Why is Soaring declining

[Stewart Kissel]

Cost, hassle-to-fun ratio, antiquated equipment, American
individualism....these all may have something to do
with the decline...

But skiing, windsurfing, hunting, Hobie-Catting, are
also in decline...so IMHO it just reflects where peoples
interests are/are not these days.

Most activities with steep learning curves and high
hassle factor are never going to compete with simple
to learn snowboarding, cycling, walking, etc.

And if you don't qualify as a 'cool' sport ie paragliding...then
it is even more difficult to attract participants.





At 22:30 30 December 2004, John Sinclair wrote:
>I look at soaring's lack of groth from a purely economic
>point of view. When I got into the sport (1970) one
>could buy a competitive sailplane for about the cost
>of a 4-door family car ($10,000) Now days a competitive
>sailplane costs almost 5 times as much as the family
>car. Little wonder we can't attract new blood.
>JJ
>
>
>
>

[Lou Frank]

I share John Sinclair's view.


At the risk of being labeled a 'Luddite' (see UK Industrial Revolution), and
stirring up a hornets nest, may I suggest to all pilots possessing pockets
deeper than the depth of their ability, that getting more gadgets on the
panel will do little to improve your knowledge, judgment, or skill as a
pilot though, like Viagra, they may well improve your performance.



Please do not misunderstand me: I am astonished and incredibly impressed
with the progress of all technology, not least glider design and
instrumentation. Now we have 'Thermi'... There is no stopping progress:
more strength to it - and to the many helpful suppliers who keep us informed
on this forum! But it seems to me that with the enormous strides in
technology, winning Regional, National, and International Contests today is
less dependent on pilot ability - despite 'Class' definition - and more
dependent upon using the latest 'cutting edge' equipment, be it hull or
instruments. More importantly, the cost of this is beyond the reach of many
(most?) would-be talented pilots. This is not to deny the prowess of
National and World-class Champion pilots who stretch the envelope and
exploit the new tools to the maximum They deserve their titles - but at what
price? The cost of a state-of-the-art panel today will buy a SG 1-26 - and
as a measure of pilot ability rather than size of billfold, check out the
number of pilots who have gained all three Diamonds in a 1-26.



This state of affairs has, of course, always been, and always will be so,
but as soaring technology accelerates, so also does the inability to afford
it in the eyes of the would-be pilot. On the one hand we acclaim the latest
(costly) soaring records, and on the other we deplore the decline of the
sport.



We are in danger of becoming more polarized. If we are really serious about
attracting newcomers to the sport we must place more emphasis on the
affordability of owning and flying gliders, competing, and plain having fun
on a budget within the reach of the man/woman in the street who is seeking
adventure.



Much worthwhile sponsored effort has been expended on introducing youth to
soaring - but how many can continue, what follow through?



If we want a less costly and more level playing field in which to compete,
look to the 1-26 Association and the World Class PW5 Contests. Let us bring
back the Olympic spirit and measure the pilot not the pocket. That's the
spirit we should light a fire under!



Maybe, just maybe, that's the way to grow the movement AND produce World
Champions!



And now I'll shut up.



Lou Frank



"John Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
>I look at soaring's lack of groth from a purely economic
> point of view. When I got into the sport (1970) one
> could buy a competitive sailplane for about the cost
> of a 4-door family car ($10,000) Now days a competitive
> sailplane costs almost 5 times as much as the family
> car. Little wonder we can't attract new blood.
> JJ
>
>
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
"Raphael Warshaw" > wrote:

> I'm not aware of any FBO doing ab initio training in a Duo Discus although
> someone, Dean Carswell I think, said something in a review of the DG-1000 to
> the effect that there was no reason not to train a new student in that
> aircraft other than the concern over sending him solo in a very expensive
> glider.

Our club (Wellington, NZ) recently decided to trade our two Grob Twin
Astir's and a Janus in on two new DG-1000's for our ab initio training
(and cross country training, and aerobatics, and rides, and ...).

I don't think we've ever had a problem with starting people off in the
Grobs (which we've been doing for ten years), and then solo just as
quickly and just as safely as people used to in the Blanik's before that.


> I don't think there's any question but what its easier to get in
> trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.

People might have a problem moving from a 2-33 to a DG-1000 because of
bad habits and misunderstandings that the 2-33 hasn't corrected, but I
really don't think there's anything especially hard about "fast glass"
if that's what you learn on.

It would be equally valid to say that someone who'd learned on glass
will find it very easy to get themselves into trouble in a 2-33 by
ending up too far from the field too low, or have to return into a
headwind or through sink, and just expect that all gliders have a flat
glide angle and reasonable penetration.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Jim Vincent]

>People might have a problem moving from a 2-33 to a DG-1000 because of
>bad habits and misunderstandings that the 2-33 hasn't corrected,

That's due to deficiency in the training. With the right instruction, someone
can transition in 2-3 flights from a 2-33 to a G103...I've seen it done many
times.

Jim Vincent
N483SZ

[Tony Verhulst]

Jim Vincent wrote:
>>People might have a problem moving from a 2-33 to a DG-1000 because of
>>bad habits and misunderstandings that the 2-33 hasn't corrected,
>
> That's due to deficiency in the training. With the right instruction, someone
> can transition in 2-3 flights from a 2-33 to a G103...I've seen it done many
> times.

Agreed. I started in a 2-33 and now fly an LS6, but you've got to watch
the student. You can tell a student not to do something because it's a
bad habit, but if the student (especially post solo) sees that it works
in a 2-33 - and does it, he'll have to unlearn it later.

Tony V.

[Stewart Kissel]

At 00:00 31 December 2004, Lou Frank wrote:
>I share John Sinclair's view.
>
>
>At the risk of being labeled a 'Luddite' (see UK Industrial
>Revolution), and
>stirring up a hornets nest, may I suggest to all pilots
>possessing pockets
>deeper than the depth of their ability, that getting
>more gadgets on the
>panel will do little to improve your knowledge, judgment,
>or skill as a
>pilot though, like Viagra, they may well improve your
>performance.

Errr, ok that has some validity I suppose...but not
sure how that ties into the discussion here.
>
>
>Please do not misunderstand me: I am astonished and
>incredibly impressed
>with the progress of all technology, not least glider
>design and
>instrumentation. Now we have 'Thermi'... There is
>no stopping progress:
>more strength to it - and to the many helpful suppliers
>who keep us informed
>on this forum! But it seems to me that with the enormous
>strides in
>technology, winning Regional, National, and International
>Contests today is
>less dependent on pilot ability - despite 'Class' definition
>- and more
>dependent upon using the latest 'cutting edge' equipment,
>be it hull or
>instruments. More importantly, the cost of this is
>beyond the reach of many
>(most?) would-be talented pilots. This is not to deny
>the prowess of
>National and World-class Champion pilots who stretch
>the envelope and
>exploit the new tools to the maximum They deserve their
>titles - but at what
>price?

Well 95%+ of glider pilots don't race...so if 5% wanna
have expensive panels...more power to them.

The cost of a state-of-the-art panel today will buy
a SG 1-26 - and
>as a measure of pilot ability rather than size of billfold,
>check out the
>number of pilots who have gained all three Diamonds
>in a 1-26.
>
I see a lot of 1-26's with nice panels...
>
>This state of affairs has, of course, always been,
>and always will be so,
>but as soaring technology accelerates, so also does
>the inability to afford
>it in the eyes of the would-be pilot. On the one hand
>we acclaim the latest
>(costly) soaring records, and on the other we deplore
>the decline of the
>sport.
>
I saw this in windsurfing...the sport started with
the stock Windsurfer and then mutated to wave and slalom
boards.
>
>
>We are in danger of becoming more polarized. If we
>are really serious about
>attracting newcomers to the sport we must place more
>emphasis on the
>affordability of owning and flying gliders,

Hmm, not sure I agree there...about the owning part.


competing,

This sure gets pushed, so we double the racers and
get 10% of glider pilots active?

and plain having fun
>on a budget within the reach of the man/woman in the
>street who is seeking
>adventure.

Google for some lengthy threads of what it costs to
build a glider these days...
>
>
>
>Much worthwhile sponsored effort has been expended
>on introducing youth to
>soaring - but how many can continue, what follow through?
>
>
>
>If we want a less costly and more level playing field
>in which to compete,
>look to the 1-26 Association and the World Class PW5
>Contests. Let us bring
>back the Olympic spirit and measure the pilot not the
>pocket. That's the
>spirit we should light a fire under!

Okay, gliding back in the Olympics? One-Design? I
would say lets sort out the PW5 situation first.
>
>
>
>Maybe, just maybe, that's the way to grow the movement
>AND produce World
>Champions!
>
>
>
>And now I'll shut up.
>
>
>
>Lou Frank
>
>
>
>'John Sinclair' wrote in message
...
>>I look at soaring's lack of groth from a purely economic
>> point of view. When I got into the sport (1970) one
>> could buy a competitive sailplane for about the cost
>> of a 4-door family car ($10,000) Now days a competitive
>> sailplane costs almost 5 times as much as the family
>> car. Little wonder we can't attract new blood.
>> JJ
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

At 22:30 30 December 2004, John Sinclair wrote:
>I look at soaring's lack of groth from a purely economic
>point of view. When I got into the sport (1970) one
>could buy a competitive sailplane for about the cost
>of a 4-door family car ($10,000) Now days a competitive
>sailplane costs almost 5 times as much as the family
>car. Little wonder we can't attract new blood.
>JJ


Actually, it is worse than that. I bought a new Buick
Century Wagon in 1980 for $5600.
>

[Bruce]

Charles Yeates wrote:
> Our club has operated on the cheap for over twenty years. Next month we
> decide whether or not we are extinct.
>
<BIG snip>
>>
>>
>

Good luck Charles.

For what it is worth I see a lot more red tape and bureaucracy in the USA, and
recently in Europe. I think this probably is more of a deterrent than cost.
People have enough "toe the line" to do in the week without having this in their
recreation. My experience is that people are generally pleasantly surprised at
the low cost of soaring, we recently doubled our club rates and invested the
money in improving the operations (better retrieve car, refurb on aircraft) and
our membership has never looked better.

Personally I do not think money is the primary thing if you are careful. Look in
South Africa, we have three clubs all the same radial distance from Johannesburg
International (actually four if you count Brits, and five if you count the motor
glider only bunch at Benoni)
One club is the place for the wealthier or competitive pilot. Training fleet is
2x twin Astir and one L13 (used primarily for intros) The club is the busiest in
the country despite the prevalence of expensive glass, and predominance of aero
tow. They do have a winch for training though, and a fair number of older
gliders in private hands. Primarily they offer convenience, and lower time demands.

Then there is the Potchefstroom University linked PUK Akavlieg - only two years
old and growing like a weed. Some energetic instructors, lots of inexpensive
Ka7,8 and 13 trainers. Add some of the top competition pilots in the country
with their superships (ASH26e - Ventus 2, ASW22Ble...) for aspirational
influence and the club is booming. It is also a reasonably expensive club, but
has winch and aero tow and cheap flying for those who just want to stooge
around. The fiercest contests are flown with a couple of Std Cirrus... With a
number of motor gliders there the progress to solo can be quick, but expensive,
or slow and cheap.

Then there is our "mom and pop" operation in Parys, cheapest of the lot. We fly
old rag and tube trainers. One of the syndicates graciously lets us use their
L13 Blanik for training, mainly because they prefer flying in it to the
Bergies... We have members who are low income artizans who own superships (in
their day) and enjoy them - where else can you get three Scheibe Zugfogels in
the same thermal I wonder. We winch only and keep it simple, and concentrate on
instruction. Problem we have is we have been adding new members and gliders till
we can't fit in the hangar any more. 9 assembled long wings + one winch + the
retrieve and there is no space to move... For what it is worth we only have tow
glass toys, a Std Cirrus and a Kestrel 19 at the club. What we offer is a nice
place for the family and low fuss factor.

Each club offers a different social fabric, and serves a different community.
Those who want to arrive and fly their expensive planes from beautiful facilites
pay the equivalent of any exclusive club (golf or otherwise) for the
facilities and the services -hook up and go. The rest fit in where they feel at
home. Probably half of our members could afford the expensive alternatives, and
don't because they prefer the social fabric our club.

Funny part is the biggest and most active club in the country by far is the most
expensive. It possibly has to do with critical mass, but is also taps into the
"got to be where the action is" nature of a lot of people.

One surprising thing to me has been the lack of formal approach to growing the
clubs world wide. By comparison I look at the way Toastmasters International
manages their clubs and wonder if we should not be introducing something similar.

They have club officers responsible for specific aspects of operation that look
after the membership. We tend to focus on the flying and training aspects. So
why not add a "Membership office", and a "Public Relations Office" , and a
"Sergeant at arms" - to schedule the duty officers and see the equipment is
ready for use.
To our "President Office" - Chairman, "Education Office" (CFI?) and a "Financial
Office" (Treasurer) and Technical Office.
The TMI approach is to have a manual, and guidelines available for each office
and mentors to help new members do the job. They get inexperienced members to
take responsibility and learn. The benefits are in three areas:
New members get experience and feel involved.
People don't burn out from their recreation becomming a burden, the experienced
guys get to pass on their learning - but responsibility gets shared out.
The club runs well, and everybody contributes and understands how much it takes
to do the job.

That said, our club is still in existance because one instructor dedicated three
years to flying as duty instructor every weekend, until some of the newbies
could help... Sometimes it just takes refusing to accept defeat.

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

IHMO, the cost/benefit analysis people make about soaring and other
hobbies involves weighing the whole set of 'expenses' ... and yes,
soaring may have more collateral costs then other hobbies, but I don't
know how we can change those ... and I don't think anyone has a formula
that will allow us to realistically change the $ either.

I know the people who get and stay involved in soaring do so because it
is a sport/lifestyle that provides a level of satisfaction or joy that
no other activity can provide. When soaring provides insufficient joy
for a person, they will exit right ... and a lot do. (I'm guessing 20%
yearly, maybe somebody has better turnover numbers.)

So, if we reduced the costs of tows and club dues 50%, what would
happen? Well, I suppose the argument is more people would join (but
where would they come from) and less would depart ... i.e. we would
have a sustained higher rate of casual/training soaring participants.
(BTW, I think it is hard to be a casual participant in any aviation
sport ... especially with recency/proficency requirements ... which
exist for the right reasons.) But, aren't clubs really doing an
excellent job of keeping costs down. i.e. My last two clubs charged
zero $ for rentals or instruction ... and tows were 65% of the local
FBO rates.

And if we reduced the cost of ASW-27s and V2s to $25K .... would this
result in more people getting involved in soaring? ... and less
leaving? I'm not sure I see how.

So, while making the sport less $ expensive is a valid and reasonable
argument ... I don't know if it will generate the desired increase in
community membership.

I still think we are dealing with percentages ... X percent of those
who 'hear' about Soaring and take it up as a casual hobby will stay
with it Y years ... and a smaller x will become lifelong participants.
Lifers are important to the sport as they constitute a core support
group and keep the infrastructure intact over the long haul. And
lifers are not just the FBOs or the members of the SSA organization or
the racers ... they are the guys involved in local clubs ...
instructors and general rank and file ... who put copies of Soaring in
local libraries ... people who promote the sport. We need both the
lifers and the people who are involved in soaring as a casual hobby.

IHMO, I think the only way to incease membership is to get the word out
and have more people coming through the front doors. Unfortunately, in
the US, we don't get much/any free advertising and pretty much have to
do it all ourselves.

Ken Kochanski - KK
ASW-27B (50%)

[John Sinclair]

In the 70's I got started with Duster kit that sold
for $2000 including trailer...........I paid $2000
for my first Cambridge GPS!

We would spend New Years at Calistoga and you could
hardly find a place to park.........................a
good 30 ships would be there, all common Joe's.

Out regionals at Minden would fill up (65) we can't
get 12 entrants now days from this region. Where did
they all go? I think they slowly dwindled away................cost
too much to stay competitive................flying
other than contests wasn't all that exciting or rewarding.........
.............Jobs, kids, 2 incomes required to keep
one's head above water..................you name it,
but I believe most of it in economic.

We are left with us die-hard old farts, flying expensive
toys and wondering where did everybody go?
:>) JJ

>So, while making the sport less $ expensive is a valid
>and reasonable
>argument ... I don't know if it will generate the desired
>increase in
>community

[Pete Reinhart]

JJ,
You've got a really good point there.
Part of the problem I'm personally struggling with is cost effectiveness.
I've got a glider that's in the low 20's range and it's got long legs, and
it's a joy to fly. BUT, I'm lucky to be able to have 6 months useable
weather and that only on the week ends because there is no convenient
commercial operation. This year the week ends were out of phase with the
weather so flying was seriously curtailed.
The only avenue for competition is the sports class and those opportunities
seem few and far between these days.

A friend of mine is loaning me a Champ to fly.
I could buy one like it for less money than I have in the glider. I can use
it year round and I can take my wife, who is also a pilot. in it. She could
have the use of it too. It would cost me about the same to fly it , hanger
it , insure it and maintain it as the glider. I wouldn't have to belong to
club or have a membership in a national organization to get a reasonable
rate on my insurance and I could totally avoid the "Yacht Club Politics"
that seem to surface so readily in soaring activties both on the club and
national level. That and the less than welcoming attitude I have experienced
at the few recnt contests and conventions I have attended as a spectator.

Why do I still have a glider?
It has always been my first love and though I learned to fly in gliders, and
owned several different ships, it was out of reach for a period of time. I
still love flying gliders but the Champ and others like it are beginning to
have more luster.

Cheers!
"John Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> In the 70's I got started with Duster kit that sold
> for $2000 including trailer...........I paid $2000
> for my first Cambridge GPS!
>
> We would spend New Years at Calistoga and you could
> hardly find a place to park.........................a
> good 30 ships would be there, all common Joe's.
>
> Out regionals at Minden would fill up (65) we can't
> get 12 entrants now days from this region. Where did
> they all go? I think they slowly dwindled away................cost
> too much to stay competitive................flying
> other than contests wasn't all that exciting or rewarding.........
> ............Jobs, kids, 2 incomes required to keep
> one's head above water..................you name it,
> but I believe most of it in economic.
>
> We are left with us die-hard old farts, flying expensive
> toys and wondering where did everybody go?
> :>) JJ
>
> >So, while making the sport less $ expensive is a valid
> >and reasonable
> >argument ... I don't know if it will generate the desired
> >increase in
> >community
>
>
>

[Roger Worden]

If you're ever at Disney's California Adventure in Anaheim, check out
"Soarin' Over California". It's more like "hang gliding over California" but
still very fun. It's beyond IMAX format... your seat is lifted into the
center of the dome and swings back and forth a bit... you feel the wind in
your face and smell the orange groves and pine forest.

Coming soon to Orlando and Hong Kong.

"smjmitchell" > wrote in message
u...
> > not part of the main stream in America. We have had a number of big and
> > small screen series using scuba diving, skiing, motorcycling, sky
> > diving, etc. backdrops ... and some of these also get frequent sport
> > coverage ... it's rare to see soaring included as even a minor theme in
> > any media.
>
> What we need is an IMAX feature on gliding on the big screen in 3D. They
do
> all sorts of other adventure stuff ... why not gliding. Someone should
give
> them a call and tell them that we have a deal for them .....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
>People might have a problem moving from a 2-33 to a DG-1000 because of
>bad habits and misunderstandings that the 2-33 hasn't corrected, but I
>really don't think there's anything especially hard about "fast glass"
>if that's what you learn on.

There's nothing hard about fast glass, it's just that
slow, draggy fabric and metal is so much EASIER :PP

I'm gonna bet you guys don't solo someone who has
never flown a glider after four flights. And then
tell them "sure, you can handle it." What,
$120,000 worth of glider? After four flights?
Man, I gotta get into this club...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Orion Kingman]

Pilots in general don't make good business people... we are much more
suited for the cockpit and not the office place.

[Pete]

> If you're ever at Disney's California Adventure in Anaheim, check out
> "Soarin' Over California". It's more like "hang gliding over California"
> but
> still very fun.

Dont you believe that hang gliders can soar?

[Roger Worden]

Oh, of course they do - I've shared thermals with them. But I think the
question was about getting film exposure for gliders. The Soarin' attraction
never shows what you're flying IN, but it does show one hang glider ahead of
you. So it's helpful in getting people excited about silent flight, but not
specifically into gliders.


"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> > If you're ever at Disney's California Adventure in Anaheim, check out
> > "Soarin' Over California". It's more like "hang gliding over California"
> > but
> > still very fun.
>
> Dont you believe that hang gliders can soar?
>
>
>

[tienshanman]

I have read through these posts with great interest because I recently took up gliding and I am now obsessing about it in the most frightful way. My wife is worried for my mental health. This thread interests me because it sheds some light on some of the issues I will have to deal with given my new addiction. Having come from a hang gliding/paragliding background I think I have a unique perspective on the whole thing. I started HGing in the early 80’s, a kind of golden era of the sport. I remember when the first primitive paragliders came along in the mid 80’s. No one ever thought they’d really catch one. And now? HGing is virtually dead and PGing rules. Why? Easy to learn, cheap, and a very direct experience. Plus, and this is not to be belittled: good show off potential. PGing has sucked the life blood out of HGing and indirectly out of soaring. Why? Because aging HGing pilots are a good source for sailplane pilots and because there are fewer of them that means fewer potential recruits for sailplanes. Soaring needs to appeal to the saner side of PGing pilots – why risk canopy collapses, broken backs and snapped ankles when you can fly safely and comfortably in a sailplane?