wrote:
Several have learned to fly. But they are not members of the SSA. If I
can drive home one point in this discussion, when it comes to growing
an organization, such common sense approaches as have been advocated
aren't particularly valuable. They sound good in theory, but fail to
deliver in practice. My experience is that my friends outside the
sport, while they demonstrate interest, are not the types to commit.
Learning to fly does not equate with SSA membership. And while I'm sure
there are many commercial operators would like to see their money, they
present no particular benefit to the society. I will repeat, I have
introduced more pepole than I can count to the sport. About a half a
dozen took several lessons then quit. I am aware of four that soloed.
Only one stayed with the sport more than a year. And he stopped flying
within 18 months of starting. (I don't count my wife, Laura. She claims
to have learned to love soaring despite me.) Combined, they might
represent a total of 4 years dues paying membership in the society over
the last 27 years (since I started flying).

However, number of glider pilots times a constant does equal SSA
membership. It's fair to say the number of SSA members depends first on
the number of glider pilots. Grow the sport, grow the SSA. The SSA can
try to attract more non-member glider pilots. Maybe fine for the SSA
budget, but it won't mean more tow planes at the field.


The friends I make outside the sport are not much like glider pilots at
all. One of the reasons I like the sport (among others) is that I meet
a diverse crowd, people I might not otherwise be drawn to other than
the fact that we share a peculiar passion. Soaring is such a major part
of my life that everyone new I get close to winds up coming out to
gliderport. But the adoption rate is low, very low. For those I
introduce, and those I've witnessed introducing others. That's why I
think out time could be better spent aiming at a different kind of
target.