Why is Soaring declining

In article ,
Burt Compton wrote:
What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe it is
because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet & greet", good
training, good equipment.

Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly noticed
is inconsistency.

Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be doing
all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.

I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
license for over $10,000. His best
and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.

I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
what was going on sooner.

I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
his students just need it...

There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
unethical business practices.

Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of bait-and-switch,
and a bit of car salesmanship.

Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.

I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff of
at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
tows and aircraft rental.

I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
require more training, or need more instruction in the more
tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.

But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.

I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me
It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
I usually figure I can't afford it :P

If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
business, and the business of my students, through referrals.


We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting pilot
is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.

Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
professional group with a code of ethics.

That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
you think they "should" want.

We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value and
be a source of pride to this industry.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Mark;

I'm not aware of any FBO doing ab initio training in a Duo Discus although
someone, Dean Carswell I think, said something in a review of the DG-1000 to
the effect that there was no reason not to train a new student in that
aircraft other than the concern over sending him solo in a very expensive
glider. I don't think there's any question but what its easier to get in
trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.

While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or move
up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to codify
precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I learned
to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of training
would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase in more
places than to decrease, BTW.

Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training I'm
not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.

The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more training
hours) than local flying in gentler places.

Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over the
country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at least five
different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do things at these
locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor who ultimately
soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked out, obviously,
but luck probably played more of a part than it should have.

The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at many
sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered some
rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the feeling that
I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them would favor
their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more "predatory".

Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing
spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good instructor
should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end of that
aspiration.

Ray Warshaw
Claremont, CA
1LK










"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41d311db$1@darkstar...
In article ,
Burt Compton wrote:
What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
it is
because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet & greet",
good
training, good equipment.

Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
noticed
is inconsistency.

Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be doing
all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.

I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
license for over $10,000. His best
and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.

I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
what was going on sooner.

I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
his students just need it...

There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
unethical business practices.

Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
bait-and-switch,
and a bit of car salesmanship.

Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.

I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff of
at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
tows and aircraft rental.

I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
require more training, or need more instruction in the more
tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.

But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.

I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me
It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
I usually figure I can't afford it :P

If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
business, and the business of my students, through referrals.


We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting
pilot
is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.

Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
professional group with a code of ethics.

That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
you think they "should" want.

We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
and
be a source of pride to this industry.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

I don't this soaring is declining because we're not training in expensive
high performance gliders..IMHO, it's quite the contrary....
Soaring has declined as of late....but didn't we increase the roles of
membership when our training a fleet ships were comprised mostly of 2-22's,
2-33's, K7's K13's and L-13's??.....It's been as of late while everyone has
been trying to spend big $ and buy more expensive club gliders, and
consequently saddling clubs and members with higher costs and debts that
clubs and membership has show it's worst decline....New students don't know
that flying a K7 or L13 isn't fun and challenging....so why do we have to
tell them that these trainers are obsolete and no longer teach the basics of
soaring, stick and rudder?
I think a vast majority of our newer members and students are really missing
something by not knowing the fun and joy of soaring in some of these great
old ships, (and even some newer less expensive and non-competition types)
have to offer. They are missing the history and heritage of soaring from our
beginnings......let them experience this, let them move into high $ gliders
"if" that is the path they choose. We still have a very large contingent of
soaring pilots in the world that have no interest in competitions, or
spending their children's college tuitions on their weekend toys but
happily, most for many years have been showing up at the airports and
enjoying the sport for what they want to get out of it...If you want to
expand soaring, make it affordable, keep it fun, ask yourself and your
members to dedicate some time to teach, and ask them for less money to take
part and I think you'll see far greater results
just my 2 cents, but it's worked for myself and my clubs for over 25 years
tim

"Raphael Warshaw" wrote in message
...
Mark;

I'm not aware of any FBO doing ab initio training in a Duo Discus although
someone, Dean Carswell I think, said something in a review of the DG-1000
to the effect that there was no reason not to train a new student in that
aircraft other than the concern over sending him solo in a very expensive
glider. I don't think there's any question but what its easier to get in
trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.

While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or
move up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to
codify precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I
learned to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of
training would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase
in more places than to decrease, BTW.

Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training I'm
not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.

The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more training
hours) than local flying in gentler places.

Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over
the country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at
least five different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do
things at these locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor
who ultimately soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked
out, obviously, but luck probably played more of a part than it should
have.

The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at
many sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered
some rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the
feeling that I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them
would favor their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more
"predatory".

Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing
spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good instructor
should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end of that
aspiration.

Ray Warshaw
Claremont, CA
1LK










"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41d311db$1@darkstar...
In article ,
Burt Compton wrote:
What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
it is
because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet &
greet", good
training, good equipment.

Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
noticed
is inconsistency.

Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be doing
all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.

I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
license for over $10,000. His best
and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.

I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
what was going on sooner.

I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
his students just need it...

There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
unethical business practices.

Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
bait-and-switch,
and a bit of car salesmanship.

Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.

I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff
of
at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
tows and aircraft rental.

I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
require more training, or need more instruction in the more
tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.

But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.

I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me
It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
I usually figure I can't afford it :P

If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
business, and the business of my students, through referrals.


We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting
pilot
is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.

Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
professional group with a code of ethics.

That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
you think they "should" want.

We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
and
be a source of pride to this industry.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Well I for one agree with Tim's comments, with the perceived expectation
that
we are a very expensive sport using Formula One (or Nascar etc etc) type
of expensive equipment.

Here in the UK I have similar discussions with people who do not know our
sport, and they are all surprised that my hobby is actually cheaper that
many
others, including golf and even tennis or even a season ticket to a
Premiership
football club.

Having just managed my 5 hours this week in a 30 year old K6 I also agree
with
the comments on K7's and K13's. At out club we have these on site and they
are
very affordable and more importantly cheap and easy to keep in the air.
People
can move on in reasonable cost stages. Rather like my K6 which cost me the
equivalent of 7 days pay to join the syndicate and a further 12 days pay to
keep
in the air.

Flying K21's and the like is very nice but way beyond the means of most
people.
All you do is increase their expectations, which are then dashed by the cost
of
new plastic ships. Out of the 100 or so clubs over here I wonder how many
are truly solvent businesses, putting the cost of a new ship on the books
must hurt
immensely.

The comment about advertising is also extremely relevant. Apart from a
couple of times
I can't remember seeing anything on the TV here. Maybe we need to all get
together
and pool our resources for a good advertising campaign? Oh I forgot, we do
hear if
there's an incident of course!

Malcolm...


"Tim Mara" wrote in message
...
I don't this soaring is declining because we're not training in expensive
high performance gliders..IMHO, it's quite the contrary....
Soaring has declined as of late....but didn't we increase the roles of
membership when our training a fleet ships were comprised mostly of
2-22's, 2-33's, K7's K13's and L-13's??.....It's been as of late while
everyone has been trying to spend big $ and buy more expensive club
gliders, and consequently saddling clubs and members with higher costs and
debts that clubs and membership has show it's worst decline....New
students don't know that flying a K7 or L13 isn't fun and
challenging....so why do we have to tell them that these trainers are
obsolete and no longer teach the basics of soaring, stick and rudder?
I think a vast majority of our newer members and students are really
missing something by not knowing the fun and joy of soaring in some of
these great old ships, (and even some newer less expensive and
non-competition types) have to offer. They are missing the history and
heritage of soaring from our beginnings......let them experience this, let
them move into high $ gliders "if" that is the path they choose. We still
have a very large contingent of soaring pilots in the world that have no
interest in competitions, or spending their children's college tuitions on
their weekend toys but happily, most for many years have been showing up
at the airports and enjoying the sport for what they want to get out of
it...If you want to expand soaring, make it affordable, keep it fun, ask
yourself and your members to dedicate some time to teach, and ask them for
less money to take part and I think you'll see far greater results
just my 2 cents, but it's worked for myself and my clubs for over 25 years
tim

"Raphael Warshaw" wrote in message
...
Mark;

I'm not aware of any FBO doing ab initio training in a Duo Discus
although someone, Dean Carswell I think, said something in a review of
the DG-1000 to the effect that there was no reason not to train a new
student in that aircraft other than the concern over sending him solo in
a very expensive glider. I don't think there's any question but what its
easier to get in trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.

While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or
move up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to
codify precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I
learned to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of
training would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase
in more places than to decrease, BTW.

Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training
I'm not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.

The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more
training hours) than local flying in gentler places.

Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over
the country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at
least five different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do
things at these locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor
who ultimately soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked
out, obviously, but luck probably played more of a part than it should
have.

The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at
many sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered
some rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the
feeling that I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them
would favor their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more
"predatory".

Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of
landing spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good
instructor should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end
of that aspiration.

Ray Warshaw
Claremont, CA
1LK










"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41d311db$1@darkstar...
In article ,
Burt Compton wrote:
What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
it is
because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet &
greet", good
training, good equipment.

Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
noticed
is inconsistency.

Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be
doing
all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.

I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
license for over $10,000. His best
and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.

I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
what was going on sooner.

I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
his students just need it...

There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
unethical business practices.

Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
bait-and-switch,
and a bit of car salesmanship.

Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.

I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff
of
at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
tows and aircraft rental.

I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
require more training, or need more instruction in the more
tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.

But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.

I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me
It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
I usually figure I can't afford it :P

If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
business, and the business of my students, through referrals.


We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each
customer/student/visiting pilot
is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.

Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
professional group with a code of ethics.

That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
you think they "should" want.

We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
and
be a source of pride to this industry.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Our club has operated on the cheap for over twenty years. Next month we
decide whether or not we are extinct.

Tim Mara wrote:
I don't this soaring is declining because we're not training in expensive
high performance gliders..IMHO, it's quite the contrary....
Soaring has declined as of late....but didn't we increase the roles of
membership when our training a fleet ships were comprised mostly of 2-22's,
2-33's, K7's K13's and L-13's??.....It's been as of late while everyone has
been trying to spend big $ and buy more expensive club gliders, and
consequently saddling clubs and members with higher costs and debts that
clubs and membership has show it's worst decline....New students don't know
that flying a K7 or L13 isn't fun and challenging....so why do we have to
tell them that these trainers are obsolete and no longer teach the basics of
soaring, stick and rudder?
I think a vast majority of our newer members and students are really missing
something by not knowing the fun and joy of soaring in some of these great
old ships, (and even some newer less expensive and non-competition types)
have to offer. They are missing the history and heritage of soaring from our
beginnings......let them experience this, let them move into high $ gliders
"if" that is the path they choose. We still have a very large contingent of
soaring pilots in the world that have no interest in competitions, or
spending their children's college tuitions on their weekend toys but
happily, most for many years have been showing up at the airports and
enjoying the sport for what they want to get out of it...If you want to
expand soaring, make it affordable, keep it fun, ask yourself and your
members to dedicate some time to teach, and ask them for less money to take
part and I think you'll see far greater results
just my 2 cents, but it's worked for myself and my clubs for over 25 years
tim

"Raphael Warshaw" wrote in message
...

Mark;

I'm not aware of any FBO doing ab initio training in a Duo Discus although
someone, Dean Carswell I think, said something in a review of the DG-1000
to the effect that there was no reason not to train a new student in that
aircraft other than the concern over sending him solo in a very expensive
glider. I don't think there's any question but what its easier to get in
trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.

While I agree that the sport could benefit from some standardization of
training methods, the decision as to when a student is ready to solo or
move up in aircraft performance involves, IMHO, too many variables to
codify precisely. As to licensing, I got my private ticket long before I
learned to fly. I suspect that well thought-out national standards of
training would cause the "time to solo" and "time to license" to increase
in more places than to decrease, BTW.

Our accident, injury and fatality rate suggests that we are not training
glider pilots adequately for the conditions they encounter once on their
own. Whether this is the fault of the quality or quantity of training I'm
not qualified to say. Most likely it's some combination of both.

The training requirements are, it seems to me, somewhat site-specific as
well. Western wave sites with the possibility of coming home from a
cross-country to 50 knot plus cross winds or even rotor on the airport or
east coast ridge sites with high-speed close to the ground operations and
limited landout potential require a different skill set (and more training
hours) than local flying in gentler places.

Because my work kept me on the road, I took my initial training all over
the country. My pre-solo logbook shows four separate glider types at
least five different locations. Opinions as to the "right way" to do
things at these locations differed markedly. As a result, the instructor
who ultimately soloed me (in a 2/33, BTW) took a lot on faith. It worked
out, obviously, but luck probably played more of a part than it should
have.

The FBO renting an aircraft is entitled to set the standards for that
rental. I suspect that more revenue is lost, short-term, than gained by
FBOs as a result of such standards. Finally, I've visited and flown at
many sites around the country and in Europe and, while I've encountered
some rudeness and indifference, not one of them has left me with the
feeling that I was being "preyed upon"; quite the opposite, many of them
would favor their own well-being, even survival, by being a bit more
"predatory".

Training a student to ASPIRE to "2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing
spot or perfectly centered yawstrings" is, IMHO, what a good instructor
should be doing and passing the checkride shouldn't be the end of that
aspiration.

Ray Warshaw
Claremont, CA
1LK










"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41d311db$1@darkstar...

In article ,
Burt Compton wrote:

What decline? My commercial soaring operation is slowly growing. Maybe
it is
because of our good soaring location, good marketing, good "meet &
greet", good
training, good equipment.

Don't forget, you have the bugs worked out. When people show up for
something, they get it. Straightforward, on the nose, no hidden
charges. Contrasted with my experience. Over the course of visiting
hundreds of FBOs, and dozens of gliderports one thing I've strongly
noticed
is inconsistency.

Some FBOs end up charging up to 5 times as much as others to
achieve a license. The students never even know that they could be doing
all of their training in a 2-33 for $7 a flight instead of a
Duo Discus that they have to reserve two weeks ahead of time and
pay for two hours at $180 whether in the air or not.

I met a guy who got his Private Pilot Glider
license for over $10,000. His best
and will solo soon for about $500 total at a differnet club.

I'll tell you, he felt that $10,000 was no bargain.
The guy is not happy about it, and curses the fact he didn't know
what was going on sooner.

I know an airplane instructor who regularly does over 100
hours of DUAL instruction for each rating. He tells me it isn't him,
his students just need it...

There is nothing wrong with offering slick, super duper gliders,
or brand new aircraft, or training people to ATP standards before their
first solo. As long as they WANT it. But a lot of brand new students
come in the door (which takes a LOT of courage to begin with) and
they are so excited they are hungry and will take anything. Their
ignorance is flat out preyed upon by what I consider to be marginally
unethical business practices.

Training to 2 degrees of heading or 1 foot of landing spot or
perfectly centered yawstrings sure does line the pocket. But not
giving a student a accurate assessment of when they can reliably pass
a checkride, or harping that training must be done until one can fly
an ASW-20 when someone asks for a glider license is a bit of
bait-and-switch,
and a bit of car salesmanship.

Part of the hesitation people have approaching flying is downright
inconsistency. I've watched potential pilots try to sort out
the prices and requirements, and walk away because the
CFI or FBO is just a bit too shifty.

I've started recommending to students to use instructors who have
a Gold Seal, or who have ratios of dual given to practical test signoff
of
at most 50:1. Beyond that, I've outlined the widely varying cost of
tows and aircraft rental.

I'm not saying that charging a lot for rental or doing a ton of dual for
a rating is in itself unethical. Granted, there are soaring sites
that are in very expensive areas, and there are students who sometimes
require more training, or need more instruction in the more
tricky aircraft available for rent. And if the operation only
wants Duo Discuses, then hey, taht's their choice.

But the "black magic" and fog surrounding newbies seeking glider
instruction, and the inconsistencies of price and "requirements"
sure don't add to the overall reputation of flying in general.
Whether it is ethical or not at some point takes a backseat to the
damage it causes to the reputation of the industry.

I've always been a little leary of operations that don't advertise
their prices, either. Maybe that's the gliding "consumer" in me
It doesn't mean they charge too much, it just means now I have
to ask a lot of questions. How many of you actively seek to buy
an item that says for price: "inquire." When I see that,
I usually figure I can't afford it :P

If you have a website, and you don't have prices on it, I'm
less likely to come visit. You're going to have to get my
business, and the business of my students, through referrals.


We ain't gettin' rich, but we realize that each customer/student/visiting
pilot
is golden, brings in a few dollars, and so we show them a good time.

Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

Burt is a NAFI Master instructor, DPE, and Gold Seal! That means he
gets people through license and at the very least subscribes to a
professional group with a code of ethics.

That's the attitude that gets referrals. A good value, and giving
a customer what they asked for, instead of selling them something
you think they "should" want.

We are "ambassadors" to the sport. We need to ensure we avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. With so few gliderports in the country, each
one is an embassy. I think each one should do its best to provide value
and
be a source of pride to this industry.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd






--
Charles Yeates

Swidnik PW-6U & PW-5
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html

Charles Yeates wrote:
Our club has operated on the cheap for over twenty years. Next month we
decide whether or not we are extinct.

BIG snip




Good luck Charles.

For what it is worth I see a lot more red tape and bureaucracy in the USA, and
recently in Europe. I think this probably is more of a deterrent than cost.
People have enough "toe the line" to do in the week without having this in their
recreation. My experience is that people are generally pleasantly surprised at
the low cost of soaring, we recently doubled our club rates and invested the
money in improving the operations (better retrieve car, refurb on aircraft) and
our membership has never looked better.

Personally I do not think money is the primary thing if you are careful. Look in
South Africa, we have three clubs all the same radial distance from Johannesburg
International (actually four if you count Brits, and five if you count the motor
glider only bunch at Benoni)
One club is the place for the wealthier or competitive pilot. Training fleet is
2x twin Astir and one L13 (used primarily for intros) The club is the busiest in
the country despite the prevalence of expensive glass, and predominance of aero
tow. They do have a winch for training though, and a fair number of older
gliders in private hands. Primarily they offer convenience, and lower time demands.

Then there is the Potchefstroom University linked PUK Akavlieg - only two years
old and growing like a weed. Some energetic instructors, lots of inexpensive
Ka7,8 and 13 trainers. Add some of the top competition pilots in the country
with their superships (ASH26e - Ventus 2, ASW22Ble...) for aspirational
influence and the club is booming. It is also a reasonably expensive club, but
has winch and aero tow and cheap flying for those who just want to stooge
around. The fiercest contests are flown with a couple of Std Cirrus... With a
number of motor gliders there the progress to solo can be quick, but expensive,
or slow and cheap.

Then there is our "mom and pop" operation in Parys, cheapest of the lot. We fly
old rag and tube trainers. One of the syndicates graciously lets us use their
L13 Blanik for training, mainly because they prefer flying in it to the
Bergies... We have members who are low income artizans who own superships (in
their day) and enjoy them - where else can you get three Scheibe Zugfogels in
the same thermal I wonder. We winch only and keep it simple, and concentrate on
instruction. Problem we have is we have been adding new members and gliders till
we can't fit in the hangar any more. 9 assembled long wings + one winch + the
retrieve and there is no space to move... For what it is worth we only have tow
glass toys, a Std Cirrus and a Kestrel 19 at the club. What we offer is a nice
place for the family and low fuss factor.

Each club offers a different social fabric, and serves a different community.
Those who want to arrive and fly their expensive planes from beautiful facilites
pay the equivalent of any exclusive club (golf or otherwise) for the
facilities and the services -hook up and go. The rest fit in where they feel at
home. Probably half of our members could afford the expensive alternatives, and
don't because they prefer the social fabric our club.

Funny part is the biggest and most active club in the country by far is the most
expensive. It possibly has to do with critical mass, but is also taps into the
"got to be where the action is" nature of a lot of people.

One surprising thing to me has been the lack of formal approach to growing the
clubs world wide. By comparison I look at the way Toastmasters International
manages their clubs and wonder if we should not be introducing something similar.

They have club officers responsible for specific aspects of operation that look
after the membership. We tend to focus on the flying and training aspects. So
why not add a "Membership office", and a "Public Relations Office" , and a
"Sergeant at arms" - to schedule the duty officers and see the equipment is
ready for use.
To our "President Office" - Chairman, "Education Office" (CFI?) and a "Financial
Office" (Treasurer) and Technical Office.
The TMI approach is to have a manual, and guidelines available for each office
and mentors to help new members do the job. They get inexperienced members to
take responsibility and learn. The benefits are in three areas:
New members get experience and feel involved.
People don't burn out from their recreation becomming a burden, the experienced
guys get to pass on their learning - but responsibility gets shared out.
The club runs well, and everybody contributes and understands how much it takes
to do the job.

That said, our club is still in existance because one instructor dedicated three
years to flying as duty instructor every weekend, until some of the newbies
could help... Sometimes it just takes refusing to accept defeat.

IHMO, the cost/benefit analysis people make about soaring and other
hobbies involves weighing the whole set of 'expenses' ... and yes,
soaring may have more collateral costs then other hobbies, but I don't
know how we can change those ... and I don't think anyone has a formula
that will allow us to realistically change the $ either.

I know the people who get and stay involved in soaring do so because it
is a sport/lifestyle that provides a level of satisfaction or joy that
no other activity can provide. When soaring provides insufficient joy
for a person, they will exit right ... and a lot do. (I'm guessing 20%
yearly, maybe somebody has better turnover numbers.)

So, if we reduced the costs of tows and club dues 50%, what would
happen? Well, I suppose the argument is more people would join (but
where would they come from) and less would depart ... i.e. we would
have a sustained higher rate of casual/training soaring participants.
(BTW, I think it is hard to be a casual participant in any aviation
sport ... especially with recency/proficency requirements ... which
exist for the right reasons.) But, aren't clubs really doing an
excellent job of keeping costs down. i.e. My last two clubs charged
zero $ for rentals or instruction ... and tows were 65% of the local
FBO rates.

And if we reduced the cost of ASW-27s and V2s to $25K .... would this
result in more people getting involved in soaring? ... and less
leaving? I'm not sure I see how.

So, while making the sport less $ expensive is a valid and reasonable
argument ... I don't know if it will generate the desired increase in
community membership.

I still think we are dealing with percentages ... X percent of those
who 'hear' about Soaring and take it up as a casual hobby will stay
with it Y years ... and a smaller x will become lifelong participants.
Lifers are important to the sport as they constitute a core support
group and keep the infrastructure intact over the long haul. And
lifers are not just the FBOs or the members of the SSA organization or
the racers ... they are the guys involved in local clubs ...
instructors and general rank and file ... who put copies of Soaring in
local libraries ... people who promote the sport. We need both the
lifers and the people who are involved in soaring as a casual hobby.

IHMO, I think the only way to incease membership is to get the word out
and have more people coming through the front doors. Unfortunately, in
the US, we don't get much/any free advertising and pretty much have to
do it all ourselves.

Ken Kochanski - KK
ASW-27B (50%)

In article ,
"Raphael Warshaw" wrote:

I'm not aware of any FBO doing ab initio training in a Duo Discus although
someone, Dean Carswell I think, said something in a review of the DG-1000 to
the effect that there was no reason not to train a new student in that
aircraft other than the concern over sending him solo in a very expensive
glider.

Our club (Wellington, NZ) recently decided to trade our two Grob Twin
Astir's and a Janus in on two new DG-1000's for our ab initio training
(and cross country training, and aerobatics, and rides, and ...).

I don't think we've ever had a problem with starting people off in the
Grobs (which we've been doing for ten years), and then solo just as
quickly and just as safely as people used to in the Blanik's before that.


I don't think there's any question but what its easier to get in
trouble in fast glass than a 2-33 though.

People might have a problem moving from a 2-33 to a DG-1000 because of
bad habits and misunderstandings that the 2-33 hasn't corrected, but I
really don't think there's anything especially hard about "fast glass"
if that's what you learn on.

It would be equally valid to say that someone who'd learned on glass
will find it very easy to get themselves into trouble in a 2-33 by
ending up too far from the field too low, or have to return into a
headwind or through sink, and just expect that all gliders have a flat
glide angle and reasonable penetration.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

People might have a problem moving from a 2-33 to a DG-1000 because of
bad habits and misunderstandings that the 2-33 hasn't corrected,

That's due to deficiency in the training. With the right instruction, someone
can transition in 2-3 flights from a 2-33 to a G103...I've seen it done many
times.

Jim Vincent
N483SZ
illspam

Jim Vincent wrote:
People might have a problem moving from a 2-33 to a DG-1000 because of
bad habits and misunderstandings that the 2-33 hasn't corrected,

That's due to deficiency in the training. With the right instruction, someone
can transition in 2-3 flights from a 2-33 to a G103...I've seen it done many
times.

Agreed. I started in a 2-33 and now fly an LS6, but you've got to watch
the student. You can tell a student not to do something because it's a
bad habit, but if the student (especially post solo) sees that it works
in a 2-33 - and does it, he'll have to unlearn it later.

Tony V.