View Full Version : Soaring not compatible with modern society?
I'm wondering how much the modern reluctance to land out and desire for collision avoidance technology is driven by an underlying fear that if society knew about soaring, society would ban it. Granted no one wants to die or have anyone else die but we've been recreational flying for 100 years and accepting the same or worse odds the whole time. Taking risks that were normal not that long ago is frowned upon by society. More than frowned upon, prosecuted. Is soaring culturally illegal just not yet legislatively? Do we try to keep it hidden, play the 'preserve' freedom by not exercising it game? Spewing safety blather won't stop them from stopping us. Nor will better safety gear, the people driving modern society don't care about safety. Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun. Should we just run the game out then go sailing(if we are still allowed) or should we start standing up for our flying history and culture?
Matt Herron Jr.
May 5th 18, 03:27 AM
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:16:37 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> I'm wondering how much the modern reluctance to land out and desire for collision avoidance technology is driven by an underlying fear that if society knew about soaring, society would ban it. Granted no one wants to die or have anyone else die but we've been recreational flying for 100 years and accepting the same or worse odds the whole time. Taking risks that were normal not that long ago is frowned upon by society. More than frowned upon, prosecuted. Is soaring culturally illegal just not yet legislatively? Do we try to keep it hidden, play the 'preserve' freedom by not exercising it game? Spewing safety blather won't stop them from stopping us. Nor will better safety gear, the people driving modern society don't care about safety. Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun. Should we just run the game out then go sailing(if we are still allowed) or should we start standing up for our flying history and culture?
Improvement is safety is a natural evolution of every dangerous sport, activity or pastime. I don't thing we are hiding the risks of soaring from society. No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport. Improving safety is important for the preservation of the sport relative to the outside world view,, and for the seven or so lives lost each year within our own ranks.
John Foster
May 5th 18, 06:35 AM
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:16:37 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> I'm wondering how much the modern reluctance to land out and desire for collision avoidance technology is driven by an underlying fear that if society knew about soaring, society would ban it. Granted no one wants to die or have anyone else die but we've been recreational flying for 100 years and accepting the same or worse odds the whole time. Taking risks that were normal not that long ago is frowned upon by society. More than frowned upon, prosecuted. Is soaring culturally illegal just not yet legislatively? Do we try to keep it hidden, play the 'preserve' freedom by not exercising it game? Spewing safety blather won't stop them from stopping us. Nor will better safety gear, the people driving modern society don't care about safety. Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun. Should we just run the game out then go sailing(if we are still allowed) or should we start standing up for our flying history and culture?
The problem with modern society is a lack of, or aversion to personal responsibility. It's alway "someone else's fault". In soaring, you have to accept the consequences of the choices you make. It is forced upon you. However you try and "tech it up", you still ultimately have to take responsibility for when you fly, where you fly, and how you fly. Those are all your decisions as a pilot, and you bear the consequences, both good and bad, for those choices. Too many people these days prefer to sit back on the couch and watch a screen of some sort where they don't have to deal with those consequences. So much of life these days is so protected in a shell, in an effort to shield against having to take responsibility for anything.
Dave Walsh
May 5th 18, 10:07 AM
Well I think there is a simpler explanation. In the past
sailplanes were cheap and did not have "little engines", if you
flew cross country you sometimes ended up in a field.
Now it's very different: firstly sailplanes are vastly more
expensive and secondly many have those "little engines",
thirdly todays sailplanes are much heavier and land much
faster. Landing a Grunau Baby is not the same experience as
landing a Nimbus 4.
Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
your backside and choose to land in a field?
The accident statistics clearly show how many field landing
accidents result in damage. I don't think it's anything to do
with personal risk; lots of people still rock climb, mountaineer,
sail, ski, sky-dive etc. They don't set off on each trip with the
expectation of a vast bill from their local repair shop!
Dave Walsh
Tom[_21_]
May 5th 18, 01:01 PM
This quote - it will go on my "best of RAS": "Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun." I'll keep it in mind as we conduct our pre-season safety meeting, as our main purpose is to not have someone die or be injured and not to break a lot of expensive, hard to replace equipment. I'll keep that in mind as we try to keep the our young line crew, our tow pilots, our instructors, our pilots and our passengers safe and have a successful season.
There are so many other things I could say here but I think I will treat this as one of the posts that there truly is no reasonable response to. My friends would tell me to not rise to this obvious bait but obviously this poster has cast that fly so perfectly into my pool that it got me.
Regards, Tom
richard wilkening
May 5th 18, 01:55 PM
There are SO many activities competing for one’s attention (and dollars) that it dilutes the pool of possible participants. Coupled with an expectation of immediate gratification (vs. waiting at the gliderport for CUs to pop) and a more solitary existence (staring at a mobile device while in a crowd) and you may be right.
Tango Eight
May 5th 18, 02:05 PM
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 10:16:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I'm wondering how much the modern reluctance to land out and desire for collision avoidance technology is driven by an underlying fear that if society knew about soaring, society would ban it.
None at all that I can see.
Smart people simply want not to collide with other **** in dense traffic environments. You've been getting grief because you have been making fun of others' interest in behaving responsibly.
Landing out... well, landing out is just a lot of work. My last landout went just about as well as it is possible to go, but it still took nearly seven hours to get home. Last year I had one that was ten.
Evan / T8
son_of_flubber
May 5th 18, 03:07 PM
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 10:27:29 PM UTC-4, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
.... the first mid-air between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport.
Anyone who does not want to be the glider pilot that causes that disaster would install a transponder now.
Soartech
May 5th 18, 04:19 PM
Dave, Why do you speak of the "little engines" in a negative way? They are part of the way you can greatly reduce your risk of landing out. Yes, landing your expensive composite glider in a farmers field is "idiotic". I agree! I was a hang glider pilot for 35 years before taking up sailplanes. Many of us were. Every HG XC flight has a landout at the end, usually in some field. But HG are way less expensive, fold up easily and weigh ~75 lbs. So landouts are not much of a problem. Sort of like the Grunu Baby you mention, I imagine, without a trailer.
The big problem with entry into our sport is the huge amount of money required. Face it, this is a rich man's sport! Any young person with a desire to soar to the clouds these days can do so for just a few thousand dollars with a paraglider or hang glider. No license, no trailer, no crew required. For them, the choice has already been made by their financial situation. Sailplanes are in their distant future (maybe).
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 5:15:07 AM UTC-4, Dave Walsh wrote:
> Well I think there is a simpler explanation. In the past
> sailplanes were cheap and did not have "little engines", if you
> flew cross country you sometimes ended up in a field.
> Now it's very different: firstly sailplanes are vastly more
> expensive and secondly many have those "little engines",
> thirdly todays sailplanes are much heavier and land much
> faster. Landing a Grunau Baby is not the same experience as
> landing a Nimbus 4.
> Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
> you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
> your backside and choose to land in a field?
> The accident statistics clearly show how many field landing
> accidents result in damage. I don't think it's anything to do
> with personal risk; lots of people still rock climb, mountaineer,
> sail, ski, sky-dive etc. They don't set off on each trip with the
> expectation of a vast bill from their local repair shop!
> Dave Walsh
Dan Marotta
May 5th 18, 04:55 PM
On Monday, 25 Sep, 1978, a B-727 crashed in San Diego following a
collision with a Cessna 172.* To my knowledge 172s are still flying.
On 5/4/2018 8:27 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
snips
> No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air
> between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport.
--
Dan, 5J
Money being the barrier to enter the sport of soaring is complete bull****. Money is an easy scapegoat. We have hull insurance to cover the cost of replacing a broken glider. A tow costs less than a lift ticket and depending upon where you go sometimes a daily lift ticket is twice as expensive. On average, many people ski 10-15 times a yea'r. This is probably the number of times the average glider pilot will fly in a year. What about golf? Money st bicycles cost $3-8k. Look at the number of people racing stock cars at the local track. Most will drop $10-20k each year. No, sponsors don't pick up the tab at the local level. Look at the number of RVs on hecroad on any given day. A motor home costs more than a modern sailplane. Clubs are a cost effective watt I fly but they can be inconvenient. People with discressionary time have a lot of disposable cash. Most choose to spend it on activities other than flying a sailplane.
Soaring is not expensive. Soaring is inconvenient and has a very thin slice of conditions when it can be enjoyed. Landout s are an adventure and most great soaring stories revolve around some iteration of a landout. Off airport landings, even when safe, are inconvenient. As a society we abhor inconvenience and go to great length it avoid it. Little motors help avoid the inconvenience of landouts and finding towpilots or the inconvenience of paying our tow fees.
As the soaring population ages we also become more risk adverse. Electronic gadgets seem to make us feel better about taking risks. The aging population also wants more certainty so we rely upon gadgets to help reinforce our decisions of risk management.
In general I agree with Gregg's opinions and find them refreshing even if they only serve to spark debate and make us think a bit.
Jonathan St. Cloud
May 5th 18, 05:20 PM
I was in San Diego that day, about 5 miles from the crash site. I will never forgot the loud boom of the 727 hitting the ground and blowing up! It could be heard throughout the city! It was a much simpler time but the FAA did order substantial changes after that event. One change was airlines could no longer cancel IFR and fly a visual approach. If a glider and airliner meet today, one could expect much tighter regulations on gliders.
Back in the 1990's and 2000's when gliders pilots out of Minden would brag about busting Class A space. I tried to get Larry Sanders to address this issue, even had a personal meeting with him at Baron Hilton's ranch, but Larry refused with the comment it is a big sky. Thank goodness for wide adoption of transponders!
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On Monday, 25 Sep, 1978, a B-727 crashed in San Diego following a
> collision with a Cessna 172.* To my knowledge 172s are still flying.
>
> On 5/4/2018 8:27 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
>
> snips
> > No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air
> > between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport..
>
> --
> Dan, 5J
> On Monday, 25 Sep, 1978, a B-727 crashed in San Diego following a collision
> with a Cessna 172. To my knowledge 172s are still flying.
>
>> No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air
>> between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport.
>>
>
And just for the possible edification of some (younger? non-U.S.?) RAS
readers, the San Diego mid-air led to the imposition of 'Terminal Control
Areas' around 'busy U.S. airports.' It was also - and likely is still -
routinely misreported as 'Cessna crashes into airliner' when in fact the very
opposite was true, despite both planes being in contact with San Diego A/P
radio and identified to/in both cockpits as being in potential
flight-path-crossing conflict. IMHO, a classic example of complacency combined
with the limitations of both 'see and avoid' and technology-assisted collision
avoidance.
Much as everyone today seems to wish for it, 'risk-free perfection' in the
skies is an oxymoronic concept. And, no, the preceding assertion should *not*
be assumed my 'comprehensive, philosophic, elevator opinion' regarding
concept(s) involving technology-assists in the collision-avoidance field...
Bob W.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
On 5/4/2018 11:35 PM, John Foster wrote:
<snip...>
> The problem with modern society is a lack of, or aversion to personal
> responsibility... So much of life these days is so protected in a
> shell, in an effort to shield against having to take responsibility for
> anything.
'Personal responsibility' - what a concept! Greater use of it 'across the
board' sure would make for a better society IMO. Maybe even in soaring, too! :)
Bob W.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Dave Walsh
May 5th 18, 09:42 PM
I did not mean to be negative about "little engines"; I wholly
approve of the idea of little engines; just a pity that so many of
the current ones are unreliable. Jets and electric motors may
change this? Anything to avoid Farmer Joskin's fields is good in
my book.
The idea that we have "insurance" and that this makes it all-
right to suffer landing-out damage is laughable. One of the
reasons that insurance premiums are so high is to cover the
cost of all that prangery; then after a prang there's the
insurance excess to pay, typically thousands.
Pilots manage enough prangs at airfields without adding
unknown fields into the mix.
To the earlier poster who claimed soaring was not expensive!
Well it's always good to meet a fellow pilot from another
universe.....
Dave Walsh
I'm the not expensive guy and in relative terms flying gliders is not expensive. Do you know any horse people? Lots of horses around and many private owners spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on equestrian activity and there are orders of magnitude more horse people than glider pilots. Youth hockey is more expensive than learning to fly gliders. Know any sailboat people. Ask them how much cash the hole in the water takes to fill up. Lots of boats costing the same as a mid performance glider are on the water. Cost is a perceived barrier to entry.
As for allowing the insurance company to carry the financial risk. That's what it's for. I'm not advocating reckless flying. I am saying the insurance covers you financially on your investment so if you orang the thing you are not out the whole thing.
The drag if dinging a ship is the inconvenience of it and not necessarily the loss of cash. Most pilots who damage a glider set over the money pretty fast but not having convenient access to their toy is the painful part. We can make more money but time is gone once spent. We are never getting the summer back we lost when we damage a glider. We do recover the cash to have another go.
Dan Marotta
May 5th 18, 11:49 PM
Airliners are "Cleared visual approach, contact the tower" all the time,
though they don't "Cancel IFR".
On 5/5/2018 10:20 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> I was in San Diego that day, about 5 miles from the crash site. I will never forgot the loud boom of the 727 hitting the ground and blowing up! It could be heard throughout the city! It was a much simpler time but the FAA did order substantial changes after that event. One change was airlines could no longer cancel IFR and fly a visual approach. If a glider and airliner meet today, one could expect much tighter regulations on gliders.
>
> Back in the 1990's and 2000's when gliders pilots out of Minden would brag about busting Class A space. I tried to get Larry Sanders to address this issue, even had a personal meeting with him at Baron Hilton's ranch, but Larry refused with the comment it is a big sky. Thank goodness for wide adoption of transponders!
>
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> On Monday, 25 Sep, 1978, a B-727 crashed in San Diego following a
>> collision with a Cessna 172.* To my knowledge 172s are still flying.
>>
>> On 5/4/2018 8:27 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
>>
>> snips
>>> No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air
>>> between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport.
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
--
Dan, 5J
Dan Marotta
May 5th 18, 11:53 PM
IIRC, there was another light plane in the pattern and the airline crew
saw it and called "Tally ho".* I don't recall all of the communications,
but I'd bet that the tower then said, "Maintain visual separation" and
everyone got complacent.
On 5/5/2018 10:26 AM, BobW wrote:
>> On Monday, 25 Sep, 1978, a B-727 crashed in San Diego following a
>> collision
>> *with a Cessna 172.* To my knowledge 172s are still flying.
>>
>>> No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air
>>> between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our
>>> sport.
>>>
>>
>
> And just for the possible edification of some (younger? non-U.S.?) RAS
> readers, the San Diego mid-air led to the imposition of 'Terminal
> Control Areas' around 'busy U.S. airports.' It was also - and likely
> is still - routinely misreported as 'Cessna crashes into airliner'
> when in fact the very opposite was true, despite both planes being in
> contact with San Diego A/P radio and identified to/in both cockpits as
> being in potential flight-path-crossing conflict. IMHO, a classic
> example of complacency combined with the limitations of both 'see and
> avoid' and technology-assisted collision avoidance.
>
> Much as everyone today seems to wish for it, 'risk-free perfection' in
> the skies is an oxymoronic concept. And, no, the preceding assertion
> should *not* be assumed my 'comprehensive, philosophic, elevator
> opinion' regarding concept(s) involving technology-assists in the
> collision-avoidance field...
>
> Bob W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
--
Dan, 5J
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
May 6th 18, 12:21 AM
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:53:25 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
> IIRC, there was another light plane in the pattern and the airline crew
> saw it and called "Tally ho".* I don't recall all of the communications,
> but I'd bet that the tower then said, "Maintain visual separation" and
> everyone got complacent.
>
Yes, I've just read the Wikipedia report on this crash and the third
aircraft is mentioned in that.
BTW, describes the 727 as hitting the Cessna, rather than the other way
round and also that the Cessna altered course by 20 degrees (070 to 090)
without getting an instruction or reporting it. Apparently the NTSB
report suggested that the collision may not have happened without that.
--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
son_of_flubber
May 6th 18, 03:08 AM
I obtained an interesting perspective on hull insurance the other day when I had a chat with a pilot who'd landed in the trees. He had recently cancelled his hull insurance right after he stopped racing. He figured that his risk outside of competition was much lower and that the insurance premium was 'too dam high'.
So he landed in the trees just short of an airport runway. (He pointed out the tree, it also survived.) The day was very gusty and rotary and it took 45 tense minutes for the fire department to extricate him from the glider swaying precariously in a broken tree.
He could afford to buy a new glider (or repair the old one) but he decided he 'did not want to spend the money' and he did not want to drill holes in the sky with club ships. So the wreck of his glider has been sitting in a trailer in his hangar for ~15 years.
I learned that the lack of insurance contributed to his decision to quit soaring, a rather high intangible cost.
So I conclude that besides the hull replacement, my insurance premium also insures my continued participation in the sport after the rather bad experience of wrecking a glider.
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:27:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I'm the not expensive guy and in relative terms flying gliders is not expensive. Do you know any horse people? Lots of horses around and many private owners spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on equestrian activity and there are orders of magnitude more horse people than glider pilots. Youth hockey is more expensive than learning to fly gliders. Know any sailboat people. Ask them how much cash the hole in the water takes to fill up. Lots of boats costing the same as a mid performance glider are on the water. Cost is a perceived barrier to entry.
>
> As for allowing the insurance company to carry the financial risk. That's what it's for. I'm not advocating reckless flying. I am saying the insurance covers you financially on your investment so if you orang the thing you are not out the whole thing.
>
> The drag if dinging a ship is the inconvenience of it and not necessarily the loss of cash. Most pilots who damage a glider set over the money pretty fast but not having convenient access to their toy is the painful part. We can make more money but time is gone once spent. We are never getting the summer back we lost when we damage a glider. We do recover the cash to have another go.
I've always agreed that cost is not the limiting factor to the growth of soaring in any way and wonder why any of us actually think that. Skiing, golf, horses, you name it, many people spend far more doing those than you would need to for soaring. Of the population who have all the required discretionary funds, we need a tiny percentage of that group to become involved in soaring to grow soaring exponentially. I think the biggest barrier is that it is more solitary and anti-social than how most people want to spend their leisure time. Most people just simply don't want to be in a single seat glider cockpit for most of their valuable spare time. And most glider clubs are NOT places anyone wants to "hang out", unless you are already an obsessed glider pilot. We should build glider clubs with year round swimming pools and tennis courts. If your kids wanted to go to the gliderport, and the parents could watch the game and have a beer if they weren't flying, participation would go way up. I'm single and don't have kids but I have friends with them that would join a glider club just for the pool...
John Foster
May 6th 18, 07:35 PM
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:56:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:27:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > I'm the not expensive guy and in relative terms flying gliders is not expensive. Do you know any horse people? Lots of horses around and many private owners spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on equestrian activity and there are orders of magnitude more horse people than glider pilots. Youth hockey is more expensive than learning to fly gliders. Know any sailboat people. Ask them how much cash the hole in the water takes to fill up. Lots of boats costing the same as a mid performance glider are on the water. Cost is a perceived barrier to entry.
> >
> > As for allowing the insurance company to carry the financial risk. That's what it's for. I'm not advocating reckless flying. I am saying the insurance covers you financially on your investment so if you orang the thing you are not out the whole thing.
> >
> > The drag if dinging a ship is the inconvenience of it and not necessarily the loss of cash. Most pilots who damage a glider set over the money pretty fast but not having convenient access to their toy is the painful part. We can make more money but time is gone once spent. We are never getting the summer back we lost when we damage a glider. We do recover the cash to have another go.
>
> I've always agreed that cost is not the limiting factor to the growth of soaring in any way and wonder why any of us actually think that. Skiing, golf, horses, you name it, many people spend far more doing those than you would need to for soaring. Of the population who have all the required discretionary funds, we need a tiny percentage of that group to become involved in soaring to grow soaring exponentially. I think the biggest barrier is that it is more solitary and anti-social than how most people want to spend their leisure time. Most people just simply don't want to be in a single seat glider cockpit for most of their valuable spare time. And most glider clubs are NOT places anyone wants to "hang out", unless you are already an obsessed glider pilot. We should build glider clubs with year round swimming pools and tennis courts. If your kids wanted to go to the gliderport, and the parents could watch the game and have a beer if they weren't flying, participation would go way up. I'm single and don't have kids but I have friends with them that would join a glider club just for the pool...
While I agree that you don't have to have a lot of money to spend to get into soaring, there is a PERCEPTION amongst the general public that anything to do with aviation is expensive. I think that is a major limiting factor to why GA is dying as a whole. I see soaring, particularly in the club setting, as a way to combat that.
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:35:09 AM UTC-7, John Foster wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:56:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:27:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > I'm the not expensive guy and in relative terms flying gliders is not expensive. Do you know any horse people? Lots of horses around and many private owners spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on equestrian activity and there are orders of magnitude more horse people than glider pilots. Youth hockey is more expensive than learning to fly gliders. Know any sailboat people. Ask them how much cash the hole in the water takes to fill up. Lots of boats costing the same as a mid performance glider are on the water. Cost is a perceived barrier to entry.
> > >
> > > As for allowing the insurance company to carry the financial risk. That's what it's for. I'm not advocating reckless flying. I am saying the insurance covers you financially on your investment so if you orang the thing you are not out the whole thing.
> > >
> > > The drag if dinging a ship is the inconvenience of it and not necessarily the loss of cash. Most pilots who damage a glider set over the money pretty fast but not having convenient access to their toy is the painful part. We can make more money but time is gone once spent. We are never getting the summer back we lost when we damage a glider. We do recover the cash to have another go.
> >
> > I've always agreed that cost is not the limiting factor to the growth of soaring in any way and wonder why any of us actually think that. Skiing, golf, horses, you name it, many people spend far more doing those than you would need to for soaring. Of the population who have all the required discretionary funds, we need a tiny percentage of that group to become involved in soaring to grow soaring exponentially. I think the biggest barrier is that it is more solitary and anti-social than how most people want to spend their leisure time. Most people just simply don't want to be in a single seat glider cockpit for most of their valuable spare time. And most glider clubs are NOT places anyone wants to "hang out", unless you are already an obsessed glider pilot. We should build glider clubs with year round swimming pools and tennis courts. If your kids wanted to go to the gliderport, and the parents could watch the game and have a beer if they weren't flying, participation would go way up. I'm single and don't have kids but I have friends with them that would join a glider club just for the pool...
>
> While I agree that you don't have to have a lot of money to spend to get into soaring, there is a PERCEPTION amongst the general public that anything to do with aviation is expensive. I think that is a major limiting factor to why GA is dying as a whole. I see soaring, particularly in the club setting, as a way to combat that.
There IS a straight-forward way to improve your, and the other aircraft you share the sky with, safety: install a transponder. I realize there are many locations where this will no make sense, but for the others, don't put it off. I also have a Powerflarm that displays transponder targets. I just installed a new traffic warning display, an Air Avionics ATD-57, that should greatly reduce the pilot workload in picking up conflicting traffic.
Note: I bought my first transponder after flying out of Minden one year. I was over Virginia City, and thought it prudent to talk to Reno Approach. They were VERY interested in my position and altitude, which resolved a conflict. They told me to look up, and sure enough, a Southwest 737 emerged from the clouds about 1000 ft above me. That convinced me.
Couple of comments. As Kevin mentions soaring is cheap. 1-26s and HPs can be found for less than 5K these days. You can spend more on a moped. As for landouts, I get the PIA part, and I get the don't want to risk damage part as well. Was recently re-reading Kai Gertsen's excellent Off Airport Landings book and in the intro the author says at the time of writing he had 169 off airport landings. I don't think anyone is landing out that much anymore, something changed. Cost of gliders can't be all of it, 169 bad field landings would put a dent in anyone's wallet.
For the original question if culture comes from the universities we are in trouble. Penn state recently banned its Outing club from going outing they “made the determination that the hiking, canoeing, kayaking, trail building and camping activities the student-led club has long engaged in are too risky,”.
Spelunking club and Scuba club also stopped. Government is full of the same types as university administrators. People that believe hiking is too dangerous for college students, imagine if they knew we let 14 years solo?
Wyll Surf Air
May 7th 18, 03:58 PM
I'm going to have to disagree on the statement that soaring is not expensive. Yes it may not be as pricy as other things but for the masses, especially the younger masses, it is still a lot of money for a leisure activity.
I am the new members coordinator for Akaflieg SLO, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo' s soaring club and I deal with this reality every day. We do training with the CCSC (one of the cheapest glider clubs in California) and we even have a deal with one of the CFIG's for reduced rates, but still one of the main reasons we don't have more then 3 or 4 collage students out training each weekend is price. It may be pretty cheep to get a tow once you have your license and your own glider, but training can be quite expensive. I just wanted to pit that perspective out there that many young people want to soar, and many do, but a lot if others are put off by the cost of training.
Frank Whiteley
May 7th 18, 04:13 PM
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:56:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:27:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > I'm the not expensive guy and in relative terms flying gliders is not expensive. Do you know any horse people? Lots of horses around and many private owners spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on equestrian activity and there are orders of magnitude more horse people than glider pilots. Youth hockey is more expensive than learning to fly gliders. Know any sailboat people. Ask them how much cash the hole in the water takes to fill up. Lots of boats costing the same as a mid performance glider are on the water. Cost is a perceived barrier to entry.
> >
> > As for allowing the insurance company to carry the financial risk. That's what it's for. I'm not advocating reckless flying. I am saying the insurance covers you financially on your investment so if you orang the thing you are not out the whole thing.
> >
> > The drag if dinging a ship is the inconvenience of it and not necessarily the loss of cash. Most pilots who damage a glider set over the money pretty fast but not having convenient access to their toy is the painful part. We can make more money but time is gone once spent. We are never getting the summer back we lost when we damage a glider. We do recover the cash to have another go.
>
> I've always agreed that cost is not the limiting factor to the growth of soaring in any way and wonder why any of us actually think that. Skiing, golf, horses, you name it, many people spend far more doing those than you would need to for soaring. Of the population who have all the required discretionary funds, we need a tiny percentage of that group to become involved in soaring to grow soaring exponentially. I think the biggest barrier is that it is more solitary and anti-social than how most people want to spend their leisure time. Most people just simply don't want to be in a single seat glider cockpit for most of their valuable spare time. And most glider clubs are NOT places anyone wants to "hang out", unless you are already an obsessed glider pilot. We should build glider clubs with year round swimming pools and tennis courts. If your kids wanted to go to the gliderport, and the parents could watch the game and have a beer if they weren't flying, participation would go way up. I'm single and don't have kids but I have friends with them that would join a glider club just for the pool...
I don't think money is a significant factor. Ease of entry certainly is a factor. I once checked on a lapsed SSA member who turned out to be president of a local Corvette owners club. He tried gliding and gave it a week. As he hadn't soloed, he gave it up. Turn key activities have more appeal for many.
Similar response from a power pilot who shared this. Complains of the expense, but now owns a back country 182 and a 210 for pavement. See the about the author.
https://disciplesofflight.com/glider-rating/
The most amazing, to me, is snowmobiling. Participants in the US and Canada spend $9B year.
http://www.snowmobilers.org/economic-impact-of-snowmobiling.aspx
http://www.snowmobile.org/docs/isma-snowmobiling-fact-book.pdf
My first club in the UK had no picnic table or club house, yet it was family friendly and had moderate temps during the soaring season. Midges and green flies could be a nuisance at times. Most appreciated a day in the country, would spread a picnic blanket for lunch and stay the day and retire to the local pub from an evening meal and lively conversation amid rounds of drinks. We also had to rig and derig the fleet daily. Of course, to get a lesson you had to show up early, help rig, and get your name on the list early. If you got there early enough to be among the first six on the list, you might get a second lesson on the day.
My current club exists in a much harsher environment of temperature extremes, some winds, and potentially violent weather. Mice and rattlesnakes and flies are local nuisances. Apart from the club house, very little effort on pilot or family comfort, no spray misters, no cover on the patio though it gets PM shade from the building. Those have been suggested, but never accomplished. Other suggestions have included basketball hoop (supplied but never mounted, trashed on clean-up day), frisbee golf, zip line, above ground swimming pool, and RV hookups. Online scheduling, so only a few remain for the day of those using the club fleet, thus no significant social aspect apart from an occasional cookout or meeting or retreat to a local restaurant by 5-10 after flying, rarely including spouses.
It's a hard nut to crack.
Frank Whiteley
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:15:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
> Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
> you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
> your backside and choose to land in a field?
This is one of the more "Idiotic" statements Ive seen on RAS. Do you have better suggestions on where to land out? Have farmers not created an inviting nuisance with their large flat and mostly unobstructed fields;). Here's a newsflash, land outs are a part of the sport just like assembly, CAC checks, flat trailer tires, etc..
Keep us posted if you come up with a better option than farm fields.
Kirk
And to those who think soaring is expensive, it is. The question to ask; Is it worth it....
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Couple of comments. As Kevin mentions soaring is cheap. 1-26s and HPs can be found for less than 5K these days. You can spend more on a moped. As for landouts, I get the PIA part, and I get the don't want to risk damage part as well. Was recently re-reading Kai Gertsen's excellent Off Airport Landings book and in the intro the author says at the time of writing he had 169 off airport landings. I don't think anyone is landing out that much anymore, something changed. Cost of gliders can't be all of it, 169 bad field landings would put a dent in anyone's wallet.
> For the original question if culture comes from the universities we are in trouble. Penn state recently banned its Outing club from going outing they “made the determination that the hiking, canoeing, kayaking, trail building and camping activities the student-led club has long engaged in are too risky,”.
> Spelunking club and Scuba club also stopped. Government is full of the same types as university administrators. People that believe hiking is too dangerous for college students, imagine if they knew we let 14 years solo?
Yikes. I remember the Cornell Outing Club in the 1980's with fondness, who knows what it's allowed to do now. I've heard of a bee-keeping course (elsewhere) that uses videos instead of hands-on experiences. That way nobody will get stung. Nor learn much. We do have a risk-averse culture now, but an even bigger part is lawsuit-averse management, given the presence of a million lawyers, and juries that think zillion-dollar pain-and-suffering awards are paid by the money tree.
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 1:36:54 PM UTC-4, K m wrote:
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:15:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
> > Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
> > you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
> > your backside and choose to land in a field?
>
> This is one of the more "Idiotic" statements Ive seen on RAS. Do you have better suggestions on where to land out? Have farmers not created an inviting nuisance with their large flat and mostly unobstructed fields;). Here's a newsflash, land outs are a part of the sport just like assembly, CAC checks, flat trailer tires, etc..
> Keep us posted if you come up with a better option than farm fields.
> Kirk
> And to those who think soaring is expensive, it is. The question to ask; Is it worth it....
I think he meant that pilots avoid landouts on farmer fields by investing the big money into motorized gliders, which (usually) allows them to motor away from a landout. One can also avoid landouts by staying close to airfields. Yes in many areas that means not flying the possible distance for the day. I had a non-roadworthy trailer and a hard-to-rig glider for a while, and suffered that fate. Now I fly farther in a glider with lower performance.
Jonathan St. Cloud
May 7th 18, 08:18 PM
When I was flying my Nimbus4, I used airports as alternates. I really did not want to risk putting that bird anywhere and in over 400 hours, virtually all XC time, I never put it in a field, other than an airfield.
If you haven't priced a new glider, you might be surprised to find they are over $200K now. That is a lot of $ to put into a farmer's field of unknown hazards. Having said this, I did have a land out last summer on a "dryish" lake, but I really try to have landouts be at other airports.
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 10:36:54 AM UTC-7, K m wrote:
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:15:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
> > Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
> > you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
> > your backside and choose to land in a field?
>
> This is one of the more "Idiotic" statements Ive seen on RAS. Do you have better suggestions on where to land out? Have farmers not created an inviting nuisance with their large flat and mostly unobstructed fields;). Here's a newsflash, land outs are a part of the sport just like assembly, CAC checks, flat trailer tires, etc..
> Keep us posted if you come up with a better option than farm fields.
> Kirk
> And to those who think soaring is expensive, it is. The question to ask; Is it worth it....
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:18:05 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> When I was flying my Nimbus4, I used airports as alternates. I really did not want to risk putting that bird anywhere and in over 400 hours, virtually all XC time, I never put it in a field, other than an airfield.
This is a good point. I would not want to try an off airport landout in an open ship but a flapped 15M will fit just about anywhere. I think a lot depends on what a pilot is doing. On an OLC day I try to stick to airports but in a contest you take what you can get.
Sorry if I had the original comment out of context.
Kirk
kirk.stant
May 7th 18, 09:25 PM
Gliding today is too expensive for modern society. But not in cash terms, it's too expensive in time.
No instant gratification.
I read somewhere that there are more pilots flying and racing gliders on Condor than in real life.
Kirk
66
Jonathan St. Cloud
May 7th 18, 10:08 PM
I have also noticed that many outlanding sites in the west where I could land an ASW-24, I could not, without damage, land an 18 meter ASG-29.
Airports are best.
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:30:27 PM UTC-7, K m wrote:
> This is a good point. I would not want to try an off airport landout in an open ship but a flapped 15M will fit just about anywhere. I think a lot depends on what a pilot is doing. On an OLC day I try to stick to airports but in a contest you take what you can get.
> Sorry if I had the original comment out of context.
> Kirk
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
May 7th 18, 11:53 PM
No good place to post, no slight on you......
What did you learn, what do you practice?
I am tired of the, "land wherever, ground crew drags the ship to next launch" attitude.
Long time pilot.
Ex CFI-G.
Many off airport landings. Worst was a gear door in a contest that was fixed for next dat
Soaring is very expensive: specially the initial investment. I’m in my mid 20’s; it cost me $4,500 for a private pilot certificate, and I was lucky to buy a standard cirrus In great shape for less than $12,000; plus 900$ insurance and around 3000$ in tows a year. I could have paid my car loan, or put a down payment for a house... I been hanglidng for a couple years, so i jumped into sailplanes with both feet since I was already addicted to soaring, but the average young individual that takes a demo flight might not be able to waste his money on soaring.
My 14 y.o. asked to fly gliders. Club fees were $400 and tows $50 each. His 14 flights cost $1100. This season his dues were $200 with tows still costing $50. He has access to club ships (1-23, l-23, 2-33) and has been offered use of a few private ships. This season he will spend about $1,000 to fly.
When he played soccer the club fees were $1500 per srason plus the cost of travel, lodging for tournaments, fuel, food, etc. soccer cost almost $5k each year. He played for 6 years.
As Kirk said, soaring is not expensive in terms of cash. The expense is time. As others have mentioned hanging out at an airfield in hot temps, bugs, snakes, and other critters isn't family friendly or even just hang out friendly. Add in risk aversion and from the outside soaring doesn't look like much fun. Flying isn't difficult but it does require dedication and consistency to learn. The lack of instant gratification doesn't help.
I don't believe expense is a barrier to entry. Do some research and compare the entry costs and participation cost to other leisure time activities. Something's besides money are keeping people away from having a go. Those who choose to spend money on any activity make a conscious decision to do so. Regardless of the cash outlay there needs to be perceived value in the expedature. To many, soaring might be low value even if it were free and thus not a valuable expenditure of time.
As society becomes more risk adverse anything viewed as risky becomes less attractive which is part of Gregg's original post.
I believe prime opinion of this thread is misdirected.
If you think risk avoidance is "The Barrier" - then you do not watch much TV - Old fashion style sports have been replaced by X Game type sports - kids throw themselves off mountains and ramps on pretty much anything with wheels or is slippery. Watch today's winter Olympics and tell me how kids are becoming less risk takers.
If your looking for the reason our sport is contracting and not attracting a younger audience - it is that we are loosing the competition for younger interest - IT IS A COMPETITION as it has always been - we are very poor at marketing and making our sport attractive. So we attract only those who were already pre-sold early in life or by a pilot they have a relationship with.
It is a sport that requires years to get good - when you begin it you get beaten by a bunch of old guys - the venues are all pretty spartan - there are tons of rules - and not allot of other kids to play with.
To blame Society is a pretty easy way out and once you blame the universe you don't have to look for a solution - you can just sit and whine about how the world is so much worse today and getting worse every day.
As some smart guy once said - if your not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
my $.02
WH
Dan Marotta
May 8th 18, 03:05 PM
Yes, it's all about choices.* Few of us can have everything we want so
we give up one or more things to get something more important to us.*
Congratulations on making the "right" choices!
On 5/7/2018 6:11 PM, wrote:
> Soaring is very expensive: specially the initial investment. I’m in my mid 20’s; it cost me $4,500 for a private pilot certificate, and I was lucky to buy a standard cirrus In great shape for less than $12,000; plus 900$ insurance and around 3000$ in tows a year. I could have paid my car loan, or put a down payment for a house... I been hanglidng for a couple years, so i jumped into sailplanes with both feet since I was already addicted to soaring, but the average young individual that takes a demo flight might not be able to waste his money on soaring.
--
Dan, 5J
Should the Penn State Outing Club blame themselves? I'm not saying soaring couldn't do things better. But in the original post I meant societal attitudes towards risk, not individuals tolerance to the slow club training environment.
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 7:56:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> I believe prime opinion of this thread is misdirected.
>
> If you think risk avoidance is "The Barrier" - then you do not watch much TV - Old fashion style sports have been replaced by X Game type sports - kids throw themselves off mountains and ramps on pretty much anything with wheels or is slippery. Watch today's winter Olympics and tell me how kids are becoming less risk takers.
>
> If your looking for the reason our sport is contracting and not attracting a younger audience - it is that we are loosing the competition for younger interest - IT IS A COMPETITION as it has always been - we are very poor at marketing and making our sport attractive. So we attract only those who were already pre-sold early in life or by a pilot they have a relationship with.
>
> It is a sport that requires years to get good - when you begin it you get beaten by a bunch of old guys - the venues are all pretty spartan - there are tons of rules - and not allot of other kids to play with.
>
> To blame Society is a pretty easy way out and once you blame the universe you don't have to look for a solution - you can just sit and whine about how the world is so much worse today and getting worse every day.
>
> As some smart guy once said - if your not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
>
> my $.02
> WH
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 6:34:56 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> My 14 y.o. asked to fly gliders. Club fees were $400 and tows $50 each. His 14 flights cost $1100. This season his dues were $200 with tows still costing $50. He has access to club ships (1-23, l-23, 2-33) and has been offered use of a few private ships. This season he will spend about $1,000 to fly.
>
> When he played soccer the club fees were $1500 per srason plus the cost of travel, lodging for tournaments, fuel, food, etc. soccer cost almost $5k each year. He played for 6 years.
>
> As Kirk said, soaring is not expensive in terms of cash. The expense is time. As others have mentioned hanging out at an airfield in hot temps, bugs, snakes, and other critters isn't family friendly or even just hang out friendly. Add in risk aversion and from the outside soaring doesn't look like much fun. Flying isn't difficult but it does require dedication and consistency to learn. The lack of instant gratification doesn't help.
>
> I don't believe expense is a barrier to entry. Do some research and compare the entry costs and participation cost to other leisure time activities. Something's besides money are keeping people away from having a go. Those who choose to spend money on any activity make a conscious decision to do so. Regardless of the cash outlay there needs to be perceived value in the expedature. To many, soaring might be low value even if it were free and thus not a valuable expenditure of time.
>
> As society becomes more risk adverse anything viewed as risky becomes less attractive which is part of Gregg's original post.
I agree with the cost analysis, but not the time part. When you travel to a soccer meet, it will take all, or most, of a weekend. Local clubs could help the situation by having lower student rates for membership. If you can attract a decent group of students, the club can increase the volume of tows, which will reduce tow cost. Presell tow packages to incentivize the parents of the kids to follow thru.
The tough situation is where there is no local club.
Tom
Time is the usually the issue. My son stopped playing soccer due to the time commitment. The ratio of play to windshield time was not favorable. Best guess is traveling to a soaring site or soccer activity is pretty much the same. Often we'd travel 5 hours round trip for a 69 minute game where the kid plays half. At least with Soaring you can travel 5 hours round trip and take a few tows to balance the travel to play ratio a bit.
If a kid or anyone travels more then 2 hours round trip to fly for 30 minutes my guess is it gets of real fast. At least they play soccer in the rain, winds we wouldn't fly, etc which can help with scheduling. If a pilot has only saturday to fly and the WC is not good or the op doesn't run the pilot is unable to get his fix. Sometimes they can trade days with family but if not they lose out. Frustration can set in and many claim the effort to reward ratio is not worth it.
Time and convenience are most often the controlling factors for participation in recreational activities. Circling back to Gregg's original question about modern society I don't think risk aversion in modern society is as big a deterrent to soaring participation as finding a solution to the time/convenience conundrum. The advent of little motors does address the time needed and inconvenience of a landout hence the rise in popularity.
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 7:14:10 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Time is the usually the issue. My son stopped playing soccer due to the time commitment. The ratio of play to windshield time was not favorable. Best guess is traveling to a soaring site or soccer activity is pretty much the same. Often we'd travel 5 hours round trip for a 69 minute game where the kid plays half. At least with Soaring you can travel 5 hours round trip and take a few tows to balance the travel to play ratio a bit.
>
> If a kid or anyone travels more then 2 hours round trip to fly for 30 minutes my guess is it gets of real fast. At least they play soccer in the rain, winds we wouldn't fly, etc which can help with scheduling. If a pilot has only saturday to fly and the WC is not good or the op doesn't run the pilot is unable to get his fix. Sometimes they can trade days with family but if not they lose out. Frustration can set in and many claim the effort to reward ratio is not worth it.
>
> Time and convenience are most often the controlling factors for participation in recreational activities. Circling back to Gregg's original question about modern society I don't think risk aversion in modern society is as big a deterrent to soaring participation as finding a solution to the time/convenience conundrum. The advent of little motors does address the time needed and inconvenience of a landout hence the rise in popularity.
I agree with Kevin. Young people depend on parents(mostly) for transportation and most of our sites take a good bit of time to get to. It is a dedicated parent that will regularly sacrifice a day for the youngster to fly. Throw in a little brother or sister that has a soccer game on fly day and it gets harder. We have full scholarships for serious young people of limited means. They have their own 1-26 after solo, and a Libelle after private. Tows are at cost to the club. We have instructor committed to the junior program. With all of that we still have the issue of time and competing activities to contend with.
FWIW
UH
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 7:56:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> I believe prime opinion of this thread is misdirected.
>
> If you think risk avoidance is "The Barrier" - then you do not watch much TV - Old fashion style sports have been replaced by X Game type sports - kids throw themselves off mountains and ramps on pretty much anything with wheels or is slippery. Watch today's winter Olympics and tell me how kids are becoming less risk takers.
- seems to me that the vast majority of people these days - even youngsters - like WATCHING (via electronic screens) other people engage in those extreme sports. But they don't PARTICIPATE in anything like that themselves, due to risk aversion (their own, or their parents or spouses), and lack of time (but there's somehow time to spend hours online every day).
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:58:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 7:56:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > I believe prime opinion of this thread is misdirected.
> >
> > If you think risk avoidance is "The Barrier" - then you do not watch much TV - Old fashion style sports have been replaced by X Game type sports - kids throw themselves off mountains and ramps on pretty much anything with wheels or is slippery. Watch today's winter Olympics and tell me how kids are becoming less risk takers.
>
> - seems to me that the vast majority of people these days - even youngsters - like WATCHING (via electronic screens) other people engage in those extreme sports. But they don't PARTICIPATE in anything like that themselves, due to risk aversion (their own, or their parents or spouses), and lack of time (but there's somehow time to spend hours online every day).
This is due to a very high reward to commitment ratio. Modest to small reward for almost no commitment.
UH
What's surprising to me is not that soaring is declining, but that there are still relatively so many of us involved.
When I was 14, my father was already driving an hour each way to/from Richmond, IN every Saturday anyway to fly (Sundays were for church). The 2nd Saturday each month was his instructor duty day so that's when I went with him.. I had transportation, cheap flights (no rental or instruction fee, $2.50/2000' tow), cheap club dues, a share in a 1-26 waiting for solo, an enormous amount of support from my aviation/soaring-addicted father, and the heady-to-a-teenage-boy thrill of piloting an aircraft.
Flying gliders was a no-brainer!
Today I have my own glider, few family commitments, enough cash to fly whenever I want, a shorter drive to Blairstown, NJ, and several guys who have provided tremendous support over the years (thanks, P3 and UH). And STILL there are days when it's just too much work to go flying: because the weather might not be good, or I need to be back that night for a social commitment, or I flew in really late the night before from a business trip, or it's hot and humid and I don't relish rigging my ASW 24, or my car/house are about to fail because of deferred maintenance, or whatever.
Soaring's upsides are almost limitless. But they can be elusive--and accompanied by a lot of frustration. Add to it that soaring--while safe--is doubtless the riskiest thing most of us do and I understand why it isn't more popular.
Yes, it's expensive. But so are a lot of other things that promise quicker, less uncertain rewards; are more family friendly; are less weather-dependent; are more schedulable in advance and/or require less time commitment; and are just less work to pursue.
Chip Bearden
I think the critical word in the subject line starting this thread is "Modern"
I can say for sure that a majority of youth sports and activities are having difficulty in these "Modern" times.
The competition for kids attention is beyond anything that has ever happened in history - especially in this Modern internet/global new world.
Adults had a similar issues when kids stopped helping on the farm to play games - adults were not happy.... then they started watching TV... then kids became focused on protesting and drugs... then ...
I do not think the debate is about adolescence attention span or not taking risks - good marketing may help but I think the focus has to be how to best hold the kids we have already attracted. I think it is our attrition rate that needs some ideas/energy/thought.
As everyone in business knows - getting a new customer is extremely hard, loosing a customer is really easy - holding a existing customer is what makes for success.
The new wave of young pilots I saw last year at Elmira & still going this year..... now that's a seed that need to get watered and cared for :) - and that is not easy or simple.
WH
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
May 10th 18, 07:44 PM
Sheesh.....quite a few great replies.....no good way (for me) to copy all good links........
I will agree with some on "time being an issue", throw in "outside influence".
Per "the real UncleHank" and others, I know of at least one junior club member, in my club, that received a one year scholarship. Basically, you show up, dues and flying are paid for. This to a kidlet that did first glider flight at 6.5 weeks (yesssssss......weeks....not years....) old since his father was a CFIG at the time.
Had older generation family for training and gliders to fly.
In general, no family killing the desire to fly....gliders or otherwise. At least 2 family members that were current CFIG's.
Time became an issue.
Other endeavors ate time.
Eventually, one student could drive himself all of maybe 40miles from home to Gliderport.
What more do you need to do?
Basically free flying, multiple peeps to get younger person from home to gliders and back, we stop short of pressure to fly as well as wiping their butt when they poop.
Yes, I wiped their butt of poop when they were really young.
I have zero clue on a good answer, I can only state what I have gone through or supported over 4 or so decades.
A small handfull in this thread know EXACTLY what I am posting and know the history.
Wish I or others had the majic bullet to raise membership in the US SSA......
son_of_flubber
May 10th 18, 09:05 PM
You guys are missing one of several elephants in the cockpit...
Most Americans think that small power planes are 'extremely dangerous', and whenever it slips out that I fly gliders, casual acquaintances think that I'm 'totally nuts'. The people that already know me well before they find out about my piloting are usually surprised because... 'But, you seem so normal!'
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 4:14:10 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Time is the usually the issue. My son stopped playing soccer due to the time commitment. The ratio of play to windshield time was not favorable. Best guess is traveling to a soaring site or soccer activity is pretty much the same. Often we'd travel 5 hours round trip for a 69 minute game where the kid plays half. At least with Soaring you can travel 5 hours round trip and take a few tows to balance the travel to play ratio a bit.
>
> If a kid or anyone travels more then 2 hours round trip to fly for 30 minutes my guess is it gets of real fast. At least they play soccer in the rain, winds we wouldn't fly, etc which can help with scheduling. If a pilot has only saturday to fly and the WC is not good or the op doesn't run the pilot is unable to get his fix. Sometimes they can trade days with family but if not they lose out. Frustration can set in and many claim the effort to reward ratio is not worth it.
>
> Time and convenience are most often the controlling factors for participation in recreational activities. Circling back to Gregg's original question about modern society I don't think risk aversion in modern society is as big a deterrent to soaring participation as finding a solution to the time/convenience conundrum. The advent of little motors does address the time needed and inconvenience of a landout hence the rise in popularity.
The time issue gets down to whether or not you have a local glider club. If you don't, it is possible to start one. I know about this because I did it.. Kids that get into soccer don't start by making long trips - they join a local team and that progresses to regional events. The same can be said of soaring.
Also, weather forecasting, especially soaring forecasts, have become very sophisticated. You shouldn't have to make the trip only to have it cancelled because of weather.
I think many people are deterred from soaring because the process seems so daunting; time and expense are just easy excuses. Having a mentor could really help in this area.
Tom
son_of_flubber
May 11th 18, 03:03 PM
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 4:05:06 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> You guys are missing one of several elephants in the cockpit...
>
> Most Americans think that small power planes are 'extremely dangerous', and whenever it slips out that I fly gliders, casual acquaintances think that I'm 'totally nuts'. The people that already know me well before they find out about my piloting are usually surprised because... 'But, you seem so normal!'
Another elephant.
"The average American borrower with a bachelor’s degree leaves campus with $28,400 in debt."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/11/upshot/australia-college-graduates-student-debt-america.html?hpw&rref=upshot&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
Tango Eight
May 11th 18, 03:24 PM
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 4:05:06 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> You guys are missing one of several elephants in the cockpit...
>
> Most Americans think that small power planes are 'extremely dangerous', and whenever it slips out that I fly gliders, casual acquaintances think that I'm 'totally nuts'. The people that already know me well before they find out about my piloting are usually surprised because... 'But, you seem so normal!'
I think your experience is unusual.
T8
> > Most Americans think that small power planes are 'extremely dangerous', and whenever it slips out that I fly gliders, casual acquaintances think that I'm 'totally nuts'. The people that already know me well before they find out about my piloting are usually surprised because... 'But, you seem so normal!'
>
> I think your experience is unusual.
>
Not completely. When I was younger, the fact that many people viewed my gliding as "extreme" enhanced the appeal of soaring. Even in high school in the 60s, not everyone wanted to be thought of as "normal" (read: boring). :)
Chip Bearden
Maybe gliding is targeting the wrong group when trying to expand the sport. All the effort is going at targeting young people. How may power pilots were taught first to fly gliders because it is cheap - then moved to power and left the sport because they become professional pilots etc. Some may come back to the sport in later years but most do not. Maybe the target market should be the more mature people - settled in their careers and looking for a new challenge in life - not a cheap way into an aviation career. They the sort of people who stick to soaring - give time and resources to the clubs and become passionate about the purity of flying without an engine.
Bruce Hoult
May 12th 18, 01:58 AM
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 2:03:57 AM UTC+12, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 4:05:06 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > You guys are missing one of several elephants in the cockpit...
> >
> > Most Americans think that small power planes are 'extremely dangerous', and whenever it slips out that I fly gliders, casual acquaintances think that I'm 'totally nuts'. The people that already know me well before they find out about my piloting are usually surprised because... 'But, you seem so normal!'
>
> Another elephant.
>
> "The average American borrower with a bachelor’s degree leaves campus with $28,400 in debt."
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/11/upshot/australia-college-graduates-student-debt-america.html?hpw&rref=upshot&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
Which is about the price of a Camry. Or seven months rent of a small apartment in the San Francisco Bay area or New York. Or a twentieth the price of buying a house or apartment.
Richard McLean[_2_]
May 15th 18, 06:15 AM
On Saturday, 5 May 2018 20:01:36 UTC+8, Tom wrote:
> This quote - it will go on my "best of RAS": "Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun." I'll keep it in mind as we conduct our pre-season safety meeting, as our main purpose is to not have someone die or be injured and not to break a lot of expensive, hard to replace equipment. I'll keep that in mind as we try to keep the our young line crew, our tow pilots, our instructors, our pilots and our passengers safe and have a successful season.
>
> There are so many other things I could say here but I think I will treat this as one of the posts that there truly is no reasonable response to. My friends would tell me to not rise to this obvious bait but obviously this poster has cast that fly so perfectly into my pool that it got me.
>
> Regards, Tom
My thoughts exactly!
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 8:58:07 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 2:03:57 AM UTC+12, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 4:05:06 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > > You guys are missing one of several elephants in the cockpit...
> > >
> > > Most Americans think that small power planes are 'extremely dangerous', and whenever it slips out that I fly gliders, casual acquaintances think that I'm 'totally nuts'. The people that already know me well before they find out about my piloting are usually surprised because... 'But, you seem so normal!'
> >
> > Another elephant.
> >
> > "The average American borrower with a bachelor’s degree leaves campus with $28,400 in debt."
> >
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/11/upshot/australia-college-graduates-student-debt-america.html?hpw&rref=upshot&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
>
> Which is about the price of a Camry. Or seven months rent of a small apartment in the San Francisco Bay area or New York. Or a twentieth the price of buying a house or apartment.
Just saw this in an article about RVs:
"Winnebago’s motor home retail prices range from just over $20,000 for compact towable models to more than half a million dollars for semi truck-sized class A mobile mansions"
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.