Revisiting declining membership

[snoop]

Looking through all the posts from earlier this year, regarding the
sliding membership in our US soaring activities, along with all the
other trailing bad news, i.e. SSA building in need of big repairs,
there is no soaring operation in Hobbs, I'm curious about thoughts of
"what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the Vintage,
Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA.

Two big airshow/conventions a year, EAA publishes all magazines, and a
lot of members at those fly-ins and airshows to ask the question "where
can I start". Plus lobbying power, and unlimited networking.
Just curious for thoughts.

[Pete Reinhart]

Snoop,
I recall a few years ago there was a big brouhaha when the rank and file EAA
membership found out that the EAA was a privately owned corporation and the
directors were expected to toe the corporate line. That is not to say that
they don't deliver value for money to their "membership", but I doubt the
"membership" has much to say about the running of the corporate affairs.
Come to think of it there seem to be a few similarities. Things do seem to
have at least the appearance of change for the better.
Cheers!
"snoop" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Looking through all the posts from earlier this year, regarding the
> sliding membership in our US soaring activities, along with all the
> other trailing bad news, i.e. SSA building in need of big repairs,
> there is no soaring operation in Hobbs, I'm curious about thoughts of
> "what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the Vintage,
> Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA.
>
> Two big airshow/conventions a year, EAA publishes all magazines, and a
> lot of members at those fly-ins and airshows to ask the question "where
> can I start". Plus lobbying power, and unlimited networking.
> Just curious for thoughts.
>

[Terry]

snoop wrote:
"what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the Vintage,
Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA.

Just curious for
thoughts.========================================= =============

The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)-a division of the
EAA with approximately the same number of members as the SSA-could
serve as an example. NAFI publishes its own magazine, has its own web
page, sells its own merchandise, sends out email blasts to its members
on a monthly basis, and generally promotes professional flight
instruction though achievement awards such as the Master Instructor
program. This is accomplished with a small staff located within the
infrastructure of the EAA in Wisconsin. Sound familiar?

NAFI runs on volunteers, as do many of our alphabet groups. Every year
a general call goes to the NAFI membership to help man the booth at
Oshkosh and Sun 'n Fun. In 2002, I was at Sun 'n Fun as a
volunteer for NAFI. We had about 20 members manning our booth, all
there to help, and to hopefully see the airshow. With such a large
group, all participants frequently took breaks.

During the day, I found the SSA table manned by Burt and Kathy Compton
who had apparently became the usuals for these events. Why doesn't
SSA have a similar system to request such a level of volunteering,
instead of relying on the regulars? Two people to man a booth for the
entirety of the event will ensure that no one ever volunteers.

SSA recently made a call for volunteers in many areas. In an area that
fit my particular expertise, I tried to volunteer but two months after
my initial contact-no response or action has occurred. The apparent
lack of interest is puzzling.

When I renewed my membership in SSA last year, I made a suggestion like
your's. Mr. Wright had just assumed his position and asked for
forbearance while he revitalized our organization. This past year has
shown many improvements, with many more remaining. Such a merger might
cure some of the problems that are directly related to a lack of
infrastructure. Hobbs is a terrific soaring site, but is it
appropriate for our membership? I think not.
Terry Claussen
SSA member since 1979

[[email protected]]

There are several issues with declining membership issues. I think that
the main one is the cost directly involved. Many say that soaring is
less expensive then flying power. Well, not really. Think about
it.Compare price of LS-8 at 65000 Euros to Cessna 172. You can rent a
Cessna 150 for $50.00/hour wet. How many airports permit gliders to
operate? Not very many. I am traveling every weekend 125 miles one way
just to get some flying time in a glider. That how is from my house to
the club hanger. At the same time I can go to local airport, as a
matter of fact we have 3 of them around, in a few minutes and rent that
damn Cessna or Piper or whatever else is available. You have mentioned
EAA. Did you guys noticed that those guys are sticking together, they
do things together, they support each other, they don't bash each other
because they fly something different. How many of you read postings
about the PW-5...we are divided into their lovers and haters. How about
guys flying motorized sailplanes? They are trying very hard to convince
everybody that that is the way to go. Then some other people will
accuse them of not being skilled enough to fly pure sailplane. Then we
have those who are concerned about the looks and span and the argument
goes on. Have you seen how occasional passengers that every so often
come to the glider port for a ride, react to some of the glider pilots
comments and statements? This is the group of people that we need to
recruit, that is the group of people we need to concentrate on in order
to produce new pilots. So what if they are old or young. The EAA guys
will buy some sort of a kit, such as RV or Lancair and they enjoy
themselves.
Those guys don't blame everything on EAA just like we do with SSA. If
there is a problem they attack it.
These are just some of my thoughts but the issue is much deeper.

[Nyal Williams]

At 20:30 31 December 2004,
wrote:
>There are several issues with declining membership
>issues. I think that
>the main one is the cost directly involved. Many say
>that soaring is
>less expensive then flying power. Well, not really.
>Think about
>it.Compare price of LS-8 at 65000 Euros to Cessna 172.
>You can rent a
>Cessna 150 for $50.00/hour wet. How many airports permit
>gliders to
>operate? Not very many. I am traveling every weekend
>125 miles one way
>just to get some flying time in a glider. That how
>is from my house to
>the club hanger. At the same time I can go to local
>airport, as a
>matter of fact we have 3 of them around, in a few minutes
>and rent that
>damn Cessna or Piper or whatever else is available.
>You have mentioned
>EAA. Did you guys noticed that those guys are sticking
>together, they
>do things together, they support each other, they don't
>bash each other
>because they fly something different. How many of you
>read postings
>about the PW-5...we are divided into their lovers and
>haters. How about
>guys flying motorized sailplanes? They are trying very
>hard to convince
>everybody that that is the way to go. Then some other
>people will
>accuse them of not being skilled enough to fly pure
>sailplane. Then we
>have those who are concerned about the looks and span
>and the argument
>goes on. Have you seen how occasional passengers that
>every so often
>come to the glider port for a ride, react to some of
>the glider pilots
>comments and statements? This is the group of people
>that we need to
>recruit, that is the group of people we need to concentrate
>on in order
>to produce new pilots. So what if they are old or young.
>The EAA guys
>will buy some sort of a kit, such as RV or Lancair
>and they enjoy
>themselves.
>Those guys don't blame everything on EAA just like
>we do with SSA. If
>there is a problem they attack it.
>These are just some of my thoughts but the issue is
>much deeper.
>
>Several good points made. I am a member of EAA.

But did you know that there was a strong movement afoot
three or four years ago for members to resign and start
another group. The feeling was that it no longer really
supported builders and had become primarily a place
for warbirds and exotica. The strong criticism centered
on the private corporation aspect and the fact that
the volunteers had to pay to volunteer. They have
to rent their camping space and buy their tickets (reduced
price) and work the show -- and they get only token
responses of appreciation. The membership gets to
vote on a few things, but the donations that go to
support building the aircraft collection actually support
aircraft for the private stockholders to fly. It is
the sweetest deal I ever heard of, with all due respect
to the hardwork they put into it to make it a success.

I think they would gobble us up.

[BGMIFF]

I do not believe that very many of us feel well served by having the SSA
office in Hobbs, but in Wisconson, among all the political hogwash that goes
on there. Give me a break. I have belonged to EAA much longer that SSA, and
I would drop EAA in a heartbeat, but never SSA. The feeling of getting a
true direct vote for SSA directors, and to have some influence if one so
desires is great. Take a good look at EAA structures, if you do not live
close to Oshkosh, or have a famous name........you are a NOBODY and very
likely to stay that way!!! so if you want to move Hobbs, then why not think
of a real and viable soaring site. Harris Hill comes to mind very
quickly!!!!!!

"Terry" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> snoop wrote:
> "what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the Vintage,
> Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA.
>
> Just curious for
> thoughts.========================================= =============
>
> The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)-a division of the
> EAA with approximately the same number of members as the SSA-could
> serve as an example. NAFI publishes its own magazine, has its own web
> page, sells its own merchandise, sends out email blasts to its members
> on a monthly basis, and generally promotes professional flight
> instruction though achievement awards such as the Master Instructor
> program. This is accomplished with a small staff located within the
> infrastructure of the EAA in Wisconsin. Sound familiar?
>
> NAFI runs on volunteers, as do many of our alphabet groups. Every year
> a general call goes to the NAFI membership to help man the booth at
> Oshkosh and Sun 'n Fun. In 2002, I was at Sun 'n Fun as a
> volunteer for NAFI. We had about 20 members manning our booth, all
> there to help, and to hopefully see the airshow. With such a large
> group, all participants frequently took breaks.
>
> During the day, I found the SSA table manned by Burt and Kathy Compton
> who had apparently became the usuals for these events. Why doesn't
> SSA have a similar system to request such a level of volunteering,
> instead of relying on the regulars? Two people to man a booth for the
> entirety of the event will ensure that no one ever volunteers.
>
> SSA recently made a call for volunteers in many areas. In an area that
> fit my particular expertise, I tried to volunteer but two months after
> my initial contact-no response or action has occurred. The apparent
> lack of interest is puzzling.
>
> When I renewed my membership in SSA last year, I made a suggestion like
> your's. Mr. Wright had just assumed his position and asked for
> forbearance while he revitalized our organization. This past year has
> shown many improvements, with many more remaining. Such a merger might
> cure some of the problems that are directly related to a lack of
> infrastructure. Hobbs is a terrific soaring site, but is it
> appropriate for our membership? I think not.
> Terry Claussen
> SSA member since 1979
>

[snoop]

Many thanks for the remarks. Just what I was hoping for, and would
still like to hear from others.

In the meantime I have visited with current EAA members about their
organization, and yes they, like us, have their gremlins within, but
they are very interested in our sport. As always, some asked if we
really like flying a lawn chair with a sheet over it. sigh! Actually,
they asked a lot of great questions. Questions, that we as soaring
individuals would never bother asking each other at our bi-annual
convention, which is pretty much attended by soaring types.

All that I talked with though, spoke highly of the quality of
networking, and the exchange of information that takes place between
all EAA affilliates. Yes there are cases of the Warbirds looking down
their noses at the lawn chair flying guys, but that's normal in any
organization. Look at all of our "glass vs anything less" talk in this
forumn.

With regard to moving our headquarters. Phoenix, Moriarty, Dallas,
Harris Hill, you bet, anywhere there is airline travel close by, and I
don't mean two hours away in Lubbock. Does anyone have visitor
statistics for SSA members visiting SSA in Hobbs, on an annual basis?

Keep in mind that what we're talking about here isn't dismantling the
SSA, but growing it. Every program would still be available, and still
under our guidance.

I'm not a member of the EAA, nor am I a member of any comittee with the
intention of harm. This is strictly on the positive. My family, in
particular, my son, has greatly benefitted from the generosity of many
members of the SSA, and it's programs, and I would like to see this
continue. So when I continue to read and hear about the failing of our
sport, I would like to generate interest in a solution.

Many thanks!

[nafod40]

snoop wrote:
> Looking through all the posts from earlier this year, regarding the
> sliding membership in our US soaring activities, along with all the
> other trailing bad news, i.e. SSA building in need of big repairs,
> there is no soaring operation in Hobbs, I'm curious about thoughts of
> "what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the Vintage,
> Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA.
>
> Two big airshow/conventions a year, EAA publishes all magazines, and a
> lot of members at those fly-ins and airshows to ask the question "where
> can I start". Plus lobbying power, and unlimited networking.
> Just curious for thoughts.

I attend Airventure almost every year, and it amazes me the almost total
lack of soaring aircraft there. This is the biggest airshow on the
planet (maybe) and there are only a few gliders and motor gliders
sitting around. It's obviously not a place to go soaring, so I
understand that. But maybe an outlying field somewhere?

I posted this before, but getting approval to rig up a winch tow and
toss up gliders over Wittman before the gas burners are allowed to start
up and make their noise (8:00 AM) and take a circuit over the camping
area would be a HUGE thing. Folks heading off the brush their teeth,
hearing the whisper of an 18 meter glider float by. You could offer free
rides. You'd have a line from here to kingdom come, for sure.

You will never get a more dense pack of future soaring enthusiasts than
at Airventure. Take advantage of it!

[Mark James Boyd]

As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but
I'm a member there for completely different reasons.
NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard.

I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make
soaring seem less professional, and less difficult
to meet the standards.

I'm a huge fan of including hang gliding articles in
Soaring magazine. And maybe an ultralight or two.
I absolutely love the cross-polenization. I'm personally
recruiting some UL guys over to gliding for cross-training.

I love these guys. They are fun, adventurous,
and maybe a little crazy. And they are aging, and looking
for some sports which are a little less "out there."
So soaring is looking pretty attractive to some of them.

I think soaring will appeal to folks in other
airsports best, and have focussed my efforts on those
who are already in some other airsport. Nothing wrong
with true primary training, mind you, but it is for
me much harder to market to "interested novices"
compared to those who are already some form of pilot.

And the "interested novices" that I see in this sport are
here through referral. Not ads or websites exclusively
(although these help).

So I'd love to see HG and Soaring merge. I think this
would be much better than EAA or AOPA or whatever.
I don't think soaring needs more formality, I think it
needs the opposite, a less stuffy image...

In article om>,
Terry > wrote:
>
>snoop wrote:
>"what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the Vintage,
>Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA.
>
>Just curious for
>thoughts.========================================= =============
>
>The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)-a division of the
>EAA with approximately the same number of members as the SSA-could
>serve as an example. NAFI publishes its own magazine, has its own web
>page, sells its own merchandise, sends out email blasts to its members
>on a monthly basis, and generally promotes professional flight
>instruction though achievement awards such as the Master Instructor
>program. This is accomplished with a small staff located within the
>infrastructure of the EAA in Wisconsin. Sound familiar?
--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

Some of this is the "urbanization" of the USA. I'm
told there used to be several gliderports under where the
current San Francisco class B airspace exists.
They are now gone.

Airports have also lost some commonality, but to a much
lesser extent, mainly because they actually become more useful
as the cities grow.

So soaring has been slowly, creepingly driven away
by airspace issues, and rising cost of land near
population centers (which are the breeding grounds for pilots,
by the way).

The upside is that renting a 172 to go to the local
gliderport is actually not so tough. $200 split four
ways to get to the gliderport isn't too bad.

Can you say "planepool?"

:P

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>There are several issues with declining membership issues. I think that
>the main one is the cost directly involved. Many say that soaring is
>less expensive then flying power. Well, not really. Think about
>it.Compare price of LS-8 at 65000 Euros to Cessna 172. You can rent a
>Cessna 150 for $50.00/hour wet. How many airports permit gliders to
>operate? Not very many. I am traveling every weekend 125 miles one way
>just to get some flying time in a glider. That how is from my house to
>the club hanger. At the same time I can go to local airport, as a
>matter of fact we have 3 of them around, in a few minutes and rent that
>damn Cessna or Piper or whatever else is available.




--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

I would like to see something in the middle of the country.
I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in
itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major
city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest
ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob.

But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on
the building, so I imagine moving would be a
difficult (financial) decision.

In article >,
BGMIFF > wrote:
>I do not believe that very many of us feel well served by having the SSA
>office in Hobbs, but in Wisconson, among all the political hogwash that goes
>on there. Give me a break. I have belonged to EAA much longer that SSA, and
>I would drop EAA in a heartbeat, but never SSA. The feeling of getting a
>true direct vote for SSA directors, and to have some influence if one so
>desires is great. Take a good look at EAA structures, if you do not live
>close to Oshkosh, or have a famous name........you are a NOBODY and very
>likely to stay that way!!! so if you want to move Hobbs, then why not think
>of a real and viable soaring site. Harris Hill comes to mind very
>quickly!!!!!!
--

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> I would like to see something in the middle of the country.
> I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in
> itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major
> city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest
> ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob.
>
> But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on
> the building, so I imagine moving would be a
> difficult (financial) decision.

I believe the terms are $0.00/month rent and we own the building after
20 years. It sounded good at the time we had to make the decision (I was
on the SSA board at the time), and it still sounds good.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Greg Arnold]

After 20 years, we can sell the building and move to a better location.
We either are very close to 20 years, or already there.


Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> I would like to see something in the middle of the country.
>> I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in
>> itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major
>> city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest
>> ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob.
>> But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on
>> the building, so I imagine moving would be a difficult (financial)
>> decision.
>
>
> I believe the terms are $0.00/month rent and we own the building after
> 20 years. It sounded good at the time we had to make the decision (I was
> on the SSA board at the time), and it still sounds good.
>
>

[Tony Verhulst]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services....

Not me - I resigned in protest. A few years ago, the FAA revised the
airplane PTS (Practical Test Standards) and NAFI, in their newslettter
said that that the PTS's had changed. Via a series of emails, I pointed
out that ONLY the airplane standards had changed and that the others
were unaffected. Their subsequent electronic newsletters still refused
to acknowledge that reality. Through more email exchanges, it became
evident that not only do airplanes and airplane instructors rule within
NAFI, but that if you ain't one, you don't exist. As a glider only
instructor, I saw no point in staying and voiced my opinion the only way
possible - with my feet.

Tony V.

[snoop]

One bit of EAA history that I do know is that when Poberenzy wanted to
expand out of the Hales Corner building, he only wanted to build a
bigger version of the Hales Corner corrugated hangar. The board pushed
to look further into the future and thus the beautiful museum that is
in Oshkosh exists.

Our library at the SSA headquarters consists of a couple walls of book
shelves, with boxes full of books sitting on the floor. Imagine our
offices, let's say in a suburb of Denver, or Dallas, or in Mr.
Greenwells location. Can you see all those soaring people visiting day
in and day out, volunteering their talent and time. Imagine guys like
Dick Johnson, in Dallas being able to visit and help out with history
projects whenever he wanted to. See where this is going.

Imagine Charlie, and Charlie lite getting on a non-stop flight straight
into DFW, or DEN, or ABQ, or wherever, and in twenty minutes being at
headquarters.

More thoughts?

[f.blair]

I don't think we need anything that make soaring 'less professional' nor
should we make it 'less difficult to meet the standards', we have our own
safety problems in soaring and it will not be solved by lessening the
standards.

Fred Blair


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41df1d2c$1@darkstar...
> As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but
> I'm a member there for completely different reasons.
> NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard.
>
> I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make
> soaring seem less professional, and less difficult
> to meet the standards.
>

[Mark James Boyd]

I agree. We absolutely should not make soaring less professional.
We are in agreement there.

I'd like to see soaring "seem" less professional. I'd like to see it
"seem" more like a social club. I'd like to see soaring "seem" like
an average, everyday, amateur hobby. I'd like for it to "seem"
less intimidating and expensive.

There are some who will disagree. They want all of the instructors to
be as professional as possible. Have them wear suits and ties.
Mandate friday evening refresher tests, and have every student
fly with every instructor at the FBO. And train every student on every
source of soaring lift and not sign them off for a practical test
until they have done at least 2 landouts, gotten all three diamonds,
and mastered the 2 feet within landing spot and 2 degrees of heading.

I'm not a fan of these kinds of establishments. I don't think they
represent value. I think they "seem" professional, but I am
not excited by appearances. I had a club where I was a member
change from a social club and an atmosphere of sharing and
informality to a seemingly professional organization. Uniforms,
extensive vetting of instructors, rate increases, weekly
meetings, and very professional syllabi with numerous
intermediate checks.

The membership eventually dwindled. Part-time instructors, some
who had taught for a decade, left. The couches were no longer
weighed heavy with throngs of eager, bright-eyed students with
a sense of empowerment. I too eventually left.

I also agree with you on the second point. I don't think we
should lessen the standards. Not just because we can't (it is in fact
the job of the FAA to set standards for solo through CFIG). Also
because they are fine standards, well thought out, and have provided
an acceptable level of safety for years.

But I would love to make it less difficult to meet the standards.
Instead of an active examiner:pilot ratio of 1:160 for gliders,
I'd like to see something closer to the 1:30 ratio for airplanes,
or even the 1:100 ratio for helicopters. I think this would make
it less difficult to meet the standards (in this case for a license).

I'd like to see CFIGs become aware of Sport Pilot and the
ease with which airplane pilots can transition to light sport gliders.
I'd like to see them use the exact same standard (not a lesser
standard). And I'd like to see these transitioning pilots avoid the
difficulty, time, scheduling complexity, and weather uncertainty
that often accompanies a formal practical test. Having 60 times as many
authorized people to sign off this privilege I think
will make it less difficult to meet the standards (in this case
to carry passengers in a LSA glider).

So I'm glad that we agree, but I sensed something in the reply
that made me think my post might be misinterpreted. I hope this
clarifies what I meant.

I think gliding is fun. I think learning to glide safely is
something an average person with modest means can do handily
given the right location, instructors, gliders, and attitude.
I want to see entry into our sport seem inviting, casual,
social, community based, and positive.

I strongly believe that the average person learning soaring would
seek to do everything in the test standards, and seek opinions
and instruction, even if NONE of it were required. I believe that
the mandating of requirements has done little to improve safety
compared to having the same applicants all forced to burn
$5000 and be beaten regularly with a cane.
Any washout process whatsoever will have an associated reduction
in accidents, which can be duplicated by simply
reducing the number of gliders as well...

If it becomes less difficult to learn gliding, then yes, there
will be more pilots, and some will be less dedicated and less
committed and less obsessed with soaring than the average
pilot currently doing it. I personally don't think this is a problem,
and I don't think it will reduce safety significantly.
It may increase safety, if the community is grown to the point
that dialogue among glider pilots is improved.

I have had the opportunity to interact with the Ultralight community
recently. Interesting bunch. One might think that a relative lack of
regulation and standards would greatly increase the fatalities.
Interestingly, this has less impact than one might think.
The vast majority of UL pilots recieved non-mandated instruction
before they ever soloed. They have followed lesson outlines
for instruction voluntarily. A lot of them, recognising that
many fatalities are caused not by the inadequacy of the pilot
but by the delicacy of the aircraft, have installed BRS parachute
systems in their (well, in the 2-seat ones anyway) aircraft.

They set their own minimums, and it seems to actually work ok
for them. A vast majority do just fine without any enforced
standards, thank you very much.

The one standard I find compelling is that before taking passengers, one
should do a bunch of solo. Darwin will do in 10 seconds what no
instructor or FAA rulebook can ever do. The instructor comes in
because someone has to convince the towpilot to tow the guy...


In article >,
f.blair > wrote:
>I don't think we need anything that make soaring 'less professional' nor
>should we make it 'less difficult to meet the standards', we have our own
>safety problems in soaring and it will not be solved by lessening the
>standards.
>
>Fred Blair
>
>
>"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
>news:41df1d2c$1@darkstar...
>> As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but
>> I'm a member there for completely different reasons.
>> NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard.
>>
>> I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make
>> soaring seem less professional, and less difficult
>> to meet the standards.
>>
>
>


--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

Aha. I'm more like "General Electric" during an election year.
I give money and support to both parties, but I give more to the
one I like better... ;)

In article >,
Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services....
>
>Not me - I resigned in protest. A few years ago, the FAA revised the
>airplane PTS (Practical Test Standards) and NAFI, in their newslettter
>said that that the PTS's had changed. Via a series of emails, I pointed
>out that ONLY the airplane standards had changed and that the others
>were unaffected. Their subsequent electronic newsletters still refused
>to acknowledge that reality. Through more email exchanges, it became
>evident that not only do airplanes and airplane instructors rule within
>NAFI, but that if you ain't one, you don't exist. As a glider only
>instructor, I saw no point in staying and voiced my opinion the only way
>possible - with my feet.
>
>Tony V.


--

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

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41df1d2c$1@darkstar...
> As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but
> I'm a member there for completely different reasons.
> NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard.
>
> I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make
> soaring seem less professional, and less difficult
> to meet the standards.
>
Consistent instructor patter and standards might help. The single, biggest,
repeated complaint I hear is of the inconsistency among instructors. My
experience was quite different (BGA). Really didn't matter much which
instructor was in the back, they were instructing from the national
syllabus. A quick look of the student logbook would have them teaching the
appropriate skill and the patter was very consistent. The jokes varied
however.

> I'm a huge fan of including hang gliding articles in
> Soaring magazine. And maybe an ultralight or two.
> I absolutely love the cross-polenization. I'm personally
> recruiting some UL guys over to gliding for cross-training.
>
HG and PG are quite acceptable. UL pilots are mostly lone wolves. Few show
up at EAA events either as they've got a long tradition of shying away from
the FAA with their 'fat' ULs. Their fly-ins are UL only and they have great
fun with paintball guns, pumpkin drops, and eating.

> I love these guys. They are fun, adventurous,
> and maybe a little crazy. And they are aging, and looking
> for some sports which are a little less "out there."
> So soaring is looking pretty attractive to some of them.
>
That may be. I was a member of a local UL association for five recent
years. I've been around soaring about 30 years. There was no mixing of the
two. The number of local UL pilots known to me that have been killed or
seriously injured has been at least twice the number in 1/6 the time. The
number of close calls is also very high. Bent gear is part of the activity.
FWIW, Boy Scouts allows GA and soaring, but not balloons or ULs.

> I think soaring will appeal to folks in other
> airsports best, and have focussed my efforts on those
> who are already in some other airsport. Nothing wrong
> with true primary training, mind you, but it is for
> me much harder to market to "interested novices"
> compared to those who are already some form of pilot.
>
About 1 in 5 is approachable. Many are fixated on that windmill. Few still
have tow pilot potential. Many can't take the discipline of operating in a
club or commercial soaring environment. What's worse perhaps is that many
operations reject the time builders who are really good sticks and can be
supervised, but maybe just don't have the soaring bug.

> And the "interested novices" that I see in this sport are
> here through referral. Not ads or websites exclusively
> (although these help).
>
The seekers are the ones. Don't let them get away. Everyone's an ab-initio
at some point. The majority of our most recent new members have come from
GA. Most don't bring enough of the right stuff to become tow pilots in the
near term however.

> So I'd love to see HG and Soaring merge. I think this
> would be much better than EAA or AOPA or whatever.
> I don't think soaring needs more formality, I think it
> needs the opposite, a less stuffy image...
>
SSA rebuffed the HG community 30 years ago. On their own, they created the
USHGA, fought their own battes and have quite a history. USHGA has trouble
encompassing the PG community and the purists want nothing to do with the
PPG guys, since they can't sustain soaring flight without the prop. They
also don't want the PPG's anywhere near their hard won launch sites.
Doable, yes, but invite all the soarers. Once again, USSA, United States
Soaring Association has a nice ring to it.

Frank Whiteley

> In article om>,
> Terry > wrote:
> >
> >snoop wrote:
> >"what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the Vintage,
> >Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA.
> >
> >Just curious for
> >thoughts.========================================= =============
> >
> >The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)-a division of the
> >EAA with approximately the same number of members as the SSA-could
> >serve as an example. NAFI publishes its own magazine, has its own web
> >page, sells its own merchandise, sends out email blasts to its members
> >on a monthly basis, and generally promotes professional flight
> >instruction though achievement awards such as the Master Instructor
> >program. This is accomplished with a small staff located within the
> >infrastructure of the EAA in Wisconsin. Sound familiar?
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[F.L. Whiteley]

Sadly, I have to admit I've never been to the SSA office in Hobbs, though I
did once pop into the office when it was a Santa Monica Airpot. But it
wouldn't really make any difference to me if it was in Frederickburg, MD or
Biloxi, MS if they meet my needs. Hobbs at least is a soaring location.
The BGA office is in Leicester, a non-soaring location and I never visited
there in the ten years I spent in the UK. But they, like the SSA, were
available when needed.

Frank Whiteley

"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
news:GDGDd.43531$8e5.40014@fed1read07...
> After 20 years, we can sell the building and move to a better location.
> We either are very close to 20 years, or already there.
>
>
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> I would like to see something in the middle of the country.
> >> I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in
> >> itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major
> >> city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest
> >> ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob.
> >> But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on
> >> the building, so I imagine moving would be a difficult (financial)
> >> decision.
> >
> >
> > I believe the terms are $0.00/month rent and we own the building after
> > 20 years. It sounded good at the time we had to make the decision (I was
> > on the SSA board at the time), and it still sounds good.
> >
> >

[F.L. Whiteley]

"snoop" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> One bit of EAA history that I do know is that when Poberenzy wanted to
> expand out of the Hales Corner building, he only wanted to build a
> bigger version of the Hales Corner corrugated hangar. The board pushed
> to look further into the future and thus the beautiful museum that is
> in Oshkosh exists.
>
> Our library at the SSA headquarters consists of a couple walls of book
> shelves, with boxes full of books sitting on the floor. Imagine our
> offices, let's say in a suburb of Denver, or Dallas, or in Mr.
> Greenwells location. Can you see all those soaring people visiting day
> in and day out, volunteering their talent and time. Imagine guys like
> Dick Johnson, in Dallas being able to visit and help out with history
> projects whenever he wanted to. See where this is going.
>
> Imagine Charlie, and Charlie lite getting on a non-stop flight straight
> into DFW, or DEN, or ABQ, or wherever, and in twenty minutes being at
> headquarters.
>
> More thoughts?
>
Soaring history is really archived at NSM and starting at the SWSM. The SSA
staff probably doesn't need hangar talk from a bunch of well meaning, but
likely annoying drop-ins. If you have volunteered and coordinated to work
on a specific project, by all means, do it, but if you want to put energy
into growing soaring, try your own backyard first. Growing soaring happens
at the grass roots level. I joined my first club (I already had an interest
and had taken a soaring flight) when I noticed their black on hot pink 8.5 x
11 poster on the bulletin board of the local USAF post office. It simply
stated "We reckon if you can drive a car, you can fly a glider" and had a
graphic on an SHK (serial nr 1, of which I later owned a share) and the club
name and contact details. I was there mid-week after I got a car only to
find they flew normally at the weekends. But I was back 9am on the
Saturday.

I see no pressing need to move the SSA to a higher cost of living area when
the budget is so tight. Turning it around financially will take some time.
Please login to the member area and review the ex-Com and board minutes and
review the eNewsLetter or copies of the Dennis' Missile.

Frank Whiteley

[F.L. Whiteley]

In the words of my RAF soaring brethren, 'soaring is f***ing magic'. When I
was taught to fly gliders, I was also shown how to soar. You can teach the
basic PTS stuff without the magic, by why? Can you show the student how to
soar? Soaring magic is experienced, not taught, bits and pieces are taught.
The magic happens when those skills and experience come together and the
pilot now builds upon this with each subsequent flight; seeking the soaring
moments and settling for nothing less on each and every flight. At some
point, the student should become the master, only then you have done your
job as well as it can be done. Has this happened with you yet?

Which part of the instruction has the most value?

Frank Whiteley

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41df74ec$1@darkstar...
> I agree. We absolutely should not make soaring less professional.
> We are in agreement there.
>
> I'd like to see soaring "seem" less professional. I'd like to see it
> "seem" more like a social club. I'd like to see soaring "seem" like
> an average, everyday, amateur hobby. I'd like for it to "seem"
> less intimidating and expensive.
>
> There are some who will disagree. They want all of the instructors to
> be as professional as possible. Have them wear suits and ties.
> Mandate friday evening refresher tests, and have every student
> fly with every instructor at the FBO. And train every student on every
> source of soaring lift and not sign them off for a practical test
> until they have done at least 2 landouts, gotten all three diamonds,
> and mastered the 2 feet within landing spot and 2 degrees of heading.
>
> I'm not a fan of these kinds of establishments. I don't think they
> represent value. I think they "seem" professional, but I am
> not excited by appearances. I had a club where I was a member
> change from a social club and an atmosphere of sharing and
> informality to a seemingly professional organization. Uniforms,
> extensive vetting of instructors, rate increases, weekly
> meetings, and very professional syllabi with numerous
> intermediate checks.
>
> The membership eventually dwindled. Part-time instructors, some
> who had taught for a decade, left. The couches were no longer
> weighed heavy with throngs of eager, bright-eyed students with
> a sense of empowerment. I too eventually left.
>
> I also agree with you on the second point. I don't think we
> should lessen the standards. Not just because we can't (it is in fact
> the job of the FAA to set standards for solo through CFIG). Also
> because they are fine standards, well thought out, and have provided
> an acceptable level of safety for years.
>
> But I would love to make it less difficult to meet the standards.
> Instead of an active examiner:pilot ratio of 1:160 for gliders,
> I'd like to see something closer to the 1:30 ratio for airplanes,
> or even the 1:100 ratio for helicopters. I think this would make
> it less difficult to meet the standards (in this case for a license).
>
> I'd like to see CFIGs become aware of Sport Pilot and the
> ease with which airplane pilots can transition to light sport gliders.
> I'd like to see them use the exact same standard (not a lesser
> standard). And I'd like to see these transitioning pilots avoid the
> difficulty, time, scheduling complexity, and weather uncertainty
> that often accompanies a formal practical test. Having 60 times as many
> authorized people to sign off this privilege I think
> will make it less difficult to meet the standards (in this case
> to carry passengers in a LSA glider).
>
> So I'm glad that we agree, but I sensed something in the reply
> that made me think my post might be misinterpreted. I hope this
> clarifies what I meant.
>
> I think gliding is fun. I think learning to glide safely is
> something an average person with modest means can do handily
> given the right location, instructors, gliders, and attitude.
> I want to see entry into our sport seem inviting, casual,
> social, community based, and positive.
>
> I strongly believe that the average person learning soaring would
> seek to do everything in the test standards, and seek opinions
> and instruction, even if NONE of it were required. I believe that
> the mandating of requirements has done little to improve safety
> compared to having the same applicants all forced to burn
> $5000 and be beaten regularly with a cane.
> Any washout process whatsoever will have an associated reduction
> in accidents, which can be duplicated by simply
> reducing the number of gliders as well...
>
> If it becomes less difficult to learn gliding, then yes, there
> will be more pilots, and some will be less dedicated and less
> committed and less obsessed with soaring than the average
> pilot currently doing it. I personally don't think this is a problem,
> and I don't think it will reduce safety significantly.
> It may increase safety, if the community is grown to the point
> that dialogue among glider pilots is improved.
>
> I have had the opportunity to interact with the Ultralight community
> recently. Interesting bunch. One might think that a relative lack of
> regulation and standards would greatly increase the fatalities.
> Interestingly, this has less impact than one might think.
> The vast majority of UL pilots recieved non-mandated instruction
> before they ever soloed. They have followed lesson outlines
> for instruction voluntarily. A lot of them, recognising that
> many fatalities are caused not by the inadequacy of the pilot
> but by the delicacy of the aircraft, have installed BRS parachute
> systems in their (well, in the 2-seat ones anyway) aircraft.
>
> They set their own minimums, and it seems to actually work ok
> for them. A vast majority do just fine without any enforced
> standards, thank you very much.
>
> The one standard I find compelling is that before taking passengers, one
> should do a bunch of solo. Darwin will do in 10 seconds what no
> instructor or FAA rulebook can ever do. The instructor comes in
> because someone has to convince the towpilot to tow the guy...
>
>
> In article >,
> f.blair > wrote:
> >I don't think we need anything that make soaring 'less professional' nor
> >should we make it 'less difficult to meet the standards', we have our own
> >safety problems in soaring and it will not be solved by lessening the
> >standards.
> >
> >Fred Blair
> >
> >
> >"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
> >news:41df1d2c$1@darkstar...
> >> As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but
> >> I'm a member there for completely different reasons.
> >> NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard.
> >>
> >> I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make
> >> soaring seem less professional, and less difficult
> >> to meet the standards.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Mhudson126]

When the SSA moved to Hobbs in the 80's, Hobbs was the center of the U.S.
soaring universe. A world championship had just been held there, and it was
where every glider pilot dreamed of flying out of for pleasure of competition.
At that point, the buildings remoteness did not seem so far fetched.
Now, I fear that Hobbs is a dying sight. The recent implosion of the NSF, as
well as having a well run, but truly disappointing (Weather wise) Standard
class nationals will not be forgotten in the near future. There are simply too
many large egos down there competing with each other to make it a viable
solution for holding contests in the near future.
On the other hand, the city is FULLY supportive of the soaring movement. Can
anyone else recall being at a glider contest where each contest got at least a
full front page article in the sports section of the local paper, and the
contest results broadcast on radio and TV every day, right along with baseball
and basketball scores?
My point is this; without Hobbs as a sight for large contests and get
together, having our headquarters down there is pretty much useless and
inconvenient for everyone. I believe that the soaring sight, and the SSA
headquarters are joined at the hip. Either someone needs to step in and
revitalize Hobbs as a soaring sight, or I fear that both that beautiful
airport, as well as our national headquarters are doomed to fail.
-Mitch

[Stewart Kissel]

In this the era of the telecommuter...when information
can be readily transmitted without being present...we
would want the office somewhere expensive so that the
employees can commute on crowded highways?

A friend recently queried me of where a good place
to move near a major population center for soaring
might be...although these exist, many or only a couple
of pranged towplanes away from not being present.

I think this topic can wither on the vine...Hobbs may
not be perfect, but it makes sense in a lot of ways.



At 09:30 08 January 2005, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>'snoop' wrote in message
ups.com...
>> One bit of EAA history that I do know is that when
>>Poberenzy wanted to
>> expand out of the Hales Corner building, he only wanted
>>to build a
>> bigger version of the Hales Corner corrugated hangar.
>>The board pushed
>> to look further into the future and thus the beautiful
>>museum that is
>> in Oshkosh exists.
>>
>> Our library at the SSA headquarters consists of a
>>couple walls of book
>> shelves, with boxes full of books sitting on the floor.
>>Imagine our
>> offices, let's say in a suburb of Denver, or Dallas,
>>or in Mr.
>> Greenwells location. Can you see all those soaring
>>people visiting day
>> in and day out, volunteering their talent and time.
>>Imagine guys like
>> Dick Johnson, in Dallas being able to visit and help
>>out with history
>> projects whenever he wanted to. See where this is
>>going.
>>
>> Imagine Charlie, and Charlie lite getting on a non-stop
>>flight straight
>> into DFW, or DEN, or ABQ, or wherever, and in twenty
>>minutes being at
>> headquarters.
>>
>> More thoughts?
>>
>Soaring history is really archived at NSM and starting
>at the SWSM. The SSA
>staff probably doesn't need hangar talk from a bunch
>of well meaning, but
>likely annoying drop-ins. If you have volunteered
>and coordinated to work
>on a specific project, by all means, do it, but if
>you want to put energy
>into growing soaring, try your own backyard first.
> Growing soaring happens
>at the grass roots level. I joined my first club (I
>already had an interest
>and had taken a soaring flight) when I noticed their
>black on hot pink 8.5 x
>11 poster on the bulletin board of the local USAF post
>office. It simply
>stated 'We reckon if you can drive a car, you can fly
>a glider' and had a
>graphic on an SHK (serial nr 1, of which I later owned
>a share) and the club
>name and contact details. I was there mid-week after
>I got a car only to
>find they flew normally at the weekends. But I was
>back 9am on the
>Saturday.
>
>I see no pressing need to move the SSA to a higher
>cost of living area when
>the budget is so tight. Turning it around financially
>will take some time.
>Please login to the member area and review the ex-Com
>and board minutes and
>review the eNewsLetter or copies of the Dennis' Missile.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

snoop wrote:


> Imagine Charlie, and Charlie lite getting on a non-stop flight straight
> into DFW, or DEN, or ABQ, or wherever, and in twenty minutes being at
> headquarters.
>
> More thoughts?

I can imagine the Charlie's doing that, but I can't imagine why they
would want to spend all that money, spend hours at airports fighting the
security lines, the baggage lines, the rental car lines, and the traffic
between the airport and wherever the headquarters ended up, which would
most likely be much further away the 20 minutes (do you know where the
Denver airport is now?).

Have you asked the Charlie's if they mind the headquarters being in
Hobbs? I've not heard either of them ever mention it. In fact, the only
people I hear complain about the location are people with little reason,
other than curiosity, to visit it. For example, the Directors I know
never mention it.

I have visited it several times, and folks, it's just an office. With
telephones, fax machines, email, web sites, post office, Fed Ex, etc,
there is very little need to visit the office.

Instead of spending the money that you would on that trip to Denver,
DFW, etc, where you suggest the office be located, spend it going to an
SSA convention. You'll enjoy it a LOT more, and you will still be able
to talk to several of the office staff, including Dennis Wright, because
they'll be there, too.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tony Verhulst]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
> In this the era of the telecommuter...when information
> can be readily transmitted without being present...we
> would want the office somewhere expensive so that the
> employees can commute on crowded highways?

The reason that AOPA is in Frederick, Maryland, is because it's close to
Washington DC. While transmitting data can do much, there's a lot to be
said for "pressing the flesh" when the occasion requires it. Access to
legislators is a lot easier from Frederick than from Hobbs.

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

[f.blair]

Yes, Mark, we agree all the way. I learned to fly with a local club that
was very much social. Most of my best friends are fellow pilots and we have
all gone to way out of the way fields to retrieve each other. Being such
friends, one of the difficult things can be 'how to tell a friend that the
last landing was a terrible landing'. We all expect to be corrected when we
see something that might be considered unsafe, it is best for all of us to
self police each other.

Fred

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
> Stewart Kissel wrote:
> > In this the era of the telecommuter...when information
> > can be readily transmitted without being present...we
> > would want the office somewhere expensive so that the
> > employees can commute on crowded highways?
>
> The reason that AOPA is in Frederick, Maryland, is because it's close to
> Washington DC. While transmitting data can do much, there's a lot to be
> said for "pressing the flesh" when the occasion requires it. Access to
> legislators is a lot easier from Frederick than from Hobbs.
>
> Tony V.
> http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

Although that is a compeling reason, SSA can't afford the lunch tabs, nor
the rent or staff. Might be much cheaper to hire a lobbyist (part-time).

Frank Whiteley

[Nolaminar]

I remember SSA HQ in Santa Monica, California. When passing through Los
Angeles area, I would always stop at the office to say hello to the friends and
staff.
I wonder how many others enjoyed the old facility at SM Airport.
Sure, it might be easier to visit the office if it was in Atlanta, Dallas or
Chicago.
But would that really make a difference?
I doubt it.
We dream of comparisons with EAA. In Oshkosh?? Get serious
GA
( SSA for about 45 years)

[Jack]

This thread took off on course but meandered off to a dying cu. I agree
that Hobbs at least needs to be a soaring site.

What's needed is NEW MEMBERS. People come into this sport and leave
with frightening regularity. They will come in and get their license,
and disappear after a couple of years because - in my humble opinion -
1.) the cost of competitive sailplanes is too high - 2.) the cost of
operating a new sailplane per hour can be outrageous - 3.) too many FAI
pilots fly in lesser classes, and don't share their knowledge with
fledgling competitors - 4.) they get scared off early due to cost - 5.)
Hell, it just costs a lot of money to do this in most places.

Let's focus on growing the sport/hobby of soaring. I think we're
missing a great deal of potential soaring pilots in the radio control
model ranks.I think clubs should host R/C soaring clubs for a day and
offer rides at a reduced rate, close the airport at 5:00 PM and let
them show you a thing or two about THEIR form of soaring. Some of that
effort will be wasted. Some will pay off. There will be a few of those
guys that will become good soaring pilots/club members.

I have been doing R/C soaring stuff since 1973, and flying real
sailplanes since 1985. I am just getting back into the air after a
4-year absence, but I also just bought a sailplane.

Another problem I percieve is the "You gotta have the latest, greatest,
fastest, slipperiest or you're a nobody" syndrome. I spent some money,
not too much, and I'm enthralled with my ship. It isn't the latest
thing. In fact, far, far from it. I finally learned that, regardless of
the opinions of some of my wel-meaning friends, I can be very happy
with yesterday's hotty. If you're telling people that you have to spend
$50K or more to be happy... please STOP!!

Another thing is the club structure. I can't really speak to this much,
becase I've been a member of only 3 clubs. Admittedly, the first one
SPOILED me. I have since compared just about all of my flying
experiences, R/C and real, to that club, as a benchmark. Texas Soaring
Association is a hard thing for others to live up to. However, Soaring
Club of Houston has improved to become a VERY close second. The other
club I was involved with was not good to me at all, and I had a bad
experience there. That club and others like it, are partly responsible
for soaring's decline. Again, my opinion, I'm sure yours is different.

Instructors teach people to take off and land, box the wake, stall, and
basic maneuvers. Clubs need a SOARING instructor to hand these people
off to. FLoating around the airport at minimum sink does get boring.

I'm stepping off my soap box now... to spend some time with the
girls...

Jack Womack

[......... :-\)\)]

There is no point in continuing to talk about this problem. Unless we reach
some concensus and do something about it nothing is going to change. Too
much talk and not enough action.

Talking amoungst ourselves will get us nowhere. We need to start promoting
ourself in the wider world.



"Jack" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> This thread took off on course but meandered off to a dying cu. I agree
> that Hobbs at least needs to be a soaring site.
>
> What's needed is NEW MEMBERS. People come into this sport and leave
> with frightening regularity. They will come in and get their license,
> and disappear after a couple of years because - in my humble opinion -
> 1.) the cost of competitive sailplanes is too high - 2.) the cost of
> operating a new sailplane per hour can be outrageous - 3.) too many FAI
> pilots fly in lesser classes, and don't share their knowledge with
> fledgling competitors - 4.) they get scared off early due to cost - 5.)
> Hell, it just costs a lot of money to do this in most places.
>
> Let's focus on growing the sport/hobby of soaring. I think we're
> missing a great deal of potential soaring pilots in the radio control
> model ranks.I think clubs should host R/C soaring clubs for a day and
> offer rides at a reduced rate, close the airport at 5:00 PM and let
> them show you a thing or two about THEIR form of soaring. Some of that
> effort will be wasted. Some will pay off. There will be a few of those
> guys that will become good soaring pilots/club members.
>
> I have been doing R/C soaring stuff since 1973, and flying real
> sailplanes since 1985. I am just getting back into the air after a
> 4-year absence, but I also just bought a sailplane.
>
> Another problem I percieve is the "You gotta have the latest, greatest,
> fastest, slipperiest or you're a nobody" syndrome. I spent some money,
> not too much, and I'm enthralled with my ship. It isn't the latest
> thing. In fact, far, far from it. I finally learned that, regardless of
> the opinions of some of my wel-meaning friends, I can be very happy
> with yesterday's hotty. If you're telling people that you have to spend
> $50K or more to be happy... please STOP!!
>
> Another thing is the club structure. I can't really speak to this much,
> becase I've been a member of only 3 clubs. Admittedly, the first one
> SPOILED me. I have since compared just about all of my flying
> experiences, R/C and real, to that club, as a benchmark. Texas Soaring
> Association is a hard thing for others to live up to. However, Soaring
> Club of Houston has improved to become a VERY close second. The other
> club I was involved with was not good to me at all, and I had a bad
> experience there. That club and others like it, are partly responsible
> for soaring's decline. Again, my opinion, I'm sure yours is different.
>
> Instructors teach people to take off and land, box the wake, stall, and
> basic maneuvers. Clubs need a SOARING instructor to hand these people
> off to. FLoating around the airport at minimum sink does get boring.
>
> I'm stepping off my soap box now... to spend some time with the
> girls...
>
> Jack Womack
>

[Keith W]

"Jack" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> This thread took off on course but meandered off to a dying cu. I agree
> that Hobbs at least needs to be a soaring site.
>
> What's needed is NEW MEMBERS. People come into this sport and leave
> with frightening regularity. They will come in and get their license,
> and disappear after a couple of years because - in my humble opinion -
> 1.) the cost of competitive sailplanes is too high - 2.) the cost of
> operating a new sailplane per hour can be outrageous - 3.) too many FAI
> pilots fly in lesser classes, and don't share their knowledge with
> fledgling competitors - 4.) they get scared off early due to cost - 5.)
> Hell, it just costs a lot of money to do this in most places.
>
<SNIP>
One other that I haven't seen here (and which was a prime reason for me
ceasing to be active) was the very small return on investment of time. I
belonged to a members club, where the day was spent in self-help pushing and
pulling before your own time came. I was at the club at least once each
weekend, from early to late, and a look through my log book shows I got an
average of around one quarter of an hour flying for each day spent! (And
that did not include the days spent working in the hangars due to rain or
wind preventing flying, or the evenings helping at the group air experience
flying, as those did not result in an entry in the log book.)

Although I got to the 'B' certificate (solo, but not clear of the airfield),
the personal return to me never really compensated for the guilt of not
maintaining the house and doing all those other domestic jobs that refuse to
go away! 8-)

Keith
(Still interested in soaring, and an avid lurker, but probably the only way
I'd get into the air in future would be via power)

[RHWOODY]

If you are concerned about he high cost of new and used gliders, then you
should
let your congressmen and congresswomen know they should support a strong US$ -
in case you have
not noticed, during the past 3 years
the US$ has declined in value by
~50 to 55% versus the Euro- in other words the cost of gliders manufactured in
Euro currency based countries (ie. Germany) have increased in US$ by
~ double. Explained another way, it takes
twice as many US$ to buy the same
glider as it did 3 years ago. For some
stupid reason, our government believes
a weak US$ produces more export sales -
in actual fact, there is almost no increase
in US exports and we end up with the
worst of both worlds - no substantial
export sales and a weak US$ - the reason
we have no significant increase in export sales is that the rest of the world's
economies are "in the toilet" and cannot
afford even so called cheap exports from
the US. The effect is best observed by
glider pilots who ask about prices in US$
for new gliders - it is shocking that a new
glider costs twice as many US$ as it did
3 years ago - thanks to those financial
advisors who advocate a weak US$ - which I believe is completely wrong thinking
by idiots in our government -
namely those economic professors who
dwell only in their "ivory tower" environments and not in the real world.

[Nyal Williams]

At 10:30 27 January 2005, Keith W wrote:
>
>'Jack' wrote in message
ups.com...
>> This thread took off on course but meandered off to
>>a dying cu. I agree
>> that Hobbs at least needs to be a soaring site.
>>
>> What's needed is NEW MEMBERS. People come into this
>>sport and leave
>> with frightening regularity. They will come in and
>>get their license,
>> and disappear after a couple of years because - in
>>my humble opinion -
>> 1.) the cost of competitive sailplanes is too high
>>- 2.) the cost of
>> operating a new sailplane per hour can be outrageous
>>- 3.) too many FAI
>> pilots fly in lesser classes, and don't share their
>>knowledge with
>> fledgling competitors - 4.) they get scared off early
>>due to cost - 5.)
>> Hell, it just costs a lot of money to do this in most
>>places.
>>
>
>One other that I haven't seen here (and which was a
>prime reason for me
>ceasing to be active) was the very small return on
>investment of time. I
>belonged to a members club, where the day was spent
>in self-help pushing and
>pulling before your own time came. I was at the club
>at least once each
>weekend, from early to late, and a look through my
>log book shows I got an
>average of around one quarter of an hour flying for
>each day spent! (And
>that did not include the days spent working in the
>hangars due to rain or
>wind preventing flying, or the evenings helping at
>the group air experience
>flying, as those did not result in an entry in the
>log book.)
>
>Although I got to the 'B' certificate (solo, but not
>clear of the airfield),
>the personal return to me never really compensated
>for the guilt of not
>maintaining the house and doing all those other domestic
>jobs that refuse to
>go away! 8-)
>
>Keith
>(Still interested in soaring, and an avid lurker, but
>probably the only way
>I'd get into the air in future would be via power)

Wonder what the ratio of work to flight time was for
Orville? What is the time ratio between laboring and
eating? How about courting and mating? Real thrills
don't charge at us constantly; if you flat line a peak
it becomes a plateau. I like soaring and I like hanging
out with the club members, and I enjoy working on the
equipment. The sailors who sail all their lives enjoy
working on the boats almost as much as sailing them.
If it is all drudgery except the flying, it won't
be enduring; find your passion and stick with it.

[Shawn]

RHWOODY wrote:
> If you are concerned about he high cost of new and used gliders, then you
> should
> let your congressmen and congresswomen know they should support a strong US$ -
> in case you have
> not noticed, during the past 3 years
> the US$ has declined in value by
> ~50 to 55% versus the Euro- in other words the cost of gliders manufactured in
> Euro currency based countries (ie. Germany) have increased in US$ by
> ~ double. Explained another way, it takes
> twice as many US$ to buy the same
> glider as it did 3 years ago. For some
> stupid reason, our government believes
> a weak US$ produces more export sales -
> in actual fact, there is almost no increase
> in US exports and we end up with the
> worst of both worlds - no substantial
> export sales and a weak US$ - the reason
> we have no significant increase in export sales is that the rest of the world's
> economies are "in the toilet" and cannot
> afford even so called cheap exports from
> the US. The effect is best observed by
> glider pilots who ask about prices in US$
> for new gliders - it is shocking that a new
> glider costs twice as many US$ as it did
> 3 years ago - thanks to those financial
> advisors who advocate a weak US$ - which I believe is completely wrong thinking
> by idiots in our government -
> namely those economic professors who
> dwell only in their "ivory tower" environments and not in the real world.

Great points. Just makes me love my 28 year old Mosquito that much
more. :-)

Shawn

[Pete Reinhart]

..I like soaring and I like hanging
> out with the club members, and I enjoy working on the
> equipment. The sailors who sail all their lives enjoy
> working on the boats almost as much as sailing them.
> If it is all drudgery except the flying, it won't
> be enduring; find your passion and stick with it.
>
>
>
NW,
Well said!
That's really what it's about.
For me at least.
The difference between a sailboat and a yacht is who works on it and I still
have a picture of Ted Turner (along with some of the rest of the crew)
sanding away on the bottom of one of his old race boats.
Cheers!, Pete (35 year sailor, in and out of soaring and now back)

[Keith W]

>
> Wonder what the ratio of work to flight time was for
> Orville? What is the time ratio between laboring and
> eating? How about courting and mating? Real thrills
> don't charge at us constantly; if you flat line a peak
> it becomes a plateau. I like soaring and I like hanging
> out with the club members, and I enjoy working on the
> equipment. The sailors who sail all their lives enjoy
> working on the boats almost as much as sailing them.
> If it is all drudgery except the flying, it won't
> be enduring; find your passion and stick with it.
>
>
But if you're really flying as little as I managed to get in, having
difficulty pushing 10 hours per year, I don't consider that as safe,
especially in the 'just post solo' stage, where one needs the hours to get
everything grooved together before forgetting something vital, like getting
back on the deck!

Maybe in a region where the weather is more consistent, so that whenever
there is a good day, the line isn't hogged by the 'real flyers', and the air
experience flying, 'cos the club needs the money, it might be different.

Most people initially join a flying club primarilly to fly. The involvement
of socialising and working on the craft comes at a later stage (and I have
done a considerable amount of that - I also spent a couple of years as the
treasurer, and I hate to think of the number of hours that chewed up!).
However, if the primary requirement is not satisfied, the enjoyment of the
other things will wain.

Keith

[Tim Mara]

the US$ is down.yes..........or......did we just get use to an abnormally
inflated $?
calling your corgressman isn't going to chage this.politicians rarely have
any positive effect on economies aside from their own pay packages.
It is true that few new gliders are being sold from Europe to the
USA......but, also if you have a closer look you'll also certainly notice
very few are being sold IN Europe as well......
Our "toys" are expensive.....by comparison to many (most) other sports.that
is just a matter of fact.....
my 2c
tim

"RHWOODY" > wrote in message
...
> If you are concerned about he high cost of new and used gliders, then you
> should
> let your congressmen and congresswomen know they should support a strong
US$ -
> in case you have
> not noticed, during the past 3 years
> the US$ has declined in value by
> ~50 to 55% versus the Euro- in other words the cost of gliders
manufactured in
> Euro currency based countries (ie. Germany) have increased in US$ by
> ~ double. Explained another way, it takes
> twice as many US$ to buy the same
> glider as it did 3 years ago. For some
> stupid reason, our government believes
> a weak US$ produces more export sales -
> in actual fact, there is almost no increase
> in US exports and we end up with the
> worst of both worlds - no substantial
> export sales and a weak US$ - the reason
> we have no significant increase in export sales is that the rest of the
world's
> economies are "in the toilet" and cannot
> afford even so called cheap exports from
> the US. The effect is best observed by
> glider pilots who ask about prices in US$
> for new gliders - it is shocking that a new
> glider costs twice as many US$ as it did
> 3 years ago - thanks to those financial
> advisors who advocate a weak US$ - which I believe is completely wrong
thinking
> by idiots in our government -
> namely those economic professors who
> dwell only in their "ivory tower" environments and not in the real world.

[Marc Ramsey]

Tim Mara wrote:
> the US$ is down.yes..........or......did we just get use to an abnormally
> inflated $?

Gilders may be selling slowly in general due to economic issues, but it
is the relative value of the dollar vs. the euro that is causing sales
in the US to approach zero. I'm probably a reasonable case study in
this regard, 10 years ago the economy was strong, and I was making a
decent income, so I purchased a new (but relatively low end) glider on
my own. 5 years ago, the economy was weakening, my income was slightly
lower, I had a family, etc., yet I purchased two new gliders, but this
time in partnership with others. At this point, my income is still
about the same as it was 5 years ago, but thanks to the exchange rate
I'm no longer in a position to even contemplate buying a new glider,
with or without partners.

> calling your corgressman isn't going to chage this.politicians rarely
> have any positive effect on economies aside from their own pay
> packages.

<political-rant>
In this case, I have to disagree with you. The fall of the dollar is
directly due to the actions of congress and the administration. If the
"no-tax and spend" republicans (and some democrats) hadn't cut taxes on
the wealthy, funded their favorite pork barrel projects, and allowed us
to get bogged down in a worthless war in Iraq, we'd probably be looking
at a slight surplus right now, rather than a half-trillion dollar
deficit. As it is now, the major reserve banks outside of the US are
quietly shifting their funds from the dollar over to the euro. At some
point, this process is going to accelerate, and we'll be looking at a
dollar in freefall, along with record levels of inflation. Enjoy!
</political-rant>

Marc

[[email protected]]

You know...after reading all postings I still come to the conclusion
that the declining membership is related directly to the cost. It
doesn't matter if the dollar is strong or weak, or if the Euro
dominates the world. What it matters is that gliders and related
equipment are extremely expensive. Bottom line. Discus cost nowadays
50,000 euros, add trailer, lets say Cobra...about 10,000 Euros, add
some instruments...lets say $5000.00, pay all the shipping cost from
Europe, pay ( in state of Washington we have to pay a use tax which I
believe is about 8%) and that will give you pretty good idea about the
cost of sailplanes. Now, that is still pretty cheap....considering all
the facts. But the Diana 2 will cost 57,000 Euros, Alexander Schleicher
???? the other Schempp-Hirth sailplanes????? now parachute???? about
$1400.00. O'K I am getting very pessimistic here, but then ....add a
cost of a single tow, I now that a winch launch by one outfit in
Washington State is $25.00 !!!! isn't this outrages?? Now, you get a
kid, lets say 18 years old. He might even like soaring, he might be a
future world champion, but...he looks at the cost involved and says
"the hell with this, I'll get me mountain bike". You see, he doesn't
see anything in our sport for himself but just the cost. Some people
trying to make it rich, so they will be ripping everybody off, and then
the wife gets up on Sunday and she says "honey, no more gliding for
you, it is to expensive and you have family". Well, your racing just
went bye bye. Did not happen? I bet you it did. And not at only one
occasion. The glider and glider related equipment manufacturers need to
open their eyes and smell the coffee because a few years from now we
will be the only sailplane pilots left and according to the young minds
of this world " we will belong with the dinosaurs....extinct". They
need to justify their cost and not only the profit margin. If we have a
group of young pilots now, or in very near future, the profit will
happen by itself. Otherwise they will be buying airplanes.

[Charles Yeates]

Jacek

I agree with your general viewpoint but ---- buy a PW-6 and take the
wife flying too The glider will cost at least 10,000 Euros LESS than a
Discus !! A two-place can be more fun, eh?

wrote:
> You know...after reading all postings I still come to the conclusion
> that the declining membership is related directly to the cost. It
> doesn't matter if the dollar is strong or weak, or if the Euro
> dominates the world. What it matters is that gliders and related
> equipment are extremely expensive. Bottom line. Discus cost nowadays
> 50,000 euros, add trailer, lets say Cobra...about 10,000 Euros, add
> some instruments...lets say $5000.00, pay all the shipping cost from
> Europe, pay ( in state of Washington we have to pay a use tax which I
> believe is about 8%) and that will give you pretty good idea about the
> cost of sailplanes.

[Eric Greenwell]

Charles Yeates wrote:
> Jacek
>
> I agree with your general viewpoint but ---- buy a PW-6 and take the
> wife flying too The glider will cost at least 10,000 Euros LESS than a
> Discus !! A two-place can be more fun, eh?

My wife said I could buy the more expensive single-seater instead of a
cheaper two-seater if I promised not to take her flying. After a few
years, she told me I could have a motorglider if I promised to make it
home every day...



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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

I'm almost ready to suggest that soaring clubs, and maybe even
SSA, become aerosports clubs.

Parachutists, hang gliders, ultralights, powered parachutes are
all pretty closely related to soaring, I think. I just
yesterday talked to Morris Yoder, who got the very first ELSA
powered parachute certified as an Experimental Light Sport
Aircraft. He faxed me the Operating Limitations, and they
allow training for hire. Yeah!

I'd like to see the Glider ASTM committee plunk a
Quicksilver Sport MXII in front of them and write a
GLIDER standard for Special Light Sport Aircraft.
That would attract several thousand new members over the
next five years. And the MXII actually has a low enough
sink rate and tight thermalling speed, you could
soar in it! Especially with just 1 occupant...

So how about it? The ultralight guys are gonna be homeless
soon, the "Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft" scene
is blooming, the parachute guys need more Dropzones, and
the hang glider guys would LOVE to try winch or
aerotow...

All they need is somewhere without all those damn JETS
getting mad because they're so slow.

Central California Aerosports Club? Sounds good to me... :)

Aerosport Society of America? I'm tellin' ya, there's
gonna be a consolidation of the Ultralight orgs, and
there's gonna be a renaming of the hang gliding org,
so maybe we can "absorb" these guys...

Is Sponge Bob a glider pilot?

In article om>,
Jack > wrote:
>This thread took off on course but meandered off to a dying cu. I agree
>that Hobbs at least needs to be a soaring site.
>
>What's needed is NEW MEMBERS. People come into this sport and leave
>with frightening regularity. They will come in and get their license,
>and disappear after a couple of years because - in my humble opinion -
>1.) the cost of competitive sailplanes is too high - 2.) the cost of
>operating a new sailplane per hour can be outrageous - 3.) too many FAI
>pilots fly in lesser classes, and don't share their knowledge with
>fledgling competitors - 4.) they get scared off early due to cost - 5.)
>Hell, it just costs a lot of money to do this in most places.
>
>Let's focus on growing the sport/hobby of soaring. I think we're
>missing a great deal of potential soaring pilots in the radio control
>model ranks.I think clubs should host R/C soaring clubs for a day and
>offer rides at a reduced rate, close the airport at 5:00 PM and let
>them show you a thing or two about THEIR form of soaring. Some of that
>effort will be wasted. Some will pay off. There will be a few of those
>guys that will become good soaring pilots/club members.
>
>I have been doing R/C soaring stuff since 1973, and flying real
>sailplanes since 1985. I am just getting back into the air after a
>4-year absence, but I also just bought a sailplane.
>
>Another problem I percieve is the "You gotta have the latest, greatest,
>fastest, slipperiest or you're a nobody" syndrome. I spent some money,
>not too much, and I'm enthralled with my ship. It isn't the latest
>thing. In fact, far, far from it. I finally learned that, regardless of
>the opinions of some of my wel-meaning friends, I can be very happy
>with yesterday's hotty. If you're telling people that you have to spend
>$50K or more to be happy... please STOP!!
>
>Another thing is the club structure. I can't really speak to this much,
>becase I've been a member of only 3 clubs. Admittedly, the first one
>SPOILED me. I have since compared just about all of my flying
>experiences, R/C and real, to that club, as a benchmark. Texas Soaring
>Association is a hard thing for others to live up to. However, Soaring
>Club of Houston has improved to become a VERY close second. The other
>club I was involved with was not good to me at all, and I had a bad
>experience there. That club and others like it, are partly responsible
>for soaring's decline. Again, my opinion, I'm sure yours is different.
>
>Instructors teach people to take off and land, box the wake, stall, and
>basic maneuvers. Clubs need a SOARING instructor to hand these people
>off to. FLoating around the airport at minimum sink does get boring.
>
>I'm stepping off my soap box now... to spend some time with the
>girls...
>
>Jack Womack
>


--

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

[[email protected]]

snoop wrote:
> Looking through all the posts from earlier this year, regarding the
> sliding membership in our US soaring activities, along with all the
> other trailing bad news, i.e. SSA building in need of big repairs,
> there is no soaring operation in Hobbs, I'm curious about thoughts of
> "what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the
Vintage,
> Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA.
>
> Two big airshow/conventions a year, EAA publishes all magazines, and
a
> lot of members at those fly-ins and airshows to ask the question
"where
> can I start". Plus lobbying power, and unlimited networking.
> Just curious for thoughts.

About declining membership:
SSA Board and Hobbs staff have been working hard on reversing the
declining membership in SSA. This has been approached to a great extent
by working toward retention of members, including personal letters to
many lapsed members asking why they have left.
Dinner conversation with my director brought up that SSA has had some
success this year in this effort.
Membership as of 12/31/04 was 12,617 compared to 12,305.
It is a good sign when you can reverse a bad trend.
There are no simple answers, but hard work does pay off as shown above.
Let's go get some more folks involved and try to keep the ones we have.
UH

[Mark James Boyd]

Good idea. Maybe talk up the glider stuff on the
Sport Pilot forum on Yahoo! groups so that there are 1000
messages per month, many about gliding, instead of 200
a month from wandering potential pilots.

I've sent 3 people to gliderports, and at two of them, they
were not warmly welcomed. One glider DPE actually told a
guy that CFIGs can't do Sport Pilot training. Hahaha...
It'd be funnier if it wasn't so pitifully disappointing, and
incorrect.

If you can't join them, then beat them. This sport needs
a few more ambassadors, and a lot less humbugs.

So I applied to be a Sport Pilot Examiner for gliders and
for ASEL. All you naysayers better write your cards and letters, and
make your calls to the selection board right now, before it's
too late. Otherwise there will be 2-33s swarming YOUR gliderports
with candidates I'VE examined.

I think there are many ultralights that would meet all the
qualifications to be experimental gliders, or even SLSA.
And I plan to make buckets (very small buckets) of money
making this happen and giving these
newly FAA minted pilots a home. They are sweating it out right now,
thinking their ULs will be lawn ornaments. The ASEL sport
pilot standards are ok, but not ideal. I'm going to give them
an alternative that keeps transponders and ELTs out of their
tube and fabric aircraft.

Beyond that I'll keep selling my particular brand of snake oil,
encouraging people to become Advanced Ground Instructors,
and building my winch, and putting together my auto-tow
gear. And maybe even refurbishing a <gasp> Schweizer 2-22!!!

Spring is here. I've been busy building hope. Now the
hopeful want to come out and play in the sun. I plan to help
them.

Wanna come play?

In article >,
.......... :-\)\) > wrote:
>There is no point in continuing to talk about this problem. Unless we reach
>some concensus and do something about it nothing is going to change. Too
>much talk and not enough action.
>
>Talking amoungst ourselves will get us nowhere. We need to start promoting
>ourself in the wider world.
>
>
>
>"Jack" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> This thread took off on course but meandered off to a dying cu. I agree
>> that Hobbs at least needs to be a soaring site.
>>
>> What's needed is NEW MEMBERS. People come into this sport and leave
>> with frightening regularity. They will come in and get their license,
>> and disappear after a couple of years because - in my humble opinion -
>> 1.) the cost of competitive sailplanes is too high - 2.) the cost of
>> operating a new sailplane per hour can be outrageous - 3.) too many FAI
>> pilots fly in lesser classes, and don't share their knowledge with
>> fledgling competitors - 4.) they get scared off early due to cost - 5.)
>> Hell, it just costs a lot of money to do this in most places.
>>
>> Let's focus on growing the sport/hobby of soaring. I think we're
>> missing a great deal of potential soaring pilots in the radio control
>> model ranks.I think clubs should host R/C soaring clubs for a day and
>> offer rides at a reduced rate, close the airport at 5:00 PM and let
>> them show you a thing or two about THEIR form of soaring. Some of that
>> effort will be wasted. Some will pay off. There will be a few of those
>> guys that will become good soaring pilots/club members.
>>
>> I have been doing R/C soaring stuff since 1973, and flying real
>> sailplanes since 1985. I am just getting back into the air after a
>> 4-year absence, but I also just bought a sailplane.
>>
>> Another problem I percieve is the "You gotta have the latest, greatest,
>> fastest, slipperiest or you're a nobody" syndrome. I spent some money,
>> not too much, and I'm enthralled with my ship. It isn't the latest
>> thing. In fact, far, far from it. I finally learned that, regardless of
>> the opinions of some of my wel-meaning friends, I can be very happy
>> with yesterday's hotty. If you're telling people that you have to spend
>> $50K or more to be happy... please STOP!!
>>
>> Another thing is the club structure. I can't really speak to this much,
>> becase I've been a member of only 3 clubs. Admittedly, the first one
>> SPOILED me. I have since compared just about all of my flying
>> experiences, R/C and real, to that club, as a benchmark. Texas Soaring
>> Association is a hard thing for others to live up to. However, Soaring
>> Club of Houston has improved to become a VERY close second. The other
>> club I was involved with was not good to me at all, and I had a bad
>> experience there. That club and others like it, are partly responsible
>> for soaring's decline. Again, my opinion, I'm sure yours is different.
>>
>> Instructors teach people to take off and land, box the wake, stall, and
>> basic maneuvers. Clubs need a SOARING instructor to hand these people
>> off to. FLoating around the airport at minimum sink does get boring.
>>
>> I'm stepping off my soap box now... to spend some time with the
>> girls...
>>
>> Jack Womack
>>
>
>


--

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

[Tony Verhulst]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> ...All you naysayers better write your cards and letters, and
> make your calls to the selection board right now, before it's
> too late. Otherwise there will be 2-33s swarming YOUR gliderports
> with candidates I'VE examined.

And they'd be welcome at my club, I'm sure. Too bad these pilots
wouldn't be able to fly our Blaniks due to their retractable gear.

Tony V.

[goneill]

>After a few years, she told me I could have a motorglider if I promised to
>make it home every day...

This is just about word for word what my wife said ,she has done all the
usual female
tricks to divert my attention to keep me nearer home but when she realised
that I was
not going to change this comment resulted .
I think a lot of us downplay how much pressure is put on by our life
partner.

gary

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Charles Yeates wrote:
>> Jacek
>>
>> I agree with your general viewpoint but ---- buy a PW-6 and take the wife
>> flying too The glider will cost at least 10,000 Euros LESS than a Discus
>> !! A two-place can be more fun, eh?
>
> My wife said I could buy the more expensive single-seater instead of a
> cheaper two-seater if I promised not to take her flying. After a few
> years, she told me I could have a motorglider if I promised to make it
> home every day...
>
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Wayne Paul]

The retractable gear is not the problem preventing a Sport Pilot from flying
the Blanik. The Sports Pilot rules allows gliders with retractable gear.
(See: http://www.sportpilot.org/rule/sp_rule.pdf) The Blanik's problem is
that the Vne is 136 kts which exceeds the Sport Aircraft maximum of 120 kts.

Sport Pilot training requirements can be found at
http://www.sportpilot.org/becoming/new_pilot.html.

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


"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
> > ...All you naysayers better write your cards and letters, and
> > make your calls to the selection board right now, before it's
> > too late. Otherwise there will be 2-33s swarming YOUR gliderports
> > with candidates I'VE examined.
>
> And they'd be welcome at my club, I'm sure. Too bad these pilots
> wouldn't be able to fly our Blaniks due to their retractable gear.
>
> Tony V.

[Jack]

Keith,

I read your mesages about your club and I feel your pain. I went to a
particular club all one summer and got 20 minutes flying time due to
some "Catch 22" rules. Did it make me quit... no. Did it make me
appreciate a good club even more... YES!!! If you're not getting any
more than that out of it, maybe you need to change clubs.

I will say the soaring today in the U.S. would be nothing without
volunteer labor. I hate to continue to elevate Texas Soaring
Association to some plateau that others won't be able to achieve, but
as wealthy as the club is, there greatest asset is the membership. That
group, that I'm proud to say I was once a member of, has the talent to
do about anything they need to get done. Their Pawnees are stunning.
Their gliders are well maintained. Their facilities are wonderful.

I am very encouraged about the Soaring Club of Houston. I did quite a
bit of work since joining in July. I haven't flown much but that's
about to change, since I just got my own ship. I will continue to work
to build this club to one day match what I know is possible. Not
tooting my own horn, but just trying to encourage others, including
Keith, not to give up. If you're not getting what you think you need
out of it, examine your situation and fix it. If it means going to
another club, GO!

Tell others about soaring. Take them up if possible. You never know
where the next really great club member is going to come from. Our
average age is getting older, and our numbers are dwindling. It takes
someone special to be a glider pilot, in my opinion. Those folks are
out there, though, and we're not reaching them. Again, I think SSA and
local clubs should do an R/C day and invite the local R/C Soaring
groups out for a demo ride and a cookout. They already love soaring...
Lots of work for some... yep... it's worth it to continue this greatest
of aviation advantures... (hahaha, waxing poetic here... not bad for an
old West Texas Bumpkin.)
Chin up! GO FLY!!! TELL SOMEONE HOW TERRIFIC IT IS!!!!!!

Jack Womack

[John Doe]

' A two-place can be more fun, eh?'

Only if it's side by side and co-piloted by an attractive
female companion... ;-)

At 13:30 28 January 2005, Charles Yeates wrote:
>Jacek
>
>I agree with your general viewpoint but ---- buy a
>PW-6 and take the
>wife flying too The glider will cost at least 10,000
>Euros LESS than a
>Discus !! A two-place can be more fun, eh?
>
wrote:
>> You know...after reading all postings I still come
>>to the conclusion
>> that the declining membership is related directly
>>to the cost. It
>> doesn't matter if the dollar is strong or weak, or
>>if the Euro
>> dominates the world. What it matters is that gliders
>>and related
>> equipment are extremely expensive. Bottom line. Discus
>>cost nowadays
>> 50,000 euros, add trailer, lets say Cobra...about
>>10,000 Euros, add
>> some instruments...lets say $5000.00, pay all the
>>shipping cost from
>> Europe, pay ( in state of Washington we have to pay
>>a use tax which I
>> believe is about 8%) and that will give you pretty
>>good idea about the
>> cost of sailplanes.
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

Although the L-13 and Grob 103 are NOT light sport aircraft (LSA),
you can do the Sport Pilot glider training, and the proficiency
check, in either of these aircraft. When I say "proficiency check"
I mean adding glider privileges to someone who already has
an airplane or helicopter or other pilot license already.

The regulation
only requires one to use a "glider" for the training and
proficiency check. 61.309 and 61.311 do NOT require that
the glider be an LSA.

After the proficiency check, the pilot then has privileges to
fly with a passenger in an LSA such as a 2-33 or SZD 50-3,
but perhaps ironically, NOT in a L-13 or G-103.

Some of you will ask, what use is this? If all we have
available is the L-13 or G-103, then doing this Sport
Pilot "proficiency check" is worthless...

Well, first of all, I and a few others are petitioning to
have the Vne glider limit for LSA removed. If this is done,
the L-13, L-23 and G-103 will then come under the definition of
LSA. The DG-1000 and Nimbus 4 still will not (due to the weight
limit).

Second, the procedure is an excellent exercise practicing for
the private or commercial glider checkride. I did a
sport pilot glider proficiency check for an airplane pilot
yesterday. He and his CFIG did the training, the endorsements,
and filled out the forms. I did the proficiency check
oral and flight portion. Even if he never uses this pivilege,
this was excellent practice getting familiar with forms and
procedures that are virtually identical to what he'll need
for his commercial practical test.

And I think, whether it is factually true, he FELT like he'd
accomplished something important.

It was simple, too. Just two CFIGs was all it took. No
DAR to schedule, no $350, no having to do 3 hours of
instruction from a non-DPE if the DPE soloed you, no
weather, glider, towplane, towpilot problems from
three weeks out, etc. The two CFIGs are there, it looks good,
lets do it NOW. A little less conversation, a little more ACTION.
And there are something like 80+ CFIGs for every glider DPE.

Like I said, this is maybe my own brand of snake oil. But
when I pointed out to the guy that there simply wasn't ANY
downside, that was the sale...

If you are a CFIG anywhere in the USA, even at a club without
LSAs, you can do this training. Take a look at the regs and
Sport Pilot Glider-PTS. And when an ASEL pilot comes in wanting
to add glider privileges, consider doing the "proficiency check"
if, for no other reason, it is a great tool for practicing
the process of a glider practical test.

Cheers!

In article >,
Wayne Paul > wrote:
>The retractable gear is not the problem preventing a Sport Pilot from flying
>the Blanik. The Sports Pilot rules allows gliders with retractable gear.
>(See: http://www.sportpilot.org/rule/sp_rule.pdf) The Blanik's problem is
>that the Vne is 136 kts which exceeds the Sport Aircraft maximum of 120 kts.
>
>Sport Pilot training requirements can be found at
>http://www.sportpilot.org/becoming/new_pilot.html.
>
>Wayne
>http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder
>
>
>"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
>> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> > ...All you naysayers better write your cards and letters, and
>> > make your calls to the selection board right now, before it's
>> > too late. Otherwise there will be 2-33s swarming YOUR gliderports
>> > with candidates I'VE examined.
>>
>> And they'd be welcome at my club, I'm sure. Too bad these pilots
>> wouldn't be able to fly our Blaniks due to their retractable gear.
>>
>> Tony V.
>
>


--

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

[Jack]

Practice what you preach...... OK, I will. I have proposed such a day
for my group and have polled the R/C club to see who's interested. I
want to have some numbers before I porpose this to the club. I'll see
how it goes and report back as this progresses.

Jack Womack