On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 9:39:44 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Reply to all 3 posts.

Sean, how much fun actually flying gliders is doesn't matter that much to the initial "sale" An interested visitor will at most get a 20 minute "sleigh ride" in a glider but spend hours on the ground at the airfield. The thing that makes the "deal" possible is the environment at the gliderport. Unfortunately, most are fly blown armpits of creation populated by not very friendly people. Guess which one makes the biggest impression?. What to do is obvious.

Yes, participation in all aspects of aviation is shrinking. Our bad press is mostly to blame. From the evening news to stand up comics, people are being frightened away from aviation. All of aviation needs to mount a PR campaign to offset this. We also need to become absolutely militant about reducing accidents. We are far too tolerant of unsafe practices.

Dan, be very careful about overgeneralising. I did an informal survey in shopping malls observing about 1000 young people. My numbers say only about 10% were fiddling with cellphones. That's still a big number but it's not 100%. My impression is they do this when they are bored and have nothing else to do. We can give them something more interesting.

Keep the overall numbers in mind. If 1,000 people walked onto US glider operations seeking flight training our infrastructure would be saturated. We just need to figure out how to find that 1,000 in a population of 310 million.

Bill Daniels

Bill and I talked about this at the Nationals a couple of years ago. There are three related challenges: intake, conversion and churn.

- Intake is the number of people taking an introductory ride, or are ins some way given an initial introduction to the sport.

- Conversion, is the percentage of people who transition to solo, licensed pilot, XC pilot, racing pilot.

- Churn, is the number of people who get all the way through the conversion "funnel", are in the sport for a (short or long) while then drop out.

The balance of these three effects determine the size of the racing pilot pool year by year.

A big chunk of churn is related to demographics and aging of the baby boom, some is related to the pressures of modern life. Retaining an older pilot for a few more years only buys you a few more years, but given the current profile of the pilot community there might be some work to do.

Intake is expensive, especially with a conversion rate like ours, which IIRC, is around 1% of those who are introduced to the sport actually become a licensed pilot, let alone a regular XC or racing pilot. This is partly a time and money issue, but at the higher levels it is one of finding a mentor to bring you along. At the RC meeting last year we hosted a gathering of local XC, OLC and racing pilots. The most profound comments were around the lack of an onramp to racing, to lean the skills by flying (following, really) a better pilot to see how it's done.

Team flying using the radio is allowed at the regional level. For better or worse Flarm following has reduces some of the "where'd you go?" issues associated with flying with someone. It's kind of fun to run around the course with other pilots from time to time. Bruno's hybrid events have seen a higher proportion of pilots flying at least one, but seemingly more that one, of the assigned tasks as a learning experience - and because it allows you to fly with buddies.

I think there is something that each of us could do in increasing the conversion rate of new XC and racing pilots.

9B