Why is Soaring declining

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Ben Flewett wrote:

Lennie,

Given that you have quit gliding, why don't you quit
'contributing' to this site? I don't understand why
you persist in partaking of discussions on a subject
you are no longer interested in.


We don't have to understand it to realize his comments have value to us.
Most people that are disappointed with soaring just leave and we never
learn why. Some of the responses to Lennie's comments certainly
illustrate what he is talking about, and I'm beginning to think it's
more of a problem than I realized. It's not soaring's only problem,
probably not even it's worst problem, but it seems such a shame that it
is a problem at all.

It is a sad fact that the more people involved the higher the likelyhood of
meeting someone completely incompatible with you. Note I did not say or imply
any derogatory label.

So we have a problem in that soaring clubs tend to have very similar people
involved, in the nature of the sport most are individualists, many are above
average income and inevitably many are competitive.

Result is that many clubs tend to develop a "mine's bigger than yours" attitude,
or other strange social habits. the only advice I can give is that you should
remember that tribalism is still very evident in most human activities,
including soaring. Be careful what tribe you join.

Personally I have found two clubs where the friendship and shared learning is
great. Both clubs concentrate on fun flying rather than competition, and a good
family experience as far a possible. We seem to manage a number of soaring
families where husband and wife and eventually kids fly. It is not impossible,
just takes some work and allowing for differences. That said there are still
people in each club who do not get on, we just dont let them get out of hand. If
people can't remember curtesy and respect they get shown the door. I know of at
least one who is convinced we are all jerks. C'est la vie - apparently he fits
right in at a neighbouring town's club. That is good because he is still
soaring, and now enjoying the company.

ADP wrote:
Eric,
Lennie's posts may have some value to you but please don't put us all in the
same category.

I'm not aware of putting you in any category, but at least tell me what
category you think I put you in: the "same one as Lennie", or in the
category of "people who think Lennie's posts may have some value"? Or
something else?

I have successfully excluded him from my allowed list and I wish that anyone
replying to Lennie not quote
his post in your reply.

You are suggesting we not quote Lennie when we reply to him? I hope
that's not what you are asking, because I always quote the person I'm
replying for the usual reasons.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

(Liam Finley) wrote in message . com...

Soaring may indeed have many problems, but it's inability to satisfy a
mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopath is not one of them. Unless
you think the future of the sport lies in attracting large numbers of
mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopaths, in which case Lennie's
rambling thoughts are pure gold.

Thank you very much for your insightful, but as always, useless
comments, liam. You make it so much easier for me to continue to place
you with the class of simians that spawned your worthless ass. Most
krauts aren't very smart, and I think they kicked you to southern
queerville for being more stupid than most.
(The second son of a [typically] drunken german forgets nothing and
forgives less. Remember that, kraut.)

The category to which I was referring was (the one or two people who may
think that Lennie's posts have some value.)

And yes, I was suggesting that you do not quote Lennie because to read you I
will have to read him and that I will not do.

In addition, now that we are discussing posts, please put your response at
the front (on top) of your reply and that way
we won't have to read the previous post unless we want to. This is standard
newsgroup etiquette.

Allan

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
ADP wrote:
Eric,
Lennie's posts may have some value to you but please don't put us all in
the same category.

I'm not aware of putting you in any category, but at least tell me what
category you think I put you in: the "same one as Lennie", or in the
category of "people who think Lennie's posts may have some value"? Or
something else?

I have successfully excluded him from my allowed list and I wish that
anyone replying to Lennie not quote
his post in your reply.

You are suggesting we not quote Lennie when we reply to him? I hope that's
not what you are asking, because I always quote the person I'm replying
for the usual reasons.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Please don't misconstrue these remarks to mean I have anything against
attracting mildly retarded pilots into soaring. Quite to the
contrary, without them who would buy all the second hand PW-5's and
Russia's? No, it's just the one's who are also sociopaths that I
think we could do without.


(Liam Finley) wrote in message . com...
Soaring may indeed have many problems, but it's inability to satisfy a
mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopath is not one of them. Unless
you think the future of the sport lies in attracting large numbers of
mildly retarded lathe-obsessed sociopaths, in which case Lennie's
rambling thoughts are pure gold.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:40:04 +0100, Mike Lindsay
wrote:

In article , ADP
writes
I find it interesting that almost no one has mentioned what I believe to be
the real problem with soaring.
It is a pain in the butt to go soaring.
Here in the US where most soaring is done at commercial sites vs. clubs,
commercial operations make it almost impossible
for a newcomer to say "I want to take a lesson and learn how to soar". Or,
for that matter, a oldcomer to rent a glider for a time.

Commercial operations in the US are good-old-boy networks. They may be run
by nice folks but good businessmen they are not.
Reserve a glider for 10:00 and arrive at 09:30.

At that time you will find:

1. The glider is out of annual and nobody called.
2. The glider needs to be deiced and won't be ready for 3 hours.
3. The glider crashed just yesterday and nobody called.
4. The tow plane is down.
5. The tow plane pilot is late/won't be here today.
6. The tow plane needs to be refueled so can you wait an hour or two?
7. We have to use the glider for a ride, you don't mind do you?
8. Oh were you on the schedule for today?
9. Sorry you can't go right away .... (fill in your reason here.)

We retired folk can put up with it, though we may not like it. The younger
person with job, family and other obligations runs on a tight
schedule. Get put off once or twice when you still have to take the kids to
a soccer game ar mow the lawn on one of your two days
off and you are not likely to go back.

Frankly, despite the good social environment, waiting for 3 hours to fly for
1 just isn't worth my time.

You don't say where you live, Allan, but I can tell you from personal
experience that there's at least one commercial gliding operation that
isn't like that at all.

It is the only place I have flown gliders in the USA, so it may be that
all the others are as yo describe, but it seems unlikely.

The place I went to was the absolute tops in every way, the people were
friendly, helpful, and delivered the service their brochure promised.
If I didn't live 8000 miles away I'd be there every week end.

So, you may ask, where is this paradise? Soar Minden, of course.

I'd add Williams Soaring to that list as well.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:14:20 -0700, "ADP"
wrote:

The category to which I was referring was (the one or two people who may
think that Lennie's posts have some value.)

And yes, I was suggesting that you do not quote Lennie because to read you I
will have to read him and that I will not do.

In addition, now that we are discussing posts, please put your response at
the front (on top) of your reply and that way
we won't have to read the previous post unless we want to. This is standard
newsgroup etiquette.

I think that's bad advice. Top posting gets flamed in all the other
NGs I read.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal recently
regarding the problems with golf. Roughly 10% of golfers quit each
year. The reasons include:

1. The game is too difficult.
2. The game is too expensive.
3. The game takes too long.

It seems that many new courses are designed to impress the pros, to
the total frustration of the duffers. The rules committee is totally
concerned with maintaining the "integrity" of the game and has no
regard to the average player (sound familiar?).

Solutions offered to reverse the trend include different rules for
pros to speed up the game, better training for instructors ("club
pros"), and lower greens fees.

In retrospect, I don't know if I would put with, today, what I had to
endure 25 years ago to get my license. Training could be sped up thru
the use of computer flight simulators. I tried one out at the
Convention that was very realistic (you really need a set of rudder
peddles). I think it would help out if used in conjunction with
instructor feedback.

Costs could be significantly reduced if we used winches more for
training. You will need between 50 and 100 launches to get a license.
This costs $1,500-3,000 for aerotow costs alone. Winching would drop
this to $250-500. If you reduce this cost then you will attract more
students, which will reduce the fixed costs (depreciation, insurance,
maintenance, advertising, etc.). Also, it is imperative that the
training location be reasonably close to major population centers.
Clubs need to have a $25 intro flight.

I think that if you reduced the total cost of the license to $1,000
you would be turning students away!


Tom Seim
Richland, WA

ADP wrote:

The category to which I was referring was (the one or two people who may
think that Lennie's posts have some value.)

And yes, I was suggesting that you do not quote Lennie because to read you I
will have to read him and that I will not do.

Perhaps your newsreader filter can be set to "mark as read" messages
with "Lennie the Lurker" in the body. That will let you avoid any
messages that quote him.


In addition, now that we are discussing posts, please put your response at
the front (on top) of your reply and that way
we won't have to read the previous post unless we want to. This is standard
newsgroup etiquette.

I don't think this newsgroup has a stated policy, but the other two I
frequent do, and it is bottom posting. One group is absolutely adamant
about it, so I tend to stick with that convention. The reason given is
it is easier to follow a thread, though if you follow this group every
day, it's not as valuable as it is for groups with more postings, or
ones you follow infrequently. I do try to trim the post to the most
relevant portions, so it's not so much scrolling. That "adamant" group I
mentioned doesn't like that, either, so I don't do it there.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

While growth in soaring is a world wide problem, what follows is a USA
centric viewpoint. First, believe growth can be accomplished. There is
so much negative talk about growing the sport, so many splintered
ideas that it seems like making a real difference in the trend can
only be done by magic. Its also safe to say what we are doing now is
not making a big long term difference in the members trend line.

Any marketing person worth their salt can come up with 50-100 easy,
affordable and effective ways to grow soaring. The biggest obstacle to
growing the sport is that there is no one with the background needed
responsible on a day-to-day basis for this activity in the USA - with
a budget to get things done. Volunteers can't do the job, it has to be
a paid activity as it requires much more focus and longevity than what
can be expected out of a volunteer effort. No budget means no real
action.

Growth in soaring happens at the local FBO and Club level. A simple
pull strategy is what is needed. With pull marketing the objective is
to pull "customers" into the established retail selling points. The
sport already has a great "product", and established "retailers" in
the form of clubs and commercial operators, but no focused long-term
strategy to pull the right customers into these retail centers.

Step one is to form a triad between the clubs, commercial operators
and the promotion team around the idea that Promotion will be
developing opportunities to pull customers into their retail
locations. It is critical to separate the thrill a minute ride
customer that you never see again from the "want to learn to soar"
customer. Its also critical that once the customers show at the
retailer they get a warm reception. Develop several "entry" points
that are inviting to potential members. For example, a First Flight
Certificate printable off the SSA Web Site redeemable at any
participating club or FBO. A targeted direct mail campaign to target
demo and psychographics within x miles of participating retailers, a
1-800 number that can answer customer questions and direct them to
their nearest retailer, a First Flight Kit that can be sent to
prospects, cooperative marketing with other aviation organizations
like AOPA and EAA, an First Flight invitation letter to every retiring
airline pilot, First Flight coupons in magazines and Sporty's, a First
Flight video with 800 number and web address shown before targeted
movies, promotion of the sport in film, print and web featuring First
Flight information... you get the idea. Develop and refine a pull
program, work it for a couple of years and see what happens. A final
note, while many think youth is the future of our sport I think that
35-55 year olds with time, money and interest are the future of our
sport.

How to pay for this strategy is a good topic for RAS.

John Seaborn


"f.blair" wrote in message news:IYSec.28503$_K3.73177@attbi_s53...
This was copied from rec.outdoors.fishing.bass. It sounds like the very
same things that we talk about when we discuss the decline of our sport. I
am not saying it has answers, but it is interesting.
Fred


************************************************** **************************
***************************
Great read Bob.
Fishing license sales are declining which indicates a real decline in
fishing interest, i.e. less numbers of people are fishing. I suspect that
things are worse since our population is growing, the proportion of people
fishing is declining more rapidly than indicated by license sales decline.
Why is this so? A variety of possible reasons come to mind when combined,
could explain the decline..

1. Fishable water is being privatized - bought up, posted, acquired by
governmental agencies, restricted by land use rulings, dams being removed,
access fenced off, etc.
2. Competing demands for time - Soccer, GameBoy, offroading, skateboarding,
partying, RVing, home projects and a multitude of other in and outdoor
activities divert participation today from family and individual fishing.
3. Decline of the nuclear family - as divorce and separation disrupts
parent/child relationships, fishing is less of a priority on weekends or
other custody times.
4. Availability of more disposal income - Food needs drove fishing more in
the past than today.
5. Immigration - Illegal aliens cannot get fishing licenses and legal
immigrants probably have far less interest in fishing than other population
demographics..
6. Adversarial animal rightists - Are influencing the weak, timid and
non-iinterested into a non-fishing mentality.
7 Adversarial vegaterians - Translate their anti meat-pholosophy into a
non-fishing mentality.
8. Passing fad - The Yuppie infatuation with fly-fishng in the 1980's has
past us by.
9. No new rivers - God is not making any new rivers and environmentalists
and politicians are fighting adding dams and impoundments which limits new
water bodies with their rapid growth and abundance of fish in their early
years.
10.Waterbody management - Is NOT being managed to increase the number of
people fishng, but to reduce, constrict, limit and to conserve existing or
lower levels of people. Budget level maintenance is their primary goal.
Little funding exists for meaningful additional researh to stop decline in
fishing.
11. Fly in fishing is up - Since the demand for trophy and quality fishing
exceeds the supply of domestic US fishing, more people are not fishing
locally but flying out to exotic places around the world.
12. On water competition - Water skiers, kyakers, personal flotation
devicers, canoeists, hikers and many other types of on-the-water or
near-the-water people are degrading the solitiude many fishermen cherish and
running them off the water.

Bob, I'm sure there are other things which MAY contribute to the decline,
but these are suggestions for starters. You listed a number of things we
can do to slow the decline of fishing. They'll help. But I am convinced
fishing will continue to decline. I just hope there will be some quality
experiences left for my grandsons but I doubt it.

Good luck!
John