Contest Reporting (in "Soaring" mag)

WARNIMG: Longish, U.S.-centric post below!!!

OK - It's winter (again, sigh) in my neck of the woods and some recent RAS
posts touching upon contests and the (over-)reporting thereof in "Soaring"
magazine, plus a kinda-sorta related post from "Soaring's" newish-editor, move
me to muse a bit, here on RAS...

The closest I've been to a "real contest" was crewing at the 2013 combined
Super Regionals and 1-26 Championships in Moriarty, NM (thanks, Tony!); that's
since getting into soaring in late '72. Point being, I'm not a contest pilot,
and have never - seriously - considered becoming one. Yet, topically, the two
most compelling magazine subjects of interest to me upon discovering the sport
and magazine we contest reporting (specifically Nationals) and record
flight writeups. The listing order is meaningless; I inhaled all such
writeups. I also inhaled writeups of unsuccessful record attempts, as well as
writeups of "merely personally good flights," especially those from people
more experienced than I. Why? They were all inspirations for possible personal
future achievements, if I just kept plugging away at building my skill set. I
recognized early-on that were I successful in skills-building, then the
proportion of pilots ahead of me on the skills curve would lessen over
time...but so what? Inspiration is inspiration!

I can further recall when I first saw member-grousing about contest reports in
the magazine. Somewhat to my surprise, by then I (somewhat) agreed with those
writers' perspectives....but NOT for the reasons commonly expressed, which
I'll lump as "too much contest reporting; contests are
meaningless/of-no-interest-to-me/weekend-soaring pilots who constitute the
vast majority of SSA members." What bothered *me* about main-feature-article
contest reporting in the magazine as it evolved from (say) 1965 (back issues,
woo hoo!) through 1985 was a trend away from "you are there" reporting to a
"merely recounting of daily facts" style. What tended to drive that change is
perhaps worthy of its own discussion, but its reality was - and remains, for
the most part (with a few, notable/welcomed-by-me exceptions) - very real.

In short, nationals contest reporting went from the very-interesting
(factually-driven) "telling of stories," to dry-as-dust, Sg't. Joe Friday,
"Just the facts, Ma'am," summarizing. A recipe for more-boring reading is hard
for me to imagine...and I'm a "naturally *interested*" reader! (I write the
"boring reading" bit as a retired engineer - we stereotypically *love* reading
"dry stuff!")

My guess is that even if SSA's membership ratio of contest to non-contest
pilots had been flipped - i.e. if 95% of SSA members flew contests, vs. the
oft-referenced 5% - for all these years, the latter style of reporting
would've, by itself, induced historic reality's complaint rate. BUT instead of
the complaint typically being, "too much contest reporting in the
magazine/boring/of-no-interest-to-Joe-Average-Member!"...it would have been
"boring/lousy contest reporting!"

People's "current interests" vary wildly (duh) and change over time, so
there's no seriously imaginable way any "Soaring" editor could possibly meet
every member's expectations all the time, even were ye Editor blessed with
unlimited selection of beautifully-written articles on every topic of genuine
interest to some membership group. I imagine every "Soaring" editor has sought
to lay out every issue with well-written articles of genuine interest to
identifiable segments of readers as he imagines that readership to be. I
further imagine ye Editor strives for "topical balance" as best it can be
sensed (maybe even quantified via column inches), given the seasonal nature of
our sport.

I *hope* ye Editor gives, even if only occasionally, serious thought to the
nature of some of the sport's "seasonally repetitive" reporting (e.g. contest
reporting) and cogitates on how it might be structured to minimize the
"repetitive bits,"...and then "somehow" seeks to inspire his potential scribes
by conveying some sense of what it is he'd wish to receive in his perfect
world...as distinct from merely hoping it will magically appear "over the
transom."

Whatever ye Editor's actual thoughts on this matter, my guess/sense of the
link down the years between editorial thinking as it's influenced the
magazine's all-volunteer authors is, it has ranged from nearly-non-existent,
through tenuous, to very real, depending upon ye Editor. Regardless, our
wonderful (in my view) magazine has always been critically dependent on those
members with the motivation and "locational good fortune" (in the sense of
"being in a position to report on something") to take the time and make the
effort to create a feature-article-worthy report. No member input, no magazine
- simple as that.

So if I've a point for RAS-idents with internalized "contest-related reporting
gripes" it would be: don't stop at simply grousing on RAS about stuff which is
beyond Joe Editor's direct control. Take your complaints to a higher level,
say, actively seeking to recruit a fellow volunteer perhaps better
geographically positioned than you, or more talented in the writing arena, or
(use your imagination), and take real action designed to actually improve
*your* magazine.

Bob - you can relax now, my soapbox is buried in new snow - W.

Bob,

I couldn't agree with you more. For anyone interested to see how it should be done, see:

1969 Marfa Nationals Report - Joe Lincoln, Soaring September 1969
1970 World Championships Report - Joe Lincoln, Soaring September 1970
The Big One - Scott, Greene, Soaring February 1971
Four On The Floor - Streideck, et. al, Soaring November 1986

These are only a few.

Kevin

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 8:57:55 PM UTC-8, Bob Whelan wrote:
WARNIMG: Longish, U.S.-centric post below!!!

OK - It's winter (again, sigh) in my neck of the woods and some recent RAS
posts touching upon contests and the (over-)reporting thereof in "Soaring"
magazine, plus a kinda-sorta related post from "Soaring's" newish-editor, move
me to muse a bit, here on RAS...

Snip, snip

I fully agree. And this raises another question: How often have you written an article about one your flights?
I have to admit, I have not. Bummer!
Heinz

In defense of the current Soaring Editor,
He is an editor, not a writer. Don't know for sure, but I would assume that his expense money budget for actually venturing out to do some reporting, is somewhere in between nothing, and not enough.
To a large degree he can only work with what just happens to show up in his e-mail.
So if you don't like what's in the magazine, well just show us how it's done and submit your own article.

I'm with you on a good story is better than a just the facts reporting of the scores. Something like Skip Calling for a retrieve from the grocery store on a non flying day is always going to be much more interesting, than we didn't fly today.

Anybody want to write up the 2016 SSA Convention in Greenville? At this point not sure if it would be a tragedy or a comedy so any potential writer should be able to commit to being flexible.

To keep it from being a tragedy, we need you guys to show up.

SF

On 2/2/2016 12:20 PM, Heinz Gehlhaar wrote:
On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 8:57:55 PM UTC-8, Bob Whelan wrote:
WARNING: Longish, U.S.-centric post below!!!

OK - It's winter (again, sigh) in my neck of the woods and some recent
RAS posts touching upon contests and the (over-)reporting thereof in
"Soaring" magazine, plus a kinda-sorta related post from "Soaring's"
newish-editor, move me to muse a bit, here on RAS...

Snip, snip

I fully agree. And this raises another question: How often have you written
an article about one your flights? I have to admit, I have not. Bummer!
Heinz


Darned if that isn't an interesting rhetorical question! Off the top of my
head, I don't think I ever have, at least not for "Soaring" mag (only for my
club's newsletter). Shame on me. (By way of partial exculpation, do other
topics count? )

Tangentially/curiously-enough, one of the more interesting-to-me flights which
pops into mind was a 12-mile-one-way out-n-return "epic"/genuine-XC (given the
day). Upon minimal reflection, it hardly seems magazine-worthy as a "sheer
distance" tale, though it arguably might easily be as a "site tale," or
"learning experience" mini-adventure! Did it with a buddy, both of us in 15
meter ships on a day when few came out to the field, and no others braved XC.
I'm sure most of us can recall similar flights.

But to reinforce the primary point underlying my original post - which point
it's clear to me you've grasped - despite necessarily touching upon the topic
of magazine content (no criticism of content or ye Editors implicit), it did
so entirely for the purpose of encouraging any
less-than-perfectly-satisfied-with-magazine-content, fence-sitting, "Soaring"
readers, to take the authorial plunge. I imagine we'll all benefit!

Bob - snowbound - W.

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 9:57:55 PM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
WARNIMG: Longish, U.S.-centric post below!!!

OK - It's winter (again, sigh) in my neck of the woods and some recent RAS
posts touching upon contests and the (over-)reporting thereof in "Soaring"
magazine, plus a kinda-sorta related post from "Soaring's" newish-editor, move
me to muse a bit, here on RAS...

The closest I've been to a "real contest" was crewing at the 2013 combined
Super Regionals and 1-26 Championships in Moriarty, NM (thanks, Tony!); that's
since getting into soaring in late '72. Point being, I'm not a contest pilot,
and have never - seriously - considered becoming one. Yet, topically, the two
most compelling magazine subjects of interest to me upon discovering the sport
and magazine we contest reporting (specifically Nationals) and record
flight writeups. The listing order is meaningless; I inhaled all such
writeups. I also inhaled writeups of unsuccessful record attempts, as well as
writeups of "merely personally good flights," especially those from people
more experienced than I. Why? They were all inspirations for possible personal
future achievements, if I just kept plugging away at building my skill set. I
recognized early-on that were I successful in skills-building, then the
proportion of pilots ahead of me on the skills curve would lessen over
time...but so what? Inspiration is inspiration!

I can further recall when I first saw member-grousing about contest reports in
the magazine. Somewhat to my surprise, by then I (somewhat) agreed with those
writers' perspectives....but NOT for the reasons commonly expressed, which
I'll lump as "too much contest reporting; contests are
meaningless/of-no-interest-to-me/weekend-soaring pilots who constitute the
vast majority of SSA members." What bothered *me* about main-feature-article
contest reporting in the magazine as it evolved from (say) 1965 (back issues,
woo hoo!) through 1985 was a trend away from "you are there" reporting to a
"merely recounting of daily facts" style. What tended to drive that change is
perhaps worthy of its own discussion, but its reality was - and remains, for
the most part (with a few, notable/welcomed-by-me exceptions) - very real..

In short, nationals contest reporting went from the very-interesting
(factually-driven) "telling of stories," to dry-as-dust, Sg't. Joe Friday,
"Just the facts, Ma'am," summarizing. A recipe for more-boring reading is hard
for me to imagine...and I'm a "naturally *interested*" reader! (I write the
"boring reading" bit as a retired engineer - we stereotypically *love* reading
"dry stuff!")

My guess is that even if SSA's membership ratio of contest to non-contest
pilots had been flipped - i.e. if 95% of SSA members flew contests, vs. the
oft-referenced 5% - for all these years, the latter style of reporting
would've, by itself, induced historic reality's complaint rate. BUT instead of
the complaint typically being, "too much contest reporting in the
magazine/boring/of-no-interest-to-Joe-Average-Member!"...it would have been
"boring/lousy contest reporting!"

People's "current interests" vary wildly (duh) and change over time, so
there's no seriously imaginable way any "Soaring" editor could possibly meet
every member's expectations all the time, even were ye Editor blessed with
unlimited selection of beautifully-written articles on every topic of genuine
interest to some membership group. I imagine every "Soaring" editor has sought
to lay out every issue with well-written articles of genuine interest to
identifiable segments of readers as he imagines that readership to be. I
further imagine ye Editor strives for "topical balance" as best it can be
sensed (maybe even quantified via column inches), given the seasonal nature of
our sport.

I *hope* ye Editor gives, even if only occasionally, serious thought to the
nature of some of the sport's "seasonally repetitive" reporting (e.g. contest
reporting) and cogitates on how it might be structured to minimize the
"repetitive bits,"...and then "somehow" seeks to inspire his potential scribes
by conveying some sense of what it is he'd wish to receive in his perfect
world...as distinct from merely hoping it will magically appear "over the
transom."

Whatever ye Editor's actual thoughts on this matter, my guess/sense of the
link down the years between editorial thinking as it's influenced the
magazine's all-volunteer authors is, it has ranged from nearly-non-existent,
through tenuous, to very real, depending upon ye Editor. Regardless, our
wonderful (in my view) magazine has always been critically dependent on those
members with the motivation and "locational good fortune" (in the sense of
"being in a position to report on something") to take the time and make the
effort to create a feature-article-worthy report. No member input, no magazine
- simple as that.

So if I've a point for RAS-idents with internalized "contest-related reporting
gripes" it would be: don't stop at simply grousing on RAS about stuff which is
beyond Joe Editor's direct control. Take your complaints to a higher level,
say, actively seeking to recruit a fellow volunteer perhaps better
geographically positioned than you, or more talented in the writing arena, or
(use your imagination), and take real action designed to actually improve
*your* magazine.

Bob - you can relax now, my soapbox is buried in new snow - W.

I agree with Bob, I have been a member of SSA since 1968, and am holding on to my membership until I hit 2018. I used to read Soaring magazine cover to cover and now can barely just flip through it. I looks as if it is just filler. Nothing of real interest to me, even the sailplane ads are gone. I too enjoyed the first person account. Articles by Wally Scott, and other long distance flyers. Contest reports from Doug Lamont and Sylvia Colton. I wasn't flying gliders in 1966 but take a look at the August Issue reporting on the Nationals as the "Historic 33rd". How about Wally Scott's article about flying to Gila Bend and many many others. Fascinating, page turners!! I can remember articles by John Joss, Roger Clark, JJ Sinclair, Charlie Spratt and Charlie Minner. I realize that the editor doesn't write, but how about recruiting. Maybe great articles are out there just waiting from the likes of Ramey Yanetz, Tim Taylor, Bruno Vassel. I would like to go back to the page turner soaring rather than to cancel my membership.

gary kemp "NK"

On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 3:41:00 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 9:57:55 PM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
WARNIMG: Longish, U.S.-centric post below!!!

OK - It's winter (again, sigh) in my neck of the woods and some recent RAS
posts touching upon contests and the (over-)reporting thereof in "Soaring"
magazine, plus a kinda-sorta related post from "Soaring's" newish-editor, move
me to muse a bit, here on RAS...

The closest I've been to a "real contest" was crewing at the 2013 combined
Super Regionals and 1-26 Championships in Moriarty, NM (thanks, Tony!); that's
since getting into soaring in late '72. Point being, I'm not a contest pilot,
and have never - seriously - considered becoming one. Yet, topically, the two
most compelling magazine subjects of interest to me upon discovering the sport
and magazine we contest reporting (specifically Nationals) and record
flight writeups. The listing order is meaningless; I inhaled all such
writeups. I also inhaled writeups of unsuccessful record attempts, as well as
writeups of "merely personally good flights," especially those from people
more experienced than I. Why? They were all inspirations for possible personal
future achievements, if I just kept plugging away at building my skill set. I
recognized early-on that were I successful in skills-building, then the
proportion of pilots ahead of me on the skills curve would lessen over
time...but so what? Inspiration is inspiration!

I can further recall when I first saw member-grousing about contest reports in
the magazine. Somewhat to my surprise, by then I (somewhat) agreed with those
writers' perspectives....but NOT for the reasons commonly expressed, which
I'll lump as "too much contest reporting; contests are
meaningless/of-no-interest-to-me/weekend-soaring pilots who constitute the
vast majority of SSA members." What bothered *me* about main-feature-article
contest reporting in the magazine as it evolved from (say) 1965 (back issues,
woo hoo!) through 1985 was a trend away from "you are there" reporting to a
"merely recounting of daily facts" style. What tended to drive that change is
perhaps worthy of its own discussion, but its reality was - and remains, for
the most part (with a few, notable/welcomed-by-me exceptions) - very real.

In short, nationals contest reporting went from the very-interesting
(factually-driven) "telling of stories," to dry-as-dust, Sg't. Joe Friday,
"Just the facts, Ma'am," summarizing. A recipe for more-boring reading is hard
for me to imagine...and I'm a "naturally *interested*" reader! (I write the
"boring reading" bit as a retired engineer - we stereotypically *love* reading
"dry stuff!")

My guess is that even if SSA's membership ratio of contest to non-contest
pilots had been flipped - i.e. if 95% of SSA members flew contests, vs. the
oft-referenced 5% - for all these years, the latter style of reporting
would've, by itself, induced historic reality's complaint rate. BUT instead of
the complaint typically being, "too much contest reporting in the
magazine/boring/of-no-interest-to-Joe-Average-Member!"...it would have been
"boring/lousy contest reporting!"

People's "current interests" vary wildly (duh) and change over time, so
there's no seriously imaginable way any "Soaring" editor could possibly meet
every member's expectations all the time, even were ye Editor blessed with
unlimited selection of beautifully-written articles on every topic of genuine
interest to some membership group. I imagine every "Soaring" editor has sought
to lay out every issue with well-written articles of genuine interest to
identifiable segments of readers as he imagines that readership to be. I
further imagine ye Editor strives for "topical balance" as best it can be
sensed (maybe even quantified via column inches), given the seasonal nature of
our sport.

I *hope* ye Editor gives, even if only occasionally, serious thought to the
nature of some of the sport's "seasonally repetitive" reporting (e.g. contest
reporting) and cogitates on how it might be structured to minimize the
"repetitive bits,"...and then "somehow" seeks to inspire his potential scribes
by conveying some sense of what it is he'd wish to receive in his perfect
world...as distinct from merely hoping it will magically appear "over the
transom."

Whatever ye Editor's actual thoughts on this matter, my guess/sense of the
link down the years between editorial thinking as it's influenced the
magazine's all-volunteer authors is, it has ranged from nearly-non-existent,
through tenuous, to very real, depending upon ye Editor. Regardless, our
wonderful (in my view) magazine has always been critically dependent on those
members with the motivation and "locational good fortune" (in the sense of
"being in a position to report on something") to take the time and make the
effort to create a feature-article-worthy report. No member input, no magazine
- simple as that.

So if I've a point for RAS-idents with internalized "contest-related reporting
gripes" it would be: don't stop at simply grousing on RAS about stuff which is
beyond Joe Editor's direct control. Take your complaints to a higher level,
say, actively seeking to recruit a fellow volunteer perhaps better
geographically positioned than you, or more talented in the writing arena, or
(use your imagination), and take real action designed to actually improve
*your* magazine.

Bob - you can relax now, my soapbox is buried in new snow - W.

I agree with Bob, I have been a member of SSA since 1968, and am holding on to my membership until I hit 2018. I used to read Soaring magazine cover to cover and now can barely just flip through it. I looks as if it is just filler. Nothing of real interest to me, even the sailplane ads are gone.. I too enjoyed the first person account. Articles by Wally Scott, and other long distance flyers. Contest reports from Doug Lamont and Sylvia Colton. I wasn't flying gliders in 1966 but take a look at the August Issue reporting on the Nationals as the "Historic 33rd". How about Wally Scott's article about flying to Gila Bend and many many others. Fascinating, page turners!! I can remember articles by John Joss, Roger Clark, JJ Sinclair, Charlie Spratt and Charlie Minner. I realize that the editor doesn't write, but how about recruiting. Maybe great articles are out there just waiting from the likes of Ramey Yanetz, Tim Taylor, Bruno Vassel. I would like to go back to the page turner soaring rather than to cancel my membership.

gary kemp "NK"

I could reply to many here, I picked you (sorry if you don't like it).

I agree, some of the old contest articles were more of a, "You're not here, thus some of the other stuff that went on.......".
I brought this up in 2015, I was sorta hammered by the, "Welllll..... use Facebook, etc. for that stuff......"
Yes, times change, I'm NOT adverse to change.

I will say, not everyone has free time to chase some of the "alternatives", peeps outside of "contests" may not find those "gems".
I also TOTALLY understand that info is based on SOMEONE GIVING UP THEIR TIME TO WRITE INTERESTING STUFF!
Even for soaring magazine (heck, even my own club newsletter), one of the biggest issues facing an editor is a dearth of stuff to put in.
Thus, even "low level, dry reporting" goes in because it's WAY better than NOTHING.

I will state, I have been very limited in supplying info to either Soaring or my own local club newsletter.
Shame on me......

I truly appreciate contest reports that have the, "You're not here, but here is the little/fun stuff" (Juliet niner [sorry if I got it wrong], I love your reports as well as others I have read over the decades!)
I do NOT hate other reports, I understand it's a volunteer effort, if I wanted more, maybe I should write it.
I will accept the fact that someone else is taking their time to put up something.

I really miss SRN, mostly I miss Charlie, but this was a way to get great stuff from contests without "upsetting" SSA membership that didn't care about contests.
Hey, whatever floats your boat. I wanted the extra info, I paid for it.
The general SSA member, if they didn't want contest info in "Soaring", they received the minimum info. The rest paid for it.

So, anyone that is not happy with any type/level of reporting, maybe you (or, myself...) should write stuff so the editor has to kill some things because of a stack of submissions.
If the editor has a small pile, maybe everything gets "printed" just to fill things out.

"I looked into the mirror, and the enemy is me...." (sorta hacked, but hope the point gets across........)
[Now, back to an old article draft for local club newsletter.....]

Some of Soaring's editors have been good, even great writers themselves. Doug Lamont and John Good come to mind immediately. More commonly, editors have relied on other soaring pilots who have been very talented writers with modest flying abilities: e.g., Joe Lincoln and Gren Seibels. A few of these writers could both write and fly: The prolific world champion George Moffat comes to mind immediately.

An editor's job is mostly to get other people to write and then prepare their output for publication. Since Soaring has almost no budget for editorial, that means persuading, cajoling, and arm twisting, plus hoping enough unsolicited pieces come floating in that can be salvaged.

My [then] wife and I were once prevailed upon to write up the results of the Nationals at Hobbs. The results were "OK" but what I remember most was How.Much.Work.It.Was. Tanya was my crew and in charge of our twin girls, who were all over the airport. She nevertheless sort of kept up with her writing day to day. I didn't even think about it until after I got home, at which point I had to pull out the score sheets, refly the days in my mind, and try to reduce that to words.

Word count. As anyone who has read anything I've posted knows, it's impossible for me to be brief. Getting our joint effort down to the limit that had been set for us (governed by the page layout and allocation of the magazine) was another challenge.

My ex was a copy editor for a big NYC magazine so that was an advantage. Still, we passed the near-final piece back and forth several times as we both returned to the real world after being away from our jobs more than two weeks. I'm not saying this joint assignment was the proximate cause of our divorce, but it was stressful.

In short (well, relatively speaking), it's easy to say "hey, if you don't like what's in the magazine, write something yourself." Most of us can't. If good writing were easy, anyone could do it. So we rely on the few who do it well and the many who are "OK" with a lot of help from a good editor.

I used to read and reread my early issues of Soaring (1965 thru, say, the early 1970s) because the authors really did make me feel like I was there. I still read through the magazine quickly, and settle into an article a bit more deeply. But like a lot of other things in life, I don't expect Soaring will ever be the same. Pre-Internet, I used to complain about it and even, as an SSA Director, push for change. Now I think we're fortunate to still have a printed journal at all given the loss of classified ad income to the online channel. The fact that it's better now than it was for a long time is just a bonus.

Chip Bearden

Great post Bob! (and others),
I completely agree that the articles don't "grab" me like the old articles used to, and that the mirror is the only place to point for that dissatisfaction...
Perhaps it is high time to start writing about interesting experiences rather than just posting it on facebook.
Chris

Another longish post-

First, I greatly appreciate this thread. I get very little direct feedback from members on magazine content. It is easy to complain, harder to constructively critique, harder yet to be a part of the improvement process.

My biggest challenge taking over as editor last March was finding enough material to fill even half the magazine. I've written articles myself to ensure we didn't publish with blank pages. (We get many photo submissions, which are much easier to generate than articles - but it is actually as hard to get an outstanding and interesting photo as it is an article. I hope everyone enjoys the March issue article about Maria Szemplinska's approach to photography in soaring.)

There is no budget to solicit articles such as published in Gliding International, which provides a modest stipend to contributors (I will be asking for such a budget for this year, but don't think it will appear).

I, too, long for the days when Dick Johnson provided his test reports of the latest and greatest, or when Bob Whelan was writing his monthly tech articles. I pored over every word written by Joe Lincoln. I devoured these reports. And stories of soaring at "exotic" spots such as Rosamond, or the Sierra Wave project. But times change. Social media have become a "voice of the people" and posting short snippets has, in many instances, replaced thoughtful writing (as opposed to sharing personal, spur of the moment, thoughts).. I know many younger pilots who can't read past a couple of sentences in the first paragraph, lose patience, and go onto other things.

I've made requests in the magazine and elsewhere for specific articles on specific topics of the type I used to find so interesting, but with minimal responses. It really is true that writing an article is hard - it is time consuming, can require research and focused thought. And the editor might not like it, even after all that.

My goal is to have a stack of articles to choose from and even reject some. Not sure when/if that time will come. It is getting better, and I have been seeing some good articles, but there is much room for improvement. In my mind, the magazine is the place for more thoughtful and in-depth articles. The SSA website carries more the social media type content. The magazine has a different purpose, partly in presenting articles of interest and depth, and partly in providing a photographic experience.

I have personally made trips to various soaring activities in order to write articles about what was being experienced by myself and those that attended (such as cross country trip), and wrote a series of articles about a neophyte flying in a first contest. This is fun for me, but I have limited time to do this. I also like to just go out and fly - and being editor does interfere with this at times.

The membership is diverse. The articles reflect that diversity. Contests are a part of the experience. I am contemplating specifying a format that summarizes the results and focuses more on the "Here's what I did" experiences from the pilots to give a flavor to non-competition pilots what it is like to fly in a contest. I've flown in one and thoroughly enjoyed it. Currently, it is a challenge to find someone who is willing to write about any particular contest. This is understandable. A contest is a high energy, focused event. Asking someone to write about it is asking them to divert their energy and focus from the contest itself. And to gather inputs from participants is asking for even more effort. Is it worth it? If it can put a reader at the contest to share in the excitement - and frustrations - it can be worth it. But it takes effort.

We've had some great articles from the likes of Mitch Polinski about his record setting attempts. I like these because they share the challenge of going after records. And we've been getting more articles about flying at different locations, which I think helps motivate pilots to get away from their home fields and accept the challenge of flying where they don't know where the house thermals are, or the safe landing spots - without doing some research.

Finally, we are faced with a series of challenges in soaring, this year and for the next few. Aging pilot population, declining SSA membership, new ATC/FAA dictates (ADS-B, etc.), changing face of competitions (to FLARM or not to FLARM), more airspace constriction/density, increasing use of drones, and other challenges. The magazine is the logical place to discuss these topics in-depth, backed up with solid research to enable intelligent decisions. Further, most of us just want to fly our gliders - but these other topics keep popping up and sometimes interfere. So who's going to write those articles that induce neophytes to really become a part of our sport? Convey the challenge and excitement of contest flying, or going on that first cross country flight? And who is going to write the in-depth articles that enable our membership to intelligently help make decisions about how we fly? If SSA members don't, then it won't happen.

Again, thanks for the inputs in this thread. They are helpful. I can use more help.

Editor, Soaring Magazine