- Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:50 pm
#391004
This is started as a separate thread to avoid hijacking the "When did you start Hang Gliding?" poll. Airthug's retention description there is indeed a real issue -- and probably better covered in long buried threads I cannot find.
I think the two biggest things that cause early pilots to drop are: One, getting scared out of the sport and two, the instructor support gap.
We are already working on the first. The community is pretty good about trying to keep pilots within their skill envelope, discouraging flights in potentially stressful conditions, and keeping them on the right rung of the glider performance ladder. Always more good work to improve here.
But the second is more challenging to address. It's the "H2 gap". Up to the H2, we have an instructor at our side providing all the equipment we need and giving us detailed and specific tasks with immediate feedback on how to improve. As students, we see ourselves progressing quickly and doing amazing things (to us) like flying 10 feet above the ground.
Then we get our H2 and our instructor sells us a single surface floater and then, well, pushes us out of the nest. This is an incredibly challenging time as a student! Before, all we had to do was show up and fly. Interestingly, if you ask an instructor after you get your H2 "what next?", he will say "We're here everyday to help, Just show up and fly!".
This is where we lose pilots. There is a huge learning curve to joining this sport at the H2 level and most of it is on-the-ground logistics. There's harness, glider, roof racks, storage, travel, radios, hang waiting, a whole world of weather, and much more. You can easily add to the list -- then start the in-the-air list.
The problem is not that we don't offer good solutions to every one of these. It just takes a lot of personal initiative and time to solve them ourselves. This issue may account for the relative popularity difference between HG and PG. It goes with that well used line: "everything is better in PG, until you get in the air." H2's, by definition, don't have the air time -- but they sure are hit with the "everything" else!
What I'm suggesting is structured, instructor-led programs to go from H2 to H3. H1's easily see the value of paying an instructor to get their H2s. I think many would be willing to pay an instructor to help them get an H3. What might this look like? Maybe:
Glider and gear included
Weather analysis assistance planning flying days
Driver to launch
Preflight briefings
Flight plans with in-air tasks
Launch assistance, organizing wire crews etc.
In air guidance (tandem and formation flying)
Driver in LZ
Flight debriefing
There's a whole list of skills in this sport that we eventually learn -- mostly informally and always on our own initiative. In addition there's a series of problem solving exercises we have to individually go through to get in the air as we personalize our gear, transportation and find out who we can fly with. Let's wrap some of this stuff up in a syllabus and offer them to newly minted H2s ie: "Program X: get on board, show up and together we'll get you to H3 -- all inclusive!", or "Hi, I'm your personal flying trainer, here's my program to make you a great pilot."
Sure it may seem expensive to those of us who figured it all out in classic DIY fashion, and I'll be the first to admit that we may lose some of the minimalist bootstrapping ethic that I find so compelling about HG. But the novice gap is real and it coincides with the switch from formal education to informal participation. Isn't that something we can improve?
I think the two biggest things that cause early pilots to drop are: One, getting scared out of the sport and two, the instructor support gap.
We are already working on the first. The community is pretty good about trying to keep pilots within their skill envelope, discouraging flights in potentially stressful conditions, and keeping them on the right rung of the glider performance ladder. Always more good work to improve here.
But the second is more challenging to address. It's the "H2 gap". Up to the H2, we have an instructor at our side providing all the equipment we need and giving us detailed and specific tasks with immediate feedback on how to improve. As students, we see ourselves progressing quickly and doing amazing things (to us) like flying 10 feet above the ground.
Then we get our H2 and our instructor sells us a single surface floater and then, well, pushes us out of the nest. This is an incredibly challenging time as a student! Before, all we had to do was show up and fly. Interestingly, if you ask an instructor after you get your H2 "what next?", he will say "We're here everyday to help, Just show up and fly!".
This is where we lose pilots. There is a huge learning curve to joining this sport at the H2 level and most of it is on-the-ground logistics. There's harness, glider, roof racks, storage, travel, radios, hang waiting, a whole world of weather, and much more. You can easily add to the list -- then start the in-the-air list.
The problem is not that we don't offer good solutions to every one of these. It just takes a lot of personal initiative and time to solve them ourselves. This issue may account for the relative popularity difference between HG and PG. It goes with that well used line: "everything is better in PG, until you get in the air." H2's, by definition, don't have the air time -- but they sure are hit with the "everything" else!
What I'm suggesting is structured, instructor-led programs to go from H2 to H3. H1's easily see the value of paying an instructor to get their H2s. I think many would be willing to pay an instructor to help them get an H3. What might this look like? Maybe:
Glider and gear included
Weather analysis assistance planning flying days
Driver to launch
Preflight briefings
Flight plans with in-air tasks
Launch assistance, organizing wire crews etc.
In air guidance (tandem and formation flying)
Driver in LZ
Flight debriefing
There's a whole list of skills in this sport that we eventually learn -- mostly informally and always on our own initiative. In addition there's a series of problem solving exercises we have to individually go through to get in the air as we personalize our gear, transportation and find out who we can fly with. Let's wrap some of this stuff up in a syllabus and offer them to newly minted H2s ie: "Program X: get on board, show up and together we'll get you to H3 -- all inclusive!", or "Hi, I'm your personal flying trainer, here's my program to make you a great pilot."
Sure it may seem expensive to those of us who figured it all out in classic DIY fashion, and I'll be the first to admit that we may lose some of the minimalist bootstrapping ethic that I find so compelling about HG. But the novice gap is real and it coincides with the switch from formal education to informal participation. Isn't that something we can improve?