Future Club Training Gliders

On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.

UH -

1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
other expensive glass ships in this thread.

2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
attractive to younger members! Either you have great instruction, or
a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
those lines. They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
2-33, and decide it was a good idea.

I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
continue to fly with the club.

--Noel

On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.

UH -

1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
other expensive glass ships in this thread.

2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
2-33, and decide it was a good idea.

I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
continue to fly with the club.

--Noel

Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.

I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
progression.

By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.

If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
nothing more.

I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?

On Sep 15, 10:28*pm, Westbender wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:





On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.

UH -

1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
other expensive glass ships in this thread.

2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
2-33, and decide it was a good idea.

I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
continue to fly with the club.

--Noel

Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.

I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
progression.

By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.

If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
nothing more.

I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution
to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000
new glider pilots in the USA fling from about 1000 new clubs/
gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now?

If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution
to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000
new glider pilots in the USA *fling from about 1000 new clubs/
gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now?


That's easy. It's because we're not all rushing out to buy new Duos
and DG1000s! Once we do that, all will be fixed in the soaring world.

Not to mention the improved health all the small clubs (that are just
getting by) will experience when they take on the huge debt necessary
to make such purchases.

It's a no-brainer!

On Sep 15, 10:51*pm, Westbender wrote:
If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution
to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000
new glider pilots in the USA *fling from about 1000 new clubs/
gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now?

That's easy. It's because we're not all rushing out to buy new Duos
and DG1000s! Once we do that, all will be fixed in the soaring world.

Not to mention the improved health all the small clubs (that are just
getting by) will experience when they take on the huge debt necessary
to make such purchases.

It's a no-brainer!

In 40 years of fooling with gliders I don't ever remember anyone
leving the club because we weren't charging enough in fees...and I
don't ever recall seeing a Lambrogini dealer on every street corner
either...

Even if all the Blaniks were put back in the air tomorrow, and everyone
was in love with 2-33's, the fact is, they are all OLD metal ships that
are wearing out. The current Blanik troubles are not going to be the end
of it. We are going to need something to replace the 2-33's and Blaniks.
Whatever the replacements are, they better have big cockpits...

Speaking of cockpit size: How roomy are the SF-25's? Seems like there
are a lot of those, they can self launch, and they are still in
production.

On Sep 15, 8:28*pm, Westbender wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:



On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.

UH -

1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
other expensive glass ships in this thread.

2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
2-33, and decide it was a good idea.

I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
continue to fly with the club.

--Noel

Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.

I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
progression.

By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.

If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
nothing more.

I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?

I was fortunate that my first glider flight in the early 1970's was 1)
a soaring flight and not a sled ride and 2) in an L-13 and not a
2-33. Had either 1 or 2 been different, e.g. sled ride or 2-22/2-33,
I may not have become interested and gone hang gliding instead.
Before I took such a flight, I studied the topic in my local library
which held the 1967 NG issue of Striedeck's flight, copies of Soaring
Magazine, and several soaring books, include "Old Dog" Wolters "Once
Upon a Thermal". During my university years, somehow I missed Star
Trek and "The Boy Who Flew with Condors". You see, I liked fast boats
and faster motorcycles.

I know several instructors that will not get in the back of a 2-33.
Are you sure it's not the same problem?

Did you watch the video at the link I posted about bringing your club
into the 21st Century?

Are you sure they are stepping stones and not hurdles? See the above
referenced presentation. In effect what they achieved was the same
utilization with fewer gliders. Costs of said gliders were not
significantly different. Insurance costs probably went down. The
FSDO reported a higher standard of pilot check rides. The chapter had
a waiting list for memberships.

Not so much about eye-candy, but more about delivering on the promise
of soaring. I have flown 23/1, 30/1, 40/1 and 50/1. The promise is
not at 23/1. Jean Richard from Canada used to post on RAS for years.
An observation he contributed years ago was that 28/1 soars twice a
much as 23/1 in a ground launch training environment.

A New Zealand study presented at an SSA convention showed member churn
in soaring to be 20%/year everywhere but in the US, where it was 30%.
The reason for the difference was never very clear, but some of us
surmised at the time that 2-33's might be part of the reason, because
many places lacked even your club's stepping stones.

Am I saying crush them all? No. Just plan for the future and roll
over the tin ships to a club lower on the food chain. You are
welcomed to donate your under-utilized, serviceable gliders to the
Collegiate Soaring Assocation, a 501c(3) charitable soaring
organization.

Synthetic ropes make winching 2-22's and 2-33's much more reasonable
since they don't have to lift 200 or more pounds of wire rope.
Several flights for the cost of an aero tow. One of our club members
had 250 hours off the winch by age 16, then they put him in a
Messerschmitt so he could self launch;^)

Students are not necessarily youth. Some of the comments were about
what 'youth' expect. At the moment, youth are in short supply at your
chapter, although in abundance at another chapter with some similar
equipment. Youth like to hang out in groups. It's easy to attract
one or two for a while. If ten or twelve are hanging out at the club,
it's easy to get five or six to bring a friend. Some may stick, then
more show up. I think once you get 10-12, it might be a lot easier to
suddenly have many more, unless some grumps chase them away.

Just some ramblings,

Frank Whiteley

Let me try to make my point by using an analogy:

You're walking around downtown at lunch. You're hungry. There are
many restaurants around that will serve you food. Tucked into the
corner of a building you see a dodgy-looking sandwich shop that
appears to be old, small, rusty, and with fading/peeling paint on it.

How likely are you to walk in and sample the food?
How likely are you to walk in and tell the owner that he'd get more
business if he just spruced the place up and put out better signage?

Aren't you FAR more likely to just keep walking down the road and eat
somewhere else?

Anyone looked at the hang-gliding & paragliding community lately? Huh
- seems like its got a lot of youth involved in it and I keep hearing
about how their numbers are doing OK. Anyone hear a hang-glider
instructor talk fondly about about using a 30-year-old Rogallo wing to
instruct with? How about a Paragliding instructor wishing he was
still using an early-model 'chute (you know, the ones that were more
prone to collapses)?

I'm not laying all of soaring's troubles at the feet of the 2-33 and
I'm not saying that the ship is worthless. But I AM saying that I
think clubs should consider multiple angles when selecting their
training/club aircraft. Looking at it purely from the standpoint of
"dollars to acquire" or "dollars for routine maintenance" is myopic
and ignores a lot of other things. There's a reason businesses look
at "total cost of ownership" and "opportunity cost" when deciding to
buy big-ticket items.

--Noel

On Sep 15, 8:28*pm, Westbender wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:



On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.

UH -

1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
other expensive glass ships in this thread.

2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
2-33, and decide it was a good idea.

I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
continue to fly with the club.

--Noel

Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.

I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
progression.

By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.

If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
nothing more.

I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?

Unfortunately, I have seen the crestfallen look on prospective glider
pilots when they first looked at a 2-33 - many, many times. After
retirement, I worked at a commercial glider operation for a couple of
years. They used 2-33's and (tried to) fly 7 days a week.

A club down the field has a sleek fleet glass gliders. After a few
flights in our 2-33's, we'd see our customer training in a club DG or
Grob. I'd say we lost 50% of our students to the club. Speaking with
them, they'd say the 2-33 just wasn't what they were looking for in
the sport - or something much less kind.

The owner of the commercial school could only talk about how cheap the
2-33's were - as they sat unused.

One trainer that did not get a lot of focus was the Blanik L23. My
apologies if I missed those comments, but there has been 70 posting and I
might have missed it.

Will the L23 follow the same fate as the L13?

If so, is the reason because the design of the spar for the L23 is the
same as the L13? Or are there other reasons?

Andrew