The "Big Issue" - ASH 25 Replacement

Update to SGA Club Chairmen on the Progress of Investigating the possibilities of replacing the ASH 25

At the last AGM I was asked to look into the options open to the SGA regarding the replacement of the ASH25. This subject has been on the SGA AGM agenda in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000, 1999, 1998, and 1997. Some of the reasons for a replacement have been given as:

  • It does not meet the needs of the membership
  • It is not flown enough
  • There are not enough P1’s
  • It has had too many accidents
  • Is too big a drain on the resources of the SGA

We have the following options open to us:

1) Keep the ASH as “The Scottish National Gliding Facility”
2) Sell ASH and replace with another glider
3) Sell the ASH and SGA to concentrate on funding

Current Position

John Williams and I have had two meetings and a number of phone conversations with SportScotland (SpSc) to discuss possibilities of a grant for the replacement of the ASH.
SpSc are aware of the accident history and the declining use of the glider. The utilisation history is given in the table below:


Year to March                  Launches              Hours

2004                                 69                        107
2003                                 52                          84
2002                               140                         188
2001                                 77                         108
2000                                114                        182
1999                                128                        234
1998                                229                        412
1997                                262                        440
1996                                213                        396
1995                                279                        407
1994                                335                        400

(Note that the operational years ends in March so the 2004 figures are to March 2004).


The reduction in hours flown has meant that the operation of the ASH has had to be subsidised from SGA funds as shown below:

Year

Capitation

Repairs/CofA

Flying fees

Cost to SGA

Hours flown

Cost to SGA /hr

2003

4,070

5,629

709

4,920

107

46

2002

4,320

8,672

810

7,862

84

94

2001

6,810

2,723

1,187

1,536

188

8

2000

5,248

3,679

1,052

2,627

108

24

1999

5,797

3,679

2,162

1,517

182

8

1998

5,796

4,370

1,098

3,272

234

14

 

If one assumes that the annual running costs of a replacement glider will be the same as the ASH, say £4,500 pa then, assuming little change in the flying fees charged, we will need to get to around 250 hours per year for it to break even.

Consultation

In November 2004 I asked the SGA clubs for their views on the type of replacement glider and how it should be operated. Both clubs and individuals responded and there was a significant majority who want the ASH to be replaced and such replacement should be a high performance 2 seat glider such as the Duo Discus or the DG 1000. One club and 2 individuals who responded wanted to retain the ASH.

SportScotland

In practical terms ScSc are now the focal point for any potential grants. Times have changed and grants are very difficult to get with preference given to “priority” sports; gliding is not in this category. Competition for funds is fierce and any approval would have to be made by the “Panel” comprising of representatives from all SpSc priority sports and we can be sure that they are lobbied by many other interests.

SpSc originally funded 100% of the ASH and at the time it was a major commitment and they are aware of its history. For any future investment to be even considered it is important that SpSc are satisfied that they are making a sound investment. In particular they emphasised that they need to see better utilisation and increases in the number of people benefiting from any grant. In our meetings we have been closely questioned as to how any replacement would be used and how it would benefit the sport in Scotland.

Everything has to be measured these days and critical to any submission will be the provision of targets and numbers as described in the SpSc document “On target” – Using targets to enhance performance.

We are not assured any grant at all but if we can make a good enough case then we could get a lump sum of £20,000 to be used towards a replacement glider. As with everything in life there are strings attached. Apart from meeting their demands of greater inclusion we must realise that we will then be ineligible for any kind of grant for the next 10 years.

We will have to jump through all sorts of hoops and provide lots more information for our application to be considered. In particular SpSc want to know, in addition to what we have already provided:

  • An indication with an explanation of the expected increase in membership as a result of the new glider
  • Demonstrate that there is a demand for a new glider - show that members and potential members want a new glider
  • Is the glider the right one for the job?
  • Do the clubs agree that this is what they want and that it will do what they want it to?
  • Demonstrate support from membership/ clubs that the glider SGA buys is the glider they want to use, i.e. is endorsed by SGA membership.
  • What could the clubs do with it that they cannot do at present with the ASH?
  • How will the new glider cater for all the users and users we aim to provide for - i.e. beginners, the general public, intermediates and competition requirements - how do we propose to provide for all these different interests
  • What is the range of functions it will perform within the clubs?
  • How will it be used by more people
  • What access will the disabled have to it and how will it suit them
  • How will we programme the use between the clubs
  • Can it be used by all SGA clubs? Are winches and airfields suitable?
  • How will it be used at the smaller clubs and how will it benefit them.
  • Explain the coaching / instructor structure i.e. existing number of instructors, the process of recruiting new instructors etc.
  • How will it be maintained
  • How will it be transported between clubs
  • Are there secure areas where it can be kept
  • What is the scope of the insurance
  • Confirm how long it would take us to secure the new, sale of ASH & lead time for new glider build.
  • Show the structure of the organisation i.e. board members - is the governing body "fit for purpose. A governing body that is fit for purpose is operating constitutionally, is financially viable and where appropriate can demonstrate transparent policies and processes.
  • Would the proposal we put forward be viable with less funding from SpSc.

The position of the SGA

The financial position of the SGA is not bad at all and we may have to use our own funds to meet any shortfall for a replacement glider. SpSc have not been advised of this though.

A quick summary of income and expenditure and funds as of 31 Dec 2003 is as follows:

SGA Capitation £4,070
ASH flying fees £ 709
ASH costs £(5,630)
Instructor courses £ ( 250)
Other costs £ ( 155)
Balance sheet £20,374

Options open to the SGA

We must have a positive decision on whichever way we are going to go by the autumn of this year. This paper will be distributed to Club Chairmen prior to the AGM at Port Moak on the 29 April/ 1 May. I then intend to call an EGM at the Interclub competition at Easterton on 30th July to 1st August when a decision can be made. In the interval Club Chairman will be able to consult their members and reach a conclusion.

Once a decision is made then the all the SGA member clubs must stand by and agree with the majority decision. If clubs do not like the decision made and pull out of the SGA then any decline in membership numbers will reduce any level of grant from SpSc and frustrate any agreed target. Individuals or clubs may not agree with the consensus of opinion but it is just that. If a club were to pull out of the SGA there will be nothing gained for the individual clubs, we understand that they will not be able to approach SpSc at a club level for grants or funds.

1. Keep the ASH as it is

  • This is the simple option but does not solve the problems seen by the membership.
  • We could probably receive in the order of £2,000 pa from SpSc to fund training and youth introductory courses but could not use these funds for operation of the ASH.
  • The annual funding would need to be negotiated each year and there is no automatic entitlement.
  • If SGA membership fell significantly then funding would be cut.
  • Risk of loosing SGA members through their not agreeing with this option.

2. Sell ASH and "Upgrade" to another glider

  • We will need to satisfactorily address all the points put to us by SpSc
  • We will need to reach agreement on glider type
  • It is essential that clubs remain in SGA
  • We would not be eligible for any more funding from the SpSc for the next 10 years
  • There may be a considerable time delay depending on type of glider ordered and progress of sale of the ASH
  • We could get £50,000 for the ASH and with a SpSc grant of £20,000 that would make £70,000. This is based on a figure of a grant of £2,000 for 10 years which is their benchmark for association of our size.
  • This is not enough to buy a new replacement. The SGA does have some funds of its own which could be added in to get us close to the costs of a new glider. However there is a very good question as to if we need to have a brand new glider or choose a second hand one.
  • SpSc want us to investigate commercial sponsorship under the “Sportsmatch” programme whereby they match any sponsorship received. Lots of strings attached however.

3. Sell the ASH and do not replace

  • SpSc will allow us to sell the ASH provided we use the funds in a proper manner, i.e. funding training, bringing in new members etc.
  • With membership as it is then we could expect to get £2,000 pa in grants if we satisfied SpSc requirements. This would significantly decrease if membership fell.
  • SGA could have up to £8,500 pa to invest in training, recruiting membership, competitions etc. Made up from :

    • £2,500 pa interest on capital and capital rundown from sale of ASH
    • £4,500 pa from membership capitation
    • £2,000 pa grant from SpSc to fund training and youth introductory courses.
  • The SGA could take on an additional role apart from funding. Could be a central point for promoting gliding in Scotland for example.
  • There has been a dismal level of application from individuals for grants from the SGA over the past years and we would need to work hard to see that all available grants were taken up. (What an odd situation to be in!)

Additional information

  • SpSc have been advised that that SGA view on the use of the replacement is that we would encourage and support use for certain purposes but it was up to the clubs to make the best use of it as they see fit.
  • Access for the disabled was discussed at our meetings with SpSc
  • We advised that any conversion to hand controls for the disabled would add at least £15,000 to the amount we are asking for.
  • We could however make minor modifications to the replacement glider to assist disabled entry and exit and then after some flying experience pass on potential candidates to Walking on Air.
  • SpSc will discuss this internally and revert

Timing

  • Any funds would be for the next financial year

<< back