On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 9:16:08 AM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
Just to build on this... Our little slice of the world (eastern Region 2) generates contest participation disproportionate to our size and especially to our soaring conditions. Why? It's because 3 or 4 sites are committed to building/fostering an active XC community. Without an active XC community, you can't have racing.

At Aero Club Albatross for example, we push people out of the nest early on. Once they get a Silver distance (in a 1-26), they have access to a 1-34R. After the 1-34, they can move into an LS3 or an LS4. Oh, and we've refurbished 2 of the 3 glass birds from basket cases to like-new condition ourselves. It's not due to some top-down mandate but rather a culture that's been formed over decades.

Now, we have clubs at Randall (UH's group) and Brandywine (Philadelphia area) to compete against thanks to similarly driven and growing clubs.

Message: Think global. Act local. It's actually not that hard . It just takes a few people who will abandon the keyboard and actually go out and do stuff.

Erik Mann
Refinisher-in-Chief, ACA



On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 10:02:54 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 11:22:20 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Q-"What are, in your opinion, the weakest links to sailplane racing?"
A- Poor instructor experience level nationally, and poor fleet nationally speaking.

Soaring is not fostered by the clubs in the US, gliding is. If you can't soar, you can't race. A newly minted pilot must choose between a 20-100k investment and teach themselves to fly X/C or earn an instructor certificate and spend the rest of their days in the back of a 2-33. (this is why membership is down.) The self starters who spend their money to buy a private ship care little about fostering a fledgling pilot unless they want to buy a glider and try to keep up. The whole system is out of wack. Clubs that won't invest in high performance equipment and advanced instruction miss the opportunity to sustain membership and improve the sport. The instructor group refuses to acknowledge the problem because it exposes their inexperience in x/c and time in high performance a/c. They have no desire to invest money out of pocket as club members in the higher performance a/c or the financial investment required of themselves to become x/c proficient.
Take a look at the JR. program in the UK. Do you think they expect those kids to buy their own gliders and figure it out themselves? No, they have real instructors and real sailplanes. If you have a large number of x/c proficient pilots with a bunch of high performance gliders laying around the racing part will take care of itself.

-Doug

Doug, beating up on US clubs maybe en vogue but doesn't come close to the truth. As a member of 2 clubs that own ASK-21's, a Duo, an ASW-24, LS6 and LS4's we promote x-country flying and beg members to use these assets. We also have competent competition pilots to show them the ropes. Maligning the US club culture is not helping, how about you working on improving it?
Herb

Being an armchair critic requires 15 seconds. Being a builder of the sport requires a lifetime of commitment.
Our club does primary in 2-33's (gasp), advanced in ASK-21. We teach XC in both.
We have 2 1-26's and a 1-34 for solo XC. Our Juniors have their own 1-26 and Std Libelle for XC. Three,possibly four of our juniors will fly in contests this year, with some others doing contest "riding" where they fly the task assisted by an experienced contest pilot.
Harris Hill does the same, except their juniors have a Discus.
FWIW
UH

Erik (and Hank and others) make important points. I'd offer a couple of thoughts.

Glider racing is basically s subscription business in that you need to attract "customers" (Glider Pilots -- XC Pilots -- Racing Pilots) at some considerable upfront cost and effort and attempt to retain them. The basic health of the business is therefore dictated by "installed base churn" - that is, you need more people coming in than going out.

Generally retention is cheaper and easier than running more volume through the customer acquisition pipeline, but it has limits (at minimum people retire ultimately). Keeping racing engaging and fun (in terms of the the competition itself and socially) helps retain pilots. People in my part of the world call this good UX design (user experience). We should ask ourselves why Seniors, Perry, Nephi and a few other places draw so well. For some the adventure of a new environment and the promise of exceptional flying conditions are alluring, but good UX for participants (and those who support these events) is more than that.

No matter what you do with retention, you still have to attract new blood through some or all of the Glider Pilot -- XC Pilot -- Racing Pilot customer acquisition chain. That process basically requires that the impetus and motivation to move forward exceed the obstacles. I think Erik and Hank have it basically right. There are obstacles related available time, distance and suitable equipment for XC that need to be knocked down (some - like distance - are harder to solve for), but are also relatively straightforward approaches to increasing the motivation to move forward. It is partly intrinsic (the person needs to have the flying/racing "gene"), but much of it is human relationships and social. This is where training, mentoring, encouragement, and making the process socially attractive matter. For instance, getting into this sport requires a high ratio of non-flying to flying time - what's that time look like in terms of UX? Dealing with those things takes more time than money and that can be easy or hard, depending on whether there are people willing to invest and stick with it.

Those who do put in the time are precious resources and I thank them. I've been watching Erik's glider refurbishment projects from a distance - that's a big commitment. I know how much energy Hank (and many others that I don't know so well) puts into keeping a flock of younger pilots engaged, excited and making progress. I think that's a lot of what needs to be developed and emulated.

As Hank would say - FWIW.

Andy Blackburn
9B