Revisiting declining membership

"snoop" wrote in message
ups.com...
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?

Soaring history is really archived at NSM and starting at the SWSM. The SSA
staff probably doesn't need hangar talk from a bunch of well meaning, but
likely annoying drop-ins. If you have volunteered and coordinated to work
on a specific project, by all means, do it, but if you want to put energy
into growing soaring, try your own backyard first. Growing soaring happens
at the grass roots level. I joined my first club (I already had an interest
and had taken a soaring flight) when I noticed their black on hot pink 8.5 x
11 poster on the bulletin board of the local USAF post office. It simply
stated "We reckon if you can drive a car, you can fly a glider" and had a
graphic on an SHK (serial nr 1, of which I later owned a share) and the club
name and contact details. I was there mid-week after I got a car only to
find they flew normally at the weekends. But I was back 9am on the
Saturday.

I see no pressing need to move the SSA to a higher cost of living area when
the budget is so tight. Turning it around financially will take some time.
Please login to the member area and review the ex-Com and board minutes and
review the eNewsLetter or copies of the Dennis' Missile.

Frank Whiteley

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

When the SSA moved to Hobbs in the 80's, Hobbs was the center of the U.S.
soaring universe. A world championship had just been held there, and it was
where every glider pilot dreamed of flying out of for pleasure of competition.
At that point, the buildings remoteness did not seem so far fetched.
Now, I fear that Hobbs is a dying sight. The recent implosion of the NSF, as
well as having a well run, but truly disappointing (Weather wise) Standard
class nationals will not be forgotten in the near future. There are simply too
many large egos down there competing with each other to make it a viable
solution for holding contests in the near future.
On the other hand, the city is FULLY supportive of the soaring movement. Can
anyone else recall being at a glider contest where each contest got at least a
full front page article in the sports section of the local paper, and the
contest results broadcast on radio and TV every day, right along with baseball
and basketball scores?
My point is this; without Hobbs as a sight for large contests and get
together, having our headquarters down there is pretty much useless and
inconvenient for everyone. I believe that the soaring sight, and the SSA
headquarters are joined at the hip. Either someone needs to step in and
revitalize Hobbs as a soaring sight, or I fear that both that beautiful
airport, as well as our national headquarters are doomed to fail.
-Mitch

In this the era of the telecommuter...when information
can be readily transmitted without being present...we
would want the office somewhere expensive so that the
employees can commute on crowded highways?

A friend recently queried me of where a good place
to move near a major population center for soaring
might be...although these exist, many or only a couple
of pranged towplanes away from not being present.

I think this topic can wither on the vine...Hobbs may
not be perfect, but it makes sense in a lot of ways.



At 09:30 08 January 2005, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
'snoop' wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

Soaring history is really archived at NSM and starting
at the SWSM. The SSA
staff probably doesn't need hangar talk from a bunch
of well meaning, but
likely annoying drop-ins. If you have volunteered
and coordinated to work
on a specific project, by all means, do it, but if
you want to put energy
into growing soaring, try your own backyard first.
Growing soaring happens
at the grass roots level. I joined my first club (I
already had an interest
and had taken a soaring flight) when I noticed their
black on hot pink 8.5 x
11 poster on the bulletin board of the local USAF post
office. It simply
stated 'We reckon if you can drive a car, you can fly
a glider' and had a
graphic on an SHK (serial nr 1, of which I later owned
a share) and the club
name and contact details. I was there mid-week after
I got a car only to
find they flew normally at the weekends. But I was
back 9am on the
Saturday.

I see no pressing need to move the SSA to a higher
cost of living area when
the budget is so tight. Turning it around financially
will take some time.
Please login to the member area and review the ex-Com
and board minutes and
review the eNewsLetter or copies of the Dennis' Missile.

Frank Whiteley

snoop wrote:


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?

I can imagine the Charlie's doing that, but I can't imagine why they
would want to spend all that money, spend hours at airports fighting the
security lines, the baggage lines, the rental car lines, and the traffic
between the airport and wherever the headquarters ended up, which would
most likely be much further away the 20 minutes (do you know where the
Denver airport is now?).

Have you asked the Charlie's if they mind the headquarters being in
Hobbs? I've not heard either of them ever mention it. In fact, the only
people I hear complain about the location are people with little reason,
other than curiosity, to visit it. For example, the Directors I know
never mention it.

I have visited it several times, and folks, it's just an office. With
telephones, fax machines, email, web sites, post office, Fed Ex, etc,
there is very little need to visit the office.

Instead of spending the money that you would on that trip to Denver,
DFW, etc, where you suggest the office be located, spend it going to an
SSA convention. You'll enjoy it a LOT more, and you will still be able
to talk to several of the office staff, including Dennis Wright, because
they'll be there, too.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Stewart Kissel wrote:
In this the era of the telecommuter...when information
can be readily transmitted without being present...we
would want the office somewhere expensive so that the
employees can commute on crowded highways?

The reason that AOPA is in Frederick, Maryland, is because it's close to
Washington DC. While transmitting data can do much, there's a lot to be
said for "pressing the flesh" when the occasion requires it. Access to
legislators is a lot easier from Frederick than from Hobbs.

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

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

"Tony Verhulst" wrote in message
...
Stewart Kissel wrote:
In this the era of the telecommuter...when information
can be readily transmitted without being present...we
would want the office somewhere expensive so that the
employees can commute on crowded highways?

The reason that AOPA is in Frederick, Maryland, is because it's close to
Washington DC. While transmitting data can do much, there's a lot to be
said for "pressing the flesh" when the occasion requires it. Access to
legislators is a lot easier from Frederick than from Hobbs.

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

Although that is a compeling reason, SSA can't afford the lunch tabs, nor
the rent or staff. Might be much cheaper to hire a lobbyist (part-time).

Frank Whiteley

I remember SSA HQ in Santa Monica, California. When passing through Los
Angeles area, I would always stop at the office to say hello to the friends and
staff.
I wonder how many others enjoyed the old facility at SM Airport.
Sure, it might be easier to visit the office if it was in Atlanta, Dallas or
Chicago.
But would that really make a difference?
I doubt it.
We dream of comparisons with EAA. In Oshkosh?? Get serious
GA
( SSA for about 45 years)

This thread took off on course but meandered off to a dying cu. I agree
that Hobbs at least needs to be a soaring site.

What's needed is NEW MEMBERS. People come into this sport and leave
with frightening regularity. They will come in and get their license,
and disappear after a couple of years because - in my humble opinion -
1.) the cost of competitive sailplanes is too high - 2.) the cost of
operating a new sailplane per hour can be outrageous - 3.) too many FAI
pilots fly in lesser classes, and don't share their knowledge with
fledgling competitors - 4.) they get scared off early due to cost - 5.)
Hell, it just costs a lot of money to do this in most places.

Let's focus on growing the sport/hobby of soaring. I think we're
missing a great deal of potential soaring pilots in the radio control
model ranks.I think clubs should host R/C soaring clubs for a day and
offer rides at a reduced rate, close the airport at 5:00 PM and let
them show you a thing or two about THEIR form of soaring. Some of that
effort will be wasted. Some will pay off. There will be a few of those
guys that will become good soaring pilots/club members.

I have been doing R/C soaring stuff since 1973, and flying real
sailplanes since 1985. I am just getting back into the air after a
4-year absence, but I also just bought a sailplane.

Another problem I percieve is the "You gotta have the latest, greatest,
fastest, slipperiest or you're a nobody" syndrome. I spent some money,
not too much, and I'm enthralled with my ship. It isn't the latest
thing. In fact, far, far from it. I finally learned that, regardless of
the opinions of some of my wel-meaning friends, I can be very happy
with yesterday's hotty. If you're telling people that you have to spend
$50K or more to be happy... please STOP!!

Another thing is the club structure. I can't really speak to this much,
becase I've been a member of only 3 clubs. Admittedly, the first one
SPOILED me. I have since compared just about all of my flying
experiences, R/C and real, to that club, as a benchmark. Texas Soaring
Association is a hard thing for others to live up to. However, Soaring
Club of Houston has improved to become a VERY close second. The other
club I was involved with was not good to me at all, and I had a bad
experience there. That club and others like it, are partly responsible
for soaring's decline. Again, my opinion, I'm sure yours is different.

Instructors teach people to take off and land, box the wake, stall, and
basic maneuvers. Clubs need a SOARING instructor to hand these people
off to. FLoating around the airport at minimum sink does get boring.

I'm stepping off my soap box now... to spend some time with the
girls...

Jack Womack