eight]

This thread should have been all about Thorsten's remarkable achievement, not petty barbs about motorized vs gravity gliders.

Well done Thorsten!

T8

[Mark Mocho]

[Mark Mocho]

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:16:16 PM UTC-6, tango...@gmail.com wrote:

> This thread should have been all about Thorsten's remarkable achievement, not petty barbs about motorized vs gravity gliders.

This thread should never been posted in the first place. It is only a catfight between two or three guys who hate each other. All should take a deep breath and offer a prayer to Saint Fu for guidance.

That would be "ST. FU."

[Eric Greenwell]

I used my experience because it was a handy example that was the opposite of your example.
I used it to support your belief that Retrieval Ratio may not be meaningful, which I
thought you might enjoy. Too subtle?

I thought I was making it clear that "bolder" did not mean _landing out_ more, by using
the term "need a retrieve", and that "bolder" in no way meant increasing your safety risk
beyond sensible bounds. I'm hardly ever around newer and less experienced pilots, since I
stopped instructing 25 years ago, so I can't properly judge how my remarks might be
interpreted by them.

What do other pilots think? Did what I say encourage the less experienced to take
unacceptable safety risks? Is Roy misreading what I said? I hope there is more than one or
two pilots still reading this, that are willing to give their opinion :^)

[2G]

Racist Bobby doesn't give a damn about Thorsten's flight - he just wanted to use the opportunity to take a jab at motorglider owners because he doesn't tow (or charge) them.

Tom

[John Johnson]

> > Eric wrote:
> > But really, if a person rarely needs a retrieve, doesn't that suggest he's "leaving some
> > money on the table"? Regardless of his skill level, newby or a Thorsten, doesn't a low
> > retrieval ratio suggest he isn't be quite as bold as he might be?

>> What do other pilots think?

As a newer glider pilot, I didn't perceive anything from Eric's query that suggested I take more risks or compromise safety. I like the question and the responses that are engaged in discussing its merits.

I see it both ways:
- Yes, more landout/retrieves do seem to indicate a person is pushing harder against the limits of specific elements of their skill level. Less retrieves are leaving 'something' on the table.
- That 'something' isn't a complete measure of capability which is more than just soaring/racing piloting skill. Other facets include experience based judgment along with learned tools and mitigation strategies to get home when things get marginal.

In my short glider XC experience, I've found I'm getting home more often under similar situations that found me landing out previously. I have about a 10% rate over 2yrs and 5-6% in 2021. While I'm flying more aggressively 'bolder', I'm also getting better at keeping it in the air and avoiding LO's. (Not claiming my rates constitute a useful target). I usually fly 2x a week and, over this time, I progressed from newly licensed to diamond goal and distance. The Tucson area has a lot of good soaring weather.

I believe the best progression in the spectrum of skills (piloting, strategy, judgment) should show increasing capability (outcomes) while LO's are held to a 'modest' level. So, while this is leaving some elements of skill demonstration 'on the table', we are maximizing and demonstrating the entire skill spectrum. Looking at retrieval (or engine start) rate of the pilots I fly with seems to show our best XC pilots with very few - even those prone to pushing hard in marginal conditions.

All subjective, of course, but I definitely don't think I would have progressed faster or built more than my current overall skill by landing out at a higher rate. I learned A LOT more by getting home on progressively challenging flights.

JJ (H8)

[Roy B.]

Eric
You might consider whether you have answered your question yourself with the acknowledgement, " I'm hardly ever around newer and less experienced pilots, since I stopped instructing 25 years ago, so I can't properly judge how my remarks might be
interpreted by them." You also wrote in your book, "I fly more aggressively now [ as a motor glider pilot]
than I did before, when misjudging the lift or the weather meant the end of the flight, followed
by a retrieve. "

So if that's all true, why are you telling a newer and less experienced non motor glider pilot on this forum that "[ you are] not "challenging" your abilities" and "I think you could have some better flights than you do now, if you pushed harder and failed more often".

Now you are asking this list, "Do you think I encouraged the inexperienced to take unacceptable risks?" Well, the "inexperienced" don't alway know what's "unacceptable" and if there is a legitimate doubt in your mind about that, then the honest answer should be "I guess I should not have said that".

But let's ask a different question to this list, How many experienced XC instructors on this list would give such public "advice" to a less experienced pilot that they had not flown dual with nor otherwise instructed or coached? I certainly would not.

ROY

[Eric Greenwell]

On 7/12/2021 1:20 PM, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Eric, your challenge comments are not those I would expect from a CFIG like yourself. I would love for the Soaring Safety Foundation to do an article for Soaring in regard to your comments and see how most CFIG and XC glider pilots would react to your suggestion on challenging yourself in a glider flight.

Flying a glider XC is inherently "challenging yourself", and the suggestions to improve
your XC abilities are common in articles in Soaring, Convention presentations, instructor
clinics, and clubs routinely encourage club members to extend themselves with classes on
XC, and mentoring with dual or lead-follow, and XC camps are commone every year. It is
very surprising to me that you and Roy do not seem to be aware of all this XC
encouragement that has been going on for decades.

So, please be as specific as possible, and point to my remark(s) that you think encourage
someone to take excessive safety risks and why it does so, so I can better understand your
concerns.

[jfitch]

It is a question of semantics: What constitutes "increased challenge" vs "increased risk"? This no doubt varies across conditions and terrain. Out west, challenging one's self means increasing the probability that one will land at an airport other than the home airport. Landings at airports are generally about equal in terms of outcome. Increasing risk would be flying in such a manner than your chances of landing off field are greater. Off field landings, out here, are probably 10x or even 20x more likely to result in a broken glider or pilot, compared to any airport landing.

Both airports and fields carry the inconvenience of a retrieve. What the motorglider does (and I think what Eric is attempting to convey) is it (usually) eliminate the inconvenience of the retrieve, making challenging one's self as defined above a more attractive proposition.

Just as a motorglider pilot can be called lazy for pushing the button for a retrieve, so can the purist be called lazy for not taking the chance of a remote airport landing and resulting retrieve. Economically, the purist is better off (no one spends as much on retrieves as the additional cost of a motor), but time wise the motorglider pilot is better off. Like nearly everything in life, time = money.

[Roy B.]

Eric:
If my last 3 posts don't explain the problem to you - nobody can. You keep trying to redefine the question to whether you encouraged new pilots to take "excessive" or "unacceptable" risks while refusing to recognize that precisely because they are new, they don't know what is "excessive" or "unacceptable". And - and the only measure you use as the basis for your opinions is their number of land outs. If you want specifics then start with your 7/11 advice to Charlie L ; " I think you could have some better flights than you do now, if you pushed harder and failed more often."

You had no basis to say that other than a cursory notice that he has successfully avoided landing out very much (which I commend). You have not coached him, flown dual with him nor instructed him -nor anybody else apparently, in a long time.

Coaching and helping new XC pilots is a serious business that our sport needs to take seriously - and you are not doing that.
Don't patronize me with your remarks that you are "surprised I am not aware" of the issues, encouragement and tools available to teach XC - it is most of what I do. I write, lecture, conduct seminars and video presentations, dual fly, lead and follow, and coach new XC pilots here and in South Africa. That's why I take this issue seriously. It seems to be none of what you do.

If you think that your expertise in motorgliders (which I freely acknowledge is second to none) coupled with your admission that you fly more aggressively with the motor somehow qualifies you to tell a less experienced, non MG pilot (that you have never flown with, instructed or coached) that he should "push harder" and land out more often, it is beyond my ability to change your thinking. But at least please don't do it publicly.

Good luck, - You can have the last word on this discussion. I'm done and will not post further on this. As noted above, I respect your expertise and commitment to motor gliding matters. I'm sorry that you don't respect my commitment to teaching and promoting safe XC to newer pilots.

ROY

[Eric Greenwell]

On 7/15/2021 9:54 AM, Roy B. wrote:
> If you think that your expertise in motorgliders (which I freely acknowledge is second to none) coupled with your admission that you fly more aggressively with the motor somehow qualifies you to tell a less experienced, non MG pilot (that you have never flown with, instructed or coached) that he should "push harder" and land out more often, it is beyond my ability to change your thinking. But at least please don't do it publicly.

But I have flown with Charlie, just not in the same plane. We've flown at least two camps
together, interacted socially as well as shared thermals, I look at his OLC posts
routinely. Charlie is an experienced XC pilot, good at it, and won't be doing anything
foolish because of what I said.

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

This is certainly NOT about semantics, this is about attitude, the attitude that encourages unsafe flight. What Eric should have acknowledged is that challenging yourself promotes a very unsafe environment. Landing out has nothing do do with challenging a young or any other XC sailplane pilot.
I have helped many young and inexperience sailplane pilots realize the dream of getting away from the home field, but always encouraged them work within a certain parameter to make it back home and avoid a possible unsafe event. When time come I am relative sure that they can handle any situation that they are presented with. Recently a young sailplane pilot said to me that they needed more practice, my reply was NO, you need perfect practice which will result in perfect performance.
So Eric, spin you comments anyway you desire, but your words spoke louder than your actions. Kind of reminds me of an old saying, " A Drunk Man's Words Are A Sober Man's Thoughts". Closing out for now, you need to ponder upon your comments. Old Bob, The Purist

[Charles Longley]

Yep Eric is correct . I look after myself pretty well and he knows it. I am surprised I haven’t landed out more the way I’ve been pushing it the last two years. Like I said I think a little luck has been involved.

Charlie

[Eric Greenwell]

On 7/15/2021 2:24 PM, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Landing out has nothing do do with challenging a young or any other XC sailplane pilot.

I always used the term "needing a retrieve"; you and Roy always use the term "landing out"
when talking about what I said. Do you think the terms mean the same thing?

[2G]

I am "coaching" a newcomer to Ely and most of my advice centered on how NOT to make a land out. A land out isn't a badge of honor, but a failure in some way. Land outs in this area can range from a major inconvenience to total loss of glider or worse. At Ely, we look at how easy or difficult the flight was by the number of low points - and a very low point at Ely is 2,000 AGL. You can't go wrong advising newbies to "get high and stay high." In all of my years flying here and Parowan I have had to do a couple of self-retrieves and one precautionary landing at another airport in severe weather conditions. And I don't fly conservatively (although I won't fly some days with questionable weather like today when the only pilot that flew had to land with crosswinds gusting to 48 kt).

Tom

[Soartech]

When I was able to buy my first sailplane there was no doubt in my mind that it had to be self-launching. I live in an area where glider clubs are hours away and they operate mostly on weekends. There are no commercial towing operations anywhere near me either. So it was self-launch or just watch those excellent days go by while on the ground. I am SO glad I went through with that idea. I have flown on many days that would have been sit-at-home otherwise.
The purpose of a SL sailplane is not to reduce land-out chances. You can always choose to land out and be a "purist" by refusing in-flight motor use. But why bother? After all this is just a Sport ! In my area, safe, landable fields are few and far between. It is a sea of trees out there! Why risk damage to you or your aircraft if you have a choice? Again, this is all just for fun. Oh, and congratulations to our German friend on his excellent XC flight!

[2G]

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 7:06:48 AM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
> When I was able to buy my first sailplane there was no doubt in my mind that it had to be self-launching. I live in an area where glider clubs are hours away and they operate mostly on weekends. There are no commercial towing operations anywhere near me either. So it was self-launch or just watch those excellent days go by while on the ground. I am SO glad I went through with that idea. I have flown on many days that would have been sit-at-home otherwise.
> The purpose of a SL sailplane is not to reduce land-out chances. You can always choose to land out and be a "purist" by refusing in-flight motor use. But why bother? After all this is just a Sport ! In my area, safe, landable fields are few and far between. It is a sea of trees out there! Why risk damage to you or your aircraft if you have a choice? Again, this is all just for fun. Oh, and congratulations to our German friend on his excellent XC flight!

It is pretty clear that motorgliders have opened up the sport to many more that otherwise wouldn't be involved for the reasons you succinctly outlined. For the life of me, I don't understand what motivates the vindictiveness of Racist Bobby other than the counting of the loss of mythical towing revenues. BTW, I flew today and there was nary a towplane in sight, so motorless gliders stayed grounded.

Tom

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

You become more comical with each post, and I am making an immediate change , I will not call you Andy again, your new name is "Kingfish". I find Kingfish much more entertaining than Amos or Andy. Old Bob , The Purist.

[2G]

Hey Racist Bobby,

Equally as bad, you racist.

Tom

[Jefferson shingleton]

Please stop this!

[Waveguru]

This is what this looks like when you two old men fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCJyirlVC9g

Boggs

[kevin anderson]

Waveguru, that was the best post on this entire thread!!!

Had a great laugh at breakfast.

92

[2G]

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 3:42:57 AM UTC-7, jgshin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Please stop this!

I have pleaded with Racist Bobby to cease and desist with his racist comments (which reflex very badly on the soaring community), but he is apparently immune to requests for decency and just doubles down on them.

Tom

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Hey Kingfish, you are showing your ignorance once again. Tim Moore whom played Kingfish in the Amos and Andy show was a very successful man. Once made over 65K in the boxing ring and later went on to vaudeville to many superb performances. Later as cast to the character Kingfish in the television series, which was purely comedy at its finest. You should get your nose out of that spaghetti and do research before you post and look so stupid, but looking stupid is something you do best. Old Bob , The Purist

[2G]

Bobby, you are either too dumb to know how insulting Amos and Andy was - and still is - to Blacks, don't care or are a true racist at heart. Which ever it is, this racist attitude is VERY UNWELCOME on RAS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_%27n%27_Andy

The first sustained protest against the program found its inspiration in the December 1930 issue of Abbott's Monthly, when Bishop W. J. Walls of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church wrote an article sharply denouncing Amos 'n' Andy for its lower-class characterizations and "crude, repetitious, and moronic" dialogue. The Pittsburgh Courier was the second largest African-American newspaper at the time, and publisher Robert L. Vann expanded Walls' criticism into a full-fledged protest during a six-month period in 1931.[38] As part of Vann's campaign, more than 700,000 African-Americans petitioned the Federal Radio Commission to complain about the racist stereotyping on the show.[39]

This time, the NAACP mounted a formal protest almost as soon as the television version began, describing the show as "a gross libel of the Negro and distortion of the truth",[34] and that pressure was considered a primary factor in the show's cancellation, even though it finished at #13 in the 1951-1952 Nielsen ratings and at #25 in 1952-1953[57] Blatz was targeted as well, finally discontinuing its advertising support in June 1953.[58]

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Kingfish, I am glad that I was able to get tor nose out of the spaghetti and do some research, maybe you should have dug a bit deeper and expanded on the actual demise of the program and how many black leaders objected to the NAACP position on the show. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton objected to the NAACP complaint, which was solely based on rhetoric. You liberals' have a way of looking at things other than through a clear glass. After the series was canceled , which resulted in the entire black production team, actors, writers, and many more the NAACP was criticized for their unfair criticism.
So, try to spin this thing any direction that you wish, but history will show that the end result was faulted. Remember this is the same NAACP that was fully supportive of the Duke Lacrosse scandal, how did that work out for them and Mike Nifong?
Now get back in that motorglider and smell some more of those toxic fumes, they seem to skew your rational understanding of historical events. I really enjoy taking you to school! Old Bob, The Purist.

[2G]

Racist Bobby, you are *truly clueless*. You *never* produced a SINGLE Black leader that objected to the NAACP position, so YOU need to go do your racist homework. The fact is that this is the verbal equivalent of Black Face, which Black leaders unanimously abhor for its demeaning image of Blacks. And you are TOTALLY CLUELESS about me (SURPRISE!) - I am about as conservative as the come, but I am NOT a racist like you.

Tom

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Kingfish, get help! You are over the edge, showing serious signs of mental health issues. Maybe flying that motorglider would take the edge off of your irrational behavior, but if I were flying anywhere near you I would be concerned about my safety, because you are totally blind.

[2G]

Hey Bobby, you are all talk and no action. You make claims you can't backup. You ARE a racist - admit it!

Tom

[Mark Mocho]

Would you two assholes please stop this bullshit?

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:01:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> Would you two assholes please stop this bullshit?

Calm down Mark, old Kingfish is showing his true colors.

[Mark Mocho]

> Calm down Mark, old Kingfish is showing his true colors.

So are you, dickhead. STFU!

[2G]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 7:01:24 AM UTC-7, Mark Mocho wrote:
> Would you two assholes please stop this bullshit?

Mark, you are the confirmed asshole who wrongfully called me a liar in public for which you subsequently "apologized".

Tom

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:21:42 PM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > Calm down Mark, old Kingfish is showing his true colors.
> So are you, dickhead. STFU!

You certainly have a trash mouth.

[2G]

At the very least, Mark is not a racist.

[s.bral...@gmail.com]

Somehow I miss Lennie.

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Steve, Lennie was a great guy, he would have had a ball with Kingfish and Komode Mouth Mocho. Old Bob , The Purist

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Or shall I say the English version, Commode!