SSA Growth

Bill,

Let's do the back of the envelope calculations. *$10k down and finance
$90k at 4.5% for 10 years. *I show a monthly payment of $932. *How big
of a club do you need to support the debt? *We had just got to 12
members when the Blanik AD hit and were paying off the $13K we owned
on the Blaink. *How does a club this size handle any of the
alternatives?

$932/12 = $77.67 per member. A new glider makes it much easier to
pick up a few more members as will the LGG campaign. Ask you
membership if this seems reasonable to them.

As I said there was a window of opportunity for the SSA to show true
leadership and value to the soaring community. *I contacted the SSA
director for government relationship and was told there was nothing
they were doing. *Not sure what you claim they have done since but we
have seen no results so far. *I called the SSA president and was
told there was nothing that the SSA could do.

If Al said there was nothing the SSA could do and you've seen no
'results', maybe Al was right.


The SSA could have:
1. Formed a task force to work on the problem.

An effective TF has to be made up of engineers willing to work long
hours to be effective.



an LET and EASA problem.
The short answer is it IS a LET and EASA problem - we're spectators.

2. Provided the task force with the authority and backing of the SSA
I'm not sure the SSA has 'authority' to do anything with respect to
the L-13 but I'm sure they are willing to 'back' any verifiable
solution.

* *a. Work with the FAA, EASA and LET
I assure they know we're concerned.

* *b. *Encourage a group of US engineers to develop a solution that
could be done within our system and meet the FAA requirements.

There is a possibility of an "Alternative Means of Compliance"
acceptable to the FAA but alternative to what? As I understand it,
there's no consensus on the problem. It's also unlikely such an AOC
would be much less expensive since it has to meet the same
certification issues.


The parts for the current solution are only about $1000, the rest is just trying to recover cost for a private firm that has developed one solution.

That's the catch. If a private firm invests the engineering hours
(Lots of hours) to develop an LET/EASA/FAA certifiable solution, they
deserve compensation. You wouldn't believe the paperwork.


If this had been done we could likely do the fix for under $2000 per plane..

You have my prayers and blessings.


Our club was just reaching critical mass and was beginning to draw
many new members to the SSA and soaring. We don't have the resources
currently to make the step up to a $60 to $100K trainer. The Grobs for
the most part lack a useful load for training. The 2-22 and 2-33 lack
the capability to be useful for soaring. *The Blanik is/was a very
valuable tool for allowing smaller clubs to grow large enough to step
up to the next level. *I hope designers and glider pilots like Richard
VanGrunsven might consider designing a kit that can be built by a club
for $25K that will provide a 35:1 trainer.

Contact BobK.