Revisiting declining membership

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.

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

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.

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

In the words of my RAF soaring brethren, 'soaring is f***ing magic'. When I
was taught to fly gliders, I was also shown how to soar. You can teach the
basic PTS stuff without the magic, by why? Can you show the student how to
soar? Soaring magic is experienced, not taught, bits and pieces are taught.
The magic happens when those skills and experience come together and the
pilot now builds upon this with each subsequent flight; seeking the soaring
moments and settling for nothing less on each and every flight. At some
point, the student should become the master, only then you have done your
job as well as it can be done. Has this happened with you yet?

Which part of the instruction has the most value?

Frank Whiteley

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41df74ec$1@darkstar...
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

Yes, Mark, we agree all the way. I learned to fly with a local club that
was very much social. Most of my best friends are fellow pilots and we have
all gone to way out of the way fields to retrieve each other. Being such
friends, one of the difficult things can be 'how to tell a friend that the
last landing was a terrible landing'. We all expect to be corrected when we
see something that might be considered unsafe, it is best for all of us to
self police each other.

Fred

"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

At 20:30 31 December 2004,
wrote:
There are several issues with declining membership
issues. I think that
the main one is the cost directly involved. Many say
that soaring is
less expensive then flying power. Well, not really.
Think about
it.Compare price of LS-8 at 65000 Euros to Cessna 172.
You can rent a
Cessna 150 for $50.00/hour wet. How many airports permit
gliders to
operate? Not very many. I am traveling every weekend
125 miles one way
just to get some flying time in a glider. That how
is from my house to
the club hanger. At the same time I can go to local
airport, as a
matter of fact we have 3 of them around, in a few minutes
and rent that
damn Cessna or Piper or whatever else is available.
You have mentioned
EAA. Did you guys noticed that those guys are sticking
together, they
do things together, they support each other, they don't
bash each other
because they fly something different. How many of you
read postings
about the PW-5...we are divided into their lovers and
haters. How about
guys flying motorized sailplanes? They are trying very
hard to convince
everybody that that is the way to go. Then some other
people will
accuse them of not being skilled enough to fly pure
sailplane. Then we
have those who are concerned about the looks and span
and the argument
goes on. Have you seen how occasional passengers that
every so often
come to the glider port for a ride, react to some of
the glider pilots
comments and statements? This is the group of people
that we need to
recruit, that is the group of people we need to concentrate
on in order
to produce new pilots. So what if they are old or young.
The EAA guys
will buy some sort of a kit, such as RV or Lancair
and they enjoy
themselves.
Those guys don't blame everything on EAA just like
we do with SSA. If
there is a problem they attack it.
These are just some of my thoughts but the issue is
much deeper.

Several good points made. I am a member of EAA.

But did you know that there was a strong movement afoot
three or four years ago for members to resign and start
another group. The feeling was that it no longer really
supported builders and had become primarily a place
for warbirds and exotica. The strong criticism centered
on the private corporation aspect and the fact that
the volunteers had to pay to volunteer. They have
to rent their camping space and buy their tickets (reduced
price) and work the show -- and they get only token
responses of appreciation. The membership gets to
vote on a few things, but the donations that go to
support building the aircraft collection actually support
aircraft for the private stockholders to fly. It is
the sweetest deal I ever heard of, with all due respect
to the hardwork they put into it to make it a success.

I think they would gobble us up.

Many thanks for the remarks. Just what I was hoping for, and would
still like to hear from others.

In the meantime I have visited with current EAA members about their
organization, and yes they, like us, have their gremlins within, but
they are very interested in our sport. As always, some asked if we
really like flying a lawn chair with a sheet over it. sigh! Actually,
they asked a lot of great questions. Questions, that we as soaring
individuals would never bother asking each other at our bi-annual
convention, which is pretty much attended by soaring types.

All that I talked with though, spoke highly of the quality of
networking, and the exchange of information that takes place between
all EAA affilliates. Yes there are cases of the Warbirds looking down
their noses at the lawn chair flying guys, but that's normal in any
organization. Look at all of our "glass vs anything less" talk in this
forumn.

With regard to moving our headquarters. Phoenix, Moriarty, Dallas,
Harris Hill, you bet, anywhere there is airline travel close by, and I
don't mean two hours away in Lubbock. Does anyone have visitor
statistics for SSA members visiting SSA in Hobbs, on an annual basis?

Keep in mind that what we're talking about here isn't dismantling the
SSA, but growing it. Every program would still be available, and still
under our guidance.

I'm not a member of the EAA, nor am I a member of any comittee with the
intention of harm. This is strictly on the positive. My family, in
particular, my son, has greatly benefitted from the generosity of many
members of the SSA, and it's programs, and I would like to see this
continue. So when I continue to read and hear about the failing of our
sport, I would like to generate interest in a solution.

Many thanks!

snoop wrote:
Looking through all the posts from earlier this year, regarding the
sliding membership in our US soaring activities, along with all the
other trailing bad news, i.e. SSA building in need of big repairs,
there is no soaring operation in Hobbs, I'm curious about thoughts of
"what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the Vintage,
Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA.

Two big airshow/conventions a year, EAA publishes all magazines, and a
lot of members at those fly-ins and airshows to ask the question "where
can I start". Plus lobbying power, and unlimited networking.
Just curious for thoughts.

I attend Airventure almost every year, and it amazes me the almost total
lack of soaring aircraft there. This is the biggest airshow on the
planet (maybe) and there are only a few gliders and motor gliders
sitting around. It's obviously not a place to go soaring, so I
understand that. But maybe an outlying field somewhere?

I posted this before, but getting approval to rig up a winch tow and
toss up gliders over Wittman before the gas burners are allowed to start
up and make their noise (8:00 AM) and take a circuit over the camping
area would be a HUGE thing. Folks heading off the brush their teeth,
hearing the whisper of an 18 meter glider float by. You could offer free
rides. You'd have a line from here to kingdom come, for sure.

You will never get a more dense pack of future soaring enthusiasts than
at Airventure. Take advantage of it!