A proposal to increase membership, cross-country pilots, competitors,and world champions (USA).

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 4:09:16 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:


Think of the attrition at every stage of the game. From ride to lesson. From lesson to solo. From solo to license. From license to soaring. ...

And every one that drops out in the early stages will discourage five friends from even trying.

Money is not the issue. People have plenty of cash to spend on recreation and discretionary activities. Money is not the barrier to entry. Look at the ski industry. A one day lift ticket costs more then a tow, maybe to tows depending upon the ski area and glider operation. New skis will set the skier back anywhere from $500-2000 depending upon what they purchase. Look at motorcycling, off road vehicles; pick something. Most are on-par with soaring or more expensive to begin participating.

What the sport needs is more time in a day and longer attention spans. I stopped flying because I didn't have enough time to participate how I enjoyed it. Soaring is a selfish activity which requires a lot of time.

American's do not have the attention span. How much time is spent hanging out at the strip compared to flying. If someone is interested in taking up soaring look at the standing around time to flight/active participation time ratio. Glider pilots spend a huge volume of time standing around. By comparison, look at the stand around to participation in the ski industry.

With gliders we cannot have the complete noob help out in a meaningful way. Gliders are too expensive and having the "never before touched a glider" person help us rig a ship doesn't happen. The hands on participation of newcomers is really low. Instructors /club members talk and they listen. We talk too much and do too little.

The mindset of people in 2014 is much different then in 1950-2000. To survive and grow, the soaring (GA too) population has to change its attitude and methods to capture today's youth. Aviation is trying to adapt old ways to today and it isn't working. Aviation has to change the paradigm and change is scary and difficult.

While seeking this new paradigm there will be lots of failures and some success. What is there to lose by trying? Nothing since what is happening now isn't working yet the aviation community seems to believe if they keep going at the status quo it will work. This is a bit like speaking louder to someone who doesn't understand our language. More volume will not breed instant fluency.

Beside believing the aviation community should try something new, not fear failure, and stop pinning the decline on expense, I have no solutions to offer at this time.

I still maintain that soaring flight simulators (like Condor) that are widely available and approachable would help. They can reduce training time. They appeal to youth. They can be used whenever there is a spare 1/2 hour with no commute and no wait. They are inexpensive. They enable online instruction.

I would like to see the SSA try a pilot (no pun intended) program to support something like this, and track results.

Matt

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 12:23:43 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
I still maintain that soaring flight simulators (like Condor) that are widely available and approachable would help. They can reduce training time. They appeal to youth. They can be used whenever there is a spare 1/2 hour with no commute and no wait. They are inexpensive. They enable online instruction.



I would like to see the SSA try a pilot (no pun intended) program to support something like this, and track results.



Matt

Most of the youth I've seen come in to our club get their license, then are off to college or full time jobs or starting a family or combinations of the 3 and we hardly see them anymore. the guys I see regularly are the geezers with money and time to fly sailplanes.

look through soaring magazine and tell me how many "youth" are going to buy anything from the latest crop of racing glass, or even the left-overs extending back 30 years or more?

Maybe these sexy ships get the youths all exited then reality rears it's head and understanding that what caught their eye is a piece of carbon fiber un-obtaineum.

Brad

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 2:09:16 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
Interesting discussion, but I think we're missing a basic fact: dropoff and churn. We don't really need more people in the front door. We need fewer out the back door.



The SSA membership has about 20% turnover every year -- or rather 20 leave and 18 come. I did a study of contest participation, and roughly the same happens, about one in five start flying contests every year and about one in five leave.



Think of the attrition at every stage of the game. From ride to lesson. From lesson to solo. From solo to license. From license to soaring. From soaring to xc. From xc to ownership. From xc/ownership to flying contests or serious lifelong xc/olc. At each stage, do we keep even 1 in 20?



Keeping a few more of what we have, rather than getting another thousand in the front door to produce one contest pilot seems like a better strategy..



But... Increasingly every time one of my faculty colleagues says to the dean, "hey, you guys ought to xyz..." and outlines a great but difficult and time-consuming idea, the dean says "congratulations, you've just volunteered to head the xzy committee. Let us know how it's working out." The SSA sort of has a similar response!



John Cochrane

Churn is part of the equation. If the SSA is 20%, then we are like much of the rest of the soaring world. Roy Edwards of NZ presented at an SSA convention in the late 1990's. At that time SSA churn was 30%, while the rest of the world was 20%.

Flying is a much more common experience. That is, many more youth have been on a jet. For some, it's so common they don't bother to look out the window. Sports flying doesn't seem to enter their consciousness. I had an opportunity on a flight from Detroit to Denver to introduce a young GM hybrid vehicle engineer to the concept, something he'd never considered.

There are several aviation related STEM initiatives. I hope the SSA will have a ground school curriculum suitable for high school or aviation camp use that will incorporate STEM. There has been a project that might seed this that received some SSA support. Time to check in again. Combined with some of Scott Manley's methods might generate some youth interest. At least it would be a useful tool for a person or group wanting to organize this.

Some of the present apparent churn is loss at the top end. The estimated average age of SSA members is around 57. This means health and morbidity will impact SSA membership and pilot participation, probably at an increasing rate for several years.

Perhaps we can leverage the new right seat ATP requirements to entice youth to start their aviation careers early with the glider rating. This fact is often missed during youth in aviation promotions. There is a Colorado initiative for a specialty Support Aviation license plate. It had varietal aircraft silhouettes, but was missing a sailplane. I commented to the organizers and have seen the proposed revision. I'm awaiting committee approval of the revision before pressing the Colorado soaring button.

The new glider ratings are taken from FAA civil airman statistics tables 8, 17, and 18. What was it about the 1990's? Internet exposure? Disposable income?

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/avi...en_statistics/

New glider ratings
Year Initial Add-on Total
2013 163 1 164
2012 180 0 180
2011 219 10 229
2010 222 8 230
2009 249 10 259
2008 204 11 215
2007 263 14 277
2006 298 42 340
2005 290 27 317
2004 309 43 352
2003 312 47 359
2002 336 38 374
2001 403 77 480
2000 455 62 517
1999 423 98 521
1998 472 105 577
1997 501 161 662
1996 633 196 829
1995 373 83 456
1994 320 25 345
1993 341 28 369
1992 376 32 408
1991 487 29 516
1990 378 41 419

Several of our US chapters have robust youth participation with youth membership exceeding 20% of membership. About 25% of chapters have 10% youth members. Unfortunately 33% have no youth members. There's room for improvement, but in a country where reportedly 35% with credit reports have debt in collections, there not a lot of discretionary income for a large segment of the population. With real income stagnant or declining, perhaps that's reflected in the numbers also.

Larger chapters who have a 501(c)(3) determination have realized a benefit of $30,000 to $60,000 annually through donations and other exclusions. The SSA Clubs & Chapters Committee recommends chapters explore the migration to a 501(c)(3) organization. Although it sounds appealing to have the SSA take the lead, chapters are primarily state non-profit or not-for-profit corporations, subject first to those statutes. Starting in the 1980's, the American Bar Association has suggested that state's modernize their corporate statutes to better align with federal guidelines. Many states have done so. Some haven't. The SSA doesn't have the resources to research and recommend the local approach apart from the voluntary efforts of its members. We recommend seeking competent local help. Once the local effort is done, the SSA has resources to make the filings. We do need to update what we have on the SSA website with some recommended guidelines and what the options are. Some chapters have been willing to share their packages, so we have case files to share with those organizations interested in taking the step. One big step may be recommending formation of a new entity, transferring assets, and dissolving the old entity. You need to be real clean financially to make a migration.

Frank Whiteley

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:01:29 AM UTC-6, Kevin Brooker wrote:
Money is not the issue. People have plenty of cash to spend on

recreation and discretionary activities. Money is not the barrier to

entry. Look at the ski industry. A one day lift ticket costs more then

a tow, maybe to tows depending upon the ski area and glider operation.

New skis will set the skier back anywhere from $500-2000 depending upon

what they purchase. Look at motorcycling, off road vehicles; pick

something. Most are on-par with soaring or more expensive to begin

participating.



What the sport needs is more time in a day and longer attention spans. I

stopped flying because I didn't have enough time to participate how I

enjoyed it. Soaring is a selfish activity which requires a lot of time.





American's do not have the attention span. How much time is spent

hanging out at the strip compared to flying. If someone is interested in

taking up soaring look at the standing around time to flight/active

participation time ratio. Glider pilots spend a huge volume of time

standing around. By comparison, look at the stand around to

participation in the ski industry.



With gliders we cannot have the complete noob help out in a meaningful

way. Gliders are too expensive and having the "never before touched a

glider" person help us rig a ship doesn't happen. The hands on

participation of newcomers is really low. Instructors /club members talk

and they listen. We talk too much and do too little.



The mindset of people in 2014 is much different then in 1950-2000. To

survive and grow, the soaring (GA too) population has to change its

attitude and methods to capture today's youth. Aviation is trying to

adapt old ways to today and it isn't working. Aviation has to change the

paradigm and change is scary and difficult.



While seeking this new paradigm there will be lots of failures and some

success. What is there to lose by trying? Nothing since what is

happening now isn't working yet the aviation community seems to believe

if they keep going at the status quo it will work. This is a bit like

speaking louder to someone who doesn't understand our language. More

volume will not breed instant fluency.



Beside believing the aviation community should try something new, not

fear failure, and stop pinning the decline on expense, I have no

solutions to offer at this time.









--

Kevin Brooker
True for some Kevin.

I once called a lapsed SSA member to see why he'd dropped out after a year. Turns out he was president of a local Corvette owner's club. He tried soaring for a week, but hadn't soloed and gave it up. His expectation was way out of line. For some it's simply not a good fit. For others, given the chance, it becomes a lifetime pursuit. How do we give them that chance?

Frank Whiteley

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 1:23:43 PM UTC-6, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
I still maintain that soaring flight simulators (like Condor) that are widely available and approachable would help. They can reduce training time. They appeal to youth. They can be used whenever there is a spare 1/2 hour with no commute and no wait. They are inexpensive. They enable online instruction.



I would like to see the SSA try a pilot (no pun intended) program to support something like this, and track results.



Matt

Scott Manley demonstrated this as presenter of the Barnaby Lecture last year. Others have hopefully seen Scott's SSA Convention presentations.

As I commented in another post, a STEM cored glider pilot ground school curriculum would be a nice addition.

Frank Whiteley

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:35:10 PM UTC-4, Frank Whiteley wrote:
http://www.faa.gov/data_research/avi...en_statistics/

That is a very interesting link worthy of some study. But in the top level introduction, I found this: "Glider pilots are not required to have a medical examination but the numbers represent only those who had a valid medical certificate on record at the Aeronautical Center."

I'd think that would make these numbers rather unreliable. I'm a very active glider pilot who got my PPL-Glider in 2012, but I don't have a medical certificate... so I guess I'm not included in the stats that you posted. A lot of glider pilots don't have valid medical certificates.

The aggregation of the numbers is interesting, but it obscures the fact that some glider ports are healthy and some are moribund.

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:22:38 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:35:10 PM UTC-4, Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/avi...en_statistics/



That is a very interesting link worthy of some study. But in the top level introduction, I found this: "Glider pilots are not required to have a medical examination but the numbers represent only those who had a valid medical certificate on record at the Aeronautical Center."



I'd think that would make these numbers rather unreliable. I'm a very active glider pilot who got my PPL-Glider in 2012, but I don't have a medical certificate... so I guess I'm not included in the stats that you posted. A lot of glider pilots don't have valid medical certificates.



The aggregation of the numbers is interesting, but it obscures the fact that some glider ports are healthy and some are moribund.

That appears to apply to table 1 and possibly others. Look at table 1, then go to table 8.

There are about 8,000 foreign addressed glider pilots holding US glider ratings also.

Frank Whiteley

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:22:38 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:35:10 PM UTC-4, Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/avi...en_statistics/



That is a very interesting link worthy of some study. But in the top level introduction, I found this: "Glider pilots are not required to have a medical examination but the numbers represent only those who had a valid medical certificate on record at the Aeronautical Center."



I'd think that would make these numbers rather unreliable. I'm a very active glider pilot who got my PPL-Glider in 2012, but I don't have a medical certificate... so I guess I'm not included in the stats that you posted. A lot of glider pilots don't have valid medical certificates.



The aggregation of the numbers is interesting, but it obscures the fact that some glider ports are healthy and some are moribund.

There is also a downloadable pilot database. Some have opted out by keeping their information private, including some that were there, but excluded themselves when the plastic certificates came out. However, by querying the data with appropriate filters, the number is pretty close to what's in Table 8.

The add-on data is what may be suspect, Table 18.

See also this FAA internal product from January 2014 on US pilot totals by age/rating.
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/A55_...ByAge_2013.pdf

Frank Whiteley