Important message for SSA members

[C. Dianne Black-Nixon]

SSA Members,

Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an important message
regarding the Society.

C. Dianne Black-Nixon
Chairman of the Board of the Soaring Society of America

[Jeremy Zawodny]

C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
> SSA Members,
>
> Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an important message
> regarding the Society.

[ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below. ]

Message from the SSA Chairman

September 1, 2006

Dear SSA Member:

As Chairman of the SSA Board of Directors, I am committed to keeping
members fully informed regarding all issues relating to our Society, and
must now report some serious societal financial problems, and actions
the Executive Committee has taken to deal with them.

On August 5 th 2006, I notified the Board of Directors that the
Executive Committee had been informed by the SSA Executive Director,
Dennis Wright, that the Society had not filed federal tax-exempt
information returns with the Internal Revenue Service since 2002. In the
past, Johnson, Miller & Co. PC, CPA, our outside accounting firm,
prepared SSA’s returns. Both Dennis Wright and James Francis, a
principal of Johnson, Miller & Co., reported to the Executive Committee
that this omission was due to our Chief Financial and Administrative
Officer, Alan Gleason, not providing sufficient financial data required
by Johnson, Miller & Co. to prepare the returns. The Executive Committee
immediately asked Johnson, Miller & Co. to come to the SSA’s office and
obtain all the requisite data to enable them to do so.

On August 17, 2006, Mr. Wright reported to the Executive Committee that
during the gathering of information to prepare the delinquent returns,
Mr. Francis had discovered that the SSA had not submitted federal
payroll withholding, social security or Medicare, as well as New Mexico
state withholding taxes for at least five quarters beginning in 2003.
Although payments were made for other quarters, SSA did not file
appropriate returns for at least twelve quarters. Additionally, the
financial statements, specifically the balance sheets presented to the
Board and the membership, did not reflect the unpaid taxes as
liabilities of the Society. At this time, it is not known whether
anything else is inaccurate in the balance sheets, however, further
investigation is ongoing.

The Executive Committee immediately retained an outside attorney and
investigated the situation. On August 23, 2006 Mr. Gleason claimed that
a lack of available cash on hand caused him to decide to not pay the
taxes when due. When questioned, he admitted not to have made anyone
else, including the Board, aware of such decisions. The Executive
Committee placed Mr. Gleason on paid administrative leave until such
time as all information required to submit the state and federal tax
returns is ascertained and it is determined exactly what federal and
state taxes are due. Once those issues are resolved, appropriate further
action regarding Mr. Gleason will be considered. Measures to protect SSA
funds and other assets have already been put in place, as has an interim
system to control SSA financial matters.

While accurate figures have not yet been derived, it appears that the
actual tax liability could be between $200,000 and $300,000 which with
the addition of interest and, to the extent not mitigated, penalties,
could total as much as $600,000.

This obviously signals a potentially catastrophic situation. The
Executive Committee intends to have a thorough and independent financial
investigation conducted to ascertain, among other things, the reasons
for the apparent cash shortfall.

To the best of its ability, the SSA will pay all applicable taxes,
penalties and interest imposed by state and federal governments. Doing
so will strain Society finances to the limit, however the SSA can borrow
from certain unrestricted funds within the SSA Foundation. To place our
Society on a sound financial footing going forward, significant
reductions in services must occur. A task force of present and former
SSA Board members has already been established to assist the Board in
this regard.

The situation I have described above is clearly the single most serious
challenge the Society has faced in its 75 year history. Please
understand that SSA leadership is totally committed to reaching a
successful resolution to this problem, but doing so will require
significant continued support by the membership. SSA members have a long
history of aiding the Society when most needed. I hope I can rely on you
personally to support your SSA leaders during this extremely difficult
time, as we strive to bring these matters to a successful resolution.
Our goals are to meet our financial obligations to state and federal
governments and to transform what has always been a struggling
organization operating “on a knife-edge” into one that is financially
strong, and that meets your needs as a member.

To save costs, all subsequent communications from me regarding these
important issues will be posted on the members-only section of the SSA
website and in SSA e-News. You may contact your Regional Director, other
members of the Executive Committee, or me directly should you have
further questions.

Sincerely yours,

C. Dianne Black-Nixon
Chairman of the Board of the Soaring Society of America

[[email protected]]

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
> > SSA Members,
> >
> > Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an important message
> > regarding the Society.
>
> [ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below. ]

Possibly because they don't want this spread all over the internet?
But, then again, you already took care of that....

[Markus[_1_]]

Probably because it is an internal matter... Not that I would expect it
to stay internal but nobody in his right mind in the corporate world
would post something like this on a public board... If your club is in
trouble like this I doubt the club's board would post it publicly
either yet anybody with interest in the club will know very soon one
way or another. Same here, you just take care of that :-)

Markus

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
> > SSA Members,
> >
> > Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an important message
> > regarding the Society.
>
> [ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below. ]
>
> Message from the SSA Chairman
>
> September 1, 2006
>
> Dear SSA Member:
>
> As Chairman of the SSA Board of Directors, I am committed to keeping
> members fully informed regarding all issues relating to our Society, and
> must now report some serious societal financial problems, and actions
> the Executive Committee has taken to deal with them.
>
> On August 5 th 2006, I notified the Board of Directors that the
> Executive Committee had been informed by the SSA Executive Director,
> Dennis Wright, that the Society had not filed federal tax-exempt
> information returns with the Internal Revenue Service since 2002. In the
> past, Johnson, Miller & Co. PC, CPA, our outside accounting firm,
> prepared SSA's returns. Both Dennis Wright and James Francis, a
> principal of Johnson, Miller & Co., reported to the Executive Committee
> that this omission was due to our Chief Financial and Administrative
> Officer, Alan Gleason, not providing sufficient financial data required
> by Johnson, Miller & Co. to prepare the returns. The Executive Committee
> immediately asked Johnson, Miller & Co. to come to the SSA's office and
> obtain all the requisite data to enable them to do so.
>
> On August 17, 2006, Mr. Wright reported to the Executive Committee that
> during the gathering of information to prepare the delinquent returns,
> Mr. Francis had discovered that the SSA had not submitted federal
> payroll withholding, social security or Medicare, as well as New Mexico
> state withholding taxes for at least five quarters beginning in 2003.
> Although payments were made for other quarters, SSA did not file
> appropriate returns for at least twelve quarters. Additionally, the
> financial statements, specifically the balance sheets presented to the
> Board and the membership, did not reflect the unpaid taxes as
> liabilities of the Society. At this time, it is not known whether
> anything else is inaccurate in the balance sheets, however, further
> investigation is ongoing.
>
> The Executive Committee immediately retained an outside attorney and
> investigated the situation. On August 23, 2006 Mr. Gleason claimed that
> a lack of available cash on hand caused him to decide to not pay the
> taxes when due. When questioned, he admitted not to have made anyone
> else, including the Board, aware of such decisions. The Executive
> Committee placed Mr. Gleason on paid administrative leave until such
> time as all information required to submit the state and federal tax
> returns is ascertained and it is determined exactly what federal and
> state taxes are due. Once those issues are resolved, appropriate further
> action regarding Mr. Gleason will be considered. Measures to protect SSA
> funds and other assets have already been put in place, as has an interim
> system to control SSA financial matters.
>
> While accurate figures have not yet been derived, it appears that the
> actual tax liability could be between $200,000 and $300,000 which with
> the addition of interest and, to the extent not mitigated, penalties,
> could total as much as $600,000.
>
> This obviously signals a potentially catastrophic situation. The
> Executive Committee intends to have a thorough and independent financial
> investigation conducted to ascertain, among other things, the reasons
> for the apparent cash shortfall.
>
> To the best of its ability, the SSA will pay all applicable taxes,
> penalties and interest imposed by state and federal governments. Doing
> so will strain Society finances to the limit, however the SSA can borrow
> from certain unrestricted funds within the SSA Foundation. To place our
> Society on a sound financial footing going forward, significant
> reductions in services must occur. A task force of present and former
> SSA Board members has already been established to assist the Board in
> this regard.
>
> The situation I have described above is clearly the single most serious
> challenge the Society has faced in its 75 year history. Please
> understand that SSA leadership is totally committed to reaching a
> successful resolution to this problem, but doing so will require
> significant continued support by the membership. SSA members have a long
> history of aiding the Society when most needed. I hope I can rely on you
> personally to support your SSA leaders during this extremely difficult
> time, as we strive to bring these matters to a successful resolution.
> Our goals are to meet our financial obligations to state and federal
> governments and to transform what has always been a struggling
> organization operating "on a knife-edge" into one that is financially
> strong, and that meets your needs as a member.
>
> To save costs, all subsequent communications from me regarding these
> important issues will be posted on the members-only section of the SSA
> website and in SSA e-News. You may contact your Regional Director, other
> members of the Executive Committee, or me directly should you have
> further questions.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> C. Dianne Black-Nixon
> Chairman of the Board of the Soaring Society of America

[jb92563]

They could just increase our yearly membership dues by $20 each for
just this one year and take care of it in a jiffy.

Ray

[Jeremy Zawodny]

wrote:
> Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>> C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
>>> SSA Members,
>>>
>>> Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an important message
>>> regarding the Society.
>> [ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below. ]
>
> Possibly because they don't want this spread all over the internet?
> But, then again, you already took care of that....

If they were that concerned about it "getting out" I'd have expected
them subject to say "Important Message for SSA Members ONLY" or some
sort of "not for redistribution" statement in the notice.

But instead they posted it to a world-wide message board at roughly the
same time that it hit my inbox too.

I'd think they'd rather have the real message out in public rather than
rumor and speculation (which r.a.s is *so* good at).

Who knows. Maybe a non-SSA member soaring enthusiast will have one of
the ideas needed to solve the problem.

Jeremy

[Jack[_1_]]

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
>> SSA Members,
>>
>> Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an important message
>> regarding the Society.
>
> [ Why it's not posted here is beyond me.


Probably because it is SSA business, and this is a public, not an SSA,
site.


Jack

[[email protected]]

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>
> [ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below. ]

It was a test, Jeremy. I hear SSA is adding a new award category this
year: "Most Undeserving Member of the Year." And you just made it into
the finals along with Alan Gleason. :)

Next time you feel something is "beyond me," take some time (2-3
minutes?) to think it through. Perhaps there is a good reason.

I agree, this was bound to make it out into the public domain fairly
quickly. But this must set some kind of record.

Thanks to the SSA Board for timely disclosure to the members as well as
prompt and decisive action. It's a distressing story that raises some
difficult and embarrassing questions. But the approach taken this time
around offers more promise that this crisis will be professionally
managed and we members will get answers to those questions.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

[01-- Zero One]

Jeremy,



You just won the Bill Engvall award too..



"Here's your sign!"





Larry Goddard

"01" Zero One USA

[Papa3]

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
> > SSA Members,
> >
> > Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an important message
> > regarding the Society.
>
> [ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below. ]
>
Not to get pedantic, but one of the primary purposes of hyperlinks is
avoiding version control problems. So, in fact, it's quite appropriate
for the SSA to direct us to the website for the official story.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 P3

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> wrote:
>> Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>>> C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
>>>> SSA Members,
>>>>
>>>> Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an important message
>>>> regarding the Society.
>>> [ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below. ]
>>
>> Possibly because they don't want this spread all over the internet?
>> But, then again, you already took care of that....
>
> If they were that concerned about it "getting out" I'd have expected
> them subject to say "Important Message for SSA Members ONLY" or some
> sort of "not for redistribution" statement in the notice.
>
> But instead they posted it to a world-wide message board at roughly the
> same time that it hit my inbox too.

Do you mean the SSA website, where your membership number and password
are required to see the article?

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Brian Glick]

Anyone that would be stupid enough to post this message on rec.aviation
should be blackballed and thrown out of SSA as an abuser of his membership
privilidges. Mr. Zawodny, you sir, are a jerk!


"Jeremy Zawodny" > wrote in message
...
> C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
>> SSA Members,
>>
>> Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an important message
>> regarding the Society.
>
> [ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below. ]
>
> Message from the SSA Chairman
>
> September 1, 2006
>
> Dear SSA Member:
>
> As Chairman of the SSA Board of Directors, I am committed to keeping
> members fully informed regarding all issues relating to our Society, and
> must now report some serious societal financial problems, and actions the
> Executive Committee has taken to deal with them.
>
> On August 5 th 2006, I notified the Board of Directors that the Executive
> Committee had been informed by the SSA Executive Director, Dennis Wright,
> that the Society had not filed federal tax-exempt information returns with
> the Internal Revenue Service since 2002. In the past, Johnson, Miller &
> Co. PC, CPA, our outside accounting firm, prepared SSA’s returns. Both
> Dennis Wright and James Francis, a principal of Johnson, Miller & Co.,
> reported to the Executive Committee that this omission was due to our
> Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, Alan Gleason, not providing
> sufficient financial data required by Johnson, Miller & Co. to prepare the
> returns. The Executive Committee immediately asked Johnson, Miller & Co.
> to come to the SSA’s office and obtain all the requisite data to enable
> them to do so.
>
> On August 17, 2006, Mr. Wright reported to the Executive Committee that
> during the gathering of information to prepare the delinquent returns, Mr.
> Francis had discovered that the SSA had not submitted federal payroll
> withholding, social security or Medicare, as well as New Mexico state
> withholding taxes for at least five quarters beginning in 2003. Although
> payments were made for other quarters, SSA did not file appropriate
> returns for at least twelve quarters. Additionally, the financial
> statements, specifically the balance sheets presented to the Board and the
> membership, did not reflect the unpaid taxes as liabilities of the
> Society. At this time, it is not known whether anything else is inaccurate
> in the balance sheets, however, further investigation is ongoing.
>
> The Executive Committee immediately retained an outside attorney and
> investigated the situation. On August 23, 2006 Mr. Gleason claimed that a
> lack of available cash on hand caused him to decide to not pay the taxes
> when due. When questioned, he admitted not to have made anyone else,
> including the Board, aware of such decisions. The Executive Committee
> placed Mr. Gleason on paid administrative leave until such time as all
> information required to submit the state and federal tax returns is
> ascertained and it is determined exactly what federal and state taxes are
> due. Once those issues are resolved, appropriate further action regarding
> Mr. Gleason will be considered. Measures to protect SSA funds and other
> assets have already been put in place, as has an interim system to control
> SSA financial matters.
>
> While accurate figures have not yet been derived, it appears that the
> actual tax liability could be between $200,000 and $300,000 which with the
> addition of interest and, to the extent not mitigated, penalties, could
> total as much as $600,000.
>
> This obviously signals a potentially catastrophic situation. The Executive
> Committee intends to have a thorough and independent financial
> investigation conducted to ascertain, among other things, the reasons for
> the apparent cash shortfall.
>
> To the best of its ability, the SSA will pay all applicable taxes,
> penalties and interest imposed by state and federal governments. Doing so
> will strain Society finances to the limit, however the SSA can borrow from
> certain unrestricted funds within the SSA Foundation. To place our Society
> on a sound financial footing going forward, significant reductions in
> services must occur. A task force of present and former SSA Board members
> has already been established to assist the Board in this regard.
>
> The situation I have described above is clearly the single most serious
> challenge the Society has faced in its 75 year history. Please understand
> that SSA leadership is totally committed to reaching a successful
> resolution to this problem, but doing so will require significant
> continued support by the membership. SSA members have a long history of
> aiding the Society when most needed. I hope I can rely on you personally
> to support your SSA leaders during this extremely difficult time, as we
> strive to bring these matters to a successful resolution. Our goals are to
> meet our financial obligations to state and federal governments and to
> transform what has always been a struggling organization operating “on a
> knife-edge” into one that is financially strong, and that meets your needs
> as a member.
>
> To save costs, all subsequent communications from me regarding these
> important issues will be posted on the members-only section of the SSA
> website and in SSA e-News. You may contact your Regional Director, other
> members of the Executive Committee, or me directly should you have further
> questions.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> C. Dianne Black-Nixon
> Chairman of the Board of the Soaring Society of America

[Ramy]

Knowing Jeremy, I have no doubt it wasn't in purpose. I also initially
thought it was publically available on ssa.org (which would then show
up on search engines etc...) since using cookies we are automatically
logged on. Only once you logoff you realize you need to sign on to see
the message.
I'de call it an oops.

Ramy

Brian Glick wrote:
> Anyone that would be stupid enough to post this message on rec.aviation
> should be blackballed and thrown out of SSA as an abuser of his membership
> privilidges. Mr. Zawodny, you sir, are a jerk!
>
>
> "Jeremy Zawodny" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
> >> SSA Members,
> >>
> >> Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an important message
> >> regarding the Society.
> >
> > [ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below. ]
> >
> > Message from the SSA Chairman
> >
> > September 1, 2006
> >
> > Dear SSA Member:
> >
> > As Chairman of the SSA Board of Directors, I am committed to keeping
> > members fully informed regarding all issues relating to our Society, and
> > must now report some serious societal financial problems, and actions the
> > Executive Committee has taken to deal with them.
> >
> > On August 5 th 2006, I notified the Board of Directors that the Executive
> > Committee had been informed by the SSA Executive Director, Dennis Wright,
> > that the Society had not filed federal tax-exempt information returns with
> > the Internal Revenue Service since 2002. In the past, Johnson, Miller &
> > Co. PC, CPA, our outside accounting firm, prepared SSA's returns. Both
> > Dennis Wright and James Francis, a principal of Johnson, Miller & Co.,
> > reported to the Executive Committee that this omission was due to our
> > Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, Alan Gleason, not providing
> > sufficient financial data required by Johnson, Miller & Co. to prepare the
> > returns. The Executive Committee immediately asked Johnson, Miller & Co.
> > to come to the SSA's office and obtain all the requisite data to enable
> > them to do so.
> >
> > On August 17, 2006, Mr. Wright reported to the Executive Committee that
> > during the gathering of information to prepare the delinquent returns, Mr.
> > Francis had discovered that the SSA had not submitted federal payroll
> > withholding, social security or Medicare, as well as New Mexico state
> > withholding taxes for at least five quarters beginning in 2003. Although
> > payments were made for other quarters, SSA did not file appropriate
> > returns for at least twelve quarters. Additionally, the financial
> > statements, specifically the balance sheets presented to the Board and the
> > membership, did not reflect the unpaid taxes as liabilities of the
> > Society. At this time, it is not known whether anything else is inaccurate
> > in the balance sheets, however, further investigation is ongoing.
> >
> > The Executive Committee immediately retained an outside attorney and
> > investigated the situation. On August 23, 2006 Mr. Gleason claimed that a
> > lack of available cash on hand caused him to decide to not pay the taxes
> > when due. When questioned, he admitted not to have made anyone else,
> > including the Board, aware of such decisions. The Executive Committee
> > placed Mr. Gleason on paid administrative leave until such time as all
> > information required to submit the state and federal tax returns is
> > ascertained and it is determined exactly what federal and state taxes are
> > due. Once those issues are resolved, appropriate further action regarding
> > Mr. Gleason will be considered. Measures to protect SSA funds and other
> > assets have already been put in place, as has an interim system to control
> > SSA financial matters.
> >
> > While accurate figures have not yet been derived, it appears that the
> > actual tax liability could be between $200,000 and $300,000 which with the
> > addition of interest and, to the extent not mitigated, penalties, could
> > total as much as $600,000.
> >
> > This obviously signals a potentially catastrophic situation. The Executive
> > Committee intends to have a thorough and independent financial
> > investigation conducted to ascertain, among other things, the reasons for
> > the apparent cash shortfall.
> >
> > To the best of its ability, the SSA will pay all applicable taxes,
> > penalties and interest imposed by state and federal governments. Doing so
> > will strain Society finances to the limit, however the SSA can borrow from
> > certain unrestricted funds within the SSA Foundation. To place our Society
> > on a sound financial footing going forward, significant reductions in
> > services must occur. A task force of present and former SSA Board members
> > has already been established to assist the Board in this regard.
> >
> > The situation I have described above is clearly the single most serious
> > challenge the Society has faced in its 75 year history. Please understand
> > that SSA leadership is totally committed to reaching a successful
> > resolution to this problem, but doing so will require significant
> > continued support by the membership. SSA members have a long history of
> > aiding the Society when most needed. I hope I can rely on you personally
> > to support your SSA leaders during this extremely difficult time, as we
> > strive to bring these matters to a successful resolution. Our goals are to
> > meet our financial obligations to state and federal governments and to
> > transform what has always been a struggling organization operating "on a
> > knife-edge" into one that is financially strong, and that meets your needs
> > as a member.
> >
> > To save costs, all subsequent communications from me regarding these
> > important issues will be posted on the members-only section of the SSA
> > website and in SSA e-News. You may contact your Regional Director, other
> > members of the Executive Committee, or me directly should you have further
> > questions.
> >
> > Sincerely yours,
> >
> > C. Dianne Black-Nixon
> > Chairman of the Board of the Soaring Society of America

[Shawn Curry]

Brian Glick wrote:
> Anyone that would be stupid enough to post this message on rec.aviation
> should be blackballed and thrown out of SSA as an abuser of his membership
> privilidges. Mr. Zawodny, you sir, are a jerk!


Kicked out out of the what? The who? The $250,000 computer scandal a
few years ago was bad enough. Do you really thinkt that the SSA will
survive this in its current incarnation?
I'm disgusted.

Shawn

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Shawn Curry wrote:
> Brian Glick wrote:
>> Anyone that would be stupid enough to post this message on
>> rec.aviation should be blackballed and thrown out of SSA as an abuser
>> of his membership privilidges. Mr. Zawodny, you sir, are a jerk!
>
>
> Kicked out out of the what? The who? The $250,000 computer scandal a
> few years ago was bad enough. Do you really thinkt that the SSA will
> survive this in its current incarnation?

Yes, I think it is a much better incarnation that we have now, and we'll
get through this.

> I'm disgusted.

I'm disappointed. I know many of the people working with/for the SSA,
and they are good people that don't deserve the grief this accounting
situation will cause them.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[COLIN LAMB]

What distresses me the most about the article is:

"The Executive Committee placed Mr. Gleason on paid administrative leave
...."

Is there no black and white anymore?

Colin

[[email protected]]

Why is there a private section? As a non-profit, I would expect SSA to
be as tranparent as
possible.

[Mike Schumann]

Why wasn't he canned?

Mike Schumann

"COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message
link.net...
> What distresses me the most about the article is:
>
> "The Executive Committee placed Mr. Gleason on paid administrative leave
> ..."
>
> Is there no black and white anymore?
>
> Colin
>
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

Legally, if they are a non-profit, all of their financial info needs to be
available to the public.

Mike Schumann

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Why is there a private section? As a non-profit, I would expect SSA to
> be as tranparent as
> possible.
>

[[email protected]]

Let's not shoot the messenger. I happen to think this is an excellent
forum for airing the SSA's dirty laundry.

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Why wasn't he canned?

Personnel matters can be very sensitive and sending it to the whole
world might not be good idea at this point. Your director can probably
tell you the situation on the phone. It takes longer to call him than
typing a few words, but it should give you a lot better information.


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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:41:08 UTC, Jack > wrote:

: Probably because it is SSA business, and this is a public, not an SSA,
: site.

Yet the announcement was posted here...

Ian

[588]

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:41:08 UTC, Jack > wrote:
>
> : Probably because it is SSA business, and this is a public, not an SSA,
> : site.
>
> Yet the announcement was posted here...


Ian, you've apparently missed some of the discussion. Notice (of the
message to members) was posted here so that members would find the
message in the members-only section of the SSA website.

The message itself was posted here, seemingly within seconds, due only
to the insensitivity of an individual. I can not imagine such
impropriety coming out of Germany (perhaps the UK). Not that it would
ever have been kept a secret, nor escaped being a topic of energetic
discussion for weeks here on r.a.s. in any event.


Jack

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 07:21:41 UTC, 588 > wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
: > On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:41:08 UTC, Jack > wrote:
: >
: > : Probably because it is SSA business, and this is a public, not an SSA,
: > : site.
: >
: > Yet the announcement was posted here...

: Ian, you've apparently missed some of the discussion. Notice (of the
: message to members) was posted here so that members would find the
: message in the members-only section of the SSA website.

Sorry, I was unclear. That's what I meant by "the announcement".

: The message itself was posted here, seemingly within seconds, due only
: to the insensitivity of an individual. I can not imagine such
: impropriety coming out of Germany (perhaps the UK). Not that it would
: ever have been kept a secret, nor escaped being a topic of energetic
: discussion for weeks here on r.a.s. in any event.

If SSA want to use ras as a private messageboard for some things, they
can't be terribly surprised if it's used for others as well.

On the whole I think it's probably much better that the whole thing
was posted here, as it will have saved much speculation and rumour
mongering.

Ian


--

[[email protected]]

> Let's not shoot the messenger.

I agree. But I'm referring not to the individual who chose to post the
SSA's message to its members, but to the real messenger: the SSA
Executive Committee.

I suspect they're wrestling with the typical real-world issues that
cause most situations like this to be anything but black or white:
i.e., balancing a natural desire to dismiss the employee who apparently
breached the trust placed in him against considerations such as:

- determining the extent of any losses (did the SSA simply not pay
its bills or are funds missing?) and who may have been involved;
- recovering assets
- collecting the information necessary to file delinquent tax
returns and determine the amount of unpaid withholding taxes
- gaining cooperation that may be critical in the foregoing efforts;

- obtaining and preserving legally admissible evidence;
- evaluating civil and criminal options, including what recourse the
SSA may have against individuals and organizations;
- avoiding any steps that might leave the SSA open to accusations of
libel or wrongful termination (in this country, anything is possible);
careful readers of the letter will note that it is limited to
statements of fact and to Alan Gleason's own admissions--it avoids
other allegations.
- ensuring the damage is contained by implementing better controls;
- dealing with accountants and advisors who may have some explaining
to do;
- retaining and working with legal counsel;
- negotiating with federal and state tax authorities to mitigate
interest and penalties
- communicating with the board, the officers, and the members, etc.

As a 40+ year SSA member, I would be understating it to say I'm angry
and frustrated and depressed at this latest news. But the fact remains
that this time, unlike another unhappy situation in the past, the SSA
Executive Committee made what appears to be timely and extensive
disclosure, remarkably so (given our legal environment) regarding Alan
Gleason's admissions.

Let's confirm the wisdom of their decision by behaving responsibly.
We're free to raise questions, in particular of our elected directors.
But rather than second-guessing, speculating, offering ill-informed
advice, spreading rumors, or accusing anyone, I suggest that we all
stay tuned to www.ssa.org...and to the nearly instantaneous repostings
to this newsgroup by "helpful" members. :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

[Nyal Williams]

Your posting on r.a.s. of the letter to the SSA membership
calls into question your judgment, your ethics, your
integrity, your loyalty to any organization of which
you have ever been a part, your friendship with anyone
you've ever known, and even your intelligence.

Who will trust you now?



At 20:08 01 September 2006, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
>> SSA Members,
>>
>> Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an
>>important message
>> regarding the Society.
>
>[ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below.
>]


<remainder deleted>

[Mike Schumann]

Why was the original letter put into the members only section of the SSA web
site? Under IRS rules, being a non-profit, this type of information needs
to be publicly available to everyone.

Mike Schumann

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Your posting on r.a.s. of the letter to the SSA membership
> calls into question your judgment, your ethics, your
> integrity, your loyalty to any organization of which
> you have ever been a part, your friendship with anyone
> you've ever known, and even your intelligence.
>
> Who will trust you now?
>
>
>
> At 20:08 01 September 2006, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>>C. Dianne Black-Nixon wrote:
>>> SSA Members,
>>>
>>> Please visit the SSA homepage at www.ssa.org for an
>>>important message
>>> regarding the Society.
>>
>>[ Why it's not posted here is beyond me. Text below.
>>]
>
>
> <remainder deleted>
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Why was the original letter put into the members only section of the SSA web
> site? Under IRS rules, being a non-profit, this type of information needs
> to be publicly available to everyone.

Why do you believe this? Surely, personnel matters are not a matter of
public record, or does "this type of information" apply to only a
portion of the letter? I know there is quite a range "non-profit"
organizations, ranging from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the
Auxiliary-powered Sailplane Association (I'm the treasurer), and
guessing our reporting requirements vary quite. Do you really know the
specific rules that apply to the SSA?

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Mike Schumann]

Here are the IRS FAQs regarding public disclosure:

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96430,00.html

I would suspect that the fact that the non-profit failed to pay taxes and
file tax returns as required by law would be covered by the spirit, if not
the letter of the public disclosure rules.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:I9LKg.1429$xh4.521@trnddc04...
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> Why was the original letter put into the members only section of the SSA
>> web site? Under IRS rules, being a non-profit, this type of information
>> needs to be publicly available to everyone.
>
> Why do you believe this? Surely, personnel matters are not a matter of
> public record, or does "this type of information" apply to only a portion
> of the letter? I know there is quite a range "non-profit" organizations,
> ranging from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the
> Auxiliary-powered Sailplane Association (I'm the treasurer), and guessing
> our reporting requirements vary quite. Do you really know the specific
> rules that apply to the SSA?
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Wayne Paul]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Here are the IRS FAQs regarding public disclosure:
>
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96430,00.html
>
> I would suspect that the fact that the non-profit failed to pay taxes and
> file tax returns as required by law would be covered by the spirit, if not
> the letter of the public disclosure rules.
>
> Mike Schumann

....and I am sure the SSA will make full disclosure when they file their
annual financial statement. However, it would be inappropriate to release
detailed information while the investigation is ongoing. The current
disclosure to association membership was not a legal requirement... it was a
courtesy.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Mike Schumann]

The fact that they didn't file returns in 2003 certainly is public
information. How long does it take to do an investigation like this? This
should have been resolved and fixed in one week, and the CFO fired.

Mike Schumann

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Here are the IRS FAQs regarding public disclosure:
>>
>> http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96430,00.html
>>
>> I would suspect that the fact that the non-profit failed to pay taxes and
>> file tax returns as required by law would be covered by the spirit, if
>> not the letter of the public disclosure rules.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>
> ...and I am sure the SSA will make full disclosure when they file their
> annual financial statement. However, it would be inappropriate to release
> detailed information while the investigation is ongoing. The current
> disclosure to association membership was not a legal requirement... it was
> a courtesy.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 N990 "6F"
> http://www.soaridaho.com/
>
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

And you are still shooting from the hip.

At 18:00 04 September 2006, Mike Schumann wrote:
>The fact that they didn't file returns in 2003 certainly
>is public
>information. How long does it take to do an investigation
>like this? This
>should have been resolved and fixed in one week, and
>the CFO fired.
>
>Mike Schumann
>
>'Wayne Paul' wrote in message
...
>>
>> 'Mike Schumann' wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>> Here are the IRS FAQs regarding public disclosure:
>>>
>>> http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96430,00.html
>>>
>>> I would suspect that the fact that the non-profit
>>>failed to pay taxes and
>>> file tax returns as required by law would be covered
>>>by the spirit, if
>>> not the letter of the public disclosure rules.
>>>
>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> ...and I am sure the SSA will make full disclosure
>>when they file their
>> annual financial statement. However, it would be
>>inappropriate to release
>> detailed information while the investigation is ongoing.
>> The current
>> disclosure to association membership was not a legal
>>requirement... it was
>> a courtesy.
>>
>> Wayne
>> HP-14 N990 '6F'
>> http://www.soaridaho.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

OK how is the SSA going to come back from this one.

Does the CEO of the corporation not have to sign and or approve
expenditure even as mundane as a simple tax bill/return?

Why is Gleason on paid administrative leave and not terminated for
failure to perform?

Why isn't Dennis Wright on paid administrative leave after this
debacle pending investigation?

Why did the auditors not pick this up?

Does the CEO and CFO not have to sign and approve any annual tax
filings?

Why was the ex-com not informed until now as this has been going on
since 2003?

How on earth did this go for this long unnoticed?

Is this the end of the SSA as an effective representative body?

Are SSA members not liable for a portion of the tax unpaid and
penalties?

Lot of questions but man after the Sanderson issue it cannot get much
worse.

Al


wrote:
> > Let's not shoot the messenger.
>
> I agree. But I'm referring not to the individual who chose to post the
> SSA's message to its members, but to the real messenger: the SSA
> Executive Committee.
>
> I suspect they're wrestling with the typical real-world issues that
> cause most situations like this to be anything but black or white:
> i.e., balancing a natural desire to dismiss the employee who apparently
> breached the trust placed in him against considerations such as:
>
> - determining the extent of any losses (did the SSA simply not pay
> its bills or are funds missing?) and who may have been involved;
> - recovering assets
> - collecting the information necessary to file delinquent tax
> returns and determine the amount of unpaid withholding taxes
> - gaining cooperation that may be critical in the foregoing efforts;
>
> - obtaining and preserving legally admissible evidence;
> - evaluating civil and criminal options, including what recourse the
> SSA may have against individuals and organizations;
> - avoiding any steps that might leave the SSA open to accusations of
> libel or wrongful termination (in this country, anything is possible);
> careful readers of the letter will note that it is limited to
> statements of fact and to Alan Gleason's own admissions--it avoids
> other allegations.
> - ensuring the damage is contained by implementing better controls;
> - dealing with accountants and advisors who may have some explaining
> to do;
> - retaining and working with legal counsel;
> - negotiating with federal and state tax authorities to mitigate
> interest and penalties
> - communicating with the board, the officers, and the members, etc.
>
> As a 40+ year SSA member, I would be understating it to say I'm angry
> and frustrated and depressed at this latest news. But the fact remains
> that this time, unlike another unhappy situation in the past, the SSA
> Executive Committee made what appears to be timely and extensive
> disclosure, remarkably so (given our legal environment) regarding Alan
> Gleason's admissions.
>
> Let's confirm the wisdom of their decision by behaving responsibly.
> We're free to raise questions, in particular of our elected directors.
> But rather than second-guessing, speculating, offering ill-informed
> advice, spreading rumors, or accusing anyone, I suggest that we all
> stay tuned to www.ssa.org...and to the nearly instantaneous repostings
> to this newsgroup by "helpful" members. :)
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"

[Mike Schumann]

The people who should be nervous are the SSA directors. Failure to pay
witholding taxes becomes a personal liability for each of them.

It certainly begs the question on why have an outside accounting firm, when
they don't notice something as simple as this.

The thing that really gets me, is giving someone "paid administrative leave"
aka a paid vacation for this kind of screw up. Heads should role instead.

Mike Schumann

> wrote in message
ups.com...
OK how is the SSA going to come back from this one.

Does the CEO of the corporation not have to sign and or approve
expenditure even as mundane as a simple tax bill/return?

Why is Gleason on paid administrative leave and not terminated for
failure to perform?

Why isn't Dennis Wright on paid administrative leave after this
debacle pending investigation?

Why did the auditors not pick this up?

Does the CEO and CFO not have to sign and approve any annual tax
filings?

Why was the ex-com not informed until now as this has been going on
since 2003?

How on earth did this go for this long unnoticed?

Is this the end of the SSA as an effective representative body?

Are SSA members not liable for a portion of the tax unpaid and
penalties?

Lot of questions but man after the Sanderson issue it cannot get much
worse.

Al


wrote:
> > Let's not shoot the messenger.
>
> I agree. But I'm referring not to the individual who chose to post the
> SSA's message to its members, but to the real messenger: the SSA
> Executive Committee.
>
> I suspect they're wrestling with the typical real-world issues that
> cause most situations like this to be anything but black or white:
> i.e., balancing a natural desire to dismiss the employee who apparently
> breached the trust placed in him against considerations such as:
>
> - determining the extent of any losses (did the SSA simply not pay
> its bills or are funds missing?) and who may have been involved;
> - recovering assets
> - collecting the information necessary to file delinquent tax
> returns and determine the amount of unpaid withholding taxes
> - gaining cooperation that may be critical in the foregoing efforts;
>
> - obtaining and preserving legally admissible evidence;
> - evaluating civil and criminal options, including what recourse the
> SSA may have against individuals and organizations;
> - avoiding any steps that might leave the SSA open to accusations of
> libel or wrongful termination (in this country, anything is possible);
> careful readers of the letter will note that it is limited to
> statements of fact and to Alan Gleason's own admissions--it avoids
> other allegations.
> - ensuring the damage is contained by implementing better controls;
> - dealing with accountants and advisors who may have some explaining
> to do;
> - retaining and working with legal counsel;
> - negotiating with federal and state tax authorities to mitigate
> interest and penalties
> - communicating with the board, the officers, and the members, etc.
>
> As a 40+ year SSA member, I would be understating it to say I'm angry
> and frustrated and depressed at this latest news. But the fact remains
> that this time, unlike another unhappy situation in the past, the SSA
> Executive Committee made what appears to be timely and extensive
> disclosure, remarkably so (given our legal environment) regarding Alan
> Gleason's admissions.
>
> Let's confirm the wisdom of their decision by behaving responsibly.
> We're free to raise questions, in particular of our elected directors.
> But rather than second-guessing, speculating, offering ill-informed
> advice, spreading rumors, or accusing anyone, I suggest that we all
> stay tuned to www.ssa.org...and to the nearly instantaneous repostings
> to this newsgroup by "helpful" members. :)
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"

[Terry[_2_]]

How did this go on for so long?

My reading of the by-laws gives the Xcom way too much power. Lack of
oversight for (mostly) appointed directors may be excusable due to
their twice annual meeting. The XCOM selects its own members, meets
frequently and sets direction for the association. That does not sound
too good for the members.

Sign me a former member.

[[email protected]]

I'm surprised at two things in this thread. First the outrage leveled
at the reposter of the message. Is this really unexpected? Water
isn't the only thing to follow the path of least resistance - the
internet eases the flow of information considerably and anyone that
posts a message here pointing the rest of us to the SSA site should
assume that said information will appear on RAS in short order. Second
the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably stunning. I guess
lifelong members of the SSA have just gotten used to this level of
incompetence? Frankly at this point I am starting to believe that the
best thing that could happen to the SSA is for it to dissolve. I
highly doubt any of the executive members will be honest enough to
state that the biggest threat to the long term viability of the SSA
isn't the declining number of people soaring but the financial
mismanagement of the organization.

-bob

[[email protected]]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Here are the IRS FAQs regarding public disclosure:
>
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96430,00.html
>
> I would suspect that the fact that the non-profit failed to pay taxes and
> file tax returns as required by law would be covered by the spirit, if not
> the letter of the public disclosure rules.
<snip>

Here is an excerpt (FAQ #10) that answers the question:

If an organization makes its documents "widely available" must it make
the documents available for public inspection?

Yes. Making documents widely available satisfies the requirement to
provide copies of the documents. This requirement is separate from the
requirement to make the documents available for public inspection.
There is no exception (similar to the widely available exception) from
the requirement to make documents available for public inspection.

----

Realistically, you can't expect to keep something confidential by
telling it to 16,000 people!

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[[email protected]]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Here are the IRS FAQs regarding public disclosure:
>
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96430,00.html
>
> I would suspect that the fact that the non-profit failed to pay taxes and
> file tax returns as required by law would be covered by the spirit, if not
> the letter of the public disclosure rules.
<snip>

Here is an excerpt (FAQ #10) that answers the question:

If an organization makes its documents "widely available" must it make
the documents available for public inspection?

Yes. Making documents widely available satisfies the requirement to
provide copies of the documents. This requirement is separate from the
requirement to make the documents available for public inspection.
There is no exception (similar to the widely available exception) from
the requirement to make documents available for public inspection.

----

Realistically, you can't expect to keep something confidential by
telling it to 16,000 people!

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Vaughn Simon]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm surprised at two things in this thread. Second
> the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably stunning.

Well, the outrage at the guy who reposted the information here on ras kind of
squelched the conversation. For the record, based on what I know so far, you
can put me in the camp of those who feel the "Captain of the Ship" (PIC?, CEO?)
bears ultimate responsibility in this case.

Vaughn (a member)

[Bob C]

Why such outrage at the reposter, and apparent member
apathy about such a seemingly serious issue as the
possible (probable?) demise of our national organization?
Simple.

Berating the reporter is a common boardroom tactic
used by those in a precarious, embarrassing position
when confronted with evidence of their incompetence.
The person trying to bring their actions to light
is accused of being a traitor and trying to undermine
the organization, usually in such an obnoxious way
that the others in attendance would rather change the
subject than deal with the situation. As we've seen
in this case, the tactic usually works.

Trying to sweep a problem under the rug in the name
of organizational privacy is a rediculous attempt to
keep things under wraps while those involved can either
make their escape, destroy the evidence or find someone
else to blame.

There is NO excuse for failure to pay taxes. Are we
really to believe that this was just an honest mistake?
The taxes were just 'overlooked' for four years?
Is this really the best leadership we can find?

Maybe we should investigate scrapping the whole SSA
concept, and either starting over, or joining forces
with one of the other (infinitely more effective) aviation
organizations, such as AOPA, or even USHGA.

Let the flaming begin...

Bob C


At 19:31 05 September 2006, wrote:
>I'm surprised at two things in this thread. First
>the outrage leveled
>at the reposter of the message. Is this really unexpected?
> Water
>isn't the only thing to follow the path of least resistance
>- the
>internet eases the flow of information considerably
>and anyone that
>posts a message here pointing the rest of us to the
>SSA site should
>assume that said information will appear on RAS in
>short order. Second
>the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably
>stunning. I guess
>lifelong members of the SSA have just gotten used to
>this level of
>incompetence? Frankly at this point I am starting
>to believe that the
>best thing that could happen to the SSA is for it to
>dissolve. I
>highly doubt any of the executive members will be honest
>enough to
>state that the biggest threat to the long term viability
>of the SSA
>isn't the declining number of people soaring but the
>financial
>mismanagement of the organization.
>
>-bob
>
>

[Frank Whiteley]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > I'm surprised at two things in this thread. Second
> > the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably stunning.
>
> Well, the outrage at the guy who reposted the information here on ras kind of
> squelched the conversation. For the record, based on what I know so far, you
> can put me in the camp of those who feel the "Captain of the Ship" (PIC?, CEO?)
> bears ultimate responsibility in this case.
>
> Vaughn (a member)
I think you need to contact your regional director(s) to gain some
additional insight into the situation.

The financial reports and quarterly statements are available online to
members under governance. You might want to review some of these prior
to contacting your directors. You may also want to look over the
reports of the SSA Foundation.

I understand as a result of the previous problem, part of that solution
(wisely or unwisely) was to not have the CFO reporting directly to the
CEO. I understand also that the CFO apparently did not do what was
asked of him regarding the accountants. Actual details are a bit
sparse at this point, but seem consistent with Dianne's letter to the
members. One can only guess at the possible motives and whether
deception, neglect or omission was involved. Again, contact your
director(s) for further discussion. I'm confident members will be
given appropriate updates.

I don't know if directors will discuss this with those posting here
that are not currently SSA members.

Frank Whiteley

[5-BG]

lets get real clear on what was actually reported to the members of SSA by the chair of the board.
1. Gross and material misrepresentations of the financial condition of the society were made by two cfo's, endorsed by current and past ceo and recieved by the current and past chairpersons. These false and misleading financials were submitted while the society had a relationship with a professional accounting firm.

2. Required non profit reports to the government were not filed since 2002.

3. required deposits and reports to federal and state governments of amounts withheld from employee checks and matching contributions were not made beginning 2003.

4. the actual amount not paid is estimated at $300,000 and with penalities and interest was estimated at $600,000. Annual dues at $65 for 16,000 members is about 1 million just as a point in reference.

5. The chair is looking into "borrowing " money from "unrestricted " funds within the foundation. It would not surprise me to hear in a future note to members that these funds have already been looted and that false financial statements have been submitted.

A situation of this magnitude that persists since 2002 and survives multiple managers and boards is simply not the work of an isolated individual. It is inconceivable to me that a professional accounting firm, post enron, does not understand that its primary legal obligation is to the ASSOCIATION and that it has a duty to bring such malfeasance to the attention of the chairman OR TO RESIGN.

We have been told that an outside attorney has been retained to determine the scope of the problem. It is inconceivable to me that that attorney would continue to use the services of the old accounting firm. In any event, NO ESTIMATE WAS GIVEN as to the projected cost of the attorney investigation nor of the cost of redoing all financial statements and preparing back reports. You can bet it will BE PLENTY. Full and complete audits are expensive.

In my opinion, this is a systemic problem that i find difficult to imagine was confined to one individual. Am I to believe that no notices of deliquency were ever sent to SSA? and if sent that they were seen by only the "one individual"? Am I to believe that this one individual cooked the books before he was even hired? or that his assistant was totally in the dark. Or that the current and past ceo was so out of touch with a very small office that they had no idea of what was going on?? In corporate America, the CEO SIGNS THE RETURNS and is responsible. I would assume the same applies to a non profit.

The real problem that longtime members such as myself face is that of group insurance coverage. I do NOT BELIEVE that SSA will survive this ordeal. I just got a quote for lesser coverage with a $1,000 deductable ( current deductable is zero) policy for my glider. It was $400 more than the grpoup coverage through ssa. AND if I wish to add a pilot to my policy it costs an extra $100. Clearly, I have remained a dues paying member of ssa for the past several years, not because the organization addressed my needs as a pilot, BUT FOR THE INSURANCE.
Perhaps Costello could and should get ahead of this issue and begin putting together an ex SSA group policy.

I am seriously disgusted with this whole mess and am not at all optomistic that all of the monetary problems have been fully disclosed. It is going to be very interesting to see what, if anything, remains in the RESTRICTED as well as UNRESTRICTED fund bank accounts. I am also going to be VERY ****ED OFF if the insurance issue is used to "encourage" members to pay a special assessment to cover back payments, and the cost of figuring out the mess.

Make available a group insurance policy under a different umbrella organization and i believe that a significant part of the membership will vote with their feet. I barely glance at the magazine that is geared towards the el;ite contest pilots and their exploits. As for the four staff committments cited in my recent letter of renewal, i would add enriching themselves as a fifth.
"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message oups.com...

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > I'm surprised at two things in this thread. Second
> > the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably stunning.
>
> Well, the outrage at the guy who reposted the information here on ras kind of
> squelched the conversation. For the record, based on what I know so far, you
> can put me in the camp of those who feel the "Captain of the Ship" (PIC?, CEO?)
> bears ultimate responsibility in this case.
>
> Vaughn (a member)
I think you need to contact your regional director(s) to gain some
additional insight into the situation.

The financial reports and quarterly statements are available online to
members under governance. You might want to review some of these prior
to contacting your directors. You may also want to look over the
reports of the SSA Foundation.

I understand as a result of the previous problem, part of that solution
(wisely or unwisely) was to not have the CFO reporting directly to the
CEO. I understand also that the CFO apparently did not do what was
asked of him regarding the accountants. Actual details are a bit
sparse at this point, but seem consistent with Dianne's letter to the
members. One can only guess at the possible motives and whether
deception, neglect or omission was involved. Again, contact your
director(s) for further discussion. I'm confident members will be
given appropriate updates.

I don't know if directors will discuss this with those posting here
that are not currently SSA members.

Frank Whiteley

[Mike Schumann]

I think having a Soaring sub-group under the AOPA umbrella sounds like a
great potential solution. This could leverage AOPA's existing
organizational infrastructure (financial, publishing, lobbying, insurance,
etc.), dramatically reducing the amount of resources that are being spent on
these types of activities by the SSA.

Mike Schumann

"Bob C" > wrote in message
...
> Why such outrage at the reposter, and apparent member
> apathy about such a seemingly serious issue as the
> possible (probable?) demise of our national organization?
> Simple.
>
> Berating the reporter is a common boardroom tactic
> used by those in a precarious, embarrassing position
> when confronted with evidence of their incompetence.
> The person trying to bring their actions to light
> is accused of being a traitor and trying to undermine
> the organization, usually in such an obnoxious way
> that the others in attendance would rather change the
> subject than deal with the situation. As we've seen
> in this case, the tactic usually works.
>
> Trying to sweep a problem under the rug in the name
> of organizational privacy is a rediculous attempt to
> keep things under wraps while those involved can either
> make their escape, destroy the evidence or find someone
> else to blame.
>
> There is NO excuse for failure to pay taxes. Are we
> really to believe that this was just an honest mistake?
> The taxes were just 'overlooked' for four years?
> Is this really the best leadership we can find?
>
> Maybe we should investigate scrapping the whole SSA
> concept, and either starting over, or joining forces
> with one of the other (infinitely more effective) aviation
> organizations, such as AOPA, or even USHGA.
>
> Let the flaming begin...
>
> Bob C
>
>
> At 19:31 05 September 2006, wrote:
>>I'm surprised at two things in this thread. First
>>the outrage leveled
>>at the reposter of the message. Is this really unexpected?
>> Water
>>isn't the only thing to follow the path of least resistance
>>- the
>>internet eases the flow of information considerably
>>and anyone that
>>posts a message here pointing the rest of us to the
>>SSA site should
>>assume that said information will appear on RAS in
>>short order. Second
>>the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably
>>stunning. I guess
>>lifelong members of the SSA have just gotten used to
>>this level of
>>incompetence? Frankly at this point I am starting
>>to believe that the
>>best thing that could happen to the SSA is for it to
>>dissolve. I
>>highly doubt any of the executive members will be honest
>>enough to
>>state that the biggest threat to the long term viability
>>of the SSA
>>isn't the declining number of people soaring but the
>>financial
>>mismanagement of the organization.
>>
>>-bob
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.


At 13:06 06 September 2006, Mike Schumann wrote:
>I think having a Soaring sub-group under the AOPA umbrella
>sounds like a
>great potential solution. This could leverage AOPA's
>existing
>organizational infrastructure (financial, publishing,
>lobbying, insurance,
>etc.), dramatically reducing the amount of resources
>that are being spent on
>these types of activities by the SSA.
>
>Mike Schumann
>
>'Bob C' wrote in message
...
>> Why such outrage at the reposter, and apparent member
>> apathy about such a seemingly serious issue as the
>> possible (probable?) demise of our national organization?
>> Simple.
>>
>> Berating the reporter is a common boardroom tactic
>> used by those in a precarious, embarrassing position
>> when confronted with evidence of their incompetence.
>> The person trying to bring their actions to light
>> is accused of being a traitor and trying to undermine
>> the organization, usually in such an obnoxious way
>> that the others in attendance would rather change
>>the
>> subject than deal with the situation. As we've seen
>> in this case, the tactic usually works.
>>
>> Trying to sweep a problem under the rug in the name
>> of organizational privacy is a rediculous attempt
>>to
>> keep things under wraps while those involved can either
>> make their escape, destroy the evidence or find someone
>> else to blame.
>>
>> There is NO excuse for failure to pay taxes. Are
>>we
>> really to believe that this was just an honest mistake?
>> The taxes were just 'overlooked' for four years?
>> Is this really the best leadership we can find?
>>
>> Maybe we should investigate scrapping the whole SSA
>> concept, and either starting over, or joining forces
>> with one of the other (infinitely more effective)
>>aviation
>> organizations, such as AOPA, or even USHGA.
>>
>> Let the flaming begin...
>>
>> Bob C
>>
>>
>> At 19:31 05 September 2006, wrote:
>>>I'm surprised at two things in this thread. First
>>>the outrage leveled
>>>at the reposter of the message. Is this really unexpected?
>>> Water
>>>isn't the only thing to follow the path of least resistance
>>>- the
>>>internet eases the flow of information considerably
>>>and anyone that
>>>posts a message here pointing the rest of us to the
>>>SSA site should
>>>assume that said information will appear on RAS in
>>>short order. Second
>>>the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably
>>>stunning. I guess
>>>lifelong members of the SSA have just gotten used to
>>>this level of
>>>incompetence? Frankly at this point I am starting
>>>to believe that the
>>>best thing that could happen to the SSA is for it to
>>>dissolve. I
>>>highly doubt any of the executive members will be honest
>>>enough to
>>>state that the biggest threat to the long term viability
>>>of the SSA
>>>isn't the declining number of people soaring but the
>>>financial
>>>mismanagement of the organization.
>>>
>>>-bob
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Doug]

Well, maybe they just had computer problems .... Oh yeah, I forgot, we
already covered that several years ago.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"5-BG" <5-bghatesspam @ fake.com> wrote in message
...
lets get real clear on what was actually reported to the members of SSA by
the chair of the board.
1. Gross and material misrepresentations of the financial condition of the
society were made by two cfo's, endorsed by current and past ceo and
recieved by the current and past chairpersons. These false and misleading
financials were submitted while the society had a relationship with a
professional accounting firm.

2. Required non profit reports to the government were not filed since
2002.

3. required deposits and reports to federal and state governments of amounts
withheld from employee checks and matching contributions were not made
beginning 2003.

4. the actual amount not paid is estimated at $300,000 and with penalities
and interest was estimated at $600,000. Annual dues at $65 for 16,000
members is about 1 million just as a point in reference.

5. The chair is looking into "borrowing " money from "unrestricted " funds
within the foundation. It would not surprise me to hear in a future note to
members that these funds have already been looted and that false financial
statements have been submitted.

A situation of this magnitude that persists since 2002 and survives
multiple managers and boards is simply not the work of an isolated
individual. It is inconceivable to me that a professional accounting firm,
post enron, does not understand that its primary legal obligation is to the
ASSOCIATION and that it has a duty to bring such malfeasance to the
attention of the chairman OR TO RESIGN.

We have been told that an outside attorney has been retained to determine
the scope of the problem. It is inconceivable to me that that attorney would
continue to use the services of the old accounting firm. In any event, NO
ESTIMATE WAS GIVEN as to the projected cost of the attorney investigation
nor of the cost of redoing all financial statements and preparing back
reports. You can bet it will BE PLENTY. Full and complete audits are
expensive.

In my opinion, this is a systemic problem that i find difficult to imagine
was confined to one individual. Am I to believe that no notices of
deliquency were ever sent to SSA? and if sent that they were seen by only
the "one individual"? Am I to believe that this one individual cooked the
books before he was even hired? or that his assistant was totally in the
dark. Or that the current and past ceo was so out of touch with a very small
office that they had no idea of what was going on?? In corporate America,
the CEO SIGNS THE RETURNS and is responsible. I would assume the same
applies to a non profit.

The real problem that longtime members such as myself face is that of
group insurance coverage. I do NOT BELIEVE that SSA will survive this
ordeal. I just got a quote for lesser coverage with a $1,000 deductable (
current deductable is zero) policy for my glider. It was $400 more than the
grpoup coverage through ssa. AND if I wish to add a pilot to my policy it
costs an extra $100. Clearly, I have remained a dues paying member of ssa
for the past several years, not because the organization addressed my needs
as a pilot, BUT FOR THE INSURANCE.
Perhaps Costello could and should get ahead of this issue and begin putting
together an ex SSA group policy.

I am seriously disgusted with this whole mess and am not at all optomistic
that all of the monetary problems have been fully disclosed. It is going to
be very interesting to see what, if anything, remains in the RESTRICTED as
well as UNRESTRICTED fund bank accounts. I am also going to be VERY ****ED
OFF if the insurance issue is used to "encourage" members to pay a special
assessment to cover back payments, and the cost of figuring out the mess.

Make available a group insurance policy under a different umbrella
organization and i believe that a significant part of the membership will
vote with their feet. I barely glance at the magazine that is geared towards
the el;ite contest pilots and their exploits. As for the four staff
committments cited in my recent letter of renewal, i would add enriching
themselves as a fifth.

[Mike Schumann]

Maybe one page in the AOPA magazine every month would be a great way to get
more pilots interested in soaring. That might do more for the sport than a
full color glossy magazine aimed at the converted.

Mike Schumann

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
> believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
> we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
> page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.
>
>
> At 13:06 06 September 2006, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>I think having a Soaring sub-group under the AOPA umbrella
>>sounds like a
>>great potential solution. This could leverage AOPA's
>>existing
>>organizational infrastructure (financial, publishing,
>>lobbying, insurance,
>>etc.), dramatically reducing the amount of resources
>>that are being spent on
>>these types of activities by the SSA.
>>
>>Mike Schumann
>>
>>'Bob C' wrote in message
...
>>> Why such outrage at the reposter, and apparent member
>>> apathy about such a seemingly serious issue as the
>>> possible (probable?) demise of our national organization?
>>> Simple.
>>>
>>> Berating the reporter is a common boardroom tactic
>>> used by those in a precarious, embarrassing position
>>> when confronted with evidence of their incompetence.
>>> The person trying to bring their actions to light
>>> is accused of being a traitor and trying to undermine
>>> the organization, usually in such an obnoxious way
>>> that the others in attendance would rather change
>>>the
>>> subject than deal with the situation. As we've seen
>>> in this case, the tactic usually works.
>>>
>>> Trying to sweep a problem under the rug in the name
>>> of organizational privacy is a rediculous attempt
>>>to
>>> keep things under wraps while those involved can either
>>> make their escape, destroy the evidence or find someone
>>> else to blame.
>>>
>>> There is NO excuse for failure to pay taxes. Are
>>>we
>>> really to believe that this was just an honest mistake?
>>> The taxes were just 'overlooked' for four years?
>>> Is this really the best leadership we can find?
>>>
>>> Maybe we should investigate scrapping the whole SSA
>>> concept, and either starting over, or joining forces
>>> with one of the other (infinitely more effective)
>>>aviation
>>> organizations, such as AOPA, or even USHGA.
>>>
>>> Let the flaming begin...
>>>
>>> Bob C
>>>
>>>
>>> At 19:31 05 September 2006, wrote:
>>>>I'm surprised at two things in this thread. First
>>>>the outrage leveled
>>>>at the reposter of the message. Is this really unexpected?
>>>> Water
>>>>isn't the only thing to follow the path of least resistance
>>>>- the
>>>>internet eases the flow of information considerably
>>>>and anyone that
>>>>posts a message here pointing the rest of us to the
>>>>SSA site should
>>>>assume that said information will appear on RAS in
>>>>short order. Second
>>>>the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably
>>>>stunning. I guess
>>>>lifelong members of the SSA have just gotten used to
>>>>this level of
>>>>incompetence? Frankly at this point I am starting
>>>>to believe that the
>>>>best thing that could happen to the SSA is for it to
>>>>dissolve. I
>>>>highly doubt any of the executive members will be honest
>>>>enough to
>>>>state that the biggest threat to the long term viability
>>>>of the SSA
>>>>isn't the declining number of people soaring but the
>>>>financial
>>>>mismanagement of the organization.
>>>>
>>>>-bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Greg Arnold]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Maybe one page in the AOPA magazine every month would be a great way to get
> more pilots interested in soaring. That might do more for the sport than a
> full color glossy magazine aimed at the converted.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
>> We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
>> believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
>> we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
>> page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.

AOPA has been pretty good about running soaring related articles from
time to time. Also, doubtless other magazines and newsletters would
spring up to take the place of SOARING.

As an example of the way things might turn out in the AOPA magazine,
look at Aerokurier. Although primarily a power magazine, it has soaring
features, too.

[Bullwinkle]

AOPA is a great organization that has done much good for general aviation
for many years. I wish them well, but don't want us to become part of them.

We shouldn't get ourselves under their umbrella. In a tough battle with the
FAA, I'd be worried about soaring issues becoming something to bargain away
in a compromise, in order to preserve rights for the powered aircraft (their
major constituency).

In a hypothetical business jet/glider midair, whose side do you think they'd
be on when it comes to proposing solutions?

They wouldn't fight for us as hard as we will fight for us. If we can only
get competent leadership in the SSA (sadly lacking for many years), we
actually might be able to fight for ourselves.

Regards,
Bullwinkle

On 9/6/06 11:07 AM, in article yfDLg.18776$RD.4368@fed1read08, "Greg Arnold"
> wrote:

> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> Maybe one page in the AOPA magazine every month would be a great way to get
>> more pilots interested in soaring. That might do more for the sport than a
>> full color glossy magazine aimed at the converted.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> "Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
>>> believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
>>> we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
>>> page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.
>
> AOPA has been pretty good about running soaring related articles from
> time to time. Also, doubtless other magazines and newsletters would
> spring up to take the place of SOARING.
>
> As an example of the way things might turn out in the AOPA magazine,
> look at Aerokurier. Although primarily a power magazine, it has soaring
> features, too.

[Tony Verhulst]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
> believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
> we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
> page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.

Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association of
Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed) newsletters
(2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
*airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification. I
got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter which
would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite email
exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
resigned in protest.

Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.

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

[Stan - VA]

I think it is pretty clear that if the SSA survives this latest bout of
mismanagment that our dues will mainly go to debt payment, and not to
services for members.

Several of us at our club have considered the pros and cons of the AOPA
idea. It definitely is worth discussing.

The AOPA has some real lobbying power. If the SSA ever had any, it
won't now. The amount of $ SSA had, has, or will have to spend on
lobbying efforts probably won't even open the door for us with anyone
in Washington. AOPA's clout is another matter.

I don't know that the AOPA would be interested, but 16,000 pilots would
be a healthy addition to their membership, if that is what the SSA
membership is. Of course, some SSA are already AOPA members.

A couple of pages monthly in the AOPA magizine would probably do
soaring a world of good. Most of the potential pilots for our sport
are already power pilots.

AIG, the insurer who underwrites the policies that come from
Costello's, already has a relationship with the AOPA. Probably
Costello's has a relationship with the AOPA too. Hopefully, we
maintain our insurance in its present form.

Let's face the reality of the situation. We may soon have no national
soaring umbrella organization. We will need to deal with that in some
fashion. Better to think about the alternatives now.

Stan Scott - VA

Tony Verhulst wrote:
> Nyal Williams wrote:
> > We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
> > believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
> > we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
> > page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.
>
> Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
> even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association of
> Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed) newsletters
> (2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
> changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
> standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
> *airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
> the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
> editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification. I
> got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter which
> would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite email
> exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
> were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
> resigned in protest.
>
> Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.
>
> Tony V. CFIG
> http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[Mike[_8_]]

I really think the situation we are facing is that the SSA will be
around for a long time, hopefully with alert managers and dedicated
soaring folks.

It will be a shame if the Society has been the victim of a crook over
these past few years.

Mike

Stan - VA wrote:
> I think it is pretty clear that if the SSA survives this latest bout of
> mismanagment that our dues will mainly go to debt payment, and not to
> services for members.
>
> Several of us at our club have considered the pros and cons of the AOPA
> idea. It definitely is worth discussing.
>
> The AOPA has some real lobbying power. If the SSA ever had any, it
> won't now. The amount of $ SSA had, has, or will have to spend on
> lobbying efforts probably won't even open the door for us with anyone
> in Washington. AOPA's clout is another matter.
>
> I don't know that the AOPA would be interested, but 16,000 pilots would
> be a healthy addition to their membership, if that is what the SSA
> membership is. Of course, some SSA are already AOPA members.
>
> A couple of pages monthly in the AOPA magizine would probably do
> soaring a world of good. Most of the potential pilots for our sport
> are already power pilots.
>
> AIG, the insurer who underwrites the policies that come from
> Costello's, already has a relationship with the AOPA. Probably
> Costello's has a relationship with the AOPA too. Hopefully, we
> maintain our insurance in its present form.
>
> Let's face the reality of the situation. We may soon have no national
> soaring umbrella organization. We will need to deal with that in some
> fashion. Better to think about the alternatives now.
>
> Stan Scott - VA
>
> Tony Verhulst wrote:
> > Nyal Williams wrote:
> > > We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
> > > believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
> > > we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
> > > page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.
> >
> > Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
> > even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association of
> > Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed) newsletters
> > (2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
> > changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
> > standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
> > *airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
> > the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
> > editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification. I
> > got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter which
> > would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite email
> > exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
> > were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
> > resigned in protest.
> >
> > Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.
> >
> > Tony V. CFIG
> > http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[Ian Johnston]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 23:17:21 UTC, Nyal Williams
> wrote:

: Your posting on r.a.s. of the letter to the SSA membership
: calls into question your judgment, your ethics, your
: integrity, your loyalty to any organization of which
: you have ever been a part, your friendship with anyone
: you've ever known, and even your intelligence.

Why, exactly? What's so terrible about us foreigners hearing of this
sad affair?

If this had happened in a listed company in the UK, they would have
been legally obliged to make a public statement on the matter.

Ian

[Mike Schumann]

It doesn't sound like the problem is a crook, just gross incompetence.

Mike Schumann

"Mike" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I really think the situation we are facing is that the SSA will be
> around for a long time, hopefully with alert managers and dedicated
> soaring folks.
>
> It will be a shame if the Society has been the victim of a crook over
> these past few years.
>
> Mike
>
> Stan - VA wrote:
>> I think it is pretty clear that if the SSA survives this latest bout of
>> mismanagment that our dues will mainly go to debt payment, and not to
>> services for members.
>>
>> Several of us at our club have considered the pros and cons of the AOPA
>> idea. It definitely is worth discussing.
>>
>> The AOPA has some real lobbying power. If the SSA ever had any, it
>> won't now. The amount of $ SSA had, has, or will have to spend on
>> lobbying efforts probably won't even open the door for us with anyone
>> in Washington. AOPA's clout is another matter.
>>
>> I don't know that the AOPA would be interested, but 16,000 pilots would
>> be a healthy addition to their membership, if that is what the SSA
>> membership is. Of course, some SSA are already AOPA members.
>>
>> A couple of pages monthly in the AOPA magizine would probably do
>> soaring a world of good. Most of the potential pilots for our sport
>> are already power pilots.
>>
>> AIG, the insurer who underwrites the policies that come from
>> Costello's, already has a relationship with the AOPA. Probably
>> Costello's has a relationship with the AOPA too. Hopefully, we
>> maintain our insurance in its present form.
>>
>> Let's face the reality of the situation. We may soon have no national
>> soaring umbrella organization. We will need to deal with that in some
>> fashion. Better to think about the alternatives now.
>>
>> Stan Scott - VA
>>
>> Tony Verhulst wrote:
>> > Nyal Williams wrote:
>> > > We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
>> > > believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
>> > > we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
>> > > page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.
>> >
>> > Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
>> > even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association of
>> > Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed)
>> > newsletters
>> > (2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
>> > changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
>> > standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
>> > *airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
>> > the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
>> > editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification. I
>> > got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter which
>> > would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite email
>> > exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
>> > were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
>> > resigned in protest.
>> >
>> > Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.
>> >
>> > Tony V. CFIG
>> > http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING
>

[Terry[_2_]]

It is not only incompetence, it is indifference, and I have the emails
from the staff, volunteers and directors to back up that statement.

As to Tony's remarks about the National Association of Flight
Instructors, their magazine has been running a series of glider
training articles since expanding the format of their magazine. Other
specialties get similar exposure: helos, acro, tailwheel and sport.

The wounds to SSA are likely terminal. The sooner US pilots start
thinking about what could or should replace it, the better. A good
start would be a different governing structure.

[Mike the Strike]

We shouldn't accuse anyone of dishonesty without firm evidence.

However, I can find no logical reason why a CFO would neglect to pay
$300,000 in taxes and the like. It's his job to make sure these
payments are made and to alert the company if there's a problem. I'm
afraid my first suspicion on hearing this news was that funds had been
diverted and the silence was to cover up their misappropriation.

I find it really hard to believe that this was just incompetence. If
the CFO was such a bozo, someone must have noticed by now!

Mike

[Mike Schumann]

Either way, the guy should have been fired on the spot, not given a paid
vacation.

Mike Schumann

"Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> We shouldn't accuse anyone of dishonesty without firm evidence.
>
> However, I can find no logical reason why a CFO would neglect to pay
> $300,000 in taxes and the like. It's his job to make sure these
> payments are made and to alert the company if there's a problem. I'm
> afraid my first suspicion on hearing this news was that funds had been
> diverted and the silence was to cover up their misappropriation.
>
> I find it really hard to believe that this was just incompetence. If
> the CFO was such a bozo, someone must have noticed by now!
>
> Mike
>

[Nyal Williams]

Because the letter was a private one to members only
and the poster violated that confidentiality, evidently
without a clue to what he was doing.

It is not that it should have been covered up; the
writer stated that they were taking the legal and investigative
steps necessary to get to the bottom of the matter,
at which point, presumably, a public statement would
be made containing the facts of the case. That is
a responsible way to handle such an incident.

Creating a public uproar before the facts are known
is irresponsible. I would not want such a person working
under my supervision, and I would never trust such
a person with any confidential information.

I'll have no more to say on this topic; it has been
bruited about too much already.

At 06:06 07 September 2006, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 23:17:21 UTC, Nyal Williams
> wrote:
>
>: Your posting on r.a.s. of the letter to the SSA membership
>: calls into question your judgment, your ethics, your
>: integrity, your loyalty to any organization of which
>: you have ever been a part, your friendship with anyone
>: you've ever known, and even your intelligence.
>
>Why, exactly? What's so terrible about us foreigners
>hearing of this
>sad affair?
>
>If this had happened in a listed company in the UK,
>they would have
>been legally obliged to make a public statement on
>the matter.
>
>Ian
>

[[email protected]]

If SSA were to merge with a larger organization, EAA would be better
suited than AOPA. The EAA already has a number of Divisions &
Affiliates under its umbrella, including:

International Aerobatic Club
http://www.iac.org/

Vintage Aircraft Association
http://www.vintageaircraft.org/

War Birds of America
http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/

National Association of Flight Instructors
http://www.nafinet.org/

EAA Ultralights
http://www.eaa.org/ultralights/index.html

Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft Assoc.
http://www.sportpilot.org/

Young Eagles
http://www.youngeagles.org/

and there are more....... Each of these groups has its own magazine
and identity.

EAA promotes and fully supports each and every one of these
organizations. Makes sense that a soaring division of EAA would fit
nicely with these other groups.

In my opinion, SSA is just too small to efficiently manage itself
logistically and financially.

Jon B.
GA



Stan - VA wrote:
> I think it is pretty clear that if the SSA survives this latest bout of
> mismanagment that our dues will mainly go to debt payment, and not to
> services for members.
>
> Several of us at our club have considered the pros and cons of the AOPA
> idea. It definitely is worth discussing.
>
> The AOPA has some real lobbying power. If the SSA ever had any, it
> won't now. The amount of $ SSA had, has, or will have to spend on
> lobbying efforts probably won't even open the door for us with anyone
> in Washington. AOPA's clout is another matter.
>
> I don't know that the AOPA would be interested, but 16,000 pilots would
> be a healthy addition to their membership, if that is what the SSA
> membership is. Of course, some SSA are already AOPA members.
>
> A couple of pages monthly in the AOPA magizine would probably do
> soaring a world of good. Most of the potential pilots for our sport
> are already power pilots.
>
> AIG, the insurer who underwrites the policies that come from
> Costello's, already has a relationship with the AOPA. Probably
> Costello's has a relationship with the AOPA too. Hopefully, we
> maintain our insurance in its present form.
>
> Let's face the reality of the situation. We may soon have no national
> soaring umbrella organization. We will need to deal with that in some
> fashion. Better to think about the alternatives now.
>
> Stan Scott - VA
>
> Tony Verhulst wrote:
> > Nyal Williams wrote:
> > > We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
> > > believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
> > > we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
> > > page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.
> >
> > Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
> > even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association of
> > Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed) newsletters
> > (2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
> > changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
> > standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
> > *airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
> > the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
> > editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification. I
> > got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter which
> > would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite email
> > exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
> > were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
> > resigned in protest.
> >
> > Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.
> >
> > Tony V. CFIG
> > http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[Bela Szalai]

I guess we need to agree on what "better" means.
Size vs. influence?
We would have a 14K ceiling (Class A) for the past two decades without the
AOPA.

- Béla


------Original Message-----
-From: Glider Pilot Network ]
-Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 1:06 PM
-To: Bela Szalai
-Subject: [r.a.s] Re: Important message for SSA members
-
-------------------------------------------------------------
-Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
-Subject: Re: Important message for SSA members
-Author: >
-Date/Time: 20:00 07 September 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
-If SSA were to merge with a larger organization, EAA would be
-better suited than AOPA. The EAA already has a number of
-Divisions & Affiliates under its umbrella, including:
-
-International Aerobatic Club
-http://www.iac.org/
-
-Vintage Aircraft Association
-http://www.vintageaircraft.org/
-
-War Birds of America
-http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/
-
-National Association of Flight Instructors http://www.nafinet.org/
-
-EAA Ultralights
-http://www.eaa.org/ultralights/index.html
-
-Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft Assoc.
-http://www.sportpilot.org/
-
-Young Eagles
-http://www.youngeagles.org/
-
-and there are more....... Each of these groups has its own
-magazine and identity.
-
-EAA promotes and fully supports each and every one of these
-organizations. Makes sense that a soaring division of EAA
-would fit nicely with these other groups.
-
-In my opinion, SSA is just too small to efficiently manage
-itself logistically and financially.
-
-Jon B.
-GA
-
-
-
-Stan - VA wrote:
-> I think it is pretty clear that if the SSA survives this latest bout
-of
-> mismanagment that our dues will mainly go to debt payment,
-and not to
-> services for members.
->
-> Several of us at our club have considered the pros and cons of the
-> AOPA idea. It definitely is worth discussing.
->
-> The AOPA has some real lobbying power. If the SSA ever had any, it
-> won't now. The amount of $ SSA had, has, or will have to spend on
-> lobbying efforts probably won't even open the door for us
-with anyone
-> in Washington. AOPA's clout is another matter.
->
-> I don't know that the AOPA would be interested, but 16,000 pilots
-> would be a healthy addition to their membership, if that is what the
-> SSA membership is. Of course, some SSA are already AOPA members.
->
-> A couple of pages monthly in the AOPA magizine would probably do
-> soaring a world of good. Most of the potential pilots for our sport
-> are already power pilots.
->
-> AIG, the insurer who underwrites the policies that come from
-> Costello's, already has a relationship with the AOPA. Probably
-> Costello's has a relationship with the AOPA too. Hopefully, we
-> maintain our insurance in its present form.
->
-> Let's face the reality of the situation. We may soon have
-no national
-> soaring umbrella organization. We will need to deal with
-that in some
-> fashion. Better to think about the alternatives now.
->
-> Stan Scott - VA
->
-> Tony Verhulst wrote:
-> > Nyal Williams wrote:
-> > > We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you believe
-> > > that, comprising 1% of the pilot population, we would
-receive any
-> > > notice inside AOPA? Maybe one page near the back of the
-magazine
-> > > -- occasionally.
-> >
-> > Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even
-inside EAA nor
-> > even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association
-of
-> > Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed)
-> > newsletters (2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test
-> > Standard)was changing and to make sure that we trained our
-students
-> > to the new standards. When I researched the matter I
-discovered that
-> > ONLY the
-> > *airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you
-> > get the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization
-president
-> > and editor explaining the situation and requested a public
-clarification.
-I
-> > got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter
-> > which would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several
-> > polite email exchanges, I realized that unless you were an
-airplane
-> > instructor you were nothing and that there was no point in
-me being
-> > a member. I resigned in protest.
-> >
-> > Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.
-> >
-> > Tony V. CFIG
-> > http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------
-

[[email protected]]

Well,
We have to consider really what SSA does for us- everyone mentions
the big stuff like plane insurance and lobbying, and the clout of AOPA
or EAA would be good there. I just think that these organizations
already have their own inertia to deal with. I doubt pursuits like
Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane handicaps,
conventions, or contest management would be of any interest to them,
and that is our bread and butter.
I have been thru some corporate mergers and the sum is rarely as
effective as the parts were beforehand. Technically, it seems marrying
these groups would create something better- unfortunately, we are
dealing with folks that can't even get our books straight. Could we
trust them to keep SSA's identity and unique needs seperate and
healthy? I doubt it.
We already have an organization that does this other stuff fairly
well. We need to change the organization to make it more accountable
and less incestuous. Smaller can be better, it just has to be done
right. There is enough in SSA to save, and we don't have to do it all
tomorrow.

Just curious- How long have our dues been 55 clams? Might be time for
Mo' Money anyway. For some reason we expect to get out of a money jam
without raising taxes. Sometimes ya gotta do it.

Joe in Georgia USA
CN Open Cirrus #105


wrote:
> If SSA were to merge with a larger organization, EAA would be better
> suited than AOPA. The EAA already has a number of Divisions &
> Affiliates under its umbrella, including:
>
> International Aerobatic Club
> http://www.iac.org/
>
> Vintage Aircraft Association
> http://www.vintageaircraft.org/
>
> War Birds of America
> http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/
>
> National Association of Flight Instructors
> http://www.nafinet.org/
>
> EAA Ultralights
> http://www.eaa.org/ultralights/index.html
>
> Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft Assoc.
> http://www.sportpilot.org/
>
> Young Eagles
> http://www.youngeagles.org/
>
> and there are more....... Each of these groups has its own magazine
> and identity.
>
> EAA promotes and fully supports each and every one of these
> organizations. Makes sense that a soaring division of EAA would fit
> nicely with these other groups.
>
> In my opinion, SSA is just too small to efficiently manage itself
> logistically and financially.
>
> Jon B.
> GA
>
>
>
> Stan - VA wrote:
> > I think it is pretty clear that if the SSA survives this latest bout of
> > mismanagment that our dues will mainly go to debt payment, and not to
> > services for members.
> >
> > Several of us at our club have considered the pros and cons of the AOPA
> > idea. It definitely is worth discussing.
> >
> > The AOPA has some real lobbying power. If the SSA ever had any, it
> > won't now. The amount of $ SSA had, has, or will have to spend on
> > lobbying efforts probably won't even open the door for us with anyone
> > in Washington. AOPA's clout is another matter.
> >
> > I don't know that the AOPA would be interested, but 16,000 pilots would
> > be a healthy addition to their membership, if that is what the SSA
> > membership is. Of course, some SSA are already AOPA members.
> >
> > A couple of pages monthly in the AOPA magizine would probably do
> > soaring a world of good. Most of the potential pilots for our sport
> > are already power pilots.
> >
> > AIG, the insurer who underwrites the policies that come from
> > Costello's, already has a relationship with the AOPA. Probably
> > Costello's has a relationship with the AOPA too. Hopefully, we
> > maintain our insurance in its present form.
> >
> > Let's face the reality of the situation. We may soon have no national
> > soaring umbrella organization. We will need to deal with that in some
> > fashion. Better to think about the alternatives now.
> >
> > Stan Scott - VA
> >
> > Tony Verhulst wrote:
> > > Nyal Williams wrote:
> > > > We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
> > > > believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
> > > > we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
> > > > page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.
> > >
> > > Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
> > > even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association of
> > > Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed) newsletters
> > > (2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
> > > changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
> > > standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
> > > *airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
> > > the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
> > > editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification. I
> > > got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter which
> > > would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite email
> > > exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
> > > were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
> > > resigned in protest.
> > >
> > > Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.
> > >
> > > Tony V. CFIG
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[Jim Vincent]

I accessed the letter directly on the SSA website without the need of a user
name or password. Given the ease of access, I don't think there was
anything confidential, per se.


"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Because the letter was a private one to members only
> and the poster violated that confidentiality, evidently
> without a clue to what he was doing.
>

[5Z]

Jim Vincent wrote:
> I accessed the letter directly on the SSA website without the need of a user
> name or password. Given the ease of access, I don't think there was
> anything confidential, per se.

You must have had a cookie set. If I logout, then click on that link,
I'm asked to login.

[5-BG]

Joe in Georgia wrote "I doubt pursuits like
Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane handicaps,
conventions, or contest management would be of any interest to them,
and that is our bread and butter."

That MAY BE BREAD AND BUTTER to the contest pilot set, but it is of absolutly no interest to a significant number of recreational pilots who soar just to be flying and who have no interest whatsoever in contests,badges etc. A great deal of SSA resources are spent each month on a glossy magazine which is devoted in large part ( altho I do acknowledge the recent attempts to broaden its scope) to contests and to the "elite " of the sport. I wonder just how many of the 16,000 members actually care about the contest circuit.

It is my opinion that the focus on contests as a measure of whether or not someone is having fun has not only lef to a split in the ranks of the SSA, but has also had a very bad impact on the business of building gliders suitable for the general flying population. I saw this same thing 30 years ago in ocean sailboat racing. The concept of daysailing, cruising and just having a good time was replaced by an emphasis on competition. From the individual yatch club level to the world cup. Boats got much faster AND way more expensive. They became more fragile and were outdated after a couple of seasons.
I believe that the glorification of competition is OK and that it satisfies the ego needs of a significant portion of the pilots who own sailplanes. HOWEVER to say that it is the bread and butter of the SSA is just plain wrong.

we wonder why kids are not coming into a sport that takes a $100,000 hot rod to be competitive. The attitude that if you don't have the latest glass ship that dominated the nationals last month you are somhow a lesser pilot is fostered by this bread and butter attitude. What ever happened to just jumping in a sailplane and losing oneself in the sky for several hours of solitude? Whatever happened to the concept of just trying to improve or develop skills just for personal satisfaction? These concepts are the bread and butter of soaring.
Not only have the finances of SSA been mismanaged, but i believe that the society has become irrevelant to a significant portion of its recreational for fun pilots.
5bg


> wrote in message ups.com...
Well,
We have to consider really what SSA does for us- everyone mentions
the big stuff like plane insurance and lobbying, and the clout of AOPA
or EAA would be good there. I just think that these organizations
already have their own inertia to deal with. I doubt pursuits like
Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane handicaps,
conventions, or contest management would be of any interest to them,
and that is our bread and butter.
I have been thru some corporate mergers and the sum is rarely as
effective as the parts were beforehand. Technically, it seems marrying
these groups would create something better- unfortunately, we are
dealing with folks that can't even get our books straight. Could we
trust them to keep SSA's identity and unique needs seperate and
healthy? I doubt it.
We already have an organization that does this other stuff fairly
well. We need to change the organization to make it more accountable
and less incestuous. Smaller can be better, it just has to be done
right. There is enough in SSA to save, and we don't have to do it all
tomorrow.

Just curious- How long have our dues been 55 clams? Might be time for
Mo' Money anyway. For some reason we expect to get out of a money jam
without raising taxes. Sometimes ya gotta do it.

Joe in Georgia USA
CN Open Cirrus #105


wrote:
> If SSA were to merge with a larger organization, EAA would be better
> suited than AOPA. The EAA already has a number of Divisions &
> Affiliates under its umbrella, including:
>
> International Aerobatic Club
> http://www.iac.org/
>
> Vintage Aircraft Association
> http://www.vintageaircraft.org/
>
> War Birds of America
> http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/
>
> National Association of Flight Instructors
> http://www.nafinet.org/
>
> EAA Ultralights
> http://www.eaa.org/ultralights/index.html
>
> Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft Assoc.
> http://www.sportpilot.org/
>
> Young Eagles
> http://www.youngeagles.org/
>
> and there are more....... Each of these groups has its own magazine
> and identity.
>
> EAA promotes and fully supports each and every one of these
> organizations. Makes sense that a soaring division of EAA would fit
> nicely with these other groups.
>
> In my opinion, SSA is just too small to efficiently manage itself
> logistically and financially.
>
> Jon B.
> GA
>
>
>
> Stan - VA wrote:
> > I think it is pretty clear that if the SSA survives this latest bout of
> > mismanagment that our dues will mainly go to debt payment, and not to
> > services for members.
> >
> > Several of us at our club have considered the pros and cons of the AOPA
> > idea. It definitely is worth discussing.
> >
> > The AOPA has some real lobbying power. If the SSA ever had any, it
> > won't now. The amount of $ SSA had, has, or will have to spend on
> > lobbying efforts probably won't even open the door for us with anyone
> > in Washington. AOPA's clout is another matter.
> >
> > I don't know that the AOPA would be interested, but 16,000 pilots would
> > be a healthy addition to their membership, if that is what the SSA
> > membership is. Of course, some SSA are already AOPA members.
> >
> > A couple of pages monthly in the AOPA magizine would probably do
> > soaring a world of good. Most of the potential pilots for our sport
> > are already power pilots.
> >
> > AIG, the insurer who underwrites the policies that come from
> > Costello's, already has a relationship with the AOPA. Probably
> > Costello's has a relationship with the AOPA too. Hopefully, we
> > maintain our insurance in its present form.
> >
> > Let's face the reality of the situation. We may soon have no national
> > soaring umbrella organization. We will need to deal with that in some
> > fashion. Better to think about the alternatives now.
> >
> > Stan Scott - VA
> >
> > Tony Verhulst wrote:
> > > Nyal Williams wrote:
> > > > We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
> > > > believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
> > > > we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
> > > > page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.
> > >
> > > Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
> > > even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association of
> > > Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed) newsletters
> > > (2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
> > > changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
> > > standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
> > > *airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
> > > the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
> > > editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification. I
> > > got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter which
> > > would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite email
> > > exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
> > > were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
> > > resigned in protest.
> > >
> > > Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.
> > >
> > > Tony V. CFIG
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[Bill Daniels]

"5-BG" <5-bghatesspam @ fake.com> wrote in message
...
Joe in Georgia wrote "I doubt pursuits like
Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane handicaps,
conventions, or contest management would be of any interest to them,
and that is our bread and butter."

That MAY BE BREAD AND BUTTER to the contest pilot set, but it is of
absolutly no interest to a significant number of recreational pilots who
soar just to be flying and who have no interest whatsoever in
contests,badges etc. A great deal of SSA resources are spent each month on a
glossy magazine which is devoted in large part ( altho I do acknowledge the
recent attempts to broaden its scope) to contests and to the "elite " of the
sport. I wonder just how many of the 16,000 members actually care about the
contest circuit.

It is my opinion that the focus on contests as a measure of whether or not
someone is having fun has not only lef to a split in the ranks of the SSA,
but has also had a very bad impact on the business of building gliders
suitable for the general flying population. I saw this same thing 30 years
ago in ocean sailboat racing. The concept of daysailing, cruising and just
having a good time was replaced by an emphasis on competition. From the
individual yatch club level to the world cup. Boats got much faster AND way
more expensive. They became more fragile and were outdated after a couple of
seasons.
I believe that the glorification of competition is OK and that it satisfies
the ego needs of a significant portion of the pilots who own sailplanes.
HOWEVER to say that it is the bread and butter of the SSA is just plain
wrong.

we wonder why kids are not coming into a sport that takes a $100,000 hot
rod to be competitive. The attitude that if you don't have the latest
glass ship that dominated the nationals last month you are somhow a lesser
pilot is fostered by this bread and butter attitude. What ever happened to
just jumping in a sailplane and losing oneself in the sky for several hours
of solitude? Whatever happened to the concept of just trying to improve or
develop skills just for personal satisfaction? These concepts are the bread
and butter of soaring.
Not only have the finances of SSA been mismanaged, but i believe that the
society has become irrevelant to a significant portion of its recreational
for fun pilots.
5bg


This is bulls**t - give it a rest. I've heard it since I started flying
gliders in 1960. It seems to come from people who don't care to make an
effort to be good enough pilots to compete and whose egos can't stand
hearing about those who can and do. All good pilots want to get better and
reading about the accomplishments or others is an excellent incentive.

It's like saying that kids who play ball don't care about the World Cup.
Or the readers of Road & Track don't care about auto racing's Grand Prix
Circuits. Most people who fly gliders want to read about competition
whether it be just badges or the new Grand Prix Racing curcuit. This is one
of the things the SSA has always done right.

Bill Daniels

[Markus[_1_]]

How about a survey to find out? If the SSA survives this mess I am sure
there will be plenty of soul searching to try to figure out where we
want to go from here and how it can be done. The key for me would be to
appeal to both sides of the fence (and anybody sitting on it ;-), the
competitive types and the recreational types. I am sure it can be done,
we would just have to find out what activity/information/service would
really make a difference for each group of stakeholders (and I am not
talking group insurance here). Once you have some more detailed
information to work with I am sure that looking at the activities of
other large/very active soaring organisation can provide us with plenty
of ideas of how we could make most (more) members happy(er). You can't
make everybody happy but I am sure more can be done.

Markus

[Jim Vincent]

Interesting results. I deleted the cookie and reentered the site. NIS
asked if I wanted to allow a cookie, so I did. Got in fine. Then I deleted
the cookie and re-entered, this time blocking the cookie. This time it
prompted me for the SSA membership. I then deleted the blocked cookie and
re-entered, this time allowing cookies again. It accepted without asking
for the SSA membership.

The end result is, as long as I allow cookies, it will let me in. AFAIK,
the cookie info regarding SSA membership is only kept within the cookie.
"5Z" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jim Vincent wrote:
>> I accessed the letter directly on the SSA website without the need of a
>> user
>> name or password. Given the ease of access, I don't think there was
>> anything confidential, per se.
>
> You must have had a cookie set. If I logout, then click on that link,
> I'm asked to login.
>

[[email protected]]

Bill Daniels wrote:

"It seems to come from people who don't care to make an
effort to be good enough pilots to compete and whose egos can't stand
hearing about those who can and do. "

You've hit the nail on the head here. I think this is the true source
of all the whining you hear about the two or three pages of Soaring
typically devoted to contest related news.

[5-BG]

BILL:

Why don't YOU and your SUBGROUP "give it a rest??? Your group is very loud and quite full of themselves and it seems to be of great importance to you to have the badges and the published recognition that comes from flying in and perhaps even winning in contests.

You and your group simply do not get it.. not since 1960 from your note.. There are a bunch of people who just fly for the sheer joy of flying. Judging one's progress as a pilot does not have to come from a contest scorecard or from having your name appear in a magazine. There are many who have really "been there and done that" who currently simply strive to maintain proficiency in the face of advancing years. This group includes many with 20,000+++ hours in every type of flying machine imaginable. Pushing the envelope of proficiency is a thing of the past. it is irrelevant. The challenge is to have an enjoyable day in the air and to maintain a proficiency level consistent with the highest standards of safe flying. Sometimes the challenge is to move a bit farther from the field.. or to core a thermal perfectly. or to just grease in a landing . I have a friend in his 80's, with more hours than god who flys by himself 2 or 3 times a week... sometimes for 3 to 4 hours at a time. he gave primary flight instruction in 1940 to navy pilots. Are you really serious when you suggest that he ought to measure his skills against the contest set. He simply does not care.

neither do I . I suspect that there are a whole lot of ex airline pilots and ex military pilots who just love to fly who understand that its how you feel about yourself and how you feel in the air thats important... not how you place in a contest nor how many badges you have on the wall.

To each group i say "good on ya" just don't bother telling me that i am worthless as a pilot because i do not choose to compete, or because i am not interested. To the extent that your group has seized control of the direction of SSA and fostered the mentality you so accurately describe, you are leaving behind a large group of people that you might learn some life lessons from. My ego is fully intact and UNDER CONTROL... HOW ABOUT YOURS???




"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message ...

"5-BG" <5-bghatesspam @ fake.com> wrote in message
...
Joe in Georgia wrote "I doubt pursuits like
Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane handicaps,
conventions, or contest management would be of any interest to them,
and that is our bread and butter."

That MAY BE BREAD AND BUTTER to the contest pilot set, but it is of
absolutly no interest to a significant number of recreational pilots who
soar just to be flying and who have no interest whatsoever in
contests,badges etc. A great deal of SSA resources are spent each month on a
glossy magazine which is devoted in large part ( altho I do acknowledge the
recent attempts to broaden its scope) to contests and to the "elite " of the
sport. I wonder just how many of the 16,000 members actually care about the
contest circuit.

It is my opinion that the focus on contests as a measure of whether or not
someone is having fun has not only lef to a split in the ranks of the SSA,
but has also had a very bad impact on the business of building gliders
suitable for the general flying population. I saw this same thing 30 years
ago in ocean sailboat racing. The concept of daysailing, cruising and just
having a good time was replaced by an emphasis on competition. From the
individual yatch club level to the world cup. Boats got much faster AND way
more expensive. They became more fragile and were outdated after a couple of
seasons.
I believe that the glorification of competition is OK and that it satisfies
the ego needs of a significant portion of the pilots who own sailplanes.
HOWEVER to say that it is the bread and butter of the SSA is just plain
wrong.

we wonder why kids are not coming into a sport that takes a $100,000 hot
rod to be competitive. The attitude that if you don't have the latest
glass ship that dominated the nationals last month you are somhow a lesser
pilot is fostered by this bread and butter attitude. What ever happened to
just jumping in a sailplane and losing oneself in the sky for several hours
of solitude? Whatever happened to the concept of just trying to improve or
develop skills just for personal satisfaction? These concepts are the bread
and butter of soaring.
Not only have the finances of SSA been mismanaged, but i believe that the
society has become irrevelant to a significant portion of its recreational
for fun pilots.
5bg


This is bulls**t - give it a rest. I've heard it since I started flying
gliders in 1960. It seems to come from people who don't care to make an
effort to be good enough pilots to compete and whose egos can't stand
hearing about those who can and do. All good pilots want to get better and
reading about the accomplishments or others is an excellent incentive.

It's like saying that kids who play ball don't care about the World Cup.
Or the readers of Road & Track don't care about auto racing's Grand Prix
Circuits. Most people who fly gliders want to read about competition
whether it be just badges or the new Grand Prix Racing curcuit. This is one
of the things the SSA has always done right.

Bill Daniels

[5-BG]

fadoodle

you wrote "You've hit the nail on the head here. I think this is the true source
of all the whining you hear about the two or three pages of Soaring
typically devoted to contest related news

YOU DON'T GET IT EITHER!!!.. its not about the "2 pages" , which are actually quite a bit more than 2 pages.. but about the ATTITUDE that divides the membership. To the extent that everything is about performance and winning, the sport is leaving behind many, old and WOULD BE pilots. I saw Chuck Yeager on TV the other night flying a glider... with a safety pilot no less.. are you seriously suggesting that his ego is in danger because he was just having fun in the air.. with CHOKE.. a safety pilot along for the ride.. No I would have given a bunch to be that other pilot and to simply have had the privlege of flying just for fun with gen Yeager.
There are many "for fun" pilots who have very expansive "ego walls" filled with decorations and rememberances of past exploits that make a soaring badge or second place finish at the nationals seem almost laughable. These pilots have left behind, long ago, the need for constant ego stroking.
Perhaps the current situation will provide an excuse for the ssa to reevaluate its core values and thrust of its operations.

> wrote in message oups.com...

Bill Daniels wrote:

"It seems to come from people who don't care to make an
effort to be good enough pilots to compete and whose egos can't stand
hearing about those who can and do. "

You've hit the nail on the head here. I think this is the true source
of all the whining you hear about the two or three pages of Soaring
typically devoted to contest related news.

[Bob C]

Sorry Bill. Reading about contest flying is about
as exciting as watching paint dry.

I will admit that the OLC has opened up some avenues
for leaning by example, though.



At 23:06 07 September 2006, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'5-BG' wrote in message
...
>Joe in Georgia wrote 'I doubt pursuits like
>Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane
>handicaps,
>conventions, or contest management would be of any
>interest to them,
>and that is our bread and butter.'
>
> That MAY BE BREAD AND BUTTER to the contest pilot
>set, but it is of
>absolutly no interest to a significant number of recreational
>pilots who
>soar just to be flying and who have no interest whatsoever
>in
>contests,badges etc. A great deal of SSA resources
>are spent each month on a
>glossy magazine which is devoted in large part ( altho
>I do acknowledge the
>recent attempts to broaden its scope) to contests and
>to the 'elite ' of the
>sport. I wonder just how many of the 16,000 members
>actually care about the
>contest circuit.
>
> It is my opinion that the focus on contests as a
>measure of whether or not
>someone is having fun has not only lef to a split in
>the ranks of the SSA,
>but has also had a very bad impact on the business
>of building gliders
>suitable for the general flying population. I saw this
>same thing 30 years
>ago in ocean sailboat racing. The concept of daysailing,
>cruising and just
>having a good time was replaced by an emphasis on competition.
>From the
>individual yatch club level to the world cup. Boats
>got much faster AND way
>more expensive. They became more fragile and were outdated
>after a couple of
>seasons.
>I believe that the glorification of competition is
>OK and that it satisfies
>the ego needs of a significant portion of the pilots
>who own sailplanes.
>HOWEVER to say that it is the bread and butter of the
>SSA is just plain
>wrong.
>
> we wonder why kids are not coming into a sport that
>takes a $100,000 hot
>rod to be competitive. The attitude that if you don't
>have the latest
>glass ship that dominated the nationals last month
>you are somhow a lesser
>pilot is fostered by this bread and butter attitude.
>What ever happened to
>just jumping in a sailplane and losing oneself in the
>sky for several hours
>of solitude? Whatever happened to the concept of just
>trying to improve or
>develop skills just for personal satisfaction? These
>concepts are the bread
>and butter of soaring.
> Not only have the finances of SSA been mismanaged,
>but i believe that the
>society has become irrevelant to a significant portion
>of its recreational
>for fun pilots.
>5bg
>
>
> This is bulls**t - give it a rest. I've heard it
>since I started flying
>gliders in 1960. It seems to come from people who don't
>care to make an
>effort to be good enough pilots to compete and whose
>egos can't stand
>hearing about those who can and do. All good pilots
>want to get better and
>reading about the accomplishments or others is an excellent
>incentive.
>
> It's like saying that kids who play ball don't care
>about the World Cup.
>Or the readers of Road & Track don't care about auto
>racing's Grand Prix
>Circuits. Most people who fly gliders want to read
>about competition
>whether it be just badges or the new Grand Prix Racing
>curcuit. This is one
>of the things the SSA has always done right.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
>

[Bob C]

Oops. ...learning by example...

Leaning by example is usually caused by too many beers
after flying, or when checking a new EGT with an instructor...

At 00:42 08 September 2006, Bob C wrote:
>Sorry Bill. Reading about contest flying is about
>as exciting as watching paint dry.
>
>I will admit that the OLC has opened up some avenues
>for leaning by example, though.
>
>
>
>At 23:06 07 September 2006, Bill Daniels wrote:
>>
>>'5-BG' wrote in message
...
>>Joe in Georgia wrote 'I doubt pursuits like
>>Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane
>>handicaps,
>>conventions, or contest management would be of any
>>interest to them,
>>and that is our bread and butter.'
>>
>> That MAY BE BREAD AND BUTTER to the contest pilot
>>set, but it is of
>>absolutly no interest to a significant number of recreational
>>pilots who
>>soar just to be flying and who have no interest whatsoever
>>in
>>contests,badges etc. A great deal of SSA resources
>>are spent each month on a
>>glossy magazine which is devoted in large part ( altho
>>I do acknowledge the
>>recent attempts to broaden its scope) to contests and
>>to the 'elite ' of the
>>sport. I wonder just how many of the 16,000 members
>>actually care about the
>>contest circuit.
>>
>> It is my opinion that the focus on contests as a
>>measure of whether or not
>>someone is having fun has not only lef to a split in
>>the ranks of the SSA,
>>but has also had a very bad impact on the business
>>of building gliders
>>suitable for the general flying population. I saw this
>>same thing 30 years
>>ago in ocean sailboat racing. The concept of daysailing,
>>cruising and just
>>having a good time was replaced by an emphasis on competition.
>>From the
>>individual yatch club level to the world cup. Boats
>>got much faster AND way
>>more expensive. They became more fragile and were outdated
>>after a couple of
>>seasons.
>>I believe that the glorification of competition is
>>OK and that it satisfies
>>the ego needs of a significant portion of the pilots
>>who own sailplanes.
>>HOWEVER to say that it is the bread and butter of the
>>SSA is just plain
>>wrong.
>>
>> we wonder why kids are not coming into a sport that
>>takes a $100,000 hot
>>rod to be competitive. The attitude that if you don't
>>have the latest
>>glass ship that dominated the nationals last month
>>you are somhow a lesser
>>pilot is fostered by this bread and butter attitude.
>>What ever happened to
>>just jumping in a sailplane and losing oneself in the
>>sky for several hours
>>of solitude? Whatever happened to the concept of just
>>trying to improve or
>>develop skills just for personal satisfaction? These
>>concepts are the bread
>>and butter of soaring.
>> Not only have the finances of SSA been mismanaged,
>>but i believe that the
>>society has become irrevelant to a significant portion
>>of its recreational
>>for fun pilots.
>>5bg
>>
>>
>> This is bulls**t - give it a rest. I've heard it
>>since I started flying
>>gliders in 1960. It seems to come from people who don't
>>care to make an
>>effort to be good enough pilots to compete and whose
>>egos can't stand
>>hearing about those who can and do. All good pilots
>>want to get better and
>>reading about the accomplishments or others is an excellent
>>incentive.
>>
>> It's like saying that kids who play ball don't care
>>about the World Cup.
>>Or the readers of Road & Track don't care about auto
>>racing's Grand Prix
>>Circuits. Most people who fly gliders want to read
>>about competition
>>whether it be just badges or the new Grand Prix Racing
>>curcuit. This is one
>>of the things the SSA has always done right.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[HL Falbaum]

All that is needed is for anyone to take down any 5 issues of Soaring and take notes---How much space is devoted to competition, how much to the adventure of soaring, how much to congratulate first solos, how much to safety, etc etc etc.

The SSA is our National Aero Club --representative to the FAI at this time. It is the repository of Badges and Records data. If you are a "We don't need no steenking badges" type--all well and good, there's still plenty in "Soaring" for you. If you do want a yardstick to measure your improvement, competition is there.

An old saying from the days when MG and Jaguar dominated sports car racing was "Racing improves the breed". This is true for gliders too.. As to price---well, if you adjust the 1970 prices for inflation, todays prices ain't so bad after all. Furthermore the venerable 201B Libelle is still competitive in Sports Class and so is the Ka-6. So there is a "trickle down" that those who fly on more limited budgets can benefit from. Same is true of instruments. Today you can hardly give a S-Nav away. Before they came out, a hotshot pilot would have given his left testicle to get the very first one. It is still a very capable computer.

As to being outdated--that happens less now than in the '70s. The ASW27 and V2 are early 90s designs. Same for the Nimbus 4 and the Discus 2

The techniques of soaring have changed considerably since 1965, mainly due to competitiion. Your "just jumping in the plane and flying a few hours while improving performance" is a direct beneficiary of these changes.

So there are functions the SSA does for us that we need to have done. Not that the SSA is the only way, but if not SSA, then who has the knowlege and experience and interest in doing this? AOPA--not likely. EAA, maybe, but don't count on it

--
Hartley Falbaum
DG800B 15/18m "KF" USA


"5-BG" <5-bghatesspam @ fake.com> wrote in message ...
Joe in Georgia wrote "I doubt pursuits like
Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane handicaps,
conventions, or contest management would be of any interest to them,
and that is our bread and butter."

That MAY BE BREAD AND BUTTER to the contest pilot set, but it is of absolutly no interest to a significant number of recreational pilots who soar just to be flying and who have no interest whatsoever in contests,badges etc. A great deal of SSA resources are spent each month on a glossy magazine which is devoted in large part ( altho I do acknowledge the recent attempts to broaden its scope) to contests and to the "elite " of the sport. I wonder just how many of the 16,000 members actually care about the contest circuit.

It is my opinion that the focus on contests as a measure of whether or not someone is having fun has not only lef to a split in the ranks of the SSA, but has also had a very bad impact on the business of building gliders suitable for the general flying population. I saw this same thing 30 years ago in ocean sailboat racing. The concept of daysailing, cruising and just having a good time was replaced by an emphasis on competition. From the individual yatch club level to the world cup. Boats got much faster AND way more expensive. They became more fragile and were outdated after a couple of seasons.
I believe that the glorification of competition is OK and that it satisfies the ego needs of a significant portion of the pilots who own sailplanes. HOWEVER to say that it is the bread and butter of the SSA is just plain wrong.

we wonder why kids are not coming into a sport that takes a $100,000 hot rod to be competitive. The attitude that if you don't have the latest glass ship that dominated the nationals last month you are somhow a lesser pilot is fostered by this bread and butter attitude. What ever happened to just jumping in a sailplane and losing oneself in the sky for several hours of solitude? Whatever happened to the concept of just trying to improve or develop skills just for personal satisfaction? These concepts are the bread and butter of soaring.
Not only have the finances of SSA been mismanaged, but i believe that the society has become irrevelant to a significant portion of its recreational for fun pilots.
5bg


> wrote in message ups.com...
Well,
We have to consider really what SSA does for us- everyone mentions
the big stuff like plane insurance and lobbying, and the clout of AOPA
or EAA would be good there. I just think that these organizations
already have their own inertia to deal with. I doubt pursuits like
Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane handicaps,
conventions, or contest management would be of any interest to them,
and that is our bread and butter.

[[email protected]]

No, you are the one who don't get it. How does one pilot flying in a
contest, or doing a badge or whatever, prevent another pilot from
getting his kicks twirlybirding around the sky? The ATTITUDE divide
that supposedly interferes with your enjoyment of the sport exists in
YOUR head, not mine or anyone elses. YOU are the one who looks at a
magazine article about Striedeck or Ittner or whoever and imagines that
they and all their friends are looking down upon you.


5-BG wrote:
> fadoodle
>
> you wrote "You've hit the nail on the head here. I think this is the true source
> of all the whining you hear about the two or three pages of Soaring
> typically devoted to contest related news
>
> YOU DON'T GET IT EITHER!!!.. its not about the "2 pages" , which are actually quite a bit more than 2 pages.. but about the ATTITUDE that divides the membership. To the extent that everything is about performance and winning, the sport is leaving behind many, old and WOULD BE pilots. I saw Chuck Yeager on TV the other night flying a glider... with a safety pilot no less.. are you seriously suggesting that his ego is in danger because he was just having fun in the air.. with CHOKE.. a safety pilot along for the ride.. No I would have given a bunch to be that other pilot and to simply have had the privlege of flying just for fun with gen Yeager.
> There are many "for fun" pilots who have very expansive "ego walls" filled with decorations and rememberances of past exploits that make a soaring badge or second place finish at the nationals seem almost laughable. These pilots have left behind, long ago, the need for constant ego stroking.
> Perhaps the current situation will provide an excuse for the ssa to reevaluate its core values and thrust of its operations.
>
> > wrote in message oups.com...
>
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> "It seems to come from people who don't care to make an
> effort to be good enough pilots to compete and whose egos can't stand
> hearing about those who can and do. "
>
> You've hit the nail on the head here. I think this is the true source
> of all the whining you hear about the two or three pages of Soaring
> typically devoted to contest related news.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C6D28A.556AF2F0
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 2909
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>fadoodle</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>you wrote "</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">You've hit
> the nail on the head here.&nbsp; I think this is the true source<BR>of all the
> whining you hear about the two or three pages of Soaring<BR>typically devoted to
> contest related news</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>YOU DON'T GET IT EITHER!!!.. its not about the "2 pages" ,
> which are actually quite a bit more than 2 pages.. but about the ATTITUDE that
> divides the membership. To the extent that everything is about performance and
> winning, the sport is leaving behind many, old and WOULD BE pilots. I saw Chuck
> Yeager on TV the other night flying a glider... with a safety pilot no less..
> are you seriously suggesting that his ego is in danger because he was just
> having fun in the air.. with CHOKE.. a safety pilot along for the ride.. No I
> would have given a bunch to be that other pilot and to simply have had the
> privlege of flying just for fun &nbsp;with gen Yeager. </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp; There are many "for fun" pilots who have very
> expansive "ego walls" filled with decorations and rememberances of past exploits
> that make a&nbsp; soaring badge or second place finish&nbsp; at the&nbsp;
> nationals seem almost laughable.&nbsp; These pilots&nbsp; have left behind, long
> ago, the need for constant ego stroking. </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp;&nbsp; Perhaps&nbsp; the current situation will
> provide an excuse for the ssa to reevaluate its core values and thrust of its
> operations. </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE
> style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV>&lt;<A </A>&gt; wrote
> in message <A
> oups.com</A>...</DIV><BR>Bill
> Daniels wrote:<BR><BR>&nbsp;"It seems to come from people who don't care to
> make an<BR>&nbsp;effort to be good enough pilots to compete and whose egos
> can't stand<BR>&nbsp;hearing about those who can and do. "<BR><BR>You've hit
> the nail on the head here.&nbsp; I think this is the true source<BR>of all the
> whining you hear about the two or three pages of Soaring<BR>typically devoted
> to contest related news.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C6D28A.556AF2F0--

[Mike Schumann]

I would suspect that being under the EAA umbrella could be a BIG benefit.
It would permit the SSA to focus on Soaring, and offload taxes, financial
reporting, membership accounting, insurance, etc. on an existing,
professional, infrastructure. The remaining downsized SSA can focus on what
is really important to the sport, both for competitive and non-competitive
pilots. In addition, we would have the clout of the EAA to help in lobbying
efforts, development of low cost / light weight transponders, etc.....

Mike Schumann

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Well,
> We have to consider really what SSA does for us- everyone mentions
> the big stuff like plane insurance and lobbying, and the clout of AOPA
> or EAA would be good there. I just think that these organizations
> already have their own inertia to deal with. I doubt pursuits like
> Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane handicaps,
> conventions, or contest management would be of any interest to them,
> and that is our bread and butter.
> I have been thru some corporate mergers and the sum is rarely as
> effective as the parts were beforehand. Technically, it seems marrying
> these groups would create something better- unfortunately, we are
> dealing with folks that can't even get our books straight. Could we
> trust them to keep SSA's identity and unique needs seperate and
> healthy? I doubt it.
> We already have an organization that does this other stuff fairly
> well. We need to change the organization to make it more accountable
> and less incestuous. Smaller can be better, it just has to be done
> right. There is enough in SSA to save, and we don't have to do it all
> tomorrow.
>
> Just curious- How long have our dues been 55 clams? Might be time for
> Mo' Money anyway. For some reason we expect to get out of a money jam
> without raising taxes. Sometimes ya gotta do it.
>
> Joe in Georgia USA
> CN Open Cirrus #105
>
>
> wrote:
>> If SSA were to merge with a larger organization, EAA would be better
>> suited than AOPA. The EAA already has a number of Divisions &
>> Affiliates under its umbrella, including:
>>
>> International Aerobatic Club
>> http://www.iac.org/
>>
>> Vintage Aircraft Association
>> http://www.vintageaircraft.org/
>>
>> War Birds of America
>> http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/
>>
>> National Association of Flight Instructors
>> http://www.nafinet.org/
>>
>> EAA Ultralights
>> http://www.eaa.org/ultralights/index.html
>>
>> Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft Assoc.
>> http://www.sportpilot.org/
>>
>> Young Eagles
>> http://www.youngeagles.org/
>>
>> and there are more....... Each of these groups has its own magazine
>> and identity.
>>
>> EAA promotes and fully supports each and every one of these
>> organizations. Makes sense that a soaring division of EAA would fit
>> nicely with these other groups.
>>
>> In my opinion, SSA is just too small to efficiently manage itself
>> logistically and financially.
>>
>> Jon B.
>> GA
>>
>>
>>
>> Stan - VA wrote:
>> > I think it is pretty clear that if the SSA survives this latest bout of
>> > mismanagment that our dues will mainly go to debt payment, and not to
>> > services for members.
>> >
>> > Several of us at our club have considered the pros and cons of the AOPA
>> > idea. It definitely is worth discussing.
>> >
>> > The AOPA has some real lobbying power. If the SSA ever had any, it
>> > won't now. The amount of $ SSA had, has, or will have to spend on
>> > lobbying efforts probably won't even open the door for us with anyone
>> > in Washington. AOPA's clout is another matter.
>> >
>> > I don't know that the AOPA would be interested, but 16,000 pilots would
>> > be a healthy addition to their membership, if that is what the SSA
>> > membership is. Of course, some SSA are already AOPA members.
>> >
>> > A couple of pages monthly in the AOPA magizine would probably do
>> > soaring a world of good. Most of the potential pilots for our sport
>> > are already power pilots.
>> >
>> > AIG, the insurer who underwrites the policies that come from
>> > Costello's, already has a relationship with the AOPA. Probably
>> > Costello's has a relationship with the AOPA too. Hopefully, we
>> > maintain our insurance in its present form.
>> >
>> > Let's face the reality of the situation. We may soon have no national
>> > soaring umbrella organization. We will need to deal with that in some
>> > fashion. Better to think about the alternatives now.
>> >
>> > Stan Scott - VA
>> >
>> > Tony Verhulst wrote:
>> > > Nyal Williams wrote:
>> > > > We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
>> > > > believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
>> > > > we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
>> > > > page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.
>> > >
>> > > Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
>> > > even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association
>> > > of
>> > > Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed)
>> > > newsletters
>> > > (2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
>> > > changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
>> > > standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
>> > > *airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
>> > > the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
>> > > editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification.
>> > > I
>> > > got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter
>> > > which
>> > > would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite
>> > > email
>> > > exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
>> > > were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
>> > > resigned in protest.
>> > >
>> > > Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.
>> > >
>> > > Tony V. CFIG
>> > > http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING
>

[Nyal Williams]

OK, Guys, let's not forget that Soaring contains articles
submitted, presumably, by members. Its slant, if it
has one, is likely caused by the kinds of submissions
it gets. If your area of interest is shortchanged,
write something up and send it in.


At 01:36 08 September 2006, wrote:
>No, you are the one who don't get it. How does one
>pilot flying in a
>contest, or doing a badge or whatever, prevent another
>pilot from
>getting his kicks twirlybirding around the sky? The
>ATTITUDE divide
>that supposedly interferes with your enjoyment of the
>sport exists in
>YOUR head, not mine or anyone elses. YOU are the one
>who looks at a
>magazine article about Striedeck or Ittner or whoever
>and imagines that
>they and all their friends are looking down upon you.
>
>
>5-BG wrote:
>> fadoodle
>>
>> you wrote 'You've hit the nail on the head here.
>>I think this is the true source
>> of all the whining you hear about the two or three
>>pages of Soaring
>> typically devoted to contest related news
>>
>> YOU DON'T GET IT EITHER!!!.. its not about the '2
>>pages' , which are actually quite a bit more than 2
pages.. but about the ATTITUDE that divides the membership.
To the extent that everything is about performance
and winning, the sport is leaving behind many, old
and WOULD BE pilots. I saw Chuck Yeager on TV the other
night flying a glider... with a safety pilot no less..
are you seriously suggesting that his ego is in danger
because he was just having fun in the air.. with CHOKE..
a safety pilot along for the ride.. No I would have
given a bunch to be that other pilot and to simply
have had the privlege of flying just for fun with
gen Yeager.
>> There are many 'for fun' pilots who have very expansive
>>'ego walls' filled with decorations and rememberances
of past exploits that make a soaring badge or second
place finish at the nationals seem almost laughable.
These pilots have left behind, long ago, the need
for constant ego stroking.
>> Perhaps the current situation will provide an
>>excuse for the ssa to reevaluate its core values and
thrust of its operations.
>>
>> wrote in message
>>>glegroups.com...
>>
>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>
>> 'It seems to come from people who don't care to
>>make an
>> effort to be good enough pilots to compete and
>>whose egos can't stand
>> hearing about those who can and do. '
>>
>> You've hit the nail on the head here. I think this
>>is the true source
>> of all the whining you hear about the two or three
>>pages of Soaring
>> typically devoted to contest related news.
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C6D28A.556AF2F0
>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> X-Google-AttachSize: 2909
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> fadoodle
>>
>> you wrote 'You've hit
>> the nail on the head here. I think this is the true
>>sourceof all the
>> whining you hear about the two or three pages of Soaringtypically
>>> devoted to
>> contest related news
>>
>> YOU DON'T GET IT EITHER!!!.. its not about the '2
>>pages' ,
>> which are actually quite a bit more than 2 pages..
>>but about the ATTITUDE that
>> divides the membership. To the extent that everything
>>is about performance and
>> winning, the sport is leaving behind many, old and
>>WOULD BE pilots. I saw Chuck
>> Yeager on TV the other night flying a glider... with
>>a safety pilot no less..
>> are you seriously suggesting that his ego is in danger
>>because he was just
>> having fun in the air.. with CHOKE.. a safety pilot
>>along for the ride.. No I
>> would have given a bunch to be that other pilot and
>>to simply have had the
>> privlege of flying just for fun with gen Yeager.
>>
>> There are many 'for fun' pilots who have very
>> expansive 'ego walls' filled with decorations and
>>rememberances of past exploits
>> that make a soaring badge or second place finish
>> at the
>> nationals seem almost laughable. These pilots have
>>left behind, long
>> ago, the need for constant ego stroking.
>> Perhaps the current situation will
>> provide an excuse for the ssa to reevaluate its core
>>values and thrust of its
>> operations.
>>
>> style='PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT:
>>5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT:
0px'>
>> > wrote
>> in message

>>oups.com...Bill
>> Daniels wrote: 'It seems to come from people who
>>don't care to
>> make an effort to be good enough pilots to compete
>>and whose egos
>> can't stand hearing about those who can and do.
>>'You've hit
>> the nail on the head here. I think this is the
>>true sourceof all the
>> whining you hear about the two or three pages of
>>Soaringtypically devoted
>> to contest related news.
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C6D28A.556AF2F0--
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

Let's not forget that Soaring contains only articles
submitted by members. If you feel your interests are
not represented why not write something. Those interested
in contest flying are at least interested enough to
write about them. (I am not a contest pilot; too expensive.)


At 01:36 08 September 2006, wrote:
>No, you are the one who don't get it. How does one
>pilot flying in a
>contest, or doing a badge or whatever, prevent another
>pilot from
>getting his kicks twirlybirding around the sky? The
>ATTITUDE divide
>that supposedly interferes with your enjoyment of the
>sport exists in
>YOUR head, not mine or anyone elses. YOU are the one
>who looks at a
>magazine article about Striedeck or Ittner or whoever
>and imagines that
>they and all their friends are looking down upon you.
>
>
>5-BG wrote:
>> fadoodle
>>
>> you wrote 'You've hit the nail on the head here.
>>I think this is the true source
>> of all the whining you hear about the two or three
>>pages of Soaring
>> typically devoted to contest related news
>>
>> YOU DON'T GET IT EITHER!!!.. its not about the '2
>>pages' , which are actually quite a bit more than 2
pages.. but about the ATTITUDE that divides the membership.
To the extent that everything is about performance
and winning, the sport is leaving behind many, old
and WOULD BE pilots. I saw Chuck Yeager on TV the other
night flying a glider... with a safety pilot no less..
are you seriously suggesting that his ego is in danger
because he was just having fun in the air.. with CHOKE..
a safety pilot along for the ride.. No I would have
given a bunch to be that other pilot and to simply
have had the privlege of flying just for fun with
gen Yeager.
>> There are many 'for fun' pilots who have very expansive
>>'ego walls' filled with decorations and rememberances
of past exploits that make a soaring badge or second
place finish at the nationals seem almost laughable.
These pilots have left behind, long ago, the need
for constant ego stroking.
>> Perhaps the current situation will provide an
>>excuse for the ssa to reevaluate its core values and
thrust of its operations.
>>
>> wrote in message
>>>glegroups.com...
>>
>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>
>> 'It seems to come from people who don't care to
>>make an
>> effort to be good enough pilots to compete and
>>whose egos can't stand
>> hearing about those who can and do. '
>>
>> You've hit the nail on the head here. I think this
>>is the true source
>> of all the whining you hear about the two or three
>>pages of Soaring
>> typically devoted to contest related news.
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C6D28A.556AF2F0
>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> X-Google-AttachSize: 2909
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> fadoodle
>>
>> you wrote 'You've hit
>> the nail on the head here. I think this is the true
>>sourceof all the
>> whining you hear about the two or three pages of Soaringtypically
>>> devoted to
>> contest related news
>>
>> YOU DON'T GET IT EITHER!!!.. its not about the '2
>>pages' ,
>> which are actually quite a bit more than 2 pages..
>>but about the ATTITUDE that
>> divides the membership. To the extent that everything
>>is about performance and
>> winning, the sport is leaving behind many, old and
>>WOULD BE pilots. I saw Chuck
>> Yeager on TV the other night flying a glider... with
>>a safety pilot no less..
>> are you seriously suggesting that his ego is in danger
>>because he was just
>> having fun in the air.. with CHOKE.. a safety pilot
>>along for the ride.. No I
>> would have given a bunch to be that other pilot and
>>to simply have had the
>> privlege of flying just for fun with gen Yeager.
>>
>> There are many 'for fun' pilots who have very
>> expansive 'ego walls' filled with decorations and
>>rememberances of past exploits
>> that make a soaring badge or second place finish
>> at the
>> nationals seem almost laughable. These pilots have
>>left behind, long
>> ago, the need for constant ego stroking.
>> Perhaps the current situation will
>> provide an excuse for the ssa to reevaluate its core
>>values and thrust of its
>> operations.
>>
>> style='PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT:
>>5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT:
0px'>
>> > wrote
>> in message

>>oups.com...Bill
>> Daniels wrote: 'It seems to come from people who
>>don't care to
>> make an effort to be good enough pilots to compete
>>and whose egos
>> can't stand hearing about those who can and do.
>>'You've hit
>> the nail on the head here. I think this is the
>>true sourceof all the
>> whining you hear about the two or three pages of
>>Soaringtypically devoted
>> to contest related news.
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01C6D28A.556AF2F0--
>
>

[[email protected]]

Interestingly,
I find myself firmly in your camp only in that I am a recreational
pilot- I own a 1971 Open Cirrus with a really horrible handicap. I do
some sports class racing but really only as an opportunity to learn
more about XC, which it has been instrumental at.
It is fine you have no interest in what for now I call the bread
and butter- badges, contests, etc- but why berate those with an
interest in it? Soaring Magazine, while modest, is our only venue to
read about what is possible in our sport. Honestly, could you read a
magazine devoted to 3 hour local flights? The badges and records, while
obviously a measure against your peers, are also really a baseline for
you to set your own goals. Mine is an out and return 500k. That is how
I want to do my diamond distance. In fact, I was delighted to read
about some of my local peers adventure in Marfa several months ago. A
recreational trip, one I happened to do with them the following year.
(Go to Marfa, it rocks)
But really, you only demean my point which was really to say that
SSA does stuff for us that AOPA and EAA can't. Can you at least admit
that those B & B items are important functions for a large part of our
membership? And if not for that bread and butter, what exactly does the
SSA do for you and if nothing, why are you a member?
Lighten up. The reason we don't have modest performance new gliders
at a medium price is because building a plane is expensive, no matter
what, so not much is being built at all. There is lots of decent glass
out there to be had at a reasonable price, but it is old glass. It is
the glass that was once at the leading edge- We all benefit from the
quick advances in technology and the need by many to stay current.
Keep an eye on what our peers are doing at the leading edge of
our sport- it is inspirational and keeps people motivated. It is great
that people are competing at the top levels of our sport. And guess
what, to compete in anything at the top levels is expensive. Try to get
into road racing, or Formula one? If you think about it, that is really
what our national competitions are about- racing best against the best,
and you are are exactly right it is expensive. Being the best usually
is- in money, time, etc. Some have it, some don't. Oh well. I have my
Cirrus.
Likely in no other sport can recreational pilots get as close to
the "elite" as in our soaring community. Some of the US team are local
to our area, and they have been nothing but an inspiration. If there
is a divide, it is fabricated, and intolerance like yours is part of
the problem. I more often see it from the bitter bottom looking up,
than the top looking down.

Joe in Georgia
Open Cirrus #105


5-BG wrote:
> Joe in Georgia wrote "I doubt pursuits like
> Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane handicaps,
> conventions, or contest management would be of any interest to them,
> and that is our bread and butter."
>
> That MAY BE BREAD AND BUTTER to the contest pilot set, but it is of absolutly no interest to a significant number of recreational pilots who soar just to be flying and who have no interest whatsoever in contests,badges etc. A great deal of SSA resources are spent each month on a glossy magazine which is devoted in large part ( altho I do acknowledge the recent attempts to broaden its scope) to contests and to the "elite " of the sport. I wonder just how many of the 16,000 members actually care about the contest circuit.
>
> It is my opinion that the focus on contests as a measure of whether or not someone is having fun has not only lef to a split in the ranks of the SSA, but has also had a very bad impact on the business of building gliders suitable for the general flying population. I saw this same thing 30 years ago in ocean sailboat racing. The concept of daysailing, cruising and just having a good time was replaced by an emphasis on competition. From the individual yatch club level to the world cup. Boats got much faster AND way more expensive. They became more fragile and were outdated after a couple of seasons.
> I believe that the glorification of competition is OK and that it satisfies the ego needs of a significant portion of the pilots who own sailplanes. HOWEVER to say that it is the bread and butter of the SSA is just plain wrong.
>
> we wonder why kids are not coming into a sport that takes a $100,000 hot rod to be competitive. The attitude that if you don't have the latest glass ship that dominated the nationals last month you are somhow a lesser pilot is fostered by this bread and butter attitude. What ever happened to just jumping in a sailplane and losing oneself in the sky for several hours of solitude? Whatever happened to the concept of just trying to improve or develop skills just for personal satisfaction? These concepts are the bread and butter of soaring.
> Not only have the finances of SSA been mismanaged, but i believe that the society has become irrevelant to a significant portion of its recreational for fun pilots.
> 5bg
>
>
> > wrote in message ups.com...
> Well,
> We have to consider really what SSA does for us- everyone mentions
> the big stuff like plane insurance and lobbying, and the clout of AOPA
> or EAA would be good there. I just think that these organizations
> already have their own inertia to deal with. I doubt pursuits like
> Badge / Record Claims, Sporting code changes, sailplane handicaps,
> conventions, or contest management would be of any interest to them,
> and that is our bread and butter.
> I have been thru some corporate mergers and the sum is rarely as
> effective as the parts were beforehand. Technically, it seems marrying
> these groups would create something better- unfortunately, we are
> dealing with folks that can't even get our books straight. Could we
> trust them to keep SSA's identity and unique needs seperate and
> healthy? I doubt it.
> We already have an organization that does this other stuff fairly
> well. We need to change the organization to make it more accountable
> and less incestuous. Smaller can be better, it just has to be done
> right. There is enough in SSA to save, and we don't have to do it all
> tomorrow.
>
> Just curious- How long have our dues been 55 clams? Might be time for
> Mo' Money anyway. For some reason we expect to get out of a money jam
> without raising taxes. Sometimes ya gotta do it.
>
> Joe in Georgia USA
> CN Open Cirrus #105

[alice]

Brian Glick wrote:
> Anyone that would be stupid enough to post this message on rec.aviation
> should be blackballed and thrown out of SSA as an abuser of his membership
> privilidges. Mr. Zawodny, you sir, are a jerk!
>
>
Takes one to know one Brian.Do you not think that a potential SSA
member on rec soaring has the right to know what would happen with his
dues $$$$.This is the beauty of the internet.The only thing Mr. Z did
was post it first.If anything your anger should be directed at the SSA
management.
Al