20 years in the Marine Corps taught me that
Command identified Strategy (What to do) and then Staff (Admin, Intel, Ops, Logistics) developed tactical courses of action for Command to choose from (aka How to do it).
Command's responsibility was to take care of their people, and the people in turn took care of the mission.

The best tool you can have in your toolkit is access to a system expert, like a CFI, who can develop courses of action and run programs for Commanders.

Gung Ho
"Clark" Kent

Hello Mordecai –

I present my reaction to your posting in the hopes of stimulating discussion. If I am too bold, let me apologize in advance. It’s all intended to get us to a good result.

The discussion of metrics is premature. The first order of business needs to be the mission statement. “The purpose of SAFE (“the organization”) is to develop, promote, assist, and advance aviation education, flight instruction, career choices, and professional development.”

In my professional life before aviation, we approached metrics this way:

Define the goal – from which comes a question – from which you derive a metric.

A single goal is best. More than three and you’ll achieve none of them.

As I read the list of metrics suggestions, it seems that the dream is to return to 1946, with a rapidly expanding GA fleet, fueled by thousands of new pilots. Those pilots will pay a living wage to the instructors to teach them. We hit the peak in 1982, and it’s been downhill ever since. In an effort to make GA safe, the FAA and its sister organizations have added enough regulations to choke the student pilot. In 1915, we could teach a student to solo an inherently unstable aircraft in ten hours. Since then the aircraft are easier to fly, but solo doesn’t happen until twenty.

In the nineteen forties, the Bonanza was competing with the railroad as a means of travelling the US. Today, the Cirrus is no match for a commuter airline over the short haul, and no competition with a Boeing for the long haul. If you have to visit two small cities in a day, yes, the Cirrus works. Otherwise, you fly because you love it, not because it makes sense. If you have the coin to fly a G550, then you will beat the airlines, but that’s not an option for most of us.

More and more instructors are chasing a decreasing pilot population. That population is aging, too – an indication that it will shrink further. The airlines still need pilots, even if crews have shrunk to two. Aspiring airline pilots still need stick time. As long as they do, twenty-three year olds will give multi-engine instruction free.

Negative? Perhaps. But we need to play the hand were dealt.

It’s probably out of our capability as instructors to reinvigorate aviation generally. It is within our power to produce and maintain an educated pilot population that stays out of trouble. After all, report after report show that the pilot is part of the overwhelming majority of accident chains.

If we succeed in reducing the accident rate, then we can attract more pilots to GA. Insurance rates will drop and fewer spouses will say “no” to flying.

If we can demonstrate that SAFE contributed to a drop in the accident rate, then we will have a raison d'etre.

As we choose what activities to pursue, we need to make sure we always drive toward the primary goal. We may choose to publish a newsletter (paper or electronic). We may seek sponsors for our activities. What we need to avoid is the same disease that afflicts all large non-profits – when the sustenance of the organization overshadows the mission. A magazine with attractive graphics is nice – and will help us attract advertising support – but it’s not crucial to the mission. If a plain-text email will work, let’s do that. I just want to avoid the kind of large organization dynamics that start including branded credit cards, cooperative insurance sales schemes and the like.

Better we stay small, committed, active, and effective than strive for 10,000 members.

Robert Hadow