Should SSA Regional contests allow water in FAI class...15, 18, 20,Open class?

[Sean Fidler]

There is clearly a wide range of opinion on this subject. I would like to get as wide a range of opinion as possible. Please take a moment to respond.

I have heard all the arguments now:
AGAINST WATER BALLAST
1) Its unsafe. Tow emergency's are greatly more dangerous with water.
- Counter: Yet almost all European pilots & contest allow and use water regularly. Where has the last accident occurred that was caused due to the glider being ballasted?
2) Its PITA (pain in the ass).
- Counter: Yet with a little practice it takes 15 minutes to fully fill an 15/18 meter glider. Those who dont want water are lazy.
3) Tow planes cant handle it and the tow pilots are inexperienced
- Counter: Yet the same pilots and tow planes tow 1400 lbs Grob 103's regularly at most clubs (A fully ballasted ASG29 is 1300 lbs and a Lak17a is 1103 lbs).

NEUTRAL
Performance in a racing class with and without water is relative
- water adds no value to the competition and outcomes will be the same, if marginally slower.

FOR WATER BALLAST
1) The gliders do not handle well dry
- Counter: Those against water say this is hogwash.
2) The gliders are designed to fly with water.
- Counter: Those against water say this is hogwash.
3) The gliders actually fly better with water.
- Those against water say this is hogwash.
4) The gliders are more enjoyable to fly with water.
- Those against water say this is hogwash.
5) Tasks are shorter
6) I want to practice for Worlds and Nationals (which fly with water).

These are some of the arguments that I am hearing from either side. Many are passionate about it.

It does seem as if the US SSA Regional contests are mainly dry while almost all European contests are without question with water. What are your opinions and experiences?

1) Does a dry contest make you more interested in attending a contest or less?

2) Do you think flying with water is safe or dangerous? Why?

3) How many times per year do you fly your glider with water?

4) How many times in the past 10 years have you flown your glider with water?

3) What US regional contests (other than Perry) allow water?

Thanks!

Sean (F2, Ionia, MI)

[Tony[_5_]]

On Dec 14, 3:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> There is clearly a wide range of opinion on this subject. *I would like to get as wide a range of opinion as possible. *Please take a moment to respond.
>
> I have heard all the arguments now:
> AGAINST WATER BALLAST
> 1) Its unsafe. *Tow emergency's are greatly more dangerous with water.
> - Counter: *Yet almost all European pilots & contest allow and use water regularly. *Where has the last accident occurred that was caused due to the glider being ballasted?
> 2) Its PITA (pain in the ass).
> - Counter: *Yet with a little practice it takes 15 minutes to fully fill an 15/18 meter glider. *Those who dont want water are lazy.
> 3) Tow planes cant handle it and the tow pilots are inexperienced
> - Counter: *Yet the same pilots and tow planes tow 1400 lbs Grob 103's regularly at most clubs (A fully ballasted ASG29 is 1300 lbs and a Lak17a is 1103 lbs).
>
> NEUTRAL
> Performance in a racing class with and without water is relative
> - water adds no value to the competition and outcomes will be the same, if marginally slower.
>
> FOR WATER BALLAST
> 1) The gliders do not handle well dry
> - Counter: *Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 2) The gliders are designed to fly with water.
> - Counter: *Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 3) The gliders actually fly better with water.
> - Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 4) The gliders are more enjoyable to fly with water.
> - Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 5) Tasks are shorter
> 6) I want to practice for Worlds and Nationals (which fly with water).
>
> These are some of the arguments that I am hearing from either side. *Many are passionate about it.
>
> It does seem as if the US SSA Regional contests are mainly dry while almost all European contests are without question with water. *What are your opinions and experiences?
>
> 1) Does a dry contest make you more interested in attending a contest or less?
>
> 2) Do you think flying with water is safe or dangerous? *Why?
>
> 3) How many times per year do you fly your glider with water?
>
> 4) How many times in the past 10 years have you flown your glider with water?
>
> 3) What US regional contests (other than Perry) allow water?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sean (F2, Ionia, MI)

I only carry drinking water but my impression always was that
regionals which were "dry" were that way because the facilities did
not allow enough space or have the infrastructure to reasonably water
down the class each day. Perhaps there are other reasons but that
seems to be a legitimate reason for a dry contest, to me.

They did have (non-drinking) water available at the 2011 Region 10
contest in Llano but the FAI class didn't materialize. Dave in the
Nimbus flying as a guest did load up each day though.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 14, 4:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> There is clearly a wide range of opinion on this subject. *I would like to get as wide a range of opinion as possible. *Please take a moment to respond.
>
> I have heard all the arguments now:
> AGAINST WATER BALLAST
> 1) Its unsafe. *Tow emergency's are greatly more dangerous with water.
> - Counter: *Yet almost all European pilots & contest allow and use water regularly. *Where has the last accident occurred that was caused due to the glider being ballasted?
> 2) Its PITA (pain in the ass).
> - Counter: *Yet with a little practice it takes 15 minutes to fully fill an 15/18 meter glider. *Those who dont want water are lazy.
> 3) Tow planes cant handle it and the tow pilots are inexperienced
> - Counter: *Yet the same pilots and tow planes tow 1400 lbs Grob 103's regularly at most clubs (A fully ballasted ASG29 is 1300 lbs and a Lak17a is 1103 lbs).
>
> NEUTRAL
> Performance in a racing class with and without water is relative
> - water adds no value to the competition and outcomes will be the same, if marginally slower.
>
> FOR WATER BALLAST
> 1) The gliders do not handle well dry
> - Counter: *Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 2) The gliders are designed to fly with water.
> - Counter: *Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 3) The gliders actually fly better with water.
> - Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 4) The gliders are more enjoyable to fly with water.
> - Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 5) Tasks are shorter
> 6) I want to practice for Worlds and Nationals (which fly with water).
>
> These are some of the arguments that I am hearing from either side. *Many are passionate about it.
>
> It does seem as if the US SSA Regional contests are mainly dry while almost all European contests are without question with water. *What are your opinions and experiences?
>
> 1) Does a dry contest make you more interested in attending a contest or less?
>
> 2) Do you think flying with water is safe or dangerous? *Why?
>
> 3) How many times per year do you fly your glider with water?
>
> 4) How many times in the past 10 years have you flown your glider with water?
>
> 3) What US regional contests (other than Perry) allow water?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sean (F2, Ionia, MI)

Off hand, I can think of a few benefits of using water in contests.
1- You get a performance gain over your competitors if you can carry
more than they can, and are proficient with it.
2- It makes the ride on the ridge softer.
3- You can get useful practice for the next race that allows water.
Hmmmm! Can't think of more off hand.
FWIW- I put water in at Perry and Nationals- otherwise dry.
Interesting question.
UH

[Marc]

On Dec 14, 1:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> 3) What US regional contests (other than Perry) allow water?

I hate to say it, but you need to get out (west) more. 8^)

As far as I know, in Regions 8 through 12 FAI regional classes are
flown with water pretty much by default, with the only exceptions
being sites that lack sufficient access to water, or would be unsafe
with water. At a lot of sites out here, we even load up with water
when we're flying for fun...

Marc

[TS1[_2_]]

As a recent transplant from the West Coast (where I flew in 20 or so
Region 9 contests - all except 2 at Parowan, were with water) to the
East Coast (where I flew my first Region 5N with water) I can comment
as follows:

1) Generally prefer to fly with water all the time, but don't much
because of the shortness of my home field. Will always want to go back
to Perry :) , but would do others even if water is not allowed.

2) Flying with water is safe as long as the runway is long enough, tow
plane is strong enough

3) Flew 50+ flights/year out west with water. Only 6 or so this year.

4) Have flown over 500 flights in the last 10 years with water

5) See above, Region 9 (except at Parowan) always allowed water

TS1

[Dan[_4_]]

Sean, I suspect that many European contests are flown at significantly
lower density altitudes than some US contests - just not as hot/high.
Towplane performance decreases with density altitude, therefore,
flying wet at some US contests may result in reduced margins
(towplanes over here probably more powerful on average).

Infrastructure at most European airports appears to be superior to US
when it comes to water availability.

Relights with water (as a result of not wanting to drop it) may be
hard on the glider (and against POH in some cases). Dumping puts you
at a disadvantage.

Against, flying dry puts some gliders with light wing loadings dry at
a disadvantage vs heavier competitors (Discus vs SZD-55 for example),
unless the class is handicapped.

Dry=shorter tows, therefore, less cost to the organizers, which might
be passed on to the competitors.
Dry=quicker launch, therefore, longer tasks can be called/completed.

It does look pretty on a fly-by, dumping at the end of a task.

Dan

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 3:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> There is clearly a wide range of opinion on this subject. *I would like to get as wide a range of opinion as possible. *Please take a moment to respond.
>
> I have heard all the arguments now:
> AGAINST WATER BALLAST
> 1) Its unsafe. *Tow emergency's are greatly more dangerous with water.
> - Counter: *Yet almost all European pilots & contest allow and use water regularly. *Where has the last accident occurred that was caused due to the glider being ballasted?
> 2) Its PITA (pain in the ass).
> - Counter: *Yet with a little practice it takes 15 minutes to fully fill an 15/18 meter glider. *Those who dont want water are lazy.
> 3) Tow planes cant handle it and the tow pilots are inexperienced
> - Counter: *Yet the same pilots and tow planes tow 1400 lbs Grob 103's regularly at most clubs (A fully ballasted ASG29 is 1300 lbs and a Lak17a is 1103 lbs).
>
> NEUTRAL
> Performance in a racing class with and without water is relative
> - water adds no value to the competition and outcomes will be the same, if marginally slower.
>
> FOR WATER BALLAST
> 1) The gliders do not handle well dry
> - Counter: *Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 2) The gliders are designed to fly with water.
> - Counter: *Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 3) The gliders actually fly better with water.
> - Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 4) The gliders are more enjoyable to fly with water.
> - Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 5) Tasks are shorter
> 6) I want to practice for Worlds and Nationals (which fly with water).
>
> These are some of the arguments that I am hearing from either side. *Many are passionate about it.
>
> It does seem as if the US SSA Regional contests are mainly dry while almost all European contests are without question with water. *What are your opinions and experiences?
>
> 1) Does a dry contest make you more interested in attending a contest or less?
>
> 2) Do you think flying with water is safe or dangerous? *Why?
>
> 3) How many times per year do you fly your glider with water?
>
> 4) How many times in the past 10 years have you flown your glider with water?
>
> 3) What US regional contests (other than Perry) allow water?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sean (F2, Ionia, MI)

I like water, and a contest that allows it is more likely to attract
me to come. Think of it this way. An ASW27 with water easily outflles
an empty ASG29. So there's $80,000 worth of performance there, and all
you have to do is put some water in the wings!
Yes, we could all compete dry and the relative scores would be the
same. We could all compete in PW5s and the relative scores would be
the same. Why don't we? Because performance is fun! We're here more
than everything else to have fun, to see what our machines can do, to
fly as far and fast as we can.
That said, I tend to fly a lot lighter than most -- water really does
not help at 3 knots or less -- and I support no-water days when it's
perfectly obvious it isn't helping.
John Cochrane

[Mike the Strike]

On Dec 14, 4:03*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Dec 14, 3:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is clearly a wide range of opinion on this subject. *I would like to get as wide a range of opinion as possible. *Please take a moment to respond.
>
> > I have heard all the arguments now:
> > AGAINST WATER BALLAST
> > 1) Its unsafe. *Tow emergency's are greatly more dangerous with water..
> > - Counter: *Yet almost all European pilots & contest allow and use water regularly. *Where has the last accident occurred that was caused due to the glider being ballasted?
> > 2) Its PITA (pain in the ass).
> > - Counter: *Yet with a little practice it takes 15 minutes to fully fill an 15/18 meter glider. *Those who dont want water are lazy.
> > 3) Tow planes cant handle it and the tow pilots are inexperienced
> > - Counter: *Yet the same pilots and tow planes tow 1400 lbs Grob 103's regularly at most clubs (A fully ballasted ASG29 is 1300 lbs and a Lak17a is 1103 lbs).
>
> > NEUTRAL
> > Performance in a racing class with and without water is relative
> > - water adds no value to the competition and outcomes will be the same, if marginally slower.
>
> > FOR WATER BALLAST
> > 1) The gliders do not handle well dry
> > - Counter: *Those against water say this is hogwash.
> > 2) The gliders are designed to fly with water.
> > - Counter: *Those against water say this is hogwash.
> > 3) The gliders actually fly better with water.
> > - Those against water say this is hogwash.
> > 4) The gliders are more enjoyable to fly with water.
> > - Those against water say this is hogwash.
> > 5) Tasks are shorter
> > 6) I want to practice for Worlds and Nationals (which fly with water).
>
> > These are some of the arguments that I am hearing from either side. *Many are passionate about it.
>
> > It does seem as if the US SSA Regional contests are mainly dry while almost all European contests are without question with water. *What are your opinions and experiences?
>
> > 1) Does a dry contest make you more interested in attending a contest or less?
>
> > 2) Do you think flying with water is safe or dangerous? *Why?
>
> > 3) How many times per year do you fly your glider with water?
>
> > 4) How many times in the past 10 years have you flown your glider with water?
>
> > 3) What US regional contests (other than Perry) allow water?
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > Sean (F2, Ionia, MI)
>
> I like water, and a contest that allows it is more likely to attract
> me to come. Think of it this way. An ASW27 with water easily outflles
> an empty ASG29. So there's $80,000 worth of performance there, and all
> you have to do is put some water in the wings!
> Yes, we could all compete dry and the relative scores would be the
> same. We could all compete in PW5s and the relative scores would be
> the same. Why don't we? Because performance is fun! We're here more
> than everything else to have fun, to see what our machines can do, to
> fly as far and fast as we can.
> That said, I tend to fly a lot lighter than most -- water really does
> not help at 3 knots or less -- and I support no-water days when it's
> perfectly obvious it isn't helping.
> John Cochrane

I discovered the benefits of flying with water in South Africa several
decades ago. If I'm flying anywhere with turbulent conditions (ridge
or strong thermals), I hit my head on the canopy less often and not as
hard! Really nice in Arizona's strong turbulent thermals!

Mike

[Rick Walters[_2_]]

*What are your opinions and experiences?
>>
Sean,

No water contests are unfair unless everyone can ballast to the
heaviest pilot. I have a 40kg advantage over several racing friends if
flying dry, which is nearly one pound of wingloading when my "B" model
is factored against their "A" model. Sports class adjusts for this.

Rick Walters

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

The arguements for banning water would all apply equally to banning the use
of flaps. Flapped gliders should be made to fly with their flaps locked?

At 05:14 15 December 2011, Rick Walters wrote:
> =A0What are your opinions and experiences?
>>>
>Sean,
>
>No water contests are unfair unless everyone can ballast to the
>heaviest pilot. I have a 40kg advantage over several racing friends if
>flying dry, which is nearly one pound of wingloading when my "B" model
>is factored against their "A" model. Sports class adjusts for this.
>
>Rick Walters
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 14, 2:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> There is clearly a wide range of opinion on this subject.

Really? Show me a west coast thermal flyer who would rather fly a
contest dry. Show me an east coast ridge runner who would rather fly
dry.

In USA all those pilots can fly in sports class if they want to.
Don't mess with the FAI classes freedom to fly with ballast at pilot
discretion.

Water ballast allows a pilot in an FAI class to fly with the wing
loading he chooses (up to max gross wt). I weigh only 165 pound and
fly a glider that is almost 50lb lighter than some others in my
class. In a dry contest that puts me over 150 pounds lighter than
some pilots I would compete against.

Any "no ballast" rule should allow all pilots in an FAI class to fly
at the same wing loading or be assigned an appropriate handicap.

Andy (ASW-28 GY)

[[email protected]]

On Dec 15, 8:50*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > There is clearly a wide range of opinion on this subject.
>
> Really? *Show me a west coast thermal flyer who would rather fly a
> contest dry. Show me an east coast ridge runner who would rather fly
> dry.
>
> In USA all those pilots can fly in sports class if they want to.
> Don't mess with the FAI classes freedom to fly with ballast at pilot
> discretion.
>
> Water ballast allows a pilot in an FAI class to fly with the wing
> loading he chooses (up to max gross wt). *I weigh only 165 pound and
> fly a glider that is almost *50lb lighter than some others in my
> class. *In a dry contest that puts me over 150 pounds lighter than
> some pilots I would compete against.
>
> Any "no ballast" rule should allow all pilots in an FAI class to fly
> at the same wing loading or be assigned an appropriate handicap.
>
> Andy (ASW-28 GY)

Current US rules provide for organizer to allow bringing the the
weight of the light guys up to the heavy guys. This was implemented
in 2010.
UH

[MN50]

On Dec 14, 2:43*pm, Marc > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 1:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > 3) What US regional contests (other than Perry) allow water?
>
> I hate to say it, but you need to get out (west) more. 8^)
>
> As far as I know, in Regions 8 through 12 FAI regional classes are
> flown with water pretty much by default, with the only exceptions
> being sites that lack sufficient access to water, or would be unsafe
> with water. * At a lot of sites out here, we even load up with water
> when we're flying for fun...
>
> Marc

At the Region 8 contest for the last two years, we have flown dry.
The primary reason is for a safer launch and reducing the launch
time. At Ephrata, with summer temperatures up above 90F, with some of
the newer 15m and 18m gliders, towing the classes up has been impacted
with slower climb rates, resulting in long times at grazing the
landscape and slower tow cycle times. A side benefit is the workload
reduction in the morning.

50

[Andy K3WYC]

On Dec 15, 7:10*am, wrote:
> On Dec 15, 8:50*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 2:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > > There is clearly a wide range of opinion on this subject.
>
> > Really? *Show me a west coast thermal flyer who would rather fly a
> > contest dry. Show me an east coast ridge runner who would rather fly
> > dry.
>
> > In USA all those pilots can fly in sports class if they want to.
> > Don't mess with the FAI classes freedom to fly with ballast at pilot
> > discretion.
>
> > Water ballast allows a pilot in an FAI class to fly with the wing
> > loading he chooses (up to max gross wt). *I weigh only 165 pound and
> > fly a glider that is almost *50lb lighter than some others in my
> > class. *In a dry contest that puts me over 150 pounds lighter than
> > some pilots I would compete against.
>
> > Any "no ballast" rule should allow all pilots in an FAI class to fly
> > at the same wing loading or be assigned an appropriate handicap.
>
> > Andy (ASW-28 GY)
>
> Current US rules provide for organizer to allow bringing the the
> weight of the light guys up to the *heavy guys. This was implemented
> in 2010.
> UH

The rule requires fixed ballast and does not allow the ballast to be
in the wings where it is safe. The rule also applies no handicap to
pilots that are over the handicap weight with no additional ballast.

With no fixed ballast I'm at the 778lb limit for my ASW-28 so there is
no way I can adjust up to an LS8 with a heavy pilot that may be well
over its 820lb limit. Since both gliders have the same wing area
there is an obvious disadvantage except when conditions are very
weak. The SSA handicap weight was never intended to be a weight
limit. It's just a reference weight for calculating a handicap. As you
know I have advocated setting the no ballast contest weight limit to
that of the heaviest un-ballasted glider in the class.

This problem is one reason to always allow ballast in FAI classes
except where it poses a safety issue - which provides feedback on the
OP's question.

Andy

[Tony[_5_]]

Andy I think you are thinking about 6.8.3 and Hank is talking about
6.8.4.

6.8.3 â€* No-ballast rules
No-ballast rules shall apply on a day when the CD has announced this
prior to the first launch.
6.8.3.1 Disposable ballast is prohibited with the exception of
disposable tail ballast.
6.8.3.2 Fixed ballast is permitted, but not more than an amount that
brings the sailplane to its maximum handicap weight, as
defined in the SSA Sailplane Handicap List.

6.8.4 ‡ Limited-ballast rules
The CD may announce a limited ballast day no later than one hour
before grid time:
6.8.4.1 ‡ A maximum takeoff weight shall be announced.
6.8.4.2 ‡ Sailplanes may carry disposable ballast that yields a
takeoff weight not greater than the announced maximum.
6.8.4.3 ‡ Sailplanes may exceed the maximum takeoff weight only if
they follow Rule 6.8.3 and if they do not carry removable fixed
ballast (bags of shot, sheets of lead, or any other baggage whose only
purpose is to increase weight).

[Andy K3WYC]

On Dec 15, 9:50*am, Andy K3WYC > wrote:
> On Dec 15, 7:10*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 8:50*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 2:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > > > There is clearly a wide range of opinion on this subject.
>
> > > Really? *Show me a west coast thermal flyer who would rather fly a
> > > contest dry. Show me an east coast ridge runner who would rather fly
> > > dry.
>
> > > In USA all those pilots can fly in sports class if they want to.
> > > Don't mess with the FAI classes freedom to fly with ballast at pilot
> > > discretion.
>
> > > Water ballast allows a pilot in an FAI class to fly with the wing
> > > loading he chooses (up to max gross wt). *I weigh only 165 pound and
> > > fly a glider that is almost *50lb lighter than some others in my
> > > class. *In a dry contest that puts me over 150 pounds lighter than
> > > some pilots I would compete against.
>
> > > Any "no ballast" rule should allow all pilots in an FAI class to fly
> > > at the same wing loading or be assigned an appropriate handicap.
>
> > > Andy (ASW-28 GY)
>
> > Current US rules provide for organizer to allow bringing the the
> > weight of the light guys up to the *heavy guys. This was implemented
> > in 2010.
> > UH
>
> The rule requires fixed ballast and does not allow the ballast to be
> in the wings where it is safe. The rule also applies no handicap to
> pilots that are over the handicap weight with no additional ballast.
>
> With no fixed ballast I'm at the 778lb limit for my ASW-28 so there is
> no way I can adjust up to an LS8 with a heavy pilot that may be well
> over its 820lb limit. *Since both gliders have the same wing area
> there is an obvious disadvantage except when conditions are very
> weak. *The SSA handicap weight was never intended to be a weight
> limit. It's just a reference weight for calculating a handicap. As you
> know I have advocated setting the no ballast contest weight limit to
> that of the heaviest un-ballasted glider in the class.
>
> This problem is one reason to always allow ballast in FAI classes
> except where it poses a safety issue *- which provides feedback on the
> OP's question.
>
> Andy

test to see if my "nickname" gone back to "Andy" The other name was
intended only for use in a JT65 forum.

[Andy K3WYC]

On Dec 15, 9:57Â*am, Tony > wrote:
> Andy I think you are thinking about 6.8.3 and Hank is talking about
> 6.8.4.
>
> 6.8.3 â€* No-ballast rules
> No-ballast rules shall apply on a day when the CD has announced this
> prior to the first launch.
> 6.8.3.1 Disposable ballast is prohibited with the exception of
> disposable tail ballast.
> 6.8.3.2 Fixed ballast is permitted, but not more than an amount that
> brings the sailplane to its maximum handicap weight, as
> defined in the SSA Sailplane Handicap List.
>
> 6.8.4 ‡ Limited-ballast rules
> The CD may announce a limited ballast day no later than one hour
> before grid time:
> 6.8.4.1 ‡ A maximum takeoff weight shall be announced.
> 6.8.4.2 ‡ Sailplanes may carry disposable ballast that yields a
> takeoff weight not greater than the announced maximum.
> 6.8.4.3 ‡ Sailplanes may exceed the maximum takeoff weight only if
> they follow Rule 6.8.3 and if they do not carry removable fixed
> ballast (bags of shot, sheets of lead, or any other baggage whose only
> purpose is to increase weight).

No. Hank said the rule he was talking about was changed in 2010. The
limited ballast rule was not introduced until 2011.

Andy

[SF]

1) Does a dry contest make you more interested in attending a contest
or less?
No, You can always fly sports class if you don't like water, and no
one says you have to put it in if you don't want to.


2) Do you think flying with water is safe or dangerous? Why?
Flying with water is safe. It is more difficult, but it's safe


3) How many times per year do you fly your glider with water?
15 - 20


4) How many times in the past 10 years have you flown your glider with
water?
52.23



3) What US regional contests (other than Perry) allow water?
Cordele, Lanno Tx

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 15, 9:57Â*am, Tony > wrote:
> Andy I think you are thinking about 6.8.3 and Hank is talking about
> 6.8.4.
>
> 6.8.3 â€* No-ballast rules
> No-ballast rules shall apply on a day when the CD has announced this
> prior to the first launch.
> 6.8.3.1 Disposable ballast is prohibited with the exception of
> disposable tail ballast.
> 6.8.3.2 Fixed ballast is permitted, but not more than an amount that
> brings the sailplane to its maximum handicap weight, as
> defined in the SSA Sailplane Handicap List.
>
> 6.8.4 ‡ Limited-ballast rules
> The CD may announce a limited ballast day no later than one hour
> before grid time:
> 6.8.4.1 ‡ A maximum takeoff weight shall be announced.
> 6.8.4.2 ‡ Sailplanes may carry disposable ballast that yields a
> takeoff weight not greater than the announced maximum.
> 6.8.4.3 ‡ Sailplanes may exceed the maximum takeoff weight only if
> they follow Rule 6.8.3 and if they do not carry removable fixed
> ballast (bags of shot, sheets of lead, or any other baggage whose only
> purpose is to increase weight).

Yes you are probably right - although the limited ballast rule was
introduced in 2011 and not 2010. Did any contest implement the
limited ballast rule in 2011?

Andy

[kirk.stant]

On Dec 14, 3:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> There is clearly a wide range of opinion on this subject. *I would like to get as wide a range of opinion as possible. *Please take a moment to respond.

> AGAINST WATER BALLAST

> 1) Its unsafe. *Tow emergency's are greatly more dangerous with water.

Not true at all. For the tow pilot, it's just a heavier glider - no
biggie. For the glider pilot, he has to fly a faster pattern if
there is a PTT, and landing distance is greater. Things to consider
in your emergency plan prior to takeoff, but not inherently more
dangerous at most gliding sites.

> 2) Its PITA (pain in the ass).

So is rigging. Does that mean we have to force everybody to tie down
instead of rigging everyday, as is common in the east? With tanks its
no big deal, with bags and a good standpipe its also no big deal.
Gives time to clean and preflight the glider. Or get your crew
involved...

> 3) Tow planes cant handle it and the tow pilots are inexperienced

A contest tow pilot better be able to handle a wet glider. If the
towplane is so weak that it can't safely tow a wet glider, then I
probably don't want to get towed by it dry! Obvious exceptions for
very short, high, or hot airports, of course - common sense should
prevail - but should be be having contests at those airports?

> NEUTRAL
> Performance in a racing class with and without water is relative
- water adds no value to the competition and outcomes will be the
same, if marginally slower.

Not true - not being able to make ballast decisions takes away from
the pilots ability to affect the outcome of the race.

> FOR WATER BALLAST
> 1) The gliders do not handle well dry
> - Counter: *Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 2) The gliders are designed to fly with water.
> - Counter: *Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 3) The gliders actually fly better with water.
> - Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 4) The gliders are more enjoyable to fly with water.
> - Those against water say this is hogwash.
> 5) Tasks are shorter
> 6) I want to practice for Worlds and Nationals (which fly with water).

So the main argument from the Dry pilots is "Hogwash"? That's
intelligent....

Modern racing gliders are DESIGNED to be flown at different
wingloadings appropriate to different conditions. They handle fine
both dry and wet, can be landed wet without problem (although getting
my old LS6 to stop after a 10 psf landing can be "interesting"!), and
in strong conditions are much nicer when loaded up. Funny how pilots
out west usually fly wet, if possible, even when not at a contest -
could it be that it's more fun, and worth the effort?

> 1) Does a dry contest make you more interested in attending a contest or less?

No. I prefer to have the option, but am happy to race dry (cuz I'm
one of those big guys who will have a pound or two on the little guys,
heh heh).

> 2) Do you think flying with water is safe or dangerous? *Why?

Neither. See above. No one is forcing you to ballast up, so if the
conditions make it unsafe to do it, it's the PICs decision that makes
it safe or unsafe.

> 3) How many times per year do you fly your glider with water?

Probably half or more of the XC flights (out west) - whenever
conditions make it worthwhile and water is convenient. Back east,
rarely.

> 4) How many times in the past 10 years have you flown your glider with water?

Probably half or more of the XC flights (out west) - whenever
conditions make it worthwhile and water is convenient. Back east,
rarely.

> 3) What US regional contests (other than Perry) allow water?

Region 9s at Turf and El Tiro.

Kirk
66

[Ron Gleason]

On Dec 15, 10:41Â*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 15, 9:57Â*am, Tony > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Andy I think you are thinking about 6.8.3 and Hank is talking about
> > 6.8.4.
>
> > 6.8.3 â€* No-ballast rules
> > No-ballast rules shall apply on a day when the CD has announced this
> > prior to the first launch.
> > 6.8.3.1 Disposable ballast is prohibited with the exception of
> > disposable tail ballast.
> > 6.8.3.2 Fixed ballast is permitted, but not more than an amount that
> > brings the sailplane to its maximum handicap weight, as
> > defined in the SSA Sailplane Handicap List.
>
> > 6.8.4 ‡ Limited-ballast rules
> > The CD may announce a limited ballast day no later than one hour
> > before grid time:
> > 6.8.4.1 ‡ A maximum takeoff weight shall be announced.
> > 6.8.4.2 ‡ Sailplanes may carry disposable ballast that yields a
> > takeoff weight not greater than the announced maximum.
> > 6.8.4.3 ‡ Sailplanes may exceed the maximum takeoff weight only if
> > they follow Rule 6.8.3 and if they do not carry removable fixed
> > ballast (bags of shot, sheets of lead, or any other baggage whose only
> > purpose is to increase weight).
>
> Yes you are probably right - although the limited ballast rule was
> introduced in 2011 and not 2010. Â*Did any contest implement the
> limited ballast rule in 2011?
>
> Andy

We looked at using the provision at Logan region 9 contest in 2011.
We decided not to try it for a couple of reasons

1) For a given class when a flat weight number is used some gliders
will be at a disadvantage. Say you choose 800 pounds, and have a
ASH26 125.72 sq ft, ASG29 113 sq ft and V2CX 104.39 sq ft in the class
you can do the simple math and see that the V2CX has the highest wing
loading thus the advantage.

2) We combined the standard, and FAI classes into one class and there
is no provision for taking this into consideration when choosing a
weight. You cannot have a separate weight for each sub-class and in
this case the standard or 15 meter ships would have a big advantage.

3) It introduces more work to weigh the gliders and certified scales
will be needed.

I meant to document this and submit to the rules committee and suggest
a fix but did not get around to it. Plus I hate rule creep.

Ron Gleason

[Hartley Falbaum]

On Dec 15, 2:48*pm, Ron Gleason > wrote:
> On Dec 15, 10:41*am, Andy > wrote:
>

Cordele Region V South allows water ballast. Sometimes, like this
year, it is really worthwhile.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

> 2) *We combined the standard, and FAI classes into one class and there
> is no provision for taking this into consideration when choosing a
> weight. *You cannot have a separate weight for each sub-class and in
> this case the standard or 15 meter ships would have a big advantage.
>

Actually the RC is one step ahead of the game this time. From the
rules appendix,

"In a mixed class (e.g. 15/18) regional, the CD may set different
weights for gliders
from each class, to establish a roughly equivalent wing loading."

That said, the partial ballast rule is really intended to address
unusual conditions such as a very soft field that makes full ballast
takeoffs unsafe. (Cesar Creek 2010). It's intentionally rough-and-
ready for this reason. The RC did not put in a wing loading limit,
which might be fairer, because telling everyone and the scales team at
9 am to figure out their weight at 8.25 lbs/ft^2 and grid at noon
would be a disaster. It's better in the majority of cases to decide
water or no water and keep it simple.


John Cochrane

[Ron Gleason]

On Dec 15, 1:39*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > 2) *We combined the standard, and FAI classes into one class and there
> > is no provision for taking this into consideration when choosing a
> > weight. *You cannot have a separate weight for each sub-class and in
> > this case the standard or 15 meter ships would have a big advantage.
>
> Actually the RC is one step ahead of the game this time. From the
> rules appendix,
>
> "In a mixed class (e.g. 15/18) regional, the CD may set different
> weights for gliders
> from each class, to establish a roughly equivalent wing loading."
>
> That said, the partial ballast rule is really intended to address
> unusual conditions such as a very soft field that makes full ballast
> takeoffs unsafe. (Cesar Creek 2010). *It's intentionally rough-and-
> ready for this reason. The RC did not put in a wing loading limit,
> which might be fairer, because telling everyone and the scales team at
> 9 am to figure out their weight at 8.25 lbs/ft^2 and grid at noon
> would be a disaster. It's better in the majority of cases to decide
> water or no water and keep it simple.
>
> John Cochrane

John, thanks for pointing this out as I nor the CD was aware of the
provision buried in the appendix! Will it be moved to the main part
of the rulebook for 2012?

The pilots involved were concerned with the effect of the rule not the
intent so the provision in the appendix is quite important

For those interested the section from the 2011 Regional FA class rule
book states

A6.8.4 This rule allows some ballast when takeoff or other important
safety or operational considerations make the use of full ballast
inadvisable. It allows some equalization of takeoff weights, for
example to partially address the wing loading advantage of motorized
sailplanes. The maximum takeoff weight can be set to any value that
the CD determines provides a balance between fairness, safety, and the
operational consideration motivating a limited ballast day. In a mixed
class (e.g. 15/18) regional, the CD may set different weights for
gliders
from each class, to establish a roughly equivalent wing loading

Ron Gleason

[BruceGreeff]

Hi John

We apply a similar rule quite successfully in South Africa.

In our conditions you would be insane to not take as much water as you
are allowed at a contest.

Simple process - a max wingloading is chosen per class.
Then the max main wheel weight is established for that mass for each
competing type.
We have it easy, in that there are a relatively small number of contest
pilots and the SSSA contest organisers have an extensive database and
spreadsheets that do all the heavy lifting.

Each morning club class (dry) goes straight to the grid, every other
glider detours over a load cell - where it gets checked against a
printed list.
Wheel load less than or equal to allowable means keep going. Weight over
the maxium means get to the back of the queue after you have sorted out
your ballast. Works a charm.

There are always some people who are at a disadvantage - My Kestrel
can't reach the lowest wing loading they chose (I can't legally load
above 38.5kg/m2)

Very occasionally it pays to take less ballast - in which case the
clever pilots dump before the start based on actual conditions.

Very, very occasionally it pays to have the lowest wingloading possible
- then those of us that have vintage glass have an advantage.

Pretty quick and fair.

Bruce

On 2011/12/16 1:13 AM, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Dec 15, 1:39 pm, John >
> wrote:
>>> 2) We combined the standard, and FAI classes into one class and there
>>> is no provision for taking this into consideration when choosing a
>>> weight. You cannot have a separate weight for each sub-class and in
>>> this case the standard or 15 meter ships would have a big advantage.
>>
>> Actually the RC is one step ahead of the game this time. From the
>> rules appendix,
>>
>> "In a mixed class (e.g. 15/18) regional, the CD may set different
>> weights for gliders
>> from each class, to establish a roughly equivalent wing loading."
>>
>> That said, the partial ballast rule is really intended to address
>> unusual conditions such as a very soft field that makes full ballast
>> takeoffs unsafe. (Cesar Creek 2010). It's intentionally rough-and-
>> ready for this reason. The RC did not put in a wing loading limit,
>> which might be fairer, because telling everyone and the scales team at
>> 9 am to figure out their weight at 8.25 lbs/ft^2 and grid at noon
>> would be a disaster. It's better in the majority of cases to decide
>> water or no water and keep it simple.
>>
>> John Cochrane
>
> John, thanks for pointing this out as I nor the CD was aware of the
> provision buried in the appendix! Will it be moved to the main part
> of the rulebook for 2012?
>
> The pilots involved were concerned with the effect of the rule not the
> intent so the provision in the appendix is quite important
>
> For those interested the section from the 2011 Regional FA class rule
> book states
>
> A6.8.4 This rule allows some ballast when takeoff or other important
> safety or operational considerations make the use of full ballast
> inadvisable. It allows some equalization of takeoff weights, for
> example to partially address the wing loading advantage of motorized
> sailplanes. The maximum takeoff weight can be set to any value that
> the CD determines provides a balance between fairness, safety, and the
> operational consideration motivating a limited ballast day. In a mixed
> class (e.g. 15/18) regional, the CD may set different weights for
> gliders
> from each class, to establish a roughly equivalent wing loading
>
> Ron Gleason

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[Steve]

On Dec 15, 2:34*pm, Hartley Falbaum > wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2:48*pm, Ron Gleason > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 10:41*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> Cordele Region V South allows water ballast. Sometimes, like this
> year, it is really worthwhile.


I gained a much greater appreciation for water ballast this year after
flying the Region 5 at Cordele. Strong conditions every day and flying
fully ballasted significantly improved
my results. I'm relatively inexperienced working with water, but after
a full week of ballasting and flying full all week, it became very
easy. I'd consider water every flight now if
conditions allow.

I'm absolutely in favor of allowing gliders to fly to their full
"performance" capability.

Steve Vihlen
SV