US contest pilots.

The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.

You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php

Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!

For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
Andy Blackburn, Chair
9B

what if a respondent only flew a nationals but no regionals in 2019? lowest option for # of regionals flown is 1

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 5:26:06 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> what if a respondent only flew a nationals but no regionals in 2019? lowest option for # of regionals flown is 1

Don't check anything on that question. We'll figure it out.

Andy

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:40:59 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> US contest pilots.
>
> The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
>
> You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
>
> Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
>
> For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> Andy Blackburn, Chair
> 9B

The topic of US Rules vs FAI/IGC Rules is an ongoing subject. In order to help folks understand more on this topic John Good and I have authored 2 papers discussing the topic.
This is melded into one presentation that is on the SSA web site in the area of Contest rules and process- Important reading.
There is a lot to read and digest.
We hope it will be useful and informative.
UH and X

Those summary papers X and UH wrote are well worth reading for anyone concerned about the potential changes from going from US Comp Rules and moving to FAI Comp rules.
Read and educate yourself, there are some potential substantial safety changes in the wind.
Thanks for writing those up boys and working on the competition rules!
Thank You
T

While John and Hank have written an interesting white paper, it appears to have some significant misunderstanding of how the differences in the rules actually work. The FAI scoring does not compress the scores, it spreads it out by a factor other 2x for speed. It actually rewards flying faster most of the time. While there is much comments made about how pilots could could impact the overall daily scores by flying slower or not finishing; in reality this is only possible to know after the fact. In the real world if racing you must fly as fast as you can and try to finish every day.

From a pilot who has actually flown under FAI rules for the last two years the white paper appears very biased and contains a great deal of conjecture and inaccurate information. At the Pan American contest this year we saw significant changes in scores due to pilots ability to fly fast than the gaggle. I encourage you to review the daily scores in the 15m/std class on soaring spot.

The FAI rules are not perfect, but it is better for the USA to fly with the same rules as the rest of the world. We ae hurting our competitiveness on the international level and lowering the quality of racing in the US overall. If we don't like something in the FAI rules we are better off by using them and working from the inside to change them. The FAI is open to working to improve racing and safety. They have worked with start height limits and PEV markers this last year. If you have questions, I encourage you to speak to those of us that have actually flown with the FAI rules.


Tim (TT)

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:39:16 AM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> While John and Hank have written an interesting white paper, it appears to have some significant misunderstanding of how the differences in the rules actually work. The FAI scoring does not compress the scores, it spreads it out by a factor other 2x for speed. It actually rewards flying faster most of the time. While there is much comments made about how pilots could could impact the overall daily scores by flying slower or not finishing; in reality this is only possible to know after the fact. In the real world if racing you must fly as fast as you can and try to finish every day.
>
> From a pilot who has actually flown under FAI rules for the last two years the white paper appears very biased and contains a great deal of conjecture and inaccurate information. At the Pan American contest this year we saw significant changes in scores due to pilots ability to fly fast than the gaggle. I encourage you to review the daily scores in the 15m/std class on soaring spot.
>
> The FAI rules are not perfect, but it is better for the USA to fly with the same rules as the rest of the world. We ae hurting our competitiveness on the international level and lowering the quality of racing in the US overall. If we don't like something in the FAI rules we are better off by using them and working from the inside to change them. The FAI is open to working to improve racing and safety. They have worked with start height limits and PEV markers this last year. If you have questions, I encourage you to speak to those of us that have actually flown with the FAI rules.
>
>
> Tim (TT)

The bias that Tim notes is understandable, given that John Good and Hank are arguably the two most invested (from an authorship and history point of view) in the current US Rules.

It is worth keeping in mind that the KEY QUESTION on the survey is whether we should TRY FAI tasking definitions and scoring for ONE YEAR at the NATIONAL level, then evaluate the results.

Winscore has already been modified and tested for this, so the impact on other aspects of our contest infrastructure is minimal.


My own opinion is that doing the experiment will take a lot of the noted bias and theroetical opinions out of the equation.

For US Team aspirants: "You play the way you practice" - Pop Warner

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:48:40 AM UTC-6, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:39:16 AM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> > While John and Hank have written an interesting white paper, it appears to have some significant misunderstanding of how the differences in the rules actually work. The FAI scoring does not compress the scores, it spreads it out by a factor other 2x for speed. It actually rewards flying faster most of the time. While there is much comments made about how pilots could could impact the overall daily scores by flying slower or not finishing; in reality this is only possible to know after the fact. In the real world if racing you must fly as fast as you can and try to finish every day.
> >
> > From a pilot who has actually flown under FAI rules for the last two years the white paper appears very biased and contains a great deal of conjecture and inaccurate information. At the Pan American contest this year we saw significant changes in scores due to pilots ability to fly fast than the gaggle. I encourage you to review the daily scores in the 15m/std class on soaring spot.
> >
> > The FAI rules are not perfect, but it is better for the USA to fly with the same rules as the rest of the world. We ae hurting our competitiveness on the international level and lowering the quality of racing in the US overall. If we don't like something in the FAI rules we are better off by using them and working from the inside to change them. The FAI is open to working to improve racing and safety. They have worked with start height limits and PEV markers this last year. If you have questions, I encourage you to speak to those of us that have actually flown with the FAI rules.
> >
> >
> > Tim (TT)
>
> The bias that Tim notes is understandable, given that John Good and Hank are arguably the two most invested (from an authorship and history point of view) in the current US Rules.
>
> It is worth keeping in mind that the KEY QUESTION on the survey is whether we should TRY FAI tasking definitions and scoring for ONE YEAR at the NATIONAL level, then evaluate the results.
>
> Winscore has already been modified and tested for this, so the impact on other aspects of our contest infrastructure is minimal.
>
>
> My own opinion is that doing the experiment will take a lot of the noted bias and theroetical opinions out of the equation.
>
> For US Team aspirants: "You play the way you practice" - Pop Warner

Yes, Tim and John, Pop was right. I would like to add to his thought as to ask anyone, yes, anyone to go in front of the USA Olympic Committee and demand that the USA athletes train and qualify under one set of US rules then go compete(and on short notice) under another set of World Olympic rules. Please videotape with sound, as it might be entertaining to watch and hear!

With zero notice of this new "white paper" being written and then published on the SSA site with absolutely no chance for any opposing views it might be taken as "wrongly' by some in the US racing community as this was voted on last year and has come up at many contest sites with many-seeded pilots voicing their thoughts.

Was this paper written to foster and support our sport or written as to conquer and control by a few who wish not to recognize that this has already has been decided? Will it be taken as "Snowflakes publish fake news" by some unnamed individuals?..just saying.....

Should this "white paper" be removed by the SSA leadership from the website since this topic has already been decided? Also, it could/can have been easily emailed to those on the US ranking list by the publisher or are the writer's wishing to give a false impression as the "SSA" is sponsoring this? Just asking.....but will close with the paper does cover "not all" but some "good" (cough) thoughts...

Best. Tom #711.

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-4, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:48:40 AM UTC-6, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:39:16 AM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> > > While John and Hank have written an interesting white paper, it appears to have some significant misunderstanding of how the differences in the rules actually work. The FAI scoring does not compress the scores, it spreads it out by a factor other 2x for speed. It actually rewards flying faster most of the time. While there is much comments made about how pilots could could impact the overall daily scores by flying slower or not finishing; in reality this is only possible to know after the fact. In the real world if racing you must fly as fast as you can and try to finish every day.
> > >
> > > From a pilot who has actually flown under FAI rules for the last two years the white paper appears very biased and contains a great deal of conjecture and inaccurate information. At the Pan American contest this year we saw significant changes in scores due to pilots ability to fly fast than the gaggle. I encourage you to review the daily scores in the 15m/std class on soaring spot.
> > >
> > > The FAI rules are not perfect, but it is better for the USA to fly with the same rules as the rest of the world. We ae hurting our competitiveness on the international level and lowering the quality of racing in the US overall. If we don't like something in the FAI rules we are better off by using them and working from the inside to change them. The FAI is open to working to improve racing and safety. They have worked with start height limits and PEV markers this last year. If you have questions, I encourage you to speak to those of us that have actually flown with the FAI rules.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim (TT)
> >
> > The bias that Tim notes is understandable, given that John Good and Hank are arguably the two most invested (from an authorship and history point of view) in the current US Rules.
> >
> > It is worth keeping in mind that the KEY QUESTION on the survey is whether we should TRY FAI tasking definitions and scoring for ONE YEAR at the NATIONAL level, then evaluate the results.
> >
> > Winscore has already been modified and tested for this, so the impact on other aspects of our contest infrastructure is minimal.
> >
> >
> > My own opinion is that doing the experiment will take a lot of the noted bias and theroetical opinions out of the equation.
> >
> > For US Team aspirants: "You play the way you practice" - Pop Warner
>
> Yes, Tim and John, Pop was right. I would like to add to his thought as to ask anyone, yes, anyone to go in front of the USA Olympic Committee and demand that the USA athletes train and qualify under one set of US rules then go compete(and on short notice) under another set of World Olympic rules.. Please videotape with sound, as it might be entertaining to watch and hear!
>
> With zero notice of this new "white paper" being written and then published on the SSA site with absolutely no chance for any opposing views it might be taken as "wrongly' by some in the US racing community as this was voted on last year and has come up at many contest sites with many-seeded pilots voicing their thoughts.
>
> Was this paper written to foster and support our sport or written as to conquer and control by a few who wish not to recognize that this has already has been decided? Will it be taken as "Snowflakes publish fake news" by some unnamed individuals?..just saying.....
>
> Should this "white paper" be removed by the SSA leadership from the website since this topic has already been decided? Also, it could/can have been easily emailed to those on the US ranking list by the publisher or are the writer's wishing to give a false impression as the "SSA" is sponsoring this? Just asking.....but will close with the paper does cover "not all" but some "good" (cough) thoughts...
>
> Best. Tom #711.

Write the rebuttal then. I'll read it. Personally, I think the rules are secondary. I think the Polish team could come here, fly under our rules, kick us twice around the block. Sebastian would probably complain that the tasking was too short for a meaningful test of prowess.


best,
Evan / T8

I’ll throw in my two cents having flown three SSA contests and three FAI contests in the last four years.

The difference between racing strategy on course is small. The fastest pilot should win in either case. Evan is correct on this fact as we have seen foreign pilots come kick our butts in the past flying under our rules.

As Tim pointed out, a lot of the issues that have been brought up in the white paper as to why we may not want the rules don’t apply or pilots wouldn’t know about it until after the fact when scored if the scores shift one way or the other as a result of distance done or number of finishers.

To me the largest change when actually flying is the start line which is normally used in FAI competitions. The white paper however states that it is the only option. A ring is available but is not commonly utilized under FAI.. It also resembles old SSA rings where you start out the side but the task distance does not change. I’ve been somewhat frustrated now with our ever evolving start cylinder where you can start out the side, top and now even back of a cylinder. This played a roll in a recent nationals that was undercalled for the task and some contestants were provided a significant advantage by starting out the back and gaining up to ten miles in distance. I think the start line is simple and easy to understand for all competitors. A max start altitude and speed can be added to control it as many countries do.

The turnpoint area in a racing task in my opinion is small but noticeable. I don’t see it changing results or safety significantly.

The finish can be set up the same with a cylinder and minimum finish altitude that can change based on airfield requirements.

The biggest difference however is the scoring formula. Again the fastest pilot will win the race and get 1,000 pts on a normal day. The factor that changes is how slower pilots receive points. Under SSA rules we see scores much closer together and everyone feels better because you feel you have a shot. Under FAI the gap spreads out a lot faster to the point where very slow finishers are scored like a landout.

At the last WGC in Standard Class there was a 1,000 pt day where the winner flew 60.8 mph. The slowest finisher went 46.4 mph, 14.4 mph slower. That finisher only got 566 pts.

In comparison last summer at US Standard Class Day 2 the winner flew 60.3 mph handicap and another finisher flew 46.3 handicap similar to the example above. The winner got 1,000 pts and the slower finisher received 768 pts, 200 pts more than he would under FAI.

So if you can beat the socks off of everyone else under FAI you’re going to start gaining points quicker but it also is easy to start losing points as well. I believe that we should move to FAI due to many of the reasons stated by others. It will allow us to practice and fly under the same rules as the rest of the world and will make use respect the points in the same way. I hope we don’t hop around multiple times and have to learn three different sets of rules. We should aim for a clean move to FAI, SeeYou Scoring and SoaringSpot utilization. Any changes required due to SSA, US airspace, handicaps and FAR type consideration can be solved with local procedures similar to many other countries.

Mike Westbrook

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:04:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I’ll throw in my two cents having flown three SSA contests and three FAI contests in the last four years.
>
> The difference between racing strategy on course is small. The fastest pilot should win in either case. Evan is correct on this fact as we have seen foreign pilots come kick our butts in the past flying under our rules.
>
> As Tim pointed out, a lot of the issues that have been brought up in the white paper as to why we may not want the rules don’t apply or pilots wouldn’t know about it until after the fact when scored if the scores shift one way or the other as a result of distance done or number of finishers.
>
> To me the largest change when actually flying is the start line which is normally used in FAI competitions. The white paper however states that it is the only option. A ring is available but is not commonly utilized under FAI. It also resembles old SSA rings where you start out the side but the task distance does not change. I’ve been somewhat frustrated now with our ever evolving start cylinder where you can start out the side, top and now even back of a cylinder. This played a roll in a recent nationals that was undercalled for the task and some contestants were provided a significant advantage by starting out the back and gaining up to ten miles in distance. I think the start line is simple and easy to understand for all competitors. A max start altitude and speed can be added to control it as many countries do.
>
> The turnpoint area in a racing task in my opinion is small but noticeable.. I don’t see it changing results or safety significantly.
>
> The finish can be set up the same with a cylinder and minimum finish altitude that can change based on airfield requirements.
>
> The biggest difference however is the scoring formula. Again the fastest pilot will win the race and get 1,000 pts on a normal day. The factor that changes is how slower pilots receive points. Under SSA rules we see scores much closer together and everyone feels better because you feel you have a shot. Under FAI the gap spreads out a lot faster to the point where very slow finishers are scored like a landout.
>
> At the last WGC in Standard Class there was a 1,000 pt day where the winner flew 60.8 mph. The slowest finisher went 46.4 mph, 14.4 mph slower. That finisher only got 566 pts.
>
> In comparison last summer at US Standard Class Day 2 the winner flew 60.3 mph handicap and another finisher flew 46.3 handicap similar to the example above. The winner got 1,000 pts and the slower finisher received 768 pts, 200 pts more than he would under FAI.
>
> So if you can beat the socks off of everyone else under FAI you’re going to start gaining points quicker but it also is easy to start losing points as well. I believe that we should move to FAI due to many of the reasons stated by others. It will allow us to practice and fly under the same rules as the rest of the world and will make use respect the points in the same way. I hope we don’t hop around multiple times and have to learn three different sets of rules. We should aim for a clean move to FAI, SeeYou Scoring and SoaringSpot utilization. Any changes required due to SSA, US airspace, handicaps and FAR type consideration can be solved with local procedures similar to many other countries.
>
> Mike Westbrook

Mike,thanks for posting your views from the perspective of someone who's been there. I've only flown one FAI contest, but I'm in full agreement that the start line is a better solution than the US cylinder. The points will still sort out the stronger and weaker pilots. I'm for moving to FAI rules.

Craig Funston

Tim Taylor wrote:
> The FAI scoring does not compress the scores, it spreads it out by a factor
> other 2x for speed. It actually rewards flying faster most of the time.

Tim: I think this is a very basic misunderstanding. IGC scoring definitely does spread out the scores by a factor of 2x (so a pilot with 90% of the winner's speed gets 900 points under US rules and 800 under IGC rules). But the reward for flying faster doesn't change.

This is because under both systems finishers' scores are linear with speed - the speed difference you need to catch the pilots ahead of you on the scoresheet is identical. In a contest with a high percentage of completions, the final positions will be exactly the same under the two systems.

The actual effect of the "2x factor" is to make outlandings (especially short ones) less harmful - in effect, only 500 points are "up for grabs" each day (as compared to 1000 under US rules).



> While there is much comments made about how pilots could could impact the
> overall daily scores by flying slower or not finishing; in reality this is
> only possible to know after the fact.

Not true for a pilot who is slow enough that he will finish close to two-thirds of the winner's speed. His team will have informed him of what that speed is.



> ... the white paper appears very biased and contains a great deal of
> conjecture and inaccurate information.

Hopefully this means you will soon be providing the accurate story.



> At the Pan American contest this year we saw significant changes in scores
> due to pilots ability to fly fast than the gaggle.

I don't think there's any dispute that flying faster typically yields better scores.

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-4, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:48:40 AM UTC-6, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:39:16 AM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> > > While John and Hank have written an interesting white paper, it appears to have some significant misunderstanding of how the differences in the rules actually work. The FAI scoring does not compress the scores, it spreads it out by a factor other 2x for speed. It actually rewards flying faster most of the time. While there is much comments made about how pilots could could impact the overall daily scores by flying slower or not finishing; in reality this is only possible to know after the fact. In the real world if racing you must fly as fast as you can and try to finish every day.
> > >
> > > From a pilot who has actually flown under FAI rules for the last two years the white paper appears very biased and contains a great deal of conjecture and inaccurate information. At the Pan American contest this year we saw significant changes in scores due to pilots ability to fly fast than the gaggle. I encourage you to review the daily scores in the 15m/std class on soaring spot.
> > >
> > > The FAI rules are not perfect, but it is better for the USA to fly with the same rules as the rest of the world. We ae hurting our competitiveness on the international level and lowering the quality of racing in the US overall. If we don't like something in the FAI rules we are better off by using them and working from the inside to change them. The FAI is open to working to improve racing and safety. They have worked with start height limits and PEV markers this last year. If you have questions, I encourage you to speak to those of us that have actually flown with the FAI rules.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim (TT)
> >
> > The bias that Tim notes is understandable, given that John Good and Hank are arguably the two most invested (from an authorship and history point of view) in the current US Rules.
> >
> > It is worth keeping in mind that the KEY QUESTION on the survey is whether we should TRY FAI tasking definitions and scoring for ONE YEAR at the NATIONAL level, then evaluate the results.
> >
> > Winscore has already been modified and tested for this, so the impact on other aspects of our contest infrastructure is minimal.
> >
> >
> > My own opinion is that doing the experiment will take a lot of the noted bias and theroetical opinions out of the equation.
> >
> > For US Team aspirants: "You play the way you practice" - Pop Warner
>
> Yes, Tim and John, Pop was right. I would like to add to his thought as to ask anyone, yes, anyone to go in front of the USA Olympic Committee and demand that the USA athletes train and qualify under one set of US rules then go compete(and on short notice) under another set of World Olympic rules.. Please videotape with sound, as it might be entertaining to watch and hear!
>
> With zero notice of this new "white paper" being written and then published on the SSA site with absolutely no chance for any opposing views it might be taken as "wrongly' by some in the US racing community as this was voted on last year and has come up at many contest sites with many-seeded pilots voicing their thoughts.
>
> Was this paper written to foster and support our sport or written as to conquer and control by a few who wish not to recognize that this has already has been decided? Will it be taken as "Snowflakes publish fake news" by some unnamed individuals?..just saying.....
>
> Should this "white paper" be removed by the SSA leadership from the website since this topic has already been decided? Also, it could/can have been easily emailed to those on the US ranking list by the publisher or are the writer's wishing to give a false impression as the "SSA" is sponsoring this? Just asking.....but will close with the paper does cover "not all" but some "good" (cough) thoughts...
>
> Best. Tom #711.

Hi Buddy.
The paper was written with input from others(including a 2 time IGC contest CD).
The intent was, and is, to help pilots become better informed on the topic. While some opinion is expressed, it was hoped that these would be clear as being opinion.
We used our names for full attribution.
As to the idea that if we just start flying to IGC/FAI rules, we will start winning. Nothing is further from the truth. There are a number of factors that are much more important when flying at the WGC.
Personally, and this no doubt shows in my writing, participation in US contests, regionals and nationals is my highest priority, after safety.
Shields on
UH

The differences in scoring equations are interesting.

Perhaps the scoring program could score next year's contests both ways so the contestants could see how things work in the other system?

Good comments.

I'll add a few points of context. One reason why we implemented FAI Rules under WinScore is that we wanted to make sure we didn't break anything that is peripheral the the actual contest flying under this new rules regime. WinScore is tightly integrated into contest administration in the US and far more US Scorers are familiar with scoring under WinScore than SeeYou. Having the contest experience soured by peripheral administrative issues could easily bias any pilot feedback we get is something we are aiming to minimize as we want feedback to focus on the heart of the matter - the rules, principally task configuration and scoring.

People disagree about the impact of some of the finer points here and it's a healthy thing to have a debate so that there is awareness of what's potentially at stake. Having made a commitment to move forward we are now focused on what sorts of local procedures might be beneficial, both for 2020 and potentially long-term.

Please let us know what you think - here and in the poll. This is a journey that we don't want to mess up in the planning or in the execution so please point out topics you'd like to see addressed!

Best regards,

Andy Blackburn
Chair, Contest Rules Committee
(Some opinions expressed here are my personal views)


On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:04:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I’ll throw in my two cents having flown three SSA contests and three FAI contests in the last four years.
>
> The difference between racing strategy on course is small. The fastest pilot should win in either case. Evan is correct on this fact as we have seen foreign pilots come kick our butts in the past flying under our rules.
>
> As Tim pointed out, a lot of the issues that have been brought up in the white paper as to why we may not want the rules don’t apply or pilots wouldn’t know about it until after the fact when scored if the scores shift one way or the other as a result of distance done or number of finishers.
>
> To me the largest change when actually flying is the start line which is normally used in FAI competitions. The white paper however states that it is the only option. A ring is available but is not commonly utilized under FAI. It also resembles old SSA rings where you start out the side but the task distance does not change. I’ve been somewhat frustrated now with our ever evolving start cylinder where you can start out the side, top and now even back of a cylinder. This played a roll in a recent nationals that was undercalled for the task and some contestants were provided a significant advantage by starting out the back and gaining up to ten miles in distance. I think the start line is simple and easy to understand for all competitors. A max start altitude and speed can be added to control it as many countries do.
>
> The turnpoint area in a racing task in my opinion is small but noticeable.. I don’t see it changing results or safety significantly.
>
> The finish can be set up the same with a cylinder and minimum finish altitude that can change based on airfield requirements.
>
> The biggest difference however is the scoring formula. Again the fastest pilot will win the race and get 1,000 pts on a normal day. The factor that changes is how slower pilots receive points. Under SSA rules we see scores much closer together and everyone feels better because you feel you have a shot. Under FAI the gap spreads out a lot faster to the point where very slow finishers are scored like a landout.
>
> At the last WGC in Standard Class there was a 1,000 pt day where the winner flew 60.8 mph. The slowest finisher went 46.4 mph, 14.4 mph slower. That finisher only got 566 pts.
>
> In comparison last summer at US Standard Class Day 2 the winner flew 60.3 mph handicap and another finisher flew 46.3 handicap similar to the example above. The winner got 1,000 pts and the slower finisher received 768 pts, 200 pts more than he would under FAI.
>
> So if you can beat the socks off of everyone else under FAI you’re going to start gaining points quicker but it also is easy to start losing points as well. I believe that we should move to FAI due to many of the reasons stated by others. It will allow us to practice and fly under the same rules as the rest of the world and will make use respect the points in the same way. I hope we don’t hop around multiple times and have to learn three different sets of rules. We should aim for a clean move to FAI, SeeYou Scoring and SoaringSpot utilization. Any changes required due to SSA, US airspace, handicaps and FAR type consideration can be solved with local procedures similar to many other countries.
>
> Mike Westbrook

An important note: thanks to dogged work by our IGC delegate Rick Sheppe, the IGC rules are going to change to a much more sane scoring system, which is much like the existing US scoring system.

John Cochrane BB

On Tuesday, 8 October 2019 16:14:52 UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> An important note: thanks to dogged work by our IGC delegate Rick Sheppe, the IGC rules are going to change to a much more sane scoring system, which is much like the existing US scoring system.
>
> John Cochrane BB

The FAI documents that I can are here

US proposal - https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/8_1_1_y2_sc3a_8.2_8.3_8.4_usa_2019_calculation_of_ speed_and_distance_pointsv2.pdf

Fro the minutes of the 2019 Plenary

8.1.1 Year-2 Proposal
(USA)
Y2 SC3A 8.2 8.3 8.4 USA 2019
Calculation of Speed and Distance
Points
Text of the proposal (including Annex):
https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/8_1_1_y2_sc3a_8.2_8.3
_8.4_usa_2019_calculation_of_speed_and_distance_po intsv2.pdf
Note: This proposal introduces a new additional scoring system in
Annex A that could be used by IGC competition organizers. The IGC
Plenary will reevaluate this new system in 2022 and will decide if the
current system could be removed from Annex A.
Adopted

John, do you know how the process within the FAI works? Will the new formula be used in the 2020 FAI Cat 1 and 2 events?

Thanks in advance

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 7:39:48 PM UTC-4, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 October 2019 16:14:52 UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> > An important note: thanks to dogged work by our IGC delegate Rick Sheppe, the IGC rules are going to change to a much more sane scoring system, which is much like the existing US scoring system.
> >
> > John Cochrane BB
>
> The FAI documents that I can are here
>
> US proposal - https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/8_1_1_y2_sc3a_8.2_8.3_8.4_usa_2019_calculation_of_ speed_and_distance_pointsv2.pdf
>
> Fro the minutes of the 2019 Plenary
>
> 8.1.1 Year-2 Proposal
> (USA)
> Y2 SC3A 8.2 8.3 8.4 USA 2019
> Calculation of Speed and Distance
> Points
> Text of the proposal (including Annex):
> https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/8_1_1_y2_sc3a_8.2_8.3
> _8.4_usa_2019_calculation_of_speed_and_distance_po intsv2.pdf
> Note: This proposal introduces a new additional scoring system in
> Annex A that could be used by IGC competition organizers. The IGC
> Plenary will reevaluate this new system in 2022 and will decide if the
> current system could be removed from Annex A.
> Adopted
>
> John, do you know how the process within the FAI works? Will the new formula be used in the 2020 FAI Cat 1 and 2 events?
>
> Thanks in advance

See also: https://www.fai.org/igc-documents "alternative scoring system". Looks like this is already available at organizers' option.

Rick is the guy...

best,
Evan

Since this is the US proposal, and since it takes the IGC scoring formula basically to a slightly improved version of the US scoring formula, I would hope the US takes the IGCs invitation to use the new formula in nationals contests. Naturally I've told members of the RC this opinion, enhanced by bribes in the form of beer. If you agree, let them know as well.

John Cochrane BB

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:40:59 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> US contest pilots.
>
> The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
>
> You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
>
> Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
>
> For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> Andy Blackburn, Chair
> 9B

As of 10/10 AM, half way through the polling period, we have 111 replies. That is well below the 180 or so we had last year.
The tools we are using, SSA contest pilots list service, SSA E-news service, and this forum Have been used to get the word out.
First seems to be blocked by many Spam filters.
Second is affected by Spam filters to some degree , and pilots opting out of E- news.
Last limited by viewership of this site.
We would appreciate folks getting the word out to their friends to increase awareness and participation.
For the RC
UH

Guys
Take the time to do the survey. Its easy, fast and pretty informative. Even if your not a real active racer anymore, there are issues related to racing which affect all of us in other matters; can you say “insurance rates�.

In addition, getting your opinion to the committee is essential if you have concern for how the racing side of soaring is going. If you don’t take the time to do the survey, you have no grounds to bitch and moan when changes are made.

Popping the survey notification up in the stack. One week to go.

US contest pilots.

The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.

You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php

For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
Andy Blackburn, Chair
9B

I can’t understand why you wouldn’t fly to FAI rules, everyone is still on a level playing field. These days at WC level a full team with a system for tracking other gliders is going to become standard I suspect.

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:40:59 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> US contest pilots.
>
> The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
>
> You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
>
> Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
>
> For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> Andy Blackburn, Chair
> 9B

If you are a pilot who flies in National FAI classes, and you support the adoption of FAI rules, then this is an important poll to complete. IMauHO

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 2:03:19 PM UTC-4, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:40:59 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > US contest pilots.
> >
> > The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
> >
> > You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> >
> > Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
> >
> > For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> > Andy Blackburn, Chair
> > 9B
>
> If you are a pilot who flies in National FAI classes, and you support the adoption of FAI rules, then this is an important poll to complete. IMauHO

Same if you are a pilot that does not support adoption, or maybe supports adoption of some elements.
The comment sections allow a lot of useful input and the RC DOES read the comments.
Participation of as many affected pilots as possible is important.
As of last night less than 1/3 of eligible pilots has weighed in.
Participate and spread the word.
UH

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:40:59 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> US contest pilots.
>
> The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
>
> You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
>
> Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
>
> For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> Andy Blackburn, Chair
> 9B


A strict adoption of the IGC rules would result in some very significant changes in US racing:
No Sports Class
No FAI Combined Class
No handicapping in the Standard Class
IGC club class handicaps rather than US handicaps
Different handicap approach to weights
No task changes in the air
No Modified Assigned Task
Ground-up communications allowed
Team flying (air-air communication) allowed
Different start system (line allowed, different or no start height limitations)
Different Assigned (Racing) Task turnpoint scoring (nick and go)
No safety finish
No airport landing bonus
More Assigned (Racing ) Tasks (at least 1/3, which is more than typical in US racing)
More gaggling likely
Different penalties and penalty system (some US penalties and pilot disqualifications are missing)
Different scoring philosophy re landouts and lone-wolf flying
Different scoring program maybe/probably? (SeeYou-competition vs Winscore)

Some of these changes could be neutralized by Local Procedures. Of course if enough of the changes are neutralized, what’s the point in making the switch?

The push toward FAI rules appears to be driven most strongly by our top US racers. Their primary goal seems to be to make US racing a better training and US-team selection format for FAI racing. This is a reasonable goal and our change to FAI racing would probably help. However, our success at the WGCs will depend not just upon US pilots becoming more familiar with FAI rules and procedures, but more importantly getting better at tactical gaggling, flying Assigned Tasks, and flying more aggressive tasks. Personally, I think these three factors are far more important than FAI vs US rules. It’s worth noting that US Rules currently allow a CD to set more Assigned Tasks and to set more aggressive tasks. A change to FAI rules is not required to do this. This is a matter for the CDs, not for the rules-makers.

Many of the changes associated with the adoption of FAI rules may negatively impact participation in US racing. Allowing team flying and ground-up communications may reduce participation by requiring additional levels of preparation and sophistication in order to compete effectively (you must now have team mates and a ground support system in order to place well?). More Assigned Tasks and more aggressive tasking will result in more landouts, which is desirable for FAI race training, but may drive crewless pilots away from racing toward other alternatives (Regional contests or OLC camps). There are some (many?) current Nationals pilots who have little interest in flying contests with mostly Assigned Tasks, lots of gaggling, and significantly more aggressive tasking. Nationals won’t have the big gaggles needed for FAI training if participation shrinks.


This issue is certainly not a simple one. And it could have major implications for US racers for years to come. It will be important for US racers who are not intending to fly in FAI/WGC races to speak up and let the Rules Committee know your thoughts. It will also be important for those US racers who are interested in switching to FAI racing to take a careful look at all the (perhaps unintended) consequences of a change to FAI rules. It won’t do much good to switch to FAI rules if participation in our contests drops significantly and our contests shrink even further. It is also worth noting that the FAI rules are slowly moving closer to US rules.

It would indeed be better for our WGC oriented pilots to train with FAI rules and tasking. But will this be better for the overall US racing community?

Please take the time to complete the Rules Committee Poll

Ken Sorenson “KM�

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 9:06:47 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Popping the survey notification up in the stack. One week to go.
>
> US contest pilots.
>
> The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
>
> You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
>
> For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> Andy Blackburn, Chair
> 9B

Hi Andy,

Would you please clarify what you mean (Section 6.0) w.r.t. "Task Definitions and Scoring Formulae"? Specifically...

1. Does "Task Definition" explicitly include the FAI unlimited altitude line start as used in Europe and exclude various modifications that many here in the US will attempt to graft on (speed/altitude/time under limits)? IMO the start definition is the most significant difference in task definition between current US and FAI rules. It's probably also worth pointing out that there isn't really any motivation to use provisions in the FAI rules that are never or rarely used elsewhere (e.g. the start ring).

2. Does "Scoring Formulae" mean per 2019 FAI rules, or does it mean "whatever the FAI will use in any given year going forward"? The FAI scoring formulae are currently under scrutiny and may well change radically in the next year or two (thanks Rick, thanks John). I have very different opinions on the current FAI scoring rules and the US proposal. It seems like it would be dumb to use the 2019 FAI rules if the US proposal does continue forward.

Aside: to Ken's points about losing combined 15m/std handicap and Sports classes, I think this need not be the case. The recently completed PanAm shows how a 15m/std handicapped class works under FAI rules and since the FAI doesn't recognize Sports class, we can (continue to) do that pretty much any way we see fit.

best,
Evan Ludeman "T8"

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:05:51 PM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 9:06:47 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Popping the survey notification up in the stack. One week to go.
> >
> > US contest pilots.
> >
> > The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
> >
> > You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> >
> > For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> > Andy Blackburn, Chair
> > 9B
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Would you please clarify what you mean (Section 6.0) w.r.t. "Task Definitions and Scoring Formulae"? Specifically...
>
> 1. Does "Task Definition" explicitly include the FAI unlimited altitude line start as used in Europe and exclude various modifications that many here in the US will attempt to graft on (speed/altitude/time under limits)? IMO the start definition is the most significant difference in task definition between current US and FAI rules. It's probably also worth pointing out that there isn't really any motivation to use provisions in the FAI rules that are never or rarely used elsewhere (e.g. the start ring).
>
> 2. Does "Scoring Formulae" mean per 2019 FAI rules, or does it mean "whatever the FAI will use in any given year going forward"? The FAI scoring formulae are currently under scrutiny and may well change radically in the next year or two (thanks Rick, thanks John). I have very different opinions on the current FAI scoring rules and the US proposal. It seems like it would be dumb to use the 2019 FAI rules if the US proposal does continue forward.
>
> Aside: to Ken's points about losing combined 15m/std handicap and Sports classes, I think this need not be the case. The recently completed PanAm shows how a 15m/std handicapped class works under FAI rules and since the FAI doesn't recognize Sports class, we can (continue to) do that pretty much any way we see fit.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman "T8"

Evan,

1. The issue of unlimited start height has already being addressed. There are provisions for the CD to limit the start height and this was used this year at 2019 European Gliding Championships at Prievidza, Slovakia.

2. By adopting the FAI rules, the US would use the current scoring formula that is being used in a given year by the FAI. If and when new rules are adapted the US would use those rules. While some in the US think this change will happen quickly many of us realize that it may be many years before they change, if ever. Waiting for the change continues to harm US Team pilots ability to fly and race under the same conditions as other countries.

I specifically went to the PanAm Championships this year to get more experience under FAI rules. For most of the US Team pilots the first time we fly under FAI rules is when we go to a World Championships. Then everyone in the US wonders why US pilots do so poorly. The answer is simple, we are playing a differ game and then expected to learn a new one while competing against the best pilots in the world at the same time. I see so many negative comments about flying under the FAI rules from pilots who have not done so in 20 or more years. All of the pilots that I know that have competed under the rules are for the change. We have a group that thinks our rules are superior to the rest of the world. Where are the results to back that up?

Wouldn't having pilots place well in World Championships bring more excitement to soaring in the US as a whole? As our top pilots get better, that will translate into all of our pilots getting better. We all learn and push each other to improve. You rise to the level of your competition.

It is time for the US to adopt the FAI rules and work from within to make changes if we feel there are areas for improvement.

Tim "TT"

Thanks for the thoughts Ken.

Since there's some lobbying going on in various forms this week, I feel I ought to weigh in with some clarifying points and some of my own perspectives.

The general feedback of the racing community from last year's poll was clear. That is to start with FAI Rules as the base platform and adapt them to accommodate clear preferences of the US racing community. This is a very different thing from tweaking US rules with a few FAI features – e.g. eliminating distance credit in ATs, adding a start line and maybe some different scoring formulae. If you have strong views on one versus the other approach -particularly if they have changed since last year’s poll you should call it out in the poll comments. We’re not re-polling on what approach the community. I’m surprised the choice of the basic approach is being raised again. I thought we were past that.

Judging from last year's poll, most of the concerns Ken voiced would be addressed via US-specific local procedures. Many countries that base their rules on FAI do this. I don't envision eliminating most of the things on Ken’s list because they aren’t central to the tactical racing experience under FAI rules and the pilot community voted last year to retain them. I see no reason to eliminate the safety finish, airport bonus or motor test procedures or force pilots to calculate altitudes is meters. I think the argument that you need to do these draconian and unpopular things if you are serious about flying FAI rules as a way to improve WGC placing for the US Team is a logical fallacy. The most relevant part of the rules is the task format. When you suggest in parallel that flying under FAI rules in any form won’t significantly alter US Team prospects the whole “all or nothing� argument falls into self-contradiction. I don’t see how it’s critical do go “all or nothing� if you don’t believe it’s going to make a difference in the first place.

Specifically, here are my views on where these sub-issues stand based on the polling and some simple logic:

> No Sports Class
The US pilot community wants to retain this. It has implications for handicaps for sure since restricting the list to Club Class gliders would need to be resolved. This is not a giant issue since we needn’t alter the Club Class handicaps to enable Sports Class. We’ve already resolved that keeping Sports Class as an entry level class for ANY glider type doesn’t significantly harm Club Class.

> No FAI Combined Class
Pilot community wants to retain this – it is a necessity at some Regionals and may become a necessity at some Nationals. It is a poll question this year. Many countries that fly under FAI Rules have much more extensive FAI Class combinations than are being proposed in the US. This, therefore, appears to be a red herring.

> No handicapping in the Standard Class
Same as above. Red herring.

> IGC Club Class handicaps rather than US handicaps
As described above, we need to expand list of included gliders for Sports and FAI Combined, but we can make base handicaps for Club Class ships the same as under IGC. We’ve already done the work and they are very close already.

> Different handicap approach to weights
This may be necessary for Sports Class in particular– handicapping is a complex topic but it can be managed. Handicaps as described above do nothing to alter how contests are run in non-handicapped classes, so it’s mostly a side issue to the FAI Rules topic.

> No task changes in the air
We don’t have pilot feedback on this but it seems an unnecessary restriction just to make adopting FAI rules seem more draconian.

> No Modified Assigned Task
This is the one significant decision the US needs to make when it comes to FAI Rules. This is a hotly debated topic. Many US pilots like the MAT and many don't like it. It seems more popular for Regionals than Nationals, so we are polling on that. A big consideration is that MAT is not compatible or well handled by instruments and infrastructure designed for FAI rules.

If we want to accomplish many of the goals of the MAT, the FAI is undertaking a look at handicapped distance tasks (which I have flown on three occasions by waiver and have found to be an enjoyable innovation for enabling different performance gliders to compete head-to-head). This addresses some of the issues for which the MAT was invented without going "full OLC" (as some have called it) and with lower in-cockpit workload reprogramming computers. We also have tasking alternatives such as the 'Mozer TAT (AAT)" to emulate many features of the MAT under FAI Rules.

If people really want to keep the MAT as-is it would for now require implementing FAI Rules under WinScore. Thanks to Guy Byars’ efforts WinScore now has FAI Task types implemented so we can accommodate them AND offer the MAT if pilots really want that - at the Regional or even National level. It could however limit our scoring infrastructure options in the longer run. It remains a poll question for these reasons.

> Ground-up communications allowed
This is a WGC team-oriented practice. We need not retain it for US Regional or National competitions. Pilots don’t want it for many of the reasons mentioned. Team practice is an important for WGC competitiveness, but we have resolved that doing so is to costly to fairness and ultimately participation. We’ll continue to poll on it, but the feedback is clear that pilots don’t want it for US contests – regardless of the underlying rulebook.

> Team flying (air-air communication) allowed
We allow this at Regionals but not Nationals today. That seems to be what pilots want. It’s a similar argument to the one immediately above.

> Different start system (line allowed, different or no start height limitations)
The line start has broad US pilot support. We’ll see what pilots say about height limits. The FAI has experimented with height and speed limits in the past.

> Different Assigned (Racing) Task turnpoint scoring (nick and go)
US pilots seem to support this according to the polling.

> No safety finish
This is a once every soaring season rule so it wouldn’t significantly alter the character of racing to retain it.

> No airport landing bonus
We can retain it if pilots want it. It’s a relatively minor thing except for the perennial debate about how to handle motorgliders. �

> More Assigned (Racing ) Tasks (at least 1/3, which is more than typical in US racing)
1/3 ATs PLUS long task lengths will likely increase landouts. The issue here is how guidelines (or mandates) to increase the use of ATs interacts with task lengths set by CDs and landouts. I think an more likely outcome is that CDs task ATs more conservatively when the weather is questionable or there is a wide variety in skill (or in general vs what happens at WGCs) to ensure that more pilots get home. It’s not exclusively a Rules issue. We could task for more landouts today under US Rules, but we choose not to – particularly at Regionals. We may decide as a community that we want tasking at Nationals to become more challenging. That would certainly be skill and character-building, but it’s not really a rules issue per se.

> More gaggling likely
This is an assertion without strong support in fact – particularly now. Here’s why. First, we don't have Nationals big enough to produce the massive gaggles you can see at WGCs. Second, the FAI has adopted as an option in the rules for next year the US scoring proposal to reduce the scoring incentive to gaggle and further actions appear to be on the way. It seems unlikely to me that adopting FAI Rules in the current environment would result in significant changes in gaggling behavior - particularly given the well-know tendency of US competition pilots to be lone wolves - even at WGCs.

Lastly, if we are proposing changing the scoring formulae for FAI Rules I’d argue we ought to put our money where our mouths are.

> Different penalties and penalty system (some US penalties and pilot disqualifications are missing).
We can decide to add whatever we want. It’s what other countries do.. The vast majority of contest flights are penalty-free. For the penalties that really affect racing tactics there aren’t giant differences today. The US does have a penchant for lots of graduated penalties. We can argue whether this is a brilliant idea or a needless complication but it’s mostly a sideshow.

> Different scoring philosophy re: landouts and lone-wolf flying
See reference to the US FAI Scoring proposal, above.

> Different scoring program maybe/probably? (SeeYou-competition vs Winscore)
We can use either as of 2019. We made this a non-issue in terms of what we do in the short run.

> Some of these changes could be neutralized by Local Procedures. Of course if enough of the changes are neutralized, what’s the point in making the switch?

Forcing the US pilot community into a strawman all-or-nothing “if you want FAI rules, we’re going to make it as unpleasant as possible� proposal by adopting peripheral features that do not significantly bear on the tactics of racing and just make adoption more unpleasant I think is destructive and disingenuous. Pilots clearly told us they don’t want those things so it’s puzzling that it keeps coming up as a scary potential outcome.

I think the US Team competitiveness argument, while not irrelevant, is not the main point. I believe a move to FAI-based Rules (and principally flying FAI task formats) will likely have only marginal effect on US WGC prospects – but, like chicken soup, it’s unlikely to to hurt our performance either. IMO the real challenge for US Team performance is getting the right kind of competitive experience. Last year I looked at the content histories of the top pilots on the FAI ranking list and it's clear that if you want to be on the podium at a WGC you will need to fly 2-3 top-level contests per year against WGC-class pilots. IMHO this means flying in Europe – a lot. That's a tough proposition for US pilots in general. It's not made any easier when we operate a separate pilot ranking system that emphasizes flying US Nationals under a different scoring system. Again, this is not strictly a rules issue, but the rules and scoring and ranking systems we choose feed into it at the margin.

So why bother at all? Why not ignore the specific pilot feedback, tweak a couple of the US rules, declare victory and go home?

In my view, what the move to FAI Rules does get us is tighter integration with the global standard for scoring, ranking, awareness via the FAI pilot ranking list and access to Soaring Spot and international soaring hardware/software infrastructure. We have begun the process of making this happen in terms of integration with Soaring Spot and FAI rankings. It also allows us to utilize SeeYou as well as WinScore for scoring, eliminating a long-understood "single point of failure" in our racing infrastructure by having unique systems dependent on single individuals. It also allows us to access innovations in soaring infrastructure – in the cockpit and on the ground – that are increasingly being developed only for hardware and software that are designed for FAI rules. We could attempt to replicate all of this to support a “US on an island� philosophy but it would be a huge challenge and a lot to ask of a handful of volunteers. Or we can ignore these advancements. There is a Luddite faction in US soaring that would potentially support that.

There is also a broader point here about being part of the global system if we intend to have real influence over it. Our IGC representative Rick Sheppe has done a great job getting consideration for US proposals for rule changes but I have to believe that job is more challenging if we sit outside the FAI Rules structures in our own contests. It's up to us to decide if we care about that. I believe we also get more engagement with soaring infrastructure providers from inside the global community than outside it.

There is a material difference between tweaking US rules in a single act and adopting FAI as the default platform while adding local procedures. Under the first scenario we make a one-time change and as FAI rules evolve the RC must act in order to adopt new global rules to follow. If we do nothing we drift apart again. That could easily require a similar process of outcry from the US pilot community and foot-dragging responses every time something changes with FAI Rules. It’s easy to go back to sitting on the island. In contrast adopting FAI as the plaform for US rules pushes us towards engaging more fully with FAI proposals and only rejecting the changes that the US community truly opposes. Remember, there are significant changes in FAI Rules currently under consideration – including the US scoring proposal which has been provisionally accepted for 2020, handicapped distance tasks, event-marker procedures to reduce gaggling, technical innovations vis-Ã*-vis ground-based tracking. Is our default position to relgate all of that to one dedicated volunteer or to more fully engage with it?

My personal view is that the preferred and more practical path is to start with the FAI rule book and implement variations to address the issues Ken mentions that we really care about - most of them are easy to implement - with some clear tradeoffs if we make choices that impact our infrastructure choices, such as MAT. I think it’s a very different thing to start with the current US rule book and every year pick through all the differences to see if we've drifted apart – maybe if we decide to. That's the situation we're currently in.

All of this is why we conduct a pilot poll every year. The US racing community gets a say in what happens, so I'd encourage you all to spend the 10 minutes or so it takes to log in and check some boxes.

Best regards and sorry for the long post,

Andy Blackburn
Chair, SSA Contest Rules Committee
(Opinions expressed are my own and don’t represent the consensus view of the RC - obviously)

__________________________________________________ ______

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 1:27:47 AM UTC+1, Ken Sorenson wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:40:59 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > US contest pilots.
> >
> > The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
> >
> > You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> >
> > Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
> >
> > For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> > Andy Blackburn, Chair
> > 9B
>
>
> A strict adoption of the IGC rules would result in some very significant changes in US racing:
> No Sports Class
> No FAI Combined Class
> No handicapping in the Standard Class
> IGC club class handicaps rather than US handicaps
> Different handicap approach to weights
> No task changes in the air
> No Modified Assigned Task
> Ground-up communications allowed
> Team flying (air-air communication) allowed
> Different start system (line allowed, different or no start height limitations)
> Different Assigned (Racing) Task turnpoint scoring (nick and go)
> No safety finish
> No airport landing bonus
> More Assigned (Racing ) Tasks (at least 1/3, which is more than typical in US racing)
> More gaggling likely
> Different penalties and penalty system (some US penalties and pilot disqualifications are missing)
> Different scoring philosophy re landouts and lone-wolf flying
> Different scoring program maybe/probably? (SeeYou-competition vs Winscore)
>
> Some of these changes could be neutralized by Local Procedures. Of course if enough of the changes are neutralized, what’s the point in making the switch?
>
> The push toward FAI rules appears to be driven most strongly by our top US racers. Their primary goal seems to be to make US racing a better training and US-team selection format for FAI racing. This is a reasonable goal and our change to FAI racing would probably help. However, our success at the WGCs will depend not just upon US pilots becoming more familiar with FAI rules and procedures, but more importantly getting better at tactical gaggling, flying Assigned Tasks, and flying more aggressive tasks. Personally, I think these three factors are far more important than FAI vs US rules. It’s worth noting that US Rules currently allow a CD to set more Assigned Tasks and to set more aggressive tasks. A change to FAI rules is not required to do this. This is a matter for the CDs, not for the rules-makers..
>
> Many of the changes associated with the adoption of FAI rules may negatively impact participation in US racing. Allowing team flying and ground-up communications may reduce participation by requiring additional levels of preparation and sophistication in order to compete effectively (you must now have team mates and a ground support system in order to place well?). More Assigned Tasks and more aggressive tasking will result in more landouts, which is desirable for FAI race training, but may drive crewless pilots away from racing toward other alternatives (Regional contests or OLC camps). There are some (many?) current Nationals pilots who have little interest in flying contests with mostly Assigned Tasks, lots of gaggling, and significantly more aggressive tasking. Nationals won’t have the big gaggles needed for FAI training if participation shrinks.
>
>
> This issue is certainly not a simple one. And it could have major implications for US racers for years to come. It will be important for US racers who are not intending to fly in FAI/WGC races to speak up and let the Rules Committee know your thoughts. It will also be important for those US racers who are interested in switching to FAI racing to take a careful look at all the (perhaps unintended) consequences of a change to FAI rules. It won’t do much good to switch to FAI rules if participation in our contests drops significantly and our contests shrink even further. It is also worth noting that the FAI rules are slowly moving closer to US rules.
>
> It would indeed be better for our WGC oriented pilots to train with FAI rules and tasking. But will this be better for the overall US racing community?
>
> Please take the time to complete the Rules Committee Poll
>
> Ken Sorenson “KM�


g54u
2ggi

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:27:47 PM UTC-6, Ken Sorenson wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:40:59 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > US contest pilots.
> >
> > The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
> >
> > You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> >
> > Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
> >
> > For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> > Andy Blackburn, Chair
> > 9B
>
>
> A strict adoption of the IGC rules would result in some very significant changes in US racing:
> No Sports Class
> No FAI Combined Class
> No handicapping in the Standard Class
> IGC club class handicaps rather than US handicaps
> Different handicap approach to weights
> No task changes in the air
> No Modified Assigned Task
> Ground-up communications allowed
> Team flying (air-air communication) allowed
> Different start system (line allowed, different or no start height limitations)
> Different Assigned (Racing) Task turnpoint scoring (nick and go)
> No safety finish
> No airport landing bonus
> More Assigned (Racing ) Tasks (at least 1/3, which is more than typical in US racing)
> More gaggling likely
> Different penalties and penalty system (some US penalties and pilot disqualifications are missing)
> Different scoring philosophy re landouts and lone-wolf flying
> Different scoring program maybe/probably? (SeeYou-competition vs Winscore)
>
> Some of these changes could be neutralized by Local Procedures. Of course if enough of the changes are neutralized, what’s the point in making the switch?
>
> The push toward FAI rules appears to be driven most strongly by our top US racers. Their primary goal seems to be to make US racing a better training and US-team selection format for FAI racing. This is a reasonable goal and our change to FAI racing would probably help. However, our success at the WGCs will depend not just upon US pilots becoming more familiar with FAI rules and procedures, but more importantly getting better at tactical gaggling, flying Assigned Tasks, and flying more aggressive tasks. Personally, I think these three factors are far more important than FAI vs US rules. It’s worth noting that US Rules currently allow a CD to set more Assigned Tasks and to set more aggressive tasks. A change to FAI rules is not required to do this. This is a matter for the CDs, not for the rules-makers..
>
> Many of the changes associated with the adoption of FAI rules may negatively impact participation in US racing. Allowing team flying and ground-up communications may reduce participation by requiring additional levels of preparation and sophistication in order to compete effectively (you must now have team mates and a ground support system in order to place well?). More Assigned Tasks and more aggressive tasking will result in more landouts, which is desirable for FAI race training, but may drive crewless pilots away from racing toward other alternatives (Regional contests or OLC camps). There are some (many?) current Nationals pilots who have little interest in flying contests with mostly Assigned Tasks, lots of gaggling, and significantly more aggressive tasking. Nationals won’t have the big gaggles needed for FAI training if participation shrinks.
>
>
> This issue is certainly not a simple one. And it could have major implications for US racers for years to come. It will be important for US racers who are not intending to fly in FAI/WGC races to speak up and let the Rules Committee know your thoughts. It will also be important for those US racers who are interested in switching to FAI racing to take a careful look at all the (perhaps unintended) consequences of a change to FAI rules. It won’t do much good to switch to FAI rules if participation in our contests drops significantly and our contests shrink even further. It is also worth noting that the FAI rules are slowly moving closer to US rules.
>
> It would indeed be better for our WGC oriented pilots to train with FAI rules and tasking. But will this be better for the overall US racing community?
>
> Please take the time to complete the Rules Committee Poll
>
> Ken Sorenson “KM�

As a newly minted soaring pilot, I've been following this thread with interest. I have never flown in a race before and I don't have a race ID on my glider, but would like to try it one day. As such, I haven't been allowed to respond to the survey.

My personal opinion in this matter though, would tend to reflect much of what you say the top pilots are pushing for--an adoption of FAI rules. I doubt I'll ever get to compete in an international competition and be competitive at that level, but from my perspective (from the bottom), it only makes sense to fly by the rules of the international community. If I ever get to fly in a contest, it will likely be the Club Class (my glider is a Phoebus). Having FAI rules that benefit "team flying" will not discourage me from contest flying. In fact, it may motivate me to find a fellow team member that I can strategize with. I would be able to learn a lot from that experience. I don't see FAI rules discouraging ME from contest flying. If I were able to vote, I'd vote for adopting FAI rules.

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 6:01:18 PM UTC-4, John Foster wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:27:47 PM UTC-6, Ken Sorenson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:40:59 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > US contest pilots.
> > >
> > > The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
> > >
> > > You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> > >
> > > Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee.. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
> > >
> > > For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> > > Andy Blackburn, Chair
> > > 9B
> >
> >
> > A strict adoption of the IGC rules would result in some very significant changes in US racing:
> > No Sports Class
> > No FAI Combined Class
> > No handicapping in the Standard Class
> > IGC club class handicaps rather than US handicaps
> > Different handicap approach to weights
> > No task changes in the air
> > No Modified Assigned Task
> > Ground-up communications allowed
> > Team flying (air-air communication) allowed
> > Different start system (line allowed, different or no start height limitations)
> > Different Assigned (Racing) Task turnpoint scoring (nick and go)
> > No safety finish
> > No airport landing bonus
> > More Assigned (Racing ) Tasks (at least 1/3, which is more than typical in US racing)
> > More gaggling likely
> > Different penalties and penalty system (some US penalties and pilot disqualifications are missing)
> > Different scoring philosophy re landouts and lone-wolf flying
> > Different scoring program maybe/probably? (SeeYou-competition vs Winscore)
> >
> > Some of these changes could be neutralized by Local Procedures. Of course if enough of the changes are neutralized, what’s the point in making the switch?
> >
> > The push toward FAI rules appears to be driven most strongly by our top US racers. Their primary goal seems to be to make US racing a better training and US-team selection format for FAI racing. This is a reasonable goal and our change to FAI racing would probably help. However, our success at the WGCs will depend not just upon US pilots becoming more familiar with FAI rules and procedures, but more importantly getting better at tactical gaggling, flying Assigned Tasks, and flying more aggressive tasks. Personally, I think these three factors are far more important than FAI vs US rules. It’s worth noting that US Rules currently allow a CD to set more Assigned Tasks and to set more aggressive tasks. A change to FAI rules is not required to do this. This is a matter for the CDs, not for the rules-makers..
> >
> > Many of the changes associated with the adoption of FAI rules may negatively impact participation in US racing. Allowing team flying and ground-up communications may reduce participation by requiring additional levels of preparation and sophistication in order to compete effectively (you must now have team mates and a ground support system in order to place well?). More Assigned Tasks and more aggressive tasking will result in more landouts, which is desirable for FAI race training, but may drive crewless pilots away from racing toward other alternatives (Regional contests or OLC camps). There are some (many?) current Nationals pilots who have little interest in flying contests with mostly Assigned Tasks, lots of gaggling, and significantly more aggressive tasking. Nationals won’t have the big gaggles needed for FAI training if participation shrinks.
> >
> >
> > This issue is certainly not a simple one. And it could have major implications for US racers for years to come. It will be important for US racers who are not intending to fly in FAI/WGC races to speak up and let the Rules Committee know your thoughts. It will also be important for those US racers who are interested in switching to FAI racing to take a careful look at all the (perhaps unintended) consequences of a change to FAI rules. It won’t do much good to switch to FAI rules if participation in our contests drops significantly and our contests shrink even further. It is also worth noting that the FAI rules are slowly moving closer to US rules.
> >
> > It would indeed be better for our WGC oriented pilots to train with FAI rules and tasking. But will this be better for the overall US racing community?
> >
> > Please take the time to complete the Rules Committee Poll
> >
> > Ken Sorenson “KM�
>
> As a newly minted soaring pilot, I've been following this thread with interest. I have never flown in a race before and I don't have a race ID on my glider, but would like to try it one day. As such, I haven't been allowed to respond to the survey.
>
> My personal opinion in this matter though, would tend to reflect much of what you say the top pilots are pushing for--an adoption of FAI rules. I doubt I'll ever get to compete in an international competition and be competitive at that level, but from my perspective (from the bottom), it only makes sense to fly by the rules of the international community. If I ever get to fly in a contest, it will likely be the Club Class (my glider is a Phoebus). Having FAI rules that benefit "team flying" will not discourage me from contest flying. In fact, it may motivate me to find a fellow team member that I can strategize with. I would be able to learn a lot from that experience. I don't see FAI rules discouraging ME from contest flying. If I were able to vote, I'd vote for adopting FAI rules.

Sounds reasonable, but let me point out a couple of things that would affect you(a beginner)if these rules were adopted for all US contests(not currently contemplated, but far from impossible).
You likely, sooner or later, would be assigned a "Racing Task", what we call an assigned task, that would challenge the pilots in your class but may well be beyond your ability as a newbie. You become destined to land out. Not a tragedy, maybe an adventure, but at the least, inconvenient and not so much fun. The option, not available under IGC/FAI rules, would be the US "modified assigned task. With this task, you could cut your flight somewhat shorter, come home safely, maybe a bit early, get a lower score, but get speed points. Your shorter flight would get you a suitable lower score, but you can be home for supper.
If we were to go whole hog and adopt all the IGC elements, your Club class Phoebus would be handicapped a bit more poorly than under the US system because the latest version of the IGC Club class list has had handicaps shifted to favor newer gliders like the ASW-20, rather than the "pure" adoption of relative glider performance.
In the regional, you could team fly, but you can do that now under US rules.. It is an opportunity not commonly taken advantage of.
When you get ready, jump in, no matter what the rules situation is. We have a lot of fun when were not hassling over rules stuff.

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 6:01:18 PM UTC-4, John Foster wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 6:27:47 PM UTC-6, Ken Sorenson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:40:59 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > US contest pilots.
> > >
> > > The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
> > >
> > > You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> > >
> > > Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee.. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
> > >
> > > For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> > > Andy Blackburn, Chair
> > > 9B
> >
> >
> > A strict adoption of the IGC rules would result in some very significant changes in US racing:
> > No Sports Class
> > No FAI Combined Class
> > No handicapping in the Standard Class
> > IGC club class handicaps rather than US handicaps
> > Different handicap approach to weights
> > No task changes in the air
> > No Modified Assigned Task
> > Ground-up communications allowed
> > Team flying (air-air communication) allowed
> > Different start system (line allowed, different or no start height limitations)
> > Different Assigned (Racing) Task turnpoint scoring (nick and go)
> > No safety finish
> > No airport landing bonus
> > More Assigned (Racing ) Tasks (at least 1/3, which is more than typical in US racing)
> > More gaggling likely
> > Different penalties and penalty system (some US penalties and pilot disqualifications are missing)
> > Different scoring philosophy re landouts and lone-wolf flying
> > Different scoring program maybe/probably? (SeeYou-competition vs Winscore)
> >
> > Some of these changes could be neutralized by Local Procedures. Of course if enough of the changes are neutralized, what’s the point in making the switch?
> >
> > The push toward FAI rules appears to be driven most strongly by our top US racers. Their primary goal seems to be to make US racing a better training and US-team selection format for FAI racing. This is a reasonable goal and our change to FAI racing would probably help. However, our success at the WGCs will depend not just upon US pilots becoming more familiar with FAI rules and procedures, but more importantly getting better at tactical gaggling, flying Assigned Tasks, and flying more aggressive tasks. Personally, I think these three factors are far more important than FAI vs US rules. It’s worth noting that US Rules currently allow a CD to set more Assigned Tasks and to set more aggressive tasks. A change to FAI rules is not required to do this. This is a matter for the CDs, not for the rules-makers..
> >
> > Many of the changes associated with the adoption of FAI rules may negatively impact participation in US racing. Allowing team flying and ground-up communications may reduce participation by requiring additional levels of preparation and sophistication in order to compete effectively (you must now have team mates and a ground support system in order to place well?). More Assigned Tasks and more aggressive tasking will result in more landouts, which is desirable for FAI race training, but may drive crewless pilots away from racing toward other alternatives (Regional contests or OLC camps). There are some (many?) current Nationals pilots who have little interest in flying contests with mostly Assigned Tasks, lots of gaggling, and significantly more aggressive tasking. Nationals won’t have the big gaggles needed for FAI training if participation shrinks.
> >
> >
> > This issue is certainly not a simple one. And it could have major implications for US racers for years to come. It will be important for US racers who are not intending to fly in FAI/WGC races to speak up and let the Rules Committee know your thoughts. It will also be important for those US racers who are interested in switching to FAI racing to take a careful look at all the (perhaps unintended) consequences of a change to FAI rules. It won’t do much good to switch to FAI rules if participation in our contests drops significantly and our contests shrink even further. It is also worth noting that the FAI rules are slowly moving closer to US rules.
> >
> > It would indeed be better for our WGC oriented pilots to train with FAI rules and tasking. But will this be better for the overall US racing community?
> >
> > Please take the time to complete the Rules Committee Poll
> >
> > Ken Sorenson “KM�
>
> As a newly minted soaring pilot, I've been following this thread with interest. I have never flown in a race before and I don't have a race ID on my glider, but would like to try it one day. As such, I haven't been allowed to respond to the survey.
>
> My personal opinion in this matter though, would tend to reflect much of what you say the top pilots are pushing for--an adoption of FAI rules. I doubt I'll ever get to compete in an international competition and be competitive at that level, but from my perspective (from the bottom), it only makes sense to fly by the rules of the international community. If I ever get to fly in a contest, it will likely be the Club Class (my glider is a Phoebus). Having FAI rules that benefit "team flying" will not discourage me from contest flying. In fact, it may motivate me to find a fellow team member that I can strategize with. I would be able to learn a lot from that experience. I don't see FAI rules discouraging ME from contest flying. If I were able to vote, I'd vote for adopting FAI rules.

The fact that your Phoebus doesn't have a competition "home" under FAI rules might be slightly discouraging (it's not a club class glider)... but don't fret, Sports Class isn't going away anytime soon and you and your Phoebus will be welcome to join the fun. One small example where the US rules are better (participation matters, every new pilot counts).

The annual rules "Oktoberfest" on r.a.s. is as predictable as frost in NH.

Keep in mind that 95% of the noise comes from < 5% of the participants.

The Europeans do indeed play this game differently. The rules have some influence on the tactical environment, of course. However, the primary determinants of the competition environment are the venue (latitude, time of year, terrain), weather, task setter and who shows up.

I try to be less fussed about rules (one does need to read and understand them though!), keep my focus on flying.

best,
Evan Ludeman "T8"

It came to my attention that I should clarify that my earlier comments apply only to what happens after the 2020 season. For those of you who don’t read the minutes from the Rules Committee meetings or missed the announcements, here is the plan laid out last November.

2019
Make adjustments to US Rules to add FAI-like AT turn cylinders and finish configuration.
Develop and begin execution of plans for 2020 contest trials and longer-term transition – rules, local procedures, training and change management, handicaps (esp Sports Class), PRL and UST implications, systems integration with SSA.org, SoaringSpot, FAI ranking, financial implications.

2020
Run 3-4 trial contests (including 2 Nationals) under a US rule system based on FAI – contests should be of sufficient size to reach a significant proportion of the pilot community, particularly the most active pilots
Collect detailed pilot feedback and input from trials

2021
Roll-out of “final� rules and systems, infrastructure, training, fees, etc. based on trial system plus adjustments based on learnings/pilot feedback/refinement.

We have made some tweaks to the plan as we have progressed and discovered constraints or important considerations but it’s still basically the direction we are headed.

I’ll also apologize for some ill-chosen adjectives in my prior post.. I meant no disrespect. Changes this substantial can be wrenching and require careful planning and vetting which require open dialog and communication, but without personal invective. I crossed my own line and I’m sorry about that.

Andy Blackburn
9B

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> It came to my attention that I should clarify that my earlier comments apply only to what happens after the 2020 season. For those of you who don’t read the minutes from the Rules Committee meetings or missed the announcements, here is the plan laid out last November.
>
> 2019
> Make adjustments to US Rules to add FAI-like AT turn cylinders and finish configuration.
> Develop and begin execution of plans for 2020 contest trials and longer-term transition – rules, local procedures, training and change management, handicaps (esp Sports Class), PRL and UST implications, systems integration with SSA.org, SoaringSpot, FAI ranking, financial implications.
>
> 2020
> Run 3-4 trial contests (including 2 Nationals) under a US rule system based on FAI – contests should be of sufficient size to reach a significant proportion of the pilot community, particularly the most active pilots
> Collect detailed pilot feedback and input from trials
>
> 2021
> Roll-out of “final� rules and systems, infrastructure, training, fees, etc. based on trial system plus adjustments based on learnings/pilot feedback/refinement.
>
> We have made some tweaks to the plan as we have progressed and discovered constraints or important considerations but it’s still basically the direction we are headed.
>
> I’ll also apologize for some ill-chosen adjectives in my prior post. I meant no disrespect. Changes this substantial can be wrenching and require careful planning and vetting which require open dialog and communication, but without personal invective. I crossed my own line and I’m sorry about that.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Andy, could you give us a status in regards to meeting the 2019 goals?

I'm all for going to FAI rules to help the top guys, provided we keep a 'run what ya brung' class with appropriate tasking for everyone that flies old junk. I imagine the 1-26 Nationals will keep doing what they do regardless. Possible/reasonable to go FAI for Nationals and the usual for Regionals?

Great question.

We made the change on finish penalty for 2019 but backed off the smaller AT cylinder because of concerns that it might have created conflict or confusion to make it a different size from MAT 1-mile cylinders (also concern that not all flight computers could accept 0.5 miles). In addition, we weren’t comfortable making MAT cylinders that small because, unlike ATs where everyone is approaching all the turns from the same direction, pilots can approach MATs from any direction once you get to the pilot option portion of the task. we have no reports of problems with the finish penalty but we are still collecting data.

For 2020 we are on track to meet the commitment to have multiple contests run with FAI task types and scoring. We need to decide which contests and what scoring formula. It is my understanding that use of legacy FAI scoring would require adjustments in calculating PRL scores because the points spread for speed is different so a straight average would make the 2020 contests count twice as much asvprior years - roughly. If we use the US alternate scoring that is now in the FAI rulebook this would not be necessary as the speed point spread (if I read the rule correctly) is the same as US rules. It would also be helpful to the FAI who is encouraging use of the new scoring formula, plus the formula is designed to reduce the incentive to gaggle. It’s sort of a “money where our mouth is� approach to use it since we proposed it. We aren’t polling on it this year so if you have a view please let us know. The downside of using it is we’d might have to change formula at some point in the future if the FAI doesn’t adopt it as the default. I don’t see this as a big deal as it’s not a giant change from what US pilots are used to already, but others may have different views. The link to the rule was posted in a separate thread. No final decision has been made.

Thanks to the efforts of Guy Byars, Rick Sheppe and John Godfrey (among others) FAI tasks and scoring are available in WinScore so we can run and score the contest trials described in the plan. This has been tested by re-scoring multiple WGC contest days and at the 2019 Uvalde Invitational contest. On that front we are good to go.

We have not decided yet how to collect feedback. Needless to say the annual poll is available but it has been suggested and we may elect to do something more real-time and discussion-oriented. I think it would also be useful to have discussion groups at as many contests as possible next year regardless of which rules they are flying under to get input as the poll captures less than half of eligible pilots even in a high response year. We particularly lack input from occasional Regional pilots. We don’t want to surprise people So it’s as much a communication exercise as a feedback one.

We are open to suggestions how to make sure this is done in the most controlled and constructive way with minimum potential for mistakes or misunderstandings. That applies to pilots as well as organizers.

All the best,

Andy Blackburn
Chair, SSA Contest Rules Committee
9B

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 4:06:42 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I'm all for going to FAI rules to help the top guys, provided we keep a 'run what ya brung' class with appropriate tasking for everyone that flies old junk. I imagine the 1-26 Nationals will keep doing what they do regardless. Possible/reasonable to go FAI for Nationals and the usual for Regionals?

It ain't that simple. "FAI rules" are quite broad.

For instance, we could run contests with the US scoring proposal, a start ring, a finish ring, no ground control, no team flying, it would be "all FAI, all the time", yet it would be completely different from wgc. Of course, my basic point is *any* us contest is going to be fundamentally different from wgc in ways much more significant than rules.

I -think- I support Andy's basic approach of adopting the FAI rules, adding in e.g. the safety finish and other bits that have super majority US support, *provided* we use the US scoring proposal instead of the idiotic (sorry....) existing FAI scoring formulae. Devil's in the details I suppose...

Evan Ludeman "T8"

Minor correction. When I say adjustment in calculating PRL score I’m referring to the multi-year score calculation that is part of the UST process. Looking in to how scoring changes might affect UST calculations is part of the fall agenda so we can minimize creating problems for UST Committee.

Andy

I like that concept of going full FAI for nationals and retaining the present system for regionals

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:40:59 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> US contest pilots.
>
> The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
>
> You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
>
> Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
>
> For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> Andy Blackburn, Chair
> 9B

Moving to the top.
If you have not participated, please do so.
One day left.
No longer time to procrastinate.
UH

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:40:59 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> US contest pilots.
>
> The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and will remain open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot Ranking List to participate. We look forward to your input.
>
> You can access the poll online at: http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
>
> Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules Committee. Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term. Congratulations Rich!
>
> For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> Andy Blackburn, Chair
> 9B

Just a reminder here. In spite of the missives being written highlighting the "incredible downsides" of a "big switch" approach to adoption of FAI rules, that IS NOT WHAT IS ON THE TABLE.

What is on the table (via the poll) is: SHOULD THE 2020 FAI CLASS NATIONALS BE TASKED AND SCORED ACCORDING TO FAI SC3A TASK DEFINITIONS AND SCORING FORMULAE AND THE RESULT EVALUATED.


I am personally a bit confounded and disappointed at the resistance to this experiment by the introduction of all the "big switch - death panel" arguments, which are at best peripheral to the immediate decision.

Record your opinion please.

QT

John I guess you will have to get used to all the controversy. As is clearly reflected here and in other sites, there are deeply differing and emotional opinions regarding changing/ammending the rules. Chalk it up to american individualism. Thats something that is ingrained in our usa soaring dna.

Ken, et al,

Just a thought but why not just adopt FAI Rules at National Contests only in actual FAI Classes (where racing tasks should be more vigorous and contests should contain a higher % of AT). I see no need to adopt the rules in Regional Contests and I share your concern that we need to encourage greater participation in sailplane racing, which might not happen if the SSA were to strictly adopt all FAI rules.

- Chris Schrader "CN"

Isn't that exactly the proposal?

How many people are actually staying out of racing because they don't Like the rules? Very few I think.

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 10:11:01 AM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> Isn't that exactly the proposal?
>
> How many people are actually staying out of racing because they don't Like the rules? Very few I think.

Lots of people stay out of racing because they perceive it to be dangerous, citing gaggles and midair risk; because they don't want to land out a lot; because they don't have or want to bring a crew.

The main resistance to lots of AST tasking and current IGC scoring formulas is the feeling that it makes all three worse. All three are definitely worse in IGC events, and countries that follow IGC rules.

The other big objection I hear is from the OLC crowd who doesn't want to waste a lot of the day. If AST tasking leads to shorter tasks, to get everyone home, then the top pilots will be flying in even smaller slices of the day.

There is a decline in racing interest around the world. Many pilots perceive it to be a dangerous specialized tactical game that sort of involves gliders.

This isn't all about rules, but rules contribute to things that definitely discourage pilots from attending contests.

John Cochrane

On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 11:56:21 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 10:11:01 AM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> > Isn't that exactly the proposal?
> >
> > How many people are actually staying out of racing because they don't Like the rules? Very few I think.
>
> Lots of people stay out of racing because they perceive it to be dangerous, citing gaggles and midair risk; because they don't want to land out a lot; because they don't have or want to bring a crew.
>
> The main resistance to lots of AST tasking and current IGC scoring formulas is the feeling that it makes all three worse. All three are definitely worse in IGC events, and countries that follow IGC rules.
>
> The other big objection I hear is from the OLC crowd who doesn't want to waste a lot of the day. If AST tasking leads to shorter tasks, to get everyone home, then the top pilots will be flying in even smaller slices of the day.
>
> There is a decline in racing interest around the world. Many pilots perceive it to be a dangerous specialized tactical game that sort of involves gliders.
>
> This isn't all about rules, but rules contribute to things that definitely discourage pilots from attending contests.
>
> John Cochrane

John,

I am not a contest pilot. I enjoy flying OLC. It requires less dedication as far a time and other resources.

Any idea how many of the accidents in the USA in the past few years happened at contests due to gaggles or other "contest environment" issues? Also, when comparing accidents in World Competition, how many accidents were there as far as percentage differences when compared to our National Contests? If IGC rules are potentially more dangerous it should show up statistically.

Thank you.

Mike Carris

On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 3:12:38 PM UTC-4, Mike C wrote:
> On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 11:56:21 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> > On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 10:11:01 AM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> > > Isn't that exactly the proposal?
> > >
> > > How many people are actually staying out of racing because they don't Like the rules? Very few I think.
> >
> > Lots of people stay out of racing because they perceive it to be dangerous, citing gaggles and midair risk; because they don't want to land out a lot; because they don't have or want to bring a crew.
> >
> > The main resistance to lots of AST tasking and current IGC scoring formulas is the feeling that it makes all three worse. All three are definitely worse in IGC events, and countries that follow IGC rules.
> >
> > The other big objection I hear is from the OLC crowd who doesn't want to waste a lot of the day. If AST tasking leads to shorter tasks, to get everyone home, then the top pilots will be flying in even smaller slices of the day.
> >
> > There is a decline in racing interest around the world. Many pilots perceive it to be a dangerous specialized tactical game that sort of involves gliders.
> >
> > This isn't all about rules, but rules contribute to things that definitely discourage pilots from attending contests.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> John,
>
> I am not a contest pilot. I enjoy flying OLC. It requires less dedication as far a time and other resources.
>
> Any idea how many of the accidents in the USA in the past few years happened at contests due to gaggles or other "contest environment" issues? Also, when comparing accidents in World Competition, how many accidents were there as far as percentage differences when compared to our National Contests? If IGC rules are potentially more dangerous it should show up statistically.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Mike Carris

Statistics don't get to be very good with small data sets.
Quick answer without extensive research. In the Spring meeting IGC noted four fatal accidents in 10 years over 37 events.
In the US, I know of 2 fatalities in the last 10 years over about 50 events (Nationals only). One mid air and one crash for reasons not determined.
Note that John talks about perception. If we adopt rules that reduce the perception of risk, it should be favorable for participation. I don't know anyone that would suggest that a large increase in gaggle flying would not increase the risk of mid airs.
With the size of our contests, adopting IGC rules and scoring likely would have a moderate increase in gaggling- my opinion FWIW.
UH

On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 2:18:38 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 3:12:38 PM UTC-4, Mike C wrote:
> > On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 11:56:21 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 10:11:01 AM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> > > > Isn't that exactly the proposal?
> > > >
> > > > How many people are actually staying out of racing because they don't Like the rules? Very few I think.
> > >
> > > Lots of people stay out of racing because they perceive it to be dangerous, citing gaggles and midair risk; because they don't want to land out a lot; because they don't have or want to bring a crew.
> > >
> > > The main resistance to lots of AST tasking and current IGC scoring formulas is the feeling that it makes all three worse. All three are definitely worse in IGC events, and countries that follow IGC rules.
> > >
> > > The other big objection I hear is from the OLC crowd who doesn't want to waste a lot of the day. If AST tasking leads to shorter tasks, to get everyone home, then the top pilots will be flying in even smaller slices of the day.
> > >
> > > There is a decline in racing interest around the world. Many pilots perceive it to be a dangerous specialized tactical game that sort of involves gliders.
> > >
> > > This isn't all about rules, but rules contribute to things that definitely discourage pilots from attending contests.
> > >
> > > John Cochrane
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I am not a contest pilot. I enjoy flying OLC. It requires less dedication as far a time and other resources.
> >
> > Any idea how many of the accidents in the USA in the past few years happened at contests due to gaggles or other "contest environment" issues? Also, when comparing accidents in World Competition, how many accidents were there as far as percentage differences when compared to our National Contests? If IGC rules are potentially more dangerous it should show up statistically.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Mike Carris
>
> Statistics don't get to be very good with small data sets.
> Quick answer without extensive research. In the Spring meeting IGC noted four fatal accidents in 10 years over 37 events.
> In the US, I know of 2 fatalities in the last 10 years over about 50 events (Nationals only). One mid air and one crash for reasons not determined.
> Note that John talks about perception. If we adopt rules that reduce the perception of risk, it should be favorable for participation. I don't know anyone that would suggest that a large increase in gaggle flying would not increase the risk of mid airs.
> With the size of our contests, adopting IGC rules and scoring likely would have a moderate increase in gaggling- my opinion FWIW.
> UH

Thank you Hank.

Excuse my naivety.

About rules and safety.

I don't think anyone would deny that many gliders flying in close proximity of other gliders can be dangerous. How much more dangerous are the IGC rules in contrast to the US rules, in reality though I am not clear about, especially IF larger gaggles are the result of a larger number of pilots(more participants)waiting for a start gate to open and the resulting following gaggles.

About perception, the perception of safety should be and based on fact and decided on an individual's decision weighing those facts.

You have supplied data for some accidents in the USA and World contests, but perhaps what we should take into consideration, is the total number of pilots that participated in World Championships and US National Championships in the past 10 years and of those numbers how many accidents were there statically.

Although the answers would not change my desire to fly in contests, these are questions I have in regards to the debate that is currently going on concerning safety. It would illuminate the reality of the debate for me. Perhaps I am being naive, but as a soaring pilot and supporter of contests and contest pilots, I would like to know the facts.


Regards,

Mike Carris

John
You nailed it with your comments, those words represent my thoughts and I'm sure many others.
I dropped out of racing just before Flarm hit [ bad pun, sorry ] after two very close and scary near mid airs I experienced. And I had a new kid.
Flarm helped me get back into it at the very low level I participate in these days.
Its been beat to death the discussion of why OLC is growing and racing participation is shrinking, but its a reality; Pilots want to fly more hours into the best conditions, and that happens every OLC flight.
Thanks for writing that up!
Safe flying
T

On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 10:56:21 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 10:11:01 AM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> > Isn't that exactly the proposal?
> >
> > How many people are actually staying out of racing because they don't Like the rules? Very few I think.
>
> Lots of people stay out of racing because they perceive it to be dangerous, citing gaggles and midair risk; because they don't want to land out a lot; because they don't have or want to bring a crew.
>
> The main resistance to lots of AST tasking and current IGC scoring formulas is the feeling that it makes all three worse. All three are definitely worse in IGC events, and countries that follow IGC rules.
>
> The other big objection I hear is from the OLC crowd who doesn't want to waste a lot of the day. If AST tasking leads to shorter tasks, to get everyone home, then the top pilots will be flying in even smaller slices of the day.
>
> There is a decline in racing interest around the world. Many pilots perceive it to be a dangerous specialized tactical game that sort of involves gliders.
>
> This isn't all about rules, but rules contribute to things that definitely discourage pilots from attending contests.
>
> John Cochrane

Isn't the justification of racing to promote the sport and push technology? So if we (US soaring pilots) want to see our sport grow in this country why would we be adopting IGC rules and the perceived baggage, and resulting further decline in partisipation ? If memory serves right didn't the US get away from IGC due to insurance issues for contests? Thanks to all those on race and contention committees!

On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 1:56:21 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> Lots of people stay out of racing because they perceive it to be dangerous, citing gaggles and midair risk; because they don't want to land out a lot; because they don't have or want to bring a crew.

Thanks, John.

I was researching a contest I flew back in 1980 (yeah, almost 40 years ago).. Many of the gliders are still competing as are a few of the pilots. Technology has changed--navigation was via map/compass and TP verification was by photo. Your choice of final glide calculators was cardboard or plastic.

The big difference: there were over 90 entries for 67 spots. So when I read about "big" contests here with 25 gliders per class, I just want to laugh out loud. Many of you have no idea (no offense to JJ, UH, KS, KM, SZ, and others who were around then).

What happened? As with Amelia Earhart, no one really knows, but class proliferation has gotta be one reason. That's competition classes, not--never mind. We had 3 classes then. Now there are 7 (excluding 1-26). Maybe more; we keep adding to the list.

The retirement of a generation of pilots who were military trained during WWII and got into soaring afterward probably contributed.

Costs have gone up, for sure. Median household income in 1980 was $18,684, about what we had in our LS-3 at the time. The same figure now is $68,000+. That's household income, not the cost of a new state-of-the-art sailplane. I guess I didn't have to explain that. It would be interesting to engage the IRS/FBI to investigate actual pilots from 1980 and 2019 to determine their household incomes. Maybe we can get Elizabeth Warren on that one if she's elected. But I suspect 1980 skewed somewhat more to the middle class than current rosters do. Soaring has never been cheap; it's just more expensive now.

And speaking of demand that declines with higher prices, I listened to the experts who predicted that mandating GPS data loggers would increase contest participation. Right. So I'm similarly cynical that participation declines from increasing landouts will be more than offset by a national upsurge in soaring popularity from one of our own winning the Worlds. We didn't see it the last 4 times an American was World Champion but, hey, this Internet thing means the old rules don't apply, and I'm not referring to competition rules.

The U.S. Rules (for competition) weren't simple then, but they're arguably more complex now, although I applaud the Rules Committee for their work to streamline them. I don't hear anyone saying that FAI Rules are simpler, however. So even if rules complexity were an aggravating factor in declining participation, it apparently wouldn't favor adopting FAI Rules.

In fact, I'd agree with John that if FAI Rules lead to more landouts and, by implication, fewer crewless pilots, then adopting them wholesale would hurt contest participation.

I suspect Tim Taylor and others are correct in saying that moving to FAI Rules would improve the chances of U.S. pilots making it onto the podium. But if that comes at the cost of even a handful of pilots dropping out of competition, that's too high a price, IMO, in an environment where more than one class is worried about having the minimum number of competitors show up for a Nationals. I've been crewless for most of the past 13 years. I've flown my class nationals (Standard) the past 5 years and landed out 3 times, 2 of those at airports for an aero retrieve. Being crewless may or may not affect the way I fly but for sure being able to do so affects whether I show up. The same is true for tasks that result in more landouts: e.g., ASTs, especially in uncertain weather. I actually like flying ASTs and knowing we're competing on the same course, but TATs and MATs definitely get us home more often than in the old days, and I'm not even talking about distance tasks (look it up).

One of my concerns is abdicating responsibility for rules governance to another organization. We have enough complaints now (mostly undeserved) about our own Rules Committee--and we can lobby those folks any time we want. With FAI Rules, how much further removed will be the IGC Plenary or whomever makes the decisions? Many think the U.S. Rules have been arguably better in certain ways over the years (I definitely like the flexibility the current start cylinder provides to tailor one's start to the conditions and course).. How much noise will we make when we can no longer control our own destiny, so to speak? Fast forward to 2022: "I'm tired of trying to work from within to make change in the IGC; it's time for the U.S. to go our own way!")

I know, I know, we can deal with these conflicts with local procedures. But isn't FAI Rules with enough local procedures to accommodate our preferences essentially the same as U.S. Rules that combine the best of FAI and U.S.?

Just for grins, how about two sets of rules at the same contest? I'm not sure it's still true but for a while we had two different standards for GPS flight recorders (Appendix B seems to have been omitted from the Rules in 2019). If you wanted to be considered for the U.S. Team, you needed a higher-standard flight recorder than did the masses (all 5 or 6 of them). So why not score the Nationals using FAI and US formulae and only the FAI scores count for U.S. Team selection? Or assign ASTs but allow 5 or 10 mile circles and score them both ways, with only the 500m circle flights counting for U.S. Team selection. Sure, that means you could win the Nationals but be excluded for Team selection (which could have happened with the flight recorder rule). But if changing the world order by pushing American pilots up the ranks is that important, so be it. ;)

I'm confident the Rules Committee will do the right thing as long as they continue to pay attention to shrinking contest rolls and trying to address that.

Chip Bearden
JB

Very well spoken Chip

I should have added -- the perceived risk of landout damage is also significant in many people's reluctance to race. And it is a real factor. While I was keeping statistics, there was an event, usually a landout, with significant damage in about one out of every two contests.

Glider damage is less severe than people damage, and we are fortunate that the ratio of people damaged glide damage is so low. But any event with glider damage risks people damage, and people don't like to damage their gliders even if they personally are not at risk.

Needless to say, more long IGC style ASTs will mean more landouts, especially among the newer pilots. If you like gaggle racing, we really should keep the MAT with the option for "long MAT". It's just an AST with a time limit rather than a distance limit.

John Cochrane

Time. Men have given up autonomy over their time and children's time has been commercialized. Men are either holding their wife's purse at the mall or working to pay for the kid's sports camps or driving the kids to sports..
When sailplane racing was popular if dad was a sailplane pilot you grew up at the airport, if dad was a sailor you grew on the water, if dad liked model trains you grew up at train shows. Now kids grow up doing activities which suck money and time from the parents.
Until men reclaim control over their time many once robust activities will struggle.

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 10:07:26 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> Glider damage is less severe than people damage, and we are fortunate that the ratio of people damaged glide damage is so low.


Another good point, John. We talk about whether competition soaring is "risky", often in a general sense. But there are different types of risk. Start line/cylinder risk deserves its own discussion (e.g., high-speed plunges vs. gaggles milling around with the dive brakes open to remain below the top for 2 min.). And I'll refrain from re-opening the finish line vs. finish cylinder debate out of respect.

Landout risk is real. I've only incurred damage once landing off the airport but I bought a new landing gear on a sailplane that was just over a year old so I was kind of unhappy. Actually, AIG paid for the landing gear but the effect is similar long term. In any case, having landed out 100+ times over the years, I'm well aware of the risk of glider damage and prefer to avoid it these days if possible. We old timers talk pretty casually (as I am now) about all the crazy places we've landed but the advent of the airport landing bonus and higher task completion ratios has been good for the mainstream of our sport, I think.

But that's usually just money: deductibles, higher premiums for an individual, and higher rates for all. As you point out, the possibility of being injured in a landout is much lower but not zero. Wire strikes are always a threat and I know of at least one fatality and one very serious injury. The risk of stall/spin while going into a field is probably higher than when around the home airport but I don't have the data to prove it. When I clobbered the landing gear on my brand new ASW 24, Gerhard Waibel's wonderful design kept the wheel/tire jammed against the bottom of the fuselage when the trailing arms failed--as intended--in compression and that, in turn, kept the fuselage above the second rock, which would have punctured the belly much more deeply and possibly done damage to my spine. I've had several friends seriously injured in crashes involving landing out.

I do think the risk of injury is higher in gaggles than in landing out but, again, I have no data to prove it. Regardless, anything we do that increases gaggling risk AND landout risk without commensurate benefits seems ill advised.

I don't like most MAT tasks (e.g., one turn and go anywhere you want) but the CD used the "long" (a relative term) MAT at the Caesar Creek Nationals this summer to squeeze a day out of miserably weak weather so I'm on board in that situation. Fortunately (?), we only had 8 contestants in Standard Class and 9 in Sports Class so the gaggling risk was less than around some club operations. Hey, do the FAI Rules advocates realize that if higher landouts reduce the entry lists, that they'll get less practice in gaggle flying, thus negating any advantage of adopting the Rules in the first place? Kind of like confiscatory tax rates on the wealthy driving out well-to-do residents and their tax revenues. Or maybe I digress. :)

Chip Bearden
JB

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 7:07:26 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> I should have added -- the perceived risk of landout damage is also significant in many people's reluctance to race. And it is a real factor. While I was keeping statistics, there was an event, usually a landout, with significant damage in about one out of every two contests.
>
> Glider damage is less severe than people damage, and we are fortunate that the ratio of people damaged glide damage is so low. But any event with glider damage risks people damage, and people don't like to damage their gliders even if they personally are not at risk.
>
> Needless to say, more long IGC style ASTs will mean more landouts, especially among the newer pilots. If you like gaggle racing, we really should keep the MAT with the option for "long MAT". It's just an AST with a time limit rather than a distance limit.
>
> John Cochrane

You sound pretty negative to this common SCUM, John!
Jim

Calling a MAT is the easy way out for some inexperienced CD’s, perhaps some recommendations/rules could be imposed. Outlaw calling a no turn MAT, first turn should be a minimum of say 15s/m. At least this would get everybody started in the same direction! I have flown a first turn that was only 6 miles out which was meaningless! Perhaps a limit on the number of 1 turn MAT’s that can be called in a contest. No restriction on MAT’s with 2 or more turns. The MAT was designed to call numerous turn-points, but I can’t remember flying but one of these!
Just some recommendation,
JJ

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 4:04:56 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Calling a MAT is the easy way out for some inexperienced CD’s, perhaps some recommendations/rules could be imposed. Outlaw calling a no turn MAT, first turn should be a minimum of say 15s/m. At least this would get everybody started in the same direction! I have flown a first turn that was only 6 miles out which was meaningless! Perhaps a limit on the number of 1 turn MAT’s that can be called in a contest. No restriction on MAT’s with 2 or more turns. The MAT was designed to call numerous turn-points, but I can’t remember flying but one of these!
> Just some recommendation,
> JJ

I've called and flown lots of MAT's. I've never called a no turn. Most have been more than one, usually 2 or 3.
The MAT was created to provide a task that challenges the experts, yet lets the slow pilots/gliders come home with speed points.
Ideally, the more sure the task caller is of the weather, the more turns and longer the assigned portion of the task can be. This keeps everybody on the same course in the same weather.
Calling a no turn is a matter of desperation, only to be used to get a day at the end of a contest that might otherwise not have enough days, in my opinion.
FWIW
UH

I really don't like MATs. Even with an initial turnpoint and a steering turnpoint at the end of the task, it entails a bunch of heads down time. It is the only task where I have to look at the sky, determine where to fly, look down at my paper map (hopefully available easily and folded properly) and then look down to re-program my flight computer.

The Long MAT reduces the head down time significantly but it's still more than a TAT with big circles (which is the option on a weather variable day).

As always, YMMV.

Lou

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 11:55:32 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 1:56:21 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Lots of people stay out of racing because they perceive it to be dangerous, citing gaggles and midair risk; because they don't want to land out a lot; because they don't have or want to bring a crew.
>
> Thanks, John.
>
> I was researching a contest I flew back in 1980 (yeah, almost 40 years ago). Many of the gliders are still competing as are a few of the pilots. Technology has changed--navigation was via map/compass and TP verification was by photo. Your choice of final glide calculators was cardboard or plastic.
>
> The big difference: there were over 90 entries for 67 spots. So when I read about "big" contests here with 25 gliders per class, I just want to laugh out loud. Many of you have no idea (no offense to JJ, UH, KS, KM, SZ, and others who were around then).
>
> What happened? As with Amelia Earhart, no one really knows, but class proliferation has gotta be one reason. That's competition classes, not--never mind. We had 3 classes then. Now there are 7 (excluding 1-26). Maybe more; we keep adding to the list.
>
> The retirement of a generation of pilots who were military trained during WWII and got into soaring afterward probably contributed.
>
> Costs have gone up, for sure. Median household income in 1980 was $18,684, about what we had in our LS-3 at the time. The same figure now is $68,000+. That's household income, not the cost of a new state-of-the-art sailplane. I guess I didn't have to explain that. It would be interesting to engage the IRS/FBI to investigate actual pilots from 1980 and 2019 to determine their household incomes. Maybe we can get Elizabeth Warren on that one if she's elected. But I suspect 1980 skewed somewhat more to the middle class than current rosters do. Soaring has never been cheap; it's just more expensive now.
>
> And speaking of demand that declines with higher prices, I listened to the experts who predicted that mandating GPS data loggers would increase contest participation. Right. So I'm similarly cynical that participation declines from increasing landouts will be more than offset by a national upsurge in soaring popularity from one of our own winning the Worlds. We didn't see it the last 4 times an American was World Champion but, hey, this Internet thing means the old rules don't apply, and I'm not referring to competition rules.
>
> The U.S. Rules (for competition) weren't simple then, but they're arguably more complex now, although I applaud the Rules Committee for their work to streamline them. I don't hear anyone saying that FAI Rules are simpler, however. So even if rules complexity were an aggravating factor in declining participation, it apparently wouldn't favor adopting FAI Rules.
>
> In fact, I'd agree with John that if FAI Rules lead to more landouts and, by implication, fewer crewless pilots, then adopting them wholesale would hurt contest participation.
>
> I suspect Tim Taylor and others are correct in saying that moving to FAI Rules would improve the chances of U.S. pilots making it onto the podium. But if that comes at the cost of even a handful of pilots dropping out of competition, that's too high a price, IMO, in an environment where more than one class is worried about having the minimum number of competitors show up for a Nationals. I've been crewless for most of the past 13 years. I've flown my class nationals (Standard) the past 5 years and landed out 3 times, 2 of those at airports for an aero retrieve. Being crewless may or may not affect the way I fly but for sure being able to do so affects whether I show up. The same is true for tasks that result in more landouts: e.g., ASTs, especially in uncertain weather. I actually like flying ASTs and knowing we're competing on the same course, but TATs and MATs definitely get us home more often than in the old days, and I'm not even talking about distance tasks (look it up).
>
> One of my concerns is abdicating responsibility for rules governance to another organization. We have enough complaints now (mostly undeserved) about our own Rules Committee--and we can lobby those folks any time we want. With FAI Rules, how much further removed will be the IGC Plenary or whomever makes the decisions? Many think the U.S. Rules have been arguably better in certain ways over the years (I definitely like the flexibility the current start cylinder provides to tailor one's start to the conditions and course). How much noise will we make when we can no longer control our own destiny, so to speak? Fast forward to 2022: "I'm tired of trying to work from within to make change in the IGC; it's time for the U.S. to go our own way!")
>
> I know, I know, we can deal with these conflicts with local procedures. But isn't FAI Rules with enough local procedures to accommodate our preferences essentially the same as U.S. Rules that combine the best of FAI and U.S..?
>
> Just for grins, how about two sets of rules at the same contest? I'm not sure it's still true but for a while we had two different standards for GPS flight recorders (Appendix B seems to have been omitted from the Rules in 2019). If you wanted to be considered for the U.S. Team, you needed a higher-standard flight recorder than did the masses (all 5 or 6 of them). So why not score the Nationals using FAI and US formulae and only the FAI scores count for U.S. Team selection? Or assign ASTs but allow 5 or 10 mile circles and score them both ways, with only the 500m circle flights counting for U.S. Team selection. Sure, that means you could win the Nationals but be excluded for Team selection (which could have happened with the flight recorder rule). But if changing the world order by pushing American pilots up the ranks is that important, so be it. ;)
>
> I'm confident the Rules Committee will do the right thing as long as they continue to pay attention to shrinking contest rolls and trying to address that.
>
> Chip Bearden
> JB

With regard to pilot participation, I think that at best the rules would have a minor effect on this. There is a far bigger and more complex problem here, that affects not just soaring, but general aviation in general, and that is the declining numbers and aging out of pilots. And it's not simply just because "flying has become so expensive". I think it has more to do with less young people having an interest in aviation to start with. They are more interested in saying at home and playing video games, than building a model airplane. When I grew up I had a passion for aviation. I'd read books on the subject. My first toy was a model of a 747. I built RC gliders, even designing and flying my own model, from the ground up. When I talk to others around me at work or in my other social circles, there is very little interest in aviation. I find this a bit strange. And I feel the solution to our problem of dwindling numbers at contests has more to do with increasing interest in aviation, and improving access to flying, than it does with worrying about rules. Granted, rules can have an effect on how elite pilots train for and think about flying specific tasks, and this can have an effect on how they perform at the international level, but if we don't do more to improve participation in the sport at its base, discussing differences in rules won't matter. The more people involved in soaring, the more will start flying contests.

Watching this from the UK and finding it ever so entertaining -
thanks all.

I've somehow managed to survive all of my competition years so far
without meeting an untimely end. That includes a good number of
landouts in the early years which, would you believe with decent
training and without an unfounded and inflated percetion of risk
were carried out incident free.

I do especially enjoy that we can race on a level playing field,
without having to create scoring formulae and task formats to make
slower pilots feel like they've done better than they have. A sad
consequence of this is that the slower pilots, who score much lower
and land out more often are especially driven to improve and
become quite formidable competition. What a bother.

I know you're all fans of winscore (I had to look it up). If anyone
would like to change to Seeyou then just ask myself or one of the
many people around the world who are familiar with it to show you.
I'm afraid this could take up to 10 minutes.

Carry on!

At 15:51 19 October 2019, John Godfrey QT wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:40:59 PM UTC-4, Andy
Blackburn wrote:
>> US contest pilots.
>>
>> The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and
will remain
>open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot
Ranking List to
>participate. We look forward to your input.
>>
>> You can access the poll online at:
>http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
>>
>> Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules
Committee.
>Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term.
>Congratulations Rich!
>>
>> For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
>> Andy Blackburn, Chair
>> 9B
>
>Just a reminder here. In spite of the missives being written
highlighting
>the "incredible downsides" of a "big switch" approach to adoption
of FAI
>rules, that IS NOT WHAT IS ON THE TABLE.
>
>What is on the table (via the poll) is: SHOULD THE 2020 FAI
CLASS NATIONALS
>BE TASKED AND SCORED ACCORDING TO FAI SC3A TASK
DEFINITIONS AND SCORING
>FORMULAE AND THE RESULT EVALUATED.
>
>
>I am personally a bit confounded and disappointed at the
resistance to this
>experiment by the introduction of all the "big switch - death panel"
>arguments, which are at best peripheral to the immediate decision.
>
>Record your opinion please.
>
>QT
>

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-6, Alex Okeefe wrote:
> Watching this from the UK and finding it ever so entertaining -
> thanks all.
>
> I've somehow managed to survive all of my competition years so far
> without meeting an untimely end. That includes a good number of
> landouts in the early years which, would you believe with decent
> training and without an unfounded and inflated percetion of risk
> were carried out incident free.
>
> I do especially enjoy that we can race on a level playing field,
> without having to create scoring formulae and task formats to make
> slower pilots feel like they've done better than they have. A sad
> consequence of this is that the slower pilots, who score much lower
> and land out more often are especially driven to improve and
> become quite formidable competition. What a bother.
>
> I know you're all fans of winscore (I had to look it up). If anyone
> would like to change to Seeyou then just ask myself or one of the
> many people around the world who are familiar with it to show you.
> I'm afraid this could take up to 10 minutes.
>
> Carry on!
>
> At 15:51 19 October 2019, John Godfrey QT wrote:
> >On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:40:59 PM UTC-4, Andy
> Blackburn wrote:
> >> US contest pilots.
> >>
> >> The 2019 SSA Contest Rules Pilot Opinion Poll is now open and
> will remain
> >open through October 20, 2019. You must be on the SSA Pilot
> Ranking List to
> >participate. We look forward to your input.
> >>
> >> You can access the poll online at:
> >http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> >>
> >> Rich Owen is running unopposed for re-election to the Rules
> Committee.
> >Consequently, Rich will return to his RC seat for a four-year term.
> >Congratulations Rich!
> >>
> >> For the SSA Contest Rules Committee
> >> Andy Blackburn, Chair
> >> 9B
> >
> >Just a reminder here. In spite of the missives being written
> highlighting
> >the "incredible downsides" of a "big switch" approach to adoption
> of FAI
> >rules, that IS NOT WHAT IS ON THE TABLE.
> >
> >What is on the table (via the poll) is: SHOULD THE 2020 FAI
> CLASS NATIONALS
> >BE TASKED AND SCORED ACCORDING TO FAI SC3A TASK
> DEFINITIONS AND SCORING
> >FORMULAE AND THE RESULT EVALUATED.
> >
> >
> >I am personally a bit confounded and disappointed at the
> resistance to this
> >experiment by the introduction of all the "big switch - death panel"
> >arguments, which are at best peripheral to the immediate decision.
> >
> >Record your opinion please.
> >
> >QT
> >

I can't speak for everyone in the US, but I feel it is safe to say that real practical training for land-outs, at least in the US is very poor. We read about the theory of it, and get verbal instruction from our instructors on it. But it would be very seldom that it is actually done on purpose. I believe this is largely due to the type of training gliders most people fly here in the US--the SGS 2-33. It is a real bear to take apart and trailer back to the gliderport after a land-out, and would likely take a large crew of people working on it for a large part of the day to accomplish this. As such, folks around here--at least where I trained in WA, are very apprehensive about land-outs, and at least with the newer generation of pilots, very inexperienced in it. Of course, there are individual exceptions to this, but I think it is a safe generalization to make.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:10:49 -0700, John Foster wrote:

> I can't speak for everyone in the US, but I feel it is safe to say that
> real practical training for land-outs, at least in the US is very poor.
> We read about the theory of it, and get verbal instruction from our
> instructors on it. But it would be very seldom that it is actually done
> on purpose. I believe this is largely due to the type of training
> gliders most people fly here in the US--the SGS 2-33. It is a real bear
> to take apart and trailer back to the gliderport after a land-out, and
> would likely take a large crew of people working on it for a large part
> of the day to accomplish this. As such, folks around here--at least
> where I trained in WA, are very apprehensive about land-outs, and at
> least with the newer generation of pilots, very inexperienced in it. Of
> course, there are individual exceptions to this, but I think it is a
> safe generalization to make.
>
In the UK the necessary training for XC flying (Navigation, Field
selection and Field Landing) tends to be done in Touring Motor Gliders,
e.g Grob G109 or Scheibe SF-25.

My club uses an SF-25 for this. With a bit of power on the SF-25
approximates an ASK-21 well enough for this exercise, so a field can be
selected and the circuit and landing approach flown, with power going on
again when either its obvious its going wrong (so try again) or its clear
the landing would be good and in a well-chosen field. None of these three
are pass/fail exercises - its normal to do them until both instructor and
student are happy.

However, I realise that this may not work for smaller US clubs - no
rentable SF-25s or G-109s in the locality would be a show stopper, along
with, quite possibly, no TMG-current instructors.

FWIW in my club its normal for a new solo pilot to fly SZD Juniors until
they have their Bronze badge, and often Silver height and duration as
well, since all these can be done with local soaring. Then they go for
Silver distance on the next suitable day after getting signed-off for
their exercises in the SF-25. I did Bronze and Silver in a Junior off the
winch and only then got my aero-tow sign-off and converted onto the
club's Pegase 90 and Discus As.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

"I've somehow managed to survive all of my competition years so far
without meeting an untimely end. That includes a good number of
landouts in the early years which, would you believe with decent
training and without an unfounded and inflated percetion of risk
were carried out incident free."

"I put this revolver to my head, pulled the trigger 3 times and it hasn't gone off yet. It must be safe"

I thought we in aviation got rid of this sort of thinking about safety a long time ago. Two words: selection bias.

I read Sailplane and Gliding, the wonderful UK publication. The incident reports in the back of the magazine are full of landout damage, much of it in contests.

I would be curious whether the fraction of UK pilots who fly contests is any greater than the number in the US. My impression from S&G is an active contest scene, like the east coast of the US -- and a whole lot of pilots who do not touch the stuff.

John Cochrane

FAI Annex A rules (which are undergoing massive change) do not drive pilots to land out. Many WGCs and EGCs are run in eastern Europe and gliding/competition culture there is different. It is common to set task to sky that is totally dead. First turnpoint or even start point in steady rain? No problem, just go. And then we have 130 outlandings.

We have run nationals using Annex A for decades with very little problem of outlandings. Usually AAT is set on trickier days and if it's raining, we do not feel obliged to fly.

It is very convenient to blame rulebook for bad task setting.

I should add that proposed scoring change to Annex A (by USA) creates MASSIVE incentive to scratch home over the last trees and creates a huge outlanding risk. If I'm not wrong the same people here complaining the risk level introduced by Annex A rules actually drafted that proposal.

Hi John,

Thanks for the response. I'm not really looking to get involved but I
suppose I must respond as I believe fear mongering around landouts
may account for part of the US reluctance to progress and people
need to see both sides of the argument, not just the opinion of one
or two stubborn individuals whenever someone mentions change.

Of course it's not completely safe. Very few aviation activities are.
I'm sure you yourself have completed many takeoffs and landings
safely, yet accidents happen there too. Do we blame the takeoffs
and landings? should we find a way of reducing them? Maybe golf?

No wonder there is apprehension around the topic when we have
people comparing landing out to putting a revolver to ones head. If
we were to use that analogy though I would point out that I've been
trained not to put any rounds in it. I'd have a hard time getting hold
of one though, here in the UK we just wave our fists at one another.

A good example of selection bias would be noting that a community
that lands out extremely regularly does have accidents now and
then, and deducing from this data that the chances of an accident
are high despite knowing only the final output figure.

I might add, by far the most field retrieves I see happen during the
course of normal club flying, rather than at contests. I wonder what
rules are driving these non competitors to landout?..



At 23:48 29 October 2019, John Cochrane wrote:
>"I've somehow managed to survive all of my competition years so
far
>without meeting an untimely end. That includes a good number of
>landouts in the early years which, would you believe with decent
>training and without an unfounded and inflated percetion of risk
>were carried out incident free."
>
>"I put this revolver to my head, pulled the trigger 3 times and it
hasn't
>gone off yet. It must be safe"
>
>I thought we in aviation got rid of this sort of thinking about safety
a
>long time ago. Two words: selection bias.
>
>I read Sailplane and Gliding, the wonderful UK publication. The
incident
>reports in the back of the magazine are full of landout damage,
much of it
>in contests.
>
>I would be curious whether the fraction of UK pilots who fly
contests is
>any greater than the number in the US. My impression from S&G is
an active
>contest scene, like the east coast of the US -- and a whole lot of
pilots
>who do not touch the stuff.
>
>John Cochrane
>
>
>
>

Hi John,

Thanks for the response. I'm not really looking to get involved but I
suppose I must respond as I believe fear mongering around landouts
may account for part of the US reluctance to progress and people
need to see both sides of the argument, not just the opinion of one
or two stubborn individuals whenever someone mentions change.

Of course it's not completely safe. Very few aviation activities are.
I'm sure you yourself have completed many takeoffs and landings
safely, yet accidents happen there too. Do we blame the takeoffs
and landings? should we find a way of reducing them? Maybe golf?

No wonder there is apprehension around the topic when we have
people comparing landing out to putting a revolver to ones head. If
we were to use that analogy though I would point out that I've been
trained not to put any rounds in it. I'd have a hard time getting hold
of one though, here in the UK we just wave our fists at one another.

A good example of selection bias would be noting that a community
that lands out extremely regularly does have accidents now and
then, and deducing from this data that the chances of an accident
are high despite knowing only the final output figure.

I might add, by far the most field retrieves I see happen during the
course of normal club flying, rather than at contests. I wonder what
rules are driving these non competitors to landout?..



At 23:48 29 October 2019, John Cochrane wrote:
>"I've somehow managed to survive all of my competition years so
far
>without meeting an untimely end. That includes a good number of
>landouts in the early years which, would you believe with decent
>training and without an unfounded and inflated percetion of risk
>were carried out incident free."
>
>"I put this revolver to my head, pulled the trigger 3 times and it
hasn't
>gone off yet. It must be safe"
>
>I thought we in aviation got rid of this sort of thinking about safety
a
>long time ago. Two words: selection bias.
>
>I read Sailplane and Gliding, the wonderful UK publication. The
incident
>reports in the back of the magazine are full of landout damage,
much of it
>in contests.
>
>I would be curious whether the fraction of UK pilots who fly
contests is
>any greater than the number in the US. My impression from S&G is
an active
>contest scene, like the east coast of the US -- and a whole lot of
pilots
>who do not touch the stuff.
>
>John Cochrane
>
>
>
>

At 07:14 30 October 2019, krasw wrote:

>I should add that proposed scoring change to Annex A (by USA) creates
MASSIVE incentive to scratch home over the last trees and creates a huge
out landing risk.

There is already a strong incentive to scratch home and pretty much
everyone I fly against in the UK 15s would do so anyway. I like the
proposal as it simplifies the scoring rules.

Sensible pilots will choose a flat landable field before the line that can
be used safely if they cannot make the hedge. In circumstances where there
is a finish ring the decision to land will probably be made higher and with
reduced risk.

Landing out is a integral part of competition flying in gliders. We train
for it and do it regularly. If you fly a motor glider (dig) then you
probably are less current and more at risk when the engine doesn't behave.

Jim

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 12:15:07 PM UTC+2, Jim White wrote:
> At 07:14 30 October 2019, krasw wrote:
>
> >I should add that proposed scoring change to Annex A (by USA) creates
> MASSIVE incentive to scratch home over the last trees and creates a huge
> out landing risk.
>
> There is already a strong incentive to scratch home and pretty much
> everyone I fly against in the UK 15s would do so anyway. I like the
> proposal as it simplifies the scoring rules.
>
> Sensible pilots will choose a flat landable field before the line that can
> be used safely if they cannot make the hedge. In circumstances where there
> is a finish ring the decision to land will probably be made higher and with
> reduced risk.
>
> Landing out is a integral part of competition flying in gliders. We train
> for it and do it regularly. If you fly a motor glider (dig) then you
> probably are less current and more at risk when the engine doesn't behave..
>
> Jim

If you are the one out of 50 pilots who gets home and others land out on the last field next to finish line, current scoring gives you maybe ten point spread over pilots landing out. Proposed scoring would increase this to 250 points (devaluation scheme applies to both, depending on the day). In my opinion the incentive is not the same.

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 12:15:07 PM UTC+2, Jim White wrote:
> > At 07:14 30 October 2019, krasw wrote:
> >
> > >I should add that proposed scoring change to Annex A (by USA) creates
> > MASSIVE incentive to scratch home over the last trees and creates a huge
> > out landing risk.
> >
> > There is already a strong incentive to scratch home and pretty much
> > everyone I fly against in the UK 15s would do so anyway. I like the
> > proposal as it simplifies the scoring rules.
> >
> > Sensible pilots will choose a flat landable field before the line that can
> > be used safely if they cannot make the hedge. In circumstances where there
> > is a finish ring the decision to land will probably be made higher and with
> > reduced risk.
> >
> > Landing out is a integral part of competition flying in gliders. We train
> > for it and do it regularly. If you fly a motor glider (dig) then you
> > probably are less current and more at risk when the engine doesn't behave.
> >
> > Jim
>
> If you are the one out of 50 pilots who gets home and others land out on the last field next to finish line, current scoring gives you maybe ten point spread over pilots landing out. Proposed scoring would increase this to 250 points (devaluation scheme applies to both, depending on the day). In my opinion the incentive is not the same.

Provides incentive to fly your own race, yes. That's a good thing.

T8

Or skip that last good field or airport to try and cross the finish for that 250 pt incentive...

There are going to be pros and cons to every situation. I think we should expect competition directors to set a fair and reasonable task based on current weather and from that point it should be up to the pilot in command to make their decision from that point on. Soaring is not the safest sport out there but is comparable to motorcycles. If you respect it, your safety and that of those involved goes up significantly compared to the guy flying by at 120 mph without a helmet.

The majority of pilots again voted to begin implementing FAI rules at US Nationals and I don’t see any increased risk having flown both versions.

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 1:19:27 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Or skip that last good field or airport to try and cross the finish for that 250 pt incentive...

....which is why there is something to be said for a sane minimum finish height.

T8

Which is available and used under FAI rules for finishes.

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 1:43:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Which is available and used under FAI rules for finishes.

Of course. So the argument that the USA scoring proposal somehow encourages risky behavior at the finish doesn't really hold up, does it?

T8

On Wednesday, 30 October 2019 15:40:58 UTC+1, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 12:15:07 PM UTC+2, Jim White wrote:
> > > At 07:14 30 October 2019, krasw wrote:
> > >
> > > >I should add that proposed scoring change to Annex A (by USA) creates
> > > MASSIVE incentive to scratch home over the last trees and creates a huge
> > > out landing risk.
> > >
> > > There is already a strong incentive to scratch home and pretty much
> > > everyone I fly against in the UK 15s would do so anyway. I like the
> > > proposal as it simplifies the scoring rules.
> > >
> > > Sensible pilots will choose a flat landable field before the line that can
> > > be used safely if they cannot make the hedge. In circumstances where there
> > > is a finish ring the decision to land will probably be made higher and with
> > > reduced risk.
> > >
> > > Landing out is a integral part of competition flying in gliders. We train
> > > for it and do it regularly. If you fly a motor glider (dig) then you
> > > probably are less current and more at risk when the engine doesn't behave.
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> > If you are the one out of 50 pilots who gets home and others land out on the last field next to finish line, current scoring gives you maybe ten point spread over pilots landing out. Proposed scoring would increase this to 250 points (devaluation scheme applies to both, depending on the day). In my opinion the incentive is not the same.
>
> Provides incentive to fly your own race, yes. That's a good thing.
>
> T8

Ok, picture this. Weather is weak dry thermals to 2000ft. You have a long task to fly. The pilot who gets home collects the 250p award. There is 50 pilots flying the same task in ****ty weather. And your tactic would be "to fly your own race"?

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 2:19:51 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 October 2019 15:40:58 UTC+1, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 12:15:07 PM UTC+2, Jim White wrote:
> > > > At 07:14 30 October 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I should add that proposed scoring change to Annex A (by USA) creates
> > > > MASSIVE incentive to scratch home over the last trees and creates a huge
> > > > out landing risk.
> > > >
> > > > There is already a strong incentive to scratch home and pretty much
> > > > everyone I fly against in the UK 15s would do so anyway. I like the
> > > > proposal as it simplifies the scoring rules.
> > > >
> > > > Sensible pilots will choose a flat landable field before the line that can
> > > > be used safely if they cannot make the hedge. In circumstances where there
> > > > is a finish ring the decision to land will probably be made higher and with
> > > > reduced risk.
> > > >
> > > > Landing out is a integral part of competition flying in gliders. We train
> > > > for it and do it regularly. If you fly a motor glider (dig) then you
> > > > probably are less current and more at risk when the engine doesn't behave.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > >
> > > If you are the one out of 50 pilots who gets home and others land out on the last field next to finish line, current scoring gives you maybe ten point spread over pilots landing out. Proposed scoring would increase this to 250 points (devaluation scheme applies to both, depending on the day). In my opinion the incentive is not the same.
> >
> > Provides incentive to fly your own race, yes. That's a good thing.
> >
> > T8
>
> Ok, picture this. Weather is weak dry thermals to 2000ft. You have a long task to fly. The pilot who gets home collects the 250p award. There is 50 pilots flying the same task in ****ty weather. And your tactic would be "to fly your own race"?

In USA, we will not launch if the top of lift is 2000'.

T8

On Thursday, 31 October 2019 14:21:59 UTC+2, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 2:19:51 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 October 2019 15:40:58 UTC+1, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 12:15:07 PM UTC+2, Jim White wrote:
> > > > > At 07:14 30 October 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >I should add that proposed scoring change to Annex A (by USA) creates
> > > > > MASSIVE incentive to scratch home over the last trees and creates a huge
> > > > > out landing risk.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is already a strong incentive to scratch home and pretty much
> > > > > everyone I fly against in the UK 15s would do so anyway. I like the
> > > > > proposal as it simplifies the scoring rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sensible pilots will choose a flat landable field before the line that can
> > > > > be used safely if they cannot make the hedge. In circumstances where there
> > > > > is a finish ring the decision to land will probably be made higher and with
> > > > > reduced risk.
> > > > >
> > > > > Landing out is a integral part of competition flying in gliders. We train
> > > > > for it and do it regularly. If you fly a motor glider (dig) then you
> > > > > probably are less current and more at risk when the engine doesn't behave.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > If you are the one out of 50 pilots who gets home and others land out on the last field next to finish line, current scoring gives you maybe ten point spread over pilots landing out. Proposed scoring would increase this to 250 points (devaluation scheme applies to both, depending on the day).. In my opinion the incentive is not the same.
> > >
> > > Provides incentive to fly your own race, yes. That's a good thing.
> > >
> > > T8
> >
> > Ok, picture this. Weather is weak dry thermals to 2000ft. You have a long task to fly. The pilot who gets home collects the 250p award. There is 50 pilots flying the same task in ****ty weather. And your tactic would be "to fly your own race"?
>
> In USA, we will not launch if the top of lift is 2000'.
>
> T8

Your arguments are so rock solid that I concede.

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 8:43:06 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 October 2019 14:21:59 UTC+2, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 2:19:51 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 30 October 2019 15:40:58 UTC+1, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 12:15:07 PM UTC+2, Jim White wrote:
> > > > > > At 07:14 30 October 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I should add that proposed scoring change to Annex A (by USA) creates
> > > > > > MASSIVE incentive to scratch home over the last trees and creates a huge
> > > > > > out landing risk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is already a strong incentive to scratch home and pretty much
> > > > > > everyone I fly against in the UK 15s would do so anyway. I like the
> > > > > > proposal as it simplifies the scoring rules.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sensible pilots will choose a flat landable field before the line that can
> > > > > > be used safely if they cannot make the hedge. In circumstances where there
> > > > > > is a finish ring the decision to land will probably be made higher and with
> > > > > > reduced risk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Landing out is a integral part of competition flying in gliders.. We train
> > > > > > for it and do it regularly. If you fly a motor glider (dig) then you
> > > > > > probably are less current and more at risk when the engine doesn't behave.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are the one out of 50 pilots who gets home and others land out on the last field next to finish line, current scoring gives you maybe ten point spread over pilots landing out. Proposed scoring would increase this to 250 points (devaluation scheme applies to both, depending on the day). In my opinion the incentive is not the same.
> > > >
> > > > Provides incentive to fly your own race, yes. That's a good thing.
> > > >
> > > > T8
> > >
> > > Ok, picture this. Weather is weak dry thermals to 2000ft. You have a long task to fly. The pilot who gets home collects the 250p award. There is 50 pilots flying the same task in ****ty weather. And your tactic would be "to fly your own race"?
> >
> > In USA, we will not launch if the top of lift is 2000'.
> >
> > T8
>
> Your arguments are so rock solid that I concede.

That wasn't an argument, just putting the truth out there. You think we are doing this wrong?

Here is how it works: The CD will generally announce criteria for safe launch and safe task opening. I'm going to disregard specialized ridge sites for this exposition. Launch criteria will generally be sustainable lift to about 2500 agl. Gate opening depends upon local terrain, but I don't believe I have ever see a gate open on less than 3000' agl. Task does not open until CD polls airborne task advisors, who must declare "Fair and Safe conditions".

T8

On Thursday, 31 October 2019 08:42:34 UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 8:43:06 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> > On Thursday, 31 October 2019 14:21:59 UTC+2, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 2:19:51 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 30 October 2019 15:40:58 UTC+1, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 12:15:07 PM UTC+2, Jim White wrote:
> > > > > > > At 07:14 30 October 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I should add that proposed scoring change to Annex A (by USA) creates
> > > > > > > MASSIVE incentive to scratch home over the last trees and creates a huge
> > > > > > > out landing risk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is already a strong incentive to scratch home and pretty much
> > > > > > > everyone I fly against in the UK 15s would do so anyway. I like the
> > > > > > > proposal as it simplifies the scoring rules.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sensible pilots will choose a flat landable field before the line that can
> > > > > > > be used safely if they cannot make the hedge. In circumstances where there
> > > > > > > is a finish ring the decision to land will probably be made higher and with
> > > > > > > reduced risk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Landing out is a integral part of competition flying in gliders. We train
> > > > > > > for it and do it regularly. If you fly a motor glider (dig) then you
> > > > > > > probably are less current and more at risk when the engine doesn't behave.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jim
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you are the one out of 50 pilots who gets home and others land out on the last field next to finish line, current scoring gives you maybe ten point spread over pilots landing out. Proposed scoring would increase this to 250 points (devaluation scheme applies to both, depending on the day). In my opinion the incentive is not the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > Provides incentive to fly your own race, yes. That's a good thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > T8
> > > >
> > > > Ok, picture this. Weather is weak dry thermals to 2000ft. You have a long task to fly. The pilot who gets home collects the 250p award. There is 50 pilots flying the same task in ****ty weather. And your tactic would be "to fly your own race"?
> > >
> > > In USA, we will not launch if the top of lift is 2000'.
> > >
> > > T8
> >
> > Your arguments are so rock solid that I concede.
>
> That wasn't an argument, just putting the truth out there. You think we are doing this wrong?
>
> Here is how it works: The CD will generally announce criteria for safe launch and safe task opening. I'm going to disregard specialized ridge sites for this exposition. Launch criteria will generally be sustainable lift to about 2500 agl. Gate opening depends upon local terrain, but I don't believe I have ever see a gate open on less than 3000' agl. Task does not open until CD polls airborne task advisors, who must declare "Fair and Safe conditions".
>
> T8

T8, my experience at to world championships (on the ground) is that task advisors are not consulted, rather 'x' number of minutes after launch is completed the task is open.

Procedural difference that could be addressed with local procedures.

And even if a task, wherever it may be and under whatever set of rules, if we start out with 4,000’+ bases, we can’t control what is happening at the finish between rain, storms or high cirrus that may cut off lift later in the day. At that point is where 250 pts is up for grabs let’s say between two pilots that had matching speeds up to that point and one decides to do the safe thing and land in the last good field or airport while another decides he’s going to push that 0 MC glide to a 750’ agl finish ring through rain or whatever may lie ahead over unlandable terrain. Even that 750’ buffer can disappear quickly if misjudged. Crewing are a nationals years ago, I saw John Seaborn turn around on task one day and land while others punched through a line of rain and lightning to finish the task. A8 did the right thing, losing a shot at the top

And for exactly that same reason, I don’t see it spreading out a gaggle compared to current FAI rules. When crappy weather strikes, pilots aren’t going to risk landing out if there are 250 pts on the table and they have a better chance of making it around in a group. The reason we don’t see gaggles in the US has more to do with pilot attitude and the numbers involved. We just don’t see the entries they have in Europe at our contests. If we had 130 gliders like a WGC or Europeans, gaggling would be an issue under our rules. When we switch to FAI rules, I just don’t see gaggles materializing out of nowhere if our most popular classes only have 20-30 entries.

And even on a task, wherever it may be and under whatever set of rules, if we start out with 4,000’+ bases, we can’t control what is happening at the finish between rain, storms or high cirrus that may cut off lift later in the day. At that point is where 250 pts is up for grabs, let’s say between two pilots that had matching speeds up to that point and one decides to do the safe thing and land in the last good field or airport while another decides he’s going to push that 0 MC glide to a 750’ agl finish ring through rain or whatever may lie ahead over unlandable terrain. Even that 750’ buffer can disappear quickly.

Crewing at a nationals years ago, I saw John Seaborn turn around on task one day and land while others punched through a line of rain and lightning to finish the task. A8 did the right thing, losing a shot at the podium but coming back to fly another day - and is still winning now. Hopefully we all make the correct choice when we need to but a 250 pt carrot doesn't help.

And for exactly that same reason, I don’t see it spreading out a gaggle compared to current FAI rules. When crappy weather strikes, pilots aren’t going to risk landing out if there are an extra 250 pts on the table and they have a better chance of making it around in a group. The reason we don’t see gaggles in the US has more to do with the numbers involved. We just don’t have the entries they do in Europe at our contests. If we had 130 gliders like a WGC or Europeans, gaggling would be an issue under our current rules. When we switch to FAI rules, I just don’t see gaggles materializing out of nowhere if our most popular classes only have 20-30 entries.

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 1:34:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> And even on a task, wherever it may be and under whatever set of rules, if we start out with 4,000’+ bases, we can’t control what is happening at the finish between rain, storms or high cirrus that may cut off lift later in the day. At that point is where 250 pts is up for grabs, let’s say between two pilots that had matching speeds up to that point and one decides to do the safe thing and land in the last good field or airport while another decides he’s going to push that 0 MC glide to a 750’ agl finish ring through rain or whatever may lie ahead over unlandable terrain. Even that 750’ buffer can disappear quickly.
>
> Crewing at a nationals years ago, I saw John Seaborn turn around on task one day and land while others punched through a line of rain and lightning to finish the task. A8 did the right thing, losing a shot at the podium but coming back to fly another day - and is still winning now. Hopefully we all make the correct choice when we need to but a 250 pt carrot doesn't help.
>
> And for exactly that same reason, I don’t see it spreading out a gaggle compared to current FAI rules. When crappy weather strikes, pilots aren’t going to risk landing out if there are an extra 250 pts on the table and they have a better chance of making it around in a group. The reason we don’t see gaggles in the US has more to do with the numbers involved. We just don’t have the entries they do in Europe at our contests. If we had 130 gliders like a WGC or Europeans, gaggling would be an issue under our current rules. When we switch to FAI rules, I just don’t see gaggles materializing out of nowhere if our most popular classes only have 20-30 entries.

You're making a nice argument for the US rules safety finish :-).

T8