HG/PG Ratings Comparisons
Posted:
Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:58 pmby Bob Kuczewski
I went through the published USHPA ratings on a month by month basis from January of 2010 through June of 2012 and compared the number of new hang gliding ratings (blue) to the number of new paragliding ratings (red). Here's the result:
HG in 2008/01 28
PG in 2008/01 64
HG in 2008/02 29
PG in 2008/02 50
HG in 2008/03 44
PG in 2008/03 66
HG in 2008/04 55
PG in 2008/04 83
HG in 2008/05 55
PG in 2008/05 118
HG in 2008/06 103
PG in 2008/06 110
HG in 2008/07 82
PG in 2008/07 154
HG in 2008/08 78
PG in 2008/08 139
HG in 2008/09 76
PG in 2008/09 159
HG in 2008/10 69
PG in 2008/10 157
HG in 2008/11 51
PG in 2008/11 85
HG in 2008/12 18
PG in 2008/12 53
HG in 2009/01 39
PG in 2009/01 63
HG in 2009/02 35
PG in 2009/02 75
HG in 2009/03 44
PG in 2009/03 85
HG in 2009/04 42
PG in 2009/04 99
HG in 2009/05 86
PG in 2009/05 158
HG in 2009/06 93
PG in 2009/06 185
HG in 2009/07 72
PG in 2009/07 169
HG in 2009/08 103
PG in 2009/08 165
HG in 2009/09 104
PG in 2009/09 238
HG in 2009/10 68
PG in 2009/10 150
HG in 2009/11 67
PG in 2009/11 140
HG in 2009/12 32
PG in 2009/12 81
HG in 2010/01 29
PG in 2010/01 59
HG in 2010/02 34
PG in 2010/02 74
HG in 2010/03 68
PG in 2010/03 105
HG in 2010/04 73
PG in 2010/04 104
HG in 2010/05 83
PG in 2010/05 163
HG in 2010/06 116
PG in 2010/06 208
HG in 2010/07 118
PG in 2010/07 161
HG in 2010/08 95
PG in 2010/08 244
HG in 2010/09 59
PG in 2010/09 198
HG in 2010/10 119
PG in 2010/10 195
HG in 2010/11 70
PG in 2010/11 87
HG in 2010/12 35
PG in 2010/12 77
HG in 2011/01 20
PG in 2011/01 72
HG in 2011/02 36
PG in 2011/02 60
HG in 2011/03 45
PG in 2011/03 86
HG in 2011/04 63
PG in 2011/04 122
HG in 2011/05 91
PG in 2011/05 154
HG in 2011/06 113
PG in 2011/06 212
HG in 2011/07 84
PG in 2011/07 140
HG in 2011/08 96
PG in 2011/08 167
HG in 2011/09 97
PG in 2011/09 198
HG in 2011/10 80
PG in 2011/10 184
HG in 2011/11 66
PG in 2011/11 144
HG in 2011/12 32
PG in 2011/12 95
HG in 2012/01 44
PG in 2012/01 74
HG in 2012/02 23
PG in 2012/02 78
HG in 2012/03 53
PG in 2012/03 101
HG in 2012/04 91
PG in 2012/04 140
HG in 2012/05 63
PG in 2012/05 171
HG in 2012/06 60
PG in 2012/06 186
The average overall ratio is almost exactly 2 new paragliding ratings for every new hang gliding rating.
The point is that this trend will eventually make hang gliding insignificant to USHPA's business model. If we combine that with the shifting leadership (PG President and PG Executive Director), it's pretty obvious that hang gliding doesn't have much of a future inside USHPA.
Re: HG/PG Ratings Comparisons
Posted:
Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:16 pmby miguel
bob wrote:The point is that this trend will eventually make hang gliding insignificant to USHPA's business model. If we combine that with the shifting leadership (PG President and PG Executive Director), it's pretty obvious that hang gliding doesn't have much of a future inside USHPA.
We already are an insignificant part of U*'s business model
Re: HG/PG Ratings Comparisons
Posted:
Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:08 amby wingspan33
Bob,
Those are some seriously contrasting statistics. However, it would be more useful to have the yearly figures for PG vs HG membership numbers in the USHPA.
Now this was a few years ago, but what I found out, in talking with the USHPA office staff was that PG memberships were getting close to HG member numbers. However, a number pilots hold BOTH ratings. And in my analysis of California pilots in particular, a large percentage of those pilots with both ratings held higher (and longer) HG ratings, as compared to the level (and time held) of PG rating. This overlap in PG vs HG ratings disallows an easy consideration of USHPA PG vs HG pilot member numbers.
Of course, there are also HG pilots who now only fly PGs - even if they were once accomplished HG pilots. There are also primary PG pilots who have "dabbled" in the HGing world. I identified them as pilots having Advanced PG ratings but Intermediate or lower HG ratings. This population (as I remember) was less significant then the population holding a Higher and longer term HG rating and a lower PG rating.
However, their was a MORE significant feature regarding the PG vs HG population numbers. As is the current case, PG ratings were then also being issued at close to double the rate of hang gliding ratings. But yearly stats showed that, especially in more recent years (up to 2005, let's say), the two pilot populations were tending to level off at roughly the same member numbers in each sport.
What hit me hard enough to almost make my jaw drop was that - Even with their high "recruitment" rates, the PG population wasn't growing (considering total yearly membership numbers) at anywhere near a 2 (PG pilots) to 1 (HG pilot) ratio. This made me wonder to WHERE all the new (and Intermediate?) PG pilots were disappearing?
PG Instructors/shops have, quite clearly, been cranking out the new PG pilots for the last 10 years (if not 15). The PG faction should then, have already completely overwhelmed the HG population within the USHPA.
The thing is, it becomes quite obvious that the attrition level for PG pilots is not far from 2 (PG memberships lost) to 1 (HG membership lost).
There are a couple possible theories as to why this is so. It could be that the ease of learning PGing is such that many who pursue it are simply entertaining a temporary "fling". They are simply not serious enough to stay with the sport for more than a year or two.
Another idea could be that PG participants are experiencing the real life mid air collapses, and while most of these end well, pilots (eventually and realistically) realize that such events could seriously injure or even kill them.
There are other more PG specific problems such as more limited flying conditions (i.e., can't penetrate in stronger winds) and other dangers involved in "pushing" too far with a wing that has fairly narrow performance limitations. PG Instructors do not harp or touch on such (lack luster performance) features, because they are trying to sell as many units as possible. When the customer (PG pilot) experiences the difference between PG sales HYPE and actual PG reality, . . . the contrast may be too great for comfort.
When hang gliding itself was fairly new, in the mid 1970s, almost the same situation was in place. The wings had limited performance, there was a lot of exaggerated Hype about how wonderful minimal soaring was, and ANYONE could do it! There was a BIG turn over in USHGA pilot memberships. I joined the USHPA in 1977 (after flying for two years) and hold a rating above the 20,000 mark! That's a lot of USHGA member hang glider pilots come and gone in those first few years.
But over time, hang glider manufacturers have worked hard to make their wings much safer and better performing. The methods of instruction have also become much better - and the population of new pilots entering the sport are much more likely to be well suited to sticking with the sport over a longer period of time. They have a very realistic perception of and attitude toward the sport. The "hype" doesn't exceed the reality. Also, the greater effort invested in learning to hang glide (as compared to PGing) tends to "weed out" many of those who are only seeking an adventurous "fling".
So, here's the current state of affairs -
The USHPA hang glider pilot member population is longer lived and, at least, fairly dedicated to their sport. The USHPA PG pilot member population is (on average) significantly shorter lived and a good bit less dedicated to their sport.
A reality check is still needed, however. The PG Shops and Instructors (on average?) are producing more income for themselves than your average hang gliding business. As it pertains to income from new pilots, that is. The effect is that PG Promoters ARE likely (or certain?) to gain "political" power and strength within the USHPA. These people actually have a fairly long half life and are, at least, very dedicated to their PG related income. They have the potential to work toward the minimization of their "competition" (i.e., the hang gliding [business] community). Alternatively, they could simply work in ways to more positively maximize their competitive edge over the hang gliding (business) community, by way of their influence within the USHPA.
But if the result is the same -
More PG members make the USHPA more PG biased.
or,
More USHPA PG Regional Directors and other upper level personnel makes the USHPA more PG biased.
Then the only question is which is the greater likelihood and how can it be minimized - so that hang glider pilots and PG pilots are equally and fairly represented.
Right off the top of my head, I'd recommend an organizational change that mandates that Hang Gliding Regional Directors are voted in utterly separate from PG Regional Directors. HG pilots would vote for their HG Reg. Dir. and PG pilots would vote for their PG Reg. Dir. And every USHPA Region would have, at least, one RD of each discipline (unless a lower member limit of that flying discipline was not reached). HG RDs would vote on HG issues as well as those that overlapped the disciplines. The same would hold true for PG RDs.
Please respond with further ideas, criticisms or suggestions as you think of them.
Re: HG/PG Ratings Comparisons
Posted:
Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:52 pmby SamKellner
Thanks for the efforts doing the statistical analysis.
Very helpful when trying to understand why the U* is what it is, and what it IS NOT.
,
Sam