SSA Membership Growing

[Jack]

From the latest electronic SSA Newsletter:

"...our 2005 member number is...12,740 members, up from 12,434 in 2004,
which was up from 12,122 at the end of 2003."



Jack

[Derek Copeland]

Ye Gods! Out of a total population of nearly 250 million
in the US, is 12,740 members the best you can manage?
We have nearly that many in the UK with a population
on only 60 million, and a climate that is far less
conducive to soaring. Or is that you can be a glider
pilot in the USA without being a member of the SSA?

Glad to see it's increasing anyway.

Derek Copeland


At 07:18 13 December 2005, Jack wrote:
> From the latest electronic SSA Newsletter:
>
>'...our 2005 member number is...12,740 members, up
>from 12,434 in 2004,
>which was up from 12,122 at the end of 2003.'
>
>
>
>Jack
>

[Frank Whiteley]

Exactly, here in Colorado there are approximately 470 SSA members and
1430 glider ratings.

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

Of those 1430 glider ratings, how many are actually getting used?

I read somewhere there are something like 60,000 glider ratings in the
US, but I'd bet 75% of them are dormant.

[[email protected]]

When I was a skydiver (1981 - 2004), USPA membership was required to
jump at any USPA affiliated skydiving center, which was practically all
of them. When I started taking gliding lessons at one of the largest
schools in the country I was astonished to learn that not a single
staff member was an SSA member.

I've since come to understand how and why SSA doesn't enjoy a
similar situation, but it still surprises me how many active pilots in
the USA do not maintain SSA membership.

~ted/2NO

[Terry]

wrote:
When I started taking gliding lessons at one of the largest
> schools in the country I was astonished to learn that not a single
> staff member was an SSA member.
>
> ~ted/2NO
================================================== ==
Actually, Ted I am one at least until the end of the month. I have yet
to decide given my interactions with the association this past year.

Did you ask anyone why? Make sure that you have some time when you do.

Terry
E68

[Nyal Williams]

I don't want to belittle the problems we have, but
the figures re: ratings/membership must be interpreted
properly.

Three years ago our club was needing more instructors.
A search of the FAA database for instructors in Indiana
indicated there were 56 with CFIG ratings. I examined
the list carefully and learned that most of those living
in my area were old geezers like me and who had been
'ratings collectors' in their prime. I know some of
these guys personally, and I know they haven't been
in a glider since the 1940s and 1950s, that they did
a quickie route to append the rating onto their CFI,
ATP, etc. and that they know almost nothing about soaring.
They flew 2-22s, focussing on the number of flights
and hours required, and never got back in a glider
again.

Remember that there was no glider instructer certificate
until the mid 60s and a commercial glider pilot allowed
to instruct. Further, any commercial glider pilot
who had given as many as 10 instructional flights was
grandfathered. That's the way I got mine.

I see some of these fellows at least monthly, they
know I fly gliders, and they have never mentioned having
the rating. They have all sorts of ratings and I won't
comment further, except to say that they love aviation
and have done lots of SEL/MEL flying.


At 21:06 13 December 2005, wrote:
>Of those 1430 glider ratings, how many are actually
>getting used?
>
>I read somewhere there are something like 60,000 glider
>ratings in the
>US, but I'd bet 75% of them are dormant.
>
>

[Kevin Brooker]

I'll bite. Terry, why are you considering dropping your affiliation
with the SSA?


On 13 Dec 2005 13:27:02 -0800, "Terry" > wrote:

>
wrote:
> When I started taking gliding lessons at one of the largest
>> schools in the country I was astonished to learn that not a single
>> staff member was an SSA member.
>>
>> ~ted/2NO
>================================================== ==
>Actually, Ted I am one at least until the end of the month. I have yet
>to decide given my interactions with the association this past year.
>
>Did you ask anyone why? Make sure that you have some time when you do.
>
>Terry
>E68

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Of those 1430 glider ratings, how many are actually getting used?
>
> I read somewhere there are something like 60,000 glider ratings in the
> US, but I'd bet 75% of them are dormant.
>

Or dead. How would the FAA know? When do they take anyone out of the
database? Ever?

I'm still in the database:

Address
Address is not available

Medical Class : Third Medical Date: 02/1979
MUST WEAR CORRECTIVE LENSES.

DOI : 01/14/1975
CertIficate: PRIVATE PILOT

Rating(s):

PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND

I probably haven't logged any time since 1980 or so, no bi-annuals, and
never sent them a change of address either (1979 would be about 3 addresses
out of date)...

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Frank Whiteley]

I'm looking at method to sort that out for Colorado. The FAA is first
sorting is out for aircraft
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/533-full.html#191179

One of our club members recently found himself as registered owner of a
glider he sold nine years ago.

Clearly, some percentage of active soaring pilots are not SSA members.
Likewise, some number of SSA members are not active soaring pilots. If
they take too many pilots out of the database, they'd have less
justification for their existence.

Frank Whiteley

[DNewill]

Actual USA numbers ( GAMA from FAA ) show 2004 had 20,950 pilots with only a
glider rating. There are 481,507 total active pilots which include many with
multiple ratings.

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
>I don't want to belittle the problems we have, but
> the figures re: ratings/membership must be interpreted
> properly.
>
> Three years ago our club was needing more instructors.
> A search of the FAA database for instructors in Indiana
> indicated there were 56 with CFIG ratings. I examined
> the list carefully and learned that most of those living
> in my area were old geezers like me and who had been
> 'ratings collectors' in their prime. I know some of
> these guys personally, and I know they haven't been
> in a glider since the 1940s and 1950s, that they did
> a quickie route to append the rating onto their CFI,
> ATP, etc. and that they know almost nothing about soaring.
> They flew 2-22s, focussing on the number of flights
> and hours required, and never got back in a glider
> again.
>
> Remember that there was no glider instructer certificate
> until the mid 60s and a commercial glider pilot allowed
> to instruct. Further, any commercial glider pilot
> who had given as many as 10 instructional flights was
> grandfathered. That's the way I got mine.
>
> I see some of these fellows at least monthly, they
> know I fly gliders, and they have never mentioned having
> the rating. They have all sorts of ratings and I won't
> comment further, except to say that they love aviation
> and have done lots of SEL/MEL flying.
>
>
> At 21:06 13 December 2005, wrote:
>>Of those 1430 glider ratings, how many are actually
>>getting used?
>>
>>I read somewhere there are something like 60,000 glider
>>ratings in the
>>US, but I'd bet 75% of them are dormant.
>>
>>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Maybe the SSA is basing its membership count on the number of magazines
it mails out..

[[email protected]]

This is very carefully tracked by the office and is not a magazine
count guess. There is steady, but real progress being made here through
a lot of hard work.
UH

[Frank Whiteley]

Using the publicly available database of airman certificates from the
FAA for Jan 2006, and recognizing that some pilots have invoked privacy
and are not in the public list, I find

19014 glider pilots with private glider ratings (though 1420 ratings
based on foreign ratings, a few are duplicated, holding commercial and
CFIG)
12772 glider pilots with a commercial rating
3041 glider pilots with a CFIG rating, however there are 6029 listed
with both commercial AND CFIG, so there are between 9731 and 9767 with
commercial as the highest rating. There are a pilots listed with
foreign private and US commercial to further complicate the queries and
my time is a bit limited to fiddle with this.

Assuming the GAMA numbers are accurate WRT the private only ratings,
about 10% appear to have invoked the privacy option. Assuming that
holds across ratings, I get approximately

19014+9749+3041=31804*1.1=34984 which appears higher than estimates of
five years ago. The number is probably somewhat lower, but in the ball
park.

Frank Whiteley

[Andy]

Hank,

How much did the termination of the club rebates impact renewals for
2006?

Andy

[Tony Verhulst]

Andy wrote:
> Hank,
>
> How much did the termination of the club rebates impact renewals for
> 2006?

I suspect that's a little early to tell. It's certainly making my club
examine other insurance options so that members would not have to belong
to the SSA. The SSA made a mistake here, IMHO.

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

[[email protected]]

Probably too early to tell.
>From what I know about our club, it is not an issue.
Biggest issue with clubs and chapters has been cleaning up the renewal
process.
UH

[Frank Whiteley]

Keeping with the new SSA policy on transparency, that would be cleaning
it up at both the clubs' and Hobbs' end of the process.

Since the rebate termination decision was taken, it's become clear that
the full impact wasn't known. Since then, one club has stated that it
required SSA membership of some 60 inactive club members to retain that
inactive status. I heard about another club that might have 20-30
members in that status and I believe there may be another here in
Colorado that does the same. My club doesn't require this at present,
though it might be a good idea to do so. Indeed, I would like the SSA
Clubs & Chapters Committee to recommend this as an SSA chapter 'best
practice'.

No one knows what the impact may be should chapters decide to drop the
SSA requirement of inactive members, but it could range into the
hundreds, which would undo the efforts of the past three years pretty
quickly.

Frank Whiteley

[Eric Greenwell]

Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
> No one knows what the impact may be should chapters decide to drop the
> SSA requirement of inactive members, but it could range into the
> hundreds, which would undo the efforts of the past three years pretty
> quickly.

My take on the efforts is to increase the number of active SSA members,
so losing inactive memberships wouldn't undo this. It would make the
membership total look worse, but if it can be traced to losing members
that aren't contributing and don't really want to be members, I suggest
it's acceptable.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Ian Cant]

I guess it all depends on what you mean by 'inactive'
or 'contributing'. Seems to me that many members carried
as 'inactive' on clubs rosters may not fly, but may
be very active socially. Is paying SSA membership
dues the only kind of 'contribution' that can be counted?
While facing the reality of the membership size is
no bad thing, anything that even marginally deters
fringe supporters is undesirable.

Ian





>> No one knows what the impact may be should chapters
>>decide to drop the
>> SSA requirement of inactive members, but it could
>>range into the
>> hundreds, which would undo the efforts of the past
>>three years pretty
>> quickly.
>
>My take on the efforts is to increase the number of
>active SSA members,
>so losing inactive memberships wouldn't undo this.
>It would make the
>membership total look worse, but if it can be traced
>to losing members
>that aren't contributing and don't really want to be
>members, I suggest
>it's acceptable.

[Frank Whiteley]

I suggest that may be short-sighted.

There are already a considerable number of SSA members that are in a
supportive role and not actively flying, nor associated with any clubs.
We've already determined this. Keeping the magazine in front of them
is quite important and may inspire several to become active again.
Many track old friends this way and that's a form of active interest.

Secondly, they may pass along Soaring to someone who shows some
interest in flight who'll become a future member.

Clubs and chapters of course must also provide some value added aspect
that would hold an inactive member's interest. We have some associate
members and newsletter recipients that suggest the interest is there.

Frank Whiteley