On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:09:11 +0100, Rod Buck
<rodbuck@telespeed.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <63mbbuknch91gcn3mr8tqmlin52c8mf4tn@4ax.com>, Nick <nick@stre
>etos.freeserve.co.uk> writes
snip
>Well, there's no such thing as a club instructor - if it's flyable, then
>surely any competent club flier with a rating wants to be flying
>himself?
>
>What on earth makes you think he would want to give up his few precious
>(in UK weather!) flying days to teach you - so that you can save a few
>bob? I can just see the club meeting:
>
>"Er - Fred, I want you to give up your flyable days to teach me HG. Why?
>Well I don't want to have to pay money to a school, so I thought you'd
>do it for nowt, like."
>
>I think such an attitude would result in a 2-word answer, the 2nd word
>being "off"


If this is the attitude of hang glider pilots it's no wonder that the
sport is in decline. I learned to fly a conventional glider at a club
where people were willing to give up there valuable flying time to
teach newcomers because they realised that any sport needs new blood
if it is to continue to thrive. And why should instructing be
considered such a chore? There can be nothing more satisfying than
seeing a person progress in the sport you love under your guiding
light. I know this from being a wind surfing instructor for many
years. And the best days for instruction are the "flat" times when
most of the hot shots can't be bothered with up, round and downs.


>Having said that, in many parts of the country, there isn't a functional
>HG school any more. Or at least, not one that many would care to send
>their friends/children to....
>
>So I think that it may come back to club HG tuition in the end. PG is a
>different matter. One reason there are so few HG schools any more is
>that many dual-type schools now steer punters actively away from HG,
>promoting PG instead.
>
>Why? Several reasons. Firstly, people make quicker progress in PG. It's
>easier. Less running. If they progress quicker, they're more satisfied,
>and will stay long enough to complete the course. If they complete the
>course, they BUY EQUIPMENT. And schools make much more money from
>selling equipment. And selling PG equipment has a better profit margin
>than HG equipment.
>
>In short, from a business perspective, it's FAR easier to survive and
>make money teaching PG than HG.
>
>Ergo, if commercial HG tuition is dying on it's feet (and it seems to
>be) then clubs will have to pick up the baton, operating under the
>member-to-member instruction allowed under BHPA rules and insurance
>cover. (Provided no money changes hands, I believe, though I may be
>wrong).
>
>Dat's de only way HG will break out of being a declining pursuit of an
>ever-older coterie of hangies.>
>
> - Rod Buck


So after initially slagging off the idea of learning with a club you
now say it's the only way forward. I must agree. The problem is that
the BHGPA does not seem to promote this method of getting into hang
gliding at all and relies on people learning to fly at schools that
charge £110 a day.
Hang gliding is the cheapest and most accessible form of sport
aviation there is, once you have the ratings. However, getting those
ratings is very expensive and increasingly difficult given the number
of schools and the charges for tuition. Until this changes, hang
gliding will continue to decline.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: In Search of: Jeff Cook & Mark (Moose) Hoffman, Marc Whisman
Next message: Nova Carbon, Neil Hunter
Previous message in thread: Re: Learning to fly, Henrik Carlsen