USHGA vision

[Jack Glendening]

The forward-looking strategic planning of a powerless-flight
organization facing challenges similar to those of sailplane
organizations makes for interesting reading for those concerned with
the future of our sport - it can be downloaded from:

http://ozreport.com/docs/USHGASTRATEGICPLAN10.10.pdf

To identify critical issues for the USHGA future, they hired a
consulting service to guide and keep them focussed, went through
weekly meetings capped by a two-day intensive session, and came up
with specific actions (including estimated costs in money and time).

For those unfamiliar with the the USHGA, it has around 12,000 members
(about same as SSA) but with falling HangGlider membership, til-now
partially compensated by a growing ParaGlider segment. Like the SSA
they are volunteer-based and put out a magazine (80 pages vice the
SSA's 60) but also handle their sport's licensing requirements and
monitor their launch/land sites.

Jack

[Kilo Charlie]

Slightly off topic but related to the health of the USHGA...

Interestingly for those of us that race.....the fees to enter a USHGA
contest are several times higher than for sailplanes (SSA)....something like
$750 (including tows). Can't imagine that is helping encourage pilots to
enter contests.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Gary Evans]

At 04:36 12 December 2005, Jack Glendening wrote:
>The forward-looking strategic planning of a powerless-flight
>organization facing challenges similar to those of
>sailplane
>organizations makes for interesting reading for those
>concerned with
>the future of our sport - it can be downloaded from:
>
> http://ozreport.com/docs/USHGASTRATEGICPLAN10.10.pdf
>
>To identify critical issues for the USHGA future, they
>hired a
>consulting service to guide and keep them focussed,
>went through
>weekly meetings capped by a two-day intensive session,
>and came up
>with specific actions (including estimated costs in
>money and time).
>
>For those unfamiliar with the the USHGA, it has around
>12,000 members
>(about same as SSA) but with falling HangGlider membership,
>til-now
>partially compensated by a growing ParaGlider segment.
> Like the SSA
>they are volunteer-based and put out a magazine (80
>pages vice the
>SSA's 60) but also handle their sport's licensing requirements
>and
>monitor their launch/land sites.
>
> Jack
>
>

Buried way back on page 58 of their 59-page document
they pretty well sum up their direction with the following
statement.

PG is replacing HG—HG was the king, the king is dead—long
live the king. PG & PPG will dominate the future of
USHGA & this may keep HG alive.

For the uninformed HG (Hangglider), PG (Paraglider)
and PPG (Powered Paraglider).
Having been a Charter member of USHGA I find it more
than sad that parachutes will now be leading USHGA.
What a great solution! I would rather see it close.

[[email protected]]

KC -- why are the fees so much higher? Do they have an expense to cover
that we don't?

~tuno

[Frank Whiteley]

I've been following this and the resulting divisiveness.

The only way an all encompassing organization might thrive (IMVHO)
would be a national, division based organization, something akin to the
EAA, with divisions, each with its own periodicals.
United States Soaring Association USSA
with divisions for sailplanes, hanggliders, and paragliders and perhaps
other subcategories.

I don't expect to see this.

Frank Whiteley

[Eric Greenwell]

Jack Glendening wrote:
snip
>
> For those unfamiliar with the the USHGA, it has around 12,000 members
> (about same as SSA) but with falling HangGlider membership, til-now
> partially compensated by a growing ParaGlider segment. Like the SSA
> they are volunteer-based and put out a magazine (80 pages vice the
> SSA's 60) but also handle their sport's licensing requirements and
> monitor their launch/land sites.

I haven't read the report, but the 12,000 USHGA membership size is
disturbing. Remember how sailplane pilots used imagine hang gliding did
so well compared to sailplanes was because it was a much cheaper sport
without the FAA licensing requirements, and you could fly just about
anywhere since you didn't need an airport?

On the other, some this was a myth. Hang glider pilots that have
converted to sailplanes have told me it was cheaper for them to fly and
own sailplanes, took less time and effort to get more flying, didn't
injure them so frequently, and their spouses thought it was a huge
improvement.

Even so, perhaps the obvious differences between the sports weren't the
cause of membership retention, and the difficulty in increasing
membership (in both sports) may have causes external to the sports. If
this true, efforts to reduce costs and add convenience may only slow the
loss of members, and what is needed is a fundamental change to the
sports, instead of tweaking some of the factors involved.

I know I'm not the first to suggest this, and no, I don't have clue
about what to do, either.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Kilo Charlie]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> KC -- why are the fees so much higher? Do they have an expense to cover
> that we don't?
>
> ~tuno

Not sure 2NO. From what I can gather so far they have opted to pay a single
person to organize and set up most of their contests. The pilots I spoke
with did not have knowledge of any budget or expense sheets for any prior
contests being published.

It would be nice to not have to worry about organizing all of our contests
and if the money were available certainly would be worth paying someone to
travel the US each year to do that. On the other hand it would appear at
least theoretically to be more expensive that relying upon local volunteer
help at each site. As best as I can gather the pilots and USHGA have opted
to do the former. It just seems to me that some pilots are in hang gliding
vs. sailplanes (at least part of the reasons) due to limited funds and that
these types of entry fees are certainly keeping the numbers of contestants
down.

I don't wish to imply that someone is embezzling funds.....the organizers
may in fact be making minimum wage and the cash may be spent on many other
things (e.g. trophies, meals, housing tow pilots, insurance, etc). It is a
bunch of money though......I'm told that there are around 60 contestants per
contest so that's $45,000 USD per contest in entry fees.

My interest is that I've got a close friend that competes. They don't think
that the fees are high but I'm not sure that many of them know what we pay
in our sport. I'm probably just worrying too much about someone elses
business as usual.

Casey

[Jack Glendening]

BTW, one eye-opener (or head-shaker, perhaps) is their aspiration to
double their membership every decade!

[Francisco De Almeida]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> [snip] Remember how sailplane pilots used imagine hang gliding did=20
> so well compared to sailplanes was because it was a much cheaper sport =
(...).

It seems that the cost in any amateur sport or hobby tends to increase =
to a limit defined by the average available income in the specific =
country/society. Therefore, serious participation may involve comparable =
levels of committment and expense, be it in models gliders, =
hang-gliding, sailplanes (or target shooting, potholing, scuba diving, =
alpinism, whatever...)

Notwithstanding, the barriers to entry are lower in HG and PG than in =
soaring.

Regards,
F. Almeida

[Eric Greenwell]

Francisco De Almeida wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
>>[snip] Remember how sailplane pilots used imagine hang gliding did=20
>>so well compared to sailplanes was because it was a much cheaper sport =
>
> (...).
>
> It seems that the cost in any amateur sport or hobby tends to increase =
> to a limit defined by the average available income in the specific =
> country/society. Therefore, serious participation may involve comparable =
> levels of committment and expense, be it in models gliders, =
> hang-gliding, sailplanes (or target shooting, potholing, scuba diving, =
> alpinism, whatever...)
>
> Notwithstanding, the barriers to entry are lower in HG and PG than in =
> soaring.

And yet, at least in the USA, they have the same number of members in
their national organizations. I expected there would be a lot more HG/PG
members. Perhaps (again, in the USA) the barriers for HG/PG aren't as
low as we imagine. Maybes some sailplane pilots that also hang-glider
pilots can inform us of the realities.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jack Glendening]

I believe that that HGers make up just over 50% of the USHGA
membership, roughly 6,000+ pilots.

[Frank Whiteley]

In their heyday, wasn't membership >10,000?

[JS]

Hello from a "quad-wingual" pilot:
In the USHGA, "biwingual" (pronounced like bilingual) means flying
both HG and PG. I fly (mostly) sailplane and also single engine,
besides having (currently under-utilised) ratings in HG and PG. Also a
member of GFA (Gliding Federation of Australia) who's magazine is
shared by HGFA (guess). A great concept, since it's all the same thing.
FYI, here are some statistics from the USHGA website. New ratings for
the last three years in the USHGA are listed below. These could be
add-on ratings. I would like to believe there is that much activity in
soaring, but think not. See earlier postings about unused "collected"
glider ratings.
Jim

2005/12 17
2005/11 94
2005/10 178
2005/9 232
2005/8 252
2005/7 226
2005/6 211
2005/5 214
2005/4 161
2005/3 171
2005/2 92
2005/1 68
2004/12 107
2004/11 136
2004/10 229
2004/9 208
2004/8 312
2004/7 243
2004/6 281
2004/5 260
2004/4 173
2004/3 129
2004/2 89
2004/1 121
2003/12 95
2003/11 107
2003/10 225
2003/9 319
2003/8 300
2003/7 306
2003/6 240
2003/5 273
2003/4 186
2003/3 155
2003/2 126
2003/1 123
2002/12 49

[Jack Glendening]

For those who know nothing about the USHGA proficiency ratings,
progression is more gradual than in the FAA licensing procedure so
these numbers include upgrades from H1->H2, H2->H3, H3->H4 and I
asssume includes PG as well as HG. The "entry" level ratings are
typically around 1/3 of the total sum in a month. Note that the
yearly sums decrease with time: 2003=2,455 2004=2,288 2005=1,916 (2005
may not be complete yet, but Dec is a slow month anyway).

[Ramy Yanetz]

If you look at the membership, then yes, there are about the same number of
members in USHGA and SSA. But, being around both sailplanes and HG/PG, I can
tell you there are way more HG and especially PG pilots flying in any given
day then sailplanes, at least in region 11. There are more hang gliding
sites then gliderports, and in each site you will typically see at least 10
pilots on any given weekend day. I rarely see more then 10 pilots (not
counting students and rides) in any gliderport on any weekend, and I fly in
most gliderports in region 11. Just like statistics, membership numbers
don't tell the whole story...

Ramy


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Francisco De Almeida wrote:
>> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[snip] Remember how sailplane pilots used imagine hang gliding did=20
>>>so well compared to sailplanes was because it was a much cheaper sport =
>>
>> (...).
>>
>> It seems that the cost in any amateur sport or hobby tends to increase =
>> to a limit defined by the average available income in the specific =
>> country/society. Therefore, serious participation may involve comparable
>> =
>> levels of committment and expense, be it in models gliders, =
>> hang-gliding, sailplanes (or target shooting, potholing, scuba diving, =
>> alpinism, whatever...)
>>
>> Notwithstanding, the barriers to entry are lower in HG and PG than in =
>> soaring.
>
> And yet, at least in the USA, they have the same number of members in
> their national organizations. I expected there would be a lot more HG/PG
> members. Perhaps (again, in the USA) the barriers for HG/PG aren't as low
> as we imagine. Maybes some sailplane pilots that also hang-glider pilots
> can inform us of the realities.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>