Future Club Training Gliders

On Nov 8, 3:00*pm, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 15:40 08 November 2010, sisu1a wrote:



And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
irrelevance.

Isn't that a fair working definition of a dilettante? * Are those really
the people that we want to attract into our sport? *On the other hand, it
is most certainly the folks that the commercial ride operations want to
attract.

I notice that when a 2-32 is available as a ride ship, it gets a lot of
use. *And it's always sort of entertaining to see how they can pack two
folks into the back seat.

Jim Beckman


As a former ride pilot, I can assure you "Those People" aren't
"dilettantes", they're just people - mostly very nice people, who
decided to give gliding a try. Judging them to be dilettantes is just
one of many examples of how we chase people away. Treating them
warmly is how we convert them - and we DO want to convert them.

A percentage of ride passengers do come back to learn to fly gliders -
a significantly larger percentage come back if their first ride was in
a decent glider and they were offered training in something better
than a 2-33. Many more say they would love to learn to fly gliders if
their personal and financial situation permitted and I believe them.

On 11/8/2010 11:48 AM, Ian Cant wrote:
Paul Hanson wrote:

And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
irrelevance.

-Paul


That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the
primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our
customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single
long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be
found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license
within a week ?

But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of
instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we
restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We
will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy
to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills
and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with
just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in
mind, might then be appropriate.

The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of
the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor.

What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the
rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry
rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs
for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet.
Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an
ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and
a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to
buy his personal sailplane of choice.

Just a thought.

Ian






1st impressions make a huge difference. When you are dealing with a new
person who is interested in the sport, you want to make sure that
his/her 1st glider experience is a positive one.

It's not just what kind of glider it is, but also what condition it is
in. A pristine L-13 can make a very good impression, matching a
mediocre K-21. The same goes for a museum quality 2-33. However, a
worn glider that sits outside just, doesn't do it for a lot of people,
including power pilots who are just putting their toes in the water.

--
Mike Schumann

On 11/8/2010 10:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Nov 8, 12:30 am, Darryl wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:02 pm, Jim wrote:



wrote:
The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
will need.

We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.

Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
repair, durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .

Sonex Xenos perhaps? I have no experience with it and am not sure what the
general consensus is (I doubt there is much informed opinion on them since
not too many have been built, so few would have first-hand experience; but
unless I am missing something their performance seems more than adequate
for training purposes.)

Upfront new: ~US$34,000 + ~1200 club man-hours to build.
Side-by-side seating: good for training?
Motorglider: Dispense with towplane costs.
Experimental: Lower part and labor costs.
Sonex provides directions on how to get it registered with the FAA as a
glider.

http://www.sonexaircraft.com/images/...Comparison.jpg

With a motorglider you do not "dispense with towplane costs" you
"replace towplane costs with motorglider costs" (and quite possibly
many more issues).

I would be surprised if a 24:1 (i.e. non-glider), homebuilt,
lightweight aluminum glider in a tail dragger configuration is meet
many of the practical needs of most glider clubs. I wonder what
getting insurance coverage for instruction on that would take.

The question was to replace L-13 Blaniks and looking for practical
experience. Is there anybody in the USA using any motorglider for
primary training? Can they share cost and operational experiences? How
many students per year go through to complete their licenses?

---

Wait, I know how about a ASK-21 and a towplane (or winch).

Darryl

Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons

http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/

I am very surprised at the extremely low number of add-on glider
ratings. Can this be right? Last year, only 10 power pilots added on a
glider rating in the entire US?

If that's true, then we should be doing a serious marketing campaign
aimed at power pilots who have let their medicals lapse. That's the
really low hanging fruit.

--
Mike Schumann

On 11/8/2010 3:17 AM, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:

On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman wrote:

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.

Yes. As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
part of the person who rejects the experience. Maybe it really has to do
with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.


On the other hand ... I remember how many pilots that were definitely
beyond the "shallow" stage that did not like the PW-5 (some ferociously
so) because of it's looks. I don't agree with them about the PW5, but
that's not important: what is important is *looks do matter* to some
people who will become glider pilots. And why shouldn't looks matter?
For many of us, soaring is a treat to the eyes, and a sleek glider with
bendy wings is one of those treats.

There are many reasons for getting into, and staying in, soaring, and
the way a glider looks seems just sensible as any other reason. An
operation that offers just a 2-33 or similar is going to have a smaller
group to draw from.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Nov 8, 2:24*pm, Andy wrote:
On Nov 8, 7:09*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:



Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons

http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/

Whatever we did in 1996, we should do it again. Can anyone explain the
spike upward in glider ratings?

9B

Also note the ratios of ab-initio to add-on ratings in that period and
now.

Perhaps the world wide web, increasing costs of flying power,
generation of WWII/post WWII pilots losing medicals, increase
disposable income, 125% loan to value home equity loans?

Funnily enough, my first trial flight was at Cambridge Club: I was
launched in a K13 and had a short thermalling flight, but never went
back because I was expecting a sleek fibreglass machine rather than
something that was older than I was (29 at the time).
I ended up joining London gliding club, whos had a fleet of 6 K21's,
and went solo in one of their K23's (a single seat version of a K21)

On Nov 6, 9:02*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:44:18 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
"noel.wade" wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:14*am, "Surfer!" wrote:

But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in
most U
S
clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. *It's certainly not (IMHO) an
endorsement of them.

I couldn't agree more! *As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I
started), let me make a few assertions:

1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring if
what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game? After
watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? *The 2-33 looks like a
dog and flies slowly.

I started lessons when I was 52. I didn't have a problem with the club's
2-33 because it is possible I'm not a shallow youth anymore. ;-)

I started learning when I was 54, and that was certainly thanks to a ride
in an ASK-21. I'd had a couple of trial flights 8-10 years previously in
an ASK-13, but though it was a nice experience it didn't inspire me to
take up gliding. However, and I don't know why, that flight in an ASK-21
in the fall of '99 at Front Royale set the hook and I joined Cambridge GC
in the UK at the start of the 2000 season, picking them for no better
reason than they were the only local club with a glass training fleet. As
it happened I couldn't have chosen better given the club's strong xc
culture. This became apparent at the 2001 Regionals when I got my first
cross-country ride in the club's G103: I had a ring-side seat as my P1
won the day on handicap.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Nov 8, 5:45*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 11/8/2010 10:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:



On Nov 8, 12:30 am, Darryl *wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:02 pm, Jim *wrote:

*wrote:
The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
will need.

We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.

Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost

On 11/8/2010 8:11 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 11/8/2010 3:17 AM, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:
On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman wrote:

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.
Yes. As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
part of the person who rejects the experience. Maybe it really has to do
with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.

On the other hand ... I remember how many pilots that were definitely
beyond the "shallow" stage that did not like the PW-5 (some ferociously
so) because of it's looks. I don't agree with them about the PW5, but
that's not important: what is important is *looks do matter* to some
people who will become glider pilots. And why shouldn't looks matter?
For many of us, soaring is a treat to the eyes, and a sleek glider with
bendy wings is one of those treats.

There are many reasons for getting into, and staying in, soaring, and
the way a glider looks seems just sensible as any other reason. An
operation that offers just a 2-33 or similar is going to have a smaller
group to draw from.


You are absolutely right. Looks matter a LOT. Just look at Apple's
success.

--
Mike Schumann

At 23:29 08 November 2010, bildan wrote:

As a former ride pilot, I can assure you "Those People" aren't
"dilettantes", they're just people - mostly very nice people, who
decided to give gliding a try. Judging them to be dilettantes is just
one of many examples of how we chase people away.

I was referring specifically to potential rides who walk away from the
opportunity when they see that the vehicle is going to be something less
than what Thomas Crown (latest version) flew. Those folks, if not
dilettante, are something even denser.

Jim Beckman

At 00:32 09 November 2010, Mike Schumann wrote:

1st impressions make a huge difference. When you are dealing with a new

person who is interested in the sport, you want to make sure that
his/her 1st glider experience is a positive one.

It's not just what kind of glider it is, but also what condition it is
in. A pristine L-13 can make a very good impression, matching a
mediocre K-21. The same goes for a museum quality 2-33. However, a
worn glider that sits outside just, doesn't do it for a lot of people,
including power pilots who are just putting their toes in the water.

I would suggest that the attitude of the ride pilot is just as important,
if not more so, than pure appearances. And a ride pilot is obviously
going to treat a pilot passenger differently than a novice.

Not to mention the attitude of the other people assisting with the flight
or just hanging around the gliders. When I first starting taking lessons
to transition from power to gliders, the club on the field took absolutely
*no* interest in what I was doing, or explaining what the club had to
offer, or attempting to interest me in joining. I practically had to
force myself on them (damn glad I did it, too). We generally present an
unfortunate impression of aloofness and distraction. The gregarious,
outgoing, friendly glider folks are a valuable exception.

Jim Beckman