If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I would like to see something in the middle of the country.
I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob. But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on the building, so I imagine moving would be a difficult (financial) decision. In article , BGMIFF wrote: I do not believe that very many of us feel well served by having the SSA office in Hobbs, but in Wisconson, among all the political hogwash that goes on there. Give me a break. I have belonged to EAA much longer that SSA, and I would drop EAA in a heartbeat, but never SSA. The feeling of getting a true direct vote for SSA directors, and to have some influence if one so desires is great. Take a good look at EAA structures, if you do not live close to Oshkosh, or have a famous name........you are a NOBODY and very likely to stay that way!!! so if you want to move Hobbs, then why not think of a real and viable soaring site. Harris Hill comes to mind very quickly!!!!!! -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd wrote:
I would like to see something in the middle of the country. I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob. But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on the building, so I imagine moving would be a difficult (financial) decision. I believe the terms are $0.00/month rent and we own the building after 20 years. It sounded good at the time we had to make the decision (I was on the SSA board at the time), and it still sounds good. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
After 20 years, we can sell the building and move to a better location.
We either are very close to 20 years, or already there. Eric Greenwell wrote: Mark James Boyd wrote: I would like to see something in the middle of the country. I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob. But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on the building, so I imagine moving would be a difficult (financial) decision. I believe the terms are $0.00/month rent and we own the building after 20 years. It sounded good at the time we had to make the decision (I was on the SSA board at the time), and it still sounds good. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd wrote:
As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services.... Not me - I resigned in protest. A few years ago, the FAA revised the airplane PTS (Practical Test Standards) and NAFI, in their newslettter said that that the PTS's had changed. Via a series of emails, I pointed out that ONLY the airplane standards had changed and that the others were unaffected. Their subsequent electronic newsletters still refused to acknowledge that reality. Through more email exchanges, it became evident that not only do airplanes and airplane instructors rule within NAFI, but that if you ain't one, you don't exist. As a glider only instructor, I saw no point in staying and voiced my opinion the only way possible - with my feet. Tony V. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
One bit of EAA history that I do know is that when Poberenzy wanted to
expand out of the Hales Corner building, he only wanted to build a bigger version of the Hales Corner corrugated hangar. The board pushed to look further into the future and thus the beautiful museum that is in Oshkosh exists. Our library at the SSA headquarters consists of a couple walls of book shelves, with boxes full of books sitting on the floor. Imagine our offices, let's say in a suburb of Denver, or Dallas, or in Mr. Greenwells location. Can you see all those soaring people visiting day in and day out, volunteering their talent and time. Imagine guys like Dick Johnson, in Dallas being able to visit and help out with history projects whenever he wanted to. See where this is going. Imagine Charlie, and Charlie lite getting on a non-stop flight straight into DFW, or DEN, or ABQ, or wherever, and in twenty minutes being at headquarters. More thoughts? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think we need anything that make soaring 'less professional' nor
should we make it 'less difficult to meet the standards', we have our own safety problems in soaring and it will not be solved by lessening the standards. Fred Blair "Mark James Boyd" wrote in message news:41df1d2c$1@darkstar... As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but I'm a member there for completely different reasons. NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard. I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make soaring seem less professional, and less difficult to meet the standards. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I agree. We absolutely should not make soaring less professional.
We are in agreement there. I'd like to see soaring "seem" less professional. I'd like to see it "seem" more like a social club. I'd like to see soaring "seem" like an average, everyday, amateur hobby. I'd like for it to "seem" less intimidating and expensive. There are some who will disagree. They want all of the instructors to be as professional as possible. Have them wear suits and ties. Mandate friday evening refresher tests, and have every student fly with every instructor at the FBO. And train every student on every source of soaring lift and not sign them off for a practical test until they have done at least 2 landouts, gotten all three diamonds, and mastered the 2 feet within landing spot and 2 degrees of heading. I'm not a fan of these kinds of establishments. I don't think they represent value. I think they "seem" professional, but I am not excited by appearances. I had a club where I was a member change from a social club and an atmosphere of sharing and informality to a seemingly professional organization. Uniforms, extensive vetting of instructors, rate increases, weekly meetings, and very professional syllabi with numerous intermediate checks. The membership eventually dwindled. Part-time instructors, some who had taught for a decade, left. The couches were no longer weighed heavy with throngs of eager, bright-eyed students with a sense of empowerment. I too eventually left. I also agree with you on the second point. I don't think we should lessen the standards. Not just because we can't (it is in fact the job of the FAA to set standards for solo through CFIG). Also because they are fine standards, well thought out, and have provided an acceptable level of safety for years. But I would love to make it less difficult to meet the standards. Instead of an active examinerilot ratio of 1:160 for gliders, I'd like to see something closer to the 1:30 ratio for airplanes, or even the 1:100 ratio for helicopters. I think this would make it less difficult to meet the standards (in this case for a license). I'd like to see CFIGs become aware of Sport Pilot and the ease with which airplane pilots can transition to light sport gliders. I'd like to see them use the exact same standard (not a lesser standard). And I'd like to see these transitioning pilots avoid the difficulty, time, scheduling complexity, and weather uncertainty that often accompanies a formal practical test. Having 60 times as many authorized people to sign off this privilege I think will make it less difficult to meet the standards (in this case to carry passengers in a LSA glider). So I'm glad that we agree, but I sensed something in the reply that made me think my post might be misinterpreted. I hope this clarifies what I meant. I think gliding is fun. I think learning to glide safely is something an average person with modest means can do handily given the right location, instructors, gliders, and attitude. I want to see entry into our sport seem inviting, casual, social, community based, and positive. I strongly believe that the average person learning soaring would seek to do everything in the test standards, and seek opinions and instruction, even if NONE of it were required. I believe that the mandating of requirements has done little to improve safety compared to having the same applicants all forced to burn $5000 and be beaten regularly with a cane. Any washout process whatsoever will have an associated reduction in accidents, which can be duplicated by simply reducing the number of gliders as well... If it becomes less difficult to learn gliding, then yes, there will be more pilots, and some will be less dedicated and less committed and less obsessed with soaring than the average pilot currently doing it. I personally don't think this is a problem, and I don't think it will reduce safety significantly. It may increase safety, if the community is grown to the point that dialogue among glider pilots is improved. I have had the opportunity to interact with the Ultralight community recently. Interesting bunch. One might think that a relative lack of regulation and standards would greatly increase the fatalities. Interestingly, this has less impact than one might think. The vast majority of UL pilots recieved non-mandated instruction before they ever soloed. They have followed lesson outlines for instruction voluntarily. A lot of them, recognising that many fatalities are caused not by the inadequacy of the pilot but by the delicacy of the aircraft, have installed BRS parachute systems in their (well, in the 2-seat ones anyway) aircraft. They set their own minimums, and it seems to actually work ok for them. A vast majority do just fine without any enforced standards, thank you very much. The one standard I find compelling is that before taking passengers, one should do a bunch of solo. Darwin will do in 10 seconds what no instructor or FAA rulebook can ever do. The instructor comes in because someone has to convince the towpilot to tow the guy... In article t, f.blair wrote: I don't think we need anything that make soaring 'less professional' nor should we make it 'less difficult to meet the standards', we have our own safety problems in soaring and it will not be solved by lessening the standards. Fred Blair "Mark James Boyd" wrote in message news:41df1d2c$1@darkstar... As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but I'm a member there for completely different reasons. NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard. I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make soaring seem less professional, and less difficult to meet the standards. -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Aha. I'm more like "General Electric" during an election year.
I give money and support to both parties, but I give more to the one I like better... In article , Tony Verhulst wrote: Mark James Boyd wrote: As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services.... Not me - I resigned in protest. A few years ago, the FAA revised the airplane PTS (Practical Test Standards) and NAFI, in their newslettter said that that the PTS's had changed. Via a series of emails, I pointed out that ONLY the airplane standards had changed and that the others were unaffected. Their subsequent electronic newsletters still refused to acknowledge that reality. Through more email exchanges, it became evident that not only do airplanes and airplane instructors rule within NAFI, but that if you ain't one, you don't exist. As a glider only instructor, I saw no point in staying and voiced my opinion the only way possible - with my feet. Tony V. -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message news:41df1d2c$1@darkstar... As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but I'm a member there for completely different reasons. NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard. I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make soaring seem less professional, and less difficult to meet the standards. Consistent instructor patter and standards might help. The single, biggest, repeated complaint I hear is of the inconsistency among instructors. My experience was quite different (BGA). Really didn't matter much which instructor was in the back, they were instructing from the national syllabus. A quick look of the student logbook would have them teaching the appropriate skill and the patter was very consistent. The jokes varied however. I'm a huge fan of including hang gliding articles in Soaring magazine. And maybe an ultralight or two. I absolutely love the cross-polenization. I'm personally recruiting some UL guys over to gliding for cross-training. HG and PG are quite acceptable. UL pilots are mostly lone wolves. Few show up at EAA events either as they've got a long tradition of shying away from the FAA with their 'fat' ULs. Their fly-ins are UL only and they have great fun with paintball guns, pumpkin drops, and eating. I love these guys. They are fun, adventurous, and maybe a little crazy. And they are aging, and looking for some sports which are a little less "out there." So soaring is looking pretty attractive to some of them. That may be. I was a member of a local UL association for five recent years. I've been around soaring about 30 years. There was no mixing of the two. The number of local UL pilots known to me that have been killed or seriously injured has been at least twice the number in 1/6 the time. The number of close calls is also very high. Bent gear is part of the activity. FWIW, Boy Scouts allows GA and soaring, but not balloons or ULs. I think soaring will appeal to folks in other airsports best, and have focussed my efforts on those who are already in some other airsport. Nothing wrong with true primary training, mind you, but it is for me much harder to market to "interested novices" compared to those who are already some form of pilot. About 1 in 5 is approachable. Many are fixated on that windmill. Few still have tow pilot potential. Many can't take the discipline of operating in a club or commercial soaring environment. What's worse perhaps is that many operations reject the time builders who are really good sticks and can be supervised, but maybe just don't have the soaring bug. And the "interested novices" that I see in this sport are here through referral. Not ads or websites exclusively (although these help). The seekers are the ones. Don't let them get away. Everyone's an ab-initio at some point. The majority of our most recent new members have come from GA. Most don't bring enough of the right stuff to become tow pilots in the near term however. So I'd love to see HG and Soaring merge. I think this would be much better than EAA or AOPA or whatever. I don't think soaring needs more formality, I think it needs the opposite, a less stuffy image... SSA rebuffed the HG community 30 years ago. On their own, they created the USHGA, fought their own battes and have quite a history. USHGA has trouble encompassing the PG community and the purists want nothing to do with the PPG guys, since they can't sustain soaring flight without the prop. They also don't want the PPG's anywhere near their hard won launch sites. Doable, yes, but invite all the soarers. Once again, USSA, United States Soaring Association has a nice ring to it. Frank Whiteley In article . com, Terry wrote: snoop wrote: "what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the Vintage, Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA. Just curious for thoughts.======================================== ============== The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)-a division of the EAA with approximately the same number of members as the SSA-could serve as an example. NAFI publishes its own magazine, has its own web page, sells its own merchandise, sends out email blasts to its members on a monthly basis, and generally promotes professional flight instruction though achievement awards such as the Master Instructor program. This is accomplished with a small staff located within the infrastructure of the EAA in Wisconsin. Sound familiar? -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly, I have to admit I've never been to the SSA office in Hobbs, though I
did once pop into the office when it was a Santa Monica Airpot. But it wouldn't really make any difference to me if it was in Frederickburg, MD or Biloxi, MS if they meet my needs. Hobbs at least is a soaring location. The BGA office is in Leicester, a non-soaring location and I never visited there in the ten years I spent in the UK. But they, like the SSA, were available when needed. Frank Whiteley "Greg Arnold" wrote in message news:GDGDd.43531$8e5.40014@fed1read07... After 20 years, we can sell the building and move to a better location. We either are very close to 20 years, or already there. Eric Greenwell wrote: Mark James Boyd wrote: I would like to see something in the middle of the country. I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob. But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on the building, so I imagine moving would be a difficult (financial) decision. I believe the terms are $0.00/month rent and we own the building after 20 years. It sounded good at the time we had to make the decision (I was on the SSA board at the time), and it still sounds good. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why is Soaring declining | f.blair | Soaring | 266 | February 7th 09 12:58 PM |
Revisiting lapse rates (From: How high is that cloud?) | Icebound | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 26th 04 09:41 PM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Opinions on ICAS membership? | Wright1902Glider | Aerobatics | 0 | January 3rd 04 03:31 PM |
Club Membership: Getting for what one's wished | Andrew Gideon | Owning | 11 | October 18th 03 04:18 AM |