Why is Soaring declining

Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article ,
Tony Verhulst wrote:


I've bought several versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator in the hope
that a better version will spark my interest. So far, they bore me to tears.


Yeah, well that's possibly because it's crap! MS Flight Sim is now a
great *scenery* simulator, and ever since the days of 8 MHz Macs (maybe
even earlier) it's been pretty decent for practising IFR using AH and
VOR and ADF. But it's still got rubbish physics.

X-Plane is a much better simulator, and actually feels quite real (and
you can get some pretty good glider models for it, from
http://www.x-plane.org/Aircraft/). It's a good enough sim that several
real companies use it for pilot training and design evaluation for
aircraft they are designing. With the right add-on hardware, it's also
FAA approved for logging simulator time. Not bad for a $49.50 program.

In older programs, I found the Mac-only A-10 Attack! to feel *very*
realistic to fly -- of course I don't know what an A-10 feels like to
fly, but it felt like it *could* be a real aircraft (and I *have* been
at the controls of kinda similar size aircraft, such as the
Harvard/Texan). It also had excellent emulation of the interaction of
the landing gear and struts with the ground. I'm told the authors
(Graphic Simulations) actually make high end simulations for the
military as well as games.

There are probably some good PC simulators, too, but I don't know what
they would be -- the vast majority have very little to do with real
aircraft, whether because the programmers didn't know how (probably), or
because their customers (like the Sep11 pilots) didn't care about
takeoffs or landings, I don't know.

-- Bruce
SFS-PC (www.sfspc.de) is the best soaring simulator I have used, although
apparently there is a competitor with Sailors of the sky. Both are cheap, SFS
has good physics, and weather models that actually work.

Nothing replaces doing it though...

Eric Greenwell wrote:
JJ Sinclair wrote:
Maybe they should offer a trial membership, something like


Good idea, Scott. I suggested that the SSA give a free 1 year
membership to all
newly licenced glider pilots. Nothing ever came of it.
JJ Sinclair

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it's time to suggest it again - new
management, elected and appointed.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Any thoughts on rolling the SSA into the fold of the EAA, along with
it's Classic, Warbird, Vintage Aircraft divisions. Lots of members, two
conventions a year for exposure (Oshkosh, and Sun and Fun). Strong
lobbying power, and a world wide network. Just thoughts.

Any thoughts on rolling the SSA into the fold of the EAA, along with
it's Classic, Warbird, Vintage Aircraft divisions. Lots of members, two
conventions a year for exposure (Oshkosh, and Sun and Fun). Strong
lobbying power, and a world wide network. Just thoughts.


If so.. how about creating a third convention for us west coasters.. SnF and
Osh are a little far away..

BT

At 17:30 28 December 2004, Snoop wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:
JJ Sinclair wrote:
Maybe they should offer a trial membership, something
like


Good idea, Scott. I suggested that the SSA give a
free 1 year
membership to all
newly licenced glider pilots. Nothing ever came of
it.
JJ Sinclair

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it's time to suggest
it again - new
management, elected and appointed.
--
-----
change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Any thoughts on rolling the SSA into the fold of the
EAA, along with
it's Classic, Warbird, Vintage Aircraft divisions.
Lots of members, two
conventions a year for exposure (Oshkosh, and Sun and
Fun). Strong
lobbying power, and a world wide network. Just thoughts.


Ba-a-d Idea!

With all due respect to the years of hard work the
people at the very to of EAA put into it, we would
not want to be under their control. It functions like
a Fiefdom. They select all the second tier managers
and the top slot stays in the family. They get all
the benefits and the members do all the volunteer work
and still have to pay to get into the show and are
allowed but one museum visit per year without paying
for that. The museum's aircraft are available only
the the top 1-6 people to fly. They have absolute
control over everything. We could not fit into their
regime.

"snoop" wrote in message
oups.com...
Eric Greenwell wrote:
JJ Sinclair wrote:
Maybe they should offer a trial membership, something like


Good idea, Scott. I suggested that the SSA give a free 1 year
membership to all
newly licenced glider pilots. Nothing ever came of it.
JJ Sinclair

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it's time to suggest it again - new
management, elected and appointed.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Any thoughts on rolling the SSA into the fold of the EAA, along with
it's Classic, Warbird, Vintage Aircraft divisions. Lots of members, two
conventions a year for exposure (Oshkosh, and Sun and Fun). Strong
lobbying power, and a world wide network. Just thoughts.

I'd rather merge with the HG and PG communities, at least they soar. I was
an EAA member for many years. It's enjoyable, educational, and interesting,
but so very different from the soaring community.

Frank Whiteley

I read the last few posts to this thread and decided to do a quick
survey of some of the people in my extended work group (Info Tech) just
to understand what they knew/thought about soaring.

I talked to about ten people, none were pilots, one had taken a small
airplane flight or two ... about half were involved in moderate risk
sports like motorcycling, scuba diving, kayaking and skiing.

After discussing their current hobbies, I asked all if they had ever
heard of soaring/gliding. Half immediately thought I meant hang
gliders ... and the group as a whole had little to no knowledge of
gliders/sailplanes or capabilities ... although one person knew gliders
were aero towed. Three said they had no interest in aviation of any
type in small aircraft. Most was not sure about seeing magazine or
movie coverage of glider/sailplane operations.

The surprise was a middle-aged female motorcycle driver/skier who had
been interested in gliders, and thought the 'plane' gliders looked cool
and probably would have tried it, but thought you had to go out west to
fly over the mountains as that was the 'background' in the few soaring
photos or movie segments she had seen. I asked her how many times she
remembers seeing soaring photos or TV/movie segments ... she thought
about it and said not many ... could remember three, but it could have
been as many as six in her lifetime ... although, she does seem to
remember quite a few hang gliding sequences/photos on TV in movies or
magazines. She also had limited knowledge of glider ops.

OK, a quick survey like this doesn't mean much ... although I probably
had a typical mix of people ... 30% have to be dragged into aircraft;
10% were interested, but uninvolved; and the remaining 60% had
virtually no knowledge of soaring/gliding. The latter is not new news.
I think we all know people don't know about soaring because it is just
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. The new ad campaigns being discussed/developed ... and the
individual efforts undertaken by clubs and other business operations
.... seem to be our best soaring info outlets at this time. What we
need is big exposure ... maybe a weekly series like "Desparate Soaring
Wives" ... or have one of Trump's Apprentices project manage a soaring
contest ... "Charlie, you're fired !!!"

Ken Kochanski (KK)

How about hosting a Nationals down there, Bert? Its
got to be a whole bunch better than that place a little
north of you. Have gone to 3 nationals 'up there' and
haven't seen anything worth the drive yet.
JJ

At 15:30 29 December 2004, 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.

We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/v
isiting 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

Marfa will be hosting the 2006 World Class (PW-5) National Contest. It
will be perfect "first" contest for our small staff / small town(with
final SSA approval - due Feb 2005.)

Yes, the mountain scenery around the grasslands of the Marfa Plateau is
quite good. Marfa Airport is about 5,000' msl, so summer temperatures
are not as hot as the rest of the southwest. Cloudbases can go to
17,999' msl. For higher, we have an ATC wave window to 30,000'. We
fly year-round, primarily offering glider ratings (PVT to CFIG) in the
mild winter months. The annual Marfa Wave Camp will be March 19-26,
2005. Register (required) with Dick Johnson at

More Marfa info: www.flygliders.com
Burt Compton, CFIG, DPE
Marfa Gliders, west Texas

John Sinclair wrote:
How about hosting a Nationals down there, Bert? Its
got to be a whole bunch better than that place a little
north of you. Have gone to 3 nationals 'up there' and
haven't seen anything worth the drive yet.
JJ

At 15:30 29 December 2004, 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.
Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

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

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