Why is Soaring declining

Any model business does what Burt is doing ... it is called customer focused
marketing. I am not surprised that his business is growing. The first rule
in customer focused marketing is look after the customers that you already
have.

The problem is that most FBO's don't run good businesses (in fact very few
businesses in general follow these basic principles). FBO's are in the
business they love because they want to play with airplanes ... this does
not make them good business men.


"Burt Compton" wrote in message
...
What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
it is
because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet & greet",
good
training, good equipment.

We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting
pilot
is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.

Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

not part of the main stream in America. We have had a number of big and
small screen series using scuba diving, skiing, motorcycling, sky
diving, etc. backdrops ... and some of these also get frequent sport
coverage ... it's rare to see soaring included as even a minor theme in
any media.

What we need is an IMAX feature on gliding on the big screen in 3D. They do
all sorts of other adventure stuff ... why not gliding. Someone should give
them a call and tell them that we have a deal for them .....

Soaring is a sport with too much baggage.
It won't grow in America without some cultural
shift in the way we view ourselves. On whole
Americans are too selfish for the sport to work here.

If you want to do it "American Style",
you usually need a glider of your own, somewhere to
tow from with a tow plane and at least one other skilled person
(towpilot) available on your schedule. You will probably need
a crewman (wife usually) to sit on the ground reading a book
while you do your thing. The flying comes first in most cases.

If you go soaring "European style" it is usually at a club venue
off winches with a larger body of participants. The reasons
European clubs are more successful center around the social
aspects of their cultures and the fact the flying is important, but
there is a more communal spirit to soaring. It is a bit less about flying
and a bit more about belonging to a community.

I'm off my soapbox....

Scott in Texas.

I don't this soaring is declining because we're not training in expensive
high performance gliders..IMHO, it's quite the contrary....
Soaring has declined as of late....but didn't we increase the roles of
membership when our training a fleet ships were comprised mostly of 2-22's,
2-33's, K7's K13's and L-13's??.....It's been as of late while everyone has
been trying to spend big $ and buy more expensive club gliders, and
consequently saddling clubs and members with higher costs and debts that
clubs and membership has show it's worst decline....New students don't know
that flying a K7 or L13 isn't fun and challenging....so why do we have to
tell them that these trainers are obsolete and no longer teach the basics of
soaring, stick and rudder?
I think a vast majority of our newer members and students are really missing
something by not knowing the fun and joy of soaring in some of these great
old ships, (and even some newer less expensive and non-competition types)
have to offer. They are missing the history and heritage of soaring from our
beginnings......let them experience this, let them move into high $ gliders
"if" that is the path they choose. We still have a very large contingent of
soaring pilots in the world that have no interest in competitions, or
spending their children's college tuitions on their weekend toys but
happily, most for many years have been showing up at the airports and
enjoying the sport for what they want to get out of it...If you want to
expand soaring, make it affordable, keep it fun, ask yourself and your
members to dedicate some time to teach, and ask them for less money to take
part and I think you'll see far greater results
just my 2 cents, but it's worked for myself and my clubs for over 25 years
tim

"Raphael Warshaw" wrote in message
...
Mark;

I'm not aware of any FBO doing ab initio training in a Duo Discus although
someone, Dean Carswell I think, said something in a review of the DG-1000
to the effect that there was no reason not to train a new student in that
aircraft other than the concern over sending him solo in a very expensive
glider. I don't think there's any question but what its easier to get in
trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.

While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or
move up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to
codify precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I
learned to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of
training would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase
in more places than to decrease, BTW.

Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training I'm
not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.

The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more training
hours) than local flying in gentler places.

Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over
the country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at
least five different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do
things at these locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor
who ultimately soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked
out, obviously, but luck probably played more of a part than it should
have.

The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at
many sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered
some rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the
feeling that I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them
would favor their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more
"predatory".

Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing
spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good instructor
should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end of that
aspiration.

Ray Warshaw
Claremont, CA
1LK










"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41d311db$1@darkstar...
In article ,
Burt Compton wrote:
What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
it is
because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet &
greet", good
training, good equipment.

Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
noticed
is inconsistency.

Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be doing
all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.

I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
license for over $10,000. His best
and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.

I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
what was going on sooner.

I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
his students just need it...

There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
unethical business practices.

Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
bait-and-switch,
and a bit of car salesmanship.

Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.

I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff
of
at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
tows and aircraft rental.

I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
require more training, or need more instruction in the more
tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.

But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.

I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me
It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
I usually figure I can't afford it :P

If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
business, and the business of my students, through referrals.


We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting
pilot
is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.

Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
professional group with a code of ethics.

That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
you think they "should" want.

We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
and
be a source of pride to this industry.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

At 15:30 30 December 2004, Plasticguy wrote:
Soaring is a sport with too much baggage.
It won't grow in America without some cultural
shift in the way we view ourselves. On whole
Americans are too selfish for the sport to work here.

If you want to do it 'American Style',
you usually need a glider of your own, somewhere to
tow from with a tow plane and at least one other skilled
person
(towpilot) available on your schedule. You will probably
need
a crewman (wife usually) to sit on the ground reading
a book
while you do your thing. The flying comes first in
most cases.

If you go soaring 'European style' it is usually at
a club venue
off winches with a larger body of participants. The
reasons
European clubs are more successful center around the
social
aspects of their cultures and the fact the flying is
important, but
there is a more communal spirit to soaring. It is
a bit less about flying
and a bit more about belonging to a community.

I'm off my soapbox....

Scott in Texas.

A proper test of this theory would be to examine clubs
that have lots of social activities and available cheap
gliders for members to fly (even X-C) and compare with
clubs that are more in the nature of syndicates to
provide tow planes for private owners and with just
a modicum of instruction and rental for local flying
only and little in the way of social activities. (This
would still be a dirty analysis because it doesn't
separate the second-class flying status and the social
activity in the two groups)

Well I for one agree with Tim's comments, with the perceived expectation
that
we are a very expensive sport using Formula One (or Nascar etc etc) type
of expensive equipment.

Here in the UK I have similar discussions with people who do not know our
sport, and they are all surprised that my hobby is actually cheaper that
many
others, including golf and even tennis or even a season ticket to a
Premiership
football club.

Having just managed my 5 hours this week in a 30 year old K6 I also agree
with
the comments on K7's and K13's. At out club we have these on site and they
are
very affordable and more importantly cheap and easy to keep in the air.
People
can move on in reasonable cost stages. Rather like my K6 which cost me the
equivalent of 7 days pay to join the syndicate and a further 12 days pay to
keep
in the air.

Flying K21's and the like is very nice but way beyond the means of most
people.
All you do is increase their expectations, which are then dashed by the cost
of
new plastic ships. Out of the 100 or so clubs over here I wonder how many
are truly solvent businesses, putting the cost of a new ship on the books
must hurt
immensely.

The comment about advertising is also extremely relevant. Apart from a
couple of times
I can't remember seeing anything on the TV here. Maybe we need to all get
together
and pool our resources for a good advertising campaign? Oh I forgot, we do
hear if
there's an incident of course!

Malcolm...


"Tim Mara" wrote in message
...
I don't this soaring is declining because we're not training in expensive
high performance gliders..IMHO, it's quite the contrary....
Soaring has declined as of late....but didn't we increase the roles of
membership when our training a fleet ships were comprised mostly of
2-22's, 2-33's, K7's K13's and L-13's??.....It's been as of late while
everyone has been trying to spend big $ and buy more expensive club
gliders, and consequently saddling clubs and members with higher costs and
debts that clubs and membership has show it's worst decline....New
students don't know that flying a K7 or L13 isn't fun and
challenging....so why do we have to tell them that these trainers are
obsolete and no longer teach the basics of soaring, stick and rudder?
I think a vast majority of our newer members and students are really
missing something by not knowing the fun and joy of soaring in some of
these great old ships, (and even some newer less expensive and
non-competition types) have to offer. They are missing the history and
heritage of soaring from our beginnings......let them experience this, let
them move into high $ gliders "if" that is the path they choose. We still
have a very large contingent of soaring pilots in the world that have no
interest in competitions, or spending their children's college tuitions on
their weekend toys but happily, most for many years have been showing up
at the airports and enjoying the sport for what they want to get out of
it...If you want to expand soaring, make it affordable, keep it fun, ask
yourself and your members to dedicate some time to teach, and ask them for
less money to take part and I think you'll see far greater results
just my 2 cents, but it's worked for myself and my clubs for over 25 years
tim

"Raphael Warshaw" wrote in message
...
Mark;

I'm not aware of any FBO doing ab initio training in a Duo Discus
although someone, Dean Carswell I think, said something in a review of
the DG-1000 to the effect that there was no reason not to train a new
student in that aircraft other than the concern over sending him solo in
a very expensive glider. I don't think there's any question but what its
easier to get in trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.

While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or
move up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to
codify precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I
learned to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of
training would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase
in more places than to decrease, BTW.

Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training
I'm not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.

The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more
training hours) than local flying in gentler places.

Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over
the country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at
least five different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do
things at these locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor
who ultimately soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked
out, obviously, but luck probably played more of a part than it should
have.

The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at
many sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered
some rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the
feeling that I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them
would favor their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more
"predatory".

Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of
landing spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good
instructor should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end
of that aspiration.

Ray Warshaw
Claremont, CA
1LK










"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41d311db$1@darkstar...
In article ,
Burt Compton wrote:
What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
it is
because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet &
greet", good
training, good equipment.

Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
noticed
is inconsistency.

Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be
doing
all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.

I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
license for over $10,000. His best
and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.

I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
what was going on sooner.

I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
his students just need it...

There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
unethical business practices.

Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
bait-and-switch,
and a bit of car salesmanship.

Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.

I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff
of
at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
tows and aircraft rental.

I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
require more training, or need more instruction in the more
tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.

But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.

I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me
It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
I usually figure I can't afford it :P

If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
business, and the business of my students, through referrals.


We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each
customer/student/visiting pilot
is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.

Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
professional group with a code of ethics.

That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
you think they "should" want.

We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
and
be a source of pride to this industry.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Our club has operated on the cheap for over twenty years. Next month we
decide whether or not we are extinct.

Tim Mara wrote:
I don't this soaring is declining because we're not training in expensive
high performance gliders..IMHO, it's quite the contrary....
Soaring has declined as of late....but didn't we increase the roles of
membership when our training a fleet ships were comprised mostly of 2-22's,
2-33's, K7's K13's and L-13's??.....It's been as of late while everyone has
been trying to spend big $ and buy more expensive club gliders, and
consequently saddling clubs and members with higher costs and debts that
clubs and membership has show it's worst decline....New students don't know
that flying a K7 or L13 isn't fun and challenging....so why do we have to
tell them that these trainers are obsolete and no longer teach the basics of
soaring, stick and rudder?
I think a vast majority of our newer members and students are really missing
something by not knowing the fun and joy of soaring in some of these great
old ships, (and even some newer less expensive and non-competition types)
have to offer. They are missing the history and heritage of soaring from our
beginnings......let them experience this, let them move into high $ gliders
"if" that is the path they choose. We still have a very large contingent of
soaring pilots in the world that have no interest in competitions, or
spending their children's college tuitions on their weekend toys but
happily, most for many years have been showing up at the airports and
enjoying the sport for what they want to get out of it...If you want to
expand soaring, make it affordable, keep it fun, ask yourself and your
members to dedicate some time to teach, and ask them for less money to take
part and I think you'll see far greater results
just my 2 cents, but it's worked for myself and my clubs for over 25 years
tim

"Raphael Warshaw" wrote in message
...

Mark;

I'm not aware of any FBO doing ab initio training in a Duo Discus although
someone, Dean Carswell I think, said something in a review of the DG-1000
to the effect that there was no reason not to train a new student in that
aircraft other than the concern over sending him solo in a very expensive
glider. I don't think there's any question but what its easier to get in
trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.

While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or
move up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to
codify precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I
learned to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of
training would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase
in more places than to decrease, BTW.

Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training I'm
not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.

The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more training
hours) than local flying in gentler places.

Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over
the country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at
least five different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do
things at these locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor
who ultimately soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked
out, obviously, but luck probably played more of a part than it should
have.

The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at
many sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered
some rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the
feeling that I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them
would favor their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more
"predatory".

Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing
spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good instructor
should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end of that
aspiration.

Ray Warshaw
Claremont, CA
1LK










"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41d311db$1@darkstar...

In article ,
Burt Compton wrote:

What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
it is
because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet &
greet", good
training, good equipment.

Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
noticed
is inconsistency.

Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be doing
all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.

I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
license for over $10,000. His best
and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.

I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
what was going on sooner.

I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
his students just need it...

There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
unethical business practices.

Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
bait-and-switch,
and a bit of car salesmanship.

Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.

I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff
of
at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
tows and aircraft rental.

I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
require more training, or need more instruction in the more
tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.

But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.

I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me
It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
I usually figure I can't afford it :P

If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
business, and the business of my students, through referrals.


We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting
pilot
is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.

Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
professional group with a code of ethics.

That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
you think they "should" want.

We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
and
be a source of pride to this industry.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd






--
Charles Yeates

Swidnik PW-6U & PW-5
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html

I look at soaring's lack of groth from a purely economic
point of view. When I got into the sport (1970) one
could buy a competitive sailplane for about the cost
of a 4-door family car ($10,000) Now days a competitive
sailplane costs almost 5 times as much as the family
car. Little wonder we can't attract new blood.
JJ

"John Sinclair" wrote in message
...
I look at soaring's lack of groth from a purely economic
point of view. When I got into the sport (1970) one
could buy a competitive sailplane for about the cost
of a 4-door family car ($10,000) Now days a competitive
sailplane costs almost 5 times as much as the family
car. Little wonder we can't attract new blood.
JJ

Hi JUJU,
In 1970 I was provided a company car, a Ford station wagon with all
the bells on it for about $4200.00. At that time the Dollar was near par.
Regards
Udo


"John Sinclair" wrote in message
...
I look at soaring's lack of groth from a purely economic
point of view. When I got into the sport (1970) one
could buy a competitive sailplane for about the cost
of a 4-door family car ($10,000) Now days a competitive
sailplane costs almost 5 times as much as the family
car. Little wonder we can't attract new blood.
JJ