US club class definition

You are insane if you think a rule change will get pilot's wives and children interested. 'If only the rules changed we would have groupies' Nope. Although I've always said soaring should have umbrella girls on the grid, a la Formula 1. Bicycle racing is popular because everyone has ridden a bicycle and the cost of self identifying as a hardcore bicycle type is cheap. Olympic sports are popular because of pomp and if your kid is good at just about any them college is free.
How is the SGP going to compete with Redbull's Air Race's or these guys http://worldwingsuitleague.com/facts/wwl-partners/ And what do you expect from a successful SGP? Corporate sponsors? http://www.npr.org/2014/11/29/367362...ngerous-sports Billionaire funded professional teams? Larry Ellison won the America's Cup without even being on the boat, imagine that. Or just more middle aged guys manning up and taking back their weekends? That would be awesome, noble and good for soaring but I don't see how the SGP gets anyone there.

"Bicycle racing is popular because everyone has ridden a bicycle and the cost of self identifying as a hardcore bicycle type is cheap."

Whoomp! There it is. The precise reason so many things like NASCAR, Golf, Pro ball, even Pro Fishing for heavens sake, are popular spectator sports. They are "relatable". Everybody who has ever driven a car fantasizes that they could do what the NASCAR guys do. Everybody can see themselves wearing a patch covered sponsor outfit and reeling in a lunker bass. How do we make soaring relatable? Short answer: Can't be done with the general population.. The average Joe doesn't understand how flying works and doesn't have the attention span or motivation to learn. If it ain't immediately intuitive, then average people won't bother. So what are we to do? We have to find the "above average" types who can be educated. Those folks who actually seek out new things to learn and do. Doesn't "above average" describe all the people you know in soaring? How do we find them? Same way every seller of consumer products in the world does it: Marketing. Spend real money on real advertising done by professionals. For-profit companies with something to sell know this (or they go out of business). Somehow, recreational clubs never seem to get this. Sure, we try all sorts of things to get our message out there in front of the public, but it's strictly amateur hour. We need to have professional marketers generate some sustained mass market visibility for soaring. By mass market, I don't necessarily mean national network TV or newspapers although that would be great. A tighter focus to the "above average population" would likely be much more cost effective. Regardless, it needs to be slick, professionally produced, and sustained. I understand that such a campaign might be prohibitively expensive even if done in only a few markets, but I think that type of marketing is PART of what it will take to actually increase the soaring population.

If professional marketing is only part of the strategy, what's the rest? I hate to say it, but clubs ain't it. At least, clubs aren't on the front line. Clubs will be how we sustain soaring, but to get soaring growing again, we need to support commercial soaring schools. Clubs just do not have the capacity and steady customer service that can add enough new pilots to grow soaring. Soaring clubs typically saturate their instructional capacity at about 3 new pilots and even then it's often a "catch-as-catch-can" intermittent form of flight training. Commercial schools can manage the "throughput".. Anyone here know of a commercial glider operation with too much business?

So, gotta be some of youse out there that know about marketing and/or commercial soaring operations. How much money would it take to hit one major market with a sustained marketing campaign of, say, maybe one year duration. Ads, commercials, vids in publications, maybe on cable, or on internet sites that cater to middle aged folks with both money and smarts. How much new business can a typical commercial soaring operation accommodate? It would be instructive, at least, to see how this experiment would work out.

WB

I have given so many glider flights to power pilot friends of mine, they all liked it but were not interested in taking up soaring as a sport. I have no idea why a pilot would not be interested in flying like a bird, without a noisy engine(s).

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 11:48:00 -0800, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

I have given so many glider flights to power pilot friends of mine, they
all liked it but were not interested in taking up soaring as a sport. I
have no idea why a pilot would not be interested in flying like a bird,
without a noisy engine(s).

I'm curious: how healthy is the American GA community in comparison to
the gliding one?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

I have given so many glider flights to power pilot friends of mine, they
all liked it but were not interested in taking up soaring as a sport. I
have no idea why a pilot would not be interested in flying like a bird,
without a noisy engine(s).

I'm curious: how healthy is the American GA community in comparison to the
gliding one?

An interesting question with no pat answer. All of what follows is from
memory; it's up to seriously interested readers to verify numbers...

In terms of sheer size, it's *roughly* 50-times larger. One segment - the
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) - has by their
probably-pretty-accurate, given how the program was/is set up, given over 2
million introductory rides to kids, at no cost to parents or participants,
since the 1990s; details on EAA's website. The program has been going on for
long enough for some kids hooked early-on to have become pilots, and who are
themselves now giving the next generation of kids rides in the same program.

Nonetheless, the licensed power pilot population has been declining (more or
less) steadily since the end of WW-II.

Arguably, EAA-related activities contain the healthiest segments of licensed
general aviation over here. Working from memory, in the past few years, each
year more single-engine airplanes with "Experimental - Amateur Built"
registrations have joined the fleet than new factory-built single-engine
airplanes. Most, but far from all, are either single- or two-seaters.

The largest/most-attended annual aviation event over here is "Oshkosh," which
more or less regularly, now, draws folks from across the (sometimes, both)
pond(s) flying in in their own GA ships, with more coming via airline.

Even so, - and I may be wrong on this particular stat - EAA's membership has
been more or less level for a long time, now.

Given that today *everyone* has plenty of potential exposure to the reality of
flight/pilots-required/etc., exposure would seem to be less "the main" entry
barrier, than "something else," insofar as the health (or not) of US general
aviation is concerned.

The above is from the perspective of an SSA member since '72 and an EAA member
since '79.

Bob W.

Given that today *everyone* has plenty of potential exposure to the reality of
flight/pilots-required/etc., exposure would seem to be less "the main" entry
barrier, than "something else," insofar as the health (or not) of US general
aviation is concerned.

The above is from the perspective of an SSA member since '72 and an EAA member
since '79.

Bob W.

Just my opinion, but I think the main entry barrier is not at entry, but at the point about 2/3rds of the way to solo. The trainee just gets tired of spending days at the airfield and getting only a couple of flights with an instructor.

On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:

Given that today *everyone* has plenty of potential exposure to the reality of
flight/pilots-required/etc., exposure would seem to be less "the main" entry
barrier, than "something else," insofar as the health (or not) of US general
aviation is concerned.

The above is from the perspective of an SSA member since '72 and an EAA member
since '79.

Bob W.

Just my opinion, but I think the main entry barrier is not at entry, but at the point about 2/3rds of the way to solo. The trainee just gets tired of spending days at the airfield and getting only a couple of flights with an instructor.

There is some real truth to WB's observation for some people.
In our area a student has the option of flying with our club or going to a commercial operation 10 miles away.
When a student is not happy with waiting and sharing resources we suggest that he or she try the other operation. Some do and some stay there. Most don't due to the difference in cost, which is about double.
We run a training operation all day with two 2-33's staffed as required. Most students get 2 to 3 flights a day.
If someone is time constrained we suggest they get there at the start of operations and we'll get their flying in so they can get to the soccer game, or whatever.
Interestingly the people who act most time constrained can't drag their butts out of bed in the morning. They expect to be customers, not club members. Experience shows they are much less likely to stick with it and be long term participants.
We do put extra effort into having waiting member help out which makes the time go quicker.
FWIW
UH