Revisiting declining membership

I would like to see something in the middle of the country.
I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in
itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major
city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest
ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob.

But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on
the building, so I imagine moving would be a
difficult (financial) decision.

In article ,
BGMIFF wrote:
I do not believe that very many of us feel well served by having the SSA
office in Hobbs, but in Wisconson, among all the political hogwash that goes
on there. Give me a break. I have belonged to EAA much longer that SSA, and
I would drop EAA in a heartbeat, but never SSA. The feeling of getting a
true direct vote for SSA directors, and to have some influence if one so
desires is great. Take a good look at EAA structures, if you do not live
close to Oshkosh, or have a famous name........you are a NOBODY and very
likely to stay that way!!! so if you want to move Hobbs, then why not think
of a real and viable soaring site. Harris Hill comes to mind very
quickly!!!!!!
--

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

Mark James Boyd wrote:

I would like to see something in the middle of the country.
I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in
itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major
city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest
ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob.

But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on
the building, so I imagine moving would be a
difficult (financial) decision.

I believe the terms are $0.00/month rent and we own the building after
20 years. It sounded good at the time we had to make the decision (I was
on the SSA board at the time), and it still sounds good.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

After 20 years, we can sell the building and move to a better location.
We either are very close to 20 years, or already there.


Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:

I would like to see something in the middle of the country.
I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in
itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major
city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest
ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob.
But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on
the building, so I imagine moving would be a difficult (financial)
decision.


I believe the terms are $0.00/month rent and we own the building after
20 years. It sounded good at the time we had to make the decision (I was
on the SSA board at the time), and it still sounds good.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services....

Not me - I resigned in protest. A few years ago, the FAA revised the
airplane PTS (Practical Test Standards) and NAFI, in their newslettter
said that that the PTS's had changed. Via a series of emails, I pointed
out that ONLY the airplane standards had changed and that the others
were unaffected. Their subsequent electronic newsletters still refused
to acknowledge that reality. Through more email exchanges, it became
evident that not only do airplanes and airplane instructors rule within
NAFI, but that if you ain't one, you don't exist. As a glider only
instructor, I saw no point in staying and voiced my opinion the only way
possible - with my feet.

Tony V.

One bit of EAA history that I do know is that when Poberenzy wanted to
expand out of the Hales Corner building, he only wanted to build a
bigger version of the Hales Corner corrugated hangar. The board pushed
to look further into the future and thus the beautiful museum that is
in Oshkosh exists.

Our library at the SSA headquarters consists of a couple walls of book
shelves, with boxes full of books sitting on the floor. Imagine our
offices, let's say in a suburb of Denver, or Dallas, or in Mr.
Greenwells location. Can you see all those soaring people visiting day
in and day out, volunteering their talent and time. Imagine guys like
Dick Johnson, in Dallas being able to visit and help out with history
projects whenever he wanted to. See where this is going.

Imagine Charlie, and Charlie lite getting on a non-stop flight straight
into DFW, or DEN, or ABQ, or wherever, and in twenty minutes being at
headquarters.

More thoughts?

I don't think we need anything that make soaring 'less professional' nor
should we make it 'less difficult to meet the standards', we have our own
safety problems in soaring and it will not be solved by lessening the
standards.

Fred Blair


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41df1d2c$1@darkstar...
As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but
I'm a member there for completely different reasons.
NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard.

I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make
soaring seem less professional, and less difficult
to meet the standards.

I agree. We absolutely should not make soaring less professional.
We are in agreement there.

I'd like to see soaring "seem" less professional. I'd like to see it
"seem" more like a social club. I'd like to see soaring "seem" like
an average, everyday, amateur hobby. I'd like for it to "seem"
less intimidating and expensive.

There are some who will disagree. They want all of the instructors to
be as professional as possible. Have them wear suits and ties.
Mandate friday evening refresher tests, and have every student
fly with every instructor at the FBO. And train every student on every
source of soaring lift and not sign them off for a practical test
until they have done at least 2 landouts, gotten all three diamonds,
and mastered the 2 feet within landing spot and 2 degrees of heading.

I'm not a fan of these kinds of establishments. I don't think they
represent value. I think they "seem" professional, but I am
not excited by appearances. I had a club where I was a member
change from a social club and an atmosphere of sharing and
informality to a seemingly professional organization. Uniforms,
extensive vetting of instructors, rate increases, weekly
meetings, and very professional syllabi with numerous
intermediate checks.

The membership eventually dwindled. Part-time instructors, some
who had taught for a decade, left. The couches were no longer
weighed heavy with throngs of eager, bright-eyed students with
a sense of empowerment. I too eventually left.

I also agree with you on the second point. I don't think we
should lessen the standards. Not just because we can't (it is in fact
the job of the FAA to set standards for solo through CFIG). Also
because they are fine standards, well thought out, and have provided
an acceptable level of safety for years.

But I would love to make it less difficult to meet the standards.
Instead of an active examinerilot ratio of 1:160 for gliders,
I'd like to see something closer to the 1:30 ratio for airplanes,
or even the 1:100 ratio for helicopters. I think this would make
it less difficult to meet the standards (in this case for a license).

I'd like to see CFIGs become aware of Sport Pilot and the
ease with which airplane pilots can transition to light sport gliders.
I'd like to see them use the exact same standard (not a lesser
standard). And I'd like to see these transitioning pilots avoid the
difficulty, time, scheduling complexity, and weather uncertainty
that often accompanies a formal practical test. Having 60 times as many
authorized people to sign off this privilege I think
will make it less difficult to meet the standards (in this case
to carry passengers in a LSA glider).

So I'm glad that we agree, but I sensed something in the reply
that made me think my post might be misinterpreted. I hope this
clarifies what I meant.

I think gliding is fun. I think learning to glide safely is
something an average person with modest means can do handily
given the right location, instructors, gliders, and attitude.
I want to see entry into our sport seem inviting, casual,
social, community based, and positive.

I strongly believe that the average person learning soaring would
seek to do everything in the test standards, and seek opinions
and instruction, even if NONE of it were required. I believe that
the mandating of requirements has done little to improve safety
compared to having the same applicants all forced to burn
$5000 and be beaten regularly with a cane.
Any washout process whatsoever will have an associated reduction
in accidents, which can be duplicated by simply
reducing the number of gliders as well...

If it becomes less difficult to learn gliding, then yes, there
will be more pilots, and some will be less dedicated and less
committed and less obsessed with soaring than the average
pilot currently doing it. I personally don't think this is a problem,
and I don't think it will reduce safety significantly.
It may increase safety, if the community is grown to the point
that dialogue among glider pilots is improved.

I have had the opportunity to interact with the Ultralight community
recently. Interesting bunch. One might think that a relative lack of
regulation and standards would greatly increase the fatalities.
Interestingly, this has less impact than one might think.
The vast majority of UL pilots recieved non-mandated instruction
before they ever soloed. They have followed lesson outlines
for instruction voluntarily. A lot of them, recognising that
many fatalities are caused not by the inadequacy of the pilot
but by the delicacy of the aircraft, have installed BRS parachute
systems in their (well, in the 2-seat ones anyway) aircraft.

They set their own minimums, and it seems to actually work ok
for them. A vast majority do just fine without any enforced
standards, thank you very much.

The one standard I find compelling is that before taking passengers, one
should do a bunch of solo. Darwin will do in 10 seconds what no
instructor or FAA rulebook can ever do. The instructor comes in
because someone has to convince the towpilot to tow the guy...


In article t,
f.blair wrote:
I don't think we need anything that make soaring 'less professional' nor
should we make it 'less difficult to meet the standards', we have our own
safety problems in soaring and it will not be solved by lessening the
standards.

Fred Blair


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41df1d2c$1@darkstar...
As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but
I'm a member there for completely different reasons.
NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard.

I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make
soaring seem less professional, and less difficult
to meet the standards.





--

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

Aha. I'm more like "General Electric" during an election year.
I give money and support to both parties, but I give more to the
one I like better...

In article ,
Tony Verhulst wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:
As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services....

Not me - I resigned in protest. A few years ago, the FAA revised the
airplane PTS (Practical Test Standards) and NAFI, in their newslettter
said that that the PTS's had changed. Via a series of emails, I pointed
out that ONLY the airplane standards had changed and that the others
were unaffected. Their subsequent electronic newsletters still refused
to acknowledge that reality. Through more email exchanges, it became
evident that not only do airplanes and airplane instructors rule within
NAFI, but that if you ain't one, you don't exist. As a glider only
instructor, I saw no point in staying and voiced my opinion the only way
possible - with my feet.

Tony V.


--

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

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41df1d2c$1@darkstar...
As a NAFI member, I've been happy with their services, but
I'm a member there for completely different reasons.
NAFI is about professionalism, and making a higher standard.

I think SSA needs to go the exact opposite way. Make
soaring seem less professional, and less difficult
to meet the standards.

Consistent instructor patter and standards might help. The single, biggest,
repeated complaint I hear is of the inconsistency among instructors. My
experience was quite different (BGA). Really didn't matter much which
instructor was in the back, they were instructing from the national
syllabus. A quick look of the student logbook would have them teaching the
appropriate skill and the patter was very consistent. The jokes varied
however.

I'm a huge fan of including hang gliding articles in
Soaring magazine. And maybe an ultralight or two.
I absolutely love the cross-polenization. I'm personally
recruiting some UL guys over to gliding for cross-training.

HG and PG are quite acceptable. UL pilots are mostly lone wolves. Few show
up at EAA events either as they've got a long tradition of shying away from
the FAA with their 'fat' ULs. Their fly-ins are UL only and they have great
fun with paintball guns, pumpkin drops, and eating.

I love these guys. They are fun, adventurous,
and maybe a little crazy. And they are aging, and looking
for some sports which are a little less "out there."
So soaring is looking pretty attractive to some of them.

That may be. I was a member of a local UL association for five recent
years. I've been around soaring about 30 years. There was no mixing of the
two. The number of local UL pilots known to me that have been killed or
seriously injured has been at least twice the number in 1/6 the time. The
number of close calls is also very high. Bent gear is part of the activity.
FWIW, Boy Scouts allows GA and soaring, but not balloons or ULs.

I think soaring will appeal to folks in other
airsports best, and have focussed my efforts on those
who are already in some other airsport. Nothing wrong
with true primary training, mind you, but it is for
me much harder to market to "interested novices"
compared to those who are already some form of pilot.

About 1 in 5 is approachable. Many are fixated on that windmill. Few still
have tow pilot potential. Many can't take the discipline of operating in a
club or commercial soaring environment. What's worse perhaps is that many
operations reject the time builders who are really good sticks and can be
supervised, but maybe just don't have the soaring bug.

And the "interested novices" that I see in this sport are
here through referral. Not ads or websites exclusively
(although these help).

The seekers are the ones. Don't let them get away. Everyone's an ab-initio
at some point. The majority of our most recent new members have come from
GA. Most don't bring enough of the right stuff to become tow pilots in the
near term however.

So I'd love to see HG and Soaring merge. I think this
would be much better than EAA or AOPA or whatever.
I don't think soaring needs more formality, I think it
needs the opposite, a less stuffy image...

SSA rebuffed the HG community 30 years ago. On their own, they created the
USHGA, fought their own battes and have quite a history. USHGA has trouble
encompassing the PG community and the purists want nothing to do with the
PPG guys, since they can't sustain soaring flight without the prop. They
also don't want the PPG's anywhere near their hard won launch sites.
Doable, yes, but invite all the soarers. Once again, USSA, United States
Soaring Association has a nice ring to it.

Frank Whiteley

In article . com,
Terry wrote:

snoop wrote:
"what if the SSA became a division of the EAA, similar to the Vintage,
Classic, Warbird divisions of the EAA.

Just curious for
thoughts.======================================== ==============

The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)-a division of the
EAA with approximately the same number of members as the SSA-could
serve as an example. NAFI publishes its own magazine, has its own web
page, sells its own merchandise, sends out email blasts to its members
on a monthly basis, and generally promotes professional flight
instruction though achievement awards such as the Master Instructor
program. This is accomplished with a small staff located within the
infrastructure of the EAA in Wisconsin. Sound familiar?
--

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

Sadly, I have to admit I've never been to the SSA office in Hobbs, though I
did once pop into the office when it was a Santa Monica Airpot. But it
wouldn't really make any difference to me if it was in Frederickburg, MD or
Biloxi, MS if they meet my needs. Hobbs at least is a soaring location.
The BGA office is in Leicester, a non-soaring location and I never visited
there in the ten years I spent in the UK. But they, like the SSA, were
available when needed.

Frank Whiteley

"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
news:GDGDd.43531$8e5.40014@fed1read07...
After 20 years, we can sell the building and move to a better location.
We either are very close to 20 years, or already there.


Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:

I would like to see something in the middle of the country.
I don't think the Hobbs location is necessarily bad in
itself, it just doesn't seem to be near a major
city. Yes it'd be great to get the $200 Southwest
ticket and fly to Hobbs to Hobb-Nob.
But if I recall, there is some super lease deal on
the building, so I imagine moving would be a difficult (financial)
decision.


I believe the terms are $0.00/month rent and we own the building after
20 years. It sounded good at the time we had to make the decision (I was
on the SSA board at the time), and it still sounds good.