IGC Rejects Garmin GPS

Eric Greenwell wrote:
We're really talking about making it even easier than it ever was, not
"making it as easy as it used to be".

If you're standing still, you're falling behind. Even if you're
moving ahead slowly, you're probably falling behind. You may not like
that, but that's how it is.

EVERYTHING is easier than it used to be, mostly a lot easier. Soaring
is not the one and only thing in life (for most people), it's just
another form of recreation that has to compete for people and dollars
with other forms of recreation - which are mostly becoming
dramatically more customer-focused and hassle-free.

(Mark James Boyd) wrote:
I didn't say the IGC isn't making any progress, just that words
like "molasses" and "cold winter" come to mind.

Bingo.

I'm a fan and advocate for a hopefully new source of
soaring pilots: soaring consumers. They have choices,
and some choose golf if the soaring barriers to entry (including
barriers to entering contests) are too high...

There are barriers, and there are barriers. I think most people
accept the need and even desirability of barriers based on skill and
knowledge directly relevant to the sport. Nobody is suggesting that
someone who can't complete a silver distance flight should be in a
constest - any contest. On the other hand, barriers that are about
dealing with hassles and jumping through hoops are becoming less and
less acceptable. Some might call it paying dues, but most of us call
it crap.

I didn't choose golf when the barrier to entry became too high - but I
chose to largely abandon soaring in favor of powered flight. I know
many, many people who have done the same - and for the same reason.
They all love the actual soaring part of it - it's the hassles they
can't stand.

Michael

Papa3 wrote:

The current IGC is made up of pilots who have accepted the
badge system and earned their badges. It's more likely
they'll continue to advocate this sytem than if the IGC
was made up of pilots who think the badge system is frustrating
and therefore didn't get their badges. Of course this second group
can't be IGC members. Sort of circular, isn't it?

Built in hysterisis. Not entirely all bad, since some stability
is good, but we should be aware of it and help change along
a bit for the sake of the underrespresented pilots new
to the sport...


Mark,

Truly one of the most temperate and articulate posts on this subject in a
long time. Power to the people!

I also agree with Mark's remarks. This situation, where the people
pleased with the current system are willing to work for the system,
tends to perpetuate the system. When I was an SSA director in the 80's,
I wanted the contest rules to "foster and promote" soaring, which meant
serving a larger purpose than just making the current contest pilots
happy. It was a hard sell philosophically, because many people truly
believe what is good for contests is good for the sport. It was also a
problem practically, for how do you get people that _might_ be
interested in contests to serve on the rules committee?

So, along Mark's line, maybe the SSA contest committee (and the similar
committee for the IGC), should have a "promotion/novice/etc" oriented
person to get the "entry level" pilot represented.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In the military, for FUN events, commonly the LEAST qualified person was
selected to run the event. For a dining in or post-deployment party,
the personnel officer would find the NEWEST, least experienced lieutenant
to run the thing. This provided much hilarity, and a lot of originality
to the events.

So (and I'm NOT suggesting this), these contest committees positions could
be offered to the LEAST qualified peole first. In other words, if you
meet the minimum qualifications, you are offered the job first, and if
you decline, the next minimally qualified person is offered the position,
and so on.

Not a good idea for the whole committee (remember, some hysterisis is good),
but perhaps an excellent idea for the "newbie" position.

Keep in mind that whole divisions of companies are fired sometimes
just based on their becoming stale and too resistant to change.
They are then replaced with the freshest, minimally qualified replacements.
A lot of times the outgoers are surprised by the "young" replacements.
In their ignorance, they fail to realise it is the young mind, not the
young age that prevails.

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Papa3 wrote:

The current IGC is made up of pilots who have accepted the
badge system and earned their badges. It's more likely
they'll continue to advocate this sytem than if the IGC
was made up of pilots who think the badge system is frustrating
and therefore didn't get their badges. Of course this second group
can't be IGC members. Sort of circular, isn't it?

Built in hysterisis. Not entirely all bad, since some stability
is good, but we should be aware of it and help change along
a bit for the sake of the underrespresented pilots new
to the sport...


Mark,

Truly one of the most temperate and articulate posts on this subject in a
long time. Power to the people!

I also agree with Mark's remarks. This situation, where the people
pleased with the current system are willing to work for the system,
tends to perpetuate the system. When I was an SSA director in the 80's,
I wanted the contest rules to "foster and promote" soaring, which meant
serving a larger purpose than just making the current contest pilots
happy. It was a hard sell philosophically, because many people truly
believe what is good for contests is good for the sport. It was also a
problem practically, for how do you get people that _might_ be
interested in contests to serve on the rules committee?

So, along Mark's line, maybe the SSA contest committee (and the similar
committee for the IGC), should have a "promotion/novice/etc" oriented
person to get the "entry level" pilot represented.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA



--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA