How do we inspire pilots to truly take up cross country soaring ?

Simple economies of scale. Less pilots, less soaring sites, more regulation, less of a lobby effort before the FAA, fewer companies to supply insurance, repair services, higher insurance costs, fewer tow planes, fewer manufacturers of sailplanes ...in short less of everything we need to go soaring. Yes, we DO need more pilots. Both younger pilots and women as pilots will help grow our sport. I was out of soaring for 13-14 years and was shocked at how much it has contracted in that time. Within a four hour drive the 6 soaring sites are now 3. On a weekend instead of twenty private pilots there are only a hand full. Pilots need camaraderie to stay interested. It is fun to share the time both on the ground and in the air with friends. Not sure how you arrived at your conclusion that soaring does not need to grow much, but you could not be more wrong. There is a maxim "Strength in numbers".



On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:47:46 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I don't think soaring needs to grow much. We don't need, and don't have the capacity for lots of pilots. What we need are a handful of obsessed pilots. Obsessed soaring pilots make the wheel go round. Said this before the big recruitment hurdle is cultural, men no longer command their recreational time. Pool to chose from is never married chaps with no girlfriend or kids or old guys with grown kids.

If every glider club in the US got 50 new members, few thousand total new pilots I guess. Clubs wouldn't scale to private airports with cafe's and a fleet of Duos. They'd be crushed, who is going to put in all the 2-33 backseat time to fix the world? Besides 50 new weekend punters are useful $ wise but can be more of a operational drag then boon. You really need a few that are obsessed. Preferably obsessed and having money and time, although an abundance of one can some what make up for a lack of the other.

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 8:59:07 AM UTC-6, wrote:
If every glider club in the US got 50 new members, few thousand total new pilots I guess.

100 clubs x 50 = 5,000.

Clubs wouldn't scale to private airports with cafe's and a fleet of Duos.

Probably not - need new club management.

who is going to put in all the 2-33 backseat time to fix the world?

Very few in 2-33's but in DUO's you'd find many more willing instructors.

At 18:59 06 September 2015, wrote:
At the age of 17 I did a weeks course at North Weald in a KA7 on a reverse
auto-tow. Launches to 600ft or so, quick circuit and landing. I didn't see
the point!

At the age of 38 I did a weeks course at Booker in a K21 and got to fly XC
in the Duo with an expert. I was hooked.

IMO it is important to demonstrate to potential new members that gliding is
a sport, not transport. Learning to fly is challenging, flying XC is life
changing.

Jim

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 5:59:07 PM UTC+3, wrote:
If every glider club in the US got 50 new members, few thousand total new pilots I guess. Clubs wouldn't scale to private airports with cafe's and a fleet of Duos. They'd be crushed, who is going to put in all the 2-33 backseat time to fix the world? Besides 50 new weekend punters are useful $ wise but can be more of a operational drag then boon. You really need a few that are obsessed. Preferably obsessed and having money and time, although an abundance of one can some what make up for a lack of the other.

It a horde descended overnight then I guess clubs could get crushed, but how likely is that? If it's over 5 - 10 years then no problem.

If numbers are increasing then why on earth would you train in 2-33's? Hell, I don't know why you do it NOW -- most of the rest of the world has been training in glass for several decades. My club switched from Blaniks to Grobs in 1995 (and we were on the trailing edge in NZ I'd say), and then to DG1000s a dozen years later.

Is anyone doing basic training in Duos? The DG1000 is just fine (especially with the 18m tips). The Duo would be no problem in the air, but unsprung undercarriage doesn't seem like a good idea for student landings.

On Monday, 7 September 2015 07:19:10 UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
Is anyone doing basic training in Duos? The DG1000 is just fine (especially with the 18m tips). The Duo would be no problem in the air, but unsprung undercarriage doesn't seem like a good idea for student landings.

Bruce, how many flights does it take to get to solo using the DG1000 ?

At my club, we have a youth camp of 3 weeks duration where we train using 2-33's. We solo our kids usually around 24-28 flights. The 2-33 is a tough ship and can handle the abuse, a great workhorse.

Change the PTS! How successful would light airplanes be if pilots were never required to train x/c in them? A newly minted private pilot has four choices at my club. Fly Schwizers locally, spend 20k+ on a glass ship you don't know how to fly, quit, teach others how to do take offs and landings in a 2-33. That last option is the real root of the problem. The core of our nation's clubs and greatest influence on those new to soaring never learned to actually soar! Until x/c is a requirement only people with time, money, and the ability to self teach will be able to it. (Old retired guys)...

If numbers are increasing then why on earth would you train in 2-33's? Hell, I don't know why you do it NOW -- most of the rest of the world has been training in glass for several decades.

In a lot of the world, including clubs in NZ, numbers are static or declining. This means that the fixed costs per head are increasing; a big lump of that is insurance and maintenance. Clubs with older non-glass gliders (i.e. Puchatek, ASK13, Ka7, 2-33) have much lower insurance costs and the gliders are (relatively) cheap to repair. This keeps the smaller clubs in the black - THAT's why clubs keep training in older gliders.

The difficulty with this is that, at some point, the student will need to progress into something with "longer legs" or they'll just get bored. Most students don't mind doing the hard yards of basic training IF they can see a series of stepping stones to going cross-country.

Often the thing that forces clubs to move to glass (or fold) isn't the L/D of their trainers, it's the increasing rarity of people who are qualified to inspect and repair wood, metal and fabric. Oh, and the limited lifetime of glue.

DH

Change the PTS! How successful would light airplanes be if pilots were
never required to train x/c in them? A newly minted private pilot has four
choices at my club. Fly Schweizers locally, spend 20k+ on a glass ship you
don't know how to fly, quit, teach others how to do take offs and landings
in a 2-33. That last option is the real root of the problem. The core of
our nation's clubs and greatest influence on those new to soaring never
learned to actually soar! Until x/c is a requirement only people with time,
money, and the ability to self teach will be able to it. (Old retired
guys)...

And the argument has previously been made that increasing the barriers to
obtaining a license (cost, time, etc.) has its own discouraging effects.
Consider your own paradox: "Until x/c is a requirement only people with time,
money, and the ability to self teach will be able to it."

I doubt the perpetual chicken-or-egg conundrum as it applies to soaring will
(or can) ever be satisfactorily laid to rest. That said, learning to soar and
learning how to fly XC are different - if complementary - skills. Knowing how
to soar is a prerequisite to flying XC; not true the other way around...

Somehow, despite doing all my primary training and obtaining my private pilot
(glider-only) license in a club having only a 2-33 and a 1-26 and but one
instructor (not mine) with any XC experience, the "XC seed" was planted and
took root in my mind even before I'd taken my first lesson. How? My officemate
was an XC glider pilot, and from breeze-shooting with him as well as
accompanying him to do glass repairs on the gear doors/belly of the Libelle of
the one instructor with XC experience - land-out-induced damage (really!) - as
well (perhaps) as my innately realizing flagpole sitting as an idea seemed
boring merely as an idea, "it was obvious" to me that my PP(Glider)
certificate was but a license to learn without always having an instructor in
the back. Point being that it was the *idea* of XC that was the crucial part
of the picture for me. And the idea cost me nothing but some enjoyable
breeeze-shooting and hanging out time.

I actually obtained my license before ever soaring (i.e. climbing) on my own,
and only once experienced my instructor climbing in a thermal, so I suppose my
second point is that *neither* soaring nor XC need be crucial elements of
obtaining one's license...while the *ideas* of both, most certainly *are*
crucial elements to going XC in a glider...and opening one door to a lifetime
of (good!) life-altering experiences. How a person thinks, matters!

Bob W.

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 1:30:50 AM UTC+3, C-FFKQ (42) wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2015 07:19:10 UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
Is anyone doing basic training in Duos? The DG1000 is just fine (especially with the 18m tips). The Duo would be no problem in the air, but unsprung undercarriage doesn't seem like a good idea for student landings.

Bruce, how many flights does it take to get to solo using the DG1000 ?

At my club, we have a youth camp of 3 weeks duration where we train using 2-33's. We solo our kids usually around 24-28 flights. The 2-33 is a tough ship and can handle the abuse, a great workhorse.

We sell a 40 flight "Pre-paid to solo" package (with disclaimer of course), but most younger people (up to 40ish?) do get there by 40 flights.

And then, of course, they're already rated in high performance glass. How many total flights does it take to train in a 2-33 and then convert to modern glass?

24 - 28 is way lower than our average even when we were using Blaniks, so perhaps we have different goals. I soloed on flight 31 (at age 22) and that was below average.

But then our field is not that huge (600m), surrounded by housing, and we do a lot of soaring flights when the opportunity arises during training including flying on gusty windy ridge/wave days when we don't expect a student (even a post-solo one) to be able to handle the tow or landing. We pretty much expect people to be able to do a 30+ minute flight as soon as they are solo, not just a quick circuit.

The number of flights to solo did increase a bit when we moved to Twin Astir (original retract ~38:1 model), though not as much as we expected, possibly because the average flight time got a lot longer. I don't think we observed any measurable difference going from Grobs to DG1000.

We put people in the PW5 after five or so solo flights in the DG1000.