On Jan 22, 10:53*am, Frank Paynter wrote:
My club uses the volunteer instructor model for student instruction,
and I am trying to determine how effective this model is versus
commercial soaring center instruction.

Frank (TA)

Our club uses the volunteer instructor model, and we fly Sat and Sun
mid Feb thru mid Dec. Continuity of training is a problem, even though
we use a syllabus
and a training folder to record training and progress. In addition we
have a private "instructor e-list"
to brief all instructors on training events each day training occurs.
In addition, student flight frequency is a problem
as they come out when they want to come out. We plan for 3 flights per
student per training day. Additional problems are
power traffic, skydivers, 60 ft wide paved runway with very limited
grass areas and runway lights, one runway 03-21 and
cold fronts bring crosswinds at 270-300. Alternate landing space for
PTTT is very limited. We use the ASK 21 for training.
All of this is difficult for newbies, and people who join are
sometimes discouraged by apparent lack of progress. Thus we have
abandoned
training ab-initio. We farm out this training to commercial
operations. Post solo from elsewhere on grass, exclusively glider
fields, in Blanik or 2-33, we often find it takes
20-40 more flights for solo at our field. For active airplane pilots,
used to traffic, radio, and accurate landings, it takes much less.
The direct answer to your actual question is that the club volunteer
instructor model is intrinsically less effective in reaching the solo
stage.
For an objective comparison, you must of course, reduce the variables
to a minimum of one. And yes, Condor could be helpful with the right
approach.