Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Oh well I an i guess I will not include you in my origami classes as you will take up to much of my time. :-) At 08:09 AM 5/09/2005, you wrote: Sorry I am still going on about this topic - It takes me guess 12 hours flying (20hrs of my time) to teach an old fart who will be in gliding for the next 15 years and may give us extra stress in our live whereas in 12 hours (20 hours of my time) I can teach TWO teanages (or up to 25 yrs old) to fly and they could be around gliding for the next 50 years each (total 100years) I am not going to waste my valuable time any longer unless there is a worthwhile return. The only ones I might make exceptions to are younger airline pilots (usually switched on) and hang glider pilots (at least they can thermal and don't get shot down) Ian McPhee - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Leigh Bunting To: mailto:aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.netDiscussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Ian McPhee wrote: OK OK Dave but we should still vet the +50s or give them points like a bank account like, Skiing, motorbikes, sailing etc. No other skills then they go to the wait list - our time is much better spent into teaching the good ones Macca Sad but true. As an 'old fart' who started flying before ANY sex, let alone regular sex, I see all too many older sprogs who have led sedentary lifestyles for several decades, struggling to keep their brain ahead of the airframe. Many find it all too hard and give up. I commend those who stick at it. -- Leigh Bunting Colonel Light Gardens South Australia Open Windows and let the bugs in -- ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 8/22/2005 ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring Regards Rob Moore 08 82588026 home 0412 055 888 mobile 08 82819393 fax ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
RE: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Macca, Send them to Summerland Gliding Club. Wed be happy to teach them!! Cheers Mark Mark Fisher Sports Technologist School of Exercise Science Southern Cross University www.scu.edu.au Ph: +61 2 66203655 Fax +61 2 66203880 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian McPhee Sent: Monday, 5 September 2005 8:40 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Sorry I am still going on about this topic -It takes me guess 12 hours flying (20hrs of my time) to teach an old fart who will be in gliding for the next 15 years and may give us extra stress in our live whereas in 12 hours (20 hours of my time) I can teachTWO teanages (or up to 25 yrs old) to fly and they could bearound gliding for the next 50 years each (total 100years)I am not going to waste my valuable time any longer unless there is a worthwhile return. The only ones I might make exceptions to are younger airline pilots (usually switched on)and hang glider pilots(at least they can thermal and don't get shot down)Ian McPhee - Original Message - From: Leigh Bunting To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Ian McPhee wrote: OK OK Dave but we should still vet the +50s or give them points like a bank account like, Skiing, motorbikes, sailing etc. No other skills then they go to the wait list - our time is much better spent into teaching the good ones Macca Sad but true. As an 'old fart' who started flying before ANY sex, let alone regular sex, I see all too many older sprogs who have led sedentary lifestyles for several decades, struggling to keep their brain ahead of the airframe. Many find it all too hard and give up. I commend those who stick at it. -- Leigh BuntingColonel Light GardensSouth AustraliaOpen Windows and let the bugs in ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 8/22/2005 ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Sorry I am still going on about this topic -It takes me guess 12 hours flying (20hrs of my time) to teach an old fart who will be in gliding for the next 15 years and may give us extra stress in our live whereas in 12 hours (20 hours of my time) I can teachTWO teanages (or up to 25 yrs old) to fly and they could bearound gliding for the next 50 years each (total 100years)I am not going to waste my valuable time any longer unless there is a worthwhile return. The only ones I might make exceptions to are younger airline pilots (usually switched on)and hang glider pilots(at least they can thermal and don't get shot down)Ian McPhee - Original Message - From: Leigh Bunting To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Ian McPhee wrote: OK OK Dave but we should still vet the +50s or give them points like a bank account like, Skiing, motorbikes, sailing etc. No other skills then they go to the wait list - our time is much better spent into teaching the good ones MaccaSad but true.As an 'old fart' who started flying before ANY sex, let alone regular sex, I see all too many older sprogs who have led sedentary lifestyles for several decades, struggling to keep their brain ahead of the airframe. Many find it all too hard and give up.I commend those who stick at it.-- Leigh Bunting Colonel Light Gardens South Australia Open Windows and let the bugs in ___Aus-soaring mailing listAus-soaring@lists.internode.on.netTo check or change subscription details, visit:http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 8/22/2005 ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
I entered gliding at age 40 and I expect to be around gliding until I'm at least ninety, don't you? Grant Harper ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Ian McPhee wrote: OK OK Dave but we should still vet the +50s or give them points like a bank account like, Skiing, motorbikes, sailing etc. No other skills then they go to the wait list - our time is much better spent into teaching the good ones Macca Sad but true. As an 'old fart' who started flying before ANY sex, let alone regular sex, I see all too many older sprogs who have led sedentary lifestyles for several decades, struggling to keep their brain ahead of the airframe. Many find it all too hard and give up. I commend those who stick at it. -- Leigh Bunting Colonel Light Gardens South Australia Open Windows and let the bugs in ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
It is a problem teaching the 50+ group - think they
should have a tax to rebate young peoples flying. I learnt as a teenager and we
got money back thru "Royal Aero Clubs" for when we earnt our C or was it our
clubs got the rebate. I amgetting a young kid who earnt points
through "work for the dole" and the government are paying an intro course of
$600 - another kid Coles-myres paid for his flying thru working at Bilo.
They are better kids to teach than the ones whos parents throw the money at
gliding. Actually we have a "wait list" of currently 4 people who want to
learn - we want to look after the student we already have rather than overload
the system - and let the new lot start in say6 weeks
Ian McPhee
--- Original Message -
From:
Christopher Mc Donnell
To: Discussion of issues relating
to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 9:10
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH
TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
I read the link below.
Seems that thosewho participate in gliding
do so before regular sex and after they can't remember what it was
:-)
Nowif anybody knows a marketer who can
convince the public that gliding is better than sex we've got it
made.
Seriously though, training 50yr+ people is a hard
slog. Ask EP or any instructor who has had a few. Our "Old Bomber" Eric Bates
was a breeze as he had learnt to ride the bike when he was young. I do
not derogatethis market niche as there are many others who are chasing
it in this period of demographic change.
Also on oldies, I amretiree and will not
glide on the weekend unless it is for a special reason.
I am getting close to the top of my family
hierarchical pyramid and there is always something on like baptisms, birthdays
engagements, weddings etc. etc. which I am expected to attend and which I do
enjoy. Before I retired I was the "old fart" who never came to anything
because I was at the gliding club. I am lucky that my club can
accomodate weekday gliding as golf, bowling etc. clubs do for retirees. This
is something that needs to be taken into account if this market is
pursued.
The airmindedoldies could be one
ofthe saviours ofour sport in the short term but in the long term
I feel the sport for "ordinary" people is doomed for reasons I won't discuss
here. There have been manyactivities, that have had their time and
passed. As for myself I intend to enjoy it unfettered andto the full as
long as I can.
Chris McDonnell
- Original Message -
From:
Geoff
Kidd
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:02
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485
for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty
picture".
- Original Message -
From:
Mark
Newton
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 1:09
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Robert Hart wrote: Geoff Kidd wrote:
I would council the GFA to take (pay
for) professional advice on key issues such as marketing
etc. Agreed - but only after some extensive consultation
in-house - ie with the members. It is the members' organisation
and they should have the major say in the direction their
organisation takes. Once the goals are known, expertise to help
achieve those goals can be paid for.Don't agree, Robert. The
goals are already known; Extensiveconsultation with the members
is going to deliver the same outcomewe're already talking about here,
namely that the sport needs to begrown.The particular ways in
which it is grown aren't (or shouldn't be)important to the current
members. We all happen to fit in to aculture that says lots of
time and not much money is an ok way tolearn how to fly, otherwise we
wouldn't be here. So our ideas aboutthe way to go about this, as
shaped by our personalities andexperiences are automatically
incompatible with the potential customerbase we're talking about
here.In short, if GFA engaged in detailed consultation with the
members,and the members recommended the particular direction to take,
thenthe members would effectively sabotage the process by
recommendinga direction which was familiar and (for their demographic)
"triedand true." The safe option is the one we already have,
because (forus) it has worked.Taking a new direction requires
the organization's management totake a risk, t
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Hey Macca,
Don't knock us 50+ lot. Some of us didn't discover
gliding quite as early as you did, and maybe we took a bit longer to learn as
the younger guys. But we can still become addicted, maybe more so. With family
left the nest us old guys can spend a bit more time at the Club - both flying
and helping. I'm doing everything I can to make up for lost time. And I know a
few others like me.
Dave
- Original Message -
From:
Ian
McPhee
To: Discussion of issues relating
to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 6:41
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH
TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
It is a problem teaching the 50+ group - think
they should have a tax to rebate young peoples flying. I learnt as a teenager
and we got money back thru "Royal Aero Clubs" for when we earnt our C or was
it our clubs got the rebate. I amgetting a young kid who earnt
points through "work for the dole" and the government are paying an intro
course of $600 - another kid Coles-myres paid for his flying thru working at
Bilo. They are better kids to teach than the ones whos parents throw the
money at gliding. Actually we have a "wait list" of currently 4 people
who want to learn - we want to look after the student we already have rather
than overload the system - and let the new lot start in say6
weeks
Ian McPhee
--- Original Message -
From:
Christopher Mc Donnell
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 9:10
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
I read the link below.
Seems that thosewho participate in
gliding do so before regular sex and after they can't remember what it was
:-)
Nowif anybody knows a marketer who can
convince the public that gliding is better than sex we've got it
made.
Seriously though, training 50yr+ people is a
hard slog. Ask EP or any instructor who has had a few. Our "Old Bomber" Eric
Bates was a breeze as he had learnt to ride the bike when he was
young. I do not derogatethis market niche as there are many
others who are chasing it in this period of demographic
change.
Also on oldies, I amretiree and will not
glide on the weekend unless it is for a special reason.
I am getting close to the top of my family
hierarchical pyramid and there is always something on like baptisms,
birthdays engagements, weddings etc. etc. which I am expected to attend and
which I do enjoy. Before I retired I was the "old fart" who never came to
anything because I was at the gliding club. I am lucky that my club
can accomodate weekday gliding as golf, bowling etc. clubs do for retirees.
This is something that needs to be taken into account if this market is
pursued.
The airmindedoldies could be one
ofthe saviours ofour sport in the short term but in the long
term I feel the sport for "ordinary" people is doomed for reasons I won't
discuss here. There have been manyactivities, that have had their time
and passed. As for myself I intend to enjoy it unfettered andto the
full as long as I can.
Chris McDonnell
- Original Message -
From:
Geoff
Kidd
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:02
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485
for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty
picture".
- Original Message -
From:
Mark Newton
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 1:09
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Robert Hart wrote: Geoff Kidd wrote:
I would council the GFA to take
(pay for) professional advice on key issues such as
marketing etc. Agreed - but only after some extensive
consultation in-house - ie with the members. It is the members'
organisation and they should have the major say in the
direction their organisation takes. Once the goals are known,
expertise to help achieve those goals can be paid for.Don't
agree, Robert. The goals are already known;
Extensiveconsultation with the members is going to deliver the same
outcomewe're already talking about here, namely that the sport needs
to begrown.The particular ways in which it is grown aren't
(or should
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Dave,
I'm with you. It may take a little longer to pound
the info through our slightly thicker skulls, however we realise that we are not
cast iron and bullet proof! Many of us do become addicted and as you say have a
little more time (and money) to devote toour flying as well as the club.
Most of the future belongs to the young, but we oldies have plenty to contribute
also.
Hopefully also we have a little more life
experience that can contribute to the future ofour clubs and
thesport, while trying to increase the interest from those still in the
first flush of youth.
Bob
- Original Message -
From:
Dave Shorter
To: Discussion of issues relating
to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:09
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH
TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Hey Macca,
Don't knock us 50+ lot. Some of us didn't
discover gliding quite as early as you did, and maybe we took a bit longer to
learn as the younger guys. But we can still become addicted, maybe more so.
With family left the nest us old guys can spend a bit more time at the Club -
both flying and helping. I'm doing everything I can to make up for lost time.
And I know a few others like me.
Dave
- Original Message -
From:
Ian
McPhee
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 6:41
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
It is a problem teaching the 50+ group - think
they should have a tax to rebate young peoples flying. I learnt as a
teenager and we got money back thru "Royal Aero Clubs" for when we earnt our
C or was it our clubs got the rebate. I amgetting a young kid
who earnt points through "work for the dole" and the government are paying
an intro course of $600 - another kid Coles-myres paid for his flying thru
working at Bilo. They are better kids to teach than the ones whos
parents throw the money at gliding. Actually we have a "wait list" of
currently 4 people who want to learn - we want to look after the student we
already have rather than overload the system - and let the new lot start in
say6 weeks
Ian McPhee
--- Original Message -
From:
Christopher Mc Donnell
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 9:10
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
I read the link below.
Seems that thosewho participate in
gliding do so before regular sex and after they can't remember what it was
:-)
Nowif anybody knows a marketer who can
convince the public that gliding is better than sex we've got it
made.
Seriously though, training 50yr+ people is a
hard slog. Ask EP or any instructor who has had a few. Our "Old Bomber"
Eric Bates was a breeze as he had learnt to ride the bike when he was
young. I do not derogatethis market niche as there are many
others who are chasing it in this period of demographic
change.
Also on oldies, I amretiree and will
not glide on the weekend unless it is for a special reason.
I am getting close to the top of my family
hierarchical pyramid and there is always something on like baptisms,
birthdays engagements, weddings etc. etc. which I am expected to attend
and which I do enjoy. Before I retired I was the "old fart" who never came
to anything because I was at the gliding club. I am lucky that my
club can accomodate weekday gliding as golf, bowling etc. clubs do for
retirees. This is something that needs to be taken into account if this
market is pursued.
The airmindedoldies could be one
ofthe saviours ofour sport in the short term but in the long
term I feel the sport for "ordinary" people is doomed for reasons I won't
discuss here. There have been manyactivities, that have had their
time and passed. As for myself I intend to enjoy it unfettered andto
the full as long as I can.
Chris McDonnell
- Original Message -
From:
Geoff
Kidd
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:02
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485
for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty
picture".
- Original Message -
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Hi Ian
You can teach old dogs new tricks, it just takes
longer
Michael
- Original Message -
From:
Bob
Flood
To: Dave Shorter ; Discussion of issues relating
to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:38
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH
TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Dave,
I'm with you. It may take a little longer to
pound the info through our slightly thicker skulls, however we realise that we
are not cast iron and bullet proof! Many of us do become addicted and as you
say have a little more time (and money) to devote toour flying as well
as the club. Most of the future belongs to the young, but we oldies have
plenty to contribute also.
Hopefully also we have a little more life
experience that can contribute to the future ofour clubs and
thesport, while trying to increase the interest from those still in the
first flush of youth.
Bob
- Original Message -
From:
Dave Shorter
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:09
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Hey Macca,
Don't knock us 50+ lot. Some of us didn't
discover gliding quite as early as you did, and maybe we took a bit longer
to learn as the younger guys. But we can still become addicted, maybe more
so. With family left the nest us old guys can spend a bit more time at the
Club - both flying and helping. I'm doing everything I can to make up for
lost time. And I know a few others like me.
Dave
- Original Message -
From:
Ian
McPhee
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 6:41
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
It is a problem teaching the 50+ group -
think they should have a tax to rebate young peoples flying. I learnt as a
teenager and we got money back thru "Royal Aero Clubs" for when we earnt
our C or was it our clubs got the rebate. I amgetting a young
kid who earnt points through "work for the dole" and the government are
paying an intro course of $600 - another kid Coles-myres paid for his
flying thru working at Bilo. They are better kids to teach than the
ones whos parents throw the money at gliding. Actually we have a
"wait list" of currently 4 people who want to learn - we want to look
after the student we already have rather than overload the system - and
let the new lot start in say6 weeks
Ian McPhee
--- Original Message -
From:
Christopher Mc Donnell
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 9:10
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
I read the link below.
Seems that thosewho participate in
gliding do so before regular sex and after they can't remember what it
was :-)
Nowif anybody knows a marketer who
can convince the public that gliding is better than sex we've got it
made.
Seriously though, training 50yr+ people is
a hard slog. Ask EP or any instructor who has had a few. Our "Old
Bomber" Eric Bates was a breeze as he had learnt to ride the bike when
he was young. I do not derogatethis market niche as there
are many others who are chasing it in this period of demographic
change.
Also on oldies, I amretiree and will
not glide on the weekend unless it is for a special reason.
I am getting close to the top of my family
hierarchical pyramid and there is always something on like baptisms,
birthdays engagements, weddings etc. etc. which I am expected to attend
and which I do enjoy. Before I retired I was the "old fart" who never
came to anything because I was at the gliding club. I am lucky
that my club can accomodate weekday gliding as golf, bowling etc. clubs
do for retirees. This is something that needs to be taken into account
if this market is pursued.
The airmindedoldies could be one
ofthe saviours ofour sport in the short term but in the long
term I feel the sport for "ordinary" people is doomed for reasons I
won't discuss here. There have been manyactivities, that have had
their time and passed. As for myself I intend to enjoy it unfettered
andto the full as long as I can.
Chris McDonnell
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
OK OK Dave but we should still vet the +50s or give
them points like a bank account like, Skiing, motorbikes, sailing etc. No
other skills then they go to the wait list - our time is much better spent into
teaching the good ones Macca
- Original Message -
From:
Dave Shorter
To: Discussion of issues relating
to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:09
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH
TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Hey Macca,
Don't knock us 50+ lot. Some of us didn't
discover gliding quite as early as you did, and maybe we took a bit longer to
learn as the younger guys. But we can still become addicted, maybe more so.
With family left the nest us old guys can spend a bit more time at the Club -
both flying and helping. I'm doing everything I can to make up for lost time.
And I know a few others like me.
Dave
- Original Message -
From:
Ian
McPhee
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 6:41
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
It is a problem teaching the 50+ group - think
they should have a tax to rebate young peoples flying. I learnt as a
teenager and we got money back thru "Royal Aero Clubs" for when we earnt our
C or was it our clubs got the rebate. I amgetting a young kid
who earnt points through "work for the dole" and the government are paying
an intro course of $600 - another kid Coles-myres paid for his flying thru
working at Bilo. They are better kids to teach than the ones whos
parents throw the money at gliding. Actually we have a "wait list" of
currently 4 people who want to learn - we want to look after the student we
already have rather than overload the system - and let the new lot start in
say6 weeks
Ian McPhee
--- Original Message -
From:
Christopher Mc Donnell
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 9:10
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
I read the link below.
Seems that thosewho participate in
gliding do so before regular sex and after they can't remember what it was
:-)
Nowif anybody knows a marketer who can
convince the public that gliding is better than sex we've got it
made.
Seriously though, training 50yr+ people is a
hard slog. Ask EP or any instructor who has had a few. Our "Old Bomber"
Eric Bates was a breeze as he had learnt to ride the bike when he was
young. I do not derogatethis market niche as there are many
others who are chasing it in this period of demographic
change.
Also on oldies, I amretiree and will
not glide on the weekend unless it is for a special reason.
I am getting close to the top of my family
hierarchical pyramid and there is always something on like baptisms,
birthdays engagements, weddings etc. etc. which I am expected to attend
and which I do enjoy. Before I retired I was the "old fart" who never came
to anything because I was at the gliding club. I am lucky that my
club can accomodate weekday gliding as golf, bowling etc. clubs do for
retirees. This is something that needs to be taken into account if this
market is pursued.
The airmindedoldies could be one
ofthe saviours ofour sport in the short term but in the long
term I feel the sport for "ordinary" people is doomed for reasons I won't
discuss here. There have been manyactivities, that have had their
time and passed. As for myself I intend to enjoy it unfettered andto
the full as long as I can.
Chris McDonnell
- Original Message -
From:
Geoff
Kidd
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:02
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485
for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty
picture".
- Original Message -
From:
Mark Newton
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005
1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Robert Hart wrote: Geoff Kidd
wrote: I would co
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Terry said: "gliding is pricing itself out of the sporting aviation scene" I can't but agree. I could have afforded a Libelle for example when they were a current aircraft but now there is nothing newI could afford as an individual. Even the rental rates at clubs with later aircraft are such that it is veryexpensive to remain evencurrent. Surely prospective participants do arithmetic. I know some who have, including my son, who just have to say nah! Chris McDonnell - Original Message - From: Terry Neumann To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Geoff Kidd wrote: Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485 for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty picture". It may however be totally accurate - for here - as well as for New Zealand.That's the scary thing about writing out a blank cheque for a group of consultants, as some are advocating. Some 100+K$ later they will almost certainly come up with the conclusion that gliding doesn't really interest, much less excite the general population, and that other "competing" pastimes come easier and/or cheaper.We already know that, and it hasn't cost us anything (in monetary terms).One of the things that the combined magazine should have taught us is that gliding is pricing itself out of the sporting aviation scene, or at least putting itself at the higher end of the options. Compare the prices in the hang gliding classifieds with those of our kind, and you soon get a picture of the relative costs of the equipment. Furthermore, the price of the basic equipment sets the base line for the cost of the complete operation. The simply fact is that a K-21 costs more that (say) a Jabiru, and if you want to put an engine in the K-21 - surely the only way to really set up even a basic training regime for the "Satisfaction Now!!" generation - it gets even worse. There isn't really much we can do about that.I don't particularly like to see this in print myself, but all the publicity, promotion and research doesn't change the basic facts of the equation. Gliding these days is expensive; it also takes time, effort and a certain dedication to 'make it'. Only an enthusiast is going to see it through - even to solo stage - much less to go on to greater things.Most people will make easier and cheaper choices - no matter what we do, and how many consultants we hire, and what they tell us.Of course we still promote the sport we love, and we need to do so with the same enthusiasm and passion we show in our inner circle here. Terry Cubley and the others who are working in this area are doing well, and should be supported with ideas and action. However we need to keep our expectations and ambitions within the parameters of our product. Almost everyone I speak to about gliding expresses the wish to "go for a flight sometime". However I just know that even if they do - and I give every encouragement for them to go to their nearest club and give it a try - that they probably won't be seized with the elusive addiction that keeps the rest of us going over the years and even decades.That's just how it is.Now standing well clear of the fan .Terry ___Aus-soaring mailing listAus-soaring@lists.internode.on.netTo check or change subscription details, visit:http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
RE: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Guys, I applaud most of the ideas that are being put forward, and I also read Terrys articles in Soaring Australia, more good material. However there is a roadblock in implementing these great ideas and that is the base culture within our clubs. I have heard and observed an undercurrent that clearly demonstrates that some of the people who man our clubs duty crews believe they dont have to change their ways, that visitors are a pain in the bum and the club is for members not visitors etc. How do we over come this? We dont pay these people, they are our volunteers, and we need them. They are also our shop front. Recently I arranged to have both Polo T shirts and Chambray Shirts with our club logo on the chest for club members, and encouraged all instructors, and duty pilots to buy at least one be worn when on duty (you have to wear something) to give our team a professional look - uptake was approx 15%. Money will not improve this; the question on my mind is what will? SDF From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Neumann Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2005 10:54 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Geoff Kidd wrote: Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485 for the NZ article titled Membership: Its not a pretty picture. It may however be totally accurate - for here - as well as for New Zealand. That's the scary thing about writing out a blank cheque for a group of consultants, as some are advocating. Some 100+K$ later they will almost certainly come up with the conclusion that gliding doesn't really interest, much less excite the general population, and that other competing pastimes come easier and/or cheaper. We already know that, and it hasn't cost us anything (in monetary terms). One of the things that the combined magazine should have taught us is that gliding is pricing itself out of the sporting aviation scene, or at least putting itself at the higher end of the options. Compare the prices in the hang gliding classifieds with those of our kind, and you soon get a picture of the relative costs of the equipment. Furthermore, the price of the basic equipment sets the base line for the cost of the complete operation. The simply fact is that a K-21 costs more that (say) a Jabiru, and if you want to put an engine in the K-21 - surely the only way to really set up even a basic training regime for the Satisfaction Now!! generation - it gets even worse. There isn't really much we can do about that. I don't particularly like to see this in print myself, but all the publicity, promotion and research doesn't change the basic facts of the equation. Gliding these days is expensive; it also takes time, effort and a certain dedication to 'make it'. Only an enthusiast is going to see it through - even to solo stage - much less to go on to greater things. Most people will make easier and cheaper choices - no matter what we do, and how many consultants we hire, and what they tell us. Of course we still promote the sport we love, and we need to do so with the same enthusiasm and passion we show in our inner circle here. Terry Cubley and the others who are working in this area are doing well, and should be supported with ideas and action. However we need to keep our expectations and ambitions within the parameters of our product. Almost everyone I speak to about gliding expresses the wish to go for a flight sometime. However I just know that even if they do - and I give every encouragement for them to go to their nearest club and give it a try - that they probably won't be seized with the elusive addiction that keeps the rest of us going over the years and even decades. That's just how it is. Now standing well clear of the fan . Terry ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Geoff Kidd wrote: Terry The points you have made are valid .. so come back herenear the fan, but I would counter with the following: We don't need to excite the "general population". All we need to do is excite 3000 people OZ-wide and we've just about doubled the size of the sport. It's a good equation Geoff. Perhaps I need to briefly explain my current somewhat gloomy outlook. It's fostered in part by some aspects of the discussion which took place at my own club's AGM last Saturday night. Two things struck me. The first was that a significant part of our flying income goes straight back into insuring our aircraft fleet. Most members would, I think feel that we are charging enough for flying at present. It's evident that most of our members (or their wives) will have set a limit as to how much they can spend on gliding. Putting up fees again is not the answer; people then fly less hours to meet their limits. Hence the gloom about the costs. The other topic - namely publicizing our sport and increasing our membership also got a very good airing, and this has some bearing on what you have just contributed. One of the points raised in this discussion was the reported statistic that somehow we do attract 1,000 new members to the sport each year. The problem is apparently that we also lose 1,000 members each year. Now I'm not prepared to stake my life on those figures, but I accept that they are presented in good faith by someone who is concerned enough about the situation to glean them. If they are correct, it shows that we need to set a focus in retaining more of the members after we go to all the trouble to recruit them. Perhaps that too will affect the trend of this again very useful discussion. For the "satisfaction now" generation, if theyare alsothe "money now" generation, why wouldn't you just shunt them off to Sportavia or Keepit and they can be solo in a week? One option that we have is to narrow the marketing target a tad. One example is that while I was at Sportavia last Feb/March, the standout was that the most keen Glider Pilots who had shipped their machines and selves from overseas, were current or ex airline pilots, who were bored to death with their normal flying but kill-to-fly passionate about Cross-Country Soaring. So that groupin OZare a good place to start BUT would you really expect to keep them all if you suggest to a 5000 or 1 hour airline pilot that they should just go out to their local club for lessons? I wouldn't. I feel pretty sure that they wouldn't either. Again these are all valid points and need to be kept in the picture as we wrestle with the best ways of dealing with the situation. There certainly appears to be good case on the face of it for retaining an "all frills included" training operation near to each of the major population centres. However the initiative for going in this direction almost certainly rests with the existing operators in the appropriate location(s). Even then, it's a difficult challenge to manage such an operation, and financially it's a venture which history shows has not always been entirely sucessful. There are compelling reasons why it might be even more fraught in the current socio-ecconomic climate. Regards, Terry Regards Geoff - Original Message - From: Terry Neumann To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Geoff Kidd wrote: Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485 for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty picture". It may however be totally accurate - for here - as well as for New Zealand. That's the scary thing about writing out a blank cheque for a group of consultants, as some are advocating. Some 100+K$ later they will almost certainly come up with the conclusion that gliding doesn't really interest, much less excite the general population, and that other "competing" pastimes come easier and/or cheaper. We already know that, and it hasn't cost us anything (in monetary terms). One of the things that the combined magazine should have taught us is that gliding is pricing itself out of the sporting aviation scene, or at least putting itself at the higher end of the options. Compare the prices in the hang gliding classifieds with those of our kind, and you soon get a picture of the relative costs of the equipment. Furthermore, the price of the basic equipment sets the base line for the cost of the complete operation. The simply fact is that a K-21 costs more that (say) a Jabiru, and if you want to put an engine in the K-21 - surely the only way to really set up even a basic training regime for the "Satisfaction Now!!" ge
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
What is Terry's email address please. - Original Message - From: Mark Newton To: Robert Hart Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Robert Hart wrote: Mark Newton wrote: Don't agree, Robert. The goals are already known; Extensive consultation with the members is going to deliver the same outcome we're already talking about here, namely that the sport needs to be grown. First of all, that is only a part of the business plan. I grant you it's important, but there's a great deal more that the GFA needs to be doing. Wonderful. But I'm not sure that any of that justifies roadblockingmembership building, which is something that we all agree needs to be done.If you want to debate the merits of the business plan with the GFA,be my guest. But that's not what we're talking about here. The particular ways in which it is grown aren't (or shouldn't be) important to the current members. I disagree. If we set about trying to grow the organisation in a way that is unacceptable to the existing membership in large enough numbers, we stand a good chance of killing the organisation.You think so?We all like to fly, Robert. The overwhelming majority of us don'tactually care about the administrative minutae of the GFA, as longas we get to do what we want to do.Sure, if the GFA embarks on a course of action which grows the sportin a way that lots of people don't like, then I accept that we mightlose that segment of the membership who cares more about committeesand focus groups than they care about flying... but the rest of us,who just want to fly, will have a bit of a grumble about how we don'tlike it then strap ourselves back into the cockpit for another launch.We might say we care, but we don't really. We're just happy to seethe job done, and we're head over heels with the fact that it's beingdone by someone who isn't us. Serious, industrial-strength bitchingabout the GFA is something we generally leave to other people.How many people do you seriously think would LEAVE GLIDING because ofa disagreement over an action taken by our administrative group? I don'tthink I know anyone at all like that. How about you? You must knowsomeone, because you have proposed the possibility that (a) it's possiblefor the organization to grow in a way that's unacceptable for existingmembers, and (b) enough existing members would leave as a result ofthat to kill the GFA altogether.Both of those points require justification. You can't just casuallythrow them into a discussion and expect anyone to swallow them as ifthey were factual. Serious question, Robert: Do you know anyone atall who'd give up gliding altogether over disagreement with a marketingcampaign? We all happen to fit in to a culture that says lots of time and not much money is an ok way to learn how to fly, otherwise we wouldn't be here. That is not true of all members.True, but it's certainly the case that almost all of the members whohave come through the system to date *have* been like that, becausethat's how the system has always worked and if they didn't like it theywouldn't be here. So I think my point stands. So our ideas about the way to go about this, as shaped by our personalities and experiences are automatically incompatible with the potential customer base we're talking about here. You are assuming that the membership is incapable of thinking outside their own box.Yes, Robert, that's exactly what I'm assuming.The reason I'm assuming that is because there have been several thousandof us collectively wringing our hands about membership growth for *DECADES*and none of us have been able to come up with anything useful to makean impact on it.Despite the fact that we've been in a state of declining membership forover 20 YEARS(!) half of us can't even agree on what the problem is, letalone come up with anything realistic to fix it.I'd love to be an optimist who thinks that a useful outcome that benefitsthe sport is able to be generated out of the brains of the current members,but I'm living in the real world, and the real world features a GFApopulated by several thousand members who have provided proof-by-demonstrationof the fact that they're not very good at marketing.We need outside help. Either that or we're all seriously good atmarketing but our brains work so slowly that 20 years isn't enough timeto prove it. Which one do you think is more likely? In short, if GFA engaged in detailed consultation with the members, and the members recommended the particular direction to take, then the members would effectively sabotage the process by recommending a direction which was familiar
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Geoff Kidd wrote: What is Terry's email address please. It's on GFA's web site under GFA Development Officer -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - mark I tried an internal modem,[EMAIL PROTECTED] but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton - Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 - Fax: +61-8-82231777 - ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Geoff Kidd wrote: Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485 for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty picture". It may however be totally accurate - for here - as well as for New Zealand. That's the scary thing about writing out a blank cheque for a group of consultants, as some are advocating. Some 100+K$ later they will almost certainly come up with the conclusion that gliding doesn't really interest, much less excite the general population, and that other "competing" pastimes come easier and/or cheaper. We already know that, and it hasn't cost us anything (in monetary terms). One of the things that the combined magazine should have taught us is that gliding is pricing itself out of the sporting aviation scene, or at least putting itself at the higher end of the options. Compare the prices in the hang gliding classifieds with those of our kind, and you soon get a picture of the relative costs of the equipment. Furthermore, the price of the basic equipment sets the base line for the cost of the complete operation. The simply fact is that a K-21 costs more that (say) a Jabiru, and if you want to put an engine in the K-21 - surely the only way to really set up even a basic training regime for the "Satisfaction Now!!" generation - it gets even worse. There isn't really much we can do about that. I don't particularly like to see this in print myself, but all the publicity, promotion and research doesn't change the basic facts of the equation. Gliding these days is expensive; it also takes time, effort and a certain dedication to 'make it'. Only an enthusiast is going to see it through - even to solo stage - much less to go on to greater things. Most people will make easier and cheaper choices - no matter what we do, and how many consultants we hire, and what they tell us. Of course we still promote the sport we love, and we need to do so with the same enthusiasm and passion we show in our inner circle here. Terry Cubley and the others who are working in this area are doing well, and should be supported with ideas and action. However we need to keep our expectations and ambitions within the parameters of our product. Almost everyone I speak to about gliding expresses the wish to "go for a flight sometime". However I just know that even if they do - and I give every encouragement for them to go to their nearest club and give it a try - that they probably won't be seized with the elusive addiction that keeps the rest of us going over the years and even decades. That's just how it is. Now standing well clear of the fan . Terry ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Terry The points you have made are valid ... so come back herenear the fan, but I would counter with the following: We don't need to excite the "general population". All we need to do is excite 3000 people OZ-wide and we've just about doubled the size of the sport. For the "satisfaction now" generation, if theyare alsothe "money now" generation, why wouldn't you just shunt them off to Sportavia or Keepit and they can be solo in a week? One option that we have is to narrow the marketing target a tad. One example is that while I was at Sportavia last Feb/March, the standout was that the most keen Glider Pilots who had shipped their machines and selves from overseas, were current or ex airline pilots, who were bored to death with their normal flying but kill-to-fly passionate about Cross-Country Soaring. So that groupin OZare a good place to start BUT would you really expect to keep them all if you suggest to a 5000 or 1 hour airline pilot that they should just go out to their local club for lessons? Regards Geoff - Original Message - From: Terry Neumann To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Geoff Kidd wrote: Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485 for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty picture". It may however be totally accurate - for here - as well as for New Zealand.That's the scary thing about writing out a blank cheque for a group of consultants, as some are advocating. Some 100+K$ later they will almost certainly come up with the conclusion that gliding doesn't really interest, much less excite the general population, and that other "competing" pastimes come easier and/or cheaper.We already know that, and it hasn't cost us anything (in monetary terms).One of the things that the combined magazine should have taught us is that gliding is pricing itself out of the sporting aviation scene, or at least putting itself at the higher end of the options. Compare the prices in the hang gliding classifieds with those of our kind, and you soon get a picture of the relative costs of the equipment. Furthermore, the price of the basic equipment sets the base line for the cost of the complete operation. The simply fact is that a K-21 costs more that (say) a Jabiru, and if you want to put an engine in the K-21 - surely the only way to really set up even a basic training regime for the "Satisfaction Now!!" generation - it gets even worse. There isn't really much we can do about that.I don't particularly like to see this in print myself, but all the publicity, promotion and research doesn't change the basic facts of the equation. Gliding these days is expensive; it also takes time, effort and a certain dedication to 'make it'. Only an enthusiast is going to see it through - even to solo stage - much less to go on to greater things.Most people will make easier and cheaper choices - no matter what we do, and how many consultants we hire, and what they tell us.Of course we still promote the sport we love, and we need to do so with the same enthusiasm and passion we show in our inner circle here. Terry Cubley and the others who are working in this area are doing well, and should be supported with ideas and action. However we need to keep our expectations and ambitions within the parameters of our product. Almost everyone I speak to about gliding expresses the wish to "go for a flight sometime". However I just know that even if they do - and I give every encouragement for them to go to their nearest club and give it a try - that they probably won't be seized with the elusive addiction that keeps the rest of us going over the years and even decades.That's just how it is.Now standing well clear of the fan .Terry ___Aus-soaring mailing listAus-soaring@lists.internode.on.netTo check or change subscription details, visit:http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485 for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty picture". - Original Message - From: Mark Newton To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Robert Hart wrote: Geoff Kidd wrote: I would council the GFA to take (pay for) professional advice on key issues such as marketing etc. Agreed - but only after some extensive consultation in-house - ie with the members. It is the members' organisation and they should have the major say in the direction their organisation takes. Once the goals are known, expertise to help achieve those goals can be paid for.Don't agree, Robert. The goals are already known; Extensiveconsultation with the members is going to deliver the same outcomewe're already talking about here, namely that the sport needs to begrown.The particular ways in which it is grown aren't (or shouldn't be)important to the current members. We all happen to fit in to aculture that says lots of time and not much money is an ok way tolearn how to fly, otherwise we wouldn't be here. So our ideas aboutthe way to go about this, as shaped by our personalities andexperiences are automatically incompatible with the potential customerbase we're talking about here.In short, if GFA engaged in detailed consultation with the members,and the members recommended the particular direction to take, thenthe members would effectively sabotage the process by recommendinga direction which was familiar and (for their demographic) "triedand true." The safe option is the one we already have, because (forus) it has worked.Taking a new direction requires the organization's management totake a risk, to do some stuff which hasn't been done before whichis targeted at growing the sport. Consultation with outsiders, notinsiders, is necessary -- outsiders will have perspectives that wouldsimply never occur to the likes of you and me, and (by definition)they're the kinds of people we need to appeal to. but I would suggest that there is a heap of untapped expertise amongst the GFA membership and look where it's managed to get us.Forget it. Just pay someone who really knows what they're doing,instead of relying on volunteers who *say* they know what they'redoing.Frankly I don't give a rat's arse about whether the strategiesemployed by the GFA to grow the membership are compatible with theviews I'd put forward if I was consulted, as long as they work.The end justifies the means. I am not suggesting that the membership take on entirely the production of the business plan (few members will have both the time and expertise available to do that), but this is where we should start as the membership will have a set of views that are bound to illuminate the issues in interesting and useful ways (some of which will be negative - also good to know).Yeah, great, if we want the whole process to get bogged down inbureaucracy for five years while half the membership argues about whetherthey've been consulted enough and the other have bitches about thefact that their responses to consultation have been ignored, thenthat might be a good idea.There are too many prima-donnas in the gliding movement who will beonly too happy to vociferously oppose anything that they, personally,don't feel happy about. When you have enough people like that withopposing views, it's always easier to blow them all off and just geton with the job. Who cares if there are a handful of seriously pissedoff people who think they're being ignored if hundreds of new pilotsare joining the sport every year? That's an acceptable price to pay,in my opinion. We don't *need* the entire existing membership to behappy if there are plenty of new members coming in to replace the oneswho are upset enough to leave. Hmm - *I* do not want to set the principles and aims - but *we* (the membership) should do so.We already know what the aims are: lots of new pilots, enough newmoney coming in to grow the fleet, everyone having fun without havingto get emeshed in the day-to-day running of the national body.I doubt that there has been a single national exec in the last tenyears who hasn't known what those goals are. They haven't failed toachieve those aims due to ignorance of what they are, they've failedto achieve them because the stuff they've tried hasn't worked.If you spend the next five years consulting, you'll have arrived at thesame answer and wasted five years, and you'll *still* have an exec whoknows the right answer but doesn't know how to implement it.So stop wasting time, hire someone who does, and make the problem
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Mark Newton wrote: Don't agree, Robert. The goals are already known; Extensive consultation with the members is going to deliver the same outcome we're already talking about here, namely that the sport needs to be grown. First of all, that is only a part of the business plan. I grant you it's important, but there's a great deal more that the GFA needs to be doing. Some other examples are 1) Safety systems - we have killed three people this year. That suggests quite strongly that all is not well and attention is needed. 2) Air worthiness - is there a better way to handle inbound ADs (there is evidence that there needs to be). 3) Organisational structure - what do the members actually want (as opposed to being told they are going to get) and there are many others if you read the business plan - a business plan is hugely more than just new members! The particular ways in which it is grown aren't (or shouldn't be) important to the current members. I disagree. If we set about trying to grow the organisation in a way that is unacceptable to the existing membership in large enough numbers, we stand a good chance of killing the organisation. We all happen to fit in to a culture that says lots of time and not much money is an ok way to learn how to fly, otherwise we wouldn't be here. That is not true of all members. So our ideas about the way to go about this, as shaped by our personalities and experiences are automatically incompatible with the potential customer base we're talking about here. You are assuming that the membership is incapable of thinking outside their own box. That is a view that is very pessimistic and not valid based on my experience talking with GFA members. In short, if GFA engaged in detailed consultation with the members, and the members recommended the particular direction to take, then the members would effectively sabotage the process by recommending a direction which was familiar and (for their demographic) tried and true. The safe option is the one we already have, because (for us) it has worked. There would, I suggest, not be any single direction - and that is the aim of a consultative process in any planning exercise - to uncover as many ideas as possible. Business/corporate planning consultations (as opposed to decision making) must not focused on 'a' solution. They must be structured in a way to ensure that as many ideas as possible are thrown up. It is only after the consultative process that things are focused down towards 'the' solution(s). Forget it. Just pay someone who really knows what they're doing, instead of relying on volunteers who *say* they know what they're doing. Consultants must really love you - carte blanche and blank cheque time! Then when the glossy report and exec summary doesn't work they shrug and walk away. Do you really expect some external consultant to come in cold and, for a reasonable fee, pull our butts out of the fire? Which particular cloud cuckoo land are you resident in? The reality of hiring outside expertise is that it must be given a very clear set of data and options to work with to produce anything worthwhile. Yeah, great, if we want the whole process to get bogged down in bureaucracy for five years while half the membership argues about whether they've been consulted enough and the other have bitches about the fact that their responses to consultation have been ignored, then that might be a good idea. Consultation is about finding out what people think. That process does not guarantee that individual ideas are going to make it into the plan (and members need to be told this at the beginning - amongst other things). Run well, even in an organisation as dispersed as the GFA, a consultative process would take at most three months. There are too many prima-donnas in the gliding movement who will be only too happy to vociferously oppose anything that they, personally, don't feel happy about. When you have enough people like that with opposing views, it's always easier to blow them all off and just get on with the job. Who cares if there are a handful of seriously pissed off people who think they're being ignored if hundreds of new pilots are joining the sport every year? That's an acceptable price to pay, in my opinion. We don't *need* the entire existing membership to be happy if there are plenty of new members coming in to replace the ones who are upset enough to leave. It's even better if we don't piss anybody off (difficult - but this needs to be an aim even if we accept that a few may well be). By being inclusive, we can achieve the end we all want, but without risking our existing membership and the organisation. -- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)438 385 533 Brisbane, Australiahttp://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
At 12:19 AM 28/08/05 +1000, you wrote: They couldn't afford the weekend after weekend of little flying. They have money and are prepared to book in, lay down their cash and come away satisfied at having acheived their aims. It should be easy to start small like this. Dave L And then we'll be back in 1969 when Bob Martin and Bob Rowe told the Waikerie Club it was going full time. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
I read the link below.
Seems that thosewho participate in gliding do
so before regular sex and after they can't remember what it was :-)
Nowif anybody knows a marketer who can
convince the public that gliding is better than sex we've got it
made.
Seriously though, training 50yr+ people is a hard
slog. Ask EP or any instructor who has had a few. Our "Old Bomber" Eric Bates
was a breeze as he had learnt to ride the bike when he was young. I do not
derogatethis market niche as there are many others who are chasing it in
this period of demographic change.
Also on oldies, I amretiree and will not
glide on the weekend unless it is for a special reason.
I am getting close to the top of my family
hierarchical pyramid and there is always something on like baptisms, birthdays
engagements, weddings etc. etc. which I am expected to attend and which I do
enjoy. Before I retired I was the "old fart" who never came to anything because
I was at the gliding club. I am lucky that my club can accomodate weekday
gliding as golf, bowling etc. clubs do for retirees. This is something that
needs to be taken into account if this market is pursued.
The airmindedoldies could be one ofthe
saviours ofour sport in the short term but in the long term I feel the
sport for "ordinary" people is doomed for reasons I won't discuss here. There
have been manyactivities, that have had their time and passed. As for
myself I intend to enjoy it unfettered andto the full as long as I
can.
Chris McDonnell
- Original Message -
From:
Geoff
Kidd
To: Discussion of issues relating
to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:02
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH
TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485
for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty
picture".
- Original Message -
From:
Mark
Newton
To: Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 1:09
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW
APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Robert Hart wrote: Geoff Kidd wrote:
I would council the GFA to take (pay
for) professional advice on key issues such as marketing
etc. Agreed - but only after some extensive consultation
in-house - ie with the members. It is the members' organisation and
they should have the major say in the direction their organisation
takes. Once the goals are known, expertise to help achieve those
goals can be paid for.Don't agree, Robert. The goals are
already known; Extensiveconsultation with the members is going to
deliver the same outcomewe're already talking about here, namely that
the sport needs to begrown.The particular ways in which it is
grown aren't (or shouldn't be)important to the current members. We
all happen to fit in to aculture that says lots of time and not much
money is an ok way tolearn how to fly, otherwise we wouldn't be
here. So our ideas aboutthe way to go about this, as shaped by our
personalities andexperiences are automatically incompatible with the
potential customerbase we're talking about here.In short, if GFA
engaged in detailed consultation with the members,and the members
recommended the particular direction to take, thenthe members would
effectively sabotage the process by recommendinga direction which was
familiar and (for their demographic) "triedand true." The safe
option is the one we already have, because (forus) it has
worked.Taking a new direction requires the organization's management
totake a risk, to do some stuff which hasn't been done before
whichis targeted at growing the sport. Consultation with
outsiders, notinsiders, is necessary -- outsiders will have perspectives
that wouldsimply never occur to the likes of you and me, and (by
definition)they're the kinds of people we need to appeal
to. but I would suggest that there is a heap of untapped
expertise amongst the GFA membership and look where
it's managed to get us.Forget it. Just pay someone who really
knows what they're doing,instead of relying on volunteers who *say* they
know what they'redoing.Frankly I don't give a rat's arse about
whether the strategiesemployed by the GFA to grow the membership are
compatible with theviews I'd put forward if I was consulted, as long as
they work.The end justifies the means. I am not suggesting
that the membership take on entirely the production of the business
plan (few members will have both the time and expertise available
to do that), but this is where we should start as the membership
will have a set of views that are bound to illuminate the issues in
interesting and useful ways
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
I wonder if it would be to obvious to state that whatever the gfa does it is still the club's and their management committee's that will determine who takes up gliding. having been involved in other sporting bodies only leads me to be convinced that successful rugby clubs aren't made that way by having lots of members but rather by having passionate (nay fanatical almost) management committees which drive the machine. sometimes it comes down to just one person.if a club doesn't want to grow or there are considerable obstacles in the way (location/facilities/market) it won't.there are clubs well placed to grow all they need is the internal leadership, a good dose of common sense and a passion for the activity which others can be infected by.our membership is growing in all areas; juniors/women and that middle belt between sex and retirement. it is not down to one factor. we have taken advantage of our location, provided new aircraft, dressed up the clubhouse and made instruction more accesible.rob izatt - Original Message From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.netTo: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.netSubject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??Date: 28/08/2005 21:12 I read the link below. Seems that thosewho participate in gliding do so before regular sex and after they can't remember what it was :-) Nowif anybody knows a marketer who can convince the public that gliding is better than sex we've got it made. Seriously though, training 50yr+ people is a hard slog. Ask EP or any instructor who has had a few. Our "Old Bomber" Eric Bates was a breeze as he had learnt to ride the bike when he was young. I do not derogatethis market niche as there are many others who are chasing it in this period of demographic change. Also on oldies, I amretiree and will not glide on the weekend unless it is for a special reason. I am getting close to the top of my family hierarchical pyramid and there is always something on like baptisms, birthdays engagements, weddings etc. etc. which I am expected to attend and which I do enjoy. Before I retired I was the "old fart" who never came to anything because I was at the gliding club. I am lucky that my club can accomodate weekday gliding as golf, bowling etc. clubs do for retirees. This is something that needs to be taken into account if this market is pursued. The airmindedoldies could be one ofthe saviours ofour sport in the short term but in the long term I feel the sport for "ordinary" people is doomed for reasons I won't discuss here. There have been manyactivities, that have had their time and passed. As for myself I intend to enjoy it unfettered andto the full as long as I can. Chris McDonnell - Original Message - From: Geoff Kidd To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Seehttp://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=485 for the NZ article titled "Membership: Its not a pretty picture". - Original Message - From: Mark Newton To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Robert Hart wrote: Geoff Kidd wrote: I would council the GFA to take (pay for) professional advice on key issues such as marketing etc. Agreed - but only after some extensive consultation in-house - ie with the members. It is the members' organisation and they should have the major say in the direction their organisation takes. Once the goals are known, expertise to help achieve those goals can be paid for.Don't agree, Robert. The goals are already known; Extensiveconsultation with the members is going to deliver the same outcomewe're already talking about here, namely that the sport needs to begrown.The particular ways in which it is grown aren't (or shouldn't be)important to the current members. We all happen to fit in to aculture that says lots of time and not much money is an ok way tolearn how to fly, otherwise we wouldn't be here. So our ideas aboutthe way to go about this, as shaped by our personalities andexperiences are automatically incompatible with the potential customerbase we're talking about here.In short, if GFA engaged in detailed consultation with the members,and the members recommended the particular direction to take, thenthe members would effectively sabotage the process by recommendinga direction which was familiar and (for their demographic) "triedand true." The safe option is the one we already have, because (forus) it has worked.Taking a new direction requires the organization's management totake a risk, to do some stuff which hasn't been done before whichis t
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Robert Hart wrote: Mark Newton wrote: Don't agree, Robert. The goals are already known; Extensive consultation with the members is going to deliver the same outcome we're already talking about here, namely that the sport needs to be grown. First of all, that is only a part of the business plan. I grant you it's important, but there's a great deal more that the GFA needs to be doing. Wonderful. But I'm not sure that any of that justifies roadblocking membership building, which is something that we all agree needs to be done. If you want to debate the merits of the business plan with the GFA, be my guest. But that's not what we're talking about here. The particular ways in which it is grown aren't (or shouldn't be) important to the current members. I disagree. If we set about trying to grow the organisation in a way that is unacceptable to the existing membership in large enough numbers, we stand a good chance of killing the organisation. You think so? We all like to fly, Robert. The overwhelming majority of us don't actually care about the administrative minutae of the GFA, as long as we get to do what we want to do. Sure, if the GFA embarks on a course of action which grows the sport in a way that lots of people don't like, then I accept that we might lose that segment of the membership who cares more about committees and focus groups than they care about flying... but the rest of us, who just want to fly, will have a bit of a grumble about how we don't like it then strap ourselves back into the cockpit for another launch. We might say we care, but we don't really. We're just happy to see the job done, and we're head over heels with the fact that it's being done by someone who isn't us. Serious, industrial-strength bitching about the GFA is something we generally leave to other people. How many people do you seriously think would LEAVE GLIDING because of a disagreement over an action taken by our administrative group? I don't think I know anyone at all like that. How about you? You must know someone, because you have proposed the possibility that (a) it's possible for the organization to grow in a way that's unacceptable for existing members, and (b) enough existing members would leave as a result of that to kill the GFA altogether. Both of those points require justification. You can't just casually throw them into a discussion and expect anyone to swallow them as if they were factual. Serious question, Robert: Do you know anyone at all who'd give up gliding altogether over disagreement with a marketing campaign? We all happen to fit in to a culture that says lots of time and not much money is an ok way to learn how to fly, otherwise we wouldn't be here. That is not true of all members. True, but it's certainly the case that almost all of the members who have come through the system to date *have* been like that, because that's how the system has always worked and if they didn't like it they wouldn't be here. So I think my point stands. So our ideas about the way to go about this, as shaped by our personalities and experiences are automatically incompatible with the potential customer base we're talking about here. You are assuming that the membership is incapable of thinking outside their own box. Yes, Robert, that's exactly what I'm assuming. The reason I'm assuming that is because there have been several thousand of us collectively wringing our hands about membership growth for *DECADES* and none of us have been able to come up with anything useful to make an impact on it. Despite the fact that we've been in a state of declining membership for over 20 YEARS(!) half of us can't even agree on what the problem is, let alone come up with anything realistic to fix it. I'd love to be an optimist who thinks that a useful outcome that benefits the sport is able to be generated out of the brains of the current members, but I'm living in the real world, and the real world features a GFA populated by several thousand members who have provided proof-by-demonstration of the fact that they're not very good at marketing. We need outside help. Either that or we're all seriously good at marketing but our brains work so slowly that 20 years isn't enough time to prove it. Which one do you think is more likely? In short, if GFA engaged in detailed consultation with the members, and the members recommended the particular direction to take, then the members would effectively sabotage the process by recommending a direction which was familiar and (for their demographic) tried and true. The safe option is the one we already have, because (for us) it has worked. There would, I suggest, not be any single direction - and that is the aim of a consultative process in any planning exercise - to uncover as many ideas as possible. We've been doing that for 20 years. Terry Cubley has been doing it all over the bloody continent for the last three years. (which is
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Geoff, You haven't got it wrong. I have been saying for years that the traditional approach to learning to glide is a thing of the past. I get shot down at my clubs meetings when I push this point. Terry Cubley suggested a similar approach with the clubs in the Wagga area, combining their basic training at one site and then members going back to clubs that were restructured to advanced flying. These clubs would be using higher performance 2 seaters and single seaters stimulating new glidersbeing imported. For goodness sake, we have three clubs at Bacchus and still can't get any agreement on training new pilotswith a combined approach. I would suggest that most clubs are just not able to get their heads around the concept, it would however, require raising the sport to a higher level of professionalism, a step many clubs are either unable or unwilling to do.I suspect the idea has been mooted but people are unwilling to take the risk and in some ways I don't blame them. I wish I was able to try the concept at Bacchus ( read financial enough) along similar lines to Lasham in the UK. All newpilots there are trained by the one organisation and then they move onto one of the 15 or so clubs that are based there, choosing which one they feel suits their requirements. I agree the GFA needs new members that can readilly afford the sport and want the challenge of high performance flying. If the approach of using one training organisation can't be realised then clubs need to develop an approach that satisfys those needs. An often used comment has been the lack of advanced training in clubs, a point that is slowly being addressed with the idea of sports coaches and cross country weekend training. The sports coaches have developed a sylibis for this to happen. The question is, Are clubs ready for it? I would suspect not. So what do we do? keep pushing change at a club level, keep developing new ideas, make sure people are made to feel welcome at training weekends no matter which club they come from and support change. Interestingly the most disagreement for change comes from the pilots who were trained in the 60's, not the older ones who agree change is required or the younger ones who have voted with their feet. So there you are, I agree with you emphatically, the biggest mistake we continue to make is to look from the inside. I agree my vote would be for a person who knows nothing about gliding to come in and tell it like it is, then no one can accuse anyone of bias. I suspect a "professional" would throw up their hands and say you blokes must be kidding! Cheers Ian P Kookaburra Precision Soaring Team. - Original Message - From: Geoff Kidd To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 8:11 AM Subject: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? G'day Ian Following the comments received, and in the knowledge that this Forum is viewed by plenty of high profile individuals with plenty of horsepower ... sorry L/D ...in the GFA and elsewhere, I have decided to float my suggestion here and risk getting shot down here by my peers. This suggestions relates to the Marketing of Soaring and the growth of the Membership and I have looked hard at what has been the thrust of promotion over recent months. I accept that the "It's cheap and it's safe" in a Club based structure is a valid way to sell the sport (although it can readily be argued that it is neither), however I know of a number of associates who were not happywhen they triedthe Club based learning and flying structure ... and who then left and bought a GA aircraft. These were guys who had the money available to buy a new Sailplane but ended up sending that money to Cessna. I say that the GFA should continue with their present campaign . BUT should consider a parallel campaign aimed at successful business executives who are interested in aviation and who are looking for a thrill. THRILL??? I hear you say. One of the problems that "Gliding" has is that it is perceived by the uninitiated ( evenby some of the initiated) asshort duration local flying in an older ship with a CFI constantly riding you. That and the use of Club owned Gliders is attractive to people who want a cheap and safe sport, however that is part of the problem why not many or enough new ships are coming onto the Australian Register ... and the existing fleet is ageing. I say that the GFA want new members who can readily afford the sport and many of whom can buy their own new or near new ship and that type will want or demandto get going with X-Country flying as soon as itis safely possible. That type of person is most probably going to want to get his training done quickly in a professional atmospher
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Geoff, Ian, Emilis and others Interesting posts - thank you. First of all, I would follow up on suggesting a discussion on specific marketing issues with Ian Grant - but would add that your state representative on the MAD c'tee should also be involved. I have not personally met Ian Grant, but the Qld representatives on the board and MAD c'tee speak very highly of him. More importantly, it would seem that under his direction the MAD c'tee is achieving things. As most people on this list know, I have significant issues with the lack of any real planning (ie in depth planning with broadly based input) that has occurred in the recent past in our organisation. This has lead us to where we are today - for example a situation where some $50,000 was spent following a one page 'development plan' that is seriously deficient and, on the admission of the GFA president, has no measurable outcomes. [For those interested in the problems I see with the current plan, you can find my comments on it at http://www.hart.wattle.id.au/roblog/?p=6 and http://www.hart.wattle.id.au/roblog/?p=7] I would agree that we need to make more imaginative use of the funds (currently just sitting in the bank) our predecessors in this organisation have secured: it is a truism of business (and we are here talking about the business of gliding) that you have to spend money in order to make it. However, until we as an organisation have worked up a well thought through plan of action that is based in current realities, any suggestion of spending part of the consolidated funds runs the sever risk of repeating past mistakes - achieving little (if anything) whilst drawing down our reserves. It is for this reason that I recommend to everyone that they become more deeply involved in the GFA business planning process. One of the resolutions passed in May from Gliding Qld to the board concerned this. The board chose not to adopt that motion, but it did indicate that it would publish a draft business plan for comment before final adoption of the plan. I am eagerly awaiting the opportunity to read and comment on the draft plan and I hope that everyone on this list will do the same. I urge everyone to get involved in the business planning process to the maximum extent permitted to us. Without the input from the membership, there is little chance that the board alone will be able to develop a plan of sufficient imagination, clarity and depth to take our sport forward in a healthy (growing) fashion. -- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)438 385 533 Brisbane, Australiahttp://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Thanks for your note Bob, I would council the GFA to take (pay for) professional advice on key issues such as marketing etc. I know of no major Company or Organization that would consider the detail or tactics or expenditure on such items without advice from experts. It is valid for you to set the principals and the aims, but no Corporateor Volunteer Board has the expertise to do it properly without advice from skilled experts. Regards Geoff - Original Message - From: Robert Hart To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Geoff, Ian, Emilis and othersInteresting posts - thank you.First of all, I would follow up on suggesting a discussion on specific marketing issues with Ian Grant - but would add that your state representative on the MAD c'tee should also be involved. I have not personally met Ian Grant, but the Qld representatives on the board and MAD c'tee speak very highly of him. More importantly, it would seem that under his direction the MAD c'tee is achieving things.As most people on this list know, I have significant issues with the lack of any real planning (ie in depth planning with broadly based input) that has occurred in the recent past in our organisation. This has lead us to where we are today - for example a situation where some $50,000 was spent following a one page 'development plan' that is seriously deficient and, on the admission of the GFA president, has no measurable outcomes.[For those interested in the problems I see with the current plan, you can find my comments on it at http://www.hart.wattle.id.au/roblog/?p=6 and http://www.hart.wattle.id.au/roblog/?p=7]I would agree that we need to make more imaginative use of the funds (currently just sitting in the bank) our predecessors in this organisation have secured: it is a truism of business (and we are here talking about the business of gliding) that you have to spend money in order to make it. However, until we as an organisation have worked up a well thought through plan of action that is based in current realities, any suggestion of spending part of the consolidated funds runs the sever risk of repeating past mistakes - achieving little (if anything) whilst drawing down our reserves.It is for this reason that I recommend to everyone that they become more deeply involved in the GFA business planning process. One of the resolutions passed in May from Gliding Qld to the board concerned this. The board chose not to adopt that motion, but it did indicate that it would publish a draft business plan for comment before final adoption of the plan.I am eagerly awaiting the opportunity to read and comment on the draft plan and I hope that everyone on this list will do the same.I urge everyone to get involved in the business planning process to the maximum extent permitted to us. Without the input from the membership, there is little chance that the board alone will be able to develop a plan of sufficient imagination, clarity and depth to take our sport forward in a healthy (growing) fashion.-- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]+61 (0)438 385 533Brisbane, Australia http://www.hart.wattle.id.au___Aus-soaring mailing listAus-soaring@lists.internode.on.netTo check or change subscription details, visit:http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
I havetalked withmany money-rich/time-poor people who have expressed an interest in gliding, but there is no way they will fit in with the traditional gliding structure. They couldn't afford the weekend after weekend of little flying. Tonight I've been to the Lilydale Flying School annual dinner with many other people. They have money and are prepared to book in, lay down their cash and come away satisfied at having acheived their aims. Bacchus is close to several million people. It would be easy to run an occasional full-time training course. With a just two students you would only need one tug pilot and one instructor. No big deal, and two new solo pilots. It should be easy to start small like this. Dave L ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Geoff Kidd wrote: I would council the GFA to take (pay for) professional advice on key issues such as marketing etc. Agreed - but only after some extensive consultation in-house - ie with the members. It is the members' organisation and they should have the major say in the direction their organisation takes. Once the goals are known, expertise to help achieve those goals can be paid for. I know of no major Company or Organization that would consider the detail or tactics or expenditure on such items without advice from experts. True - but I would suggest that there is a heap of untapped expertise amongst the GFA membership. I am not suggesting that the membership take on entirely the production of the business plan (few members will have both the time and expertise available to do that), but this is where we should start as the membership will have a set of views that are bound to illuminate the issues in interesting and useful ways (some of which will be negative - also good to know). It is valid for you to set the principals and the aims, but no Corporate or Volunteer Board has the expertise to do it properly without advice from skilled experts. Hmm - *I* do not want to set the principles and aims - but *we* (the membership) should do so. -- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)438 385 533 Brisbane, Australiahttp://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Robert Hart wrote: Geoff Kidd wrote: I would council the GFA to take (pay for) professional advice on key issues such as marketing etc. Agreed - but only after some extensive consultation in-house - ie with the members. It is the members' organisation and they should have the major say in the direction their organisation takes. Once the goals are known, expertise to help achieve those goals can be paid for. Don't agree, Robert. The goals are already known; Extensive consultation with the members is going to deliver the same outcome we're already talking about here, namely that the sport needs to be grown. The particular ways in which it is grown aren't (or shouldn't be) important to the current members. We all happen to fit in to a culture that says lots of time and not much money is an ok way to learn how to fly, otherwise we wouldn't be here. So our ideas about the way to go about this, as shaped by our personalities and experiences are automatically incompatible with the potential customer base we're talking about here. In short, if GFA engaged in detailed consultation with the members, and the members recommended the particular direction to take, then the members would effectively sabotage the process by recommending a direction which was familiar and (for their demographic) tried and true. The safe option is the one we already have, because (for us) it has worked. Taking a new direction requires the organization's management to take a risk, to do some stuff which hasn't been done before which is targeted at growing the sport. Consultation with outsiders, not insiders, is necessary -- outsiders will have perspectives that would simply never occur to the likes of you and me, and (by definition) they're the kinds of people we need to appeal to. but I would suggest that there is a heap of untapped expertise amongst the GFA membership. ... and look where it's managed to get us. Forget it. Just pay someone who really knows what they're doing, instead of relying on volunteers who *say* they know what they're doing. Frankly I don't give a rat's arse about whether the strategies employed by the GFA to grow the membership are compatible with the views I'd put forward if I was consulted, as long as they work. The end justifies the means. I am not suggesting that the membership take on entirely the production of the business plan (few members will have both the time and expertise available to do that), but this is where we should start as the membership will have a set of views that are bound to illuminate the issues in interesting and useful ways (some of which will be negative - also good to know). Yeah, great, if we want the whole process to get bogged down in bureaucracy for five years while half the membership argues about whether they've been consulted enough and the other have bitches about the fact that their responses to consultation have been ignored, then that might be a good idea. There are too many prima-donnas in the gliding movement who will be only too happy to vociferously oppose anything that they, personally, don't feel happy about. When you have enough people like that with opposing views, it's always easier to blow them all off and just get on with the job. Who cares if there are a handful of seriously pissed off people who think they're being ignored if hundreds of new pilots are joining the sport every year? That's an acceptable price to pay, in my opinion. We don't *need* the entire existing membership to be happy if there are plenty of new members coming in to replace the ones who are upset enough to leave. Hmm - *I* do not want to set the principles and aims - but *we* (the membership) should do so. We already know what the aims are: lots of new pilots, enough new money coming in to grow the fleet, everyone having fun without having to get emeshed in the day-to-day running of the national body. I doubt that there has been a single national exec in the last ten years who hasn't known what those goals are. They haven't failed to achieve those aims due to ignorance of what they are, they've failed to achieve them because the stuff they've tried hasn't worked. If you spend the next five years consulting, you'll have arrived at the same answer and wasted five years, and you'll *still* have an exec who knows the right answer but doesn't know how to implement it. So stop wasting time, hire someone who does, and make the problem go away. - mark I tried an internal modem,[EMAIL PROTECTED] but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton - Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 - Fax: +61-8-82231777 - ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
Bob, I can see your argument BUT any Exec or Board is put in place to makethe hard decisions to provide unbiased leadership. While consultation is fine, it can certainly bog things down ... and I doubt that the GFA hastoo muchtime to waste on this issue. Mark's words are a good place to start "We need lots of new pilots, enough new money coming in to grow the fleet everyone having fun". I think it is entirely appropriate for the Board to commission outside expert advice on how this and a refined set of aims can best be achieved. We are all "the converted" and that is never the best base to sample or to canvas for initiatives. What the GFA needs is expert advice on how best to convert the unconverted, including a properly undertaken survey of how the Sport is perceived. I suggest that you can ask input from the converted membership after the expert's report is received published then ignore all of the converted's advice that is partisan or which does not make a spectacular contribution to the outcome being targeted. Regards Geoff - Original Message - From: Mark Newton To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? Robert Hart wrote: Geoff Kidd wrote: I would council the GFA to take (pay for) professional advice on key issues such as marketing etc. Agreed - but only after some extensive consultation in-house - ie with the members. It is the members' organisation and they should have the major say in the direction their organisation takes. Once the goals are known, expertise to help achieve those goals can be paid for.Don't agree, Robert. The goals are already known; Extensiveconsultation with the members is going to deliver the same outcomewe're already talking about here, namely that the sport needs to begrown.The particular ways in which it is grown aren't (or shouldn't be)important to the current members. We all happen to fit in to aculture that says lots of time and not much money is an ok way tolearn how to fly, otherwise we wouldn't be here. So our ideas aboutthe way to go about this, as shaped by our personalities andexperiences are automatically incompatible with the potential customerbase we're talking about here.In short, if GFA engaged in detailed consultation with the members,and the members recommended the particular direction to take, thenthe members would effectively sabotage the process by recommendinga direction which was familiar and (for their demographic) "triedand true." The safe option is the one we already have, because (forus) it has worked.Taking a new direction requires the organization's management totake a risk, to do some stuff which hasn't been done before whichis targeted at growing the sport. Consultation with outsiders, notinsiders, is necessary -- outsiders will have perspectives that wouldsimply never occur to the likes of you and me, and (by definition)they're the kinds of people we need to appeal to. but I would suggest that there is a heap of untapped expertise amongst the GFA membership and look where it's managed to get us.Forget it. Just pay someone who really knows what they're doing,instead of relying on volunteers who *say* they know what they'redoing.Frankly I don't give a rat's arse about whether the strategiesemployed by the GFA to grow the membership are compatible with theviews I'd put forward if I was consulted, as long as they work.The end justifies the means. I am not suggesting that the membership take on entirely the production of the business plan (few members will have both the time and expertise available to do that), but this is where we should start as the membership will have a set of views that are bound to illuminate the issues in interesting and useful ways (some of which will be negative - also good to know).Yeah, great, if we want the whole process to get bogged down inbureaucracy for five years while half the membership argues about whetherthey've been consulted enough and the other have bitches about thefact that their responses to consultation have been ignored, thenthat might be a good idea.There are too many prima-donnas in the gliding movement who will beonly too happy to vociferously oppose anything that they, personally,don't feel happy about. When you have enough people like that withopposing views, it's always easier to blow them all off and just geton with the job. Who cares if there are a handful of seriously pissedoff people who think they're being ignored if hundreds of new pilotsare joining the sport every year? That's an acceptable price to pay,in my opinion. We don't *need* the entire existing membership to behappy if t
[Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
G'day Ian Following the comments received, and in the knowledge that this Forum is viewed by plenty of high profile individuals with plenty of horsepower ... sorry L/D ...in the GFA and elsewhere, I have decided to float my suggestion here and risk getting shot down here by my peers. This suggestions relates to the Marketing of Soaring and the growth of the Membership and I have looked hard at what has been the thrust of promotion over recent months. I accept that the "It's cheap and it's safe" in a Club based structure is a valid way to sell the sport (although it can readily be argued that it is neither), however I know of a number of associates who were not happywhen they triedthe Club based learning and flying structure ... and who then left and bought a GA aircraft. These were guys who had the money available to buy a new Sailplane but ended up sending that money to Cessna. I say that the GFA should continue with their present campaign . BUT should consider a parallel campaign aimed at successful business executives who are interested in aviation and who are looking for a thrill. THRILL??? I hear you say. One of the problems that "Gliding" has is that it is perceived by the uninitiated ( evenby some of the initiated) asshort duration local flying in an older ship with a CFI constantly riding you. That and the use of Club owned Gliders is attractive to people who want a cheap and safe sport, however that is part of the problem why not many or enough new ships are coming onto the Australian Register ... and the existing fleet is ageing. I say that the GFA want new members who can readily afford the sport and many of whom can buy their own new or near new ship and that type will want or demandto get going with X-Country flying as soon as itis safely possible. That type of person is most probably going to want to get his training done quickly in a professional atmosphere and many would be frustrated and discontent in the traditional Club atmosphere. My suggestion is therefore that the GFA consider a very slick and professional promotion to Business Executives (I favour a series of great professionally designed bi-monthly colour adverts in business magazines), with the key points being that we are offering "Cross-Country Soaring" (not just "local Gliding"), that "Cross-Country Soaring" offers the ultimate Aviation Intellectual Challenge, yet it is not difficult to do, that there are Professional Instruction establishments (as well as the Clubs) where the attendee can go solo within a week and within $2,500 if they have any natural ability for the sport, and that they can be flying Cross-Country within a week or 2 of going solo. In short, the GFA should be selling to these people that a proven method exists to "fast-track" them into Cross-Country flying and the GFA should direct them to the few training establishments that offer live-in training and a suitable fleet for them to progress their flying after going solo. I suggest that this 2nd prong to the GFA's marketing approach has potential to attract new members who are the most likely to invest in new machines and if successful this will give the GFA a kick along (and not a kick in the pants).. and I say that aprofessionally generatedpromotion based on a quick path to"Cross-Country Soaring" (rather thanthis being the end goal of an 18 month Club training program) has the potential to rejuvenate ... or further juvenate ... the entire scene. NOW ... please advise .. where have I got it wrong? Regards Geoff - Original Message - From: Patching To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] team vs individual Geoff, I suggest you talk with Ian Grant who has taken on the role (volunteered) of looking at ways these concepts can be discussed and implemented. He is open to discuss any concepts that will help our sport. The overall promotion of the sport should be with the National body. States and individual clubs need to work together to promote individual sites. There are different ways of promoting the sport in a myriad of different ways. In my role as promotions officer for the VSA I have been involved in a variety of ideas. We produced an informativevideo that each club in the VSA received. We suggested the VSA provide a full colour generic folder for clubs to be able to place their advertising details into that could be updated cheaply by them. We couldn't get this up as the clubs felt they could come up with something better. Not suprisingly nothing came from it. There is no hidden agendas with Ian, he is concernedabout the future of gliding, and his reinvigorating of the VSA has been terrific. He has been able to achieve what I couldn't do and that is getting the clubs and their
RE: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP??
In todays world we need to be promoting the sport as adventurous and high tech, and what do we need most of all - media exposure. How do we get it? Adventurous most TIFs are Joy Flights regardless of the element of instruction that legally turns them into TIFs. Most people who turn up are not potential members, all they are interested in is a once only adventure of flight in an aircraft without an engine. Once satisfied they move onto the next adventure. Is this bad? No; it is a great way to promote the profile of individual clubs, capture the 3% of visitors who are potential members, and generate valuable cash flow. The more people through the gate increase the net value of that 3% too. High Tech most of us are using computers, data loggers, and software packages to plan our flights. Many of us also use state of the art weather forecasting data too. This sport can be as low tech, or as high tech as you want it to be most visitors to a club site only see the low tech end. Media Exposure - for those readers who are not familiar with A1 Channel on pay TV I recommend you check it out. A1 = Adventure One. On this Channel there is a continuous stream of short doco movies that highlight particular adventures in non main stream sporting activities, and we have to include gliding in that category. On this channel I have seen doco movies on paragliding in the Himalayas, white water rafting on remote rivers in South America, etc etc, but never a doco movie on Gliding. Its time for a change. The last time I looked our GFA fathers have 1 Million dollars invested in the money market. I would like to see some of that money invested into Gliding. My proposal is that 3 dodo movies are made, one of a major competition, the action the excitement the planning, exhilaration, disappointments and of course the winners. One of a long distance attempt, successful or otherwise, once again the planning, logistics, the flight etc etc. And lastly on high altitude flight, with similar key points. All of these would expose the sport to a wide audience, and inform people that gliders do not only go round and round over the departure aerodrome, and who knows how many new members. Regards SDF From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Kidd Sent: Saturday, 27 August 2005 6:11 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: [Aus-soaring] A NEW APPROACH TO GFA PROMOTION MEMBERSHIP?? G'day Ian Following the comments received, and in the knowledge that this Forum is viewed by plenty of high profile individuals with plenty of horsepower ... sorry L/D ...in the GFA and elsewhere, I have decided to float my suggestion here and risk getting shot down here by my peers. This suggestions relates to the Marketing of Soaring and the growth of the Membership and I have looked hard at what has been the thrust of promotion over recent months. I accept that the It's cheap and it's safe in a Club based structure is a valid way to sell the sport (although it can readily be argued that it is neither), however I know of a number of associates who were not happywhen they triedthe Club based learning and flying structure ... and who then left and bought a GA aircraft. These were guys who had the money available to buy a new Sailplane but ended up sending that money to Cessna. I say that the GFA should continue with their present campaign . BUT should consider a parallel campaign aimed at successful business executives who are interested in aviation and who are looking for a thrill. THRILL??? I hear you say. One of the problems that Gliding has is that it is perceived by the uninitiated ( evenby some of the initiated) asshort duration local flying in an older ship with a CFI constantly riding you. That and the use of Club owned Gliders is attractive to people who want a cheap and safe sport, however that is part of the problem why not many or enough new ships are coming onto the Australian Register ... and the existing fleet is ageing. I say that the GFA want new members who can readily afford the sport and many of whom can buy their own new or near new ship and that type will want or demandto get going with X-Country flying as soon as itis safely possible. That type of person is most probably going to want to get his training done quickly in a professional atmosphere and many would be frustrated and discontent in the traditional Club atmosphere. My suggestion is therefore that the GFA consider a very slick and professional promotion to Business Executives (I favour a series of great professionally designed bi-monthly colour adverts in business magazines), with the key points being that we are offering Cross-Country Soaring (not just local Gliding), that Cross-Country Soaring offers the ultimate Aviation
