The highly successful UK Junior XC program vs. USA's nonexistantJunior XC program. Why?

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 2:45:41 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:22:38 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:

I've been noodling on a few ideas for about a year now and have come to the conclusion that we really need to understand better where the bottleneck is: intake (seems not from the data), getting to solo, getting to first XC or getting to advanced XC/racing-ready? We also need to understand the state of the junior population and what the constraints are. The solution really needs to fit the problem - even then it would take energy, commitment and resources.


In addition to the bottlenecks to progress there needs to be an assessment of where we lose juniors in the process because it's pretty obvious that not all of them are making it into full-fledged XC and racing pilots as adults. Do the commitments of the last couple of years of high school get them? College? Moving into the working world? It's not just development, but retention that need a hard, analytical look. Right now we have a good number of opinions and anecdotes that can lead us where to look, but how much of what effects prevail when and where probably needs to be assessed at more than a cursory level. I've heard heartfelt proposed solutions over the years that I suspect a first-order look at the actual data would show to be fruitless.

Andy

There is a long way to go before we can begin to emulate the European gliding scene and as Alexander Schwagermakers pointed out you need to start somewhere. I believe the start point is long before the provision of contest aircraft for juniors to fly.

Club's must be willing to promote cross country and just as important is the organization of club resources to attain the objective. The clever ones would plan their fleets to provide aircraft for a variety of flying opportunities and promote standards that once attained would allow pilots to advance to higher performance aircraft. The aircraft at the top of the scale would be maintained expressly for cross country. The example citing the inconvenience to a member who would have to forfeit his flight to a cross country pilot would not occur, e.g. an LS4 is not a local soaring aircraft, for a one hour float around the airfield a 1-26, Ka8 or similar glider is perfectly adequate. Some clubs in Europe refine this process by allocating aircraft on a daily basis for cross country soaring. Not only is an aircraft allocated, also a weather briefing is conducted and a task set. Pilots who are not allocated an aircraft become willing retrieve crew knowing they will have the benefit of the same when it is their turn to fly. Pilots who are allocated an aircraft have the incentive to attempt the task knowing help has already been organized should they need a retrieve. Just like gaggle flying, groups can get better results even when conditions are not optimal.

The Europeans who have contributed to this discussion have intimated the club culture in Europe encourages cross country regardless of age. Sean is convinced this is not the case this side of the pond, I concur. Not every pilot is going to become a contest pilot, the same for juniors but many more would if cross country flying was made available and promoted in a meaningful way. Low costs and the availability of aircraft go a long way to enabling more pilots to gain the time and skills cross country flying requires. Convince the clubs that it is in their best interests to organize their activities to promote higher standards that lead to cross country flying and we might have a starting point for a revival.

Very well said.

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 12:15:51 PM UTC-7, Andy Gough wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 2:45:41 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:22:38 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:

I've been noodling on a few ideas for about a year now and have come to the conclusion that we really need to understand better where the bottleneck is: intake (seems not from the data), getting to solo, getting to first XC or getting to advanced XC/racing-ready? We also need to understand the state of the junior population and what the constraints are. The solution really needs to fit the problem - even then it would take energy, commitment and resources.


In addition to the bottlenecks to progress there needs to be an assessment of where we lose juniors in the process because it's pretty obvious that not all of them are making it into full-fledged XC and racing pilots as adults. Do the commitments of the last couple of years of high school get them? College? Moving into the working world? It's not just development, but retention that need a hard, analytical look. Right now we have a good number of opinions and anecdotes that can lead us where to look, but how much of what effects prevail when and where probably needs to be assessed at more than a cursory level. I've heard heartfelt proposed solutions over the years that I suspect a first-order look at the actual data would show to be fruitless.

Andy

There is a long way to go before we can begin to emulate the European gliding scene and as Alexander Schwagermakers pointed out you need to start somewhere. I believe the start point is long before the provision of contest aircraft for juniors to fly.

Club's must be willing to promote cross country and just as important is the organization of club resources to attain the objective. The clever ones would plan their fleets to provide aircraft for a variety of flying opportunities and promote standards that once attained would allow pilots to advance to higher performance aircraft. The aircraft at the top of the scale would be maintained expressly for cross country. The example citing the inconvenience to a member who would have to forfeit his flight to a cross country pilot would not occur, e.g. an LS4 is not a local soaring aircraft, for a one hour float around the airfield a 1-26, Ka8 or similar glider is perfectly adequate. Some clubs in Europe refine this process by allocating aircraft on a daily basis for cross country soaring. Not only is an aircraft allocated, also a weather briefing is conducted and a task set. Pilots who are not allocated an aircraft become willing retrieve crew knowing they will have the benefit of the same when it is their turn to fly. Pilots who are allocated an aircraft have the incentive to attempt the task knowing help has already been organized should they need a retrieve. Just like gaggle flying, groups can get better results even when conditions are not optimal.

The Europeans who have contributed to this discussion have intimated the club culture in Europe encourages cross country regardless of age. Sean is convinced this is not the case this side of the pond, I concur. Not every pilot is going to become a contest pilot, the same for juniors but many more would if cross country flying was made available and promoted in a meaningful way. Low costs and the availability of aircraft go a long way to enabling more pilots to gain the time and skills cross country flying requires. Convince the clubs that it is in their best interests to organize their activities to promote higher standards that lead to cross country flying and we might have a starting point for a revival.

Here's an additional challenge. About a year ago I took a look at the club fleet as listed on the "where to fly" section of SSA.org. It appears that the numbers of even two-generations-old fiberglass aircraft in the US fleet is extremely limited - like a handful. Maybe that's not totally up-to-date, but it seems likely that not only is it possible that club policies may restrict pilots of any age from going cross-country, but the equipment itself isn't all that suited for the task. Not that you can't go cross-country in a 1-26, but, as I can personally can attest from my early days flying cross-county in a 1-34, it's not exactly a picnic.

I'd be curious to know the exact level of development of the nearly 800 youth pilots currently holding SSA memberships. That's a pretty decent number, but if there is limited development, or ability to build skills, then that's the first problem - be it policies, equipment or some combination.

Andy
9B

At 19:15 14 September 2015, Andy Gough wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 2:45:41 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:22:38 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn
wrote:
=20
I've been noodling on a few ideas for about a year now and have come
to=
the conclusion that we really need to understand better where the
bottlene=
ck is: intake (seems not from the data), getting to solo, getting to
first
=
XC or getting to advanced XC/racing-ready? We also need to understand the
s=
tate of the junior population and what the constraints are. The solution
re=
ally needs to fit the problem - even then it would take energy,
commitment
=
and resources.=20
=20
=20
In addition to the bottlenecks to progress there needs to be an
assessmen=
t of where we lose juniors in the process because it's pretty obvious
that
=
not all of them are making it into full-fledged XC and racing pilots as
adu=
lts. Do the commitments of the last couple of years of high school get
them=
? College? Moving into the working world? It's not just development, but
re=
tention that need a hard, analytical look. Right now we have a good
number
=
of opinions and anecdotes that can lead us where to look, but how much of
w=
hat effects prevail when and where probably needs to be assessed at more
th=
an a cursory level. I've heard heartfelt proposed solutions over the
years
=
that I suspect a first-order look at the actual data would show to be
fruit=
less.
=20
Andy

There is a long way to go before we can begin to emulate the European
glidi=
ng scene and as Alexander Schwagermakers pointed out you need to start
some=
where. I believe the start point is long before the provision of contest
ai=
rcraft for juniors to fly.

Club's must be willing to promote cross country and just as important is
th=
e organization of club resources to attain the objective. The clever ones
w=
ould plan their fleets to provide aircraft for a variety of flying
opportun=
ities and promote standards that once attained would allow pilots to
advanc=
e to higher performance aircraft. The aircraft at the top of the scale
woul=
d be maintained expressly for cross country. The example citing the
inconve=
nience to a member who would have to forfeit his flight to a cross
country
=
pilot would not occur, e.g. an LS4 is not a local soaring aircraft, for a
o=
ne hour float around the airfield a 1-26, Ka8 or similar glider is
perfectl=
y adequate. Some clubs in Europe refine this process by allocating
aircraft=
on a daily basis for cross country soaring. Not only is an aircraft
alloca=
ted, also a weather briefing is conducted and a task set. Pilots who are
no=
t allocated an aircraft become willing retrieve crew knowing they will
have=
the benefit of the same when it is their turn to fly. Pilots who are
alloc=
ated an aircraft have the incentive to attempt the task knowing help has
al=
ready been organized should they need a retrieve. Just like gaggle
flying,
=
groups can get better results even when conditions are not optimal.

The Europeans who have contributed to this discussion have intimated the
cl=
ub culture in Europe encourages cross country regardless of age. Sean is
co=
nvinced this is not the case this side of the pond, I concur. Not every
pil=
ot is going to become a contest pilot, the same for juniors but many more
w=
ould if cross country flying was made available and promoted in a
meaningfu=
l way. Low costs and the availability of aircraft go a long way to
enabling=
more pilots to gain the time and skills cross country flying requires.
Con=
vince the clubs that it is in their best interests to organize their
activi=
ties to promote higher standards that lead to cross country flying and we
m=
ight have a starting point for a revival.


Interesting thread, and really a continuation of the “How do we
inspire� topic that Sean began here
http://ras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=282714&vt= and Andy Gough has it.
I would guess not many joggers jog competitively- if they were told that to
enjoy their recreation they had to race I suspect the majority response
might be rude. Not many glider pilots race competitively – what is it
5%, maybe only 2%. Soaring, even cross-country soaring is, for most, not a
race. I think those promoting soaring as a primarily competitive endeavour
do it no favours.

That's one thing. The other is the club thing. I've heard it said what
clubs need is more people like them. Many have a choice of one and,
depending on the club, Joe Public might think “Jeez no way I'm joining
that�. And some are clubmen, some just aren't. Long-time club
membership declines should encourage us to conclude there simply are not
enough “people like them� out there and to broaden the appeal stuff
needs fixing (I know its not the same everywhere). If the clubs are the
problem, the only alternative is that newcomers don't have to join them to
go soaring. Another discussion.

Showing newbies soaring and how its done as a “why we do it� and, at
the right point cross-country soaring too, without having them believe its
all about racing, could bring better results. The club culture thing is
harder. It should be the case that folk join clubs because they want to
not because they have to. Cross-country soaring should be an easy and
achievable aspiration but not all will want to do it. Of those that do
get the XC bug we cannot expect much more than the existing tiny minority
to have the commitment, time and money to take it as far as racing.
Therefore, to end up with more racing pilots means starting with a whole
lot more cross-country “joggers�, most of whom will quite reasonably
only ever want to enjoy the jogging.

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 7:45:07 AM UTC-6, Roger Hurley wrote:
At 19:15 14 September 2015, Andy Gough wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 2:45:41 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:22:38 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn
wrote:
=20
I've been noodling on a few ideas for about a year now and have come
to=
the conclusion that we really need to understand better where the
bottlene=
ck is: intake (seems not from the data), getting to solo, getting to
first
=
XC or getting to advanced XC/racing-ready? We also need to understand the
s=
tate of the junior population and what the constraints are. The solution
re=
ally needs to fit the problem - even then it would take energy,
commitment
=
and resources.=20
=20
=20
In addition to the bottlenecks to progress there needs to be an
assessmen=
t of where we lose juniors in the process because it's pretty obvious
that
=
not all of them are making it into full-fledged XC and racing pilots as
adu=
lts. Do the commitments of the last couple of years of high school get
them=
? College? Moving into the working world? It's not just development, but
re=
tention that need a hard, analytical look. Right now we have a good
number
=
of opinions and anecdotes that can lead us where to look, but how much of
w=
hat effects prevail when and where probably needs to be assessed at more
th=
an a cursory level. I've heard heartfelt proposed solutions over the
years
=
that I suspect a first-order look at the actual data would show to be
fruit=
less.
=20
Andy

There is a long way to go before we can begin to emulate the European
glidi=
ng scene and as Alexander Schwagermakers pointed out you need to start
some=
where. I believe the start point is long before the provision of contest
ai=
rcraft for juniors to fly.

Club's must be willing to promote cross country and just as important is
th=
e organization of club resources to attain the objective. The clever ones
w=
ould plan their fleets to provide aircraft for a variety of flying
opportun=
ities and promote standards that once attained would allow pilots to
advanc=
e to higher performance aircraft. The aircraft at the top of the scale
woul=
d be maintained expressly for cross country. The example citing the
inconve=
nience to a member who would have to forfeit his flight to a cross
country
=
pilot would not occur, e.g. an LS4 is not a local soaring aircraft, for a
o=
ne hour float around the airfield a 1-26, Ka8 or similar glider is
perfectl=
y adequate. Some clubs in Europe refine this process by allocating
aircraft=
on a daily basis for cross country soaring. Not only is an aircraft
alloca=
ted, also a weather briefing is conducted and a task set. Pilots who are
no=
t allocated an aircraft become willing retrieve crew knowing they will
have=
the benefit of the same when it is their turn to fly. Pilots who are
alloc=
ated an aircraft have the incentive to attempt the task knowing help has
al=
ready been organized should they need a retrieve. Just like gaggle
flying,
=
groups can get better results even when conditions are not optimal.

The Europeans who have contributed to this discussion have intimated the
cl=
ub culture in Europe encourages cross country regardless of age. Sean is
co=
nvinced this is not the case this side of the pond, I concur. Not every
pil=
ot is going to become a contest pilot, the same for juniors but many more
w=
ould if cross country flying was made available and promoted in a
meaningfu=
l way. Low costs and the availability of aircraft go a long way to
enabling=
more pilots to gain the time and skills cross country flying requires.
Con=
vince the clubs that it is in their best interests to organize their
activi=
ties to promote higher standards that lead to cross country flying and we
m=
ight have a starting point for a revival.


Interesting thread, and really a continuation of the "How do we
inspire" topic that Sean began here
http://ras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=282714&vt= and Andy Gough has it.
I would guess not many joggers jog competitively- if they were told that to
enjoy their recreation they had to race I suspect the majority response
might be rude. Not many glider pilots race competitively - what is it
5%, maybe only 2%. Soaring, even cross-country soaring is, for most, not a
race. I think those promoting soaring as a primarily competitive endeavour
do it no favours.

That's one thing. The other is the club thing. I've heard it said what
clubs need is more people like them. Many have a choice of one and,
depending on the club, Joe Public might think "Jeez no way I'm joining
that". And some are clubmen, some just aren't. Long-time club
membership declines should encourage us to conclude there simply are not
enough "people like them" out there and to broaden the appeal stuff
needs fixing (I know its not the same everywhere). If the clubs are the
problem, the only alternative is that newcomers don't have to join them to
go soaring. Another discussion.

Showing newbies soaring and how its done as a "why we do it" and, at
the right point cross-country soaring too, without having them believe its
all about racing, could bring better results. The club culture thing is
harder. It should be the case that folk join clubs because they want to
not because they have to. Cross-country soaring should be an easy and
achievable aspiration but not all will want to do it. Of those that do
get the XC bug we cannot expect much more than the existing tiny minority
to have the commitment, time and money to take it as far as racing.
Therefore, to end up with more racing pilots means starting with a whole
lot more cross-country "joggers", most of whom will quite reasonably
only ever want to enjoy the jogging.




The number of clubs and chapters and SSA members in them has be quite steady for several years. Churn is always happening. A few listed chapters are fiddling with the rules by not requiring all members to be SSA members. We are working to differentiate those. It's a work in progress, or not.

Frank Whiteley

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:15:51 PM UTC-4, Andy Gough wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 2:45:41 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:22:38 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:

I've been noodling on a few ideas for about a year now and have come to the conclusion that we really need to understand better where the bottleneck is: intake (seems not from the data), getting to solo, getting to first XC or getting to advanced XC/racing-ready? We also need to understand the state of the junior population and what the constraints are. The solution really needs to fit the problem - even then it would take energy, commitment and resources.


In addition to the bottlenecks to progress there needs to be an assessment of where we lose juniors in the process because it's pretty obvious that not all of them are making it into full-fledged XC and racing pilots as adults. Do the commitments of the last couple of years of high school get them? College? Moving into the working world? It's not just development, but retention that need a hard, analytical look. Right now we have a good number of opinions and anecdotes that can lead us where to look, but how much of what effects prevail when and where probably needs to be assessed at more than a cursory level. I've heard heartfelt proposed solutions over the years that I suspect a first-order look at the actual data would show to be fruitless.

Andy

There is a long way to go before we can begin to emulate the European gliding scene and as Alexander Schwagermakers pointed out you need to start somewhere. I believe the start point is long before the provision of contest aircraft for juniors to fly.

Club's must be willing to promote cross country and just as important is the organization of club resources to attain the objective. The clever ones would plan their fleets to provide aircraft for a variety of flying opportunities and promote standards that once attained would allow pilots to advance to higher performance aircraft. The aircraft at the top of the scale would be maintained expressly for cross country. The example citing the inconvenience to a member who would have to forfeit his flight to a cross country pilot would not occur, e.g. an LS4 is not a local soaring aircraft, for a one hour float around the airfield a 1-26, Ka8 or similar glider is perfectly adequate. Some clubs in Europe refine this process by allocating aircraft on a daily basis for cross country soaring. Not only is an aircraft allocated, also a weather briefing is conducted and a task set. Pilots who are not allocated an aircraft become willing retrieve crew knowing they will have the benefit of the same when it is their turn to fly. Pilots who are allocated an aircraft have the incentive to attempt the task knowing help has already been organized should they need a retrieve. Just like gaggle flying, groups can get better results even when conditions are not optimal.

The Europeans who have contributed to this discussion have intimated the club culture in Europe encourages cross country regardless of age. Sean is convinced this is not the case this side of the pond, I concur. Not every pilot is going to become a contest pilot, the same for juniors but many more would if cross country flying was made available and promoted in a meaningful way. Low costs and the availability of aircraft go a long way to enabling more pilots to gain the time and skills cross country flying requires. Convince the clubs that it is in their best interests to organize their activities to promote higher standards that lead to cross country flying and we might have a starting point for a revival.

+100. It requires real work to create an XC culture in a club. There are plenty of clubs in the US with high-class fleets that never go more than 10 miles from the home field. There are clubs with ratty (but capable) gliders that rack up the OLC points and badges. While a well-organized approach would be best, even seemingly tactical activities are better than nothing.

Greg Delp just organized a very successful OLC weekend at a small club in Connecticut. I'd venture a guess that there wasn't a large committee involved. Just a couple of sparkplugs.

If each SSA Director or State Governor simply made an effort to promote XC and Junior XC in particular in his/her region, it would only take a relatively small number of "hits" to generate a reasonable population of junior XC pilots in the US. Once there are a few converts in a club or region, there's a critical mass to hold a local junior get together with maybe 10 pilots. But, typing on RAS and bashing the "system" won't get it done.

To steal a line from Nike: Just Do It.

p3

Seems to be working a little bit!

"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." -Sun Tzu

Sean
7T

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:34:01 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:15:51 PM UTC-4, Andy Gough wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 2:45:41 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:22:38 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:

I've been noodling on a few ideas for about a year now and have come to the conclusion that we really need to understand better where the bottleneck is: intake (seems not from the data), getting to solo, getting to first XC or getting to advanced XC/racing-ready? We also need to understand the state of the junior population and what the constraints are. The solution really needs to fit the problem - even then it would take energy, commitment and resources.


In addition to the bottlenecks to progress there needs to be an assessment of where we lose juniors in the process because it's pretty obvious that not all of them are making it into full-fledged XC and racing pilots as adults. Do the commitments of the last couple of years of high school get them? College? Moving into the working world? It's not just development, but retention that need a hard, analytical look. Right now we have a good number of opinions and anecdotes that can lead us where to look, but how much of what effects prevail when and where probably needs to be assessed at more than a cursory level. I've heard heartfelt proposed solutions over the years that I suspect a first-order look at the actual data would show to be fruitless.

Andy

There is a long way to go before we can begin to emulate the European gliding scene and as Alexander Schwagermakers pointed out you need to start somewhere. I believe the start point is long before the provision of contest aircraft for juniors to fly.

Club's must be willing to promote cross country and just as important is the organization of club resources to attain the objective. The clever ones would plan their fleets to provide aircraft for a variety of flying opportunities and promote standards that once attained would allow pilots to advance to higher performance aircraft. The aircraft at the top of the scale would be maintained expressly for cross country. The example citing the inconvenience to a member who would have to forfeit his flight to a cross country pilot would not occur, e.g. an LS4 is not a local soaring aircraft, for a one hour float around the airfield a 1-26, Ka8 or similar glider is perfectly adequate. Some clubs in Europe refine this process by allocating aircraft on a daily basis for cross country soaring. Not only is an aircraft allocated, also a weather briefing is conducted and a task set. Pilots who are not allocated an aircraft become willing retrieve crew knowing they will have the benefit of the same when it is their turn to fly. Pilots who are allocated an aircraft have the incentive to attempt the task knowing help has already been organized should they need a retrieve. Just like gaggle flying, groups can get better results even when conditions are not optimal.

The Europeans who have contributed to this discussion have intimated the club culture in Europe encourages cross country regardless of age. Sean is convinced this is not the case this side of the pond, I concur. Not every pilot is going to become a contest pilot, the same for juniors but many more would if cross country flying was made available and promoted in a meaningful way. Low costs and the availability of aircraft go a long way to enabling more pilots to gain the time and skills cross country flying requires. Convince the clubs that it is in their best interests to organize their activities to promote higher standards that lead to cross country flying and we might have a starting point for a revival.

+100. It requires real work to create an XC culture in a club. There are plenty of clubs in the US with high-class fleets that never go more than 10 miles from the home field. There are clubs with ratty (but capable) gliders that rack up the OLC points and badges. While a well-organized approach would be best, even seemingly tactical activities are better than nothing.

Greg Delp just organized a very successful OLC weekend at a small club in Connecticut. I'd venture a guess that there wasn't a large committee involved. Just a couple of sparkplugs.

If each SSA Director or State Governor simply made an effort to promote XC and Junior XC in particular in his/her region, it would only take a relatively small number of "hits" to generate a reasonable population of junior XC pilots in the US. Once there are a few converts in a club or region, there's a critical mass to hold a local junior get together with maybe 10 pilots. But, typing on RAS and bashing the "system" won't get it done.

To steal a line from Nike: Just Do It.

p3

I hope I will know more later in the year ,I have volunteered to fly some
in
my duo when the circus visits my club in October .
From what I remember when my kids were juniors ,
They learn at a ferocious rate though not necessary consciously and have
reflexes that you have forgotten about.
The partying is nearly as important and it's the peer pressure keeps them
trying.
My old Chief flying instructors worried more about the conciencious 60 year

old early solo pilot than the 16 year old ,the junior will sort it out ,the
senior
will still be thinking about it when the sinsipient has turned into a
......
Remember fighter pilots are usually young or at least used to be.

At 16:41 15 September 2015, Sean Fidler wrote:
Seems to be working a little bit!

"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him."
-Sun
=
Tzu

Sean
7T

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:34:01 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:15:51 PM UTC-4, Andy Gough
wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 2:45:41 AM UTC-4, Andy
Blackburn
wrote=
:
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:22:38 PM UTC-7, Andy
Blackburn
wr=
ote:
=20
I've been noodling on a few ideas for about a year now and have
com=
e to the conclusion that we really need to understand better where the
bott=
leneck is: intake (seems not from the data), getting to solo, getting to
fi=
rst XC or getting to advanced XC/racing-ready? We also need to understand
t=
he state of the junior population and what the constraints are. The
solutio=
n really needs to fit the problem - even then it would take energy,
commitm=
ent and resources.=20
=20
=20
In addition to the bottlenecks to progress there needs to be an
asses=
sment of where we lose juniors in the process because it's pretty obvious
t=
hat not all of them are making it into full-fledged XC and racing pilots
as=
adults. Do the commitments of the last couple of years of high school
get
=
them? College? Moving into the working world? It's not just development,
bu=
t retention that need a hard, analytical look. Right now we have a good
num=
ber of opinions and anecdotes that can lead us where to look, but how
much
=
of what effects prevail when and where probably needs to be assessed at
mor=
e than a cursory level. I've heard heartfelt proposed solutions over the
ye=
ars that I suspect a first-order look at the actual data would show to be
f=
ruitless.
=20
Andy
=20
There is a long way to go before we can begin to emulate the European
g=
liding scene and as Alexander Schwagermakers pointed out you need to
start
=
somewhere. I believe the start point is long before the provision of
contes=
t aircraft for juniors to fly.
=20
Club's must be willing to promote cross country and just as important
i=
s the organization of club resources to attain the objective. The clever
on=
es would plan their fleets to provide aircraft for a variety of flying
oppo=
rtunities and promote standards that once attained would allow pilots to
ad=
vance to higher performance aircraft. The aircraft at the top of the
scale
=
would be maintained expressly for cross country. The example citing the
inc=
onvenience to a member who would have to forfeit his flight to a cross
coun=
try pilot would not occur, e.g. an LS4 is not a local soaring aircraft,
for=
a one hour float around the airfield a 1-26, Ka8 or similar glider is
perf=
ectly adequate. Some clubs in Europe refine this process by allocating
airc=
raft on a daily basis for cross country soaring. Not only is an aircraft
al=
located, also a weather briefing is conducted and a task set. Pilots who
ar=
e not allocated an aircraft become willing retrieve crew knowing they
will
=
have the benefit of the same when it is their turn to fly. Pilots who are
a=
llocated an aircraft have the incentive to attempt the task knowing help
ha=
s already been organized should they need a retrieve. Just like gaggle
flyi=
ng, groups can get better results even when conditions are not optimal.
=20
The Europeans who have contributed to this discussion have intimated
th=
e club culture in Europe encourages cross country regardless of age. Sean
i=
s convinced this is not the case this side of the pond, I concur. Not
every=
pilot is going to become a contest pilot, the same for juniors but many
mo=
re would if cross country flying was made available and promoted in a
meani=
ngful way. Low costs and the availability of aircraft go a long way to
enab=
ling more pilots to gain the time and skills cross country flying
requires.=
Convince the clubs that it is in their best interests to organize their
ac=
tivities to promote higher standards that lead to cross country flying
and
=
we might have a starting point for a revival.
=20
+100. It requires real work to create an XC culture in a club. There
a=
re plenty of clubs in the US with high-class fleets that never go more
than=
10 miles from the home field. There are clubs with ratty (but capable)
g=
liders that rack up the OLC points and badges. While a well-organized
appr=
oach would be best, even seemingly tactical activities are better than
noth=
ing. =20
=20
Greg Delp just organized a very successful OLC weekend at a small club
in=
Connecticut. I'd venture a guess that there wasn't a large committee
invo=
lved. Just a couple of sparkplugs.=20
=20
If each SSA Director or State Governor simply made an effort to promote
X=
C and Junior XC in particular in his/her region, it would only take a
rel=
atively small number of "hits" to generate a reasonable population of
junio=
r XC pilots in the US. Once there are a few converts in a club or
region,=
there's a critical mass to hold a local junior get together with maybe
10
=
pilots. But, typing on RAS and bashing the "system" won't get it done.
=
=20
=20
To steal a line from Nike: Just Do It. =20
=20
p3

Sean,
Frank Whiteley is looking for a new chair for the youth committee. Call him and volunteer. The SSA's abilities are limited by the capabilities, and the productivity of the volunteers doing the work. Instead of saying that "they" need to do something, step up, and show us how it's done.

Ultimately, your success will depend on your ability to convince someone at each of the local clubs to take this on. Irritating them might not be the best motivational tactic since they should be considered team mates to work with not opponents to vanquish. More Patrick Lencioni, a lot less Sun Tzu.

SF