Ian Cant wrote:
At 06:48 15 October 2007, wrote:

Yes, there are many kinds of people! But I can't think
of any other
'sporting' activity that supports using 'antique' (not
my words here)
equipment in their mainstream activities or training.



Yes, you make an interesting point and there are many
kinds of people. But there are also eggs and apples
and oranges.

Much sensible stuff snipped...

Agreed, low-performance training is not to everyone's
taste. But be-littling the Schweizers shows a certain
narrowness of mind. And remember, you are not compelled
to fly them -you only have to find the operation that
uses whatever kind of equipment you prefer. More snipped...

Well expressed, Ian. Having begun (U.S.) soaring in 1972 (when there
was a war going on that had nothing to do with oil and the middle
east...meaning, I've experienced 'many/the-usual' next-generational
attitudinal shifts), I've observed the 'new-vs.old' debate as it relates
to soaring, ever since then.

Now at an age when my thinking 'is supposed to he' certifiably ossified,
I'm periodically reminded how uncommon the ability to view things from
multiple (yet non-contradictory) perspectives sometimes seems to be.
The Great Schweizer Debate comes to mind (wry chuckle).

Dissing other's views when they differ from your own is a tactic *far*
over-used IMHO. Scorn is a tool, and shouldn't be over-/mis-used, for
risk of ruining its value entirely. Holding differing views on how to
train future glider pilots isn't fundamentally scornworthy. That's not
to suggest scorn may not have a place in (say) a training debate, e.g. a
view 'obviously' ludicrous/dangerous/economically fatal/etc. should be
exposed as such. After all, ideas have consequences, and not all
approaches have equal value.

That noted, choosing to continue to use older ships (e.g. Schweizers,
Grobs [don't laugh, my club is presently in the throes of precisely this
debate, and a 102 and 103 are 'the bad ships'], AS K-7/13's etc.), is
*NOT* a acornworthy decision, any more than an individual choosing to
keep and maintain an older vehicle (assuming it still meets its mission)
in place of periodically updating it 'just because,' is. Both
approaches have value, and pros, and cons.

Personally, until someone can, or, events (some other club's, ha ha)
demonstrate to me that a bet-the-club, economically risky
(gambling-based?) approach to growing (as distinct from merely
'churning') soaring has value, I find it difficult to out-of-hand
dismiss continuing to use proven hardware that with fundamentally low
carrying costs.

Let the debate continue...!!!


Regards,
Bob - not decisionally impaired - W.