denverpilot
Tied Down
So a while back, maybe like some of you, I participated in the WINGS program's annual survey about its effectiveness (or whatever)...
Today I got this note saying the "survey results" were up at:
http://www.wingsindustryadvisorycommittee.org/
Some weird stuff...
Out of 391,000 or so pilots surveyed, only 10,000 responded. I know survey responses are always dismal, but that's incredibly low. They mention it in the slides, but it was glaring to me from the start.
*** None of the slideshow they used for the results have page numbers so I'll go with page titles for commentary. Sheesh. (Christ, write a damn paper with real page numbers and stop using PowerPoint as a freaking document format. %#*+<!#}^[ ARGGGH. PowerPoint is a freaking presentation tool not a way to write documents.)
Slides by title:
Objectives:
Leads me to believe the conclusion was written before the survey. There were no questions about whether the program was MARKETED correctly that I recall. But the conclusion is the MARKETING funds are weak and/or not well spent. WTF?
And how does 211,700 pilots getting at least one level of Wings (and then giving up because it's a PITA for no good useful benefit other than self-documentation of taking courses to better yourself by going clicky-clicky on a website hoping for a feed pellet), out of 300,000 surveyed show a MARKETING deficiency? Half of your target audience is not only aware of the program but PARTICIPATING! Hello? Marketing?
-----
Summary Results:
"95% of responding pilots are aware of WINGS and 87% are familiar with the website." Okay riddle me this batman... How "aware" are the 8% who didn't even bother to clicky-clicky a URL? Give me a break.
"Over a fourth of responding pilots earned [a WINGS level]." Ding ding ding. You have 200,000+ pilots participating, and out of 2.5% who responded, granted others certainly completed WINGS levels too, but only 25% of that tiny 2.5% bothered to FINISH a level. Lets be kind and say that 25% of 211,700 all completed a level. That's 52,925 pilots. That's 13.5% of all pilots sent the survey including those who didn't respond.
So you start out with 54% participation and lose 40.5% of those participants between starting and taking one module, and complaint any level of WINGS.
I think I've found your problem, and it ain't marketing costs or allocation of marketing funds. Seriously?
-----
Summary Results (continued):
Again this weird bias toward publicity. "Greater publicity about WINGS programs/benefits".
Huh? You're losing folks because there is no specific benefit to them jumping through website clicky-hoops, not because they don't know about them. They're showing up in droves and dropping out...
Are these people serious?
-----
Training Program Location:
Not too surprising that 10% of participants in the survey were getting WINGS credit via CAP programs/checkrides. And not surprising at all that ATPs said well over 30% of them were turning in WINGS clicky-boxes for professional coursework they already have to do anyway.
No mention of how much more dismal removing these two captive groups numbers would make participation look like. CAP only added the cross-over database feature to get WINGS credit if you give the FAA your CAPID number, last year. I still run into CAP pilots who don't know about that feature of the WINGS website since it's buried in your settings pages on a special page of its own.
-----
Training Locations:
Non-professionals get ideas for training from their CFIs. ATPs get told where to go by insurance companies. This slide is kinda DUH, but interesting so I mention it.
-----
Qualification Level:
Hey! A slide that shows what I said above. People don't complete the levels. 50% don't. But the summary was "do more marketing?!"
-----
Qualification Motivation:
This slide is downright juicy. Everybody loves the intangible, platitude stuff like "Maintain proficiency", but get to measurable objective stuff and only half of the respondents used WINGS to renew a BFR requirement. Surprisingly 25% say they got an insurance discount, but I'm. It sure you could extrapolate this few number of respondents into the larger population....
And there's a big spike of people getting a "Master" rating in WINGS that rivals all the other options presented and no info on what that reason was. Hmm.
-----
Suggestions For Improving Pilot Safety (comments):
"*Nearly* one in five commenting pilots said WINGS is 'good as is'."
(My emphasis added.)
Reworded... Less than 20% of the people who bothered to take the survey say we're doing it right! LOL!
Kinda shows the bias, doesn't it? We're grrrrrreat! ROFLMAO...
-----
Suggestions for improving pilot safety per respondents:
Pilots reluctant to give FAA data about them? Surely you jest! FAA has been so supportive and benevolent to GA over the last two decades... Especially the Chief Counsel's office. LOL!
Today the FAA said that even though you'd be 100% legal and deemed safe by their own licensing process to take Young Eagles aloft on your own dime, they want you to have 250 more hours than a Commercial Pilot Certificate requires to have someone else buy the gas.
Pretty sure no one in GA reasonably views FAA as being much of a GA supporter right now. I know they are, but it's pretty hard to see though the thick smoke of burning private ownership of aircraft and and possible uses for same, to the ground, if even a dollar or a cheeseburger changes hands.
-----
Then the Embry-Riddle part starts... Argh....
They start by saying participation is high and then conclude that because no one is getting insurance discounts, it's not "important" to folks as much as the BFR renewal is?! Holy jumping to conclusions, batman. Beat head here. That question wasn't asked that way!
But they at least go on to say current incentives aren't getting the job done as it relates to participation. Duh.
-----
Embry-Riddle Recommendations:
This page just gets eerie. Recommendation that WINGS be mandatory as top billing and that a "mandate" of clubs to participate is in order? Whoa... Nellie. Talk about showing off your conformist training at an airline academy... Wow.
-----
(Cont.)
This page apparently was written by someone smoking dope. Seriously.
Two pages ago you said participation was great. Now you say GA pilots aren't participating. Make up your freaking minds.
Random stats thrown in that had nothing to do with the stated goals or questions asked during the survey. Hey thanks for those, but um, could you mellow the ADD there just a bit?
Almost the entire page babbling in generalities... Nothing specific to say about the survey results. Thanks for the lesson in apprenticeship learning theory, WTF does it have to do with this survey? Are they just filling a slide here to kill time and sound smart?
-----
Conclusions and Recommendations For Consideration
Pause for a sec here... Didn't we just read those from both organizations?
Ahhh look. Must be the first group again, the top billing is given to marketing again. Spastic much!?
Look, it's the survey company's list repeated in no particular order. Filler slide again?
(This is why I hate PowerPoint with a damn passion. You can just tell this slide was to kill time. Trying to read it as a report that makes sense and doesn't repeat things already covered, is mind-bogglingly frustrating.)
-----
AFASF gets a little plug in here for themselves with FAA. What the hell does that have to do with the survey?
Out of the blue for the first time ever see a list of stuff never mentioned in the survey as training options, including Instrument IPCs?! Where the hell did that come from? Apparently out of someone's butt straight onto the slide. Not a bad idea, but wasn't on the survey, wasn't a question asked, just completely made up idea tossed on a slide by someone. Pure awesome there.
Wasn't this slide deck supposed to be the survey results, again? Okay just checking. Didn't know it was going to come to conclusions about randomly made up (but maybe valid) ideas. Good lord. Does anyone writing these slides know what a Survey Result document is and isn't?
And the last line... Word of mouth continues to be important. Wow. Thanks. Was that page filler again or did someone share that the publicity budget listed like 20 other times isn't going to happen with budget cuts so we'll just toss a bone out there that pilots do generally talk amongst themselves and find good things?? Truly baffling stuff on some of these slides.
-----
Conclusions and Recommendations for Consideration:
(Yeah there's like ten slides titled this. No, I see no other way to differentiate between them. God this format is awful.)
The next slide gets eerie again...
Mandatory that CFIs talk about recurrency training? Huh? They cover the FARs and I haven't met a CFI yet who doesn't know about WINGS. But mandatory to talk about it?
Ohh.... Now it gets good... Hire a PR firm?! YGBFKM. And admitting in the slide it's not even close to being in scope but hey, we have some folks who'd get started pro bono for you, FAA! Wow. Blatent sales in a Survey Report?! The first hit is free, FAA! ROFLMAO.
And the eerie line at the bottom... to... "Get complimentary advertising rates" for FAA from "partners". Good lord. We're supposed to be writing a Survey Result for you but right in the Result we will just blatantly say we're going to shop advertising rates for the FAA?! Ever hear of a government bid process, there kids? **** me with a pogo stick, this is the craziest crap I've ever read, passed off as a survey report.
-----
Next page. Same stupid title. No page number.
"Industry Partners" will help FAA change enforcement law and rules? Ummm... Last I checked they don't need any industry partners to accomplish that one, chief.
-----
Next Steps:
FAA could just slap this garbage on their website.
Hmm. Guess that action item got accomplished.
"Work with industry partners" to do the crap recommended on the last four slides. You really like that "industry partners" page filler wording don't you? And I guess Embry-Riddle's recommendations a few pages back were just stuff crammed in the middle of the slideshow and not worthy of action on this page? ROFL...
-----
Additional Information Requested:
Um, really? In the summary document of the survey you're asking FAA for their data? Seriously? Couod ya take it to another meeting and/or document? I'm not here to read your requests to FAA. Really.
-----
Thanks
No, thank you for a great laugh. What a mess. Try writing a real paper next time and dump publishing results via slapping out a repetitive illogical, PowerPoint that jumps to conclusions and wanders off on topics not even covered in the survey.
I think I'd say I need a drink now, if it weren't 2AM.
......
My head hurts. These are the results of a survey signed off on by PhDs and Masters thesis candidates at a top Aviation University and a professional polling organization????
-----
Today I got this note saying the "survey results" were up at:
http://www.wingsindustryadvisorycommittee.org/
Some weird stuff...
Out of 391,000 or so pilots surveyed, only 10,000 responded. I know survey responses are always dismal, but that's incredibly low. They mention it in the slides, but it was glaring to me from the start.
*** None of the slideshow they used for the results have page numbers so I'll go with page titles for commentary. Sheesh. (Christ, write a damn paper with real page numbers and stop using PowerPoint as a freaking document format. %#*+<!#}^[ ARGGGH. PowerPoint is a freaking presentation tool not a way to write documents.)
Slides by title:
Objectives:
Leads me to believe the conclusion was written before the survey. There were no questions about whether the program was MARKETED correctly that I recall. But the conclusion is the MARKETING funds are weak and/or not well spent. WTF?
And how does 211,700 pilots getting at least one level of Wings (and then giving up because it's a PITA for no good useful benefit other than self-documentation of taking courses to better yourself by going clicky-clicky on a website hoping for a feed pellet), out of 300,000 surveyed show a MARKETING deficiency? Half of your target audience is not only aware of the program but PARTICIPATING! Hello? Marketing?
-----
Summary Results:
"95% of responding pilots are aware of WINGS and 87% are familiar with the website." Okay riddle me this batman... How "aware" are the 8% who didn't even bother to clicky-clicky a URL? Give me a break.
"Over a fourth of responding pilots earned [a WINGS level]." Ding ding ding. You have 200,000+ pilots participating, and out of 2.5% who responded, granted others certainly completed WINGS levels too, but only 25% of that tiny 2.5% bothered to FINISH a level. Lets be kind and say that 25% of 211,700 all completed a level. That's 52,925 pilots. That's 13.5% of all pilots sent the survey including those who didn't respond.
So you start out with 54% participation and lose 40.5% of those participants between starting and taking one module, and complaint any level of WINGS.
I think I've found your problem, and it ain't marketing costs or allocation of marketing funds. Seriously?
-----
Summary Results (continued):
Again this weird bias toward publicity. "Greater publicity about WINGS programs/benefits".
Huh? You're losing folks because there is no specific benefit to them jumping through website clicky-hoops, not because they don't know about them. They're showing up in droves and dropping out...
Are these people serious?
-----
Training Program Location:
Not too surprising that 10% of participants in the survey were getting WINGS credit via CAP programs/checkrides. And not surprising at all that ATPs said well over 30% of them were turning in WINGS clicky-boxes for professional coursework they already have to do anyway.
No mention of how much more dismal removing these two captive groups numbers would make participation look like. CAP only added the cross-over database feature to get WINGS credit if you give the FAA your CAPID number, last year. I still run into CAP pilots who don't know about that feature of the WINGS website since it's buried in your settings pages on a special page of its own.
-----
Training Locations:
Non-professionals get ideas for training from their CFIs. ATPs get told where to go by insurance companies. This slide is kinda DUH, but interesting so I mention it.
-----
Qualification Level:
Hey! A slide that shows what I said above. People don't complete the levels. 50% don't. But the summary was "do more marketing?!"
-----
Qualification Motivation:
This slide is downright juicy. Everybody loves the intangible, platitude stuff like "Maintain proficiency", but get to measurable objective stuff and only half of the respondents used WINGS to renew a BFR requirement. Surprisingly 25% say they got an insurance discount, but I'm. It sure you could extrapolate this few number of respondents into the larger population....
And there's a big spike of people getting a "Master" rating in WINGS that rivals all the other options presented and no info on what that reason was. Hmm.
-----
Suggestions For Improving Pilot Safety (comments):
"*Nearly* one in five commenting pilots said WINGS is 'good as is'."
(My emphasis added.)
Reworded... Less than 20% of the people who bothered to take the survey say we're doing it right! LOL!
Kinda shows the bias, doesn't it? We're grrrrrreat! ROFLMAO...
-----
Suggestions for improving pilot safety per respondents:
Pilots reluctant to give FAA data about them? Surely you jest! FAA has been so supportive and benevolent to GA over the last two decades... Especially the Chief Counsel's office. LOL!
Today the FAA said that even though you'd be 100% legal and deemed safe by their own licensing process to take Young Eagles aloft on your own dime, they want you to have 250 more hours than a Commercial Pilot Certificate requires to have someone else buy the gas.
Pretty sure no one in GA reasonably views FAA as being much of a GA supporter right now. I know they are, but it's pretty hard to see though the thick smoke of burning private ownership of aircraft and and possible uses for same, to the ground, if even a dollar or a cheeseburger changes hands.
-----
Then the Embry-Riddle part starts... Argh....
They start by saying participation is high and then conclude that because no one is getting insurance discounts, it's not "important" to folks as much as the BFR renewal is?! Holy jumping to conclusions, batman. Beat head here. That question wasn't asked that way!
But they at least go on to say current incentives aren't getting the job done as it relates to participation. Duh.
-----
Embry-Riddle Recommendations:
This page just gets eerie. Recommendation that WINGS be mandatory as top billing and that a "mandate" of clubs to participate is in order? Whoa... Nellie. Talk about showing off your conformist training at an airline academy... Wow.
-----
(Cont.)
This page apparently was written by someone smoking dope. Seriously.
Two pages ago you said participation was great. Now you say GA pilots aren't participating. Make up your freaking minds.
Random stats thrown in that had nothing to do with the stated goals or questions asked during the survey. Hey thanks for those, but um, could you mellow the ADD there just a bit?
Almost the entire page babbling in generalities... Nothing specific to say about the survey results. Thanks for the lesson in apprenticeship learning theory, WTF does it have to do with this survey? Are they just filling a slide here to kill time and sound smart?
-----
Conclusions and Recommendations For Consideration
Pause for a sec here... Didn't we just read those from both organizations?
Ahhh look. Must be the first group again, the top billing is given to marketing again. Spastic much!?
Look, it's the survey company's list repeated in no particular order. Filler slide again?
(This is why I hate PowerPoint with a damn passion. You can just tell this slide was to kill time. Trying to read it as a report that makes sense and doesn't repeat things already covered, is mind-bogglingly frustrating.)
-----
AFASF gets a little plug in here for themselves with FAA. What the hell does that have to do with the survey?
Out of the blue for the first time ever see a list of stuff never mentioned in the survey as training options, including Instrument IPCs?! Where the hell did that come from? Apparently out of someone's butt straight onto the slide. Not a bad idea, but wasn't on the survey, wasn't a question asked, just completely made up idea tossed on a slide by someone. Pure awesome there.
Wasn't this slide deck supposed to be the survey results, again? Okay just checking. Didn't know it was going to come to conclusions about randomly made up (but maybe valid) ideas. Good lord. Does anyone writing these slides know what a Survey Result document is and isn't?
And the last line... Word of mouth continues to be important. Wow. Thanks. Was that page filler again or did someone share that the publicity budget listed like 20 other times isn't going to happen with budget cuts so we'll just toss a bone out there that pilots do generally talk amongst themselves and find good things?? Truly baffling stuff on some of these slides.
-----
Conclusions and Recommendations for Consideration:
(Yeah there's like ten slides titled this. No, I see no other way to differentiate between them. God this format is awful.)
The next slide gets eerie again...
Mandatory that CFIs talk about recurrency training? Huh? They cover the FARs and I haven't met a CFI yet who doesn't know about WINGS. But mandatory to talk about it?
Ohh.... Now it gets good... Hire a PR firm?! YGBFKM. And admitting in the slide it's not even close to being in scope but hey, we have some folks who'd get started pro bono for you, FAA! Wow. Blatent sales in a Survey Report?! The first hit is free, FAA! ROFLMAO.
And the eerie line at the bottom... to... "Get complimentary advertising rates" for FAA from "partners". Good lord. We're supposed to be writing a Survey Result for you but right in the Result we will just blatantly say we're going to shop advertising rates for the FAA?! Ever hear of a government bid process, there kids? **** me with a pogo stick, this is the craziest crap I've ever read, passed off as a survey report.
-----
Next page. Same stupid title. No page number.
"Industry Partners" will help FAA change enforcement law and rules? Ummm... Last I checked they don't need any industry partners to accomplish that one, chief.
-----
Next Steps:
FAA could just slap this garbage on their website.
Hmm. Guess that action item got accomplished.
"Work with industry partners" to do the crap recommended on the last four slides. You really like that "industry partners" page filler wording don't you? And I guess Embry-Riddle's recommendations a few pages back were just stuff crammed in the middle of the slideshow and not worthy of action on this page? ROFL...
-----
Additional Information Requested:
Um, really? In the summary document of the survey you're asking FAA for their data? Seriously? Couod ya take it to another meeting and/or document? I'm not here to read your requests to FAA. Really.
-----
Thanks
No, thank you for a great laugh. What a mess. Try writing a real paper next time and dump publishing results via slapping out a repetitive illogical, PowerPoint that jumps to conclusions and wanders off on topics not even covered in the survey.
I think I'd say I need a drink now, if it weren't 2AM.
......
My head hurts. These are the results of a survey signed off on by PhDs and Masters thesis candidates at a top Aviation University and a professional polling organization????
-----
