US club class definition

A group of scientists placed five monkeys in a cage, and in the middle, a ladder with bananas on top.

Every time a monkey went up the ladder, the scientists soaked the rest of the monkeys with cold water.

After a while, every time a monkey would start up the ladder, the others would pull it down and beat it up.

After a time, no monkey would dare try climbing the ladder, no matter how great the temptation.

The scientists then decided to replace one of the monkeys. The first thing this new monkey did was start to climb the ladder. Immediately, the others pulled him down and beat him up.

After several beatings, the new monkey learned never to go up the ladder, even though there was no evident reason not to, aside from the beatings.

The second monkey was substituted and the same occurred. The first monkey participated in the beating of the second monkey. A third monkey was changed and the same was repeated. The fourth monkey was changed, resulting in the same, before the fifth was finally replaced as well.

What was left was a group of five monkeys that – without ever having received a cold shower – continued to beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder.

If it was possible to ask the monkeys why they beat up on all those who attempted to climb the ladder, their most likely answer would be “I don’t know. It’s just how things are done around here.�

Does that sound at all familiar?

Le vendredi 3 mars 2017 14:01:11 UTC+1, a écritÂ*:
Dear Tango Whiskey,

You state that 95% of glider pilots are not interesting in racing. I think that's an honest and accurate estimation!

When 95% of any group finds no interest or enjoyment in something, that's because it's poorly designed!!!

Well said, bravo, bravo...

95% of gliders pilots have spoken.
The wives have spoken.
The children have spoken.

Hmmm.....is not clear to you all that the design is broken???

Sorry Sean, or Wilbur, or whatever,

I've been doing soaring for 35+ years, and most of the folks (including me) is not interested in competition. Whatever the competition looks like.

I can understand that flying over a flat countryside can be boring, but I spend my time in the air exclusively in the Alps which is probably the most demanding (and exciting) terrain you can imagine. I don't need the "extra thrill" of a competition. I'm just competing against myself, and sometimes I win.

Decline in soaring does not have *anything* to do with competition rules, as others have pointed out. Changing the rules doesn't improve anything on this aspect. Attracting public to competition - well, the GP's have been around for what, 10 years? What did they change?

And if you have a wife waiting for you all day long next to the runway - well, my wife doesn't wait for me at the airfield, she's got a life on her own. And I like it that way.

Bert
Ventus cM "TW"

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

Agreed - Soaring is not as relatable as other forms of racing.

But people are INSANE if they believe the current levels of participation are acceptable.

In 2016 a total of TWELVE pilots entered the Standard Class Nationals.

That's it!!! TWELVE!!!

Nationals should have a wait list every year, and take years for pilots to achieve a score that qualifies them into the national race.

We are at the point where we must combine multiple classes to even have enough pilots to "break even" at a national contest. That's sad, it's unfortunate and speaks volumes to a lack of common sense to make this a popular sport in America.

I doubt that we will even have billions or millions interested in our sport. But hoping for more than 12 in a class, or more than 25 in a large national class is completely realistic.....if you listen to those who do not participate.


Don't survey the current racing pilots, survey those who have quit the sport or won't enter a race only. Ask them why they are turned off to the idea of competition.

Ask the pilots who don't compete, if a race that has a rule book that can fit on a post card (aside from FAR's) if that would entice them to join.

Ask the pilots if a grand prix race is more exciting than an MAT.

Don't ask anyone in the current SSA leadership, because obviously what they are doing, is not working.

Once again....12 pilots entered the standard class nationals. There's more than a HALF A MILLION pilots in the USA. Add on ratings are easy to get. Why would only 12 pilots enter a class for a nationals???

Things that make you go hmmmmmm....

Whoooomp, there it is!