Why is Soaring declining

[f.blair]

This was copied from rec.outdoors.fishing.bass. It sounds like the very
same things that we talk about when we discuss the decline of our sport. I
am not saying it has answers, but it is interesting.
Fred


************************************************** **************************
***************************
Great read Bob.
Fishing license sales are declining which indicates a real decline in
fishing interest, i.e. less numbers of people are fishing. I suspect that
things are worse since our population is growing, the proportion of people
fishing is declining more rapidly than indicated by license sales decline.
Why is this so? A variety of possible reasons come to mind when combined,
could explain the decline..

1. Fishable water is being privatized - bought up, posted, acquired by
governmental agencies, restricted by land use rulings, dams being removed,
access fenced off, etc.
2. Competing demands for time - Soccer, GameBoy, offroading, skateboarding,
partying, RVing, home projects and a multitude of other in and outdoor
activities divert participation today from family and individual fishing.
3. Decline of the nuclear family - as divorce and separation disrupts
parent/child relationships, fishing is less of a priority on weekends or
other custody times.
4. Availability of more disposal income - Food needs drove fishing more in
the past than today.
5. Immigration - Illegal aliens cannot get fishing licenses and legal
immigrants probably have far less interest in fishing than other population
demographics..
6. Adversarial animal rightists - Are influencing the weak, timid and
non-iinterested into a non-fishing mentality.
7 Adversarial vegaterians - Translate their anti meat-pholosophy into a
non-fishing mentality.
8. Passing fad - The Yuppie infatuation with fly-fishng in the 1980's has
past us by.
9. No new rivers - God is not making any new rivers and environmentalists
and politicians are fighting adding dams and impoundments which limits new
water bodies with their rapid growth and abundance of fish in their early
years.
10.Waterbody management - Is NOT being managed to increase the number of
people fishng, but to reduce, constrict, limit and to conserve existing or
lower levels of people. Budget level maintenance is their primary goal.
Little funding exists for meaningful additional researh to stop decline in
fishing.
11. Fly in fishing is up - Since the demand for trophy and quality fishing
exceeds the supply of domestic US fishing, more people are not fishing
locally but flying out to exotic places around the world.
12. On water competition - Water skiers, kyakers, personal flotation
devicers, canoeists, hikers and many other types of on-the-water or
near-the-water people are degrading the solitiude many fishermen cherish and
running them off the water.

Bob, I'm sure there are other things which MAY contribute to the decline,
but these are suggestions for starters. You listed a number of things we
can do to slow the decline of fishing. They'll help. But I am convinced
fishing will continue to decline. I just hope there will be some quality
experiences left for my grandsons but I doubt it.

Good luck!
John

[Tony Verhulst]

I was very dissapointed with an article in the latest _Soaring_
magazine. It was about the SSA membership decline and all about
attracting SSA *members* and retaining SSA *members* - nothing about
soaring. I humbly suggest that if the SSA focused more on promoting
soaring, much of the membership decline would be taken care of.

Tony V.

[Bill Daniels]

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I was very dissapointed with an article in the latest _Soaring_
> magazine. It was about the SSA membership decline and all about
> attracting SSA *members* and retaining SSA *members* - nothing about
> soaring. I humbly suggest that if the SSA focused more on promoting
> soaring, much of the membership decline would be taken care of.
>
> Tony V.
>

Astute observation, Tony.

Bill Daniels

[Tony Verhulst]

Tony Verhulst wrote:
>
>
> ..... It was about the SSA membership decline and all about
> attracting SSA *members* and retaining SSA *members* - nothing about
> soaring.....

"nothing about soaring" should have been "nothing about attacting and
retaining soaring *pilots*". But, you get the drift.

Tony V

[Nyal Williams]

To give SSA its due; membership numbers are as good
a sampling as any to show the decline in the sport.
Changing a few nouns in the article would not make
much difference.

Soaring requires a lot of investment of time across
several years to make it more than a passing fancy.
(I've read that the average sailor owns a boat for
8 years, and then moves on to something else.)

Life has speeded up, both in the workplace and on the
domestic scene. Our society has opted for quick and
cheap in most of its pursuits; we want to be passively
entertained. Turn on the TV, do a backyard cookout,
and that's about it for a large portion of the populace.
Nobody does his own thing anymore; he wants someone
to do it for him.

The decline is not just in soaring but in all sorts
of non-income producing endeavors. We have become
passive and vicarious in our thrills. This shows in
the tremendous weight gain in the population.

On the other hand, maybe we need gliders that will
carry 325lbs. in each seat. ;-)


At 17:30 13 April 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
>Tony Verhulst wrote:
>>
>>
>> ..... It was about the SSA membership decline and
>>all about
>> attracting SSA *members* and retaining SSA *members*
>>- nothing about
>> soaring.....
>
>'nothing about soaring' should have been 'nothing about
>attacting and
>retaining soaring *pilots*'. But, you get the drift.
>
>Tony V
>
>

[Tony Verhulst]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> To give SSA its due; membership numbers are as good
> a sampling as any to show the decline in the sport.
> Changing a few nouns in the article would not make
> much difference.

Agreed. But my intended point was that the vision was wrong. The focus
of the article was "how can we get the SSA to grow" where the focus
should have been "how can we get the sport to grow". The article is
bothersome because 1). it's the typical reaction of a bureaucracy
fighting for survival, and 2). the SSA forgot why it's there.

Tony V.


--

I [Huck Finn] asked Tom [Sawyer] if countries always apologized when
they had done wrong, and he says - "Yes; the little ones does."

Mark Twain

[John H. Campbell]

>Agreed. But my intended point was that the vision was wrong. The focus
>of the article was "how can we get the SSA to grow" where the focus
>should have been "how can we get the sport to grow".

Point taken, and I am among those constantly lobbying for SSA to shoulder
systematic PR for the sport (staff member, press room,...). However,
consider Bob Wander's point from years ago already that SSA membership is
the most convenient tool there is to draw people in! For a mere $64 (less
than the cost of a one-time ride at many operations) and a few clicks online
or moments filling out a card, new prospects get 12 months of propaganda.
Like the HYCBAGP tri-fold says (originally written back in 1978 or so IIRC)
"There's more, but there isn't room to say it here. What do you do next?
We suggest... you become a member of (SSA)..."

[Bill Daniels]

"John H. Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> >Agreed. But my intended point was that the vision was wrong. The focus
> >of the article was "how can we get the SSA to grow" where the focus
> >should have been "how can we get the sport to grow".
>
> Point taken, and I am among those constantly lobbying for SSA to shoulder
> systematic PR for the sport (staff member, press room,...). However,
> consider Bob Wander's point from years ago already that SSA membership is
> the most convenient tool there is to draw people in! For a mere $64 (less
> than the cost of a one-time ride at many operations) and a few clicks
online
> or moments filling out a card, new prospects get 12 months of propaganda.
> Like the HYCBAGP tri-fold says (originally written back in 1978 or so
IIRC)
> "There's more, but there isn't room to say it here. What do you do next?
> We suggest... you become a member of (SSA)..."
>
>
>

So, John, SSA membership causes soaring to grow? Isn't it the other way
around?

I don't think I have ever known of even one new glider pilot to come to the
sport through the SSA. On the other hand, hard working commercial soaring
operations promoting rides to the public are probably responsible for 90% of
the few new pilots we get. If they could get a little help with that
promotion from the SSA, they could do an even better job.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

[Ted Wagner]

Speaking from the standpoint of someone relatively new to soaring (September
2003), I can offer these observations:

1. SSA had *nothing* to do with my becoming involved in soaring. Not only
that -- during my days as a student pilot (and newly licensed pilot), it was
never suggested me to join SSA. In fact, when I eventually did join SSA, it
was to become a member of the ASA, so I could fly their club Grob. Four
months later, I can testify that being an SSA (and ASA!) member has
important things to offer that I was not aware of before, and I now
encourage other student and new pilots to become a member because of the
critical functions SSA performs for the protection and furtherance of our
sport. (Can you say *airspace*? I knew you could.)

2. I *did* become involved in soaring after (a) witnessing a soaring
operation at Wiener-Neustadt, Austria while attending a skydiving
competition in summer 2002, and (commercial operations take note!) (b)
having an aerobatic glider ride given to me as a birthday gift in February
2003 by a friend who heard an advertisement by Turf Soaring in Arizona. I
had always had an interesting in soaring, but those two events stand out.

3. I recall reading somewhere, pardon for not remembering specifically, that
a large part of the popularity of soaring in the 1960s, '70s and '80s was
due to the large number of military-trained pilots, trained for WWII, Korea
and Vietnam, who after their service turned to soaring as an economic
alternative for getting in the air. Quite simply, these pilots have been
retiring while the military has been down-sizing. It's logical that this is
at least part of the current decline.

4. I also read this somewhere, and it made sense too: access and exposure to
general aviation (small-market airports) by the average middle-class family
is much less than it used to be. Many small airports have been closed or
blocked off to walk-up spectators. We are simply not being seen as much as
before, and being seen is key.

5. The litigious turn our society has taken since the 1970s, especially in
the aviation industry, has simply priced too many people out of it.

-tcw
H304CZ "2NO"

[Lennie the Lurker]

Nyal Williams > wrote in message >...
> To give SSA its due; membership numbers are as good
> a sampling as any to show the decline in the sport.
>
As with any other hobby, membership in the central organization
indicates what is happening in the hobby, not the other way around.
>
> Soaring requires a lot of investment of time across
> several years to make it more than a passing fancy.

Look at this statement, soaring is another hobby, nothing more, a way
to entertaining ones inner child. It, like any other hobby, can
become obsessive, and the "one" the "all" when it's really only
important to the one that's doing it. When it becomes an obsession,
it ceases to be fun unless the reason one does it is satisfied.

As far as investment in time and money, I have 44 years as a
metalworker, and I'm still learning, I'll never know it all. In
money, I probably have as much invested in hobby type machines as I
had in that waste of money called a 1-26. (I _know_ I have, and
probably three times as much.)

Never before has so much been available to people that wanted to try
something but found it "just out of reach" for them, and with the
notable exception of soaring, never has there been so much serviceable
equipment available as cheaply as it is now.
>

So far, all of the arguments I've read here are, "sit back and hope
SSA does it for us." It ain't gonna happen. Every hobby that's now
flourishing is doing so because the materials and equipment are
readily and cheaply available. Interest in many, the ones that are a
continuous drain on resources, is declining, as is the amount of
disposable income. Look at the situation as it is, not as you want to
see it. Soaring doesn't need another $80k custom built hand made by
gnomes or trolls in der black forest, but anything that doesn't
measure up to some peoples wishes will be met with a blast of badmouth
right away. Almost every sailplane made today is made with the
competitor in mind, and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell. Which
suits the competitors quite well, and insures that the number of new
people will remain small, and declining.

Saying that people are "too lazy" to soar is like me saying soaring
people are too lazy to try metalworking. I just made a skid plate for
a 2-33 out of 1/4 inch AR plate, 3 1/2 hours pushing it through the
saw to cut to size. Call me lazy if you will, but I'd rather push the
steel than pay through the nose for what soaring costs, and it's just
as interesting.

[Scott]

As a newcomer to soaring (I have a grand total of 0.5 hours under my
belt), I was turned off to SSA simply by the (what I consider) high
membership dues. Yes, I can afford it, but having never seen an SSA
magazine, I am reluctant to fork out the cash to see if I like their
publication. Maybe they should offer a trial membership, something like
$10 for 3 months (a one-time deal). EAA has done this and I think it is
working. I don't really need to pay $64 for the privilege of soaring,
so there has to be some incentive to join. Just a thought...

Scott


Bill Daniels wrote:
> "John H. Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Agreed. But my intended point was that the vision was wrong. The focus
>>>of the article was "how can we get the SSA to grow" where the focus
>>>should have been "how can we get the sport to grow".
>>
>>Point taken, and I am among those constantly lobbying for SSA to shoulder
>>systematic PR for the sport (staff member, press room,...). However,
>>consider Bob Wander's point from years ago already that SSA membership is
>>the most convenient tool there is to draw people in! For a mere $64 (less
>>than the cost of a one-time ride at many operations) and a few clicks
>
> online
>
>>or moments filling out a card, new prospects get 12 months of propaganda.
>>Like the HYCBAGP tri-fold says (originally written back in 1978 or so
>
> IIRC)
>
>>"There's more, but there isn't room to say it here. What do you do next?
>>We suggest... you become a member of (SSA)..."
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> So, John, SSA membership causes soaring to grow? Isn't it the other way
> around?
>
> I don't think I have ever known of even one new glider pilot to come to the
> sport through the SSA. On the other hand, hard working commercial soaring
> operations promoting rides to the public are probably responsible for 90% of
> the few new pilots we get. If they could get a little help with that
> promotion from the SSA, they could do an even better job.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> Bill Daniels
>

[JJ Sinclair]

>Maybe they should offer a trial membership, something like

Good idea, Scott. I suggested that the SSA give a free 1 year membership to all
newly licenced glider pilots. Nothing ever came of it.
JJ Sinclair

[Bob Greenblatt]

At the risk of encouraging him, Lennie's recent post to this thread is the
most logical and reasoned of any of his (and most everyone else's) that I
have read recently. Thanks Leninie, good points.

--
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom <--fix this before responding

[Eric Greenwell]

JJ Sinclair wrote:
>>Maybe they should offer a trial membership, something like
>
>
> Good idea, Scott. I suggested that the SSA give a free 1 year membership to all
> newly licenced glider pilots. Nothing ever came of it.
> JJ Sinclair

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it's time to suggest it again - new
management, elected and appointed.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Shawn Curry]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "John H. Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Agreed. But my intended point was that the vision was wrong. The focus
>>>of the article was "how can we get the SSA to grow" where the focus
>>>should have been "how can we get the sport to grow".
>>
>>Point taken, and I am among those constantly lobbying for SSA to shoulder
>>systematic PR for the sport (staff member, press room,...). However,
>>consider Bob Wander's point from years ago already that SSA membership is
>>the most convenient tool there is to draw people in! For a mere $64 (less
>>than the cost of a one-time ride at many operations) and a few clicks
>
> online
>
>>or moments filling out a card, new prospects get 12 months of propaganda.
>>Like the HYCBAGP tri-fold says (originally written back in 1978 or so
>
> IIRC)
>
>>"There's more, but there isn't room to say it here. What do you do next?
>>We suggest... you become a member of (SSA)..."
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> So, John, SSA membership causes soaring to grow? Isn't it the other way
> around?
>
> I don't think I have ever known of even one new glider pilot to come to the
> sport through the SSA. On the other hand, hard working commercial soaring
> operations promoting rides to the public are probably responsible for 90% of
> the few new pilots we get. If they could get a little help with that
> promotion from the SSA, they could do an even better job.

Bill you got me thinking (remembering really). I was an SSA member when
I was 15 for one year, intending to learn to fly. Even with a glider
operation within bike riding distance at that time (Old Black Forest) I
didn't start to fly until I was in my late 20's. Money wasn't the
issue, I was an industrious teen. Such an easy catch and they still
missed me for a dozen years.

Shawn

[Bill Daniels]

"Shawn Curry" > wrote in message
news:lldfc.36026$wP1.136994@attbi_s54...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > "John H. Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>Agreed. But my intended point was that the vision was wrong. The focus
> >>>of the article was "how can we get the SSA to grow" where the focus
> >>>should have been "how can we get the sport to grow".
> >>
> >>Point taken, and I am among those constantly lobbying for SSA to
shoulder
> >>systematic PR for the sport (staff member, press room,...). However,
> >>consider Bob Wander's point from years ago already that SSA membership
is
> >>the most convenient tool there is to draw people in! For a mere $64
(less
> >>than the cost of a one-time ride at many operations) and a few clicks
> >
> > online
> >
> >>or moments filling out a card, new prospects get 12 months of
propaganda.
> >>Like the HYCBAGP tri-fold says (originally written back in 1978 or so
> >
> > IIRC)
> >
> >>"There's more, but there isn't room to say it here. What do you do
next?
> >>We suggest... you become a member of (SSA)..."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > So, John, SSA membership causes soaring to grow? Isn't it the other way
> > around?
> >
> > I don't think I have ever known of even one new glider pilot to come to
the
> > sport through the SSA. On the other hand, hard working commercial
soaring
> > operations promoting rides to the public are probably responsible for
90% of
> > the few new pilots we get. If they could get a little help with that
> > promotion from the SSA, they could do an even better job.
>
> Bill you got me thinking (remembering really). I was an SSA member when
> I was 15 for one year, intending to learn to fly. Even with a glider
> operation within bike riding distance at that time (Old Black Forest) I
> didn't start to fly until I was in my late 20's. Money wasn't the
> issue, I was an industrious teen. Such an easy catch and they still
> missed me for a dozen years.
>
> Shawn

You know, that's a shame. Young people are the easiest catches - if we
cater to them.

I've actually been called names for spending time with young people,
listening to them and encouraging their flying.

We're really our own worst enemy. Sad...

Bill Daniels

[Tim Mara]

there is one very solid reason soaring is declining.that is the lack of
qualified gliding instructors!
If any of us expect to keep soaring alive it's not only recruiting new
members, but also, and more inportantly, having someone available to bring
these new recruits to the poinyt where that can actually get certification
and eventually fly and own their own gliders....
tim

[Bill Daniels]

"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
...
> there is one very solid reason soaring is declining.that is the lack of
> qualified gliding instructors!
> If any of us expect to keep soaring alive it's not only recruiting new
> members, but also, and more inportantly, having someone available to bring
> these new recruits to the poinyt where that can actually get certification
> and eventually fly and own their own gliders....
> tim
>

Yep, and a lot of instructors are quitting because they are fed up with the
back seat of a 2-33.

Bill Daniels

[Tim Mara]

I'm not a fan of flying from the back of a 233 (I really don't like the
front in a 233 any better :-)
but that really isn't the only thing that is losing instructors.....When I
became a CFI I had hoped and even planned on training enough new glider
pilots that some would eventually take over and become instructors
themselves, thereby giving back what was given to them..very few ever
did...a lot of KUDOS to the ones that have.....
Glider pilots (not all) in general are a self centered group of
"individuals" that's why we like flying along in our single seaters, using
one man rigs, flying motor gliders and so on......all of these things
contribute to being self sufficient and well, self centered....we hear the
chant on how to save soaring, promote the sport, but generally followed by a
chant, "so it'll still be there for me"..
Giving back and instructing others is a challenge, it's a lot of effort and
has few rewards outside of seeing another happy new pilot on his way to new
adventures....but without finding more new instructors to take the lead we
will continue to see the decline in our favorite pastime....and all the
promotion and advertising we do nothing.
tim

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:lhgfc.134640$gA5.1578464@attbi_s03...
>
> "Tim Mara" > wrote in message
> ...
> > there is one very solid reason soaring is declining.that is the lack of
> > qualified gliding instructors!
> > If any of us expect to keep soaring alive it's not only recruiting new
> > members, but also, and more inportantly, having someone available to
bring
> > these new recruits to the poinyt where that can actually get
certification
> > and eventually fly and own their own gliders....
> > tim
> >
>
> Yep, and a lot of instructors are quitting because they are fed up with
the
> back seat of a 2-33.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

[Bill Daniels]

Well, maybe we should take advantage of their self-centered nature and offer
them an interesting two-seater to train people in. Even altruistic CFI-G's
need some rewards beyond just seeing new pilots grin. There's not enough
money in instructing to ever make a difference.

Bill Daniels

"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not a fan of flying from the back of a 233 (I really don't like the
> front in a 233 any better :-)
> but that really isn't the only thing that is losing instructors.....When I
> became a CFI I had hoped and even planned on training enough new glider
> pilots that some would eventually take over and become instructors
> themselves, thereby giving back what was given to them..very few ever
> did...a lot of KUDOS to the ones that have.....
> Glider pilots (not all) in general are a self centered group of
> "individuals" that's why we like flying along in our single seaters, using
> one man rigs, flying motor gliders and so on......all of these things
> contribute to being self sufficient and well, self centered....we hear the
> chant on how to save soaring, promote the sport, but generally followed by
a
> chant, "so it'll still be there for me"..
> Giving back and instructing others is a challenge, it's a lot of effort
and
> has few rewards outside of seeing another happy new pilot on his way to
new
> adventures....but without finding more new instructors to take the lead we
> will continue to see the decline in our favorite pastime....and all the
> promotion and advertising we do nothing.
> tim
>
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> news:lhgfc.134640$gA5.1578464@attbi_s03...
> >
> > "Tim Mara" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > there is one very solid reason soaring is declining.that is the lack
of
> > > qualified gliding instructors!
> > > If any of us expect to keep soaring alive it's not only recruiting new
> > > members, but also, and more inportantly, having someone available to
> bring
> > > these new recruits to the poinyt where that can actually get
> certification
> > > and eventually fly and own their own gliders....
> > > tim
> > >
> >
> > Yep, and a lot of instructors are quitting because they are fed up with
> the
> > back seat of a 2-33.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
> >
>
>
>

[ISoar]

On 13 Apr 2004 22:43:27 -0700, (Lennie the
Lurker) wrote:

>right away. Almost every sailplane made today is made with the
>competitor in mind, and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
>any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell. Which
>suits the competitors quite well, and insures that the number of new
>people will remain small, and declining.

About 8 years ago, about the only new hang gliders available were
curent competion models and aged designs for beginners and
intermediates. Wills Wing introduced a modern training/novice glider
and soon couldn't keep up with the orders. Other firms took note and
saw similar results. Competition gliders went topless (rigid cross
bars, no upper wires) and the topless race was on. That settled down
and allowed the manufacters to turn their attention to the long
neglected middle performance wings. A US rep of an eastern europen
company convinced them to build a modern intermediate glider that
could glide with the racers when flying 40mph and below, but with
forgiving handling, launch and landing characterists. The result was
an almost instant 2 year order backlog. There are now several such
wings available and I know two guys who sold their comp gliders to buy
one.

All it takes is for one manufacture to have a winner and others will
follow. Given the small size of the market and the uncertainty of
acceptance that may mean putting the financial survival of the firm on
the line. Maybe it will happen when a company has to choose between
inovatation of bankruptcy.

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Greenblatt wrote:
> At the risk of encouraging him, Lennie's recent post to this thread is the
> most logical and reasoned of any of his (and most everyone else's) that I
> have read recently. Thanks Leninie, good points.

Lennie's actually pressed this point before, but too many of us are
defensive, and don't look past the tactlessness to see the the truth of
what he is saying.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Lennie the Lurker wrote:
> Almost every sailplane made today is made with the
> competitor in mind, and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
> any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell.

There is some truth to this claim, but it's more complicated than the
manufacturers "not listening". They know their gliders must do well in
competition (at least the major factories), because potential buyers
think this is important, even though the majority of buyers aren't
serious competitors (note that the majority of the German sailplane
production is now motorized).

There are some "second-tier" gliders, like the reintroduction of the
Glasflugel 304, the Russia AC-4, Apis, and Silent; however, any new
glider that isn't a top-of-the-line glider has some serious competition
in the market: used gliders. Glider last a long time, and the
performance improvements have been slow, so a new glider that isn't
better, just cheaper, has to compete with equal performance, even
cheaper used gliders.

This situation is quite different from the hang glider market, where the
gliders wear out much sooner, and the improvements from year to year are
much greater than they are for sailplanes.

> and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
> any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell.

Just join a thread ripping apart the PW5 to see how something "more
pedestrian" might sell. The PW5 actually has sold OK, as did the Russia,
and so that may be why we now have the Apis and Silent (at least in
part). Attitudes are slowly changing, and "moderate" performance is
becoming more acceptable.

The manufacturers would probably build more intermediate gliders if the
sport was growing fast enough to drive up the price of the used gliders,
thus making a new glider of similar performance profitable enough to be
worthwhile.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Soaring magazine for me is the biggest newbie benefit/opportunity of
SSA (badges are another, but for the more experienced). I doubt
we'll get a "newbie corner," but if SSA made one issue
a year the "swimsuit/newbie issue" and spiced up the covers
of the ither issues, I bet that would get on a few
barber shop waiting room chairs...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

>"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
>> there is one very solid reason soaring is declining.that is the lack of
>> qualified gliding instructors!
>> If any of us expect to keep soaring alive it's not only recruiting new
>> members, but also, and more inportantly, having someone available to bring
>> these new recruits to the poinyt where that can actually get certification
>> and eventually fly and own their own gliders....
>
>Yep, and a lot of instructors are quitting because they are fed up with the
>back seat of a 2-33.
>
>Bill Daniels

Well, Blaniks at $10k is a steal, and I have a ton of fun in 'em...
The 2-33 seems like a stone compared to an L-13 :P

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Fortunately SSA is really selling those logo items, and tapping
that better. I'd love an exciting SSA calendar too if they'd
get those acro/formation/skydiving/multi-towing photos I talked about :P

How about somebody doing the first loop with a
dual formation Stearman and a wingwalker while towing acro gliders?

:PPPPPP

In article >,
Scott > wrote:
>As a newcomer to soaring (I have a grand total of 0.5 hours under my
>belt), I was turned off to SSA simply by the (what I consider) high
>membership dues. Yes, I can afford it, but having never seen an SSA
>magazine, I am reluctant to fork out the cash to see if I like their
>publication. Maybe they should offer a trial membership, something like
>$10 for 3 months (a one-time deal). EAA has done this and I think it is
>working. I don't really need to pay $64 for the privilege of soaring,
>so there has to be some incentive to join. Just a thought...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Bill Daniels]

Eric presents a reasonable picture of the glider market. In fact, I think
the present glider market is about right. There is a market for
state-of-the-art gliders for competition and a flourishing market in used
gliders.

A person of modest means can buy a 20 year old glass glider with spectacular
performance. That 20 year old glider wouldn't be such a bargain on the used
market if some competition pilot hadn't bought it for an astronomical sum
when it was new. We need to stop knocking competition, it creates a market
of really neat used gliders. When I started, if you wanted a high
performance glider, you had to build it. By comparison, this market is
nirvana. The availability and cost of gliders isn't the real problem.

One of the many problems that does need attention is training costs. Rental
and airtow make getting a glider rating cost more than a private power
certificate in many locations. It's also a LOT more hassle to get glider
training because of the short flights and long waits. For anyone interested
in aviation but who hasn't chosen whether to go for soaring or another
aviation related activity, this is a problem. Glider training costs,
particularly the overall hourly rates, just don't look reasonable by
comparison.

Now, I'm NOT suggesting that anyone is overcharging for rentals or air tows.
It costs what is does for very good reasons. It's just that those reasons
are not apparent to the newcomer.

I think it might be a good idea to take a long hard look at the training
"experience" from the students point of view to see if there isn't something
that could be done to make it more attractive. The first thing I would
suggest is to look at winch launch for training.

Bill Daniels

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Lennie the Lurker wrote:
> > Almost every sailplane made today is made with the
> > competitor in mind, and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
> > any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell.
>
> There is some truth to this claim, but it's more complicated than the
> manufacturers "not listening". They know their gliders must do well in
> competition (at least the major factories), because potential buyers
> think this is important, even though the majority of buyers aren't
> serious competitors (note that the majority of the German sailplane
> production is now motorized).
>
> There are some "second-tier" gliders, like the reintroduction of the
> Glasflugel 304, the Russia AC-4, Apis, and Silent; however, any new
> glider that isn't a top-of-the-line glider has some serious competition
> in the market: used gliders. Glider last a long time, and the
> performance improvements have been slow, so a new glider that isn't
> better, just cheaper, has to compete with equal performance, even
> cheaper used gliders.
>
> This situation is quite different from the hang glider market, where the
> gliders wear out much sooner, and the improvements from year to year are
> much greater than they are for sailplanes.
>
> > and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
> > any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell.
>
> Just join a thread ripping apart the PW5 to see how something "more
> pedestrian" might sell. The PW5 actually has sold OK, as did the Russia,
> and so that may be why we now have the Apis and Silent (at least in
> part). Attitudes are slowly changing, and "moderate" performance is
> becoming more acceptable.
>
> The manufacturers would probably build more intermediate gliders if the
> sport was growing fast enough to drive up the price of the used gliders,
> thus making a new glider of similar performance profitable enough to be
> worthwhile.
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Jeff Dorwart]

All it takes to get a Soaring Mag in the barbers chair
is to take one you are finished with and drop it in
there. I drop them at the doctors office and in the
university library. Also if someone feels they are
not willing to join the SSA to read the mag and want
to check it out, just drop me an email and I will send
you a couple of issues that are a month or two old.
I am sure a lot of other guys would be willing to pass
theirs on as well. Like a lot of guys I collected them
for about 25 years until I realized I would never read
most of them again. jeffAt 02:54 15 April 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:>Eric presents a reasonable picture of the glider market.
> In fact, I think>the present glider market is about right. There is
>a market for>state-of-the-art gliders for competition and a flourishing
>market in used>gliders.>>A person of modest means can buy a 20 year old glass
>glider with spectacular>performance. That 20 year old glider wouldn't be such
>a bargain on the used>market if some competition pilot hadn't bought it for
>an astronomical sum>when it was new. We need to stop knocking competition,
>it creates a market>of really neat used gliders. When I started, if you
>wanted a high>performance glider, you had to build it. By comparison,
> this market is>nirvana. The availability and cost of gliders isn't
>the real problem.>>One of the many problems that does need attention is
>training costs. Rental>and airtow make getting a glider rating cost more than
>a private power>certificate in many locations. It's also a LOT more
>hassle to get glider>training because of the short flights and long waits.
>For anyone interested>in aviation but who hasn't chosen whether to go for
>soaring or another>aviation related activity, this is a problem. Glider
>training costs,>particularly the overall hourly rates, just don't look
>reasonable by>comparison.>>Now, I'm NOT suggesting that anyone is overcharging
>for rentals or air tows.>It costs what is does for very good reasons. It's
>just that those reasons>are not apparent to the newcomer.>>I think it might be a good idea to take a long hard
>look at the training>'experience' from the students point of view to see
>if there isn't something>that could be done to make it more attractive. The
>first thing I would>suggest is to look at winch launch for training.>>Bill Daniels>>'Eric Greenwell' wrote in ...>> Lennie the Lurker wrote:>> > Almost every sailplane made today is made with the>> > competitor in mind, and the manufacturers aren't
>>>going to listen to>> > any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian
>>>might sell.>>>> There is some truth to this claim, but it's more complicated
>>than the>> manufacturers 'not listening'. They know their gliders
>>must do well in>> competition (at least the major factories), because
>>potential buyers>> think this is important, even though the majority
>>of buyers aren't>> serious competitors (note that the majority of the
>>German sailplane>> production is now motorized).>>>> There are some 'second-tier' gliders, like the reintroduction
>>of the>> Glasflugel 304, the Russia AC-4, Apis, and Silent;
>>however, any new>> glider that isn't a top-of-the-line glider has some
>>serious competition>> in the market: used gliders. Glider last a long time,
>>and the>> performance improvements have been slow, so a new
>>glider that isn't>> better, just cheaper, has to compete with equal performance,
>>even>> cheaper used gliders.>>>> This situation is quite different from the hang glider
>>market, where the>> gliders wear out much sooner, and the improvements
>>from year to year are>> much greater than they are for sailplanes.>>>> > and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to>> > any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian
>>>might sell.>>>> Just join a thread ripping apart the PW5 to see how
>>something 'more>> pedestrian' might sell. The PW5 actually has sold
>>OK, as did the Russia,>> and so that may be why we now have the Apis and Silent
>>(at least in>> part). Attitudes are slowly changing, and 'moderate'
>>performance is>> becoming more acceptable.>>>> The manufacturers would probably build more intermediate
>>gliders if the>> sport was growing fast enough to drive up the price
>>of the used gliders,>> thus making a new glider of similar performance profitable
>>enough to be>> worthwhile.>> -- >> ----->> change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly>>>> Eric Greenwell>> Washington State>> USA>>>>

[Leon McAtee]

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...

> Look at the situation as it is, not as you want to
> see it. Soaring doesn't need another $80k custom built hand made by
> gnomes or trolls in der black forest, but anything that doesn't
> measure up to some peoples wishes will be met with a blast of badmouth
> right away. Almost every sailplane made today is made with the
> competitor in mind, and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
> any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell. Which
> suits the competitors quite well, and insures that the number of new
> people will remain small, and declining.
>
> Saying that people are "too lazy" to soar is like me saying soaring
> people are too lazy to try metalworking. I just made a skid plate for
> a 2-33 out of 1/4 inch AR plate, 3 1/2 hours pushing it through the
> saw to cut to size. Call me lazy if you will, but I'd rather push the
> steel than pay through the nose for what soaring costs, and it's just
> as interesting.

While I think there are other causes for the decline of recreational
aviation in general, you have identified the real problem - Money. Or
more precisely the cost of having fun.

The hang glider population around my parts is zero now. 25 years ago
when it was new it grew fairly fast but as the state of the art
advanced from bamboo, tarps, and tape the cost of having fun slowly
went up. Those established in the sport could afford the evolution
and continued to have fun - and fly safer. But gradually the cost of
an "acceptable" entry level glider (and the associated accessories)
got to the point that the newcomers balked at the initial outlay of
cash and turned to other hobbies. A sad side to this story is that
there were actually lots of serviceable used gliders sitting unflown
in garages but I heard more than once, "You don't want that one. It's
old and doesn't fly as well as this newer one. If you really want to
have fun you need the better one. Sure it cost a bit more, but it's
worth it" It may have "been worth it", but it cost too much and the
former new glider pilot spent his money on a snowmobile, or a bike, or
a horse.

The original bunch gradually quit flying for one reason or another
until there are no folks jumping of the local hill. And as with lots
of hobbies a good bit of the attraction of the activity is not only
the activity but the socializing that goes along with friends mutually
enjoying their chosen sport. Flying is fun, but it's even better when
you can share the good times with a friend.

I'm interested in getting started in gliding and have my own unique
challenges to overcome. The general impression most of the people I
talk to have of gliding (power pilots or earth bound alike) is that
glider pilots are flying their gliders on the weekends there isn't a
polo match or a fox hunt. This isn't my impression but I do think
there is too much emphasis on competition and "performance" and not
enough on having fun. I get the feeling that if I show up somewhere
with a 4th hand Woodstock towed behind an old Jetta and step out on
the field dressed in Levi's and a T-shirt there will be a few pilots
quietly snickering in the background about my poor performing
hardware. Fortunately I'm the kind of guy that really doesn't care
what others think. I'm there to satisfy me, not the critics. But the
average Joe is very image conscious and doesn't like being the odd one
in the group. It's just another unfortunate result of living in an
image dominated society.

So in my opinion if you want gliding to grow you need to make it
conspicous, fun, comfortable, and at least as cheap to try other
hobbies. Take some lessons from the early hang gliders. Build a
primary glider, find a hill, invite the local kids and let them bounce
down the hill a few times...............

Those that like it may become regulars. But if they never try it, due
to negative preconceptions of the sport, how can they know?
===============================
Leon McAtee

[Steve Bralla]

> writes:

>I don't think I have ever known of even one new glider pilot to come to the
>sport through the SSA.

I became an active pilot after my wife (girlfriend at the time) gave my an SSA
membership for my birthday.

Steve
OK, so I was flying hang gliders at the time and sometimes bought Soaring at
the newsstand. (You can't do that anymore.)

[soarski]

will remain small, and declining.
>
> Saying that people are "too lazy" to soar is like me saying soaring
> people are too lazy to try metalworking. I just made a skid plate for
> a 2-33 out of 1/4 inch AR plate, 3 1/2 hours pushing it through the
> saw to cut to size. Call me lazy if you will, but I'd rather push the
> steel than pay through the nose for what soaring costs, and it's just
> as interesting.

BUT Lennie......You went about it the wrong way! I used to take some
stock with the corect width, had the guy where I picked it up, just
cut it with a big shear! Usually made three of them at a time.
Clamped them all together and hoped for a good drill bit in the press.
Those were the times, replacing those skids, while customers were
waiting to fly!

I was lucky to give Lessons in the 2-33 and long intro Flights in the
Janus and always had a big grin on my face jumping in the backseat of
the 2-33 for another lesson in the late afternoon. The differences
made it interesting!
Please be nice to those good ships. I wonder where mine ended up,
owned it
for 25 years, sold it to the Airforce Academy and they probably gave
it away
to some nice Group?

WHERE did it end up? N 5742S .....

Places that give Sightseeing/ Intro rides, The commercial operators,
are our best bet for keeping soaring alive! Those operators need all
the help they can get. Insurance is a problem, seasons, locations etc.

But then, Bill, are you saying .....nothing is forever?

Dieter B
Gliders Of Aspen Inc surrounded by dozens of Gulfsteams and
other jets!

[Lennie the Lurker]

Bob Greenblatt > wrote in message >...
> At the risk of encouraging him, Lennie's recent post to this thread is the
> most logical and reasoned of any of his (and most everyone else's) that I
> have read recently. Thanks Leninie, good points.

Welcome. But I still see people blaming lack of instructors or the
2-33 as core of the problem. I don't really care, until common sense
and a change in the higher mucky-mucks attitude happen, it'll continue
to decline. FInancially block most of the middle class, which is also
declining, and all you're going to see is called "death spiral." For
those that can afford the "hi price glass", it's fine, but there's
nothing for the average guy. Even if there was, it would get so much
badmouth from the eggspurts that it would never sell enough to be
successful. IT's what happens when the competitors take control of
the entire activity. Top of the line, or nothing. Nothing is more
often the better choice. Ignoring the eggspurts is always better.

[Jim Vincent]

>> At the risk of encouraging him, Lennie's recent post to this thread is the
>> most logical and reasoned of any of his (and most everyone else's) that I
>> have read recently. Thanks Leninie, good points.

I agree with you, Bob. I had almost replied in kind, but thought I might have
been under the influence (I wasnt').

What many people don't get is the concept of fun in this sport. Pretty sad.

>But I still see people blaming lack of instructor

Not in my club...the instruction committee kicks them out all the time.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[soarski]

The high performance market will not make Soaring grow.

I am betting on the new generation of very light gliders, that you can
stick together alone and take home and are self launchers! Those have
to be improved for taxiing abillity. Then there should be very similar
2 place trainers, same make, that Operators can train in and present
a package. Looks like those setups are coming.

If those selflaunchers can go down to $ 30 000 I think we have
something.
People have to be trained to be able to fly off of most any airport,
with good radio procedures and skills to fit into that traffic.

This will enable folks to fly a little after work, on weekends without
a crew,
do flights in a hiking fashion. (Wandersegelflug) in German. Also
they may have some time left over for Golf or Tennis........maybe bas
fishing?

Think Up

Dieter B







"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message news:<LCmfc.39108$wP1.153715@attbi_s54>...
> Eric presents a reasonable picture of the glider market. In fact, I think
> the present glider market is about right. There is a market for
> state-of-the-art gliders for competition and a flourishing market in used
> gliders.
>
> A person of modest means can buy a 20 year old glass glider with spectacular
> performance. That 20 year old glider wouldn't be such a bargain on the used
> market if some competition pilot hadn't bought it for an astronomical sum
> when it was new. We need to stop knocking competition, it creates a market
> of really neat used gliders. When I started, if you wanted a high
> performance glider, you had to build it. By comparison, this market is
> nirvana. The availability and cost of gliders isn't the real problem.
>
> One of the many problems that does need attention is training costs. Rental
> and airtow make getting a glider rating cost more than a private power
> certificate in many locations. It's also a LOT more hassle to get glider
> training because of the short flights and long waits. For anyone interested
> in aviation but who hasn't chosen whether to go for soaring or another
> aviation related activity, this is a problem. Glider training costs,
> particularly the overall hourly rates, just don't look reasonable by
> comparison.
>
> Now, I'm NOT suggesting that anyone is overcharging for rentals or air tows.
> It costs what is does for very good reasons. It's just that those reasons
> are not apparent to the newcomer.
>
> I think it might be a good idea to take a long hard look at the training
> "experience" from the students point of view to see if there isn't something
> that could be done to make it more attractive. The first thing I would
> suggest is to look at winch launch for training.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Lennie the Lurker wrote:
> > > Almost every sailplane made today is made with the
> > > competitor in mind, and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
> > > any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell.
> >
> > There is some truth to this claim, but it's more complicated than the
> > manufacturers "not listening". They know their gliders must do well in
> > competition (at least the major factories), because potential buyers
> > think this is important, even though the majority of buyers aren't
> > serious competitors (note that the majority of the German sailplane
> > production is now motorized).
> >
> > There are some "second-tier" gliders, like the reintroduction of the
> > Glasflugel 304, the Russia AC-4, Apis, and Silent; however, any new
> > glider that isn't a top-of-the-line glider has some serious competition
> > in the market: used gliders. Glider last a long time, and the
> > performance improvements have been slow, so a new glider that isn't
> > better, just cheaper, has to compete with equal performance, even
> > cheaper used gliders.
> >
> > This situation is quite different from the hang glider market, where the
> > gliders wear out much sooner, and the improvements from year to year are
> > much greater than they are for sailplanes.
> >
> > > and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
> > > any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell.
> >
> > Just join a thread ripping apart the PW5 to see how something "more
> > pedestrian" might sell. The PW5 actually has sold OK, as did the Russia,
> > and so that may be why we now have the Apis and Silent (at least in
> > part). Attitudes are slowly changing, and "moderate" performance is
> > becoming more acceptable.
> >
> > The manufacturers would probably build more intermediate gliders if the
> > sport was growing fast enough to drive up the price of the used gliders,
> > thus making a new glider of similar performance profitable enough to be
> > worthwhile.
> > --
> > -----
> > change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >
> > Eric Greenwell
> > Washington State
> > USA
> >

[Lennie the Lurker]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> >
> There is some truth to this claim, but it's more complicated than the
> manufacturers "not listening".

Yes. Just as J.I.Case decided to abandon their smaller tractors for
more "profitable" higher buck tractors some twenty years ago. From 96
tractors per day, down to 21 now, and the tractors say "New Holland"
on them. Ten years ago it was already too late for them to try to
reclaim their major market, those farmers that didn't have $100K for a
shiny new humongous machine that they didn't really need.

>
> Just join a thread ripping apart the PW5 to see how something "more
> pedestrian" might sell.

Then look at how many of the voices ripping the pw actually have flown
or own one. Not a very good ratio of first hand knowledge to personal
opinion. Probably closer to 5% first hand and 95% ignorant badmouth.
2-33, 1-26, PW-5, Russia, makes no difference, it's below 40:1 and
anything that can be said negatively will be. Nobody asks if it's
serving the purpose for which it was designed.


Threads on a newsgroup are about as effective as dragging a foot to
stop a semi headed for a cliff on a 10% grade.

[Ian Johnston]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:03:04 UTC, (Leon
McAtee) wrote:

: While I think there are other causes for the decline of recreational
: aviation in general, you have identified the real problem - Money. Or
: more precisely the cost of having fun.

I think there is another fundamental problem here: learning to glide
(in the UK, anyway) just isn't much fun. Typically it involves
standing round an airfield all day, hoping that an instructor whom
you've never met before will deign to give you a couple of circuits
and filling in the rest of your time acting as ground crew for the
private owners who seem incapable of driving tractors or hooking up
cables.

Worst of all, that's how many of the old farts / committee members /
instructors want it to be, because that's how it was in their day.
Well, maybe it was, but suffering doesn't broaden the soul
particularly and there are many, many other hobbies which don't
involve a year or two of being bored and patronized in the learning.

Gliding clubs in the UK have absolutely no problem in attracting new
people into the sport. They are absolutely lousy at retaining them.

Ian

--

[Mark James Boyd]

Well, I think also thermal soaring is not for everyone.
Flying in a tight circle for a while is "interesting"
even on my tummy, and I've been doing it a while.

I fly the sightseeing flights at sunset with a high tow for
newbies, lest they get sick. A great thermal day
doesn't seem like the best "first ride" day. If my
wife came with me on a typical "good soaring day" for
me, she'd blow guts, especially with my waggly rusty
rudder skills ;(

The hang glider and parachute and experienced pilot
guys, on the other hand, get right into it with nary
a whimper. The younguns also seem to do better than
the 40+ crowd on the first flight. I keep the
"Qyat Earp" bags handy...

We had a guy getting a power license who'd
toss cookies after every one of his first dozen flights,
and that was a Cezzna 152. About 100 circles in a
sailplane woulda been interesting :PPPP....

Gliding is easy to teach, easy to solo, mildly interesting
(mostly the tow) and not too expensive to get to license. Soaring is
quite different: nuances of weather, a lot of technique
to get it right, lots of decisions in flight, and L/D
does make a difference. And thermal soaring can have
a pretty bumpy tow and tight circles after release.

I dunno if I'd have gotten into the sport if the Hawaii
shoreline wasn't so pretty and if it wasn't for the smooth
ridge soaring...I still envy you guys with nice long
consistent ridgelines...personally I hate circling and
having to work for lift...I'd rather just float around all
day in peace at less than 15 degrees of bank...

Yep, it is a sport and a hobby. And just like freezing
my butt off in a catamaran vs. champagne and strawberries
on a 70 foot "sailboat", soaring vs. gliding/power has some
challenges that can involve a tad bit of suffering...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Lennie the Lurker > wrote:
>> At the risk of encouraging him, Lennie's recent post to this thread is the
>> most logical and reasoned of any of his (and most everyone else's) that I
>> have read recently. Thanks Leninie, good points.
>
>Welcome. But I still see people blaming lack of instructors or the
>2-33 as core of the problem. I don't really care, until common sense
>and a change in the higher mucky-mucks attitude happen, it'll continue
>to decline. FInancially block most of the middle class, which is also
>declining, and all you're going to see is called "death spiral." For
>those that can afford the "hi price glass", it's fine, but there's
>nothing for the average guy. Even if there was, it would get so much
>badmouth from the eggspurts that it would never sell enough to be
>successful. IT's what happens when the competitors take control of
>the entire activity. Top of the line, or nothing. Nothing is more
>often the better choice. Ignoring the eggspurts is always better.

Man, I had a helluva great flight in that $10,000 Blanik
L-13 two seater recently. And personally I prefer flying with two
instead of one anyway. The L-13 seems like the closest thing the
sport has to a glider for the "average guy." I taped the things
tail up lovingly, and gave it an average wash, and had a blast with
a fellow licensed glider pilot.

We flew slow, we flew fast, we practiced retracting gear, we went
to 9000 ft, we had a great view, the cockpit was big, and it
was $37 for the two of us. I thought "why don't I get other people
to come with me?" and then the reality set in. It really would
have been too much for their tummies. I mean it. Really that was
it.

I've taken maybe 100 people on first flights, probably half are
close friends and relatives, and none of them would have enjoyed
the 3 hour flight, because of nothing other than the bumps and
circling.

Does this explain declining numbers? No. But I'd like to
point out that getting folks into soaring is more than
just getting them a ride in a glider...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[John H. Campbell]

>OK, so I was flying hang gliders at the time and sometimes bought Soaring
at
>the newsstand. (You can't do that anymore.)

Just like I used to buy Hang Gliding at newstands. We were told by the SSA
executive 10 years ago that newstand placement of Soaring was no longer
cost-effective for magazine supplier businesses (for such a small press run
and niche market). Is this still the case? Have the new SSA Directors, PR
Committees, and Staff looked into that?

[John H. Campbell]

>All it takes to get a Soaring Mag in the barbers chair
>is to take one you are finished with and drop it in
>there. I drop them at the doctors office and in the
>university library.

Yes, and many libraries will add subscriptions on request. SSA even has a
special subscriber only price for this.

[Ian Johnston]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:29:53 UTC, (Lennie
the Lurker) wrote:

: Then look at how many of the voices ripping the pw actually have flown
: or own one. Not a very good ratio of first hand knowledge to personal
: opinion. Probably closer to 5% first hand and 95% ignorant badmouth.
: 2-33, 1-26, PW-5, Russia, makes no difference, it's below 40:1 and
: anything that can be said negatively will be. Nobody asks if it's
: serving the purpose for which it was designed.

As a 34:1 chap myself, and a strong supporter of the SIFOWs brigade, I
have nothing against the PW-5 per se. However, I am not sure that it
has fulfilled the purpose for which it was designed:

1) Stimulating interest by being affordable. Unfortunately for the
PW-5 (and the Silent, and the Russia, and ...) there are just too many
second hand gliders around for the same sort of money, and a ten year
old glider isn't nearly such an off-putting proposition as a ten-year
old car. So in this respect it has failed - it hasn't caused a surge
of interest, even if it costs what it was meant to. This is not to
disparage some local successes - it seems to have given the people in
New Zealand a way to renew a predominately Ka6 club fleet effectively
and popularly.

2) Stimulating interest by being a competition class. Unfortunately
for the PW-5, there just aren't that many pilots around who care about
competing. And, almost by definition, those who don't care enough to
be selling their houses, spouses and cars to buy something big and
modern are also unlikely to pay a premium for occasional lower-level
competition. It's a shame that more top-end pilots haven't taken to
it, but I suspect that the competition year is already pretty crowded.

I haven't flown one, though I'd like to, particularly to see how it
compares with my Pirat. From all accounts it's a very nice wee glider,
but I'm afraid that as far as renewing the sport goes, it has been a
failure. The cheap, simple, competitive gliders which attract people
into flying have lots of strings and pack intoa big rucksack. Maybe
the conventional gliding world should swallow its pride, descend from
its high horse, make common cause - and try to lure the paragliders
across when they get to an age when breaking ankles seems less
attractive ...

Ian

[Pat Russell]

Allow me to summarize what I have learned from this thread.
Soaring has declined for these reasons:

1. Money
2. Accessibility
3. Competition from other activities
4. Elitism

Valiant efforts have been made to lessen the impact of the first
three, but isn't it embarrassing how feebly we have tackled the
fourth, the easiest one to address?

-Pat

[Lennie the Lurker]

(soarski) wrote in message >...
> will remain small, and declining.
> >
> > Saying that people are "too lazy" to soar is like me saying soaring
> > people are too lazy to try metalworking. I just made a skid plate for
> > a 2-33 out of 1/4 inch AR plate, 3 1/2 hours pushing it through the
> > saw to cut to size. Call me lazy if you will, but I'd rather push the
> > steel than pay through the nose for what soaring costs, and it's just
> > as interesting.
>
> BUT Lennie......You went about it the wrong way! I used to take some
> stock with the corect width, had the guy where I picked it up, just
> cut it with a big shear! Usually made three of them at a time.
> Clamped them all together and hoped for a good drill bit in the press.
> Those were the times, replacing those skids, while customers were
> waiting to fly!
>
You aren't going to cut AR plate with a shear. Unless you want to buy
the owner a new shear, that is. Same stuff bulldozer blades have for
their cutting edge. Should need replacing sometime in about 2030,
maybe. Saw speed was 40FPM, cutting rate 8 inches per hour. Drilling
no problem, used masonry bit in the milling machine, 320 RPM, and lots
of cutting oil. Interesting, but not something I want to do again.

[Tony Verhulst]

ISoar wrote:
> .... that may mean putting the financial survival of the firm on
> the line. Maybe it will happen when a company has to choose between
> inovatation of bankruptcy.


Yes. Very much like Boeing when it "bet the farm" to develop the 747.

Tony V.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
> ISoar wrote:
> > .... that may mean putting the financial survival of the firm on
> > the line. Maybe it will happen when a company has to choose between
> > inovatation of bankruptcy.
>
>
> Yes. Very much like Boeing when it "bet the farm" to develop the 747.
>
> Tony V.
>
IIRC, Boeing bet the farm on the B-17 (for which they received the German
swept wing research post-WWII which was immediately applied to the B-47),
the 707 (for which they eventually sacrificed winning military contracts for
decades), and the 727 (which really brought new innovations to aircraft
computer design and construction methods, not to mention lower service and
turnaround costs and a 40-year service life). The 747 was the first new
innovative airframe that Boeing didn't bet the farm on. What was really
incredible were the cottage industries that popped up as fourth level
subcontractors in the back of plumbing, electrical, and machine shops around
the area.

When I was young, we raised funds for our church group by selling 'snack'
trays which were the window punch outs from the 707 lines. They already had
the interior vinyl attached and were fairly attractive, plus the process
created a raised lip.

For many years, Boeing had one of the most fantastic surplus yards going.
It's still pretty good, but not like it was.

Frank Whiteley

[Liam Finley]

Pat Russell > wrote in message >...
> Allow me to summarize what I have learned from this thread.
> Soaring has declined for these reasons:
>
> 1. Money
> 2. Accessibility
> 3. Competition from other activities
> 4. Elitism
>
> Valiant efforts have been made to lessen the impact of the first
> three, but isn't it embarrassing how feebly we have tackled the
> fourth, the easiest one to address?
>
> -Pat

I think the elitism problem is largely an urban myth.

It's all too easy for unsuccesful pilots to blame elitism rather than
take a hard look at their own lack of skill, ability or perserverence.

Perhaps we should start voluntarily limiting our flights to 1 hour and
within 15 miles of the airport so the Lennies of the world needn't
feel so bad about their lack of achievement.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Pat Russell > wrote in message >...
> Allow me to summarize what I have learned from this thread.
> Soaring has declined for these reasons:
>
> 1. Money
> 2. Accessibility
> 3. Competition from other activities
> 4. Elitism
>
> Valiant efforts have been made to lessen the impact of the first
> three, but isn't it embarrassing how feebly we have tackled the
> fourth, the easiest one to address?
>
No, It's not the easiest to address. Those that practice it, probably
live the rest of their lives the same way, and don't really care if
they're doing any damage or not. They don't see it, never will
because it would have them take a good look at themselves, and find
that they're far from perfect.

The first is probably insurmountable, common sense says food for the
family is more important than time in a glider.

The second, depends on how far one is willing to travel, and in my
case, I'm not.

Third, something has to offer more than the others, and depending on
the interests of the individual, for most of the population, soaring
is pretty far from the top of the list, if it ever made it to the
list. No different than any other hobby. Soaring gets to scramble
for the interest and the bucks just like any other activity. If it
makes the cut, you got one, if not, better look for another one.

[Tony Verhulst]

Lennie, you're starting to scare me. A couple of good posts in a row.

Tony V.

Oh, yeah.... :-) :-)

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Leon McAtee) wrote in message >...
> > >
> I get the feeling that if I show up somewhere
> with a 4th hand Woodstock towed behind an old Jetta and step out on
> the field dressed in Levi's and a T-shirt there will be a few pilots
> quietly snickering in the background about my poor performing
> hardware.

No. THey wouldn't be in the background, they'd be in your face and
loudly proclaiming it to you. Not all of them, a bare minority, but
enough that after three years of it, the thought of listening to it
again made my reaction to thinking about the airport one of wanting to
puke.

[Jim Vincent]

>somewhere
>> with a 4th hand Woodstock towed behind an old Jetta and step out on
>> the field dressed in Levi's and a T-shirt there will be a few pilots
>> quietly snickering in the background about my poor performing
>> hardware.

Too right! A large percentage of members at my club proclaim anything other
than glass as a Piece of Sh** and gladly tell new students this. Never mind
having to "dumb down" to fly a 1-26.

Sadly, the new students who haven't a clue take on the same attitude.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Liam Finley) wrote in message >...
>
> Perhaps we should start voluntarily limiting our flights to 1 hour and
> within 15 miles of the airport so the Lennies of the world needn't
> feel so bad about their lack of achievement.

That's quite ok, lemming. If I work for five minutes, I will have
achieved more in those five minutes than you have in your lifetime.
Hours in the log mean nothing outside of that piece of garbage
wrapping. MY greatest achievement was realizing that soaring is just
a money suck, and getting out of it. Next came the axle for the
motorized wheelchair that I made a week ago at no cost. Your soaring
achievements have done _what_ to help someone else that has a _real_
need?

Pipe it up your rear, kraut.

[Jim Vincent]

I knew it was too good to last. From feast to famine, he's back to his old
routine again.
>
>That's quite ok, lemming. If I work for five minutes, I will have
>achieved more in those five minutes than you have in your lifetime.
>Hours in the log mean nothing outside of that piece of garbage
>wrapping. MY greatest achievement was realizing that soaring is just
>a money suck, and getting out of it. Next came the axle for the
>motorized wheelchair that I made a week ago at no cost. Your soaring
>achievements have done _what_ to help someone else that has a _real_
>need?
>
>Pipe it up your rear, kraut.



Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Tim Ward]

"Liam Finley" > wrote in message
om...
> Pat Russell > wrote in message
>...
> > Allow me to summarize what I have learned from this thread.
> > Soaring has declined for these reasons:
> >
> > 1. Money
> > 2. Accessibility
> > 3. Competition from other activities
> > 4. Elitism
> >
> > Valiant efforts have been made to lessen the impact of the first
> > three, but isn't it embarrassing how feebly we have tackled the
> > fourth, the easiest one to address?
> >
> > -Pat
>
> I think the elitism problem is largely an urban myth.
>
> It's all too easy for unsuccesful pilots to blame elitism rather than
> take a hard look at their own lack of skill, ability or perserverence.
>
> Perhaps we should start voluntarily limiting our flights to 1 hour and
> within 15 miles of the airport so the Lennies of the world needn't
> feel so bad about their lack of achievement.

After reading your post, I'm certain that the fish of the world "think that
water is largely an urban myth".

Tim Ward

[Lennie the Lurker]

Tony Verhulst > wrote in message >...
> Lennie, you're starting to scare me. A couple of good posts in a row.

Yeah. NOw tell me what I'm saying now that I didn't start saying in
1999. What I was seeing then is the same as I'm seeing now, ecomomy
down, less disposable income, more expensive gliders, death spiral.
The same people talking down any thought of an affordable, although
lower performance machine, and they still can't see that the high buck
way isn't doing it.

For a good illustration of my answer to PR's point #4, see the drivel
by liam the lemming.

(He'll never get a good word out of me for anything, now or ever. His
only good point is that he makes a perfect bad example.)

[John H. Campbell]

>...but isn't it embarrassing how feebly we have tackled the
>fourth, the easiest one to address? [Elitism]

Review Wander's "GrowBook",
http://acro.harvard.edu/SOARING/books/growbook.htm . Let's make soaring
friendlier, less private, less mysterious.

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<407e265f$1@darkstar>...
>
>
> We flew slow, we flew fast, we practiced retracting gear, we went
> to 9000 ft, we had a great view, the cockpit was big, and it
> was $37 for the two of us.

My last tow charge was $38 and the flight lasted 18 minutes, consisted
mostly of a 720 left, 720 right and the pattern. (November, 2001)
Looking ahead, I could see another couple of weekends of dual in the
spring, another session of ground school, and another test. Looking
at the cost, and the costs of the plane, it didn't take much brain to
say that the returns were below the investment. However, I knew
earlier in the year, when I decided to try for it, that it was "make
or break", and there wouldn't be another chance. There are limits as
to how long you can dump everything you have into one activity and not
be able to do others that are just as much fun and can be even more
challenging. I didn't make it, probably an hour or so short, but I'm
not going to try it again either. The only regret I have is the $7k
that I could have used for other things. Had I gone ahead, I could
probably add on another $2k, and the end result wouldn't have been any
different.

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Jim Vincent) wrote in message >...
> I knew it was too good to last. From feast to famine, he's back to his old
> routine again.

Me and that rodent from krautland are never going to have a good word
for each other. I couldn't ask for a more perfect example of an
elitist, arrogant fathead than finley.

[iPilot]

Sad to hear.

Luckily the approach in our club is quite different. Most of the pilots remember their early flights
with Blanik or Pirat and have some romantic approach to those gliders. The attitude towards the
lower performing gliders and the pilots who fly them is even somewhat jealous. Like looking at the
young boy who's in love for a first time - memories, memories ... :-). Of course later in your life
you meet the females, who look better and perform better than the first-one ;-). As you do with
gliders. But no-one can never take away your first love and remaining warm feelings towards the
subject.

There is no point in badmouthing early training gliders. Somehow the youngster has to gain the
experience to jump in to the glass cockpit. And you can bet that while sitting in the cocpit of 2-33
or Blanik and watching a beautyful glass glider taking of, he's thinking about "Gee, can I fly
that-one? Ever?". It seems helluva long way to go for a youngster and responsible pilot won't make
it seem longer or non-achievable.

So. The real problem seems to be that there's too few enthusiastic pilots left who lure other people
to soaring. One has to realise, that even the records set by Ohlmann mean nothing if there isn't
tens of thousands of pilots who seldom fly away from the gliding distance of the airfield and who
actually have a clue, what an achievement those records are.

The responsibility of every single pilot out there is to take care that youngsters get lured to
gliding. Personal example works best.

Regards,
Kaido Tiigisoon
www.purilend.ee
Jantar Std 3


"Jim Vincent" > wrote in message
...
> >somewhere
> >> with a 4th hand Woodstock towed behind an old Jetta and step out on
> >> the field dressed in Levi's and a T-shirt there will be a few pilots
> >> quietly snickering in the background about my poor performing
> >> hardware.
>
> Too right! A large percentage of members at my club proclaim anything other
> than glass as a Piece of Sh** and gladly tell new students this. Never mind
> having to "dumb down" to fly a 1-26.
>
> Sadly, the new students who haven't a clue take on the same attitude.
>
> Jim Vincent
> CFIG
> N483SZ
>

[Owain Walters]

At 23:24 15 April 2004, Lennie The Lurker wrote:
(Liam Finley) wrote in message news:...
>>
>> Perhaps we should start voluntarily limiting our flights
>>to 1 hour and
>> within 15 miles of the airport so the Lennies of the
>>world needn't
>> feel so bad about their lack of achievement.
>
>That's quite ok, lemming. If I work for five minutes,
>I will have
>achieved more in those five minutes than you have in
>your lifetime.
>Hours in the log mean nothing outside of that piece
>of garbage
>wrapping. MY greatest achievement was realizing that
>soaring is just
>a money suck, and getting out of it. Next came the
>axle for the
>motorized wheelchair that I made a week ago at no cost.
> Your soaring
>achievements have done _what_ to help someone else
>that has a _real_
>need?
>
>Pipe it up your rear, kraut.
>


Oh Lennie, Lennie, Lennie. You nearly had us convinced
for a second that you had actually sorted out your
severe metal disorder! But, all good things come to
those who wait! I knew you would go back to your old
ways eventually.

re: your last post - Sorry your last flight wasnt that
good. My last flight at a similar cost was in a Discus
2a (Monday) running a convergence line up and down
England. It was absolutely awesome. I dont regret spending
a single penny on gliding. I think its tragic that
you are angry with the gliding scene and, as always,
am at an utter loss at why you persist in posting here
when you have such a (well documented) hatred for gliding.

Elitism - its lonely at the top but the view is good!
(I put that here as a joke!!)

Owain

[Martin Gregorie]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:40:02 GMT, Pat Russell
> wrote:

>Allow me to summarize what I have learned from this thread.
>Soaring has declined for these reasons:
>
> 1. Money
> 2. Accessibility
> 3. Competition from other activities
> 4. Elitism
>
>Valiant efforts have been made to lessen the impact of the first
>three, but isn't it embarrassing how feebly we have tackled the
>fourth, the easiest one to address?
>

Sadly, these days (in the UK anyway) it seems that accusations of
elitism often get applied to anything that can't be mastered instantly
and doesn't involve chasing a ball. Gliding is obviously elitist just
because becoming a soaring pilot takes time and involves learning a
number of new skills.

And, please lets not argue about the (perceived) cost: the amount that
ordinary folks are prepared to spend on, e.g., gokarting for their
kids or golf can easily exceed the cost of soaring. Again, that
assumes UK club fees and glider prices, so that comparison may not
work elsewhere. I know a guy whose son was close to top rank in
karting - they spent £20K a year running that kart and competing - and
another family who lashed out £1200 on a used kart for their kid. In
the UK you could get solo for less than the cost of that used kart.
Buying my ASW-20 and flying it for a year will cost less than £20K.
Amortising that cost over 10 years will reduce the yearly outlay to
the equivalent of flying a club glider, so over time gliding is vastly
cheaper than top-level karting and I bet that still holds if I'd
bought new kit such as an ASW-28.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Bill Gribble]

Ian Johnston > writes
>I think there is another fundamental problem here: learning to glide
>(in the UK, anyway) just isn't much fun. Typically it involves
>standing round an airfield all day, hoping that an instructor whom
>you've never met before will deign to give you a couple of circuits
>and filling in the rest of your time acting as ground crew for the
>private owners who seem incapable of driving tractors or hooking up
>cables.

In part, perhaps I can see why you might say that (here in the UK,
anyway). But speaking from personal experience, learning to glide has so
far cost me a day per weekend (or half a day when other commitments have
encroached) since last October, and when I do go solo (odds are that
might be sometime in the next month or so at my current rate of
progress) the sum total financial cost will have been £470, to the penny
as long as you exclude the additional cash I've also spent on various
gliding books to tide me over on rainy days.

Compare that to the $7000 financial cost and clear personal trauma
Lennie the Lurker has apparently suffered over on the other side of the
Atlantic in trying to achieve the same, along with the terribly bitter
state that the experience has obviously left him in, and I'd have to say
that we have a terrific deal here in the UK and so must be doing
something right.

As for whether it's fun as well as economical... I suppose I've spent a
good part of this last British winter crawling out of bed at the crack
of dawn when my natural habit would otherwise be to continue sleeping
off the previous night's excesses, and then shivering on a cold, damp
and utterly unsheltered airfield whilst intermittently manning the
lights, retrieving the cables and manhandling the club's K13's whilst
waiting for my chance to fly in one.

On the other hand, that time has been in the warm company of a small
number of similar enthusiasts and other stalwarts still gripped enough
by this flying thing to want to do the same in preference to spending
the winter warm and snug at home. Not to mention the instructors that
have turned up week after week to give their time freely in order to
teach us how to do this flying thing safely... And their enthusiasm is,
absolutely without exception, utterly infectious.

For the first couple of months that did mean that each week was
inevitably with an instructor I'd never met before and the flying
through the winter, of course, did consist mainly of launch, circuit,
land. On the other hand, the typical day gave me up to six launches to
1600' plus (if I could give the whole day to the thing - otherwise it
would be half a day and three launches) so the value was somewhat more
than "a couple of circuits" :P

And after the first couple of months I'd worked my way through most of
the instructors on the rota, so they ceased being strangers quickly
enough. As for the others at the launch point, across the winter they
tend to be a smallish, select group, the same faces week on week more or
less, and so they ceased to be strangers by week two or three.

>Worst of all, that's how many of the old farts / committee members /
>instructors want it to be, because that's how it was in their day.
>Well, maybe it was, but suffering doesn't broaden the soul
>particularly and there are many, many other hobbies which don't
>involve a year or two of being bored and patronized in the learning.
>
>Gliding clubs in the UK have absolutely no problem in attracting new
>people into the sport. They are absolutely lousy at retaining them.

I can honestly say in the last six months I really haven't spent much
time bored. Just being around aircraft has been enough of a novelty for
me to prevent that, and it isn't as if there isn't plenty to do whilst
not flying. I've been antagonised a couple of times, and patronised
maybe twice. But in the broad spectrum of the last six months' worth of
experience, these occasions have been real exceptions. And in any broad
enough group of people you will always get these exceptions. In my
experience it doesn't matter whether you're talking about gliding,
fishing, or amateur dramatics. It's the cost of interacting with people.
But at 5'8 and 140lbs (including parachute), I'm big enough and ugly
enough to deal with such provocation on my own terms :P

I'd say that soaring is, like many things, something you are either
going to take to or you won't. On the other hand, it is the sort of
experience that many will want to try, if given the chance. And of them,
some, albeit a small minority, will bite.

In this, the cheap trial lesson is your friend. In today's terms, £25 is
the sort of change I have in my back pocket that I might spend down the
pub on a Saturday night without thinking about it. Giving me three
flights instead of one for £50 might seem like a good deal, but that
brings it to the sort of expenditure level that I have to clear through
my wife ;)

Aside from that, you have to make the opportunity known, and your
obvious target audience is your local community. To put that into
context, I live within about 10 miles of two gliding clubs. But it's
taken me 15 years to realise just how accessible gliding really is, and
in the end this epiphany of realisation came in the form of a £70 trial
lesson voucher brought in the basement of Debenhams as a Chrismas
present from my wife that had me travelling to Wales to redeem
(Talgarth, to be precise - a lovely place that I sincerely plan to
re-visit one of these days).

It strikes me therefore as unsurprising that this journey has taken 15
years, and I figure it was only luck that meant it didn't take another
15.

So I'd say that if you're really concerned with declining numbers, make
cheap "trial lessons" easily available, convenient and accessible, and
when the punters turn up at the airfield, make sure they're looked after
and made to feel welcome and involved for the **duration of the time**
they are actually at the field, and not just whilst they're under the
care of their actual instructor, strapped into the front seat of a
glider.

Anyway, I appreciate that much of what I have to say on this matter
could be both construed as the naive opinion of a newbie and deemed
terribly parochial, in that it relates to my own experiences so far in
the UK which I understand to be very different from somebody learning to
glide elsewhere in the world, stateside especially.

On the other hand, the subject is in part about attracting newcomers to
soaring, of which I am quite recently one myself. And maybe my own
experiences in this (which are, by and by, entirely positive now that
I'm actually here) might make an interesting point of comparison to any
other points of view or experiences found here.



--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

[Hank Nixon]

Tony Verhulst > wrote in message >...
> I was very dissapointed with an article in the latest _Soaring_
> magazine. It was about the SSA membership decline and all about
> attracting SSA *members* and retaining SSA *members* - nothing about
> soaring. I humbly suggest that if the SSA focused more on promoting
> soaring, much of the membership decline would be taken care of.
>
> Tony V.


Guess we all read things differently.
My read is that we all need to introduce folks we know to the sport.
In doing so, we have 12000 or so direct sales people.
This will result in growing the sport, and helping to grow the society.

Take a friend soaring- try direct marketing.
UH

[Tony Verhulst]

>>I knew it was too good to last. From feast to famine, he's back to his old
>>routine again.
>
>
> Me and that rodent from krautland are never going to have a good word
> for each other. I couldn't ask for a more perfect example of an
> elitist, arrogant fathead than finley.

Whatever. It was a poor post. Our participation in soaring does not make
the world a better place - agreed. But, soaring is not all we do and
many (most) of us are assets to our community.

Soaring has left you bitter and that's unfortunate. Next to my wife,
soaring was the best thing that ever happened to me.

Tony V.

[Shawn Curry]

Liam Finley wrote:

snip

> I think the elitism problem is largely an urban myth.
>
> It's all too easy for unsuccesful pilots to blame elitism rather than
> take a hard look at their own lack of skill, ability or perserverence.

Stop! There it is-
"Skill, ability, and perseverance."
This is supposed to be a fun recreational activity/hobby/sport, yet it
requires "skill, ability, and perseverance".
That's a lot to ask. That sounds more like the military or marriage
than a fun recreational activity. Any sport or hobby will benefit from
skill, ability, and perseverance, but ours demands it as an entry fee.
Don't get me wrong, I think that's OK. A lot of people looking for long
term reward in a new activity may seek out such demands rather than "Buy
a bigger, better X, Y or Z. Have more fun!" or "more megapixels makes
you a better photographer". We could promote that. "Soaring is more
than a trip to the mall" or whatever.
This sort of demand takes physical and emotional energy. If that's an
expectation when you begin in soaring, you'll be better prepared.
Someone in another post noted that the BGA (IIRC) is great at getting
new members but terrible at keeping them. Part of that is certainly
skill, ability, and perseverance. If people know this is part of the
package up front, or have been lured in because of it, retention of
those new members will increase.
I having these qualities is elitism, well that can be used to our
benefit too.

Shawn

[Lennie the Lurker]

Owain Walters > wrote in message >...
> >
> re: your last post - Sorry your last flight wasnt that
> good.

IT was exactly as I had intended it to be, to hold the turns in each
direction without having my airspeed all over the map. (Which, for
some unknown reason I had developed a problem with.) No other reason.
However, I seem to remember mentioning it here, and being ripped for
the short time. (On a winter day, late in the afternoon, wind coming
off Lake Michigan. Ummmm, yeah.) It doesn't matter now, it's been
long enough that if I was to start over, it would have to be from
square one, and the problem of the big mouths would still be there,
maybe the faces would change, but nothing else would. It's alright,
I've made my trip there for the year, no reason to go there again.
Doesn't matter one way or another.

[Vorsanger1]

Another target market, which I do not believe is being exploited / sollicited
are skiers. Come April /May (at least in Southern California) the local ski
slopes are closed. In the Sierras, Mammoth might still be operating but only
until early July, and it is 6 to 7 hours away. Besides, at $50 or so for a
lift ticket per day, soaring might still be as "affordable" as skiing, once the
investment for lessons is absorbed.

How does one connect with the skiers ?

Cheers, Charles

[Bill Daniels]

"Shawn Curry" > wrote in message
news:GVSfc.153187$K91.403198@attbi_s02...
> Liam Finley wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > I think the elitism problem is largely an urban myth.
> >
> > It's all too easy for unsuccesful pilots to blame elitism rather than
> > take a hard look at their own lack of skill, ability or perserverence.
>
> Stop! There it is-
> "Skill, ability, and perseverance."
> This is supposed to be a fun recreational activity/hobby/sport, yet it
> requires "skill, ability, and perseverance".
> That's a lot to ask. That sounds more like the military or marriage
> than a fun recreational activity. Any sport or hobby will benefit from
> skill, ability, and perseverance, but ours demands it as an entry fee.
> Don't get me wrong, I think that's OK. A lot of people looking for long
> term reward in a new activity may seek out such demands rather than "Buy
> a bigger, better X, Y or Z. Have more fun!" or "more megapixels makes
> you a better photographer". We could promote that. "Soaring is more
> than a trip to the mall" or whatever.
> This sort of demand takes physical and emotional energy. If that's an
> expectation when you begin in soaring, you'll be better prepared.
> Someone in another post noted that the BGA (IIRC) is great at getting
> new members but terrible at keeping them. Part of that is certainly
> skill, ability, and perseverance. If people know this is part of the
> package up front, or have been lured in because of it, retention of
> those new members will increase.
> I having these qualities is elitism, well that can be used to our
> benefit too.
>
> Shawn

I was once asked by a group of associates how hard it was to learn to land
an airplane. I thought a moment as I framed an answer that would make sense
to these non-pilots - perhaps even encourage them to try it.

Finally, thinking I had a good analogy, I said, "It's about as hard as
parallel parking a car." Disappointment flashed across their faces. "Oh",
they said as a group, "that's pretty hard". They wandered away with their
interest in aviation extinguished.

I can only reflect that aviation as a whole dodged several bullets that
morning. From time to time aviation has caught the public fancy and the
result has always been a flood of fatal accidents and higher costs for the
rest of us as a liability costs soared for anyone connected with aviation.

Soaring does take "skill, ability, and perseverance." as well as other rare
traits. Maybe that makes it "elitist" - if so, so be it. Maybe we should
take a cue from the US Marine Corp Recruiters and look for a "Few Good Men
and Women". Soaring will never be "everymans" hobby.

Bill Daniels

[Lennie the Lurker]

Martin Gregorie > wrote in message >...
>>
> Sadly, these days (in the UK anyway) it seems that accusations of
> elitism often get applied to anything that can't be mastered instantly
> and doesn't involve chasing a ball. Gliding is obviously elitist just
> because becoming a soaring pilot takes time and involves learning a
> number of new skills.
>
No, the elitism is more often in casual remarks, ("Why anyone would
want to fly that POS is beyond me."), snide little derogatory remarks
towards any that can't or won't spend themselves into bankruptcy for
the sake of maintaining an image. "You'll never (insert favorite
action here) if you keep flying (Insert favorite target aircraft
here)". What part of "This is as much as I'm willing to spend" do you
have a problem understanding? "You will soon get tired of it and want
something better." I'm tired of my 13 year old Chevy truck and would
like a Dodge Viper, too. But it ain't gonna happen. Or as the one
fellow that I still talk with told me, when they're leaning on their
trailers with the glass still inside, laughing up their sleeves
because he's going up in the 2-33, they're still standing on the
ground watching him fly. "I wouldn't waste my time flying (Insert
name here)." (Then stand there and watch everyone else fly.)
"Conditions aren't good enough today." (Great, that means your hour in
the rental is open for someone else.)

Evidently your stomach for elitism and generalized stupidity is
greater than mine.

[Chris Rollings]

We had that idea back around 1990. My Club (Booker,
UK) took a stand at the London Ski Show, with a view
to selling trial lessons, introductory courses or just
creat an interest in Gliding/Soaring. We had video,
posters etc on a stand that was manned the whole time.
The show was very well attended and we talked to a
lot of people, but only sold a two or three of trial
lessons in (I think) three days. There was no detectable
long term feedback either.

At 16:30 16 April 2004, Vorsanger1 wrote:
>Another target market, which I do not believe is being
>exploited / sollicited
>are skiers. Come April /May (at least in Southern
>California) the local ski
>slopes are closed. In the Sierras, Mammoth might still
>be operating but only
>until early July, and it is 6 to 7 hours away. Besides,
>at $50 or so for a
>lift ticket per day, soaring might still be as 'affordable'
>as skiing, once the
>investment for lessons is absorbed.
>
>How does one connect with the skiers ?
>
>Cheers, Charles
>

[BllFs6]

Great Idea but needs modification...

Set up at major college spring break area...offer cheap and/or free food and
beer for students AFTER the flight...

Youll have PLENTY of ride takers then :)

take care

Blll

PS...im only half joking about this....

[Mark James Boyd]

18 minutes? $38? Yep that's a typical short training
flight...

Hmm...Dang. As I think about it, soaring (once one gets
over the airsickness) is a blast. But in my experience,
he's right: LEARNING how to soar is kind of a big
pain in the butt...

Lennie the Lurker > wrote:
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Lennie the Lurker]

Bill Gribble > wrote in message >...
>
> Compare that to the $7000 financial cost and clear personal trauma

Change the word trauma to "personal disgust with the human race", and
it might be more accurate.

Approximately 1/3 of that cost was tiedown fees, annual inspection,
and insurance, but still money that I should have put somewhere else.

Instructors, I flew all but four flights with the same perfectly
lovely lady in the back seat. Had everyone else been half as good as
she, I would probably still be flying. Unfortunately, there is an
extremely egocentric and vocal minority to deal with. I chose not to.

The problem in soaring is not attracting new people, the problem is in
keeping them. The work of many can be undone by a few that think
their opinion carries more weight than just being their opinion. IOW,
"there's one in every crowd", but that one is more than enough.
"Sorry if my lack of sophistication has offended your champaigne
tastes. If I take my toys and don't return, will that make you
happy?"

The time to stop the irritating idiot is before he starts grinding on
someone, once he's made even a scratch, nothing anyone says or does
will make any difference. You've lost that one, and it's only a
matter of time.

[303pilot]

"John H. Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> >...but isn't it embarrassing how feebly we have tackled the
> >fourth, the easiest one to address? [Elitism]
>
> Review Wander's "GrowBook",
> http://acro.harvard.edu/SOARING/books/growbook.htm . Let's make soaring
> friendlier, less private, less mysterious.
>
I'm a bit confused by this "elitism" sub-thread.

Seven years ago when I first wandered onto the field, I saw the sleek glass
ships grid and I wanted to fly one.

I started training in the 2-33, solo'ed, and struggled to stay aloft for my
alotted hour. I saw the glass owners drive up, assemble and fly off. Only
on my duty days or if I hung around till the end of the day did I see their
high speed returns. I wasn't resentful of them, I was inspired. I wanted
to do that too. They were what we marketing types call 'my aspirant group'.
When I had enough training and experience to ask an intelligent question, I
found that they were very approachable folks and were eager to share what
they knew.

I bought a PW-5 with several partners and learned to stay up and to go
places.

I bought a 303 with a partner and go farther and faster.

Maybe some day I'll have a '28 or a Diana or a Duo to fly with my daughter
when she grows up a bit.

The reason I'm writing this is that the other week I was thinking that to
some extent, I've become one of those guys I aspired to be (humble
disclaimer: I'm well over #400 in the pilots ranking; I'm not a highly
experienced xc pilot or top of the leader board racer). But these days I do
drive up, assemble and fly off. I fly home late in the day. I put my ship
back in her box and drive home. Have I become an elitist? I don't think
so.

It isn't that I've become less friendly, more private and more mysterious.
It is that actual flying takes up more of my time around the club. Like
those who passed wisdom on to me, I'm happy to pass along what I know.

You've just got to catch me early or late.

Brent

[John Jones]

'...but still money that I should have put somewhere
else.'

That is what most wives say too. Maybe you would be
happier if you had spent all that money at the mall
on new dresses. But, then, likely not...most of those
dresses would just make you look fat.

Money spent is sunk cost and should never be considered
again in the future.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Shawn Curry > wrote in message news:<GVSfc.153187$K91.403198@attbi_s02>...
> >
> I having these qualities is elitism, well that can be used to our
> benefit too.
>
Elitism is thinking wrongly that soaring is the only thing that
requires them. Many other activities require them in far greater
amounts.

[Shawn Curry]

Lennie the Lurker wrote:
> Shawn Curry > wrote in message news:<GVSfc.153187$K91.403198@attbi_s02>...
>
>>If having these qualities is elitism, well that can be used to our
>>benefit too.
>>
>
> Elitism is thinking wrongly that soaring is the only thing that
> requires them. Many other activities require them in far greater
> amounts.

Never claimed to think that. Didn't read it here either.
Many activities only require a Visa card. Maybe its not milling a new
u-joint, or receiver for an M1 ;-), but soaring takes more effort than
reaching into your wallet at the mall.

Shawn

[Lennie the Lurker]

Tony Verhulst > wrote in message >...
> >
> Whatever. It was a poor post.

IT was also addressed to finley, and a bit milder than I could have
been, while not even feeling bad about it.

> Soaring has left you bitter and that's unfortunate.

Don't blame the activity, a minority of fatheaded soaring people are
to blame. For two and a half years I put up with and tried to fight
off the snide comments about my plane and where it would lead me, then
decided being in a bad mood all the time wasn't worth it. No sense in
thinking about a good day, when you knew there was a 90% chance that a
fat ego with a big mouth was going to destroy it for you. Better to
have an average day and not go anywhere.

I'm damn proud of the things I do and do well, even more so that if
someone has a real need, and no money, I can do it as a freebie. I
feel far better having the skills and being able to use them to
benefit than I do about having the skill to fly, and knowing that
there is no benefit.

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<408012fd$1@darkstar>...
> 18 minutes? $38? Yep that's a typical short training
> flight...
>
Typical in that respect.

Not so typical in that when I looked down, on downwind and saw the
planes being towed to the hangar that they were stored in for the
winter, I knew that it was my last one. I don't think anyone else had
any indication of my intentions until the first day of ground school
when I took all my books in and told our beloved Pawnee Pat to give
them to anyone that could use them. Abandoned my radio and somewhat
over $100 in block time, don't know what happened to them. Took me
until July or August to decide that the plane was just draining me by
sitting under the tree in the backyard.

Typical short training flight.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Shawn Curry > wrote in message >...
>
> but soaring takes more effort than
> reaching into your wallet at the mall.
>
So does playing the Pachelbel Canon in D on a keyboard, but when I'm
done, that cup of coffee is still gonna cost me 69 cents.

Get the guy that has to talk down any particular plane or class of
planes below what he has, to shut his mouth, and the perceptions of
elitism might go away a little, as well as boost retention, neither of
which would be a bad thing. Trying to capitalize on what's very
plainly a false image would be a mistake. "Fun and affordable" might
have better success, but there seems to be a problem with affordable.

[Jim Buckridge]

Why is soaring declining? That's an easy one. Because of Bush.

[Lennie the Lurker]

John Jones > wrote in message >...
> '...but still money that I should have put somewhere
> else.'
>
> That is what most wives say too. Maybe you would be
> happier if you had spent all that money at the mall
> on new dresses.

Hmmmm. I believe I've already said that I would trade every penny I
spent on soaring, every hour I've spent in a cockpit, and every
flyable day for the next fifty years, to have my wife back among the
living for one hour.
>
> Money spent is sunk cost and should never be considered
> again in the future.

Guess you don't mind repeating mistakes. I like to learn from mine.

[Lennie the Lurker]

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message news:<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-ZDsNMdvUhfb2@localhost>...
>>
<Hack>

> 2) Stimulating interest by being a competition class.

<Hack>

> It's a shame that more top-end pilots haven't taken to
> it, but I suspect that the competition year is already pretty crowded.
>
Ian, if competitors are the only ones being listened to, and you want
to attract more people for the fun of it, you're listening to the
wrong people. Get rid of the competition mindset, and realize that at
the most, 5% of the people that fly compete. You're trying to sell a
Dodge Viper, when what's needed is a Dodge Shadow. Jetskis are more
common than unlimited hydros, and for two very good reasons. First is
cost, and second is that more people are interested in just having fun
than in competing. By trying to keep everything in a competition
mindset, first you're banging your head against a stone wall, and it
feels good when you quit. You might gain a few competitors, but for
most of them, they don't hear you. for a few, they quietly leave. By
giving the impression that competition is the "all", there are many
that won't even start as soon as the think they might be expected to
compete. It's very obvious that you are a diehard competitor, and for
you, that's fine. It's when someone thinks they're being pushed to do
something they don't want to do that you'll lose them. I know my
tolerance for being pushed into something is zero and getting less.
What the top end pilots want to do, let them go there, but don't think
they have to try to drag everyone else in their footsteps. Quit
trying to make competition replace generalized fun, and a few more
people might stick around for a while. I've had my turn at
competition, and realized too late that the fun wasn't there anymore.
The fun had been replaced with only a need to stay on the top, no
matter what. That isn't going to attract anyone.

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 05:23:02 UTC, (Lennie
the Lurker) wrote:

: "Ian Johnston" > wrote in message news:<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-ZDsNMdvUhfb2@localhost>...
: >>
: <Hack>
:
: > 2) Stimulating interest by being a competition class.
:
: <Hack>
:
: > It's a shame that more top-end pilots haven't taken to
: > it, but I suspect that the competition year is already pretty crowded.
: >
: Ian, if competitors are the only ones being listened to, and you want
: to attract more people for the fun of it, you're listening to the
: wrong people.

I agree completely.

Ian

[Martin Gregorie]

On 16 Apr 2004 09:55:45 -0700, (Lennie the
Lurker) wrote:

>No, the elitism is more often in casual remarks, ("Why anyone would
>want to fly that POS is beyond me."), snide little derogatory remarks
>towards any that can't or won't spend themselves into bankruptcy for
>the sake of maintaining an image. "You'll never (insert favorite
>action here) if you keep flying (Insert favorite target aircraft
>here)". What part of "This is as much as I'm willing to spend" do you
>have a problem understanding? "You will soon get tired of it and want
>something better."
>
That's pretty sad. Where I fly the private gliders range from a really
nice Ka-6 and a couple of Capstans (British wooden side-by-side two
seater) up to new Duos and ASH-25s via a whole stack of Pegases,
Mosquitos, ASW-20s and Discii, but I've never heard those sorts of
remarks made and wouldn't dream of making them.

I don't understand people only who judge themselves and others by the
cost and shininess of their toys or those who only compete to win. I'm
moderately competitive but I do it for fun, friendship and because it
encourages me to fly on less than perfect days.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[RHWOODY]

Yeah - right - just like it "rebounded
during Clinton's administration"

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:41:34 UTC, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:

: Buying my ASW-20 and flying it for a year will cost less than œ20K.
: Amortising that cost over 10 years will reduce the yearly outlay to
: the equivalent of flying a club glider

You could get 5% interest on the 20K, which is a thousand a year.
Plus, what, five hundred for the insurance?

That fifteen hundred quid would buy you seventy hours in a Sutton Bank
DG300 (at 36p/minute) or almost twenty maximum length flights (at
œ75.20 per flight) If the purchase price needs borrowed I reckon the
payback time for a private glass glider is about 100 hours/year. Wood
50 hours/year. Both subject to midification at cheap clubs, or in
syndicates.

However, that's a by product. I like flying my wooden Pirat and I love
flying Ka8's. I have never, ever, flown either type at any club
without having a range of derogatory comments from people - often low
hours pilots who wish to buy credibility and badges - about those
types. Well stuff 'em. I know what I like and the sniping doesn't
bother me. I'm pretty sure that attitude gives a very bad impression
to many potential members who overhear it.

Ian

(PS I'm not accusing Martin of glass snobbery for an instant - I'm
just using his post as a convenient hook for my tirade!)

--

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:55:45 UTC, (Lennie
the Lurker) wrote:

: What part of "This is as much as I'm willing to spend" do you
: have a problem understanding? "You will soon get tired of it and want
: something better."

Martin seems to be talking about buying a second hand glass glider and
keeping it for ten years, so I don't think he can be accused of the
snobbery which undeniably exists...

That said, I thought when I bought the Pirat that I'd keep it for a
coupleof years and then get something posher to have more fun. But I
have realised:

1) that I'm still having a huge amount of fun at 34:1 and

2) that if I spent twice as much money I wouldn't have twice as much
fun.

Ian
--

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:25:26 UTC, Shawn Curry
> wrote:

: Liam Finley wrote:
:
: snip
:
: > I think the elitism problem is largely an urban myth.
: >
: > It's all too easy for unsuccesful pilots to blame elitism rather than
: > take a hard look at their own lack of skill, ability or perserverence.
:
: Stop! There it is-
: "Skill, ability, and perseverance."
: This is supposed to be a fun recreational activity/hobby/sport, yet it
: requires "skill, ability, and perseverance".

Most of the snide remarks aimed tend to come, in my experience, for
those who have subsituted cash for "skill. ability and perseverance"
and mistake the results for "success".

Ian

[Shawn Curry]

RHWOODY wrote:

> Yeah - right - just like it "rebounded
> during Clinton's administration"

Damn. I hate it when rupublicans are right-um correct ;-)

Shawn

[RHWOODY]

As we all know, the decline has been
happening during several administrations,
your inference that it is related to anything political just shows the lunacy
of your original post.

[Shawn Curry]

RHWOODY wrote:
> As we all know, the decline has been
> happening during several administrations,
> your inference that it is related to anything political just shows the lunacy
> of your original post.

Um, I thought I agreed with you. Go figure.

Shawn

[ADP]

I find it interesting that almost no one has mentioned what I believe to be
the real problem with soaring.
It is a pain in the butt to go soaring.
Here in the US where most soaring is done at commercial sites vs. clubs,
commercial operations make it almost impossible
for a newcomer to say "I want to take a lesson and learn how to soar". Or,
for that matter, a oldcomer to rent a glider for a time.

Commercial operations in the US are good-old-boy networks. They may be run
by nice folks but good businessmen they are not.
Reserve a glider for 10:00 and arrive at 09:30.

At that time you will find:

1. The glider is out of annual and nobody called.
2. The glider needs to be deiced and won't be ready for 3 hours.
3. The glider crashed just yesterday and nobody called.
4. The tow plane is down.
5. The tow plane pilot is late/won't be here today.
6. The tow plane needs to be refueled so can you wait an hour or two?
7. We have to use the glider for a ride, you don't mind do you?
8. Oh were you on the schedule for today?
9. Sorry you can't go right away .... (fill in your reason here.)

We retired folk can put up with it, though we may not like it. The younger
person with job, family and other obligations runs on a tight
schedule. Get put off once or twice when you still have to take the kids to
a soccer game ar mow the lawn on one of your two days
off and you are not likely to go back.

Frankly, despite the good social environment, waiting for 3 hours to fly for
1 just isn't worth my time.

The solution:
1. Join a club.
2. Buy your own glider.
3. Buy a motor glider.

I doubt that the business climate and those associated with it will ever
change. Without such change we will see a further decline in soaring
and those entering it.

Allan

[Colleen]

(Vorsanger1) wrote in message >...
> Another target market, which I do not believe is being exploited / sollicited
> are skiers. Come April /May (at least in Southern California) the local ski
> slopes are closed. In the Sierras, Mammoth might still be operating but only
> until early July, and it is 6 to 7 hours away. Besides, at $50 or so for a
> lift ticket per day, soaring might still be as "affordable" as skiing, once the
> investment for lessons is absorbed.
>
> How does one connect with the skiers ?
>
> Cheers, Charles

Forget about the skiers - our choice in attire is not trendy nor
expensive enough. Maybe if we wore clown hats with $400 outfits?
Seriously I donated a glider ride to a ski auction, and it went for
$50 - lets not talk about the $100 skies that went for $350. However,
in the same month I dontated a ride to an Avation Historical Society
and it went for close to $200 to a 70 year young woman. How is that
for promotion!

C

[Vorsanger1]

Allan

I do not know where you had the negative experiences which you described. At
the commercial operation where I am a part-time instructor (Great Western,
Pearblossom, CA) the welcome is always warm and if you have scheduled a flight
-- instruction or not -- the plane will be ready. Same for the two other
commercial operators in the same geographical area.

Cheers, Charles

[ADP]

Well Charles,

Multiple sites in CA, sites in NV, AZ, Fl and HI.
I am not saying that the welcome was not warm - it was in every case.
I'm just saying I would like a little on-time with my warm fuzzies.

If my 10 or so sites are not representative, then my luck must be colossally
bad.

Allan

"Vorsanger1" > wrote in message
...
> Allan
>
> I do not know where you had the negative experiences which you described.
> At
> the commercial operation where I am a part-time instructor (Great Western,
> Pearblossom, CA) the welcome is always warm and if you have scheduled a
> flight
> -- instruction or not -- the plane will be ready. Same for the two other
> commercial operators in the same geographical area.
>
> Cheers, Charles

[John H. Campbell]

>Yeah - right - just like it "rebounded
>during Clinton's administration"

actually, it did, at least as far as the youth particpation goes:

YEAR SSA Youth members* Fraction of SSA membership**
1993 362 2.6%
1994 364 2.7%
1995 365 2.8%
1996 377 3.0%
1997 482 3.8%
1998 542 4.2%
1999 550 4.3%
2000 660 5.2%

*formerly called "Student" members. Age 22 and under, does not include
Family member youth.
** (Youth members)/(Life + Full + Family + Youth members)

John H. Campbell
SSA Youth Committee

[Jim Buckridge]

(Jim Buckridge) wrote:

> Why is soaring declining? That's an easy one. Because of Bush.

It was a joke, folks.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Martin Gregorie > wrote in message >...
>
> >
> That's pretty sad. Where I fly the private gliders range from a really
> nice Ka-6 and a couple of Capstans (British wooden side-by-side two
> seater) up to new Duos and ASH-25s via a whole stack of Pegases,
> Mosquitos, ASW-20s and Discii, but I've never heard those sorts of
> remarks made and wouldn't dream of making them.
>
In 2 1/2 years, I heard at least one of them every day I went to the
airport. How long was I supposed to put up with it before I chucked
the whole damn thing in the trash? Every good day ruined by one
egotistic ass, and I'm supposed to think it's fun? As I've said, not
everyone, only enough of a minority to spoil the whole experience.
"Come on out and get your daily downer." Sorry, someone else can have
it.

At least a few have finally seen that I'm not aiming at specific
individuals, save for finley, and can see the points that I think are
hurting. Maybe I'm more sensitive towards certain behaviors than most
others, and I know that outside of the metalworking profession, I
don't fit in well. However, I've never said otherwise either. From
being an outsider, to an insider, and back to an outsider, I don't
think I'll rock my own boat again.

And I don't think I'm the only one.

[Lennie the Lurker]

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message news:<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-xYurcmhP6ui1@localhost>...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:55:45 UTC, (Lennie
> the Lurker) wrote:
>
> : What part of "This is as much as I'm willing to spend" do you
> : have a problem understanding? "You will soon get tired of it and want
> : something better."
>
> Martin seems to be talking about buying a second hand glass glider and
> keeping it for ten years, so I don't think he can be accused of the
> snobbery which undeniably exists...
>
And I wasn't addressing Martin, sorry if it sounded like it, but taken
as a general dialogue with others as it had happened. More like a
sarcastic statement that I wish I had more than just thought. I doubt
that any at the local field saw it coming, I don't show anything
bothering me until I explode, then I destroy everything in sight. And
I know, (Sorry, Judy) that there were many times that I belonged in my
truck headed for home, not in the cockpit behind the Pawnee.
Needless to say, on those days I did not fly well.

The number of new people is probably controlled by outside forces, but
retaining them is controlled from within. there is no "magic bullet"
that will cure it, it's going to take a lot of bullets from individual
effort.

[Don Johnstone]

I agree with much of what you say Lennie but the reality
is that the eogotists and the competion pilots are
just as important to the sport as the people who fly
the club hack. I know it is different over here in
the UK where we have very few commercial clubs but
everyone has a contibution to make. Without the egotists
with more money than brains and the competition pilots
trying to keep up with the Jones's (UK joke) the second
hand glider market would die, how else, apart from
their cast offs would I be able to buy a glider which
won four world championships.
It is the balance that maybe wrong and if people feel
disillusioned with something they will stop doing it,
how to stop them getting that way is the rub. I don't
have an answer for that but knocking any particular
faction within soaring won't do do anything to make
the disillusioned any happier. I do know that the more
new gliders bought by those that can afford it will
mean more gliders for those of us who cannot afford
the latest kit.

At 07:36 18 April 2004, Lennie The Lurker wrote:
>'Ian Johnston' wrote in message news:...
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:55:45 UTC,
>>(Lennie
>> the Lurker) wrote:
>>
>> : What part of 'This is as much as I'm willing to
>>spend' do you
>> : have a problem understanding? 'You will soon get
>>tired of it and want
>> : something better.'
>>
>> Martin seems to be talking about buying a second hand
>>glass glider and
>> keeping it for ten years, so I don't think he can
>>be accused of the
>> snobbery which undeniably exists...
>>
>And I wasn't addressing Martin, sorry if it sounded
>like it, but taken
>as a general dialogue with others as it had happened.
> More like a
>sarcastic statement that I wish I had more than just
>thought. I doubt
>that any at the local field saw it coming, I don't
>show anything
>bothering me until I explode, then I destroy everything
>in sight. And
>I know, (Sorry, Judy) that there were many times that
>I belonged in my
>truck headed for home, not in the cockpit behind the
>Pawnee.
>Needless to say, on those days I did not fly well.
>
>The number of new people is probably controlled by
>outside forces, but
>retaining them is controlled from within. there is
>no 'magic bullet'
>that will cure it, it's going to take a lot of bullets
>from individual
>effort.
>

[JohnD]

"John H. Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> >OK, so I was flying hang gliders at the time and sometimes bought Soaring
> at
> >the newsstand. (You can't do that anymore.)
>
> Just like I used to buy Hang Gliding at newstands. We were told by the SSA
> executive 10 years ago that newstand placement of Soaring was no longer
> cost-effective for magazine supplier businesses (for such a small press run
> and niche market). Is this still the case? Have the new SSA Directors, PR
> Committees, and Staff looked into that?

In my area clubs are having a hard time due to decreasing membership.
How about this: Offer Soaring to clubs and FBO's at a volume discount
(perhaps this is available now) for resale at a small profit.
Enterprising clubs and FBO's could place Soaring at different friendly
venues (General Aviation, parallel sports, and ??) on a consignement
basis with an insert promoting the local club/FBO (perhaps a discount
on first ride or membership?) The 'profits' would probably only barely
cover the losses due to pilfered magazines but the exposure and
advertising might be worth it. Is anyone doing this now? Does it work?

HAS ANYONE ATTEMPTED TO MARKET SOARING TO GENERAL AVIATION BUSINESSES
SUCH AS AIRCRAFT SPRUCE OR SPORTY'S? Is their clientelle enough of a
prospective market for us to even attempt to do so?

[Bruce Greeff]

Hank Nixon wrote:

> Tony Verhulst > wrote in message >...
>
>>I was very dissapointed with an article in the latest _Soaring_
>>magazine. It was about the SSA membership decline and all about
>>attracting SSA *members* and retaining SSA *members* - nothing about
>>soaring. I humbly suggest that if the SSA focused more on promoting
>>soaring, much of the membership decline would be taken care of.
>>
>>Tony V.
>
>
>
> Guess we all read things differently.
> My read is that we all need to introduce folks we know to the sport.
> In doing so, we have 12000 or so direct sales people.
> This will result in growing the sport, and helping to grow the society.
>
> Take a friend soaring- try direct marketing.
> UH
No there's a sensible thing to say - and it works too.
I have introduced many friends, acquaintances and work colleagues to soaring. So
far so good, our club is growing.

It helps to have an obsessive personality - soaring is never far from any topic
with me around. So far I have recruited an average of one new club member per
year - this year looks like it might be three... Over achieving here ;-)

[Lennie the Lurker]

(JohnD) wrote in message >...
>
> In my area clubs are having a hard time due to decreasing membership.

I can offer a half dozen things that I've never seen tried
consistantly, and they don't depend on waiting for any national
organization to move, or depend on a commercial concern that is more
interested in their own survival.

Get permission first, go to as many parks as you can that you know
people visit, set up a SIMPLE glider, not something that has a panel
like a 747. If there's another activity happening at the time, so
much the better, but set up someplace where you won't interfere with
that activity. You don't want to try to intercept everyone, only be
where you can be seen and heard by people that had enough interest to
come and look.

You don't want to send the club, (or commercial operation's) hotshot,
or the guy that won't fly anything below (insert L/D here), send an
average pilot, armed with enough paperwork to be able to answer most
of the questions. Send two of them, easier to put the plane together,
and you might have an audience while you're doing it. (2-33 or Lark,
bad choice, small committee needed.)

Sure, someone's going to have to give up part of a day, or a day, but
the next week it will be someone else's turn to do the same thing. If
the first time gives no results, keep trying, once is usually not
enough. I've been doing it for thirteen years in amateur astronomy,
but we've been having a slow growth of people that come back every
week now. We've also had a slow growth of people that come back with
telescopes of their own, ("Can you help me with this?")

By being consistant, and by being there, we bring in converts, but
then we also realize that at night, there isn't a lot of competition
for the audience. We also work with the park admin, and have posters
all over the place saying when and where we are and at what time.
(Usually sunset.) You also have to tie in with an activity they
understand, such as "Hmmm, birdwatchers, constellations that are named
after birds," (Corvus, Aquila, Cygnus) and do anything you can to grab
their interest, if only for a few minutes. We've even been known to
capitalize on the mysticism practiced by Tycho or the dedication of
Keppler, depending on if we're talking to serious students or UFO
freaks. You have to be flexible, have some knowledge of what they're
interested in, although just enough to know a little on the subject,
and above all, be willing to answer question after question, even
though it may seem like you just answered the same thing fifteen
seconds ago. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, School groups, we welcome
them all, fully knowing that gaining even one is unlikely, but we
don't know when that one will show up. LIke soaring, we can't afford
to miss that one.

In the thirteen years, we've seen our number grow from just the two of
us to the seven or eight that we can count on seeing on a halfway
consistant basis. That's what two can do, think of what could be done
with a dozen clubs doing the same thing, and I'm not a member of any
club. As we get people from all over, we don't know how many looked
up the local astronomy club when they got home, but it's nice to think
that maybe we did make a difference.

If anyone can tell me why it wouldn't work with soaring, I'd be
interested in hearing it.

[Jeff Dorwart]

This sounds like an excellent idea. Perhaps we could
coordinate nationally for one specific Saturday or
Sunday. That might get some national news attention.At 02:18 19 April 2004, Lennie The Lurker (JohnD) wrote in message news:...>> >> In my area clubs are having a hard time due to decreasing
>>membership.>>I can offer a half dozen things that I've never seen
>tried>consistantly, and they don't depend on waiting for
>any national>organization to move, or depend on a commercial concern
>that is more>interested in their own survival.>>Get permission first, go to as many parks as you can
>that you know>people visit, set up a SIMPLE glider, not something
>that has a panel>like a 747. If there's another activity happening
>at the time, so>much the better, but set up someplace where you won't
>interfere with>that activity. You don't want to try to intercept
>everyone, only be>where you can be seen and heard by people that had
>enough interest to >come and look.>>You don't want to send the club, (or commercial operation's)
>hotshot,>or the guy that won't fly anything below (insert L/D
>here), send an>average pilot, armed with enough paperwork to be able
>to answer most>of the questions. Send two of them, easier to put
>the plane together,>and you might have an audience while you're doing it.
> (2-33 or Lark,>bad choice, small committee needed.)>>Sure, someone's going to have to give up part of a
>day, or a day, but>the next week it will be someone else's turn to do
>the same thing. If>the first time gives no results, keep trying, once
>is usually not>enough. I've been doing it for thirteen years in amateur
>astronomy,>but we've been having a slow growth of people that
>come back every>week now. We've also had a slow growth of people that
>come back with>telescopes of their own, ('Can you help me with this?')>>By being consistant, and by being there, we bring in
>converts, but>then we also realize that at night, there isn't a lot
>of competition>for the audience. We also work with the park admin,
>and have posters>all over the place saying when and where we are and
>at what time. >(Usually sunset.) You also have to tie in with an
>activity they>understand, such as 'Hmmm, birdwatchers, constellations
>that are named>after birds,' (Corvus, Aquila, Cygnus) and do anything
>you can to grab>their interest, if only for a few minutes. We've even
>been known to>capitalize on the mysticism practiced by Tycho or the
>dedication of>Keppler, depending on if we're talking to serious students
>or UFO>freaks. You have to be flexible, have some knowledge
>of what they're>interested in, although just enough to know a little
>on the subject,>and above all, be willing to answer question after
>question, even>though it may seem like you just answered the same
>thing fifteen>seconds ago. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, School
>groups, we welcome>them all, fully knowing that gaining even one is unlikely,
>but we>don't know when that one will show up. LIke soaring,
>we can't afford>to miss that one.>>In the thirteen years, we've seen our number grow from
>just the two of>us to the seven or eight that we can count on seeing
>on a halfway>consistant basis. That's what two can do, think of
>what could be done>with a dozen clubs doing the same thing, and I'm not
>a member of any>club. As we get people from all over, we don't know
>how many looked>up the local astronomy club when they got home, but
>it's nice to think>that maybe we did make a difference.>>If anyone can tell me why it wouldn't work with soaring,
>I'd be>interested in hearing it.>

[Liam Finley]

(JohnD) wrote in message >...
> HAS ANYONE ATTEMPTED TO MARKET SOARING TO GENERAL AVIATION BUSINESSES
> SUCH AS AIRCRAFT SPRUCE OR SPORTY'S? Is their clientelle enough of a
> prospective market for us to even attempt to do so?

The SSA had some promotion going on with Sporty's a while back. I
remember reading that it was a total flop.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Don Johnstone > wrote in message >...
> I agree with much of what you say Lennie but the reality
> is that the eogotists and the competion pilots are
> just as important to the sport as the people who fly
> the club hack.

Don, it took several people nearly three months before I decided to
even take an introductory ride, and that was more to see if I was
going to have problems with my sinus, something I've had as long as I
can remember. It took one of the mouths that couldn't shut exactly
three weeks to give me an indication that the remarks and derision of
the plane, and where it would take me, would never stop. A lot of
good people did what they could to counteract the poison tongues, but
once that first scratch is made in the enthusiasm, it's only a matter
of time before it crumbles. The big ego doesn't see him or herself as
they are, and it seems to them, or so I imagine, that they're only
offering "sage advice". "Sage advice" would have been for them to
keep their mouths shut.

As far as the gliders go, I had my 1-26 and was happy with it, I was
even happy with it after I had flown it.

It makes no difference really, three people worked very hard to get me
to try it, two more joined them in trying to counteract the badmouth,
only to meet with failure because of a small number of people with fat
heads and huge egos. The end result, Egotist, one, soaring, zero.
Not the total cause, but enough that I decided the expense I was
paying wasn't worth it. I can stay at home and be ignored, which sure
beats going to the field and being irritated.

One of the "Michaels", don't remember which, once declared me as a
"total loss". Guess he was right, but I'm still the one that came out
on top.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Jeff Dorwart > wrote in message >...
> This sounds like an excellent idea. Perhaps we could
> coordinate nationally for one specific Saturday or
> Sunday. That might get some national news attention.At 02:18 19 April 2004,

Hmmm. Seems that once again I didn't make things clear. We do it
every saturday night through spring through fall, and the object isn't
to see as many people as possible, it's to see how many return week
after week. By the time you've seen the same face four times in a
row, you know you have another convert, but you MUST be consistantly
there. The first few weeks we try for as many as possible, but then
ALL of our effort goes into keeping their interest. Several times
each season we set up earlier, and before dark spend the time showing
and explaining our instruments. We do NOT have an organization of our
own, but we do have lists of the different astronomical societies and
contact information. From the two of us that started, we now have
many others that join us, and instead of asking questions, they're
bringing their own telescopes. Two people can make a difference, but
the start before you see any success can be long and frustrating. We
have our differences, I like planets, my partner likes deep space
stuff, but instead of competing, we compliment each other in what we
can offer.

Astronomy has their "Great Night Out", but as far as I know, it seldom
wins the interest of many for more than that one night. It's a long,
steady effort, I don't have many weekends in the season that I don't
have to be there, but having a few hardcore converts makes it worth
the effort. It's a damn lot of work, and your only reward may well be
seeing a little girl's or boy's face light up when they seen the
craters on the moon for the first time. If you want to establish
something even halfway permanent, it has to be done. As our season
headcounts exceed any other of the park activities, I'd say we've done
quite well.

[Bert Willing]

In all the European clubs I have come across, I never watched such a
behaviour. Although I personally think that a PW5 or a 1-26 don't represent
good value for the money (I haven't tons of money, so I need to care :-) I
and most people I met sincerely believe that it is not important what
exactly you fly, the important thing is to fly and to have fun.
And if it comes to all those low-performance-monsters - that's how I started
out long ago, and although I much prefer the ships I fly today there are
very good memories (that I don't want to miss) connected to Ka8, Ka7 L-Spatz
and so on.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Lennie the Lurker" > a écrit dans le message de
om...
> Martin Gregorie > wrote in message
>...
> >>
> > Sadly, these days (in the UK anyway) it seems that accusations of
> > elitism often get applied to anything that can't be mastered instantly
> > and doesn't involve chasing a ball. Gliding is obviously elitist just
> > because becoming a soaring pilot takes time and involves learning a
> > number of new skills.
> >
> No, the elitism is more often in casual remarks, ("Why anyone would
> want to fly that POS is beyond me."), snide little derogatory remarks
> towards any that can't or won't spend themselves into bankruptcy for
> the sake of maintaining an image. "You'll never (insert favorite
> action here) if you keep flying (Insert favorite target aircraft
> here)". What part of "This is as much as I'm willing to spend" do you
> have a problem understanding? "You will soon get tired of it and want
> something better." I'm tired of my 13 year old Chevy truck and would
> like a Dodge Viper, too. But it ain't gonna happen. Or as the one
> fellow that I still talk with told me, when they're leaning on their
> trailers with the glass still inside, laughing up their sleeves
> because he's going up in the 2-33, they're still standing on the
> ground watching him fly. "I wouldn't waste my time flying (Insert
> name here)." (Then stand there and watch everyone else fly.)
> "Conditions aren't good enough today." (Great, that means your hour in
> the rental is open for someone else.)
>
> Evidently your stomach for elitism and generalized stupidity is
> greater than mine.

[Martin Gregorie]

On 17 Apr 2004 22:51:42 -0700, (Lennie the
Lurker) wrote:

>Martin Gregorie > wrote in message >...
>>
>> >
>> That's pretty sad. Where I fly the private gliders range from a really
>> nice Ka-6 and a couple of Capstans (British wooden side-by-side two
>> seater) up to new Duos and ASH-25s via a whole stack of Pegases,
>> Mosquitos, ASW-20s and Discii, but I've never heard those sorts of
>> remarks made and wouldn't dream of making them.
>>
>In 2 1/2 years, I heard at least one of them every day I went to the
>airport. How long was I supposed to put up with it before I chucked
>the whole damn thing in the trash? Every good day ruined by one
>egotistic ass, and I'm supposed to think it's fun? As I've said, not
>everyone, only enough of a minority to spoil the whole experience.
>"Come on out and get your daily downer." Sorry, someone else can have
>it.
>
>At least a few have finally seen that I'm not aiming at specific
>individuals, save for finley, and can see the points that I think are
>hurting. Maybe I'm more sensitive towards certain behaviors than most
>others, and I know that outside of the metalworking profession, I
>don't fit in well. However, I've never said otherwise either. From
>being an outsider, to an insider, and back to an outsider, I don't
>think I'll rock my own boat again.
>
>And I don't think I'm the only one.

The location I live in may have a small advantage over yours: there
are three or so local clubs I could have joined initially. I was
fortunate that the one I fly with was the first I looked at, it felt
right at my first visit and that impression was not misleading.

We may be guilty of not always talking to newcomers as much as we
should, but I've never heard put-downs around the flight line.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Martin Gregorie]

On 18 Apr 2004 23:11:00 -0700, (Lennie the
Lurker) wrote:

>As far as the gliders go, I had my 1-26 and was happy with it, I was
>even happy with it after I had flown it.
>
Dammit, Lennie, you keep putting reasons in front of me to visit the
States again - I really must fly a 1-26 to see why so many pilots like
them.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[soarski]

Martin Gregorie > wrote in message >...
> On 18 Apr 2004 23:11:00 -0700, (Lennie the
> Lurker) wrote:
>
> >As far as the gliders go, I had my 1-26 and was happy with it, I was
> >even happy with it after I had flown it.
> >
> Dammit, Lennie, you keep putting reasons in front of me to visit the
> States again - I really must fly a 1-26 to see why so many pilots like
> them.


That's funny, Martin picked up on the positive note! AND..he will
spend some pounds in the US to fly our beloved 1-26! BTW, There is a
good chance that most altitude Diamonds were flown in that type of
ship. 30 Years ago droves of people from all over the world, picked up
their diamonds in the Mine at Black Forrest Gliderport in Colorado
Springs.

Guess there is a reason Lennie calls himself the Lurker. He initially
meant to
just DO that. If he would just keep away from that keyboard unless he
had some positive thoughts? I learned something about Steel!

Lets all be very positive and the sport will SOAR.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Martin Gregorie > wrote in message >...
> On 18 Apr 2004 23:11:00 -0700, (Lennie the
> Lurker) wrote:
>
> >As far as the gliders go, I had my 1-26 and was happy with it, I was
> >even happy with it after I had flown it.
> >
> Dammit, Lennie, you keep putting reasons in front of me to visit the
> States again - I really must fly a 1-26 to see why so many pilots like
> them.

Think it appeals to those that like to keep things simple. It's a
simple plane, rigging it takes two people maybe 20 minutes, the second
time, and, mine anyhow, the cockpit was pretty uncluttered. Rudder
inputs are more like what one would expect from a powered plane,
pressures instead of movements, but other than being more responsive
than the 2-33 was, it flew about the same.

Then there's the possibility that some of them just like thumbing
their noses at the glassholes and cranking out some pretty darn
impressive flights. Not a world beater or record setter, but for
puttering in the "house thermal" just a fun little plane.

[Tony Verhulst]

> It helps to have an obsessive personality - soaring is never far from
> any topic with me around. So far I have recruited an average of one new
> club member per year - this year looks like it might be three... Over
> achieving here ;-)


I used to be like that- my wife called me the flying evangelist. I've
since learned that in a function room with 200 people, only one or two
have any real interest in soaring. It boggles my mind, but there it is.
When I meet some one they soon understand that I fly sailplanes and that
a ride is available at the drop of a hat. But, they have to ask.

Tony V.

[Bill Gribble]

Tony Verhulst > writes
>I used to be like that- my wife called me the flying evangelist. I've
>since learned that in a function room with 200 people, only one or two
>have any real interest in soaring. It boggles my mind, but there it is.

Got to confess, it is absolutely baffling.

I find friends and family are at first surprised and faintly bemused to
find that I've got myself mixed up in this game, but from then on they
all seem to develop the same glazed, listless expression whenever my own
eyes (inevitably) drift skywards or conversation so much as hints at
either flying or the weather.

Strange people, the lot of 'em.

--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

[Michael]

Martin Gregorie > wrote
> >As far as the gliders go, I had my 1-26 and was happy with it, I was
> >even happy with it after I had flown it.
> >
> Dammit, Lennie, you keep putting reasons in front of me to visit the
> States again - I really must fly a 1-26 to see why so many pilots like
> them.

Pilots like them because they're fun to fly. Light on the controls,
turns tight, thermals on a fart. Won't penetrate worth a damn, but if
the winds are light or you're going downwind it's a hoot. Think Ka-8,
only the wings are shorter (and consequently the glide ratio is lower)
and the control feel not quite as good. Thing is, Ka-8's are not very
common in the US and in that class of glider, the 1-26 is the next
best thing (among those commonly available in the US). Also, Ka-8's
have wood wings, which scares some people and makes it impossible to
tie them down outside. 1-26's have metal wings.

Michael

[Marcel Duenner]

> It makes no difference really, three people worked very hard to get me
> to try it, two more joined them in trying to counteract the badmouth,
> only to meet with failure because of a small number of people with fat
> heads and huge egos. The end result, Egotist, one, soaring, zero.
> Not the total cause, but enough that I decided the expense I was
> paying wasn't worth it. I can stay at home and be ignored, which sure
> beats going to the field and being irritated.
>
> One of the "Michaels", don't remember which, once declared me as a
> "total loss". Guess he was right, but I'm still the one that came out
> on top.

This persons self confidence seems to be close to zero when it comes
to soaring, given he gave up because of one other persons opinion. Or
were there more, perhaps...?
On the other hand his self confidence seems to be equally unlimited
while he tries to convince the soaring world they are all making a big
mistake, he's the only one who's wright, trying with amazing amount of
time and energy to prove they are all terribly wrong in all their
positive thoughts about this sport and don't know what they are doing.

>I can stay at home and be ignored...

Very obvious you can't.

> but I'm still the one that came out on top.

Can't quite see how, given the cloudbase at 6500ft and me at 9000ft
yesterday ridgesoaring the clouds. The beauty of it was overwhelming.
Hard to understand how anyone can desperately not want such an
experience.
And more than that - he doesn't want any one else having it, either.
OK I can understand that - it's called jealousy and is quite common.
Nothing to worry about, Lenny.

[JohnD]

Lennie,
When you choose to listen to the negative minority rather than the
postive majory YOU CHOOSE to live a sad and bitter life. IT IS YOUR
CHOICE. If you have no more determination than to give up due to some
negative words then you SHOULD move on to something else.

You obviously find a great deal of pleasure helping others with your
work. What if someone told you the wheelchair axle wasn't perfect and
derided you. Would you quit that too? I think not.

Since you don't soar anymore why don't you take YOUR negativity and
spite and move on, leave us alone so that we can enjoy our sport
whether we fly a 1-26, a PW5, or a Nimbus. Please do us a favor and
move on.

You will have then chosen to be a happier person. May you find peace
and happiness.


(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...
> Don Johnstone > wrote in message >...
> > I agree with much of what you say Lennie but the reality
> > is that the eogotists and the competion pilots are
> > just as important to the sport as the people who fly
> > the club hack.
>
> Don, it took several people nearly three months before I decided to
> even take an introductory ride, and that was more to see if I was
> going to have problems with my sinus, something I've had as long as I
> can remember. It took one of the mouths that couldn't shut exactly
> three weeks to give me an indication that the remarks and derision of
> the plane, and where it would take me, would never stop. A lot of
> good people did what they could to counteract the poison tongues, but
> first scratch is made in the enthusiasm, it's only a matter
> of time before it crumbles. The big ego doesn't see him or herself as
> they are, and it seems to them, or so I imagine, that they're only
> offering "sage advice". "Sage advice" would have been for them to
> keep their mouths shut.
>
> As far as the gliders go, I had my 1-26 and was happy with it, I was
> even happy with it after I had flown it.
>
> It makes no difference really, three people worked very hard to get me
> to try it, two more joined them in trying to counteract the badmouth,
> only to meet with failure because of a small number of people with fat
> heads and huge egos. The end result, Egotist, one, soaring, zero.
> Not the total cause, but enough that I decided the expense I was
> paying wasn't worth it. I can stay at home and be ignored, which sure
> beats going to the field and being irritated.
>
> One of the "Michaels", don't remember which, once declared me as a
> "total loss". Guess he was right, but I'm still the one that came out
> on top.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Martin Gregorie > wrote in message >...
>>
> The location I live in may have a small advantage over yours: there
> are three or so local clubs I could have joined initially. I was
> fortunate that the one I fly with was the first I looked at, it felt
> right at my first visit and that impression was not misleading.

There are two, and possibly a third, within a reasonable driving
distance from me. (Reasonable for most people, two miles across town
to the hardware store isn't reasonable to me.) I've been to two of
them, the nearest club and the commercial that I flew from. The one
trip to the club, before I had even taken the introductory ride was a
disaster, I ran into the local asshole right off the bat. The
possible third, a few people have decided to fly there instead of the
operation I was with, but within three months they were back.
(Northern Illinois, megabuck territory, you can smell the money. OR,
as my buddy put it, "You are in one of the weathiest towns on the
planet, you are looking for a way out of there.")
>
> We may be guilty of not always talking to newcomers as much as we
> should, but I've never heard put-downs around the flight line.

The "put down" seems to be something we have elevated to an art form,
and honed to perfection, often very cutting. I can be as guilty there
as anyone else, but I usually confine it to something that I see as
gross stupidity. And as I've said before, perhaps I'm more sensitive
to some behaviors than most people, but sometimes I wonder how many
other people also are.

[Wayne Paul]

It should be noted that Lennie machined the nicest Schreder flap crank
system that I have ever seen I wish I had one for my HP-14!!

Lennie, if you have one sitting around, I sure would like to buy it!!
(Please contact me directly.)

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

[Lennie the Lurker]

"Bert Willing" > wrote in message >...
> In all the European clubs I have come across, I never watched such a
> behaviour.

There is a difference between a club and a commercial operation. In a
club, such things can be somewhat controlled by general consensus. In
a commercial, it's paying customer to paying customer, and nobody is
in control of it.

One example of things I disagree with, one of the aircraft supply
houses saw in their "infinite wisdom" that I "needed" a subscription
to Flying magazine, without asking if I wanted it. It has been over
two years since I even sat in a cockpit, and I pointed this out to
them when I called them and told them to cancel the subscription.
Another copy of the mag lasted five seconds between being placed in my
mailbox, and placed on the bottom of the garbage can. (And if anyone
can't make the connection, what I told them was "NO!", not "maybe".
["What part of NO do you not understand?"]) A certain amount of
aggressiveness is needed to bring in new people. Going beyond that is
pushing something I've already stated I don't want. There is no risk
that they're going to **** me off a little more, it's a certainty.

[Bruce Greeff]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Eric presents a reasonable picture of the glider market. In fact, I think
> the present glider market is about right. There is a market for
> state-of-the-art gliders for competition and a flourishing market in used
> gliders.
>
> A person of modest means can buy a 20 year old glass glider with spectacular
> performance. That 20 year old glider wouldn't be such a bargain on the used
> market if some competition pilot hadn't bought it for an astronomical sum
> when it was new. We need to stop knocking competition, it creates a market
> of really neat used gliders. When I started, if you wanted a high
> performance glider, you had to build it. By comparison, this market is
> nirvana. The availability and cost of gliders isn't the real problem.
>
> One of the many problems that does need attention is training costs. Rental
> and airtow make getting a glider rating cost more than a private power
> certificate in many locations. It's also a LOT more hassle to get glider
> training because of the short flights and long waits. For anyone interested
> in aviation but who hasn't chosen whether to go for soaring or another
> aviation related activity, this is a problem. Glider training costs,
> particularly the overall hourly rates, just don't look reasonable by
> comparison.
>
> Now, I'm NOT suggesting that anyone is overcharging for rentals or air tows.
> It costs what is does for very good reasons. It's just that those reasons
> are not apparent to the newcomer.
>
> I think it might be a good idea to take a long hard look at the training
> "experience" from the students point of view to see if there isn't something
> that could be done to make it more attractive. The first thing I would
> suggest is to look at winch launch for training.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Lennie the Lurker wrote:
>>
>>>Almost every sailplane made today is made with the
>>>competitor in mind, and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
>>>any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell.
>>
>>There is some truth to this claim, but it's more complicated than the
>>manufacturers "not listening". They know their gliders must do well in
>>competition (at least the major factories), because potential buyers
>>think this is important, even though the majority of buyers aren't
>>serious competitors (note that the majority of the German sailplane
>>production is now motorized).
>>
>>There are some "second-tier" gliders, like the reintroduction of the
>>Glasflugel 304, the Russia AC-4, Apis, and Silent; however, any new
>>glider that isn't a top-of-the-line glider has some serious competition
>>in the market: used gliders. Glider last a long time, and the
>>performance improvements have been slow, so a new glider that isn't
>>better, just cheaper, has to compete with equal performance, even
>>cheaper used gliders.
>>
>>This situation is quite different from the hang glider market, where the
>>gliders wear out much sooner, and the improvements from year to year are
>>much greater than they are for sailplanes.
>>
>> > and the manufacturers aren't going to listen to
>> > any suggestion that maybe something more pedestrian might sell.
>>
>>Just join a thread ripping apart the PW5 to see how something "more
>>pedestrian" might sell. The PW5 actually has sold OK, as did the Russia,
>>and so that may be why we now have the Apis and Silent (at least in
>>part). Attitudes are slowly changing, and "moderate" performance is
>>becoming more acceptable.
>>
>>The manufacturers would probably build more intermediate gliders if the
>>sport was growing fast enough to drive up the price of the used gliders,
>>thus making a new glider of similar performance profitable enough to be
>>worthwhile.
>>--
>>-----
>>change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>>Eric Greenwell
>>Washington State
>>USA
>>
>
>
Hi Eric

Got to second that. I really can't understand why winch is not used more, it is
cheaper, faster and in some ways safer than aerotow.

There is no comparison in terms of profitability for the club. A good winch is a
license to print money in most clubs, and a fraction of the cost for the pilots.

Even our old lump can throw 30 launches a day to 1500"+ at a cost of under $4
per launch - and make a profit doing it.

[Lennie the Lurker]

(soarski) wrote in message >...
>
> Guess there is a reason Lennie calls himself the Lurker. He initially
> meant to
> just DO that.

Ummmm, Lennie the Lurker was created specifically for good old
fashioned flame fests on alt.aviation.safety. With one thing or
another, such as the increase in spam everytime I used my real email
addy, it didn't take long before letting the spam go to the lycos box,
or at that time the Deja box, began to make sense. Since then one ISP
went belly up, another lost their news server, and my present one
never had or offered one, so Google is what's left. Makes sense to
use the Lycos addy, one click and the whole page of headers is marked
for deleting. One more and they're gone. My real email addy is my
real name, but there are five other people in this state with the same
first and last names, and if I have to change it, I won't be able to
use the other abbreviations. IT's also set up with a "reverse
killfile", if your name isn't in the book, "Delete from server."

Lennie the Lurker
President and Public Relations Officer
Whack-A-Loon, Ink.
Makers and Purveyors of Fine Quality Loon Mallets

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Marcel Duenner) wrote in message >...
>>
> Can't quite see how, given the cloudbase at 6500ft and me at 9000ft
> yesterday ridgesoaring the clouds. The beauty of it was overwhelming.
> Hard to understand how anyone can desperately not want such an
> experience.
> And more than that - he doesn't want any one else having it, either.
> OK I can understand that - it's called jealousy and is quite common.
> Nothing to worry about, Lenny.

And me, not having any signatures in the logbook, while I stand around
my 27 metalworking machines, all of them paid for. (Plus about a ton
of raw material to choose from to make whatever crosses my mind.
(Lately, scale models of 16th century Russian naval cannon.))

[Lennie the Lurker]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message >...
> It should be noted that Lennie machined the nicest Schreder flap crank
> system that I have ever seen I wish I had one for my HP-14!!
>
> Lennie, if you have one sitting around, I sure would like to buy it!!
> (Please contact me directly.)
>
I hate it when someone catches me while I'm looking at the tool catalogs!

(Email sent)

[Lennie the Lurker]

(JohnD) wrote in message >...
> Lennie,
> When you choose to listen to the negative minority rather than the
> postive majory YOU CHOOSE to live a sad and bitter life. IT IS YOUR
> CHOICE. If you have no more determination than to give up due to some
> negative words then you SHOULD move on to something else.

Hmmm. 2 1/2 years is reasonable? Like maybe I didn't hear it the
first time? I'm also afraid that five people isn't a majority. I've
said it before, the cost was the main reason, all the mouths did was
make it that much easier to decide that it wasn't worth the cost.
>
> You obviously find a great deal of pleasure helping others with your
> work. What if someone told you the wheelchair axle wasn't perfect and
> derided you. Would you quit that too? I think not.

First, they wouldn't deride me, and secondly, I'd make a new one
immediately. I don't blame the machine, and you can't lie to a
micrometer. Thirdly, if any did try to deride me, I'd tell them to
contact the manufacturer and pay through the nose for it.
>
It's quite evident that you have never worked with a german toolmaker,
you have no idea of what negative is yet. I see that a few have
understood what I'm saying, and maybe they might be able to prevent
the interest of another person from being destroyed. IF you want to
fix a situation, you look at all the reasons that it needs fixing, not
exclude the ones that might possibly include yourself. IF you're
going to exclude one, you might as well exclude them all.

[Eric Greenwell]

Liam Finley wrote:

> Pat Russell > wrote in message >...
>
>>Allow me to summarize what I have learned from this thread.
>>Soaring has declined for these reasons:
>>
>> 1. Money
>> 2. Accessibility
>> 3. Competition from other activities
>> 4. Elitism
>>
>>Valiant efforts have been made to lessen the impact of the first
>>three, but isn't it embarrassing how feebly we have tackled the
>>fourth, the easiest one to address?
>>
>>-Pat
>
>
> I think the elitism problem is largely an urban myth.
>
> It's all too easy for unsuccesful pilots to blame elitism rather than
> take a hard look at their own lack of skill, ability or perserverence.
>
> Perhaps we should start voluntarily limiting our flights to 1 hour and
> within 15 miles of the airport so the Lennies of the world needn't
> feel so bad about their lack of achievement.

Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us". Nothing Lennie says could
be worse than this.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Ben Flewett]

Lennie,

Given that you have quit gliding, why don't you quit
'contributing' to this site? I don't understand why
you persist in partaking of discussions on a subject
you are no longer interested in. However, I strongly
suspect it because you do not require assistance from
other persons in obtaining sexual gratification.

Regards,

Ben.




At 01:42 20 April 2004, Lennie The Lurker wrote:
(JohnD) wrote in message news:...
>> Lennie,
>> When you choose to listen to the negative minority
>>rather than the
>> postive majory YOU CHOOSE to live a sad and bitter
>>life. IT IS YOUR
>> CHOICE. If you have no more determination than to
>>give up due to some
>> negative words then you SHOULD move on to something
>>else.
>
>Hmmm. 2 1/2 years is reasonable? Like maybe I didn't
>hear it the
>first time? I'm also afraid that five people isn't
>a majority. I've
>said it before, the cost was the main reason, all the
>mouths did was
>make it that much easier to decide that it wasn't worth
>the cost.
>>
>> You obviously find a great deal of pleasure helping
>>others with your
>> work. What if someone told you the wheelchair axle
>>wasn't perfect and
>> derided you. Would you quit that too? I think not.
>
>First, they wouldn't deride me, and secondly, I'd make
>a new one
>immediately. I don't blame the machine, and you can't
>lie to a
>micrometer. Thirdly, if any did try to deride me,
>I'd tell them to
>contact the manufacturer and pay through the nose for
>it.
>>
>It's quite evident that you have never worked with
>a german toolmaker,
>you have no idea of what negative is yet. I see that
>a few have
>understood what I'm saying, and maybe they might be
>able to prevent
>the interest of another person from being destroyed.
> IF you want to
>fix a situation, you look at all the reasons that it
>needs fixing, not
>exclude the ones that might possibly include yourself.
> IF you're
>going to exclude one, you might as well exclude them
>all.
>

[Don Johnstone]

and is this not exactly the reason why soaring is declining,
because some people within the sport cannot participate
in a reasoned argument without resorting to verbal
abuse and personal attacks. Everyone is entitled to
an opinion and to express that opinion. Who is to say
if Lennie is right or wrong? The fact is that he has
been put off gliding, for whatever reason, and if too
many people are put off then the whole sport suffers.

I have to say I agree with his reasoning up to a point,
but to be honest, not the way in which he puts that
across, but who am I to talk, I can be blunt too.

If all you have to contibute is name calling and personal
abuse then perhaps you are insecure and less sucessful
that you want to be, more to be pitied than blamed.
Try working on making yourself better not everyone
else worse. Violence of any sort is the last resort
of the imcompetent.



DAJ

At 10:00 20 April 2004, Ben Flewett wrote:
>Lennie,
>
>Given that you have quit gliding, why don't you quit
>'contributing' to this site? I don't understand why
>you persist in partaking of discussions on a subject
>you are no longer interested in. However, I strongly
>suspect it because you do not require assistance from
>other persons in obtaining sexual gratification.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ben.
>
>
>
>
>At 01:42 20 April 2004, Lennie The Lurker wrote:
(JohnD) wrote in message news:...
>>> Lennie,
>>> When you choose to listen to the negative minority
>>>rather than the
>>> postive majory YOU CHOOSE to live a sad and bitter
>>>life. IT IS YOUR
>>> CHOICE. If you have no more determination than to
>>>give up due to some
>>> negative words then you SHOULD move on to something
>>>else.
>>
>>Hmmm. 2 1/2 years is reasonable? Like maybe I didn't
>>hear it the
>>first time? I'm also afraid that five people isn't
>>a majority. I've
>>said it before, the cost was the main reason, all the
>>mouths did was
>>make it that much easier to decide that it wasn't worth
>>the cost.
>>>
>>> You obviously find a great deal of pleasure helping
>>>others with your
>>> work. What if someone told you the wheelchair axle
>>>wasn't perfect and
>>> derided you. Would you quit that too? I think not.
>>
>>First, they wouldn't deride me, and secondly, I'd make
>>a new one
>>immediately. I don't blame the machine, and you can't
>>lie to a
>>micrometer. Thirdly, if any did try to deride me,
>>I'd tell them to
>>contact the manufacturer and pay through the nose for
>>it.
>>>
>>It's quite evident that you have never worked with
>>a german toolmaker,
>>you have no idea of what negative is yet. I see that
>>a few have
>>understood what I'm saying, and maybe they might be
>>able to prevent
>>the interest of another person from being destroyed.
>> IF you want to
>>fix a situation, you look at all the reasons that it
>>needs fixing, not
>>exclude the ones that might possibly include yourself.
>> IF you're
>>going to exclude one, you might as well exclude them
>>all.
>>
>
>
>
>

[Janos Bauer]

I think it's worth to read what Lennie writes here (whatever style he
use). It's an unusual chance to hear about someone who decided to quit.
I felt something similar what described here before switched to my new
club... In previous club there were several "old pilots" (spent more
than 5 years at the airport) who believed they are somehow special just
because they do this sport. They also expressed that they are somehow
rule everyone who joined the club not too long ago.

/Janos

JohnD wrote:
>
> Lennie,
> When you choose to listen to the negative minority rather than the
> postive majory YOU CHOOSE to live a sad and bitter life. IT IS YOUR
> CHOICE. If you have no more determination than to give up due to some
> negative words then you SHOULD move on to something else.
>
> You obviously find a great deal of pleasure helping others with your
> work. What if someone told you the wheelchair axle wasn't perfect and
> derided you. Would you quit that too? I think not.
>
> Since you don't soar anymore why don't you take YOUR negativity and
> spite and move on, leave us alone so that we can enjoy our sport
> whether we fly a 1-26, a PW5, or a Nimbus. Please do us a favor and
> move on.
>
> You will have then chosen to be a happier person. May you find peace
> and happiness.
>

[Bill Gribble]

Don Johnstone writes
>and is this not exactly the reason why soaring is declining, because
>some people within the sport cannot participate in a reasoned argument
>without resorting to verbal abuse and personal attacks.

I doubt that this has anything to do with any decline in soaring,
perceived or otherwise. The inability of some people to participate in a
reasoned argument without resorting to verbal abuse and personal attack
is generic to (multinational and cross-cultural) society as a whole, not
just the soaring fraternity.

> Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express that opinion. Who is
>to say if Lennie is right or wrong? The fact is that he has been put
>off gliding, for whatever reason, and if too many people are put off
>then the whole sport suffers.

I wouldn't presume to judge Lennie, save on the basis of how he portrays
himself on this forum and in this context. But on this forum and in this
context he is both very vocal with his arguments, provocative and
emotive in the way that he expresses his opinions and oddball in that he
vehemently derides something that is a consuming passion of everybody
else here and is the whole point and subject of these forums and yet
here he still remains. You'll forgive me for commenting, but I find that
somewhat perverse (if amusing, however).

Lennie has said himself that the tag "Lennie the Lurker" was an identity
he created specifically to indulge in flame wars on a previous aviation
forum. Other Internet communities I've previously been a part of would
dismiss (and flame) such a character as a "troll". Ben Flewett felt
compelled to find an amusing way of calling him a ******. A rose by any
other name? Hardly a surprise that somebody should feel so inspired, and
hardly a reflection on the state of the global soaring community, its
decline or otherwise.

>If all you have to contibute is name calling and personal abuse then
>perhaps you are insecure and less sucessful that you want to be, more
>to be pitied than blamed. Try working on making yourself better not
>everyone else worse. Violence of any sort is the last resort of the
>imcompetent.

Uh, incompetent? I'm quite sure Mr Flewett can fight his own battles,
but in any case, now who's getting personal? And, for that matter, who
the hell am I to comment on amother man's typos? :P

Newbie question of my own, just to justify this post with lip service
towards the topic in-hand - Is there hard, undisputed statistical
evidence to show that soaring is actually in decline?

It strikes me that soaring is always going to be a more specialist
pastime. Call it elitist if you will, but if you read only negative into
that then you are missing the point.

Elitism is fine, laudable even if it is an open, benevolent elitism, an
obtainable available to anybody that wants to put in the effort and
dedication required to reach the necessary standard. But not everybody
will want to do that. To others the cost and sacrifice simply wouldn't
be worth it.

Could be I'm fortunate. The club membership I've landed with have been
open, friendly, welcoming and generally tolerant of me as an incoming
newbie. However, I'll be honest and say that to me, standing around a
cold, damp airfield all day waiting for a couple of circuits with a
stranger for an instructor would be a worthwhile sacrifice on the road
to learning to soar. The fact that I've been able to do it in good
company, that I generally get more than a couple of circuits for my
labours and none of the instructors remained strangers for more than a
single launch is a bonus. I'm not complaining.

But I didn't take up gliding for the social group. I didn't do it to
make new friends and influence people. I certainly didn't do it to gain
the approval of anybody, and certainly not the approval of strangers.

I did it because hanging alone upon a thermal beneath the dewpoint with
the countryside spread out in all its summer splendour three thousand
feet below is the realisation of a lifelong dream and ambition.

If all goes to plan, I might actually achieve that this summer.

The cost of the hard work in all its forms in getting there will have
been worth it for me. Lennie made the decision that it wasnot worth it
for him, but that's cool - each to their own. There will always be a
majority of people that find the costs (financial and otherwise) of
soaring far outweigh the rewards, rewards that they not only can't even
perceive but don't want to and wouldn't see the value in anyway.

So you like blues but I like jazz? That's okay, we're both cool after
our own fashion.

I can't see gliding ever being what you'd term "mainstream". On the
other hand, that's half of the charm. So with that said, surely the
prerogative should not be a desire or argument to reverse an apparent
decline, but merely ensure that the sport and the community remains open
and accessible enough to be found by and accept the new blood that finds
its way here to replace the old blood that is inevitably lost through
natural attrition?

The important thing is that soaring is sustained.


--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

[Don Johnstone]

'Violence is the last resort of the incompetent' No,
not a personal attack, a quote attributed to Salvor
Hardin or Isacc Assimov, but true nevertherless.

Avoiding issues and favouring attacking those who perhaps
identify a problem is not the answer to anything. Lennie
may be everything you say but should we ignore everything
he says?
Is there not the remotest chance he may be right? If
he is wrong perhaps reasoned argument is a better way
to show this than hurling abuse.

In my experience a lawyer with a poor case will always
stoop to attacking personalities. A lawyer with a good
case does not need to.


At 13:36 20 April 2004, Bill Gribble wrote: (Snip)
>Don Johnstone writes
>>and is this not exactly the reason why soaring is declining,
>> Violence of any sort is the last resort of the
>>imcompetent.
>
>Uh, incompetent? I'm quite sure Mr Flewett can fight
>his own battles,
>but in any case, now who's getting personal? And,
>for that matter, who
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Ben Flewett wrote:
> Lennie,
>
> Given that you have quit gliding, why don't you quit
> 'contributing' to this site? I don't understand why
> you persist in partaking of discussions on a subject
> you are no longer interested in.

We don't have to understand it to realize his comments have value to us.
Most people that are disappointed with soaring just leave and we never
learn why. Some of the responses to Lennie's comments certainly
illustrate what he is talking about, and I'm beginning to think it's
more of a problem than I realized. It's not soaring's only problem,
probably not even it's worst problem, but it seems such a shame that it
is a problem at all.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Gribble]

Don Johnstone writes
>'Violence is the last resort of the incompetent' No, not a personal
>attack, a quote attributed to Salvor Hardin or Isacc Assimov, but true
>nevertherless.

Sorry, I was being flippant, in that I found the word "incompetent" an
ironic and amusing word on your part to mis-spell. Should have made
myself clearer, though I should have also made it clear that I meant no
offence in pointing the typo out.

Your picking that quote in the context that you did, however, seemed to
suggest that the previous writer was incompetent as demonstrated through
their stooping to "verbal violence", thus my suggestion to the effect
that he could fight his own battles if he so wished.

>Avoiding issues and favouring attacking those who perhaps identify a
>problem is not the answer to anything. Lennie may be everything you say
>but should we ignore everything he says? Is there not the remotest
>chance he may be right? If he is wrong perhaps reasoned argument is a
>better way to show this than hurling abuse.

"Lennie the Lurker" may or may not be everything I say, and I'm sure
we'll all use our own judgement on that. I would point out (perhaps
belatedly and after the fact on my part, however) that the *person*
behind Lennie the Lurker could be anything, and of any quality or
otherwise. I really am not one to judge. The Internet by its very nature
creates a Lord of the Flies effect that encourages some of us to behave
and communicate in a manner that we wouldn't dream of doing in real life
because of the reduced accountability the anonymity of the net provides.

However, the somewhat verbose point of my previous post was to
illustrate my opposition to your suggestion that he might be right. I
tried to propose a "reasoned argument" by the counterpoint of my own
experiences in contrast to his. I don't believe Lennie's experiences are
typical of the majority that find themselves drawn to gliding, and I
don't believe the previous writer's reaction to the way that Lennie
portrays his views to be endemic of any problem particular to this
community.



--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

[Lennie the Lurker]

Ben Flewett > wrote in message >...
> Lennie,
>
> Given that you have quit gliding, why don't you quit
> 'contributing' to this site? I don't understand why
> you persist in partaking of discussions on a subject
> you are no longer interested in. However, I strongly
> suspect it because you do not require assistance from
> other persons in obtaining sexual gratification.
>
Ok, since you chose to go to the low inuendo, you should well know
that I am very comfortable there too. Such as, I firmly suspect that
the joystick in your hand most of the time is not connected to your
aircraft.

That out of the way now, I know, not believe, KNOW, that your reaction
to anything I have said has been "Lennie said it, so it must be
wrong." I KNOW that you have not opened your unseeing eyes or your
firmly closed mind to look and see if just maybe some of these things
are happening where you are. LIke most of the others, you're sitting
on your haunches waiting for some mythical "national organization" to
come up with all the magic bullets, that require you to do nothing but
go about your own way and change nothing. I'm just ****ing sorry, but
that isn't going to do it, and I've said so many times. It's going to
take INDIVIDUAL effort, and a lot of it on a lot of levels to make any
change. Getting new people is only one part of the problem, bringing
them in the front and watching them go out the back isn't doing
anything. If you're going to look at "What's wrong with the world"
and ignore "What are we doing wrong", you might as well not look at
anything. If you look, and see something, and say nothing, you are
the problem. If you're going to ignore anything that might show you
as not the model of perfection, don't even bother looking.

If you find that you can't have any fun in anything less than a $50k+
ship with at least 40+:1, and others are having a ball with a 23:1
1-26, then I'd say that maybe the problem is in the man, not the
machine. IF the lower performance doesn't meet your interests, it
might behoove you to realize that for many others, it's perfectly
satisfactory. Realize that while for you a $100K ship may be no
strain, but for many others, a $10k ship might be a very expensive
toy.

Now, to ask you to do the extremely difficult task of drawing a mental
parallel, mentally substitute "megabuck german glass" for "Hardinge
lathe" and (Insert favorite plane of derision) for "$300 Speedway
lathe". I know people that have the Hardinge lathes, and on these
very expensive machines, the finest made in the world, they
consistantly do lower quality work than I get from my Speedway. Are
they having more fun with their toys than I am with mine? No. Do
they get more satisfaction from what they do than I? No. Do they
badmouth the Speedway? Damn right, they do. It's a POS that they
can't do anything with, and don't see how anyone could possibly enjoy
running it. Do you see the parallel? Or is your mind so firmly
closed, your belief that soaring has nothing in common with other
hobbies that you WON'T see? I don't have a Hardinge, I would love to
have a Hardinge, but $30k for a hobby machine doesn't make any sense
at all. Any lathe is better than no lathe, make that, any glider is
better than no glider. Are you now exhausted from the mental effort
required? Good, read on.

LIke any other hobby in decline, soaring doesn't have one problem, it
has many. Unless soaring looks at ALL of the problems, finds the ones
that are the most damaging, and makes what changes are needed to
correct those first, the end can be easily predicted. I've said it
before, and now again, sitting on your ass waiting for someone to do
it on a national level will get you exactly squat. Stand facing
north. Point your index finger south. You are now pointing to the
person that has to do something if you don't want to continue to watch
the decline.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Bill Gribble > wrote in message >...
>>
<Hack!>

> "Lennie the Lurker" may or may not be everything I say, and I'm sure
> we'll all use our own judgement on that. I would point out (perhaps
> belatedly and after the fact on my part, however) that the *person*
> behind Lennie the Lurker could be anything, and of any quality or
> otherwise.

<Hack!>

> I don't believe Lennie's experiences are
> typical of the majority that find themselves drawn to gliding, and I
> don't believe the previous writer's reaction to the way that Lennie
> portrays his views to be endemic of any problem particular to this
> community.

First point, this is rapidly degenerating into a discussion of "Lennie
the Lurker", and away from what I would rather see, that of people
starting to open their eyes and minds, looking to see if the same or
similar things are happening in their locations. If you don't find
anything there, and aren't just ignoring it if there is, great. Then
look for something else that needs addressing. If you can't find
something, however small, to improve things, then you aren't looking
very hard. Even if it's nothing more than seeing some small bit of
trash laying around and picking it up when everyone else is walking
over or around it. It won't break your back, but might make someone's
first impression a little more favorable.

Second point, neither do I. I'm well aware that because of things
that happened many years ago, I'm far more sensitive to things than
most people are. However, if I was the only one, AlAnon would not
exist. You don't know who else is going to be that way, neither do I,
most of the time our faces are totally deadpan, and there is no way
you can read anything from them, until it's too late. My own father
could not read my face, I highly doubt anyone else could unless I was
expressing displeasure. With a small fraction of people, you do not
know if you're hurting or depressing them, but with soaring being a
very small fraction of the people, you also can't afford to drive them
off and not know it. No, you don't have to ask, they won't tell you
anyhow. We might walk off in a boiling rage, but you'll have no
indication of it whatsoever. The point is, you don't know. It
doesn't take much to ask yourself if a comment might hurt, and if the
answer is maybe, don't say it. In the first place, his or her choice
of aircraft doesn't affect you, and, as I was, he or she might be
somewhat proud of even owning any aircraft. And again, you have no
way of telling, because that person's face will tell you exactly
nothing.

So what kind of person am I really? Dunno. You'll have to find
someone that really knows me to ask. The only problem there, is there
are none.

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, ADP
> writes
>I find it interesting that almost no one has mentioned what I believe to be
>the real problem with soaring.
>It is a pain in the butt to go soaring.
>Here in the US where most soaring is done at commercial sites vs. clubs,
>commercial operations make it almost impossible
>for a newcomer to say "I want to take a lesson and learn how to soar". Or,
>for that matter, a oldcomer to rent a glider for a time.
>
>Commercial operations in the US are good-old-boy networks. They may be run
>by nice folks but good businessmen they are not.
>Reserve a glider for 10:00 and arrive at 09:30.
>
>At that time you will find:
>
>1. The glider is out of annual and nobody called.
>2. The glider needs to be deiced and won't be ready for 3 hours.
>3. The glider crashed just yesterday and nobody called.
>4. The tow plane is down.
>5. The tow plane pilot is late/won't be here today.
>6. The tow plane needs to be refueled so can you wait an hour or two?
>7. We have to use the glider for a ride, you don't mind do you?
>8. Oh were you on the schedule for today?
>9. Sorry you can't go right away .... (fill in your reason here.)
>
>We retired folk can put up with it, though we may not like it. The younger
>person with job, family and other obligations runs on a tight
>schedule. Get put off once or twice when you still have to take the kids to
>a soccer game ar mow the lawn on one of your two days
>off and you are not likely to go back.
>
>Frankly, despite the good social environment, waiting for 3 hours to fly for
>1 just isn't worth my time.

You don't say where you live, Allan, but I can tell you from personal
experience that there's at least one commercial gliding operation that
isn't like that at all.

It is the only place I have flown gliders in the USA, so it may be that
all the others are as yo describe, but it seems unlikely.

The place I went to was the absolute tops in every way, the people were
friendly, helpful, and delivered the service their brochure promised.
If I didn't live 8000 miles away I'd be there every week end.

So, you may ask, where is this paradise? Soar Minden, of course.
--
Mike Lindsay

[Don Johnstone]

I stand dejected

At 15:54 20 April 2004, Bill Gribble wrote:
>Don Johnstone writes
>>'Violence is the last resort of the incompetent' No,
>>not a personal
>>attack, a quote attributed to Salvor Hardin or Isacc
>>Assimov, but true
>>nevertherless.
>
>Sorry, I was being flippant, in that I found the word
>'incompetent' an
>ironic and amusing word on your part to mis-spell.
>Should have made
>myself clearer, though I should have also made it clear
>that I meant no
>offence in pointing the typo out.
>
>Your picking that quote in the context that you did,
>however, seemed to
>suggest that the previous writer was incompetent as
>demonstrated through
>their stooping to 'verbal violence', thus my suggestion
>to the effect
>that he could fight his own battles if he so wished.
>
>>Avoiding issues and favouring attacking those who perhaps
>>identify a
>>problem is not the answer to anything. Lennie may be
>>everything you say
>>but should we ignore everything he says? Is there not
>>the remotest
>>chance he may be right? If he is wrong perhaps reasoned
>>argument is a
>>better way to show this than hurling abuse.
>
>'Lennie the Lurker' may or may not be everything I
>say, and I'm sure
>we'll all use our own judgement on that. I would point
>out (perhaps
>belatedly and after the fact on my part, however) that
>the *person*
>behind Lennie the Lurker could be anything, and of
>any quality or
>otherwise. I really am not one to judge. The Internet
>by its very nature
>creates a Lord of the Flies effect that encourages
>some of us to behave
>and communicate in a manner that we wouldn't dream
>of doing in real life
>because of the reduced accountability the anonymity
>of the net provides.
>
>However, the somewhat verbose point of my previous
>post was to
>illustrate my opposition to your suggestion that he
>might be right. I
>tried to propose a 'reasoned argument' by the counterpoint
>of my own
>experiences in contrast to his. I don't believe Lennie's
>experiences are
>typical of the majority that find themselves drawn
>to gliding, and I
>don't believe the previous writer's reaction to the
>way that Lennie
>portrays his views to be endemic of any problem particular
>to this
>community.
>
>
>
>--
>Bill Gribble
>
>/---------------------------------------\
>| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
>| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
>\---------------------------------------/
>

[Bill Gribble]

Don Johnstone writes
>I stand dejected

*grin*


-Bill

[Liam Finley]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Ben Flewett wrote:
> > Lennie,
> >
> > Given that you have quit gliding, why don't you quit
> > 'contributing' to this site? I don't understand why
> > you persist in partaking of discussions on a subject
> > you are no longer interested in.
>
> We don't have to understand it to realize his comments have value to us.
> Most people that are disappointed with soaring just leave and we never
> learn why. Some of the responses to Lennie's comments certainly
> illustrate what he is talking about, and I'm beginning to think it's
> more of a problem than I realized. It's not soaring's only problem,
> probably not even it's worst problem, but it seems such a shame that it
> is a problem at all.

Soaring may indeed have many problems, but it's inability to satisfy a
mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopath is not one of them. Unless
you think the future of the sport lies in attracting large numbers of
mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopaths, in which case Lennie's
rambling thoughts are pure gold.

[ADP]

Eric,
Lennie's posts may have some value to you but please don't put us all in the
same category.
I have successfully excluded him from my allowed list and I wish that anyone
replying to Lennie not quote
his post in your reply.

Please....

Thanks,

Allan




>
> We don't have to understand it to realize his comments have value to us.
> Most people that are disappointed with soaring just leave and we never
> learn why. Some of the responses to Lennie's comments certainly illustrate
> what he is talking about, and I'm beginning to think it's more of a
> problem than I realized. It's not soaring's only problem, probably not
> even it's worst problem, but it seems such a shame that it is a problem at
> all.
>
> --
> -----
> >
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Bruce Greeff]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Ben Flewett wrote:
>
>> Lennie,
>>
>> Given that you have quit gliding, why don't you quit
>> 'contributing' to this site? I don't understand why
>> you persist in partaking of discussions on a subject
>> you are no longer interested in.
>
>
> We don't have to understand it to realize his comments have value to us.
> Most people that are disappointed with soaring just leave and we never
> learn why. Some of the responses to Lennie's comments certainly
> illustrate what he is talking about, and I'm beginning to think it's
> more of a problem than I realized. It's not soaring's only problem,
> probably not even it's worst problem, but it seems such a shame that it
> is a problem at all.
>
It is a sad fact that the more people involved the higher the likelyhood of
meeting someone completely incompatible with you. Note I did not say or imply
any derogatory label.

So we have a problem in that soaring clubs tend to have very similar people
involved, in the nature of the sport most are individualists, many are above
average income and inevitably many are competitive.

Result is that many clubs tend to develop a "mine's bigger than yours" attitude,
or other strange social habits. the only advice I can give is that you should
remember that tribalism is still very evident in most human activities,
including soaring. Be careful what tribe you join.

Personally I have found two clubs where the friendship and shared learning is
great. Both clubs concentrate on fun flying rather than competition, and a good
family experience as far a possible. We seem to manage a number of soaring
families where husband and wife and eventually kids fly. It is not impossible,
just takes some work and allowing for differences. That said there are still
people in each club who do not get on, we just dont let them get out of hand. If
people can't remember curtesy and respect they get shown the door. I know of at
least one who is convinced we are all jerks. C'est la vie - apparently he fits
right in at a neighbouring town's club. That is good because he is still
soaring, and now enjoying the company.

[Eric Greenwell]

ADP wrote:
> Eric,
> Lennie's posts may have some value to you but please don't put us all in the
> same category.

I'm not aware of putting you in any category, but at least tell me what
category you think I put you in: the "same one as Lennie", or in the
category of "people who think Lennie's posts may have some value"? Or
something else?

> I have successfully excluded him from my allowed list and I wish that anyone
> replying to Lennie not quote
> his post in your reply.

You are suggesting we not quote Lennie when we reply to him? I hope
that's not what you are asking, because I always quote the person I'm
replying for the usual reasons.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Liam Finley) wrote in message >...
>
> Soaring may indeed have many problems, but it's inability to satisfy a
> mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopath is not one of them. Unless
> you think the future of the sport lies in attracting large numbers of
> mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopaths, in which case Lennie's
> rambling thoughts are pure gold.

Thank you very much for your insightful, but as always, useless
comments, liam. You make it so much easier for me to continue to place
you with the class of simians that spawned your worthless ass. Most
krauts aren't very smart, and I think they kicked you to southern
queerville for being more stupid than most.
(The second son of a [typically] drunken german forgets nothing and
forgives less. Remember that, kraut.)

[ADP]

The category to which I was referring was (the one or two people who may
think that Lennie's posts have some value.)

And yes, I was suggesting that you do not quote Lennie because to read you I
will have to read him and that I will not do.

In addition, now that we are discussing posts, please put your response at
the front (on top) of your reply and that way
we won't have to read the previous post unless we want to. This is standard
newsgroup etiquette.

Allan

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> ADP wrote:
>> Eric,
>> Lennie's posts may have some value to you but please don't put us all in
>> the same category.
>
> I'm not aware of putting you in any category, but at least tell me what
> category you think I put you in: the "same one as Lennie", or in the
> category of "people who think Lennie's posts may have some value"? Or
> something else?
>
>> I have successfully excluded him from my allowed list and I wish that
>> anyone replying to Lennie not quote
>> his post in your reply.
>
> You are suggesting we not quote Lennie when we reply to him? I hope that's
> not what you are asking, because I always quote the person I'm replying
> for the usual reasons.
>
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Liam Finley]

Please don't misconstrue these remarks to mean I have anything against
attracting mildly retarded pilots into soaring. Quite to the
contrary, without them who would buy all the second hand PW-5's and
Russia's? No, it's just the one's who are also sociopaths that I
think we could do without.


(Liam Finley) wrote in message >...
> Soaring may indeed have many problems, but it's inability to satisfy a
> mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopath is not one of them. Unless
> you think the future of the sport lies in attracting large numbers of
> mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopaths, in which case Lennie's
> rambling thoughts are pure gold.

[Martin Gregorie]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:40:04 +0100, Mike Lindsay
> wrote:

>In article >, ADP
> writes
>>I find it interesting that almost no one has mentioned what I believe to be
>>the real problem with soaring.
>>It is a pain in the butt to go soaring.
>>Here in the US where most soaring is done at commercial sites vs. clubs,
>>commercial operations make it almost impossible
>>for a newcomer to say "I want to take a lesson and learn how to soar". Or,
>>for that matter, a oldcomer to rent a glider for a time.
>>
>>Commercial operations in the US are good-old-boy networks. They may be run
>>by nice folks but good businessmen they are not.
>>Reserve a glider for 10:00 and arrive at 09:30.
>>
>>At that time you will find:
>>
>>1. The glider is out of annual and nobody called.
>>2. The glider needs to be deiced and won't be ready for 3 hours.
>>3. The glider crashed just yesterday and nobody called.
>>4. The tow plane is down.
>>5. The tow plane pilot is late/won't be here today.
>>6. The tow plane needs to be refueled so can you wait an hour or two?
>>7. We have to use the glider for a ride, you don't mind do you?
>>8. Oh were you on the schedule for today?
>>9. Sorry you can't go right away .... (fill in your reason here.)
>>
>>We retired folk can put up with it, though we may not like it. The younger
>>person with job, family and other obligations runs on a tight
>>schedule. Get put off once or twice when you still have to take the kids to
>>a soccer game ar mow the lawn on one of your two days
>>off and you are not likely to go back.
>>
>>Frankly, despite the good social environment, waiting for 3 hours to fly for
>>1 just isn't worth my time.
>
>You don't say where you live, Allan, but I can tell you from personal
>experience that there's at least one commercial gliding operation that
>isn't like that at all.
>
>It is the only place I have flown gliders in the USA, so it may be that
>all the others are as yo describe, but it seems unlikely.
>
>The place I went to was the absolute tops in every way, the people were
>friendly, helpful, and delivered the service their brochure promised.
>If I didn't live 8000 miles away I'd be there every week end.
>
>So, you may ask, where is this paradise? Soar Minden, of course.

I'd add Williams Soaring to that list as well.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Martin Gregorie]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:14:20 -0700, "ADP"
> wrote:

>The category to which I was referring was (the one or two people who may
>think that Lennie's posts have some value.)
>
>And yes, I was suggesting that you do not quote Lennie because to read you I
>will have to read him and that I will not do.
>
>In addition, now that we are discussing posts, please put your response at
>the front (on top) of your reply and that way
>we won't have to read the previous post unless we want to. This is standard
>newsgroup etiquette.
>
I think that's bad advice. Top posting gets flamed in all the other
NGs I read.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Tom Seim]

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal recently
regarding the problems with golf. Roughly 10% of golfers quit each
year. The reasons include:

1. The game is too difficult.
2. The game is too expensive.
3. The game takes too long.

It seems that many new courses are designed to impress the pros, to
the total frustration of the duffers. The rules committee is totally
concerned with maintaining the "integrity" of the game and has no
regard to the average player (sound familiar?).

Solutions offered to reverse the trend include different rules for
pros to speed up the game, better training for instructors ("club
pros"), and lower greens fees.

In retrospect, I don't know if I would put with, today, what I had to
endure 25 years ago to get my license. Training could be sped up thru
the use of computer flight simulators. I tried one out at the
Convention that was very realistic (you really need a set of rudder
peddles). I think it would help out if used in conjunction with
instructor feedback.

Costs could be significantly reduced if we used winches more for
training. You will need between 50 and 100 launches to get a license.
This costs $1,500-3,000 for aerotow costs alone. Winching would drop
this to $250-500. If you reduce this cost then you will attract more
students, which will reduce the fixed costs (depreciation, insurance,
maintenance, advertising, etc.). Also, it is imperative that the
training location be reasonably close to major population centers.
Clubs need to have a $25 intro flight.

I think that if you reduced the total cost of the license to $1,000
you would be turning students away!


Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Eric Greenwell]

ADP wrote:

> The category to which I was referring was (the one or two people who may
> think that Lennie's posts have some value.)
>
> And yes, I was suggesting that you do not quote Lennie because to read you I
> will have to read him and that I will not do.

Perhaps your newsreader filter can be set to "mark as read" messages
with "Lennie the Lurker" in the body. That will let you avoid any
messages that quote him.

>
> In addition, now that we are discussing posts, please put your response at
> the front (on top) of your reply and that way
> we won't have to read the previous post unless we want to. This is standard
> newsgroup etiquette.

I don't think this newsgroup has a stated policy, but the other two I
frequent do, and it is bottom posting. One group is absolutely adamant
about it, so I tend to stick with that convention. The reason given is
it is easier to follow a thread, though if you follow this group every
day, it's not as valuable as it is for groups with more postings, or
ones you follow infrequently. I do try to trim the post to the most
relevant portions, so it's not so much scrolling. That "adamant" group I
mentioned doesn't like that, either, so I don't do it there.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[John Seaborn]

While growth in soaring is a world wide problem, what follows is a USA
centric viewpoint. First, believe growth can be accomplished. There is
so much negative talk about growing the sport, so many splintered
ideas that it seems like making a real difference in the trend can
only be done by magic. Its also safe to say what we are doing now is
not making a big long term difference in the members trend line.

Any marketing person worth their salt can come up with 50-100 easy,
affordable and effective ways to grow soaring. The biggest obstacle to
growing the sport is that there is no one with the background needed
responsible on a day-to-day basis for this activity in the USA - with
a budget to get things done. Volunteers can't do the job, it has to be
a paid activity as it requires much more focus and longevity than what
can be expected out of a volunteer effort. No budget means no real
action.

Growth in soaring happens at the local FBO and Club level. A simple
pull strategy is what is needed. With pull marketing the objective is
to pull "customers" into the established retail selling points. The
sport already has a great "product", and established "retailers" in
the form of clubs and commercial operators, but no focused long-term
strategy to pull the right customers into these retail centers.

Step one is to form a triad between the clubs, commercial operators
and the promotion team around the idea that Promotion will be
developing opportunities to pull customers into their retail
locations. It is critical to separate the thrill a minute ride
customer that you never see again from the "want to learn to soar"
customer. Its also critical that once the customers show at the
retailer they get a warm reception. Develop several "entry" points
that are inviting to potential members. For example, a First Flight
Certificate printable off the SSA Web Site redeemable at any
participating club or FBO. A targeted direct mail campaign to target
demo and psychographics within x miles of participating retailers, a
1-800 number that can answer customer questions and direct them to
their nearest retailer, a First Flight Kit that can be sent to
prospects, cooperative marketing with other aviation organizations
like AOPA and EAA, an First Flight invitation letter to every retiring
airline pilot, First Flight coupons in magazines and Sporty's, a First
Flight video with 800 number and web address shown before targeted
movies, promotion of the sport in film, print and web featuring First
Flight information... you get the idea. Develop and refine a pull
program, work it for a couple of years and see what happens. A final
note, while many think youth is the future of our sport I think that
35-55 year olds with time, money and interest are the future of our
sport.

How to pay for this strategy is a good topic for RAS.

John Seaborn


"f.blair" > wrote in message news:<IYSec.28503$_K3.73177@attbi_s53>...
> This was copied from rec.outdoors.fishing.bass. It sounds like the very
> same things that we talk about when we discuss the decline of our sport. I
> am not saying it has answers, but it is interesting.
> Fred
>
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> ***************************
> Great read Bob.
> Fishing license sales are declining which indicates a real decline in
> fishing interest, i.e. less numbers of people are fishing. I suspect that
> things are worse since our population is growing, the proportion of people
> fishing is declining more rapidly than indicated by license sales decline.
> Why is this so? A variety of possible reasons come to mind when combined,
> could explain the decline..
>
> 1. Fishable water is being privatized - bought up, posted, acquired by
> governmental agencies, restricted by land use rulings, dams being removed,
> access fenced off, etc.
> 2. Competing demands for time - Soccer, GameBoy, offroading, skateboarding,
> partying, RVing, home projects and a multitude of other in and outdoor
> activities divert participation today from family and individual fishing.
> 3. Decline of the nuclear family - as divorce and separation disrupts
> parent/child relationships, fishing is less of a priority on weekends or
> other custody times.
> 4. Availability of more disposal income - Food needs drove fishing more in
> the past than today.
> 5. Immigration - Illegal aliens cannot get fishing licenses and legal
> immigrants probably have far less interest in fishing than other population
> demographics..
> 6. Adversarial animal rightists - Are influencing the weak, timid and
> non-iinterested into a non-fishing mentality.
> 7 Adversarial vegaterians - Translate their anti meat-pholosophy into a
> non-fishing mentality.
> 8. Passing fad - The Yuppie infatuation with fly-fishng in the 1980's has
> past us by.
> 9. No new rivers - God is not making any new rivers and environmentalists
> and politicians are fighting adding dams and impoundments which limits new
> water bodies with their rapid growth and abundance of fish in their early
> years.
> 10.Waterbody management - Is NOT being managed to increase the number of
> people fishng, but to reduce, constrict, limit and to conserve existing or
> lower levels of people. Budget level maintenance is their primary goal.
> Little funding exists for meaningful additional researh to stop decline in
> fishing.
> 11. Fly in fishing is up - Since the demand for trophy and quality fishing
> exceeds the supply of domestic US fishing, more people are not fishing
> locally but flying out to exotic places around the world.
> 12. On water competition - Water skiers, kyakers, personal flotation
> devicers, canoeists, hikers and many other types of on-the-water or
> near-the-water people are degrading the solitiude many fishermen cherish and
> running them off the water.
>
> Bob, I'm sure there are other things which MAY contribute to the decline,
> but these are suggestions for starters. You listed a number of things we
> can do to slow the decline of fishing. They'll help. But I am convinced
> fishing will continue to decline. I just hope there will be some quality
> experiences left for my grandsons but I doubt it.
>
> Good luck!
> John

[Lennie the Lurker]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
>
> You are suggesting we not quote Lennie when we reply to him? I hope
> that's not what you are asking, because I always quote the person I'm
> replying for the usual reasons.

It doesn't matter, Eric. It's worked out well for both Wayne and
myself this time, His plane might be a little more convenient, and in
the same breath, the safety inproved some miniscule amount, and I have
a reason to play with my toys. I will return to the practice I have
followed for the last six months or so, in case nobody noticed, that
of reading the first 25 headers maybe once every couple of weeks.

However, for the benefit of HP owners, if you might possibly be
interested in the unit I've developed, when I am finished with the one
for Wayne, and have updated my drawings, this will be the last one I
will make, I'm burned out. For some short time I will be able to
send, if you request and send me one lousy buck, (I'm not gonna pay
the postage too) I can send a full set of the drawings, which you can
take to your local friendly machine shop and have one made. Be
forwarned I have already quoted it out at a normal shop rate, $65 per
hour, and between 16 to 20 hours, plus materials. I have made five of
them, each one being an improvement over the one before, and it's time
to move on to something else.

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Liam Finley) wrote in message >...
> Please don't misconstrue these remarks to mean I have anything against
> attracting mildly retarded pilots into soaring.

It's a good thing, liam the lemming. It's the only way you would ever
be accepted into any group.

[ADP]

Eric,

T'was just a suggestion. I find Lennie insufferable.

The Top Posting suggestion was because I find it easier to read. Most folks
forward 5000 words without editing
as a quote and I hate to go all the way to the bottom to read the response.

Not a particularly important request.

Allan


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> ADP wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps your newsreader filter can be set to "mark as read" messages with
> "Lennie the Lurker" in the body. That will let you avoid any messages that
> quote him.
>

> I don't think this newsgroup has a stated policy, but the other two I
> frequent do, and it is bottom posting. One group is absolutely adamant
> about it, so I tend to stick with that convention. The reason given is it
> is easier to follow a thread, though if you follow this group every day,
> it's not as valuable as it is for groups with more postings, or ones you
> follow infrequently. I do try to trim the post to the most relevant
> portions, so it's not so much scrolling. That "adamant" group I mentioned
> doesn't like that, either, so I don't do it there.
> --
>

[ADP]

Martin,

That's because you folks drive on the other side of the road. ;-}

Allan


"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think that's bad advice. Top posting gets flamed in all the other
> NGs I read.
>

[Michel Talon]

ADP > wrote:
> The category to which I was referring was (the one or two people who may
> think that Lennie's posts have some value.)
>
> And yes, I was suggesting that you do not quote Lennie because to read you I
> will have to read him and that I will not do.
>
> In addition, now that we are discussing posts, please put your response at
> the front (on top) of your reply and that way
> we won't have to read the previous post unless we want to. This is standard
> newsgroup etiquette.
>

Sorry, this is exactly the inverse of the correct newsgroup etiquette.
Top post is extremely incorrect.




--

Michel TALON

[Bill Gribble]

My experience also :P

Martin Gregorie > writes
>I think that's bad advice. Top posting gets flamed in all the other NGs
>I read.

--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

[Bill Gribble]

ADP > writes
>That's because you folks drive on the other side of the road

You mean we drive on the right side of the road, as opposed to the, err,
right side?

--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

[Tony Verhulst]

ADP wrote:
> ... Most folks forward 5000 words without editing as a quote.....

That's the real problem, IMHO - and it take so little effort to trim the
quoted post.

Tony V

[ADP]

Well, um, yes.

Allan


"Bill Gribble" > wrote in
message .. .
> ADP > writes
>>That's because you folks drive on the other side of the road
>
> You mean we drive on the right side of the road, as opposed to the, err,
> right side?
>
> --
> Bill Gribble
>

[ADP]

I did a search for news group etiquette. Out of the 437 different hits I
investigated, only one mentioned top posting as a no-no.
Perhaps it is a European thing.
At any rate, I find top posting eminently more readable.

Perhaps it's a good thing I don't post on many other groups.

Allan

"Michel Talon" > wrote in message
...
> ADP > wrote:

>> In addition, now that we are discussing posts, please put your response
>> at
>> the front (on top) of your reply and that way
>> we won't have to read the previous post unless we want to. This is
>> standard
>> newsgroup etiquette.
>>
> Sorry, this is exactly the inverse of the correct newsgroup etiquette.
> Top post is extremely incorrect.
>

> Michel TALON
>

[nafod40]

ADP wrote:
> I did a search for news group etiquette. Out of the 437 different hits I
> investigated, only one mentioned top posting as a no-no.
> Perhaps it is a European thing.
> At any rate, I find top posting eminently more readable.

If you type "top posting" into google (with quotes) you'll get endless
series of careful explanations and rants on the evils of top posting.

[ADP]

Thanks,

Allan


"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> ADP wrote:
>> I did a search for news group etiquette. Out of the 437 different hits I
>> investigated, only one mentioned top posting as a no-no.
>> Perhaps it is a European thing.
>> At any rate, I find top posting eminently more readable.
>
> If you type "top posting" into google (with quotes) you'll get endless
> series of careful explanations and rants on the evils of top posting.
>

[ADP]

I prefer top posting. Since I'm a snipper, my suggestion: If you don't like
top posting don't read my posts.

Allan


See below:

"The Lion's Grove: Ramblings: Top Posting: The Source Of All Evil?

'Kay, so I'm reading the newsgroups. Yeah, I know. I generally dislike
them because they seem to be only good for flamewars, but I've been
extremely bored lately, and it's something to pass the time.

In the rare instances that legitimate topics are actually discussed,
there will come along a person who wants to contribute to the conversation
and will post the information at the top of the message, known as
"top-posting." And of course, this person will be jumped on, ridiculed,
humiliated, beat about the head and shoulders with a salami, and generally
be made to feel very unwelcome.

I've just read another of these threads. One person top-posted and
there followed a coupla dozen posts saying how it is poor netiquette, how it
is generally accepted practice not to do so, and one giving a link to a list
of FAQs explaining how it has been decided this should be so. There were
messages saying that the top-posting person "violated the social morays[sic]
of the group" and should basically conform to their standards because it is
somehow more polite. There was also much unnecessary name-calling and
insults directed at people who are different.

[*Note: I'm really having to fight the urge to go off on a rant about
how "morays" should be spelled "mores" and the fact that if people aren't
familiar with a word and its use, they shouldn't be throwing the damn thing
around. A "moray" is, in fact, an eel and of course should never be
violated. "Mores" are social norms taken so seriously that laws tend to be
created based on them. Oh wait...]

I don't understand what the big deal is. I actually like it when
people top-post. Reading through hundreds of messages goes by much faster
when I can see at a glance what's being said without having to constantly
scroll through the entire message. I don't get all huffy and insult the
person. I move on to the next message and continue with my reading. Why is
it so difficult for others to do the same?

Went and found a site that gives some admittedly good reasons why
folks should not top-post. I'm going to use these from
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm cuz they're a lot shorter and to
the point than most other sites.

"First, top posters tend never to snip, never to shorten that to which
they reply. So people whose download time costs money are wasting money
downloading enormous lengths of stuff they have already read."

This I can understand. But it is the lack of snippage that should be
addressed.

"Second, and connected, is that you do not know with top posting
whether someone has written something else later on, so do you waste your
time going through it?"

Is this really a problem? Isn't it usually pretty obvious that the
poster has said all he has intended to say? if he hasn't attached his
top-posted comments directly to a portion of the previous post, what makes
you think he's going to do it further along in the message? And is it really
that big a deal to scroll down and check? You're going to scroll through
other messages anyway. But I guess a top-poster's messages are a waste of
time...

"Third, it is much easier to read things in order, and you can see
with good Netiquette how easily it flows."

This is usually followed by an insanely simple example which,
incidentally, could all use a bit of snipping for the "he wrote:, she
wrote:, bob wrote:, god wrote:" prefixes. Newsgroup posts are rarely that
simple, at least from what I've seen. It's usually more along the lines of:

>[obscene amount of header crap left on so someone can show off their
"witty"
>personalization]
>>[more header crap]
>>>[still more header crap]
>>>>[and even more header crap]
>>>>Hi, my name is Lisa and I'm new to the group. I just wanted to
share that I just read
>>>>this great book on pasta, it's called "The Joy of Pasta." You
should really check it
>>>>out.
>[no longer crossposted as this person finally got a clue]
>I read that book and really like it too. I love the recipes!
>>>[crossposted to a dozen other completely unrelated newsgroups]
>>>i'll show ya pasta baybeeee
>>>[followed by a signature, usually trying to show how "l33t" the
poster is]
>>[also posted to the dozen other groups because the poster forgot to
take them off of
>>the To: field]
>>If you don't have anything productive to say, don't say anything at
all.
>Oh, get off your high horse. By responding to them you're only
encouraging them. Get
> over it.
>[yada yada]
>>>>I look forward to being a part of the group!
>>>>[followed by long irritating signature]
>>Welcome to the group!
>>[followed by a signature]
>Hope you like it here!
>[followed by more signature]

Throw in some bad spelling, some obscenities from a troll, and some
bad formatting, and you've got a rather difficult message to read. Which
leads me to a) if you can understand that mess, a person posting at the top
shouldn't throw you off that much, and b) if you can't understand that mess,
what does it matter where the next person puts their message? You're not
gonna get it anyway. The main issue here is snippage. If people would just
learn to cut out all the irrelevent and unnecessary crap, there wouldn't be
any problems understanding where the message is going.

I think what it really comes down to is that people don't like when
someone comes in and disrupts their structured little world. Top-posting
isn't going to cause California to fall off into the ocean [yes, this would
be a bad thing, at least to the Californians], so why act like it will?"


..
2nd source:

"BUT not snipping is a far worse disease. If you read a five screen article,
and you like it, it is the height of selfishness to leave the whole five
screens while you add a single line to say how much you like it - and it
does not matter which end you put it, it is still very unfair on others and
shows a lack of respect for your fellow posters. You should leave in a
paragraph or two, not more, unless you are specifically referring to bits.
Then you leave in the bits to which you refer, and reply just after them.

So, please snip, that is vital, please do not top post, but that is not so
important."

[Dave Houlton]

ADP wrote:
> Lennie's posts may have some value to you but please don't put us all in the
> same category.
> I have successfully excluded him from my allowed list and I wish that anyone
> replying to Lennie not quote
> his post in your reply.

and:

> And yes, I was suggesting that you do not quote Lennie because to read you I
> will have to read him and that I will not do.

and:

> I did a search for news group etiquette. Out of the 437 different hits I
> investigated, only one mentioned top posting as a no-no.
> Perhaps it is a European thing.
> At any rate, I find top posting eminently more readable.
>
> Perhaps it's a good thing I don't post on many other groups.
>
> Allan
>

Allen:

In the course of your newsgroup etiquette research, you might also look
into requests that the world-at-large censor their discussion to
correspond to one individual's taste. While not disagreeing about the
value of Lennie's contribution (he's in my killfile also), the
suggestion that all other group participants should filter their
conversation to suit comes off a bit myopic, at best.

Dave

[Bruce Greeff]

Admit it - you have to be a little mental to wear strange hats, and spend hours
making circles in the sky going nowhere, landing out , getting sunburned and
dehydrated - eventually dragging your exhausted body home long after dark - and
claim this is recreation, and fun.

Works for me, but I know any number who are convinced we are all barking mad...

Liam Finley wrote:
> Please don't misconstrue these remarks to mean I have anything against
> attracting mildly retarded pilots into soaring. Quite to the
> contrary, without them who would buy all the second hand PW-5's and
> Russia's? No, it's just the one's who are also sociopaths that I
> think we could do without.
>
>
> (Liam Finley) wrote in message >...
>
>>Soaring may indeed have many problems, but it's inability to satisfy a
>>mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopath is not one of them. Unless
>>you think the future of the sport lies in attracting large numbers of
>>mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopaths, in which case Lennie's
>>rambling thoughts are pure gold.

[Martin Gregorie]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:46:05 -0700, "ADP"
> wrote:

>I prefer top posting. Since I'm a snipper, my suggestion: If you don't like
>top posting don't read my posts.
>

Good examples. As to the rambling sigs,

- its usually considered bad form to use more than a four line sig

- you should precede your sig with a line containing with two hyphens
and nothing else. Properly written news readers will spot these and
automatically remove the sig to save you the bother.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[ADP]

"I agree," he said , peering about myopically.

Enough.

Allan


"Dave Houlton" > wrote in message
...
> Allen:
>
> In the course of your newsgroup etiquette research, you might also look
> into requests that the world-at-large censor their discussion to
> correspond to one individual's taste. While not disagreeing about the
> value of Lennie's contribution (he's in my killfile also), the suggestion
> that all other group participants should filter their conversation to suit
> comes off a bit myopic, at best.
>
> Dave

[soarski]

endure 25 years ago to get my license. Training could be sped up thru
> the use of computer flight simulators. I tried one out at the
> Convention that was very realistic (you really need a set of rudder
> peddles). I think it would help out if used in conjunction with
> instructor feedback.
>
> Costs could be significantly reduced if we used winches more for
> training. You will need between 50 and 100 launches to get a license.
> This costs $1,500-3,000 for aerotow costs alone. Winching would drop
> this to $250-500. If you reduce this cost then you will attract more
> students, which will reduce the fixed costs (depreciation, insurance,
> maintenance, advertising, etc.). Also, it is imperative that the
> training location be reasonably close to major population centers.
> Clubs need to have a $25 intro flight.
>
> In retrospect, I don't know if I would put with, today, what I had to
>
>
> Tom Seim
> Richland, WA


The way I read the FARs,..... it takes 20 Flights in a glider,
aeronatical experience, if you do not have a power license. This could
be done in areas where there is good lift, rather teach SOARING by
flying one or two hrs at a time, than making all those launches the
way they do it in Germany in many places. Interesting that there is no
requirement for minmum time, like in power training (hrs)! The only
requirement is the two hrs of solo flight time mentioned, which in no
lift sites could take quite a few launches.
All this refers to US FARs

With a power rating, or 40 hrs of power time under your belt it could
be done with 13 flights. All this, Of course, has to be cleverly
arranged, to fit into the rest of the framework, dual and soloflights
required. AND those are minima. Some students learn fast, very few
never get it.

Dieter B 1408997CFI Life Member SSA

PS A well organized school with paid instructors, the corect modern
equipment. It could be done, quite fast, reasonable and enjoyable.

[Mark James Boyd]

>Martin Gregorie > wrote
>
>Pilots like them because they're fun to fly. Light on the controls,
>turns tight, thermals on a fart. Won't penetrate worth a damn, but if
>the winds are light or you're going downwind it's a hoot. Think Ka-8,
>only the wings are shorter (and consequently the glide ratio is lower)
>and the control feel not quite as good.

I've got to say that our L-13 doesn't cost a whole lot more, but
provides a second seat. If it was only EASY to take apart
and trailer, it'd be hands down better than a 1-26 :P
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Tom Seim]

> The way I read the FARs,..... it takes 20 Flights in a glider,
> aeronatical experience, if you do not have a power license. This could
> be done in areas where there is good lift, rather teach SOARING by
> flying one or two hrs at a time, than making all those launches the
> way they do it in Germany in many places. Interesting that there is no
> requirement for minmum time, like in power training (hrs)! The only
> requirement is the two hrs of solo flight time mentioned, which in no
> lift sites could take quite a few launches.
> All this refers to US FARs
>
> With a power rating, or 40 hrs of power time under your belt it could
> be done with 13 flights. All this, Of course, has to be cleverly
> arranged, to fit into the rest of the framework, dual and soloflights
> required. AND those are minima. Some students learn fast, very few
> never get it.
>

Yeah, and the Tooth Fairy is alive and well.

You might do well interviewing actual students and see what their
experience has been. The legal minimums is a fairy tale. If you want
to play in fairy land, go ahead. The reality of training REAL STUDENTS
in a REAL ENVIRONMENT is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

Real students have interruptions in their training (seasons,
financial, etc.) and are forced to re-learn material already covered.
Some are A LOT SLOWER than others. This is reality. You are living in
a fairy tale world: it's thinking like yours that is driving the sport
into the ground.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Mark James Boyd]

Liam Finley > wrote:
>Please don't misconstrue these remarks to mean I have anything against
>attracting mildly retarded pilots into soaring. Quite to the
>contrary, without them who would buy all the second hand PW-5's and
>Russia's?

Hey, who are you calling MILDLY retarded? I do everything
100%... :P

I've decided one small, good way to help get more interest is
to get post-solo/pre-license students to fly as often as possible
with licensed pilots. Split the cost, have the licensed pilot do
all the flying from the backseat, and stay up a long time.

Cheaper than dual, a challenge for the pilot trying to fly from the rear
seat, and educational for the front seater/student. Also a great way
to learn how to split duties (radio/traffic vs. stick fiddling).

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Tom Seim > wrote:
>
>In retrospect, I don't know if I would put with, today, what I had to
>endure 25 years ago to get my license. Training could be sped up thru

I really think the training required to get a license/learn to
solo soar safely is the biggest deterrent, next to airsickness.

Golfers, swimmers, etc. can enjoy their sport to some extent
even if they do it at a very novice level. I can get someone sailing
a dinghy enough to not die in about a weekend. Not a chance
of soloing a sailplane in a weekend if you've never flown anything before.

Scuba, snorkelling, rock climbing, etc. have "solo" beginner levels.
Soaring just doesn't. It's just harder...


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

>The way I read the FARs,..... it takes 20 Flights in a glider,
>aeronatical experience, if you do not have a power license. This could
>be done in areas where there is good lift, rather teach SOARING by
>flying one or two hrs at a time, than making all those launches the
>way they do it in Germany in many places. Interesting that there is no
>requirement for minmum time, like in power training (hrs)! The only
>requirement is the two hrs of solo flight time mentioned, which in no
>lift sites could take quite a few launches.
>All this refers to US FARs

From what I've seen, before safe solo aerotow requires 25-50 flights
for pure novices. Winch or autotow may be easier. I dunno...

>
> With a power rating, or 40 hrs of power time under your belt it could
>be done with 13 flights. All this, Of course, has to be cleverly
>arranged, to fit into the rest of the framework, dual and soloflights
>required. AND those are minima. Some students learn fast, very few
>never get it.
>
>Dieter B 1408997CFI Life Member SSA

I've seen very experienced power guys solo in four flights.
Aerotow is the hardest part. If they've done formation/IFR
before especially. I dunno how a pilot with the bare minimum
40 hrs would do...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Marcel Duenner]

> The way I read the FARs,..... it takes 20 Flights in a glider,
> aeronatical experience, if you do not have a power license. This could
> be done in areas where there is good lift, rather teach SOARING by
> flying one or two hrs at a time, than making all those launches the
> way they do it in Germany in many places. Interesting that there is no
> requirement for minmum time, like in power training (hrs)! The only
> requirement is the two hrs of solo flight time mentioned, which in no
> lift sites could take quite a few launches.

The difficult thing in soaring is not the soaring. It's the landing.
You only have one try. That is fundamentally different from powered
flight. That means a lot more training has to be put in to it. I think
80-100 launches is quite reasonable to be safe.


> With a power rating, or 40 hrs of power time under your belt it could
> be done with 13 flights.

I hate to think of encountering someone holding a licence after only
13 flights. We have had power pilots taking up soaring. They are
usually a bit faster, but not a lot, to get to the exam.

>
> PS A well organized school with paid instructors,...

With that you are automatically back to the 3000$ Tom mentioned. Or
how little do you think an instructor would want to earn?

[Mark James Boyd]

Marcel Duenner > wrote:
>
>The difficult thing in soaring is not the soaring. It's the landing.
>You only have one try. That is fundamentally different from powered
>flight. That means a lot more training has to be put in to it. I think
>80-100 launches is quite reasonable to be safe.

Learning to aerotow safely in my experience takes more time
than learning to land. By the time the purely new student can safely
aerotow for solo, landings seem to be fine. Usually for solo
this is about half of your 80-100, and the other half is post-solo
and dual practice before the checkride...

This is from an informal recollection of about a dozen logbooks...

Again, I just don't know how this compares to ground launch (winch)
training...

>I hate to think of encountering someone holding a licence after only
>13 flights. We have had power pilots taking up soaring. They are
>usually a bit faster, but not a lot, to get to the exam.

The pilots who were previous hang glider or power pilots
really seem to need only 1/2 to 1/4 the # of flights. But the
sample I'm basing this on is pilots with hundreds of previous flight
hours, not just 40 hours...

>> PS A well organized school with paid instructors,...
>
>With that you are automatically back to the 3000$ Tom mentioned. Or
>how little do you think an instructor would want to earn?

There are a FEW clubs that give free instruction in AZ and
in CA (Los Angeles area has one). Bless their hearts...
They also have less expensive gliders and low fees.
But this of course comes with a little less certainty that
one can get a glider and instructor when one wants one, too...

I'm astounded at the graciousness and charity of some instructors.
They are real heroes, IMHO...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Michel Talon]

Mark James Boyd > wrote:
> Tom Seim > wrote:
>>
>>In retrospect, I don't know if I would put with, today, what I had to
>>endure 25 years ago to get my license. Training could be sped up thru
>
> I really think the training required to get a license/learn to
> solo soar safely is the biggest deterrent, next to airsickness.
>

It is *one* obvious deterrent, but not the only one. How do you explain
otherwise that a lot of people with their exam and hundred of hours post
exam leave the sport? In fact most of the people who have taken the exam
leave after a couple of years since the number of members is not
steadily increasing in clubs, while they regularly graduate a constant
flux of newcomers. At least this is what i see here.


--

Michel TALON

[Bill Gribble]

Mark James Boyd > writes
>I really think the training required to get a license/learn to solo
>soar safely is the biggest deterrent, next to airsickness.

I disagree. I think the biggest deterrent is failing to understand how
accessible the whole thing actually is. It's the effort involved in
getting onto the airfield and getting involved in the first place that's
the problem.

>Golfers, swimmers, etc. can enjoy their sport to some extent even if
>they do it at a very novice level. I can get someone sailing a dinghy
>enough to not die in about a weekend. Not a chance of soloing a
>sailplane in a weekend if you've never flown anything before.

But that's overlooking the fact that going "solo" is not the whole point
of gliding. Flying is, and you do that from the moment you start to
learn. So you have an instructor in the back for the first 50-100
launches? Doesn't matter. For the most part most of them are good
company :P

60 launches in my own logbook so far, since last October, and I'm not
solo yet. Sure, I'd like to get there, and more so now that the
possibility is actually in sight. But it isn't exactly a huge source of
frustration to me. I really am enjoying "the training required to ...
solo safely". I know it's a cliché, but it really is as much about the
journey as it is about the destination in this case.

--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

[Bill Gribble]

Michel Talon > writes
>How do you explain otherwise that a lot of people with their exam and
>hundred of hours post exam leave the sport? In fact most of the people
>who have taken the exam leave after a couple of years since the number
>of members is not steadily increasing in clubs, while they regularly
>graduate a constant flux of newcomers. At least this is what i see here.

The phenomena of "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, move onto the
next mountain" perhaps? In anything there have to be natural attrition
points where something that was once a thrill and a pleasure to
participate in when fresh becomes dull and commonplace with repetition
and familiarity.

--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

[Marcel Duenner]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<4088b324$1@darkstar>...
> Marcel Duenner > wrote:
> >
> >The difficult thing in soaring is not the soaring. It's the landing.
> >You only have one try. That is fundamentally different from powered
> >flight. That means a lot more training has to be put in to it. I think
> >80-100 launches is quite reasonable to be safe.
>
> Learning to aerotow safely in my experience takes more time
> than learning to land. By the time the purely new student can safely
> aerotow for solo, landings seem to be fine. Usually for solo
> this is about half of your 80-100, and the other half is post-solo
> and dual practice before the checkride...
>
> This is from an informal recollection of about a dozen logbooks...
>
> Again, I just don't know how this compares to ground launch (winch)
> training...
>

I should have mentioned we do about 80-90% winch launching. A winch
launch will get you 6-8 minutes of flight w/o lift. So it's common to
total more launches during training than in a pure aerotow setup.

> >I hate to think of encountering someone holding a licence after only
> >13 flights. We have had power pilots taking up soaring. They are
> >usually a bit faster, but not a lot, to get to the exam.
>
> The pilots who were previous hang glider or power pilots
> really seem to need only 1/2 to 1/4 the # of flights. But the
> sample I'm basing this on is pilots with hundreds of previous flight
> hours, not just 40 hours...
>
> >> PS A well organized school with paid instructors,...
> >
> >With that you are automatically back to the 3000$ Tom mentioned. Or
> >how little do you think an instructor would want to earn?
>
> There are a FEW clubs that give free instruction in AZ and
> in CA (Los Angeles area has one). Bless their hearts...
> They also have less expensive gliders and low fees.
> But this of course comes with a little less certainty that
> one can get a glider and instructor when one wants one, too...
>
> I'm astounded at the graciousness and charity of some instructors.
> They are real heroes, IMHO...

I'll tell them. Of our 130 members about 20 are instructors. The rest
shares the other jobs to be done: winch drivers, tow pilots,... all
for free. It's our hobby.

Marcel

Why walk when you can soar?

[Robert Ehrlich]

Bill Gribble wrote:
>
> Michel Talon > writes
> >How do you explain otherwise that a lot of people with their exam and
> >hundred of hours post exam leave the sport? In fact most of the people
> >who have taken the exam leave after a couple of years since the number
> >of members is not steadily increasing in clubs, while they regularly
> >graduate a constant flux of newcomers. At least this is what i see here.
>
> The phenomena of "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, move onto the
> next mountain" perhaps? In anything there have to be natural attrition
> points where something that was once a thrill and a pleasure to
> participate in when fresh becomes dull and commonplace with repetition
> and familiarity.
>

In my opinion, this is rather related to age. Soaring is well suited for
young people or old ones, not to the intermediate age (approx. 20 to 40).
Youg people having learnt and flown a couple of years later get married,
have children and then have no more money ot time to devote to soaring
until the children are grown up and can live by their own means. Then a
few of them return to soaring.

[Mark James Boyd]

Michel Talon > wrote:
>
>It is *one* obvious deterrent, but not the only one. How do you explain
>otherwise that a lot of people with their exam and hundred of hours post
>exam leave the sport? In fact most of the people who have taken the exam
>leave after a couple of years since the number of members is not
>steadily increasing in clubs, while they regularly graduate a constant
>flux of newcomers. At least this is what i see here.

Retention is a whole nuther balla wax. In aviation as a whole,
another big factor is macroeconomics. About this time last year,
you coulda set up a nice infant nursery on my local airport
it was so quiet. Economy goes bust, flying goes down.

And with anything there is variance. Alan Greenspan was
once asked what the market would do, and he replied "it will fluctuate."
I've seen some pilots come back to soaring after hiatus
as well...pilots lives wax and wane like any other...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Bill Gribble > wrote:
>
>I disagree. I think the biggest deterrent is failing to understand how
>accessible the whole thing actually is. It's the effort involved in
>getting onto the airfield and getting involved in the first place that's
>the problem.

This is also a factor. Imagine my surprise when I found out
I could go race on the dirt track nearby in a car for a few dollars too!
Same idea. (Good) Publicity is sometimes hard to come by...
Someone else posted how it takes a lot of courage to go into
an FBO and ask for lessons. I was struck by how true this is.

>
>>Golfers, swimmers, etc. can enjoy their sport to some extent even if
>>they do it at a very novice level. I can get someone sailing a dinghy
>>enough to not die in about a weekend. Not a chance of soloing a
>>sailplane in a weekend if you've never flown anything before.
>
>But that's overlooking the fact that going "solo" is not the whole point
>of gliding. Flying is, and you do that from the moment you start to
>learn. So you have an instructor in the back for the first 50-100
>launches? Doesn't matter. For the most part most of them are good
>company :P

Yep, but $$$$s is $$$$s. Poor people find a lake and dog paddle for a
long long time. In flying I get some customers because my goal
is to teach them how to train themselves. Helps save money,
but even this has it's limits.

>
>60 launches in my own logbook so far, since last October, and I'm not
>solo yet. Sure, I'd like to get there, and more so now that the
>possibility is actually in sight. But it isn't exactly a huge source of
>frustration to me. I really am enjoying "the training required to ...
>solo safely". I know it's a cliché, but it really is as much about the
>journey as it is about the destination in this case.

Great. Well I hope the plain ol' soaring part won't
be too boring for you ;)
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Marcel Duenner > wrote:
>
>I'll tell them. Of our 130 members about 20 are instructors. The rest
>shares the other jobs to be done: winch drivers, tow pilots,... all
>for free. It's our hobby.

I hope the other members are very kind to the volunteers.
God bless 'em all...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Vorsanger1]

In his post, MJBoyd uses the American vernacular. For those readers who are
not familiar with it, "nuther balla wax" means "another ball of wax", i.e. "a
different issue". Further down in the same paragraph, "coulda" means "could
have".

Cheers, Charles :-))

[Paul Repacholi]

Martin Gregorie > writes:

I knew this was going to happen...

> - you should precede your sig with a line containing with two hyphens
> and nothing else. Properly written news readers will spot these and
> automatically remove the sig to save you the bother.

Wrong. So stupid reasons burried in history, a sig marker is `dash
dash SPACE' all on a line of its own. Yes, a trailing space. -- is in
fact quite common in the body of the postings on some newsgroups.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Michael]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote
> I've got to say that our L-13 doesn't cost a whole lot more, but
> provides a second seat. If it was only EASY to take apart
> and trailer, it'd be hands down better than a 1-26 :P

I've flown an L-13 as well, and even by comparison with a 1-26, never
mind a Ka-8, the handling can best be described as truck-like. Also,
I'm not sure the second seat is a feature. It's good for new pilots
to get into a single-seater (once they solo the two-seater, of
course). Builds self-reliance and keeps instructors honest about
teaching one to fly gliders, not L-13's or 2-33's.

Michael

[f.blair]

The L-13 is a great trainer, especially for spin training. Compared to a
1-26 it is certainly less nimble, but weighs about 2 X as much. The L-13
will take a student through any maneuver they need to learn about before you
let them solo.

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote
> > I've got to say that our L-13 doesn't cost a whole lot more, but
> > provides a second seat. If it was only EASY to take apart
> > and trailer, it'd be hands down better than a 1-26 :P
>
> I've flown an L-13 as well, and even by comparison with a 1-26, never
> mind a Ka-8, the handling can best be described as truck-like. Also,
> I'm not sure the second seat is a feature. It's good for new pilots
> to get into a single-seater (once they solo the two-seater, of
> course). Builds self-reliance and keeps instructors honest about
> teaching one to fly gliders, not L-13's or 2-33's.
>
> Michael

[Eric Greenwell]

f.blair wrote:
> The L-13 is a great trainer, especially for spin training. Compared to a
> 1-26 it is certainly less nimble, but weighs about 2 X as much. The L-13
> will take a student through any maneuver they need to learn about before you
> let them solo.
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
>
(Mark James Boyd) wrote
>>
>>>I've got to say that our L-13 doesn't cost a whole lot more, but
>>>provides a second seat. If it was only EASY to take apart
>>>and trailer, it'd be hands down better than a 1-26 :P
>>
>>I've flown an L-13 as well, and even by comparison with a 1-26, never
>>mind a Ka-8, the handling can best be described as truck-like. Also,
>>I'm not sure the second seat is a feature. It's good for new pilots
>>to get into a single-seater (once they solo the two-seater, of
>>course). Builds self-reliance and keeps instructors honest about
>>teaching one to fly gliders, not L-13's or 2-33's.

I would not lump the L-13 and the 2-33 together in the "non-glider"
class! In my opinion, based on a lot of instructing in the L13 and
thousands of hours in high performance gliders, is that the L13 flies
and handles like a "real" glider. There is a difference in _degree_, of
course. It is heavier on the controls and slower to respond than a 15
meter glider, but not any slower than my 18 meter glider (which is also
noticeably heavier on the controls than a 15 meter glider).

The 2-33s I have flown did not remind me of the high performance gliders
I am accustomed to flying. Again, in my opinion, it seems to be in a
different class, rather than just different in degree, like the L13.

In our area, the L13 has plenty of performance to make cross-country
flights, but the thought of retrieving it from a field discourages most
people from trying.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> The 2-33s I have flown did not remind me of the high performance gliders
> I am accustomed to flying. Again, in my opinion, it seems to be in a
> different class, rather than just different in degree, like the L13.

Granted, I only have one 2-33 flight, but I have to agree here. The
2-33 is a world of difference from a modern high-performance glider.

Jeremy
N304GT

[soarski]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> f.blair wrote:
> > The L-13 is a great trainer, especially for spin training. Compared to a
> > 1-26 it is certainly less nimble, but weighs about 2 X as much. The L-13
> > will take a student through any maneuver they need to learn about before you
> > let them solo.
> >
> In our area, the L13 has plenty of performance to make cross-country
> flights, but the thought of retrieving it from a field discourages most
> people from trying.


I think I remember a team that took it apart, or even put it together in 12 Minutes!

Dieter B

[Eric Greenwell]

soarski wrote:

> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message
> >...
>>
>> In our area, the L13 has plenty of performance to make
>> cross-country flights, but the thought of retrieving it from a
>> field discourages most people from trying.
>
>
>
> I think I remember a team that took it apart, or even put it together
> in 12 Minutes!

Mostly, people think of how difficult it's going to be to carry the
parts off the field. Even a good trailer with good fittings can't help
much in the middle of a soft plowed field.

Some places the aerotow accessible airports are close enough together
that it is practical to stay within easy reach of one of them, but the
club pilots I've known were still not keen on the idea.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Michael]

Eric Greenwell > wrote
> I would not lump the L-13 and the 2-33 together in the "non-glider"
> class!

You're missing the point. I'm not saying either one is a "non-glider"
but something completely different. You can teach a student to fly
gliders in general, or you can teach him to fly only the particular
glider he is flying. The latter is not a winning strategy if the
student is going to advance in the sport. It's not really common in
soaring instruction either, but some instructors are transition pilots
from power, where this practice IS common.

There is a skill set that a pilot must learn if he is to be able to
check himself out in a new aircraft. As a rule, glider pilots learn
this skill set because single seaters are common in soaring, and the
instructors realize that the skill must be taught. In power, single
seaters are a rarity and many power pilots never really learn the
skill, and need to be checked out in each individual make and model
they fly.

I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.

Michael

[Eric Greenwell]

Michael wrote:

> Eric Greenwell > wrote
>
>>I would not lump the L-13 and the 2-33 together in the "non-glider"
>>class!
>
>
> You're missing the point. I'm not saying either one is a "non-glider"
> but something completely different. You can teach a student to fly
> gliders in general, or you can teach him to fly only the particular
> glider he is flying. The latter is not a winning strategy if the
> student is going to advance in the sport. It's not really common in
> soaring instruction either, but some instructors are transition pilots
> from power, where this practice IS common.
>
> There is a skill set that a pilot must learn if he is to be able to
> check himself out in a new aircraft.

What is this skill set? I'm not aware of anything specific along these
lines from the instructor/instruction manuals I've read. Generally, once
I'd trained a pilot to fly in a Blanik, he had most of the skills needed
to fly one of the usual single seaters.

As a rule, glider pilots learn
> this skill set because single seaters are common in soaring, and the
> instructors realize that the skill must be taught. In power, single
> seaters are a rarity and many power pilots never really learn the
> skill, and need to be checked out in each individual make and model
> they fly.
>
> I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
> trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
> a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.


Apparently, I'm still missing the point: why is a 1-26 or ka-8 far
better for soaring flight? My point was that the L13 is a good glider,
capable of soaring and doing good cross country flights. It certainly is
better at cross country flying than a 1-26, and similar in ability to
the Ka-8.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Martin Gregorie]

On 26 Apr 2004 21:19:48 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

>I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
>trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
>a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.
>
Add the SZD Junior to this list - I know there are only 5 in the USA,
but they are more common elsewhere..

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Michael]

Eric Greenwell > wrote
> > There is a skill set that a pilot must learn if he is to be able to
> > check himself out in a new aircraft.
>
> What is this skill set? I'm not aware of anything specific along these
> lines from the instructor/instruction manuals I've read. Generally, once
> I'd trained a pilot to fly in a Blanik, he had most of the skills needed
> to fly one of the usual single seaters.

Think for a moment. If you're checking yourself out in a glider,
you're going to do some stalls in it, right? And they're going to be
true approach-to-landing stalls - starting with a stabilized descent
at pattern speed, with a speed reduction to mimic the flare. Gives
you plenty of time to feel what the glider is going to do.

Suppose we didn't teach stalls that way. Suppose we taught them as a
performance maneuver, where the goal was to get the nose high, get a
clean break, and minimize altitude loss at recovery. Would the
student still be prepared to figure out the landing characteristics of
the plane?

> Apparently, I'm still missing the point: why is a 1-26 or ka-8 far
> better for soaring flight?

Because it doesn't handle like a truck. Because it's relatively
(compared to an L-23) easy to reg and derig. Because it's a single
seater, which makes it easier for the student to cut the apron strings
and for the club to let him go, whereas the two-seater is needed to
train more presolo students.

Michael

[Eric Greenwell]

Michael wrote:
> Eric Greenwell > wrote
>
> Think for a moment. If you're checking yourself out in a glider,
> you're going to do some stalls in it, right? And they're going to be
> true approach-to-landing stalls - starting with a stabilized descent
> at pattern speed, with a speed reduction to mimic the flare. Gives
> you plenty of time to feel what the glider is going to do.
>
> Suppose we didn't teach stalls that way. Suppose we taught them as a
> performance maneuver, where the goal was to get the nose high, get a
> clean break, and minimize altitude loss at recovery. Would the
> student still be prepared to figure out the landing characteristics of
> the plane?

If we taught them this way, we would be doing the student a disservice,
even if they never flew any other glider. It's widely understood that
you have to teach turning stalls, as these are the most likely way a
pilot will encounter a spin or spiral dive.
>
>
>>Apparently, I'm still missing the point: why is a 1-26 or ka-8 far
>>better for soaring flight?
>
>
> Because it doesn't handle like a truck.

Maybe it's a matter of preference. I think it it's a nice handling
glider, not truck like at all, though it is heavier than a 15 meter
glider. It SOARS just fine, and I'm not tired from flying it after a few
hours, as long as I can sit in the front seat.

> Because it's relatively
> (compared to an L-23) easy to reg and derig. Because it's a single
> seater, which makes it easier for the student to cut the apron strings
> and for the club to let him go, whereas the two-seater is needed to
> train more presolo students.

These are good reasons to have a glider that is easier to retrieve from
a field, but aren't related to the soaring or cross-country ability of
the glider. Also, The L13 can be safely tied down outside, unlike the
Ka-8, which is important for some clubs. Our members generally preferred
to fly the already assembled L13, rather than rigging the Ka-6E we had
for year. A hangar to keep the Ka-6 in would have likely reversed this
choice.

In our area, it is practical to do nice cross-country flights and still
stay within reach of an airport. Aerotows retrieves were not expensive,
but still the members were reluctant. What made a difference was taking
them cross-country in the L13, so they could see how it is actually done.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Nyal Williams]

At 14:42 27 April 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>> Eric Greenwell wrote
>>
>> Think for a moment. If you're checking yourself out
>>in a glider,
>> you're going to do some stalls in it, right? And
>>they're going to be
>> true approach-to-landing stalls - starting with a
>>stabilized descent
>> at pattern speed, with a speed reduction to mimic
>>the flare. Gives
>> you plenty of time to feel what the glider is going
>>to do.
>>
>> Suppose we didn't teach stalls that way. Suppose
>>we taught them as a
>> performance maneuver, where the goal was to get the
>>nose high, get a
>> clean break, and minimize altitude loss at recovery.
>> Would the
>> student still be prepared to figure out the landing
>>characteristics of
>> the plane?
>
>If we taught them this way, we would be doing the student
>a disservice,
>even if they never flew any other glider. It's widely
>understood that
>you have to teach turning stalls, as these are the
>most likely way a
>pilot will encounter a spin or spiral dive.


They must be taught BOTH ways!



>>>Apparently, I'm still missing the point: why is a 1-26
>>>or ka-8 far better for soaring flight?

>These are good reasons to have a glider that is easier
>to retrieve from
>a field, but aren't related to the soaring or cross-country
>ability of
>the glider.

As a general rule, it makes sense to consider the practicality
of de-rigging in a plowed field, because one day you
will have to do it. I've learned the hard way that
X/C flying is more than just flying X/C. Modern, easy
to load and unload trailers make X/C flight much less
painless than the old trailers of twenty years ago.
Two hours of rigging and de-rigging is much more discouraging
than twenty to thirty minutes on either end of a flight.
An excellent trailer might just be be most important
factor in encouraging frequent X/C flying.

>

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Apr 2004 21:19:48 -0700, (Michael) wrote:
>
> >I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
> >trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
> >a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.
> >
> Add the SZD Junior to this list - I know there are only 5 in the USA,
> but they are more common elsewhere..
>
8 at the moment.

Frank Whiteley

[Eric Greenwell]

Nyal Williams wrote:

> As a general rule, it makes sense to consider the practicality
> of de-rigging in a plowed field, because one day you
> will have to do it. I've learned the hard way that
> X/C flying is more than just flying X/C. Modern, easy
> to load and unload trailers make X/C flight much less
> painless than the old trailers of twenty years ago.
> Two hours of rigging and de-rigging is much more discouraging
> than twenty to thirty minutes on either end of a flight.
> An excellent trailer might just be be most important
> factor in encouraging frequent X/C flying.

And an eager driver looking for some adventure!

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Michael]

Eric Greenwell > wrote
> If we taught them this way, we would be doing the student a disservice,
> even if they never flew any other glider. It's widely understood that
> you have to teach turning stalls, as these are the most likely way a
> pilot will encounter a spin or spiral dive.

Maybe not as widely understood as you believe.

All I can tell you is this - spend some time as a power instructor
finishing up the training of students who started with typical power
instructors, or do some BFR's for power pilots, and you will quickly
realize what I'm talking about. Many if not most power pilots have
not a clue about why we do stalls or how to do them in any other
manner than the one I've described.

The average quality of glider instruction is DRAMATICALLY better than
the average quality of power instruction. I suspect that no small
part of this has to do with the prevalence of single seaters.

Michael

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:22:58 -0600, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote:

>
>"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
>> On 26 Apr 2004 21:19:48 -0700, (Michael) wrote:
>>
>> >I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
>> >trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
>> >a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.
>> >
>> Add the SZD Junior to this list - I know there are only 5 in the USA,
>> but they are more common elsewhere..
>>
>8 at the moment.
>

That's good news.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Liam Finley]

Good post. I hope it doesn't get buried beneath the hundreds of
Lennie-related bloviations in this thread.

(John Seaborn) wrote in message >...
> While growth in soaring is a world wide problem, what follows is a USA
> centric viewpoint. First, believe growth can be accomplished. There is
> so much negative talk about growing the sport, so many splintered
> ideas that it seems like making a real difference in the trend can
> only be done by magic. Its also safe to say what we are doing now is
> not making a big long term difference in the members trend line.
>
> Any marketing person worth their salt can come up with 50-100 easy,
> affordable and effective ways to grow soaring. The biggest obstacle to
> growing the sport is that there is no one with the background needed
> responsible on a day-to-day basis for this activity in the USA - with
> a budget to get things done. Volunteers can't do the job, it has to be
> a paid activity as it requires much more focus and longevity than what
> can be expected out of a volunteer effort. No budget means no real
> action.
>
> Growth in soaring happens at the local FBO and Club level. A simple
> pull strategy is what is needed. With pull marketing the objective is
> to pull "customers" into the established retail selling points. The
> sport already has a great "product", and established "retailers" in
> the form of clubs and commercial operators, but no focused long-term
> strategy to pull the right customers into these retail centers.
>
> Step one is to form a triad between the clubs, commercial operators
> and the promotion team around the idea that Promotion will be
> developing opportunities to pull customers into their retail
> locations. It is critical to separate the thrill a minute ride
> customer that you never see again from the "want to learn to soar"
> customer. Its also critical that once the customers show at the
> retailer they get a warm reception. Develop several "entry" points
> that are inviting to potential members. For example, a First Flight
> Certificate printable off the SSA Web Site redeemable at any
> participating club or FBO. A targeted direct mail campaign to target
> demo and psychographics within x miles of participating retailers, a
> 1-800 number that can answer customer questions and direct them to
> their nearest retailer, a First Flight Kit that can be sent to
> prospects, cooperative marketing with other aviation organizations
> like AOPA and EAA, an First Flight invitation letter to every retiring
> airline pilot, First Flight coupons in magazines and Sporty's, a First
> Flight video with 800 number and web address shown before targeted
> movies, promotion of the sport in film, print and web featuring First
> Flight information... you get the idea. Develop and refine a pull
> program, work it for a couple of years and see what happens. A final
> note, while many think youth is the future of our sport I think that
> 35-55 year olds with time, money and interest are the future of our
> sport.
>
> How to pay for this strategy is a good topic for RAS.
>
> John Seaborn
>

[Liam Finley]

"ADP" > wrote in message >...
> I prefer top posting. Since I'm a snipper, my suggestion: If you don't like
> top posting don't read my posts.
>
> Allan
>
>
> See below:
>
> "The Lion's Grove: Ramblings: Top Posting: The Source Of All Evil?
>
> 'Kay, so I'm reading the newsgroups. Yeah, I know. I generally dislike
> them because they seem to be only good for flamewars, but I've been
> extremely bored lately, and it's something to pass the time.
>
> In the rare instances that legitimate topics are actually discussed,
> there will come along a person who wants to contribute to the conversation
> and will post the information at the top of the message, known as
> "top-posting." And of course, this person will be jumped on, ridiculed,
> humiliated, beat about the head and shoulders with a salami, and generally
> be made to feel very unwelcome.
>
> I've just read another of these threads. One person top-posted and
> there followed a coupla dozen posts saying how it is poor netiquette, how it
> is generally accepted practice not to do so, and one giving a link to a list
> of FAQs explaining how it has been decided this should be so. There were
> messages saying that the top-posting person "violated the social morays[sic]
> of the group" and should basically conform to their standards because it is
> somehow more polite. There was also much unnecessary name-calling and
> insults directed at people who are different.
>
> [*Note: I'm really having to fight the urge to go off on a rant about
> how "morays" should be spelled "mores" and the fact that if people aren't
> familiar with a word and its use, they shouldn't be throwing the damn thing
> around. A "moray" is, in fact, an eel and of course should never be
> violated. "Mores" are social norms taken so seriously that laws tend to be
> created based on them. Oh wait...]
>
> I don't understand what the big deal is. I actually like it when
> people top-post. Reading through hundreds of messages goes by much faster
> when I can see at a glance what's being said without having to constantly

I think that replies should be inserted at random points within the
quoted text. My reasoning is explained below.

> scroll through the entire message. I don't get all huffy and insult the
> person. I move on to the next message and continue with my reading. Why is
> it so difficult for others to do the same?
>
> Went and found a site that gives some admittedly good reasons why
> folks should not top-post. I'm going to use these from
> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm cuz they're a lot shorter and to
> the point than most other sites.
>
> "First, top posters tend never to snip, never to shorten that to which
> they reply. So people whose download time costs money are wasting money
> downloading enormous lengths of stuff they have already read."
>
> This I can understand. But it is the lack of snippage that should be
> addressed.
>
> "Second, and connected, is that you do not know with top posting
> whether someone has written something else later on, so do you waste your
> time going through it?"
>
> Is this really a problem? Isn't it usually pretty obvious that the
> poster has said all he has intended to say? if he hasn't attached his
> top-posted comments directly to a portion of the previous post, what makes
> you think he's going to do it further along in the message? And is it really
> that big a deal to scroll down and check? You're going to scroll through
> other messages anyway. But I guess a top-poster's messages are a waste of
> time...
>
> "Third, it is much easier to read things in order, and you can see
> with good Netiquette how easily it flows."
>
> This is usually followed by an insanely simple example which,
> incidentally, could all use a bit of snipping for the "he wrote:, she
> wrote:, bob wrote:, god wrote:" prefixes. Newsgroup posts are rarely that
> simple, at least from what I've seen. It's usually more along the lines of:
>
> >[obscene amount of header crap left on so someone can show off their
> "witty"
> >personalization]
> >>[more header crap]
> >>>[still more header crap]
> >>>>[and even more header crap]
> >>>>Hi, my name is Lisa and I'm new to the group. I just wanted to
> share that I just read
> >>>>this great book on pasta, it's called "The Joy of Pasta." You
> should really check it
> >>>>out.
> >[no longer crossposted as this person finally got a clue]
> >I read that book and really like it too. I love the recipes!

Did I mention that Lennie is a jerk?

> >>>[crossposted to a dozen other completely unrelated newsgroups]
> >>>i'll show ya pasta baybeeee
> >>>[followed by a signature, usually trying to show how "l33t" the
> poster is]
> >>[also posted to the dozen other groups because the poster forgot to
> take them off of
> >>the To: field]
> >>If you don't have anything productive to say, don't say anything at
> all.
> >Oh, get off your high horse. By responding to them you're only
> encouraging them. Get
> > over it.
> >[yada yada]
> >>>>I look forward to being a part of the group!
> >>>>[followed by long irritating signature]
> >>Welcome to the group!
> >>[followed by a signature]
> >Hope you like it here!
> >[followed by more signature]
>
> Throw in some bad spelling, some obscenities from a troll, and some
> bad formatting, and you've got a rather difficult message to read. Which
> leads me to a) if you can understand that mess, a person posting at the top
> shouldn't throw you off that much, and b) if you can't understand that mess,
> what does it matter where the next person puts their message? You're not
> gonna get it anyway. The main issue here is snippage. If people would just
> learn to cut out all the irrelevent and unnecessary crap, there wouldn't be
> any problems understanding where the message is going.
>
> I think what it really comes down to is that people don't like when
> someone comes in and disrupts their structured little world. Top-posting
> isn't going to cause California to fall off into the ocean [yes, this would
> be a bad thing, at least to the Californians], so why act like it will?"
>
>
> .
> 2nd source:
>
> "BUT not snipping is a far worse disease. If you read a five screen article,
> and you like it, it is the height of selfishness to leave the whole five
> screens while you add a single line to say how much you like it - and it
> does not matter which end you put it, it is still very unfair on others and
> shows a lack of respect for your fellow posters. You should leave in a
> paragraph or two, not more, unless you are specifically referring to bits.
> Then you leave in the bits to which you refer, and reply just after them.
>
> So, please snip, that is vital, please do not top post, but that is not so
> important."

[Bill Daniels]

"Liam Finley" > wrote in message
om...
> Good post. I hope it doesn't get buried beneath the hundreds of
> Lennie-related bloviations in this thread.
>
> (John Seaborn) wrote in message
>...
> > While growth in soaring is a world wide problem, what follows is a USA
> > centric viewpoint. First, believe growth can be accomplished. There is
> > so much negative talk about growing the sport, so many splintered
> > ideas that it seems like making a real difference in the trend can
> > only be done by magic. Its also safe to say what we are doing now is
> > not making a big long term difference in the members trend line.
> >
> > Any marketing person worth their salt can come up with 50-100 easy,
> > affordable and effective ways to grow soaring. The biggest obstacle to
> > growing the sport is that there is no one with the background needed
> > responsible on a day-to-day basis for this activity in the USA - with
> > a budget to get things done. Volunteers can't do the job, it has to be
> > a paid activity as it requires much more focus and longevity than what
> > can be expected out of a volunteer effort. No budget means no real
> > action.
> >
> > Growth in soaring happens at the local FBO and Club level. A simple
> > pull strategy is what is needed. With pull marketing the objective is
> > to pull "customers" into the established retail selling points. The
> > sport already has a great "product", and established "retailers" in
> > the form of clubs and commercial operators, but no focused long-term
> > strategy to pull the right customers into these retail centers.
> >
> > Step one is to form a triad between the clubs, commercial operators
> > and the promotion team around the idea that Promotion will be
> > developing opportunities to pull customers into their retail
> > locations. It is critical to separate the thrill a minute ride
> > customer that you never see again from the "want to learn to soar"
> > customer. Its also critical that once the customers show at the
> > retailer they get a warm reception. Develop several "entry" points
> > that are inviting to potential members. For example, a First Flight
> > Certificate printable off the SSA Web Site redeemable at any
> > participating club or FBO. A targeted direct mail campaign to target
> > demo and psychographics within x miles of participating retailers, a
> > 1-800 number that can answer customer questions and direct them to
> > their nearest retailer, a First Flight Kit that can be sent to
> > prospects, cooperative marketing with other aviation organizations
> > like AOPA and EAA, an First Flight invitation letter to every retiring
> > airline pilot, First Flight coupons in magazines and Sporty's, a First
> > Flight video with 800 number and web address shown before targeted
> > movies, promotion of the sport in film, print and web featuring First
> > Flight information... you get the idea. Develop and refine a pull
> > program, work it for a couple of years and see what happens. A final
> > note, while many think youth is the future of our sport I think that
> > 35-55 year olds with time, money and interest are the future of our
> > sport.
> >
> > How to pay for this strategy is a good topic for RAS.
> >
> > John Seaborn
> >

Step one for funding. Deny the dues rebate to any SSA chapter that doesn't
meet a growth quota. Clubs with a stated "no-growth" or "limited
membership" policy don't even get to ask for a rebate. The funds thus
retained go to marketing.

Step two. Add a check box to the individual SSA membership renewal form
that contributes $5 of the annual membership fee to marketing soaring.

Step three. Ask (or require) business members to contribute $200 (or more)
to the marketing fund.

Step four. Reward individual SSA members who, during the preceding year,
are responsible for 10 new members by waiving their membership renewal fee.
Add a space on the SSA application form for the name of the SSA member who
recruited the new member. List the names of these "Star Recruiters" in
Soaring and ask the business members to offer them a discount on
merchandise, tows etc...

Step five. Create a reward for the most productive recruiter of the year to
be presented at the SSA convention.

Bill Daniels

[Bruce Greeff]

soarski wrote:

> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
>>f.blair wrote:
>>
>>>The L-13 is a great trainer, especially for spin training. Compared to a
>>>1-26 it is certainly less nimble, but weighs about 2 X as much. The L-13
>>>will take a student through any maneuver they need to learn about before you
>>>let them solo.
>>>
>>
>>In our area, the L13 has plenty of performance to make cross-country
>>flights, but the thought of retrieving it from a field discourages most
>>people from trying.
>
>
>
> I think I remember a team that took it apart, or even put it together in 12 Minutes!
>
> Dieter B
Having dismantled and re-assembled our much loved (and hated) L13 repeatedly I
must note that I have done a couple of very conservative cross countries in the
L13. But the thought of having to take it apart in a field in the dark and get
it secure on the trailer, and then re-assemble it again is enough to put any but
the most hardened masochist off. 12 minutes is about what it generally takes us
to line up the wings. Maybe we need practise, as we generally avoid rigging
anything, there is space in the hangar for them all.

Lots of fun for gentle aerobatics, and a good trainer but easy to rig she is not.

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> Step one for funding. Deny the dues rebate to any SSA chapter that doesn't
> meet a growth quota. Clubs with a stated "no-growth" or "limited
> membership" policy don't even get to ask for a rebate. The funds thus
> retained go to marketing.
>
> Step two. Add a check box to the individual SSA membership renewal form
> that contributes $5 of the annual membership fee to marketing soaring.
>
> Step three. Ask (or require) business members to contribute $200 (or more)
> to the marketing fund.
>
> Step four. Reward individual SSA members who, during the preceding year,
> are responsible for 10 new members by waiving their membership renewal fee.

I wouldn't even set the bar that high: 5 new members would be quite an
achievement. Make it 3 members to get half off the dues.

> Add a space on the SSA application form for the name of the SSA member who
> recruited the new member. List the names of these "Star Recruiters" in
> Soaring and ask the business members to offer them a discount on
> merchandise, tows etc...


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

Soaring is declining because the experience of flight is highly accessible.
It is more common to find young people in North America and Europe that have
flown somewhere on a jet, achieving FL350 or greater, than would be the
common youthful experience of many following RAS. I would expect that if I
were to survey the local high school, I would find more than 50% of the
students had flown at least once. In my HS days, this would have been
5-10%. Many of my generation fly because we seek the mystic of flight,
soaring being one of the venues. EAA has a whole host of greybeards,
because propellars have always been more accessible. Flying high, fast, and
far has been de-mystified for a much larger segment of my society. As a
result, I expect the number seeking to soar to be a lesser percentage. As
the population grows however, I also expect the total number of seekers to
grow. Now, how do we reach them?

Frank Whiteley

[Graeme Cant]

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
> Soaring is declining because the experience of flight is highly accessible.
> It is more common to find young people in North America and Europe that have
> flown somewhere on a jet, achieving FL350 or greater, than would be the
> common youthful experience of many following RAS. I would expect that if I
> were to survey the local high school, I would find more than 50% of the
> students had flown at least once. In my HS days, this would have been
> 5-10%. Many of my generation fly because we seek the mystic of flight,
> soaring being one of the venues. EAA has a whole host of greybeards,
> because propellars have always been more accessible. Flying high, fast, and
> far has been de-mystified for a much larger segment of my society. As a
> result, I expect the number seeking to soar to be a lesser percentage. As
> the population grows however, I also expect the total number of seekers to
> grow. Now, how do we reach them?

Frank, your general thesis is absolutely correct. We reach them by
concentrating on the group which you correctly describe as already
interested but not blase about the flight experience. These are not the
under thirties, they are the over-55s. Certainly in my country, this is
also the age group where the growth is occurring while the under
thirties are a shrinking group (both absolutely and relatively). I know
it will make many of our clubs unpalatable socially to a number of
younger enthusiasts but hey - we all have to suffer for our pleasures.

As you rightly point out, the EAA has an aged population - and that is
one of the most popular flying clubs ever. Does AOPA release membership
statistics broken down by age?

Graeme Cant

[Bill Daniels]

The airline marketing departments have unintentionally helped create this
problem by creating a "superman" aura around their pilots. By inference,
their message says all other pilots have lesser skills and it would be folly
for mere mortals to attempt flight by their own hand.

Yet, I think the interest in flying is still there. I haven't checked
recently, but first person flight simulators were the best selling computer
games on the market. Airshows are the best attended outdoor events of all.
It's hard to argue that a fairly large segment of the general public doesn't
have a fascination with flight.

I find it easy to elicit the interest of non pilots in the concept of
soaring. The problem arises when it is suggested that they, all by
themselves, could learn to take the controls and soar. To a degree, they
are right. Not everyone can learn to fly. The difficult part is to light a
spark in those that can learn.

I have long suspected that PC based Flight Simulators might be a key since
they are such a successful product. Most of these simulators are open
systems to the degree that new 'aircraft' can be designed for them.
Unfortunately, there is a dearth of really good simulated gliders.

There are a lot of really good computer people in this sport. If they built
some great simulated gliders that could be downloaded free from soaring web
sites along with a pitch that the real experience is available at their
local gliderport, we might see small but steady stream of real talent
showing up for lessons.

For those just taking rides, handing them a CD with flight sim 'gliders'
that matched what they just rode in might be a pretty good marketing tool
too.

Bill Daniels

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
> Soaring is declining because the experience of flight is highly
accessible.
> It is more common to find young people in North America and Europe that
have
> flown somewhere on a jet, achieving FL350 or greater, than would be the
> common youthful experience of many following RAS. I would expect that if
I
> were to survey the local high school, I would find more than 50% of the
> students had flown at least once. In my HS days, this would have been
> 5-10%. Many of my generation fly because we seek the mystic of flight,
> soaring being one of the venues. EAA has a whole host of greybeards,
> because propellars have always been more accessible. Flying high, fast,
and
> far has been de-mystified for a much larger segment of my society. As a
> result, I expect the number seeking to soar to be a lesser percentage. As
> the population grows however, I also expect the total number of seekers to
> grow. Now, how do we reach them?
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:22:58 -0600, "F.L. Whiteley"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 26 Apr 2004 21:19:48 -0700, (Michael) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
> >> >trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
> >> >a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.
> >> >
> >> Add the SZD Junior to this list - I know there are only 5 in the USA,
> >> but they are more common elsewhere..
> >>
> >8 at the moment.
> >
>
> That's good news.
>
> --
It's also on my club's wish list.

Frank

[Pete Reinhart]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:cm8kc.15438$Rd4.1082651@attbi_s51...
> The airline marketing departments have unintentionally helped create this
> problem by creating a "superman" aura around their pilots. By inference,
> their message says all other pilots have lesser skills and it would be
folly
> for mere mortals to attempt flight by their own hand.
>
> .. Not everyone can learn to fly. The difficult part is to light a
> spark in those that can learn.
>
> I have long suspected that PC based Flight Simulators might be a key since
> they are such a successful product. Most of these simulators are open
> systems to the degree that new 'aircraft' can be designed for them.
> Unfortunately, there is a dearth of really good simulated gliders.
>
> There are a lot of really good computer people in this sport. If they
built
> some great simulated gliders that could be downloaded free from soaring
web
> sites along with a pitch that the real experience is available at their
> local gliderport, we might see small but steady stream of real talent
> showing up for lessons.
>
> For those just taking rides, handing them a CD with flight sim 'gliders'
> that matched what they just rode in might be a pretty good marketing tool
> too.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> .The flight simulator game is a great idea. Eithe a disk at the end of a
demo ride or downloadable from the internet. If a the SSA wanted to make
their web site really useful, maybe we could start an underground , web
based "soaring simulator cult" by "underground" or shreware type marketing
on the web by licensing one of the better simulator games for free download.
Maybe a two tier system with the second and better game on the disk you get
at the end of your demo ride. This might generate an extra bit of business
for the commercial operators and some new members (revenue stream) for the
clubs. Then there might be some demand for instructors as well.
Cheers!, Pete

[Mark James Boyd]

I put my sig the way it is to stop the news poster program from adding
advertisements onto my sig. God knows why the university let
the newsreader provider do that...

Paul Repacholi > wrote:
>Martin Gregorie > writes:
>
>I knew this was going to happen...
>
>> - you should precede your sig with a line containing with two hyphens
>> and nothing else. Properly written news readers will spot these and
>> automatically remove the sig to save you the bother.
>
>Wrong. So stupid reasons burried in history, a sig marker is `dash
>dash SPACE' all on a line of its own. Yes, a trailing space. -- is in
>fact quite common in the body of the postings on some newsgroups.
>
>--
>Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
>+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
> West Australia 6076
>comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
>Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
>EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Michael > wrote:
>
>I've flown an L-13 as well, and even by comparison with a 1-26, never
>mind a Ka-8, the handling can best be described as truck-like. Also,
>I'm not sure the second seat is a feature. It's good for new pilots
>to get into a single-seater (once they solo the two-seater, of
>course). Builds self-reliance and keeps instructors honest about
>teaching one to fly gliders, not L-13's or 2-33's.

Well, our L-13 is the best spin trainer we've got. Absolutely
fantastic spinning with the nose pointing WAY down and the ASI
showing the student that we ain't spiralling. I'm not sure
a new student really understands the "can stall at any attitude"
as well as in a many turn spin in a L-13. Well, at least not dual in
a ship costing about $10,000...

Besides that, I agree with everything else you've posted.

P.S. "ain't" = are not. Can also be translated "is not."
American vernacular for us'ns who d'wanna be concerned with
plural or singular...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>>
>> There is a skill set that a pilot must learn if he is to be able to
>> check himself out in a new aircraft.
>
>What is this skill set? I'm not aware of anything specific along these
>lines from the instructor/instruction manuals I've read. Generally, once
>I'd trained a pilot to fly in a Blanik, he had most of the skills needed
>to fly one of the usual single seaters.

Calculating W&B, determining tow rope weak link
required strengths, recovery from a spin entry,
calculating stall speed from loaded weight,
how to develop a personalized checklist,
procedures for retractable gear gliders,
hazards and emergency procedures with water ballast,
etc.

None of these skills are required for the most basic solo
in a 2-33. All of this can be briefed or calculated
or (water ballast, etc.)is unneeded ahead of time.
All of these are things that can be taught post-solo,
or in some details after licensing.

You are right that the instructor manuals do not
go extensively into how a student can be taught to
teach himself. The closest I've seen is "personal
minimums" and maybe some EAA test pilot literature.

But I think this is really one of the best
areas where an instructor can add value, mostly after
solo. Teach the student how to approach a new aircraft
and learn it's potential hazards and quirks before ever flying it.

I flew a Lancair IVP last week, and even though I flew
it with another pilot who had many hours in it, he and
I together approached it like test pilots. He wanted me to teach
him not how to fly it, but how to approach a new aircraft
that he'd never flown before. We learned a LOT together
and I helped him change his takeoff and approach procedures
to reduce risk. Learning how to fly a new aircraft is
very different from flying that aircraft to it's
full capabilities (which comes later).


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[DGManley]

>None of these skills are required for the most basic solo
>in a 2-33.

If you're going to serve as the grammar police . . .

"None" is a contraction of "not one." It is singular, therefore, your sentence
should be, "None of these IS required . . ." etc.

Dave

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>>>There is a skill set that a pilot must learn if he is to be able to
>>>check himself out in a new aircraft.
>>
>>What is this skill set? I'm not aware of anything specific along these
>>lines from the instructor/instruction manuals I've read. Generally, once
>>I'd trained a pilot to fly in a Blanik, he had most of the skills needed
>>to fly one of the usual single seaters.
>
>
> Calculating W&B, determining tow rope weak link
> required strengths, recovery from a spin entry,
> calculating stall speed from loaded weight,
> how to develop a personalized checklist,
> procedures for retractable gear gliders,
> hazards and emergency procedures with water ballast,
> etc.
>
> None of these skills are required for the most basic solo
> in a 2-33. All of this can be briefed or calculated
> or (water ballast, etc.)is unneeded ahead of time.
> All of these are things that can be taught post-solo,
> or in some details after licensing.

I'm still puzzled. Are you saying these skills (calculating W&B, ....)
are _additional_ skills a pilot needs before "checking himself out in a
new aircraft"? They seem to be requirements learning to fly, or things
you need to be learn before flying advanced gliders. All of them can
apply to a high performance two-seaters or can be taught with ground
training. I don't see any thing specific to "checking himself out in a
new aircraft", but perhaps I don't understand what you and Michael mean
by "checking himself out in a new aircraft".

Or are you simply saying learning the minimun necessary to solo a 2-33
isn't enough to get you ready for a high performance racing glider? I"d
agree with that!


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>I'm still puzzled. Are you saying these skills (calculating W&B, ....)
>are _additional_ skills a pilot needs before "checking himself out in a
>new aircraft"?

I'm saying some of these skills are only post-solo, and some of these
skills (how to operate a retract) are not required for the PPL at
all. These skills are only learned by the pilot because he himself
accepts or maybe the insurance company requires some post-license training...

>They seem to be requirements learning to fly, or things
>you need to be learn before flying advanced gliders. All of them can
>apply to a high performance two-seaters or can be taught with ground
>training. I don't see any thing specific to "checking himself out in a
>new aircraft", but perhaps I don't understand what you and Michael mean
>by "checking himself out in a new aircraft".
Deciding how to load CG for the first flight, selecting
a long runway into the wind, choosing the launch method, researching
prior accidents, etc. are all things one can do to help
check oneself out in a new aircraft. None of this is required
by license, none of this requires dual training, but these things
and awareness of how to minimize risk flying something
completely new are developed pilot skills.

>Or are you simply saying learning the minimun necessary to solo a 2-33
>isn't enough to get you ready for a high performance racing glider? I"d
>agree with that!

I'm saying that, and more. I'm saying that a license isn't
enough either. But it SHOULD give you the skills to form your
own training plan and an idea about how to smoothly progress to
flying higher performance aircraft with no increase in risk. As
experience grows, risk is reduced. To maintain the same level of risk,
we throw something new in. Maybe ballast, maybe retract, maybe
more sensitive pitch controls (spins easier). Pilots who understand
personal minimums and have a comprehension of how different
flight characteristics and experience relate to risk can
add one component at a time and through reading and careful
observation add components slowly so the risk doesn't "spike"
up.

When soloing, we have accepted a certain level of risk. Over
time, we maintain the same level of risk while increasing capability,
or we can just remain with our same glider, pilot, and conditions and
have the risk go down. Most pilots, at least to some level, choose to
increase capability. Instructors are an aid to some extent,
as are manuals and AD's and accident reports, etc. But the
pilot himself is the only one who can consistently enforce
a post-license training plan...

Whether this involves dual instruction, or a college aerodynamics course,
or talking to others who've flown the same glider, etc. is up to
the pilot at that point. A good advanced instructor teaches a
pilot how to use resources and generalize, not how tofly
one particular glider...teach a man to fish, right?
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Jack]

On 4/17/04 7:19 PM, in article , "ADP"
> wrote:

> If my 10 or so sites are not representative, then my luck must be colossally
> bad.

It doesn't only happen at commercial sites. I had a similar sort of
experience at a well known glider club in southeastern Michigan a few years
ago, which caused me to delay my entry into the sport.

I moved to the western suburbs of Chicago last year and found a very
hospitable and desirable club.

From my limited experience, the old glider pilots' tales I've heard about
most glider clubs being something to avoid, rather than being attractive to
new members, may have considerable truth to it.



Jack

[Mike Borgelt]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:46:48 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

>
>Soaring does take "skill, ability, and perseverance." as well as other rare
>traits. Maybe that makes it "elitist" - if so, so be it. Maybe we should
>take a cue from the US Marine Corp Recruiters and look for a "Few Good Men
>and Women". Soaring will never be "everymans" hobby.
>
>Bill Daniels


Bill,

As usual much, good sense here.

In Australia the GFA (Gliding Federation of Australia) promotes
soaring as being safe, cheap and suitable for anyone.
Is it any wonder the retention rate is pathetic when people find out
it is none of these?

Mike Borgelt

[Liam Finley]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message news:<Y5Ufc.153537$K91.405035@attbi_s02>...
> traits. Maybe that makes it "elitist" - if so, so be it. Maybe we should
> take a cue from the US Marine Corp Recruiters and look for a "Few Good Men
> and Women". Soaring will never be "everymans" hobby.
>
> Bill Daniels

Better to recruit one good pilot than ten Lennies who wash out and
then spend the rest of their lives whining about it.

[Gill Couto]

Liam Finley wrote:
> Better to recruit one good pilot than ten Lennies who wash out and
> then spend the rest of their lives whining about it.

These are the days of safe web browsing. Reading about it and
viewing photos on the web is very enjoyable itself, why bother
learning to fly? Food 4 thought.

gill
www.gillcouto.com

[303pilot]

"Gill Couto" > wrote in message
news:NuNmc.90908$Qy.42435@fed1read04...
> These are the days of safe web browsing. Reading about it and
> viewing photos on the web is very enjoyable itself, why bother
> learning to fly? Food 4 thought.
>
> gill
> www.gillcouto.com

I have only 2 reasons
--the sense of adventure when I turn my back on my home field and head out
on course
--the sense of accomplishment when I'm on final glide

OK, there's more
--giggling at the improbability of climbing at 13 kts in a motorless
aircraft
--the view
--the brain flush of fully concentrating on the task at hand with not
another thought in my mind
--soaring w/hawks and turkey vultures
lots more. But if browsing the web works for you, stick with it.

Looks like we've got our first really good weekend coming up.

Yipee!

Brent

[Nyal Williams]

At 15:12 07 May 2004, Gill Couto wrote:
>Liam Finley wrote:
>> Better to recruit one good pilot than ten Lennies
>>who wash out and
>> then spend the rest of their lives whining about it.
>
>These are the days of safe web browsing. Reading about
>it and
>viewing photos on the web is very enjoyable itself,
>why bother
>learning to fly? Food 4 thought.
>
>gill
>www.gillcouto.com

Gill, you could say the same thing about food and sex.
Those are both dangerous.
>

[Mark James Boyd]

Gill Couto > wrote:
>viewing photos on the web is very enjoyable itself, why bother
>learning to fly? Food 4 thought.

Touche' Just because the numbers of pilots, aircraft,
SSA members or tows declines, this may not mean much if there are many
more people enjoying the sport vicariously.

Makes "representatives of the sport" all that much more
meaningful... :P
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mike Lindsay]

In article <409c7e66$1@darkstar>, Mark James Boyd >
writes
>Gill Couto > wrote:
>>viewing photos on the web is very enjoyable itself, why bother
>>learning to fly? Food 4 thought.
>
>Touche' Just because the numbers of pilots, aircraft,
>SSA members or tows declines, this may not mean much if there are many
>more people enjoying the sport vicariously.
>
You mean, like reading a porno mag instead of doing something real?

--
Mike Lindsay

[Gill Couto]

Mike Lindsay wrote:
> In article <409c7e66$1@darkstar>, Mark James Boyd >
> writes
>
>>Gill Couto > wrote:
>>
>>>viewing photos on the web is very enjoyable itself, why bother
>>>learning to fly? Food 4 thought.
>>
>>Touche' Just because the numbers of pilots, aircraft,
>>SSA members or tows declines, this may not mean much if there are many
>>more people enjoying the sport vicariously.
>>
>
> You mean, like reading a porno mag instead of doing something real?

What do you read in a porn mag?

gill
www.gillcouto.com/hg

[Tony Verhulst]

Mike Lindsay wrote:
> In article <409c7e66$1@darkstar>, Mark James Boyd >
> writes
>
>>Gill Couto > wrote:
>>
>>>viewing photos on the web is very enjoyable itself, why bother
>>>learning to fly? Food 4 thought.
>>
>>Touche' Just because the numbers of pilots, aircraft,
>>SSA members or tows declines, this may not mean much if there are many
>>more people enjoying the sport vicariously.
>>
>
> You mean, like reading a porno mag instead of doing something real?

No. I think he means *preferring* the magazine over the real thing. Sort
of like the PC flight simulators. There are legions of dedicated
"simmers" who will never sit at the controls of a real aircraft.

I've bought several versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator in the hope
that a better version will spark my interest. So far, they bore me to tears.

Tony V
http://home .comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[J.A.M.]

Yeah well when you got no chance to fly an Airbus, an Learjet, or an F-16,
to name a few, some sims might spark your interest.That's it if you're
interested in flying and computer games, some people don't like computers.
That's ok with me.
I fly gliders (as a matter of fact I prefer flying gliders to sims, believe
or not) but I'm also a big fan of Falcon 4.0, an F16 'hardcore' sim.
IMHO soaring could be declining because it's expensive (more expensive than
other popular activities) and more important, it is a time consuming
activitie. Not an inmediate gratification activitie, requires investment in
both money AND time, and if you don't have a passion for flying to begin
with, it will not catch you. All the people I've flown with liked the
experience but only who came decided to get involved with flying behorehand
actually stayed in and got their licence. And of those, not all of them
continued soaring after that.
In Spain at least, my personal impression is that soaring is growing. It is
becoming available to that pool of people with deep interest in aviation,
not that we are convincing anyone.
For my part, at least, I don't have a great interest in turning soaring into
a mass sports, like skying has become. Just keep it open and accessible for
everybody (I mean, no elite attitude), and people with real interest will
get in. The ocassional pilot can be more of a hazard than a contribution to
the sport, in my opinion.

Good flying!
Jose M. Alvarez
ASW-24

>
> I've bought several versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator in the hope
> that a better version will spark my interest. So far, they bore me to
tears.
>
> Tony V
> http://home .comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Tony Verhulst > wrote:

> I've bought several versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator in the hope
> that a better version will spark my interest. So far, they bore me to tears.

Yeah, well that's possibly because it's crap! MS Flight Sim is now a
great *scenery* simulator, and ever since the days of 8 MHz Macs (maybe
even earlier) it's been pretty decent for practising IFR using AH and
VOR and ADF. But it's still got rubbish physics.

X-Plane is a much better simulator, and actually feels quite real (and
you can get some pretty good glider models for it, from
http://www.x-plane.org/Aircraft/). It's a good enough sim that several
real companies use it for pilot training and design evaluation for
aircraft they are designing. With the right add-on hardware, it's also
FAA approved for logging simulator time. Not bad for a $49.50 program.

In older programs, I found the Mac-only A-10 Attack! to feel *very*
realistic to fly -- of course I don't know what an A-10 feels like to
fly, but it felt like it *could* be a real aircraft (and I *have* been
at the controls of kinda similar size aircraft, such as the
Harvard/Texan). It also had excellent emulation of the interaction of
the landing gear and struts with the ground. I'm told the authors
(Graphic Simulations) actually make high end simulations for the
military as well as games.

There are probably some good PC simulators, too, but I don't know what
they would be -- the vast majority have very little to do with real
aircraft, whether because the programmers didn't know how (probably), or
because their customers (like the Sep11 pilots) didn't care about
takeoffs or landings, I don't know.

-- Bruce

[Liam Finley]

In general, simulators of any sort are not very much fun unless they
allow you to blow stuff up.

MS Flight sim does not let you blow stuff up, so it is pretty lame.

[Bruce Greeff]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> In article >,
> Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>
>
>>I've bought several versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator in the hope
>>that a better version will spark my interest. So far, they bore me to tears.
>
>
> Yeah, well that's possibly because it's crap! MS Flight Sim is now a
> great *scenery* simulator, and ever since the days of 8 MHz Macs (maybe
> even earlier) it's been pretty decent for practising IFR using AH and
> VOR and ADF. But it's still got rubbish physics.
>
> X-Plane is a much better simulator, and actually feels quite real (and
> you can get some pretty good glider models for it, from
> http://www.x-plane.org/Aircraft/). It's a good enough sim that several
> real companies use it for pilot training and design evaluation for
> aircraft they are designing. With the right add-on hardware, it's also
> FAA approved for logging simulator time. Not bad for a $49.50 program.
>
> In older programs, I found the Mac-only A-10 Attack! to feel *very*
> realistic to fly -- of course I don't know what an A-10 feels like to
> fly, but it felt like it *could* be a real aircraft (and I *have* been
> at the controls of kinda similar size aircraft, such as the
> Harvard/Texan). It also had excellent emulation of the interaction of
> the landing gear and struts with the ground. I'm told the authors
> (Graphic Simulations) actually make high end simulations for the
> military as well as games.
>
> There are probably some good PC simulators, too, but I don't know what
> they would be -- the vast majority have very little to do with real
> aircraft, whether because the programmers didn't know how (probably), or
> because their customers (like the Sep11 pilots) didn't care about
> takeoffs or landings, I don't know.
>
> -- Bruce
SFS-PC (www.sfspc.de) is the best soaring simulator I have used, although
apparently there is a competitor with Sailors of the sky. Both are cheap, SFS
has good physics, and weather models that actually work.

Nothing replaces doing it though...

[snoop]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> JJ Sinclair wrote:
> >>Maybe they should offer a trial membership, something like
> >
> >
> > Good idea, Scott. I suggested that the SSA give a free 1 year
membership to all
> > newly licenced glider pilots. Nothing ever came of it.
> > JJ Sinclair
>
> Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it's time to suggest it again - new
> management, elected and appointed.
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

Any thoughts on rolling the SSA into the fold of the EAA, along with
it's Classic, Warbird, Vintage Aircraft divisions. Lots of members, two
conventions a year for exposure (Oshkosh, and Sun and Fun). Strong
lobbying power, and a world wide network. Just thoughts.

[BTIZ]

> Any thoughts on rolling the SSA into the fold of the EAA, along with
> it's Classic, Warbird, Vintage Aircraft divisions. Lots of members, two
> conventions a year for exposure (Oshkosh, and Sun and Fun). Strong
> lobbying power, and a world wide network. Just thoughts.


If so.. how about creating a third convention for us west coasters.. SnF and
Osh are a little far away..

BT

[Nyal Williams]

At 17:30 28 December 2004, Snoop wrote:
>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> JJ Sinclair wrote:
>> >>Maybe they should offer a trial membership, something
>>>>like
>> >
>> >
>> > Good idea, Scott. I suggested that the SSA give a
>>>free 1 year
>membership to all
>> > newly licenced glider pilots. Nothing ever came of
>>>it.
>> > JJ Sinclair
>>
>> Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it's time to suggest
>>it again - new
>> management, elected and appointed.
>> --
>> -----
>> change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>
>> Eric Greenwell
>> Washington State
>> USA
>
>Any thoughts on rolling the SSA into the fold of the
>EAA, along with
>it's Classic, Warbird, Vintage Aircraft divisions.
>Lots of members, two
>conventions a year for exposure (Oshkosh, and Sun and
>Fun). Strong
>lobbying power, and a world wide network. Just thoughts.
>

Ba-a-d Idea!

With all due respect to the years of hard work the
people at the very to of EAA put into it, we would
not want to be under their control. It functions like
a Fiefdom. They select all the second tier managers
and the top slot stays in the family. They get all
the benefits and the members do all the volunteer work
and still have to pay to get into the show and are
allowed but one museum visit per year without paying
for that. The museum's aircraft are available only
the the top 1-6 people to fly. They have absolute
control over everything. We could not fit into their
regime.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"snoop" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > JJ Sinclair wrote:
> > >>Maybe they should offer a trial membership, something like
> > >
> > >
> > > Good idea, Scott. I suggested that the SSA give a free 1 year
> membership to all
> > > newly licenced glider pilots. Nothing ever came of it.
> > > JJ Sinclair
> >
> > Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it's time to suggest it again - new
> > management, elected and appointed.
> > --
> > -----
> > change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >
> > Eric Greenwell
> > Washington State
> > USA
>
> Any thoughts on rolling the SSA into the fold of the EAA, along with
> it's Classic, Warbird, Vintage Aircraft divisions. Lots of members, two
> conventions a year for exposure (Oshkosh, and Sun and Fun). Strong
> lobbying power, and a world wide network. Just thoughts.
>
I'd rather merge with the HG and PG communities, at least they soar. I was
an EAA member for many years. It's enjoyable, educational, and interesting,
but so very different from the soaring community.

Frank Whiteley

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

I read the last few posts to this thread and decided to do a quick
survey of some of the people in my extended work group (Info Tech) just
to understand what they knew/thought about soaring.

I talked to about ten people, none were pilots, one had taken a small
airplane flight or two ... about half were involved in moderate risk
sports like motorcycling, scuba diving, kayaking and skiing.

After discussing their current hobbies, I asked all if they had ever
heard of soaring/gliding. Half immediately thought I meant hang
gliders ... and the group as a whole had little to no knowledge of
gliders/sailplanes or capabilities ... although one person knew gliders
were aero towed. Three said they had no interest in aviation of any
type in small aircraft. Most was not sure about seeing magazine or
movie coverage of glider/sailplane operations.

The surprise was a middle-aged female motorcycle driver/skier who had
been interested in gliders, and thought the 'plane' gliders looked cool
and probably would have tried it, but thought you had to go out west to
fly over the mountains as that was the 'background' in the few soaring
photos or movie segments she had seen. I asked her how many times she
remembers seeing soaring photos or TV/movie segments ... she thought
about it and said not many ... could remember three, but it could have
been as many as six in her lifetime ... although, she does seem to
remember quite a few hang gliding sequences/photos on TV in movies or
magazines. She also had limited knowledge of glider ops.

OK, a quick survey like this doesn't mean much ... although I probably
had a typical mix of people ... 30% have to be dragged into aircraft;
10% were interested, but uninvolved; and the remaining 60% had
virtually no knowledge of soaring/gliding. The latter is not new news.
I think we all know people don't know about soaring because it is just
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. The new ad campaigns being discussed/developed ... and the
individual efforts undertaken by clubs and other business operations
.... seem to be our best soaring info outlets at this time. What we
need is big exposure ... maybe a weekly series like "Desparate Soaring
Wives" ... or have one of Trump's Apprentices project manage a soaring
contest ... "Charlie, you're fired !!!"

Ken Kochanski (KK)

[John Sinclair]

How about hosting a Nationals down there, Bert? Its
got to be a whole bunch better than that place a little
north of you. Have gone to 3 nationals 'up there' and
haven't seen anything worth the drive yet.
JJ

At 15:30 29 December 2004, Burt Compton wrote:
>What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly
>growing. Maybe it is
>because of our good soaring location, good marketing,
>good 'meet & greet', good
>training, good equipment.
>
>We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/v
>>isiting pilot
>is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show
>them a good time.
>
>Burt Compton
>Marfa Gliders, west Texas
>www.flygliders.com
>

[[email protected]]

Marfa will be hosting the 2006 World Class (PW-5) National Contest. It
will be perfect "first" contest for our small staff / small town(with
final SSA approval - due Feb 2005.)

Yes, the mountain scenery around the grasslands of the Marfa Plateau is
quite good. Marfa Airport is about 5,000' msl, so summer temperatures
are not as hot as the rest of the southwest. Cloudbases can go to
17,999' msl. For higher, we have an ATC wave window to 30,000'. We
fly year-round, primarily offering glider ratings (PVT to CFIG) in the
mild winter months. The annual Marfa Wave Camp will be March 19-26,
2005. Register (required) with Dick Johnson at

More Marfa info: www.flygliders.com
Burt Compton, CFIG, DPE
Marfa Gliders, west Texas

John Sinclair wrote:
> How about hosting a Nationals down there, Bert? Its
> got to be a whole bunch better than that place a little
> north of you. Have gone to 3 nationals 'up there' and
> haven't seen anything worth the drive yet.
> JJ
>
> At 15:30 29 December 2004, Burt Compton wrote:
> >What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly
> >growing. Maybe it is
> >because of our good soaring location, good marketing,
> >good 'meet & greet', good
> >training, good equipment.
> >> >Burt Compton
> >Marfa Gliders, west Texas
> >www.flygliders.com
> >

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Burt Compton > wrote:
>What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe it is
>because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet & greet", good
>training, good equipment.

Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly noticed
is inconsistency.

Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be doing
all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.

I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
license for over $10,000. His best
and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.

I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
what was going on sooner.

I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
his students just need it...

There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
unethical business practices.

Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of bait-and-switch,
and a bit of car salesmanship.

Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.

I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff of
at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
tows and aircraft rental.

I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
require more training, or need more instruction in the more
tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.

But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.

I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me :)
It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
I usually figure I can't afford it :P

If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
business, and the business of my students, through referrals.

>
>We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting pilot
>is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.
>
>Burt Compton
>Marfa Gliders, west Texas
>www.flygliders.com

Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
professional group with a code of ethics.

That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
you think they "should" want.

We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value and
be a source of pride to this industry.
--

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

[Raphael Warshaw]

Mark;

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

While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or move
up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to codify
precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I learned
to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of training
would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase in more
places than to decrease, BTW.

Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training I'm
not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.

The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more training
hours) than local flying in gentler places.

Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over the
country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at least five
different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do things at these
locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor who ultimately
soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked out, obviously,
but luck probably played more of a part than it should have.

The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at many
sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered some
rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the feeling that
I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them would favor
their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more "predatory".

Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing
spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good instructor
should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end of that
aspiration.

Ray Warshaw
Claremont, CA
1LK










"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41d311db$1@darkstar...
> In article >,
> Burt Compton > wrote:
>>What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
>>it is
>>because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet & greet",
>>good
>>training, good equipment.
>
> Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
> something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
> charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
> hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
> noticed
> is inconsistency.
>
> Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
> achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be doing
> all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
> Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
> pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.
>
> I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
> license for over $10,000. His best
> and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.
>
> I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
> The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
> what was going on sooner.
>
> I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
> hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
> his students just need it...
>
> There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
> or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
> first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
> come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
> they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
> ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
> unethical business practices.
>
> Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
> perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
> giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
> a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
> an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
> bait-and-switch,
> and a bit of car salesmanship.
>
> Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
> inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
> the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
> CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.
>
> I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
> a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff of
> at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
> tows and aircraft rental.
>
> I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
> a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
> that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
> require more training, or need more instruction in the more
> tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
> wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.
>
> But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
> instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
> sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
> Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
> damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.
>
> I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
> their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me :)
> It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
> to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
> an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
> I usually figure I can't afford it :P
>
> If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
> less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
> business, and the business of my students, through referrals.
>
>>
>>We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting
>>pilot
>>is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.
>>
>>Burt Compton
>>Marfa Gliders, west Texas
>>www.flygliders.com
>
> Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
> gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
> professional group with a code of ethics.
>
> That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
> a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
> you think they "should" want.
>
> We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
> appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
> one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
> and
> be a source of pride to this industry.
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[smjmitchell]

Any model business does what Burt is doing ... it is called customer focused
marketing. I am not surprised that his business is growing. The first rule
in customer focused marketing is look after the customers that you already
have.

The problem is that most FBO's don't run good businesses (in fact very few
businesses in general follow these basic principles). FBO's are in the
business they love because they want to play with airplanes ... this does
not make them good business men.


"Burt Compton" > wrote in message
...
> What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
it is
> because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet & greet",
good
> training, good equipment.
>
> We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting
pilot
> is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.
>
> Burt Compton
> Marfa Gliders, west Texas
> www.flygliders.com

[smjmitchell]

> 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 .....

[plasticguy]

Soaring is a sport with too much baggage.
It won't grow in America without some cultural
shift in the way we view ourselves. On whole
Americans are too selfish for the sport to work here.

If you want to do it "American Style",
you usually need a glider of your own, somewhere to
tow from with a tow plane and at least one other skilled person
(towpilot) available on your schedule. You will probably need
a crewman (wife usually) to sit on the ground reading a book
while you do your thing. The flying comes first in most cases.

If you go soaring "European style" it is usually at a club venue
off winches with a larger body of participants. The reasons
European clubs are more successful center around the social
aspects of their cultures and the fact the flying is important, but
there is a more communal spirit to soaring. It is a bit less about flying
and a bit more about belonging to a community.

I'm off my soapbox....

Scott in Texas.

[Tim Mara]

I don't this soaring is declining because we're not training in expensive
high performance gliders..IMHO, it's quite the contrary....
Soaring has declined as of late....but didn't we increase the roles of
membership when our training a fleet ships were comprised mostly of 2-22's,
2-33's, K7's K13's and L-13's??.....It's been as of late while everyone has
been trying to spend big $ and buy more expensive club gliders, and
consequently saddling clubs and members with higher costs and debts that
clubs and membership has show it's worst decline....New students don't know
that flying a K7 or L13 isn't fun and challenging....so why do we have to
tell them that these trainers are obsolete and no longer teach the basics of
soaring, stick and rudder?
I think a vast majority of our newer members and students are really missing
something by not knowing the fun and joy of soaring in some of these great
old ships, (and even some newer less expensive and non-competition types)
have to offer. They are missing the history and heritage of soaring from our
beginnings......let them experience this, let them move into high $ gliders
"if" that is the path they choose. We still have a very large contingent of
soaring pilots in the world that have no interest in competitions, or
spending their children's college tuitions on their weekend toys but
happily, most for many years have been showing up at the airports and
enjoying the sport for what they want to get out of it...If you want to
expand soaring, make it affordable, keep it fun, ask yourself and your
members to dedicate some time to teach, and ask them for less money to take
part and I think you'll see far greater results
just my 2 cents, but it's worked for myself and my clubs for over 25 years
tim

"Raphael Warshaw" > wrote in message
...
> Mark;
>
> 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. I don't think there's any question but what its easier to get in
> trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.
>
> While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
> training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or
> move up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to
> codify precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I
> learned to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of
> training would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase
> in more places than to decrease, BTW.
>
> Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
> glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
> own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training I'm
> not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.
>
> The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
> well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
> cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
> east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
> limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more training
> hours) than local flying in gentler places.
>
> Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over
> the country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at
> least five different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do
> things at these locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor
> who ultimately soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked
> out, obviously, but luck probably played more of a part than it should
> have.
>
> The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
> rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
> FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at
> many sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered
> some rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the
> feeling that I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them
> would favor their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more
> "predatory".
>
> Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing
> spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good instructor
> should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end of that
> aspiration.
>
> Ray Warshaw
> Claremont, CA
> 1LK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
> news:41d311db$1@darkstar...
>> In article >,
>> Burt Compton > wrote:
>>>What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
>>>it is
>>>because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet &
>>>greet", good
>>>training, good equipment.
>>
>> Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
>> something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
>> charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
>> hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
>> noticed
>> is inconsistency.
>>
>> Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
>> achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be doing
>> all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
>> Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
>> pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.
>>
>> I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
>> license for over $10,000. His best
>> and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.
>>
>> I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
>> The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
>> what was going on sooner.
>>
>> I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
>> hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
>> his students just need it...
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
>> or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
>> first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
>> come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
>> they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
>> ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
>> unethical business practices.
>>
>> Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
>> perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
>> giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
>> a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
>> an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
>> bait-and-switch,
>> and a bit of car salesmanship.
>>
>> Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
>> inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
>> the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
>> CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.
>>
>> I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
>> a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff
>> of
>> at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
>> tows and aircraft rental.
>>
>> I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
>> a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
>> that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
>> require more training, or need more instruction in the more
>> tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
>> wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.
>>
>> But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
>> instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
>> sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
>> Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
>> damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.
>>
>> I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
>> their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me :)
>> It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
>> to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
>> an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
>> I usually figure I can't afford it :P
>>
>> If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
>> less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
>> business, and the business of my students, through referrals.
>>
>>>
>>>We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting
>>>pilot
>>>is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.
>>>
>>>Burt Compton
>>>Marfa Gliders, west Texas
>>>www.flygliders.com
>>
>> Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
>> gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
>> professional group with a code of ethics.
>>
>> That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
>> a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
>> you think they "should" want.
>>
>> We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
>> appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
>> one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
>> and
>> be a source of pride to this industry.
>> --
>>
>> ------------+
>> Mark J. Boyd
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

At 15:30 30 December 2004, Plasticguy wrote:
>Soaring is a sport with too much baggage.
>It won't grow in America without some cultural
>shift in the way we view ourselves. On whole
>Americans are too selfish for the sport to work here.
>
>If you want to do it 'American Style',
>you usually need a glider of your own, somewhere to
>tow from with a tow plane and at least one other skilled
>person
>(towpilot) available on your schedule. You will probably
>need
>a crewman (wife usually) to sit on the ground reading
>a book
>while you do your thing. The flying comes first in
>most cases.
>
>If you go soaring 'European style' it is usually at
>a club venue
>off winches with a larger body of participants. The
>reasons
>European clubs are more successful center around the
>social
>aspects of their cultures and the fact the flying is
>important, but
>there is a more communal spirit to soaring. It is
>a bit less about flying
>and a bit more about belonging to a community.
>
>I'm off my soapbox....
>
>Scott in Texas.
>
A proper test of this theory would be to examine clubs
that have lots of social activities and available cheap
gliders for members to fly (even X-C) and compare with
clubs that are more in the nature of syndicates to
provide tow planes for private owners and with just
a modicum of instruction and rental for local flying
only and little in the way of social activities. (This
would still be a dirty analysis because it doesn't
separate the second-class flying status and the social
activity in the two groups)
>
>

[Malcolm Austin]

Well I for one agree with Tim's comments, with the perceived expectation
that
we are a very expensive sport using Formula One (or Nascar etc etc) type
of expensive equipment.

Here in the UK I have similar discussions with people who do not know our
sport, and they are all surprised that my hobby is actually cheaper that
many
others, including golf and even tennis or even a season ticket to a
Premiership
football club.

Having just managed my 5 hours this week in a 30 year old K6 I also agree
with
the comments on K7's and K13's. At out club we have these on site and they
are
very affordable and more importantly cheap and easy to keep in the air.
People
can move on in reasonable cost stages. Rather like my K6 which cost me the
equivalent of 7 days pay to join the syndicate and a further 12 days pay to
keep
in the air.

Flying K21's and the like is very nice but way beyond the means of most
people.
All you do is increase their expectations, which are then dashed by the cost
of
new plastic ships. Out of the 100 or so clubs over here I wonder how many
are truly solvent businesses, putting the cost of a new ship on the books
must hurt
immensely.

The comment about advertising is also extremely relevant. Apart from a
couple of times
I can't remember seeing anything on the TV here. Maybe we need to all get
together
and pool our resources for a good advertising campaign? Oh I forgot, we do
hear if
there's an incident of course!

Malcolm...


"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
...
>I don't this soaring is declining because we're not training in expensive
>high performance gliders..IMHO, it's quite the contrary....
> Soaring has declined as of late....but didn't we increase the roles of
> membership when our training a fleet ships were comprised mostly of
> 2-22's, 2-33's, K7's K13's and L-13's??.....It's been as of late while
> everyone has been trying to spend big $ and buy more expensive club
> gliders, and consequently saddling clubs and members with higher costs and
> debts that clubs and membership has show it's worst decline....New
> students don't know that flying a K7 or L13 isn't fun and
> challenging....so why do we have to tell them that these trainers are
> obsolete and no longer teach the basics of soaring, stick and rudder?
> I think a vast majority of our newer members and students are really
> missing something by not knowing the fun and joy of soaring in some of
> these great old ships, (and even some newer less expensive and
> non-competition types) have to offer. They are missing the history and
> heritage of soaring from our beginnings......let them experience this, let
> them move into high $ gliders "if" that is the path they choose. We still
> have a very large contingent of soaring pilots in the world that have no
> interest in competitions, or spending their children's college tuitions on
> their weekend toys but happily, most for many years have been showing up
> at the airports and enjoying the sport for what they want to get out of
> it...If you want to expand soaring, make it affordable, keep it fun, ask
> yourself and your members to dedicate some time to teach, and ask them for
> less money to take part and I think you'll see far greater results
> just my 2 cents, but it's worked for myself and my clubs for over 25 years
> tim
>
> "Raphael Warshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mark;
>>
>> 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. I don't think there's any question but what its
>> easier to get in trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.
>>
>> While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
>> training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or
>> move up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to
>> codify precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I
>> learned to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of
>> training would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase
>> in more places than to decrease, BTW.
>>
>> Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
>> glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
>> own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training
>> I'm not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.
>>
>> The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
>> well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
>> cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
>> east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
>> limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more
>> training hours) than local flying in gentler places.
>>
>> Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over
>> the country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at
>> least five different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do
>> things at these locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor
>> who ultimately soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked
>> out, obviously, but luck probably played more of a part than it should
>> have.
>>
>> The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
>> rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
>> FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at
>> many sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered
>> some rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the
>> feeling that I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them
>> would favor their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more
>> "predatory".
>>
>> Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of
>> landing spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good
>> instructor should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end
>> of that aspiration.
>>
>> Ray Warshaw
>> Claremont, CA
>> 1LK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
>> news:41d311db$1@darkstar...
>>> In article >,
>>> Burt Compton > wrote:
>>>>What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
>>>>it is
>>>>because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet &
>>>>greet", good
>>>>training, good equipment.
>>>
>>> Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
>>> something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
>>> charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
>>> hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
>>> noticed
>>> is inconsistency.
>>>
>>> Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
>>> achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be
>>> doing
>>> all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
>>> Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
>>> pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.
>>>
>>> I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
>>> license for over $10,000. His best
>>> and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.
>>>
>>> I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
>>> The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
>>> what was going on sooner.
>>>
>>> I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
>>> hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
>>> his students just need it...
>>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
>>> or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
>>> first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
>>> come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
>>> they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
>>> ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
>>> unethical business practices.
>>>
>>> Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
>>> perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
>>> giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
>>> a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
>>> an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
>>> bait-and-switch,
>>> and a bit of car salesmanship.
>>>
>>> Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
>>> inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
>>> the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
>>> CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.
>>>
>>> I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
>>> a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff
>>> of
>>> at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
>>> tows and aircraft rental.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
>>> a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
>>> that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
>>> require more training, or need more instruction in the more
>>> tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
>>> wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.
>>>
>>> But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
>>> instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
>>> sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
>>> Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
>>> damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.
>>>
>>> I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
>>> their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me :)
>>> It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
>>> to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
>>> an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
>>> I usually figure I can't afford it :P
>>>
>>> If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
>>> less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
>>> business, and the business of my students, through referrals.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each
>>>>customer/student/visiting pilot
>>>>is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.
>>>>
>>>>Burt Compton
>>>>Marfa Gliders, west Texas
>>>>www.flygliders.com
>>>
>>> Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
>>> gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
>>> professional group with a code of ethics.
>>>
>>> That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
>>> a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
>>> you think they "should" want.
>>>
>>> We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
>>> appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
>>> one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
>>> and
>>> be a source of pride to this industry.
>>> --
>>>
>>> ------------+
>>> Mark J. Boyd
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Charles Yeates]

Our club has operated on the cheap for over twenty years. Next month we
decide whether or not we are extinct.

Tim Mara wrote:
> I don't this soaring is declining because we're not training in expensive
> high performance gliders..IMHO, it's quite the contrary....
> Soaring has declined as of late....but didn't we increase the roles of
> membership when our training a fleet ships were comprised mostly of 2-22's,
> 2-33's, K7's K13's and L-13's??.....It's been as of late while everyone has
> been trying to spend big $ and buy more expensive club gliders, and
> consequently saddling clubs and members with higher costs and debts that
> clubs and membership has show it's worst decline....New students don't know
> that flying a K7 or L13 isn't fun and challenging....so why do we have to
> tell them that these trainers are obsolete and no longer teach the basics of
> soaring, stick and rudder?
> I think a vast majority of our newer members and students are really missing
> something by not knowing the fun and joy of soaring in some of these great
> old ships, (and even some newer less expensive and non-competition types)
> have to offer. They are missing the history and heritage of soaring from our
> beginnings......let them experience this, let them move into high $ gliders
> "if" that is the path they choose. We still have a very large contingent of
> soaring pilots in the world that have no interest in competitions, or
> spending their children's college tuitions on their weekend toys but
> happily, most for many years have been showing up at the airports and
> enjoying the sport for what they want to get out of it...If you want to
> expand soaring, make it affordable, keep it fun, ask yourself and your
> members to dedicate some time to teach, and ask them for less money to take
> part and I think you'll see far greater results
> just my 2 cents, but it's worked for myself and my clubs for over 25 years
> tim
>
> "Raphael Warshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Mark;
>>
>>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. I don't think there's any question but what its easier to get in
>>trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.
>>
>>While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
>>training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or
>>move up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to
>>codify precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I
>>learned to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of
>>training would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase
>>in more places than to decrease, BTW.
>>
>>Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
>>glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
>>own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training I'm
>>not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.
>>
>>The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
>>well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
>>cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
>>east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
>>limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more training
>>hours) than local flying in gentler places.
>>
>>Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over
>>the country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at
>>least five different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do
>>things at these locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor
>>who ultimately soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked
>>out, obviously, but luck probably played more of a part than it should
>>have.
>>
>>The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
>>rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
>>FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at
>>many sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered
>>some rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the
>>feeling that I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them
>>would favor their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more
>>"predatory".
>>
>>Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing
>>spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good instructor
>>should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end of that
>>aspiration.
>>
>>Ray Warshaw
>>Claremont, CA
>>1LK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
>>news:41d311db$1@darkstar...
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Burt Compton > wrote:
>>>
>>>>What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
>>>>it is
>>>>because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet &
>>>>greet", good
>>>>training, good equipment.
>>>
>>>Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
>>>something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
>>>charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
>>>hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
>>>noticed
>>>is inconsistency.
>>>
>>>Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
>>>achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be doing
>>>all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
>>>Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
>>>pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.
>>>
>>>I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
>>>license for over $10,000. His best
>>>and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.
>>>
>>>I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
>>>The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
>>>what was going on sooner.
>>>
>>>I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
>>>hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
>>>his students just need it...
>>>
>>>There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
>>>or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
>>>first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
>>>come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
>>>they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
>>>ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
>>>unethical business practices.
>>>
>>>Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
>>>perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
>>>giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
>>>a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
>>>an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
>>>bait-and-switch,
>>>and a bit of car salesmanship.
>>>
>>>Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
>>>inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
>>>the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
>>>CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.
>>>
>>>I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
>>>a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff
>>>of
>>>at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
>>>tows and aircraft rental.
>>>
>>>I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
>>>a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
>>>that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
>>>require more training, or need more instruction in the more
>>>tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
>>>wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.
>>>
>>>But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
>>>instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
>>>sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
>>>Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
>>>damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.
>>>
>>>I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
>>>their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me :)
>>>It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
>>>to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
>>>an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
>>>I usually figure I can't afford it :P
>>>
>>>If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
>>>less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
>>>business, and the business of my students, through referrals.
>>>
>>>
>>>>We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting
>>>>pilot
>>>>is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.
>>>>
>>>>Burt Compton
>>>>Marfa Gliders, west Texas
>>>>www.flygliders.com
>>>
>>>Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
>>>gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
>>>professional group with a code of ethics.
>>>
>>>That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
>>>a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
>>>you think they "should" want.
>>>
>>>We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
>>>appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
>>>one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
>>>and
>>>be a source of pride to this industry.
>>>--
>>>
>>>------------+
>>>Mark J. Boyd
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
Charles Yeates

Swidnik PW-6U & PW-5
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>

[John Sinclair]

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

[Udo Rumpf]

"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
>
>
>

[Udo Rumpf]

Hi JUJU,
In 1970 I was provided a company car, a Ford station wagon with all
the bells on it for about $4200.00. At that time the Dollar was near par.
Regards
Udo


"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
>
>
>