FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition [Archive]

Sean F (F2)

November 20th 12, 06:06 PM

For those of you who may wish to remain anonymous but still wish to sign this petition, you basically have 2 options.

1) you can choose to show your name, city and state is all that is displayed (your address and other info remains private and is only used to validate the signature by the petition target (SSA Rules Committee) if needed.

2) you can check a box to remain anonymous. Your City, State appears but your name does not. The name will be visible to the petition targets if the petition signatures are requested for validation.

The petition targets (US RC) may try and disqualify some of our signatures based on little or no contest experience, little or no SSA contest participation, glider currently owned, etc. Perhaps a statement on your enthusiasm for a true racing class vs. SSA rules (all existing US classes). Please consider adding some basic information on your background, contest history and the glider you own, fly etc so that we can show the US RC that YOU ARE worth considering.

Here is some additional petition signature information that you may find useful:

LINK TO FAQ -> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petitionfaqs.html

Who will see my signature information?

There are several ways your signature information may be shared:

Public Petition Signature pages. Certain fields will be displayed on the publicly displayed signature page for all to see. Your email address, street address and telephone number are never displayed on this page. You are always given the option to check a box to hide your name, and replace it with the word "anonymous." You are also required to preview your signature before you submit it, to prevent mistakes.

Petition Author / Target. At the close of the petition, we provide all of the signature information to the petition author with the exception of your email address, street address and telephone number. These fields of information will only be shared with the petition author and target on a case by case basis to verify the validity of your signature.

Your Privacy is Important: PetitionSite.com and Care2.com believe in protecting personal privacy on line. To this end, we are a member of the independent watchdog group, Truste.org. Please see our full privacy statement on Care2.com.

Sincerely,

Sean Fidler
F2
Lak17a
7T
ASG-29

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
>
>
> Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
>
>
> In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> 1. Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> 2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> 3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> 4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 7. Any other comments welcome!
>
>
>
> Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
>
>
> Sean Franke
>
> US Club Class Team Member

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

November 20th 12, 07:42 PM

John Cochrane[_3_]

November 20th 12, 09:35 PM

>
> Did it ever occur to you guys to ask for an RC waiver to do what you want at a super regional level?
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

It occurred to the RC to suggest that option to them.

Here's how we introduce new classes and rules changes: Try it by
waiver at regionals. See if its popular with pilots, and work out the
many (in this case) operational details. If successful, they become a
regular part of regionals rules. If successful, they move to
nationals.

Here's what we tend not to do: Sign petitions to get the SSA board to
overturn the RC, announce in February that a contest in May will have
a quite different list of acceptable gliders, meaning that many pilots
planning to attend will be sent home, fly under rules that almost none
of the participating pilots have read or flown under, requiring the
writing of complex local procedures, no available CDs with any
experience in said rules, new scoring program to be mastered, new
weighing and handicap procedures to be mastered, everything in metric
units, procedures for mixing this contest with another one to be
worked out, etc. etc. etc.

A few super-regionals by waiver would be an excellent way to try this
concept, gauge how popular it really is, and begin to develop the
experience with a totally different way of doing things that this
proposal requires.

John Cochrane

[email protected]

November 20th 12, 09:59 PM

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:06:42 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> For those of you who may wish to remain anonymous but still wish to sign this petition, you basically have 2 options.
>
>
>
> 1) you can choose to show your name, city and state is all that is displayed (your address and other info remains private and is only used to validate the signature by the petition target (SSA Rules Committee) if needed.
>
>
>
> 2) you can check a box to remain anonymous. Your City, State appears but your name does not. The name will be visible to the petition targets if the petition signatures are requested for validation.
>
>
>
> The petition targets (US RC) may try and disqualify some of our signatures based on little or no contest experience, little or no SSA contest participation, glider currently owned, etc. Perhaps a statement on your enthusiasm for a true racing class vs. SSA rules (all existing US classes). Please consider adding some basic information on your background, contest history and the glider you own, fly etc so that we can show the US RC that YOU ARE worth considering.
>
>
>
> Here is some additional petition signature information that you may find useful:
>
>
>
> LINK TO FAQ -> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petitionfaqs.html
>
>
>
> Who will see my signature information?
>
>
>
> There are several ways your signature information may be shared:
>
>
>
> Public Petition Signature pages. Certain fields will be displayed on the publicly displayed signature page for all to see. Your email address, street address and telephone number are never displayed on this page. You are always given the option to check a box to hide your name, and replace it with the word "anonymous." You are also required to preview your signature before you submit it, to prevent mistakes.
>
>
>
> Petition Author / Target. At the close of the petition, we provide all of the signature information to the petition author with the exception of your email address, street address and telephone number. These fields of information will only be shared with the petition author and target on a case by case basis to verify the validity of your signature.
>
>
>
> Your Privacy is Important: PetitionSite.com and Care2.com believe in protecting personal privacy on line. To this end, we are a member of the independent watchdog group, Truste.org. Please see our full privacy statement on Care2.com.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Sean Fidler
>
> F2
>
> Lak17a
>
> 7T
>
> ASG-29
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> >
>
> > 1. Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> >
>
> > 2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> >
>
> > 3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> >
>
> > 4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > 5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > 6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > 7. Any other comments welcome!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke
>
> >
>
> > US Club Class Team Member

What's up Sean, another day, another petition?
I thought you were busy working out the details for a Grand Prix event, you know rules and such and of course the hold-harmless releases for the organizer. Good luck with all these initiatives.

Sean F (F2)

November 20th 12, 10:59 PM

Ha ha. The goal with the petition is simply to see determine how many US club pilots desire more of a FAI tasking philosophy than is currently part of the US Club Class guidelines. There are some big concerns about including the very low performance gliders in with the US Club class (233, 135, etc). Partly because the new US Club class will be the US Team qualification path for the Club Class World Championship. Partly because a segment of pilots would like to see the US make at least one effort to keep the US Club Class as close to the world standard as possible.

My hope is the petition justifies further consideration of slight changes or clarifications to the tasking guidelines for our US Club Class. I also agree that it is important to retain many of the safety and attendance minded elements of US Soarings rules. Overall the SSA and the RC are doing an excellent job on all fronts protecting attendance and working to grow the sport within the USA. In some ways the US is leading in terms of rules philosophy.

I have grown to appreciate the basic principles of the US rules vs. FAI in certain ways. I get it. That said I think there is room to define US Club Class tasking which would go along way towards improving the racing quality of the new US Club Class while maintaining US safety principles.

So, in other words, petition is intended measure the level of enthusiasm within the potential US Club Class pilot (club glider owner) "population" AND perhaps encourage the RC to considering some slight changes (perhaps just clarifications) to the current US Club Class tasking guidelines.

The petition is NOT intended to be a protest or complaint. It is a litmus test really. If only a few sign it, then its meaningless. If many sign it, you guys can use it to judge the importance of that information and what to do with it.

I hope it all works out and newly excited pilots remain this energized! This new US Club Class has tremendous potential.

Sincerely,

Sean

P.S. - I plan to do a small, informal GP even in Ionia next summer. I am not going to do any remote support of a GP event in a western local. Probably going to be around 10 gliders over 3-5 days in July. It will be SSA wavered and sanctioned if I do it. More later.

[email protected]

November 21st 12, 02:50 AM

If a better showing at world gliding comps is the reason for the lobbying for a change of the US sport/club class rules, one has to wonder why those leading the charge have not addressed the matter of team selection rules.

One rule prohibits pilots like Doug Jacobs and John Cochrane, to name just two, who, having flown in a FAI WGC, are barred from representing the US.

The latest dumbing down of the US Club team rules is the restriction in gliders that can be flown. Is there any doubt that DJ, this year's Sport class winner, would be our best choice? He is ineligible both because he's flown (and won) a WGC and his ship is a percent or two out of the handicap range (read: he has to fly that much faster to win).

The Sports class handicap system the US uses selects the best pilot regardless of all the whining from the crowd that would like to see the winner selected from a vastly reduced field ala the mercifully euthanized PW-5 fiasco..

As to the petition being brandished about, my reaction is to request all who appreciate the excellent rule making process the US competition soaring community enjoys contact their regional directors and ask them to give it all the consideration it deserves; i.e, send it to the circular file.

Karl Striedieck

Mike C

November 21st 12, 04:07 AM

I see no reason why a former FAI team member can not fly and represent the USA in the Worlds, if he or she qualifies in a Club Class Nationals. I do see the reason why handicapping should be kept tight and within comparable limits set by the IGC.

Mike

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:50:56 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> If a better showing at world gliding comps is the reason for the lobbying for a change of the US sport/club class rules, one has to wonder why those leading the charge have not addressed the matter of team selection rules.
>
>
>
> One rule prohibits pilots like Doug Jacobs and John Cochrane, to name just two, who, having flown in a FAI WGC, are barred from representing the US.
>
>
>
> The latest dumbing down of the US Club team rules is the restriction in gliders that can be flown. Is there any doubt that DJ, this year's Sport class winner, would be our best choice? He is ineligible both because he's flown (and won) a WGC and his ship is a percent or two out of the handicap range (read: he has to fly that much faster to win).
>
>
>
> The Sports class handicap system the US uses selects the best pilot regardless of all the whining from the crowd that would like to see the winner selected from a vastly reduced field ala the mercifully euthanized PW-5 fiasco.
>
>
>
> As to the petition being brandished about, my reaction is to request all who appreciate the excellent rule making process the US competition soaring community enjoys contact their regional directors and ask them to give it all the consideration it deserves; i.e, send it to the circular file.
>
>
>
> Karl Striedieck

[email protected]

November 21st 12, 04:33 AM

USA Club Class WGC pilots are no longer restricted. Anyone can qualify, even former world champs. This was announced about two years ago.

Rick Walters
USTC

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:50:56 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> If a better showing at world gliding comps is the reason for the lobbying for a change of the US sport/club class rules, one has to wonder why those leading the charge have not addressed the matter of team selection rules.
>
>
>
> One rule prohibits pilots like Doug Jacobs and John Cochrane, to name just two, who, having flown in a FAI WGC, are barred from representing the US.
>
>
>
> The latest dumbing down of the US Club team rules is the restriction in gliders that can be flown. Is there any doubt that DJ, this year's Sport class winner, would be our best choice? He is ineligible both because he's flown (and won) a WGC and his ship is a percent or two out of the handicap range (read: he has to fly that much faster to win).
>
>
>
> The Sports class handicap system the US uses selects the best pilot regardless of all the whining from the crowd that would like to see the winner selected from a vastly reduced field ala the mercifully euthanized PW-5 fiasco.
>
>
>
> As to the petition being brandished about, my reaction is to request all who appreciate the excellent rule making process the US competition soaring community enjoys contact their regional directors and ask them to give it all the consideration it deserves; i.e, send it to the circular file.
>
>
>
> Karl Striedieck

[email protected]

November 21st 12, 02:14 PM

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
>
>
> Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
>
>
> In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> 1. Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> 2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> 3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> 4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 7. Any other comments welcome!
>
>
>
> Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
>
>
> Sean Franke
>
> US Club Class Team Member

Sorry for the obsolete reference. This is what the current US Team website says:

1.5 The Sport Class Nationals are used to select pilots for the Club Class WGC. Pilots who have been a contestant in a previous WGC contest (except club class, World Class, Junior and Feminine events)are not eligible for selection to the US WGC Club Class team.

However, it doesn't alter the point that the petition should be ignored and those concerned with the best interests of the entire US soaring competition community should work within its rule making process. Run for a seat on the committee (no candidate this year), convey your opinions to the RC, suggest questions for the pilot poll, speak out at RC sessions at contests, etc.

And the point remains that the cream-of-the-crop candidates who would make the best showing for the US are effectively out of the running because their gliders have been excluded, and the practical and financial aspects of finding and flying a second glider are realistically reserved for the idle rich.

Furthermore, it is fantasy to believe some minor tweaks of the rules (start line shape, assigned tasks for instance) will produce faster pilots at WGC's. 99% of the game is on course and consists of two elements: obtaining the highest average lift and least average sink.

Karl Striedieck

[email protected]

November 21st 12, 02:16 PM

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:33:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> USA Club Class WGC pilots are no longer restricted. Anyone can qualify, even former world champs. This was announced about two years ago. Rick Walters USTC On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:50:56 PM UTC-8, wrote: > If a better showing at world gliding comps is the reason for the lobbying for a change of the US sport/club class rules, one has to wonder why those leading the charge have not addressed the matter of team selection rules. > > > > One rule prohibits pilots like Doug Jacobs and John Cochrane, to name just two, who, having flown in a FAI WGC, are barred from representing the US. > > > > The latest dumbing down of the US Club team rules is the restriction in gliders that can be flown. Is there any doubt that DJ, this year's Sport class winner, would be our best choice? He is ineligible both because he's flown (and won) a WGC and his ship is a percent or two out of the handicap range (read: he has to fly that much faster to win). > > > > The Sports class handicap system the US uses selects the best pilot regardless of all the whining from the crowd that would like to see the winner selected from a vastly reduced field ala the mercifully euthanized PW-5 fiasco. > > > > As to the petition being brandished about, my reaction is to request all who appreciate the excellent rule making process the US competition soaring community enjoys contact their regional directors and ask them to give it all the consideration it deserves; i.e, send it to the circular file. > > > > Karl Striedieck

US team web site needs an update to show the latest version reflecting this change.
KS lack of current info is understandable.
UH

[email protected]

November 21st 12, 03:14 PM

> Sorry for the obsolete reference. This is what the current US Team website says:
> 1.5 The Sport Class Nationals are used to select pilots for the Club Class WGC. Pilots who have been a contestant in a previous WGC contest (except club class, World Class, Junior and Feminine events)are not eligible for selection to the US WGC Club Class team.
> However, it doesn't alter the point that the petition should be ignored and those concerned with the best interests of the entire US soaring competition community should work within its rule making process. Run for a seat on the committee (no candidate this year), convey your opinions to the RC, suggest questions for the pilot poll, speak out at RC sessions at contests, etc.
> And the point remains that the cream-of-the-crop candidates who would make the best showing for the US are effectively out of the running because their gliders have been excluded, and the practical and financial aspects of finding and flying a second glider are realistically reserved for the idle rich.

> Karl Striedieck

This petition offers valid feedback. In fact, I don't recall a pilots poll in the past inquiring on this exact topic. I'm interested in finding out if there are enough pilots who want a choice. Throwing out feedback because they may be concerned about results is irresponsible. The RC is proposing a new US racing class. Let's not assume this new class should be set up like other US classes. Taking a different approach may help grow the sport after many years of decline.

This is not about team selection or WGC preparation. Although is does bring up promising possibilities.

I have heard before that guys with $100,000+ gliders are at a disadvantage because they cant afford a $15,000 club class glider. Club Class gliders are not difficult to borrow. If this is a problem then please contact me. I'll help. I suppose if someone was really serious about flying Club Class and being on the US Team they could SELL their $100,000 glider. Then go Club Class.

Sean Franke

John Dezzutti[_3_]

November 21st 12, 04:06 PM

A big thank you to the members of the rules committe for their hard work to
manage the playground and provide me with a place to play our game. I for
one appreciate all that you do and what you endure on our behalf!

Sean F (F2)

November 21st 12, 04:08 PM

I was not aware of that limitation on Worlds Qualification. That is, if what you are saying is true, a really bad rule. I agree 100% that the "best" pilots should be sent to the World Championships. That results in dynasty (same pilot every year ala Kawa), but that is what being a "Champion" is all about. Clearly Doug is an outstanding pilot. No debate there...

That said, definitively stating that DJ or KS or HA or R are the "best" under our US Sports Class rule system (assuming the goal is sending the best pilot to the Club Class World Championships) is a very, very interesting discussion. Until a couple weeks ago, US Sports Class rules included the entire range of all sailplanes built to date (126 - ASW 25+) under a handicap system which does not take into account the average speed of that particular task day. In my view this a massive, glaring flaw that will almost certainly favor certain gliders on certain days (or at certain contest locations).. Furthermore, If less than 12 gliders participate in the new "Club" class at the 2013 Sports/Club? Nationals, we will still default back to these same US Sports Class rules.

In sailing, for example, performance handicaps are driven by a defined variable called "average wind strength."

http://offshore.ussailing.org/Portsmouth_Yardstick.htm

The reason for this method is that on strong wind days certain sailboat designs have greatly improved performance relative to other boats (ability to plane downwind, etc). On light air days the opposite, etc, etc. Before this factor was accounted for in the handicapping, all competitors basically knew who was going to win based on the weather forecast. Participation slowly dropped as confidence in the handicap fell off in locations that were predominantly windy (east coast) or light air (great lakes). In response, a wind speed variable was built into the handicap system to ensure fairer scoring in each individual race. The handicap changes slightly for each boat thru the wind range.

The same problem exists in sailplane racing but still only one handicap applies regardless of the day having an average speed of 35 mph or 90 mph! Depending on the contest location, gliders of certain performance ranges will have significant advantages over many others. If you have a Libelle, you are looking for certain conditions. If you have an ASW-27, your hoping for another condition. The good news is that soaring has a far more objective variable to utilize for handicap tuning, average task speed of the top pilots!

In my opinion, trying to handicap a 126 vs. an ASW-25 with one handicap is next to impossible. The gliders are flying thru massively different area's and conditions on each racing day. Mix in MAT tasking, no AT's and you have something that is highly subjective, susceptible to luck and vastly different from the FAI rules of the World Championship. It is just to broad to fairly manage the dynamics of racing a very low performance glider vs. a very high performance glider. So, splitting into narrower handicap ranges is a great improvement! Having average speed dependent variable handicapping would be another...

Back to the best pilot. At the 2012 Sports Class Nationals (Parowan, UT) DJ flew a glider well above the FAI Club Class handicap range (Ventus 2cx-15) in a location which produced very high average speeds. In a location like Parowan, a high performance glider spends considerable time within its ideal polar range relative to older "FAI club level" gliders (running speeds of 100 mph+). DJ won the 2012 Sports Class Nationals by 105 points over 2nd (ASW-20), and 142 over 3rd (Duo Discus). An impressive feat although it all came down to the final flying day. Regardless, daily winning speeds were incredibly fast for nearly the entire week:

Day 1: 61 mph - Day 2: 91 mph - Day 3: 92 mph - Day 4: 85 mph - Day 5: 85 mph - Day 6: 85 mph - Day 7: 88 mph

If we are talking about who is the "best" US pilot to fly in the Club Class World Championships I fear that there is still tremendous room for debate. That is the problem.

The closer we get to the rules of the Club Class World Championship (or any other World Championship), the better prepared the pilot we send as the US representative will be. And the more satisfied the other pilots will be that the best pilot has been selected.

Tim Taylor

November 21st 12, 06:12 PM

Sean,

I think you bring up good points. I think part of the concern is valid for all classes, not just Sports. The new rules will help to split out the club class gliders into their own group for tasking. I was on the task committee at Parown and we always focused on the PW5 to set the task. Would have been nice to be able to set speed tasks for the narrower club class range..

I flew a Standard Jantar 2 in 2010 and paid the price on windy days with big holes. As we saw this year the smart pilots brought higher performance ships to get club class team points. Current system requires multiple ships if you are a serious club class pilot for the conditions expected. A strong 15m for west and a good Standard class ship on the east coast.

I think we need rules forcing more speed tasks in all nationals. TAT are interesting, but AST's teach a set of skills the top pilots need as well of international flying.

TT

[email protected]

November 21st 12, 06:20 PM

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:08:48 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I was not aware of that limitation on Worlds Qualification. That is, if what you are saying is true, a really bad rule. I agree 100% that the "best" pilots should be sent to the World Championships. That results in dynasty (same pilot every year ala Kawa), but that is what being a "Champion" is all about. Clearly Doug is an outstanding pilot. No debate there... That said, definitively stating that DJ or KS or HA or R are the "best" under our US Sports Class rule system (assuming the goal is sending the best pilot to the Club Class World Championships) is a very, very interesting discussion.

There was a limitation for a number of years that kept many previous US Team members from being on the Club class team. That, and the limitation of gliders that could be used in team selection, was intended to give the "little guys" one class where they could get a leg up and get world championship experience.
The hope was to jump start the team from the bottom up. If someone thinks they have a chance( even if it is and illusion, given the other good pilots in the class), maybe they will give it a try.
This exercise in social engineering did not succeed, and was eliminated. Personally I was dissapointed that only a couple people, RW being one, took the opportunity presented.
A little background FWIW
UH

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

November 21st 12, 06:28 PM

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:14:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:

> This petition offers valid feedback.

I think a lot of us are thinking "No, it just stirs the pot".

> The RC is proposing a new US racing class.

Not really. They are extending what's been tried and proven at the regional level to a Nationals.

> This is not about team selection or WGC preparation.

I call BS. Exhibit "A" for the prosecution is your use of the word "Nationals" in your "petition".

If I wanted to sell a (nearly) pure IGC rules CC in the US, this is what I would do:

1. Study the rules until I had 'em cold. Determine what, if anything, absolutely had to be adjusted for US use. Determine what, if anything, might be *desirably* adjusted for US use, without compromising the essential character of the race I was trying to create.

2. Figure out how to support the CD and scorer.

3. Find a site and a sponsor, sell them. Find a CD and scorer, sell them.

4. With all that in hand, or at least well on the way, sell the RC on granting me a waiver for a *regional or super regional* contest. Be ready for the inevitable discussion of rules, safety implications and so forth. Concentrate really, really hard on what is *most* important and try earnestly to capture that in the inevitable compromise. Be prepared to negotiate everything else as needed to make it work.

Because you give evidence of having done almost none of the foregoing, people aren't taking you seriously. Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.

Constructively,

Evan Ludeman / T8

[email protected]

November 22nd 12, 02:14 AM

Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.
>
> Constructively,
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.

It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.

Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?

Sean Franke

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

November 22nd 12, 01:09 PM

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:14:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.
>
> >
>
> > Constructively,
>
> >
>
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
> I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.
>
>
>
> It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.
>
>
>
> Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?
>
>
>
> Sean Franke

If that's all you can find to nitpick, then I guess the rest of the message found it's mark?

The way I see it, *if* we ran American Sports next to FAI CC at Mifflin (which we won't), we'd more or less double the admin load. That's a solvable problem (maybe a second scorer / assistant CD, whatever). But the point is, our normal process is to try out the bright ideas at the regional level and develop a base of experience that can be shared when it's time to run a Nationals.

Personally, I'm real curious to see how shutting out the "killer bees" (that would be ASW-20Bs, Ventus Bs, LS-6Bs) and their kin is going to help participation. The best evidence available so far suggests that it could reduce participation by about 25% (I'm looking at R9 the last couple years). Again, the better environment to sort this out is at the regional level.

Good luck.

T8, out.

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

November 22nd 12, 01:11 PM

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:14:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.
>
> >
>
> > Constructively,
>
> >
>
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
> I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.
>
>
>
> It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.
>
>
>
> Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?
>
>
>
> Sean Franke

If that's all you can find to nitpick, then I guess the rest of the message found its mark?

The way I see it, *if* we ran American Sports next to FAI CC at Mifflin (which we won't), we'd more or less double the admin load. That's a solvable problem (maybe a second scorer / assistant CD, whatever). But the point is, our normal process is to try out the bright ideas at the regional level and develop a base of experience that can be shared when it's time to run a Nationals.

Personally, I'm curious to see how shutting out the "killer bees" (that would be ASW-20Bs, Ventus Bs, LS-6Bs) and their kin is going to help participation. The best evidence available so far suggests that it could reduce participation by about 25% (I'm looking at R9 the last couple years). Again, the better environment to sort this out is at the regional level.

Good luck.

T8, out.

Sean F (F2)

November 23rd 12, 02:20 PM

Thanks Tim!

Sean F (F2)

November 26th 12, 10:11 PM

The Rules Committee are a wonderful group of very bright and friendly people who want nothing more than the best for our sport. We all have great respect for them personally and as pilots. I commend them for the efforts, passion and idea's! Rules can be a challenge, especially when they are changed. Our US rules are also used in part as a mechanism to govern other essential and important area's of the sport such as safety, fun factors and turning decline into growth. There are compromises that must be made. Sailplane "racing" remains the key focus of the racing rules. I too have sat on many boards both professionally and in sport. Open, fluid communication and friendly debate is the path to win/win outcomes. Reaching out aggressively and listening to as many people (customers and competitors) as possible has always been the key (for me) in getting thru heated debates or challenges.

With that, there are (already) 25 signatures on the US Club Class FAI petition requesting that the new US Club Class adopt more FAI "like" rules. This petition has only been open for 6 days. The 25 signers include a number of top pilots within the former "US sports class" who ACTUALLY OWN CLUB CLASS SHIPS. The signers include several past US World Team pilots. They also include the two top US "Club Class" pilots who will be representing the USA in a month at the World Championships in Argentina. It appears, at minimum, that a significant number of very important pilots (ranging from highly experienced to less, young and old...) appear to want a US Club Class which is fairly different than what has been proposed by the US RC. That is odd. What is even more odd is that nobody appears to have reached out to them.

Shouldn't the US pilots who own club level gliders - who have chosen to fly club gliders in sports class - who own them today and flown them proudly for many years - who are very happy with club gliders and not interested (or perhaps able or interested in affording) in pursuing ownership of more expensive 15/18/Open gliders - and who want (a bit) more of an (FAI) "racing" experience - be heard regarding the rules of a new class of Club Class gliders in the USA? Are they being heard? Were they even asked? If not, why not?

How was a decision to create a new US "Club Class" arrived at if this many key pilots appear to want FAI "like" tasking and gliders? My understanding is that none of the petition signers were asked or contacted by the rules committee and asked for input. The poll sent out by the US rules committee did not ask this question directly or present it as an option. Is the "polling strategy" utilized by the SSA rules committee asking the right questions? Is it, perhaps, too ambiguous or open to interpretation?

It appears that the interests of those who own and fly club level gliders may NOT been heard. This Club Class FAI petition and the people who have signed it are asking, nicely but LOUDLY, for a US Club Class which is much, much "closer" to the established Club Class flown everywhere else on the planet. Initially, that appears NOT to be an option which is on the table. Why not?

My understanding is that the rules committee will be making a final recommendation to the SSA Board of Directors in February (23rd). Perhaps the signers of this petition (especially owners of actual club class gliders) should also make recommendations to the SSA Board? Ultimately, I would love to see an outcome here that makes this important US Club group thrilled and excited vs. feeling ignored. And ignored is the feeling right now unfortunately. I hope a meaningful dialogue begins before this winter meeting occurs..

In the end it is all about the Club Class glider owners! The Sports Class can and should remain unchanged (minus the club ships interested in the FAI like rules). Any club glider that does not want to fly in the US Club Class with more FAI like rules (for whatever reason) remains in sports!

WIN - WIN!!!!!, nobody is left behind, EVERYBODY HAS A GREAT CHOICE!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

[email protected]

November 27th 12, 02:35 PM

I'm for a seperate club class nationals. I would love to compete in one.

Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??

[email protected]

November 27th 12, 03:35 PM

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:35:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> I'm for a seperate club class nationals. I would love to compete in one.
>
>
>
> Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??

Scott, Sarah Arnold and Sean Franke are the two highest ranking US Club Class pilots and will be flying in Argentina. They qualified by flying gliders listed on the US CC list. No one was barred from the team.
Richard Walters
US Team Committee Chair

John Cochrane[_3_]

November 27th 12, 03:39 PM

On Nov 27, 8:35*am, wrote:
> I'm for a seperate club class nationals. *I would love to compete in one.
>
There will be a separate club class nationals, at Mifflin. See you
there.

The question is the definition of "club class" and the rules to be
followed.

Class: 1) the current IGC list for Argentina 2) the US team "club
class" list that has been in force for many years, which extends the
handicap range very slightly and allows many gliders not on the IGC
list 3) #2 plus all lower performing gliders, so the latter are not
shut out of US national competition.

If you're voting for #1, do you own such a glider, and are you on the
seeding list? Have you looked at the numbers of such gliders showing
up to previous sports class nationals to gauge if sufficient gliders
will show up?

If you're voting for #1 or #2, what is your plan for lower performance
gliders? (No, Sean, 1-26 + Nimbus 4 does not work with the middle cut
out. We need a realistic plan backed by numbers.)

Rules: Are you joining Sean in the idea that Mifflin should use IGC
rules (plus local procedures yet to be written), despite nobody in the
US having tried to run a national contest under said rules (except the
team that ran Uvalde, and I can guarantee they're not coming to CD
Mifflin), all but 1 or 2 pilots who have been to WGC never having
flown under said rules and no evidence that anyone has read them?

If the issue is club class in general, and the general plan for the
future, despite the wildly misleading tone of Sean's post, it's there
for the asking. We've been running club class regionals for several
years, to try to build interest in the class. Sean, where have you
been? (At regionals, the issue of lower performance being shut out is
a bit less pressing, as there is more competition from nearby
regionals.)

If anyone wants to run one under IGC rules, he's welcome. If IGC rules
work, and attract pilots at regionals, and everyone having tried it
thinks it's more fun, they move to nationals. That's the standard
procedure. Not, jump off a cliff and see if the parachute opens.

If the issue is club class in general, this year's plan for Mifflin
sports nationals is designed as a sensible next step, which preserves
the knowledge gained in regional competition and keeps the sports
class alive.

> Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??

Not sure what you mean by this. The club class team for 2013 Argentina
won fair and square and have the highest ranking according to the US
team selection formula. If you mean, why are other pilots who you
think are better not going, (such as the actual winners of previous
sports class contests) it's simple: Because the US team and SSA paid a
lot of attention to similar requests from club class advocates and
restricted team selection to those who entered sports class in club
class gliders. (Yes, they do listen. Maybe too much, according to your
comment.)

John Cochrane

[email protected]

November 27th 12, 04:00 PM

RE IGC rules and scoring for CC

Some things to consider when contemplating using IGC rules for the new Club Class Nationals.

1. Start line procedure - speed control, safety.
2. Finish line- straight in rolling finishes? Good practice for WGC, but is this what we want to do? Does the airport support such finishes?
3. PRL ( pilot ranking list)- pilots flying in CC nats using IGC scores will find they score about 15% less than they did under US rules. This will impact PRL seeding, and possibly the ability to enter oversubscribed contests ( Perry and Seniors.) Small point, but something to be aware of.

Regards
Richard Walters
US Team Committee Chair

[email protected]

November 27th 12, 08:28 PM

> 1. Start line procedure - speed control, safety.
>
> 2. Finish line- straight in rolling finishes? Good practice for WGC, but is this what we want to do? Does the airport support such finishes?

1. A start line AND start ring are both options under IGC rules. IF the CD CHOOSES a start line then I envision two start areas. Multiple start zones have already been done in the US. Sports Class will use a standard start cylinder. Club Class IGC MAY use a line start which would be nearby but not overlapping. Separating half the fleet may be safer as well. The CD can still limit start height in IGC.

2. A finish line AND finish ring are both options under IGC rules. I would expect if an IGC Club Class is coupled with a US based rules class then they would have the SAME finish ring and finish altitude. When/where applicable a European style finish could be used.

>If anyone wants to run one under IGC rules, he's welcome. If IGC rules
work, and attract pilots at regionals, and everyone having tried it
thinks it's more fun, they move to nationals. That's the standard
procedure. Not, jump off a cliff and see if the parachute opens

The petition has 7 (and growing) current or former US Team Members who prefer IGC rules for the Club Class. These are pilots who have tried both sides. The fun, ease and simpleness of IGC WILL attract more pilots.

Let's be realistic. We can be confident if the parachute has been tried, works and tested internationally then it will work here as well.

Sean Franke

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

November 27th 12, 10:28 PM

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:28:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> The fun, ease and simpleness of IGC WILL attract more pilots.

Specifics, please. I haven't studied the IGC rules, and neither have most American pilots. What are the essential differences that are going to make this class a winner?

So far, I think I've got:

1. No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low performance gliders when task setting.

2. No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs.

3. No speed or altitude limits prior to the start.

4. Much more emphasis on ATs.

5. Score everything according to FAI rules.

What did I miss?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

John Cochrane[_3_]

November 27th 12, 11:08 PM

>
> So far, I think I've got:
>
> 1. *No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low performance gliders when task setting.
>
> 2. *No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs.

Actually, under IGC rules, each contest gets to make its own list,
depending on the gliders available. So "use IGC rules" and "further
restrict the US club class list to the list used in Argentina" are
separate requests.

>
> 3. *No speed or altitude limits prior to the start.

Actually, you can put in speed limits and altitude limits.

What you can't do is the US 2 minute under altitude limits, the US
start out the top, the US credit for distance rules or our cylinders
It has to be a line.

So, with altitude limits you get VNE dives to the line. Sometimes out
of the clouds. People have given up on speed limits, because you can't
tell in the cockpit what the speed will read out on see you later. At
Uvalde after days of harangue they gave up and used unlmited altitude,
which meant half the field started in wave on a few days. At Szeged
most of the gaggle circled around in the cloud before the unlimited
altitude start. Fun stuff. Advocates have a point, if you want to go
do this stuff at the worlds, practicing at home will help a lot.

>
> 4. *Much more emphasis on ATs.

A rule mandating the fraction of AT and TAT. Uvalde sent them off in
to thunderstorms on ATs because they didn't want to use up the
mandated fraction of TAT which they might need on even worse days to
come. An interesting unintended conseqence of putting in a mandated
fraction of task types.

>
> 5. *Score everything according to FAI rules.

Which feature a much more aggressive transition from speed to distance
points than US rules. If nobody makes it home, it's 1000 distance
points. Under FAI rules you make almost no points if you're the only
finisher, as it's all become distance points. You get clobbered if
you're the only landout. This is one of the big reasons that FAI rules
lead to long start gate roulette, leaving when it's hopeless, then
mass gaggles to a huge landout.

The tactical implications of the FAI scoring formula are subtle and
deep. There are several analyses of the required strategies floating
around the US team. If we go there, be prepared to play a very
different tactical game.

Advocates have a point: if you want to learn to play this game it
takes years of practice. The question for US pilots: do the 99% of you
who are not going to the worlds really want to invest a lot to
learning to play these games? You're going to be landing out a lot
more often btw.

John Cochrane

[email protected]

November 27th 12, 11:13 PM

I encourage you to review the rules. IGC is LESS complex,simpler and easier to understand. IGC rules are 15,091 words long compared to 25,804 (US rules).

http://www.fai.org/igc-documents

Go to Sporting Code Section 3> Annex A

> 1. No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low performance gliders when task setting.
YES

> 2. No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs.
No LS-6 or Venti. ASW-20B&Cs HAVE BEEN allowed. They are specifically excluded in Argentina at the next WGC.

> 3. No speed or altitude limits prior to the start.
Altitude limits are up to CD discretion, similar to US Rules.

> 4. Much more emphasis on ATs.
YES. There are ONLY Racing Tasks (AT) and Assigned Area Tasks. 50/50 seems to be the philosophy.

> 5. Score everything according to FAI rules.
YES. See scoring calculations on page 31 & 32 of FAI SC3a rules.

Sean Franke

[email protected]

November 27th 12, 11:48 PM

> So, with altitude limits you get VNE dives to the line. Sometimes out
> of the clouds. Fun stuff. Advocates have a point, if you want to go
> do this stuff at the worlds, practicing at home will help a lot.

8.7 LIST OF APPROVED PENALTIES, page 34
Cloud flying: 100pts first offense, day disqual - second offense, Disqualification - max penalty.

> The tactical implications of the FAI scoring formula are subtle and
> deep. There are several analyses of the required strategies floating
> around the US team. If we go there, be prepared to play a very
> different tactical game.
> The question for US pilots: do the 99% of you
> who are not going to the worlds really want to invest a lot to
> learning to play these games? You're going to be landing out a lot
> more often btw.

> John Cochrane

Keep in mind we are not proposing changing existing US Classes. We are hoping to create a new racing class and positive experience NOT available in the US. It is ONE class. Give US pilots a choice. Seeing how the petition is developing, it's clear a strong voice is growing.

I think the picture painted above about IGC rules is a bit DRAMATIC. I certainly didn't experience that in Prievidza 2010 WGC. I think safety and successful tasking varies according to contest management. That is no different in the US.

>Advocates have a point: if you want to learn to play this game it
takes years of practice. The question for US pilots: do the 99% of you
who are not going to the worlds really want to invest a lot to
learning to play these games?

Interesting comment. Besides a refreshing alternative do you think this new class could serve as training for US Team pilots?

Sean Franke

Richard Walters

November 27th 12, 11:54 PM

Let's not forget what I consider the most unfair IGC CC rule of
all- no actual weight based handicapping. So if I fly a Discus b at
825 pounds and BB flies a Discus a at 700 pounds, we fly with
the same handicap. I would have a one pound PSF wing loading
advantage, which would be helpful anywhere but the maybe the
UK.
Big, heavy guys take note. I weigh 100 kg. BB considerably
less.

Richard Walters

At 23:13 27 November 2012, wrote:
>I encourage you to review the rules. IGC is LESS
complex,simpler and
>easier to understand. IGC rules are 15,091 words long
compared to 25,804
>(US rules).
>
>http://www.fai.org/igc-documents
>
>Go to Sporting Code Section 3> Annex A
>
>> 1. No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low
performance
>gliders when task setting.
>YES
>
>> 2. No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs.
>No LS-6 or Venti. ASW-20B&Cs HAVE BEEN allowed. They are
specifically
>excluded in Argentina at the next WGC.
>
>> 3. No speed or altitude limits prior to the start.
>Altitude limits are up to CD discretion, similar to US Rules.
>
>> 4. Much more emphasis on ATs.
>YES. There are ONLY Racing Tasks (AT) and Assigned Area
Tasks. 50/50
>seems to be the philosophy.
>
>> 5. Score everything according to FAI rules.
>YES. See scoring calculations on page 31 & 32 of FAI SC3a
rules.
>
>Sean Franke
>

[email protected]

November 28th 12, 12:13 AM

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:54:51 PM UTC-8, Richard Walters wrote:
> Let's not forget what I consider the most unfair IGC CC rule of
>
> all- no actual weight based handicapping. So if I fly a Discus b at
>
> 825 pounds and BB flies a Discus a at 700 pounds, we fly with
>
> the same handicap. I would have a one pound PSF wing loading
>
> advantage, which would be helpful anywhere but the maybe the
>
> UK.
>
> Big, heavy guys take note. I weigh 100 kg. BB considerably
>
> less.
>
>
>
> Richard Walters
>
>
>

The reference weight for Discus a & b is 367 kg. Every 10 kg incurs a handicap increase of 0,005. Yes, there can be a wing loading difference but it's accounted for in the handicap.

Copied from current handicap list:

"The handicap is based on the performance at the New IGC Reference Mass.
If a glider is flown at a mass not exceeding this reference mass it can be considered as operated within legal mass limits.
Where a glider is flown at a higher mass by necessity, the pilot will have to provide documentation to prove that his glider is
still operated within legal mass limits and the handicap will be increased by 0,005 for each 10 kg or part thereof that the glider
exceeds the reference mass. However the wing loading may in no case exceed 38 kg/m2. In addition the handicap may in no
case exceed 1,09."

Sean Franke

Ron Gleason

November 28th 12, 12:31 AM

On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 07:42:32 UTC-7, wrote:
> The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
>
>
> Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
>
>
> In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> 1. Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> 2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> 3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> 4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 7. Any other comments welcome!
>
>
>
> Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
>
>
> Sean Franke
>
> US Club Class Team Member

Sean, how are you proposing to score these contests? Are you going to use SeeYou?

Ron Gleason

[email protected]

November 28th 12, 12:38 AM

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:31:05 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 07:42:32 UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> >
>
> > 1. Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> >
>
> > 2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> >
>
> > 3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> >
>
> > 4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > 5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > 6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > 7. Any other comments welcome!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke
>
> >
>
> > US Club Class Team Member
>
>
>
> Sean, how are you proposing to score these contests? Are you going to use SeeYou?
>
>
>
> Ron Gleason

SeeYou is popular and works well. I propose using SeeYou unless a better solution is brought up.

Sean Franke

Sean F (F2)

November 28th 12, 12:45 AM

Great conversation developing here!

Richard Walters

November 28th 12, 12:52 AM

Richard Walters

November 28th 12, 12:53 AM

Richard Walters

November 28th 12, 12:54 AM

Richard Walters

November 28th 12, 12:54 AM

Richard Walters

November 28th 12, 12:55 AM

Richard Walters

November 28th 12, 12:59 AM

Sean,

My understanding is that pilots that fly under the "normal" weight
for their glider type, do not get a handicap reduction. So instead
they fly with lead bars to get to the normal weight. Or they fly
light ( real light in the case of Sarah Arnold) and give up an
unfair advantage.

Are you proposing allowing lead ballast?

Richard Walters

At 00:13 28 November 2012, wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:54:51 PM UTC-8, Richard
Walters wrote:
>> Let's not forget what I consider the most unfair IGC CC rule
of
>>
>> all- no actual weight based handicapping. So if I fly a Discus
b at
>>
>> 825 pounds and BB flies a Discus a at 700 pounds, we fly
with
>>
>> the same handicap. I would have a one pound PSF wing
loading
>>
>> advantage, which would be helpful anywhere but the maybe
the
>>
>> UK.
>>
>> Big, heavy guys take note. I weigh 100 kg. BB considerably
>>
>> less.
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Walters
>>
>>
>>
>
>The reference weight for Discus a & b is 367 kg. Every 10 kg
incurs a
>handicap increase of 0,005. Yes, there can be a wing loading
difference
>but it's accounted for in the handicap.
>
>Copied from current handicap list:
>
>"The handicap is based on the performance at the New IGC
Reference Mass.
>If a glider is flown at a mass not exceeding this reference
mass it can be
>considered as operated within legal mass limits.
>Where a glider is flown at a higher mass by necessity, the pilot
will have
>to provide documentation to prove that his glider is
>still operated within legal mass limits and the handicap will be
increased
>by 0,005 for each 10 kg or part thereof that the glider
>exceeds the reference mass. However the wing loading may in
no case exceed
>38 kg/m2. In addition the handicap may in no
>case exceed 1,09."
>
>Sean Franke
>
>

[email protected]

November 28th 12, 01:15 AM

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:59:56 PM UTC-8, Richard Walters wrote:
> Sean,
>
>
>
> My understanding is that pilots that fly under the "normal" weight
>
> for their glider type, do not get a handicap reduction. So instead
>
> they fly with lead bars to get to the normal weight. Or they fly
>
> light ( real light in the case of Sarah Arnold) and give up an
>
> unfair advantage.
>
>
>
> Are you proposing allowing lead ballast?
>
>
>
> Richard Walters
>
>
>
> At 00:13 28 November 2012, wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:54:51 PM UTC-8, Richard
>
> Walters wrote:
>
> >> Let's not forget what I consider the most unfair IGC CC rule
>
> of
>
> >>
>
> >> all- no actual weight based handicapping. So if I fly a Discus
>
> b at
>
> >>
>
> >> 825 pounds and BB flies a Discus a at 700 pounds, we fly
>
> with
>
> >>
>
> >> the same handicap. I would have a one pound PSF wing
>
> loading
>
> >>
>
> >> advantage, which would be helpful anywhere but the maybe
>
> the
>
> >>
>
> >> UK.
>
> >>
>
> >> Big, heavy guys take note. I weigh 100 kg. BB considerably
>
> >>
>
> >> less.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Richard Walters
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >The reference weight for Discus a & b is 367 kg. Every 10 kg
>
> incurs a
>
> >handicap increase of 0,005. Yes, there can be a wing loading
>
> difference
>
> >but it's accounted for in the handicap.
>
> >
>
> >Copied from current handicap list:
>
> >
>
> >"The handicap is based on the performance at the New IGC
>
> Reference Mass.
>
> >If a glider is flown at a mass not exceeding this reference
>
> mass it can be
>
> >considered as operated within legal mass limits.
>
> >Where a glider is flown at a higher mass by necessity, the pilot
>
> will have
>
> >to provide documentation to prove that his glider is
>
> >still operated within legal mass limits and the handicap will be
>
> increased
>
> >by 0,005 for each 10 kg or part thereof that the glider
>
> >exceeds the reference mass. However the wing loading may in
>
> no case exceed
>
> >38 kg/m2. In addition the handicap may in no
>
> >case exceed 1,09."
>
> >
>
> >Sean Franke
>
> >
>
> >

You're right, there is no handicap adjustment for "under weight" gliders. I'm proposing mirroring IGC rules, handicaps and tasking philosophy.

Sean Franke

Ron Gleason

November 28th 12, 04:17 AM

On Tuesday, 27 November 2012 17:38:13 UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:31:05 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 07:42:32 UTC-7, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 1. Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 7. Any other comments welcome!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sean Franke
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > US Club Class Team Member
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean, how are you proposing to score these contests? Are you going to use SeeYou?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ron Gleason
>
>
>
> SeeYou is popular and works well. I propose using SeeYou unless a better solution is brought up.
>
>
>
> Sean Franke

Hate to dive deep into details since this is a theoretical discussion but will the SSA have to approve the SeeYou scoring script you will use? Or will you use 'default' SeeYou Competition scoring parameters? Do you have people and/or resources identified that are able to use SeeYou for scoring?

Sorry but devil is in the detail(s).

Ron Gleason

[email protected]

November 28th 12, 02:25 PM

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:17:54 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 November 2012 17:38:13 UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:31:05 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 07:42:32 UTC-7, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 1. Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 7. Any other comments welcome!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Sean Franke
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > US Club Class Team Member
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sean, how are you proposing to score these contests? Are you going to use SeeYou?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Ron Gleason
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > SeeYou is popular and works well. I propose using SeeYou unless a better solution is brought up.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke
>
>
>
> Hate to dive deep into details since this is a theoretical discussion but will the SSA have to approve the SeeYou scoring script you will use? Or will you use 'default' SeeYou Competition scoring parameters? Do you have people and/or resources identified that are able to use SeeYou for scoring?
>
>
>
> Sorry but devil is in the detail(s).
>
>
>
> Ron Gleason

Do you see any reason the SSA won't approve? Unseen problems?

Sean Franke

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

November 28th 12, 03:59 PM

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:25:04 AM UTC-5, wrote:

>
> Do you see any reason the SSA won't approve? Unseen problems?
>

It's just another issue for a would be organizer to address.

It looks to me as though the 'welcome' mat is out, but until an organizer steps up with a proposal, there's really nothing to approve.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

November 28th 12, 05:22 PM

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:08:34 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

> > 5. *Score everything according to FAI rules.
>
>
>
> Which feature a much more aggressive transition from speed to distance
>
> points than US rules. If nobody makes it home, it's 1000 distance
>
> points. Under FAI rules you make almost no points if you're the only
>
> finisher, as it's all become distance points. You get clobbered if
>
> you're the only landout. This is one of the big reasons that FAI rules
>
> lead to long start gate roulette, leaving when it's hopeless, then
>
> mass gaggles to a huge landout.
>
>
>
> The tactical implications of the FAI scoring formula are subtle and
>
> deep. There are several analyses of the required strategies floating
>
> around the US team. If we go there, be prepared to play a very
>
> different tactical game.
>
>
>
> Advocates have a point: if you want to learn to play this game it
>
> takes years of practice. The question for US pilots: do the 99% of you
>
> who are not going to the worlds really want to invest a lot to
>
> learning to play these games? You're going to be landing out a lot
>
> more often btw.
>

Points to ponder. Anyone else who has flown FAI rules want to weigh in?

Evan Ludeman / T8

[email protected]

November 28th 12, 07:43 PM

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:22:44 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Points to ponder. Anyone else who has flown FAI rules want to weigh in? Evan Ludeman / T8

One guy's experience.
Club WGC- Gawler 2001. 8 contest days. I was one of about 3 who finished at the contest site all days. About 20% had to use remote finish provided as loacl accomodation for weather at the site. Estimate of total completions is about 90%.

Club WGC- Musbach 2001. 9 contest days. 2 days had 100% land outs. Other 7 days had about 80% finishes.

Tasking was(and still is) designed such that you either go fast or you land out.
Scoring is more forgiving for land outs than in US where we task for minimal land outs, admittedly by commonly flying shorter tasks.
But- sometimes it pays not to finish because of the way the scoring system is set up. It really helps to have someone on the ground tell you whether to finish or land across the street.

FWIW, I would contest, based upon my personal experience, claims made that the IGC experience is either simpler, or safer. As to fun- I had the time of my life.
UH
US Club Class Team 2001(7th)/2002(15th)

John Cochrane[_3_]

November 28th 12, 08:34 PM

> As to fun- I had the time of my life.
> UH
> US Club Class Team 2001(7th)/2002(15th)

UH: Yes, going to WGC is the experience of a pilot's lifetime. But
would you have had any less fun if it had been conducted under US
rules?

Back to the point, though. We don't need to argue this stuff in the
abstract! Put on some IGC rule super-regionals. Please! There has been
so much talk about this, let's do it! Let pilots, organizers, and
scorers try it, figure out how it works, learn the tactics, and see
if they like it.

But that we have to ask these questions does somewhat suggest that
plopping IGC rules on a national contest next spring might be a tad
ambitious.

John Cochrane

Scott Alexander[_2_]

November 29th 12, 02:02 AM

> > Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??
>
> Not sure what you mean by this......
> John Cochrane

I understand the rules which prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to
compete in WGC 2013 in Argentina. My question to all reading this
forum is why we're these rules created? What's the reason for this
rule to prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to compete in a club class
world championship? Just curious of the history behind how this came
about.

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

November 29th 12, 02:13 AM

This

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:02:10 PM UTC-5, Scott Alexander wrote:
> > > Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??
>
> >
>
> > Not sure what you mean by this......
>
> > John Cochrane
>
>
>
> I understand the rules which prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to
>
> compete in WGC 2013 in Argentina. My question to all reading this
>
> forum is why we're these rules created? What's the reason for this
>
> rule to prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to compete in a club class
>
> world championship? Just curious of the history behind how this came
>
> about.

This restriction was dropped per the announcement on the SSA website Sept 2010 and ratified by the SSA BOD Jan 2011.
QT

[email protected]

November 29th 12, 02:15 AM

Scott,

Please read Hank's earlier post. He explains why the CC selection was limited in the past. The experiment is over and now anyone can qualify. DJ has not moved up to a CC aircraft, so he can not qualify.

Richard Walters

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:02:10 PM UTC-8, Scott Alexander wrote:
> > > Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??
>
> >
>
> > Not sure what you mean by this......
>
> > John Cochrane
>
>
>
> I understand the rules which prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to
>
> compete in WGC 2013 in Argentina. My question to all reading this
>
> forum is why we're these rules created? What's the reason for this
>
> rule to prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to compete in a club class
>
> world championship? Just curious of the history behind how this came
>
> about.

Ron Gleason

November 29th 12, 09:58 PM

On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 07:25:04 UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:17:54 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 27 November 2012 17:38:13 UTC-7, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:31:05 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 07:42:32 UTC-7, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 1. Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 7. Any other comments welcome!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Sean Franke
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > US Club Class Team Member
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Sean, how are you proposing to score these contests? Are you going to use SeeYou?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Ron Gleason
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > SeeYou is popular and works well. I propose using SeeYou unless a better solution is brought up.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sean Franke
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hate to dive deep into details since this is a theoretical discussion but will the SSA have to approve the SeeYou scoring script you will use? Or will you use 'default' SeeYou Competition scoring parameters? Do you have people and/or resources identified that are able to use SeeYou for scoring?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sorry but devil is in the detail(s).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ron Gleason
>
>
>
> Do you see any reason the SSA won't approve? Unseen problems?
>
>
>
> Sean Franke

Other than the 1-26 class I not sure how the SSA RC has allowed anything other than Winscore in the past. I see no problems using SeeYou Competition, like any scoring program you need experience with it. There are a number of 'administrative' steps that become manual with SeeYou.

John Cochrane[_3_]

November 29th 12, 11:20 PM

>
> Other than the 1-26 class I not sure how the SSA RC has allowed anything other than Winscore in the past. *I see no problems using SeeYou Competition, like any scoring program you need experience with it. *There are a number of 'administrative' steps that become manual with SeeYou.

There is no rules-required official scoring program. Use a slide rule
if you want to. 1-26ers use their own program.

John Cochrane

Ron Gleason

November 30th 12, 12:24 AM

T

On Thursday, 29 November 2012 16:20:16 UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> >
>
> > Other than the 1-26 class I not sure how the SSA RC has allowed anything other than Winscore in the past. *I see no problems using SeeYou Competition, like any scoring program you need experience with it. *There are a number of 'administrative' steps that become manual with SeeYou.
>
>
>
> There is no rules-required official scoring program. Use a slide rule
>
> if you want to. 1-26ers use their own program.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane
Thanks John, need to find and dust off that slide ruler!

Sean F (F2)

November 30th 12, 03:46 AM

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:24:07 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
> T
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 29 November 2012 16:20:16 UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Other than the 1-26 class I not sure how the SSA RC has allowed anything other than Winscore in the past. *I see no problems using SeeYou Competition, like any scoring program you need experience with it. *There are a number of 'administrative' steps that become manual with SeeYou.
>
>
> > There is no rules-required official scoring program. Use a slide rule
>
> > if you want to. 1-26ers use their own program.
>
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> Thanks John, need to find and dust off that slide ruler!

The SeeYou scoring module very easy to use with FAI rules. SeeYou was highly successfully when used by the American scorers during the 2012 World Championship in Uvalde this [ast summer. They all had minimal previous experience with it. I am sure other scorer's could pick it up just as easily.

SeeYou is good software, well supported by Naviteer and used by many major contests worldwide. Utilizing this software for the 2013 US FAI Club Class Nationals would be plug and play simple. My wife is excellent with both SeeYou and WinScore. She would be happy to help score (or fully score) for the contests I attend in 2013. I am also willing to train via GoToMeeting anytime...

Sean
F2

Sean F (F2)

November 30th 12, 03:49 AM

Here is a link to the manual for SeeYou Competition: http://download.naviter.com/docs/cucompetition.pdf

It is a quick, simple read...

Ron Gleason

November 30th 12, 02:55 PM

On Thursday, 29 November 2012 20:46:20 UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:24:07 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> > T
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Thursday, 29 November 2012 16:20:16 UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:

>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Other than the 1-26 class I not sure how the SSA RC has allowed anything other than Winscore in the past. *I see no problems using SeeYou Competition, like any scoring program you need experience with it. *There are a number of 'administrative' steps that become manual with SeeYou.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > There is no rules-required official scoring program. Use a slide rule
>
> >
>
> > > if you want to. 1-26ers use their own program.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> >
>
> > Thanks John, need to find and dust off that slide ruler!
>
>
>
> The SeeYou scoring module very easy to use with FAI rules. SeeYou was highly successfully when used by the American scorers during the 2012 World Championship in Uvalde this [ast summer. They all had minimal previous experience with it. I am sure other scorer's could pick it up just as easily.
>
>
>
> SeeYou is good software, well supported by Naviteer and used by many major contests worldwide. Utilizing this software for the 2013 US FAI Club Class Nationals would be plug and play simple. My wife is excellent with both SeeYou and WinScore. She would be happy to help score (or fully score) for the contests I attend in 2013. I am also willing to train via GoToMeeting anytime...
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2

F2 wrote - They all had minimal previous experience with it

this is an untrue statement, some of us, including me, have much experience with SeeYou Competition. Make sure you have your facts correct.

Will be watching to see how this unfolds, good luck. I support the SSA competition committee approach, I fly a ASW20 BL 8-)

Sean F (F2)

November 30th 12, 04:57 PM

Ron,

Thanks for clarifying. I was not aware of previous experience unless perhaps you are referring to the Pre-Worlds in Uvalde the year before.

May I ask you to further clarify this "much" experience with See You Competition (with US Scorer's) prior to this summers World Championship in the USA. Please be specific and list what competitions you or others have scored using SeeYou Comp (I am assuming you mean in the USA?).

Could you expound on what that experience was like in terms of learning curve, ease of use, etc.

How would you review your experience using SeeYou Competition at the World Championships with this previous experience? Was it reasonably easy to use? Was it unusable? How does it compare to Winscore?

Sincerely,

Sean

On Thursday, 29 November 2012 20:46:20 UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
- show quoted text -
F2 wrote - They all had minimal previous experience with it

this is an untrue statement, some of us, including me, have much experience with SeeYou Competition. Make sure you have your facts correct.

Will be watching to see how this unfolds, good luck. I support the SSA competition committee approach, I fly a ASW20 BL 8-)

Sean F (F2)

November 30th 12, 05:11 PM

Ron,

Thanks for clarifying. I was not aware of previous US Scorer experience with SeeYou Competition. This is very useful.

May I ask you to expound on this "MUCH" experience with See You Competition and US Scorers? Please be specific and list what competitions you (or others) have scored using SeeYou Comp. I would be shocked if you cite competitions in the USA. Or did you (or others) go overseas (any other gliding country in the World that does not use US rules)?

Could you further expound on what your previous experience was like in terms of initial learning curve, ease of use, etc.

How would you rate your experience using SeeYou Competition at the 2012 Uvalde World Championships (with this MUCH previous experience)?

Was SeeYou Comp reasonably easy to use? Was it unusable?

How does it compare to Winscore? What were your impressions on the FAI rules vs. US Rules? I understand you are biased to the US rules (per your comment). Nonetheless, your insigt is most welcomed.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2/7T

On Friday, November 30, 2012 9:55:54 AM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 November 2012 20:46:20 UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:24:07 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > T
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, 29 November 2012 16:20:16 UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Other than the 1-26 class I not sure how the SSA RC has allowed anything other than Winscore in the past. *I see no problems using SeeYou Competition, like any scoring program you need experience with it. *There are a number of 'administrative' steps that become manual with SeeYou.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > There is no rules-required official scoring program. Use a slide rule
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > if you want to. 1-26ers use their own program.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > John Cochrane
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Thanks John, need to find and dust off that slide ruler!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The SeeYou scoring module very easy to use with FAI rules. SeeYou was highly successfully when used by the American scorers during the 2012 World Championship in Uvalde this [ast summer. They all had minimal previous experience with it. I am sure other scorer's could pick it up just as easily..
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > SeeYou is good software, well supported by Naviteer and used by many major contests worldwide. Utilizing this software for the 2013 US FAI Club Class Nationals would be plug and play simple. My wife is excellent with both SeeYou and WinScore. She would be happy to help score (or fully score) for the contests I attend in 2013. I am also willing to train via GoToMeeting anytime...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean
>
> >
>
> > F2
>
>
>
> F2 wrote - They all had minimal previous experience with it
>
>
>
> this is an untrue statement, some of us, including me, have much experience with SeeYou Competition. Make sure you have your facts correct.
>
>
>
> Will be watching to see how this unfolds, good luck. I support the SSA competition committee approach, I fly a ASW20 BL 8-)

Ron Gleason

November 30th 12, 06:39 PM

On Friday, 30 November 2012 10:11:15 UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Ron,
>
>
>
> Thanks for clarifying. I was not aware of previous US Scorer experience with SeeYou Competition. This is very useful.
>
>
>
> May I ask you to expound on this "MUCH" experience with See You Competition and US Scorers? Please be specific and list what competitions you (or others) have scored using SeeYou Comp. I would be shocked if you cite competitions in the USA. Or did you (or others) go overseas (any other gliding country in the World that does not use US rules)?
>
>
>
> Could you further expound on what your previous experience was like in terms of initial learning curve, ease of use, etc.
>
>
>
> How would you rate your experience using SeeYou Competition at the 2012 Uvalde World Championships (with this MUCH previous experience)?
>
>
>
> Was SeeYou Comp reasonably easy to use? Was it unusable?
>
>
>
> How does it compare to Winscore? What were your impressions on the FAI rules vs. US Rules? I understand you are biased to the US rules (per your comment). Nonetheless, your insigt is most welcomed.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2/7T
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 30, 2012 9:55:54 AM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 29 November 2012 20:46:20 UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:24:07 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > T
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Thursday, 29 November 2012 16:20:16 UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Other than the 1-26 class I not sure how the SSA RC has allowed anything other than Winscore in the past. *I see no problems using SeeYou Competition, like any scoring program you need experience with it. *There are a number of 'administrative' steps that become manual with SeeYou.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > There is no rules-required official scoring program. Use a slide rule
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > if you want to. 1-26ers use their own program.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > John Cochrane
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Thanks John, need to find and dust off that slide ruler!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The SeeYou scoring module very easy to use with FAI rules. SeeYou was highly successfully when used by the American scorers during the 2012 World Championship in Uvalde this [ast summer. They all had minimal previous experience with it. I am sure other scorer's could pick it up just as easily.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > SeeYou is good software, well supported by Naviteer and used by many major contests worldwide. Utilizing this software for the 2013 US FAI Club Class Nationals would be plug and play simple. My wife is excellent with both SeeYou and WinScore. She would be happy to help score (or fully score) for the contests I attend in 2013. I am also willing to train via GoToMeeting anytime...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sean
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > F2
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > F2 wrote - They all had minimal previous experience with it
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > this is an untrue statement, some of us, including me, have much experience with SeeYou Competition. Make sure you have your facts correct.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Will be watching to see how this unfolds, good luck. I support the SSA competition committee approach, I fly a ASW20 BL 8-)

Sean, I am not fighting you on this issue, rather I am very interested how a contest would be validated by the SSA competition committee if WINSCORE was not used. If SeeYou competition is used 'out of the box' and *no* specialized script was used than it should be simple. If a specialized script is written and used then that would be, in my opinion, a different ball for the SSA competition committee and the competitors. I would also like to see SeeYou used for scoring of SSA sanctioned competitions but I am not sure that SeeYou can be customized enough via it's scripting to support all of the current SSA competition rules.

Regarding specifics of others all I can accurately report on is that the 2011 contests in Uvalde, pre-Worlds, was scored using SeeYou by Leo Buckley.

My experience with SeeYou Comp comes from HG competitions, same circus different clowns. No accurate way to describe MUCH, like asking how long will it take to Solo a glider? It depends.

Which is easier or better to score with? Again, it is like asking which is a better glider; ASW-27B or Ventus-2BX? It depends on many factors.

Both programs work well and if the person(s) driving them is PC literate and process oriented it helps greatly.

Areas of comparison(s):

Administration and setup - The advantage goes to WINSCORE as it is integrated with the SSA contest registration facilities and the only manual efforts you need are to reflect changes. Furthermore WINSCORE understands multiple classes within a single competition, 15M, 18M etc, and easily handles it.

Handling of flight logs - equivalent. SeeYou allows for automatic scanning of directories thus allowing for auto detection of new logs. If you want to allow flight submission via email then SeeYou can provide full automation of flight log detection, scoring and electronic production and publishing of scores. One major difference between the two programs is how a log is tied to a competitor; SeeYou uses the 3 character flight logger identifier (not serial number) and WINSCORE uses the contest id. How many pilots know their flight logger id? Of their backup logger(s)? There are ways to manually associate logs and pilot the first time within SeeYou. Not hard to do but is a procedural difference for the pilots.

Handling exceptions - Slight advantage to WINSCORE. Both problems flag or warn of errors found like start height, finish height, airspace and the scorer has to go validate the error and assign the penalty. While both programs identify WINSCORE recommends the value of the penalty. With SeeYou you either look up the penalty in the FAI rulebook and use the value or compute the value based on the formula provided.

Airspace and WP files - Both use files from the worldwide turnpoint website..

Task definition - Slight advantage to SeeYou. This is a very subjective one but many of us use SeeYou for defining tasks in our individual flying so we are familiar with.

Task sheets - very similar. SeeYou uses a format that many pilots are familiar with. If custom task sheets are used, as most SSA contest that I have been use, then WINSCORE is easier to cut and paste into a WORD document to start the creation process.

Scoresheets - very similar. The differences are formatting and procedural. WINSCORE is integrated with the SSA web site, SeeYou is integrated with www.soaringspot.com. The SeeYou results can easily be added to the SSA website but it would be a manual process instead of an automated one.

Archived flight logs - WINSCORE allows putting all IGC files in one zipped file and uploading to the SSA web site for easy down loads by competitors or racing fans. SeeYou uploads the IGC to www.soaringspot.com along with the scores *but* each IGC file must be downloaded individually.

Again either program will do the job, experience with them allows for smoother organization and scoring.

Regarding FAI versus US Rules. From a scoring perspective there is no difference, a scorer just needs to understand them and be prepared to apply them. There is no emotion involved when scoring. All of the differences, factual and emotional, that have been discussed between the rules have to do with pilot or safety issues. I have minimal, less than 10, SSA sanctioned competition experiences from a pilot perspective, more then 50 from my HG days including 3 world championships.

I am biased to the proposed US club class rules so that my ASW-20BL would be included 8-)

November 30th 12, 08:19 PM

On Friday, November 30, 2012 11:39:25 AM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> Again, it is like asking which is a better glider; ASW-27B or Ventus-2BX?

No Brainer here. The 27.

[email protected]

November 30th 12, 08:57 PM

Ron, I'm curious. Would you rather fly your 20 b in Club Class or Sports class if both are held same time/place?
Sean Franke

Ron Gleason

November 30th 12, 09:05 PM

On Friday, 30 November 2012 13:57:36 UTC-7, wrote:
> Ron, I'm curious. Would you rather fly your 20 b in Club Class or Sports class if both are held same time/place?
>
> Sean Franke

Club Class if contest is held in the west (strong conditions)
Sports Class if contest held in eastern 2/3rds of the country

I am using Parowan as an example, with stronger conditions, specifically wind, the long wings and heavy ships, DUO's and motor gliders and 18m, have the advantage. The performance spread is just too high when trying to determine good tasks.

Sean F (F2)

November 30th 12, 09:37 PM

Ron,

To be honest, I was fairly open to a slight opening of the Club range as well. But as others point out, once you open that can of worms it will never end. The cleanest solution is to stick with the Club range. The compromise would be to task to the FAI Club handicap Range, but allow others to compete.

I hope that a narrow enough range is agreed upon that ensures a 50/50 split of AAT and AT. The key is reasonably challenging AT's for the top guys shooting for Worlds. We are talking about a National Championship here!

Thanks!

Sean

Ron Gleason

November 30th 12, 10:41 PM

On Friday, 30 November 2012 14:37:46 UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Ron,
>
>
>
> To be honest, I was fairly open to a slight opening of the Club range as well. But as others point out, once you open that can of worms it will never end. The cleanest solution is to stick with the Club range. The compromise would be to task to the FAI Club handicap Range, but allow others to compete.
>
>
>
> I hope that a narrow enough range is agreed upon that ensures a 50/50 split of AAT and AT. The key is reasonably challenging AT's for the top guys shooting for Worlds. We are talking about a National Championship here!
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Sean

Sean I hear what you are saying but you have to find the balance to ensure enough participation while also maintaining a competitive landscape for all folks flying in the competition. I know that I am not going to be in contention to win a National Championship or participate at the world so if decide to fly a competition I view myself as a subsidizer. To justify the investment it takes to fly a competition I have to believe I will get something in return.

Sean F (F2)

December 1st 12, 12:03 AM

Ron,

Sorry if this is already understood, but I want to clarify just in case. As this "US Club Class" conversation currently stands, the only 2013 event which MAY have a "US Club Class" would be the US Sports Class Nationals. US Sports Class will still exist "as is" for all regional events unless an organizer decides to apply for a waiver, etc. I am not aware of any contests planning on seeking a waiver yet, although I am considering it for Ionia. So, we are all looking at competing in "traditional" US rules based Sports Class for all 2013 US regional contests. Nothing changes there.

And, the 2013 Sports Class Nationals will only have a "US Club Class" IF 12+ gliders freely register for US Club Class AND are within the handicap range allowed (whatever it ends up being).

Personally, I do think pilots should have the option to stay in Sports class or choose to fly club (if flying a glider within the FAI Club Class handicap range, whatever that ends up being). This would offer all pilots with "Club" level ships the best of both worlds, free will options to choose either racing format and no chance for anybody to be "left behind." The question comes down to at what point do we over-extend the handicap range. Why not at least start with the established range (or very close to it)? In other words, Is this A) US "Club" Class or just B) US Sports Class low.

Sean

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 1st 12, 04:13 AM

On Nov 30, 6:03Â*pm, "Sean F (F2)" > wrote:
> Ron,
>
> Sorry if this is already understood, but I want to clarify just in case. Â*As this "US Club Class" conversation currently stands, the only 2013 event which MAY have a "US Club Class" would be the US Sports Class Nationals. Â*US Sports Class will still exist "as is" for all regional events unless an organizer decides to apply for a waiver, etc. Â*I am not aware of any contests planning on seeking a waiver yet, although I am considering it for Ionia. Â*So, we are all looking at competing in "traditional" US rules based Sports Class for all 2013 US regional contests. Â*Nothing changes there.
>
> And, the 2013 Sports Class Nationals will only have a "US Club Class" IF 12+ gliders freely register for US Club Class AND are within the handicap range allowed (whatever it ends up being).
>
> Personally, I do think pilots should have the option to stay in Sports class or choose to fly club (if flying a glider within the FAI Club Class handicap range, whatever that ends up being). Â*This would offer all pilots with "Club" level ships the best of both worlds, free will options to choose either racing format and no chance for anybody to be "left behind." Â*The question comes down to at what point do we over-extend the handicap range. Â*Why not at least start with the established range (or very close to it)? Â*In other words, Is this A) US "Club" Class or just B) US Sports Class low.
>
> Sean

No waiver is needed to run a club class regionals using whatever
handicap range you want. All that's needed is interested pilots and
contest organizer. Go for it.

5.7 â€¡ â€* Competition Classes
5.7.1 â€¡ â€* The gliders eligible to compete are described in Rule 6.12.
5.7.2 â€¡ â€* A competition can include more than one handicapped class
5.7.2.1 â€¡ â€* Entries to a competition class can be restricted based on
criteria specified by the contest organizers on the application
for sanction form. Possible criteria include (but are not limited to)
maximum wingspan or a handicap range (or a combination).
5.7.2.2 â€¡ â€* The handicap ranges of competition classes may overlap.
5.7.2.3 â€¡ â€* Competition classes can be labeled, promoted and tasked to
appeal to pilots by skill level rather than or in addition to
limitation on gliders.

The level of factually wrong assertions in this series of posts,
petition, and email campaign is not advancing the discussion

> And, the 2013 Sports Class Nationals will only have a "US Club Class" IF 12+ gliders freely register for US Club Class AND are within the handicap range allowed (whatever it ends up being).

And if you can't get 12 gliders to show up, the solution is to
further restrict the handicap range?

John Cochrane

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

December 1st 12, 06:26 PM

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
>
>
> Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
>
>
> In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> 1. Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> 2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> 3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> 4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> 7. Any other comments welcome!
>
>
>
> Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
>
>
> Sean Franke
>
> US Club Class Team Member

Sean(s),

I share BB's and UH's frustration with the level of nonsense in this thread..

Demanding that the organizer (KS) run the 2013 Club Class by FAI rules after the event being sanctioned and resources committed is simply a non-starter.

Gutting the contest to hold the Club Class somewhere else is also a non-starter.

Rather than all the bluster and rabble rousing rhetoric, commit your efforts to where your mouths are. Procure a waiver to run a regional club class contest under FAI rules by making the convincing case that it will not be less safe than one conducted under US Rules.

Hold the contest and demonstrate that it is popular (and take the financial risk).

I.e put up or shut up.

QT

Sean F (F2)

December 2nd 12, 12:47 AM

The distortion, ignorance of facts and double standards are nearing exceptional levels.

I am concerned that the US rules committee functions more like a "think tank" than a committee of ALL fellow soaring pilots.

1) It is an indisputable fact that the FAI Club Class is highly successful around the world IN EVERY SOARING COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE USA. Safety, participation and enjoyments are all very high at Club events. The USA has for many years chosen to disregard the world standards and run on its own with the entirely unique US Sports Class along with completely different rules for all other classes.

2) The ENTIRELY new class being recommended by the US Rules Committee for 2013 Nationals has virtually no similarity to the REST OF THE WORLD in any way other than stealing the Club Class name. This is a fact. Different rules, different handicap ranges, different tasking philosophy. It would be FAR LESS RISKY to simply adopt the same class guidelines (FAI Club) as are currently used WORLDWIDE! The US Rules committee has chosen, once again, to do something completely different than the rest of the world.

3) The Rules Committee has been asked for years to approve a US Club Class by US owners of FAI Club Class Gliders. They asked for a US Class which follows the basic guidelines of FAI Club Class. Many of these pilots who have been asking for the SSA to sanction a US Club Class are now very upset, as this is NOT what they asked for. Not even close. The rules committee seems to thumb its nose at these 30 (and growing) pilots. Many more will not sign a public petition or simply will continue NOT TO FLY US CONTESTS. Many of these pilots are or have been on the US World Team and seem to have some knowledge on the subject.

4) It seems as if this new class has more to do more with streamlining the new upper level of sports class (Discus 2 and up) by removing the bottom quarter of the handicap range (233, etc) than anything else, frankly. This might be the part where I should say "am I getting warmer?"

5) I cannot stress this one enough: You say WE are requesting "SOMETHING ENTIRELY NEW" for 2013 Nationals by arguing for much more adherence to the established FAI Club Rules. You say this means taking financial risk, etc? You tell us to ask for a waiver and do it at a regionals first. You tell me to PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS??? Ill get back to that later.

In fact, it is the US RULES COMMITTEE which has (somehow) come up with the idea to propose something entirely new (and completely out of alignment with the rest of the World in terms of Club Class) for US National Championship for 2013 with a class that has never been attempted anywhere in the WORLD, EVER!

6) Running a US Club Class (FAI based) at SC Nationals next spring would be no more a challenge than introducing the entirely new class which you are proposing. It would be simple. No MATS. 50% AT, 50 AAT. Established Club Class handicap Range. Some slight modifications are fine, but that should be the basic model. That would be the FAR LESS RISKY OPTION. What planet are you from? It is MUCH MORE RISKY to try something entirely new and completely foreign from the REST OF THE WORLD...

Sean

F2

Andrzej Kobus

December 2nd 12, 01:36 AM

On Dec 1, 7:47*pm, "Sean F (F2)" > wrote:
> The distortion, ignorance of facts and double standards are nearing exceptional levels.
>
> I am concerned that the US rules committee functions more like a "think tank" than a committee of ALL fellow soaring pilots.
>
> 1) It is an indisputable fact that the FAI Club Class is highly successful around the world IN EVERY SOARING COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE USA. *Safety, participation and enjoyments are all very high at Club events. *The USA has for many years chosen to disregard the world standards and run on its own with the entirely unique US Sports Class along with completely different rules for all other classes.
>
> 2) The ENTIRELY new class being recommended by the US Rules Committee for 2013 Nationals has virtually no similarity to the REST OF THE WORLD in any way other than stealing the Club Class name. *This is a fact. *Different rules, different handicap ranges, different tasking philosophy. *It would be FAR LESS RISKY to simply adopt the same class guidelines (FAI Club) as are currently used WORLDWIDE! *The US Rules committee has chosen, once again, to do something completely different than the rest of the world.
>
> 3) The Rules Committee has been asked for years to approve a US Club Class by US owners of FAI Club Class Gliders. *They asked for a US Class which follows the basic guidelines of FAI Club Class. *Many of these pilots who have been asking for the SSA to sanction a US Club Class are now very upset, as this is NOT what they asked for. *Not even close. *The rules committee seems to thumb its nose at these 30 (and growing) pilots. *Many more will not sign a public petition or simply will continue NOT TO FLY US CONTESTS. *Many of these pilots are or have been on the US World Team and seem to have some knowledge on the subject.
>
> 4) It seems as if this new class has more to do more with streamlining the new upper level of sports class (Discus 2 and up) by removing the bottom quarter of the handicap range (233, etc) than anything else, frankly. *This might be the part where I should say "am I getting warmer?"
>
> 5) I cannot stress this one enough: *You say WE are requesting "SOMETHING ENTIRELY NEW" for 2013 Nationals by arguing for much more adherence to the established FAI Club Rules. *You say this means taking financial risk, etc? *You tell us to ask for a waiver and do it at a regionals first. *You tell me to PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS??? *Ill get back to that later.
>
> In fact, it is the US RULES COMMITTEE which has (somehow) come up with the idea to propose something entirely new (and completely out of alignment with the rest of the World in terms of Club Class) for US National Championship for 2013 with a class that has never been attempted anywhere in the WORLD, EVER!
>
> 6) *Running a US Club Class (FAI based) at SC Nationals next spring would be no more a challenge than introducing the entirely new class which you are proposing. *It would be simple. *No MATS. *50% AT, 50 AAT. *Established Club Class handicap Range. *Some slight modifications are fine, but that should be the basic model. *That would be the FAR LESS RISKY OPTION. *What planet are you from? *It is MUCH MORE RISKY to try something entirely new and completely foreign from the REST OF THE WORLD...
>
> Sean
>
> F2

If I remember correctly pilots called for Club Class in 2007 and in
2008. The rules committee told the pilots to organize a regional
contest and if all goes well and there is solid participation the
project will be taken to the next level. Well in 2009 the first Club
Class contest took place in Cordele. There were 17 pilots flying Club
Class tasks (including assigned tasks). Since the contest run along
side of the 15 m Nationals and some members of the rules committee
were on site there was a discussion about the future of Club Class.
Despite good pilot participation and calls for Club Class Nationals
the Rules Committee found many arguments against it effectively
killing the enthusiasm. In the past there were polls on this subject
in favor of creation of the Club Class but somehow arguments against
the class always won. Some pilots sold their club class gliders and
moved on since they had no hope of ever getting there.

So when I hear another call to create a regional Club Class contest I
say I heard that before, but no thx.

Overall the rules committee is doing a good job but in regards to Club
Class issue I think the RC failed to lead. How many years will this
issue be debated? As Sam Giltner said if you want a class you need
stability. Pilots need to know what gliders to buy. No one can plan
anything if the list of gliders constantly is being changed. It is not
true that the IGC list changes often.

Anyway since I am no longer having a Club Class glider I don't have a
personal interest in this topic (at least for now) but it pains me to
see how this problem is being approached. Please, look around at most
contests there are no young faces any longer. The young faces are
flying Club Class gliders and they are staying home. Another 10 years
and the competition scene will be dead. The economy is terrible there
is no upward mobility, gas is expensive, very few pilots will be able
to afford new gliders. It is time for new ideas. The contest
participation is collapsing at every contest you see mostly the same
group of pilots.

Andrzej Kobus

December 2nd 12, 01:42 AM

On Dec 1, 1:26*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. *If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
> > Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
> > In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> > 1. *Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> > 2. *If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> > 3. *If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> > 4. *If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club * Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> > 5. *If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> > 6. *If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> > 7. *Any other comments welcome!
>
> > Link to petition:http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-...
>
> > Sean Franke
>
> > US Club Class Team Member
>
> Sean(s),
>
> I share BB's and UH's frustration with the level of nonsense in this thread.
>
> Demanding that the organizer (KS) *run the 2013 Club Class by FAI rules after the event being sanctioned and resources committed is simply a non-starter.
>
> Gutting the contest to hold the Club Class somewhere else is also a non-starter.
>
> Rather than all the bluster and rabble rousing rhetoric, commit your efforts to where your mouths are. *Procure a waiver to run a regional club class contest under FAI rules by making the convincing case that it will not be less safe than one conducted under US Rules.
>
> Hold the contest and demonstrate that it is popular (and take the financial risk).
>
> I.e put up or shut up.
>
> QT

John, this is quite arrogant of you. After all you are on RC to serve.

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

December 2nd 12, 03:16 AM

On Saturday, December 1, 2012 8:42:12 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Dec 1, 1:26*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > > The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. *If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.
>
> >
>
> > > Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>
> >
>
> > > In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):
>
> >
>
> > > 1. *Your position on the US seeding list.
>
> >
>
> > > 2. *If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.
>
> >
>
> > > 3. *If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.
>
> >
>
> > > 4. *If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club * Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > > 5. *If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > > 6. *If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.
>
> >
>
> > > 7. *Any other comments welcome!
>
> >
>
> > > Link to petition:http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-...
>
> >
>
> > > Sean Franke
>
> >
>
> > > US Club Class Team Member
>
> >
>
> > Sean(s),
>
> >
>
> > I share BB's and UH's frustration with the level of nonsense in this thread.
>
> >
>
> > Demanding that the organizer (KS) *run the 2013 Club Class by FAI rules after the event being sanctioned and resources committed is simply a non-starter.
>
> >
>
> > Gutting the contest to hold the Club Class somewhere else is also a non-starter.
>
> >
>
> > Rather than all the bluster and rabble rousing rhetoric, commit your efforts to where your mouths are. *Procure a waiver to run a regional club class contest under FAI rules by making the convincing case that it will not be less safe than one conducted under US Rules.
>
> >
>
> > Hold the contest and demonstrate that it is popular (and take the financial risk).
>
> >
>
> > I.e put up or shut up.
>
> >
>
> > QT
>
>
>
> John, this is quite arrogant of you. After all you are on RC to serve.

Andrej,

Sorry if you see me as arrogant, but my stance on not jerking around already sanctioned contests and especially their organizers is firm.

As to whether we should adopt FAI rules for racing, there is a time honed process for this type of major change (and make no mistake, it is a majpor change). Regionals first followed by Nationals.

Still waiting for an organizer to step up with a request for sanction and waiver...

QT

[email protected]

December 2nd 12, 12:48 PM

On Saturday, December 1, 2012 4:47:27 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> The distortion, ignorance of facts and double standards are nearing exceptional levels.
> I am concerned that the US rules committee functions more like a "think tank" than a committee of ALL fellow soaring pilots.

Sean,
Can I assume from your statements that you see nothing wrong with lightweight pilots flying with 80 pounds of lead in their cockpit to be at IGC MTOW and at equal wingloading with heavier pilots? Example: I fly a Discus b at 792# with a 1.08 IGC handicap. Sarah Arnold might fly a Discus A ( same 1.08 h/c) and would need well over 110# of lead to match my gross. How do you safely do this, and why? This IGC rule is absurd and I would not support it for a US Nationals.
Rick Walters

BruceGreeff

December 2nd 12, 02:02 PM

Well - no - 110lb of lead in the cockpit would be a little unwise. But
110l of water in the wings might do it. Of course then the ballast can
be dumped, which confers an advantage, and eventually you have angels
dancing on pinheads...

Have flown at a number of contests where there was a "target wing
loading" - works quite well in practice, and can be done quickly. Just
tow your main wheel over a scale each day on the way to the grid.

Of course - my kestrel full of water is waaay below the agreed target
wingloading but that is life.

Bruce

On 2012/12/02 2:48 PM, wrote:
> Sean,
> Can I assume from your statements that you see nothing wrong with lightweight pilots flying with 80 pounds of lead in their cockpit to be at IGC MTOW and at equal wingloading with heavier pilots? Example: I fly a Discus b at 792# with a 1.08 IGC handicap. Sarah Arnold might fly a Discus A ( same 1.08 h/c) and would need well over 110# of lead to match my gross. How do you safely do this, and why? This IGC rule is absurd and I would not support it for a US Nationals.
> Rick Walters

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[email protected]

December 2nd 12, 02:39 PM

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 6:02:49 AM UTC-8, BruceGreeff wrote:
> Well - no - 110lb of lead in the cockpit would be a little unwise. But
>
> 110l of water in the wings might do it. Of course then the ballast can
>
> be dumped, which confers an advantage, and eventually you have angels
>
> dancing on pinheads...

Bruce,
The two Sean's are proposing using IGC rules, which do not allow for any water ballast, period. They use lead at CC WGC. Should be lots of fun a ridge day at Mifflin.
Rick W

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 2nd 12, 03:32 PM

On Dec 1, 7:36*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Dec 1, 7:47*pm, "Sean F (F2)" > wrote:
>
> > F2
>
> If I remember correctly pilots called for Club Class in 2007 and in
> 2008. The rules committee told the pilots to organize a regional
> contest and if all goes well and there is solid participation the
> project will be taken to the next level. Well in 2009 the first Club
> Class contest took place in Cordele. There were 17 pilots flying Club
> Class tasks (including assigned tasks). Since the contest run along
> side of the 15 m Nationals and some members of the rules committee
> were on site there was a discussion about the future of Club Class.
> Despite good pilot participation and calls for Club Class Nationals
> the Rules Committee found many arguments against it effectively
> killing the enthusiasm. In the past there were polls on this subject
> in favor of creation of the Club Class but somehow arguments against
> the class always won. Some pilots sold their club class gliders and
> moved on since they had no hope of ever getting there.
>
> So when I hear another call to create a regional Club Class contest I
> say I heard that before, but no thx.
>
> Overall the rules committee is doing a good job but in regards to Club
> Class issue I think the RC failed to lead. How many years will this
> issue be debated? As Sam Giltner said if you want a class you need
> stability. Pilots need to know what gliders to buy. No one can plan
> anything if the list of gliders constantly is being changed. It is not
> true that the IGC list changes often.
>
> Anyway since I am no longer having a Club Class glider I don't have a
> personal interest in this topic (at least for now) but it pains me to
> see how this problem is being approached. Please, look around at most
> contests there are no young faces any longer. The young faces are
> flying Club Class gliders and they are staying home. Another 10 years
> and the competition scene will be dead. The economy is terrible there
> is no upward mobility, gas is expensive, very few pilots will be able
> to afford new gliders. It is time for new ideas. The contest
> participation is collapsing at every contest you see mostly the same
> group of pilots.

The creation of a club class at sports class nationals in 2013 is
exactly the culmination of the process you mention. Yes, we listened.
We said create club regionals. You did. It was a success. A modest
success -- we didn't see 30 coming out -- but it did prove the
concept has legs.

Club class regionals are now a permanent, non-waiver class that
organizers can choose anytime they want to, and pilots can ask
organizers to do. We kept our end of the deal. Why have they not
happened? They're in the rules, we did all we could. Now it's up to
you guys to keep going past the first burst of enthusiasm. We write
the rules, we don't run contests and we don't call pilots and persuade
them to show up.

In any case, now we have created a club nationals too, just as we said
we would. Given the dwindling enthusiasm shown for club regionals, the
still low participation of club gliders at sports nationals, and the
vexing problem of what to do with gliders like the sparrowhawk, which
do not fit IGC club class, we included the lower performance gliders.

One step at a time. We MUST ensure that the new class succeeds. If we
create a class at nationals and 7 pilots show up and everybody gets
sent home, that is the END of the class. If 17 pilots show up in the
first burst of enthusiasm and then 7 show up the next year, this is
the END of the class. We MUST make decisions based on data, not on
theories (if you use IGC rules 50 pilots will come out of the woodwork
and fly -- even though they're not on the seeding list) We will not
repeat the world class fiasco. Are you listening? We're on your side
here. This is our best attempt to create what you want, in a way that
will be durable and successful.

The use of SSA rules, and the US team upper limit for club class
(ventus 1) has been in these US club class experiments all along.

So, you guys got 95% of what you had been asking for: A separate class
at nationals, following on the same model that was tried and
demonstrated at regionals. All you had to do was suffer the indignity
of letting a sparrowhawk or 1-34 tag along (there are usually 1-2
such gliders at sports nationals).

We figured we'd be getting bouquets of flowers and boxes of
chocolates. But no: Suddenly you demand that we use IGC rules and a
different glider list, and send the sparrowhawhk home. Leaving aside
the start, finish, scoring formulas, metric units, tiny turn radii,
these rules impose completely different procedures. Quick, what are
the IGC weight limits? Rules on modifications? Rules on use of fixed
and disposable ballast? How many of your pilots know how to fly these
rules? Doing this at a nationals without trying it at regionals would
be insane.

So, yes. If you want to completely change the concept of the class --
which IGC rules really is! -- that needs to be worked out at a
regionals, not at a nationals, that is already sanctioned. The
sanctioning process includes a check of things pilots expect like, is
there a scorer and a CD who knows the rules they race is going to fly
under! Sean has a theory that it's a 5 minute job with see you to use
a different set of rules. He needs to talk to John Good and Ken
Sorenson and find out about the months -- months -- it took to get
rules and procedures worked out for Uvalde.

I'm sorry for the irritated tone. But when we give you 95% of what you
wanted, in the form that we had all been working on steadily for 5
years, and then suddenly the demands change radically at the last
moment, ignoring all the previous work, ignoring all the
practicalities of what it takes to run a contest, well, you can
imagine it's a little irritating.

John Cochrane

I'm interested by the number of posters such as yourself who have
(like me) sold their club gliders and moved up. Mayb

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

December 2nd 12, 06:28 PM

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:32:03 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Dec 1, 7:36*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 7:47*pm, "Sean F (F2)" > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > F2
>
> >
>
> > If I remember correctly pilots called for Club Class in 2007 and in
>
> > 2008. The rules committee told the pilots to organize a regional
>
> > contest and if all goes well and there is solid participation the
>
> > project will be taken to the next level. Well in 2009 the first Club
>
> > Class contest took place in Cordele. There were 17 pilots flying Club
>
> > Class tasks (including assigned tasks). Since the contest run along
>
> > side of the 15 m Nationals and some members of the rules committee
>
> > were on site there was a discussion about the future of Club Class.
>
> > Despite good pilot participation and calls for Club Class Nationals
>
> > the Rules Committee found many arguments against it effectively
>
> > killing the enthusiasm. In the past there were polls on this subject
>
> > in favor of creation of the Club Class but somehow arguments against
>
> > the class always won. Some pilots sold their club class gliders and
>
> > moved on since they had no hope of ever getting there.
>
> >
>
> > So when I hear another call to create a regional Club Class contest I
>
> > say I heard that before, but no thx.
>
> >
>
> > Overall the rules committee is doing a good job but in regards to Club
>
> > Class issue I think the RC failed to lead. How many years will this
>
> > issue be debated? As Sam Giltner said if you want a class you need
>
> > stability. Pilots need to know what gliders to buy. No one can plan
>
> > anything if the list of gliders constantly is being changed. It is not
>
> > true that the IGC list changes often.
>
> >
>
> > Anyway since I am no longer having a Club Class glider I don't have a
>
> > personal interest in this topic (at least for now) but it pains me to
>
> > see how this problem is being approached. Please, look around at most
>
> > contests there are no young faces any longer. The young faces are
>
> > flying Club Class gliders and they are staying home. Another 10 years
>
> > and the competition scene will be dead. The economy is terrible there
>
> > is no upward mobility, gas is expensive, very few pilots will be able
>
> > to afford new gliders. It is time for new ideas. The contest
>
> > participation is collapsing at every contest you see mostly the same
>
> > group of pilots.
>
>
>
> The creation of a club class at sports class nationals in 2013 is
>
> exactly the culmination of the process you mention. Yes, we listened.
>
> We said create club regionals. You did. It was a success. A modest
>
> success -- we didn't see 30 coming out -- but it did prove the
>
> concept has legs.
>
>
>
> Club class regionals are now a permanent, non-waiver class that
>
> organizers can choose anytime they want to, and pilots can ask
>
> organizers to do. We kept our end of the deal. Why have they not
>
> happened? They're in the rules, we did all we could. Now it's up to
>
> you guys to keep going past the first burst of enthusiasm. We write
>
> the rules, we don't run contests and we don't call pilots and persuade
>
> them to show up.
>
>
>
> In any case, now we have created a club nationals too, just as we said
>
> we would. Given the dwindling enthusiasm shown for club regionals, the
>
> still low participation of club gliders at sports nationals, and the
>
> vexing problem of what to do with gliders like the sparrowhawk, which
>
> do not fit IGC club class, we included the lower performance gliders.
>
>
>
> One step at a time. We MUST ensure that the new class succeeds. If we
>
> create a class at nationals and 7 pilots show up and everybody gets
>
> sent home, that is the END of the class. If 17 pilots show up in the
>
> first burst of enthusiasm and then 7 show up the next year, this is
>
> the END of the class. We MUST make decisions based on data, not on
>
> theories (if you use IGC rules 50 pilots will come out of the woodwork
>
> and fly -- even though they're not on the seeding list) We will not
>
> repeat the world class fiasco. Are you listening? We're on your side
>
> here. This is our best attempt to create what you want, in a way that
>
> will be durable and successful.
>
>
>
> The use of SSA rules, and the US team upper limit for club class
>
> (ventus 1) has been in these US club class experiments all along.
>
>
>
> So, you guys got 95% of what you had been asking for: A separate class
>
> at nationals, following on the same model that was tried and
>
> demonstrated at regionals. All you had to do was suffer the indignity
>
> of letting a sparrowhawk or 1-34 tag along (there are usually 1-2
>
> such gliders at sports nationals).
>
>
>
> We figured we'd be getting bouquets of flowers and boxes of
>
> chocolates. But no: Suddenly you demand that we use IGC rules and a
>
> different glider list, and send the sparrowhawhk home. Leaving aside
>
> the start, finish, scoring formulas, metric units, tiny turn radii,
>
> these rules impose completely different procedures. Quick, what are
>
> the IGC weight limits? Rules on modifications? Rules on use of fixed
>
> and disposable ballast? How many of your pilots know how to fly these
>
> rules? Doing this at a nationals without trying it at regionals would
>
> be insane.
>
>
>
> So, yes. If you want to completely change the concept of the class --
>
> which IGC rules really is! -- that needs to be worked out at a
>
> regionals, not at a nationals, that is already sanctioned. The
>
> sanctioning process includes a check of things pilots expect like, is
>
> there a scorer and a CD who knows the rules they race is going to fly
>
> under! Sean has a theory that it's a 5 minute job with see you to use
>
> a different set of rules. He needs to talk to John Good and Ken
>
> Sorenson and find out about the months -- months -- it took to get
>
> rules and procedures worked out for Uvalde.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry for the irritated tone. But when we give you 95% of what you
>
> wanted, in the form that we had all been working on steadily for 5
>
> years, and then suddenly the demands change radically at the last
>
> moment, ignoring all the previous work, ignoring all the
>
> practicalities of what it takes to run a contest, well, you can
>
> imagine it's a little irritating.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

ditto

Sean F (F2)

December 3rd 12, 07:24 PM

On a bus trip today. Will reply in more detail tomorrow.

Dont forget that 33 people have signed this FAI Club Class (US) petition. And they are not 33 slackers. Many of them are very accomplished pilots WHO OWN AND FLY Club Range gliders and have been asking for this class for years.

Sean

Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1

Sean F (F2)

December 3rd 12, 07:26 PM

And you guys (RC) are much closer to getting roses and tremendous praise then you think...

:-)

I want nothing more then to be the first sender of flowers.

Ventus_a

December 3rd 12, 11:56 PM

[email protected]

December 4th 12, 02:22 PM

> I am very interested how a contest would be validated by the SSA competition committee if WINSCORE was not used.

If the SSA rules comittee approves a club class using FAI rules in the US, then Winscore will be upgraded to score that class by FAI rules.

Guy Byars

[email protected]

December 4th 12, 02:31 PM

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:22:01 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > I am very interested how a contest would be validated by the SSA competition committee if WINSCORE was not used.
>
>
>
>
>
> If the SSA rules comittee approves a club class using FAI rules in the US, then Winscore will be upgraded to score that class by FAI rules.
>
>
>
> Guy Byars

SeeYou is popular scoring program. Will Winsocore need to be upgraded if SeeYou us uesd?

Sean Franke (HA)

[email protected]

December 4th 12, 03:34 PM

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 9:31:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:22:01 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > > I am very interested how a contest would be validated by the SSA competition committee if WINSCORE was not used.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If the SSA rules comittee approves a club class using FAI rules in the US, then Winscore will be upgraded to score that class by FAI rules.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Guy Byars
>
>
>
> SeeYou is popular scoring program. Will Winsocore need to be upgraded if SeeYou us uesd?
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Maybe it is the numerious typos, but your message makes no sense.

Let me repeat, if the SSA Rules comittee approves approves IGC rules for a class in the US, then I will upgrade Winscore to score that class by those rules.

The scorer/organizers at that contest are free to use whichever program they like.

Guy Byars

[email protected]

December 4th 12, 07:29 PM

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:34:21 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 9:31:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:22:01 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > I am very interested how a contest would be validated by the SSA competition committee if WINSCORE was not used.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If the SSA rules comittee approves a club class using FAI rules in the US, then Winscore will be upgraded to score that class by FAI rules.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Guy Byars
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > SeeYou is popular scoring program. Will Winsocore need to be upgraded if SeeYou us uesd?
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
>
>
>
> Maybe it is the numerious typos, but your message makes no sense.
>
>
>
> Let me repeat, if the SSA Rules comittee approves approves IGC rules for a class in the US, then I will upgrade Winscore to score that class by those rules.
>
>
>
> The scorer/organizers at that contest are free to use whichever program they like.
>
>
>
> Guy Byars

Yes, many typos. Thanks

Sean Franke (HA)

[email protected]

December 4th 12, 11:26 PM

> We figured we'd be getting bouquets of flowers and boxes of
> chocolates. Leaving aside the start, finish, scoring formulas, metric units, > tiny turn radii, these rules impose completely different procedures. Quick, > what are the IGC weight limits? Rules on modifications? Rules on use of fixed
> and disposable ballast? How many of your pilots know how to fly these
> rules? Doing this at a nationals without trying it at regionals would
> be insane.
>
> So, yes. If you want to completely change the concept of the class --
> which IGC rules really is! -- that needs to be worked out at a
> regionals, not at a nationals, that is already sanctioned. The
> sanctioning process includes a check of things pilots expect like, is
> there a scorer and a CD who knows the rules they race is going to fly
> under! Sean has a theory that it's a 5 minute job with see you to use
> a different set of rules. He needs to talk to John Good and Ken
> Sorenson and find out about the months -- months -- it took to get
> rules and procedures worked out for Uvalde.
>
> I'm sorry for the irritated tone. But when we give you 95% of what you
> wanted, in the form that we had all been working on steadily for 5
> years, and then suddenly the demands change radically at the last
> moment, ignoring all the previous work, ignoring all the
> practicalities of what it takes to run a contest, well, you can
> imagine it's a little irritating.
> > John Cochrane

Again this position is extreme and dramatic. When you stay within reality creating an FAI Club Class is the next logical step.

I think if most had to give a quick response on US rules you would get the same result as FAI. It would have to be looked up. Here is the big difference. FAI rules are almost HALF in length. Keep in mind complexity is being cut NOT added. Rules and procedures are not radically different, just a lot less.

Lets look at the three major differences between proposed RC Club Class and FAI.

1. FAI has a Racing Task(Assigned Speed Task)and Assigned Area Task (AAT). US has the MAT and AAT. Racing Task will be unlikely.
2.FAI has a narrower restricted handicap range than the US. Proposed US Club Class handicap range extends from a Ventus 1 to SGS 2-33.
3. Scoring formula / program is different.

FAI Club Class concepts HAVE BEEN proven in super-regionals. To state otherwise is FALSE. I flew in the 2011 Club Class super regional in Moriarty. The only real difference between this contest and FAI was US scoring. Short of scoring, major FAI components were successfully proven. Participation was grater than some National contests.

Enthusiasm hasn't diminished. US Club Class has done it's due diligence. The RC has proposed a Club Class version which completely ignores all previous work and changes concept of the class.

The RC said prove it in a regional. We did. Now it's time for the RC to follow through, take then next logical step and propose a US Club Class Nationals based on concepts established in the Regionals.

Sean Franke (HA)

Sean F (F2)

December 4th 12, 11:43 PM

Sean Franke consistently shows the most objective command of the world soaring rules landscape (99% FAI, 1% US). We all know the US rules. But many, MANY have deep misconceptions about the FAI rules. Many disturbingly so...

Sean
F2

Sean F (F2)

December 4th 12, 11:45 PM

Ventus_a

December 5th 12, 02:38 AM

35 now. Discount them as needed. But in general, the soaring crowd is not interested in public debate. The fact that 35 have signed (minus whatever number you wish) is very compelling to most... Not the RC however. They are relying on their poll.

Sean

But by not answering the query about the 2 Australians on the petition list you seem to very selective about what you want to debate. I'm just an interested bystander but the question was valid.

You appear to be trying to fudge the numbers so your credibility, objectiveness and integrity will likely be called into question by those you seek to get onside

Colin

[email protected]

December 5th 12, 08:27 PM

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 3:43:22 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> We all know the US rules. But many, MANY have deep misconceptions about the FAI rules. Many disturbingly so...

> Sean
> F2

Sean,
I have flown 8 contests with IGC/FAI rules. I am disturbed that no one other than myself is concerned about light weight pilots flying with lead filled cockpits. How do you safely fasten the weight? How do you adjust the CG?
How do you support a rule that handicaps you if you don't fly at MTOW?
Rick Walters

Andrzej Kobus

December 5th 12, 10:44 PM

>I am disturbed that no one other than myself is concerned about light weight pilots flying with lead filled cockpits.

Probably because most pilots have the opposite problem :).

I myself have the same problem as you have. When I had a club class
glider I created a seat pan mold and then used lead pellets with epoxy
to fill it. I also put belts through it and attached them to the seat
belt mount points. The extra weight was 55 lb. By the way I still have
it if anyone is interested. It is made for SZD-55-1. Yes it was a lot
of work but much less work than gaining 55 lb and much healthier :).
Would I do it again? No, I make too many mistakes to blame them on
weight. :)

For the pilots at the top of the ladder they might have a different
view.

[email protected]

December 6th 12, 12:17 AM

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:27:50 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 3:43:22 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > We all know the US rules. But many, MANY have deep misconceptions about the FAI rules. Many disturbingly so...
>
>
>
> > Sean
>
> > F2
>
>
>
> Sean,
>
> I have flown 8 contests with IGC/FAI rules. I am disturbed that no one other than myself is concerned about light weight pilots flying with lead filled cockpits. How do you safely fasten the weight? How do you adjust the CG?
>
> How do you support a rule that handicaps you if you don't fly at MTOW?
>
> Rick Walters

Rick,

I appreciate your concern. Safety should ALWAYS be discussed openly.

I don't believe lead weight is inherently dangerous. When I was younger, shorter and a lot lighter, I used lead weight ballast responsibly. Nobody thought is was controversial. I'm not saying use of lead weight can't be applied irresponsibly. That same pilot can also be unsafe in any number of other areas as well, not just lead weight.

At the last Club Class WGC there were likely pilot(s) adding lead weight. However, it was a non-issue. I'm not aware of a pilot adding lead weight because it apparently wasn't controversial enough to make conversation.

I KNOW OF a US pilot adding lead weight flying Sports Class here in the US. Apparently the advantage of flying at max weight is more advantageous than handicap adjustment.

Unless the RC outlaws lead weight in US contests I suspect it will continue to happen just like it will in FAI rules.

Sean Franke (HA)

[email protected]

December 6th 12, 12:53 AM

> Rick,
>
>
>
> I appreciate your concern. Safety should ALWAYS be discussed openly.
>
>
>
> I don't believe lead weight is inherently dangerous. When I was younger, shorter and a lot lighter, I used lead weight ballast responsibly. Nobody thought is was controversial. I'm not saying use of lead weight can't be applied irresponsibly. That same pilot can also be unsafe in any number of other areas as well, not just lead weight.
>
>
>
> At the last Club Class WGC there were likely pilot(s) adding lead weight. However, it was a non-issue. I'm not aware of a pilot adding lead weight because it apparently wasn't controversial enough to make conversation.
>
>
>
> I KNOW OF a US pilot adding lead weight flying Sports Class here in the US. Apparently the advantage of flying at max weight is more advantageous than handicap adjustment.
>
>
>
> Unless the RC outlaws lead weight in US contests I suspect it will continue to happen just like it will in FAI rules.
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Lead ballast is legal under US rules

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.

However, the handicap adjustment goes in both directions -- light pilots get a better handicap. This was done to remove the incentive to pile up those bags of lead shot bouncing around many cockpits.

11.6.1.2.2 â€* If Competition Weight (Rule 6.12.3) is different from the specified Handicap Weight, the Handicap Factor shall be multiplied by the following:
1.0 - ((Competition Weight) - (Handicap Weight)) * 0.0002

This is one of those "complexities" in US rules that everyone complains about until we ask people for specific rules that should be dropped.

John Cochrane

[email protected]

December 6th 12, 04:53 AM

Sean and John,

Yes, fixed ballast is allowed in US sports class rules. My concern is the Erik Nelson, Sarah Arnold, superfit lightweight pilots that will be at a disadvantage in the proposed CC unless they lead ballast up to MTOW. You can't add 100# under your seat without adding tail ballast. Most spar shelves are limited to 5kg. Few have an A&P do a proper installation. I know of weights slipping into control mechanisms. I remember Robbie Robertson. Weight behind your head is stupid.

I have flown an ASW24 at MTOW against a very light LS8 at the Sports nats. Our handicap weight adjustments work very well, both up and down. We flew with identical handicaps. They adjust the FAI CC rules for overweight, so it would not be any more work to adjust for underweight. No added complexity.
Rick Walters

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 4:53:45 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > Rick,
>
> > I appreciate your concern. Safety should ALWAYS be discussed openly.

> > I don't believe lead weight is inherently dangerous. When I was younger, shorter and a lot lighter, I used lead weight ballast responsibly. Nobody thought is was controversial. I'm not saying use of lead weight can't be applied irresponsibly. That same pilot can also be unsafe in any number of other areas as well, not just lead weight.

> > At the last Club Class WGC there were likely pilot(s) adding lead weight. However, it was a non-issue. I'm not aware of a pilot adding lead weight because it apparently wasn't controversial enough to make conversation.
>
>
> > I KNOW OF a US pilot adding lead weight flying Sports Class here in the US. Apparently the advantage of flying at max weight is more advantageous than handicap adjustment.

> > Unless the RC outlaws lead weight in US contests I suspect it will continue to happen just like it will in FAI rules.
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
> Lead ballast is legal under US rules
>
> 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.

> However, the handicap adjustment goes in both directions -- light pilots get a better handicap. This was done to remove the incentive to pile up those bags of lead shot bouncing around many cockpits.
>
> 11.6.1.2.2 â€* If Competition Weight (Rule 6.12.3) is different from the specified Handicap Weight, the Handicap Factor shall be multiplied by the following:
>
> 1.0 - ((Competition Weight) - (Handicap Weight)) * 0.0002
>
> This is one of those "complexities" in US rules that everyone complains about until we ask people for specific rules that should be dropped.
> John Cochrane

[email protected]

December 6th 12, 06:48 PM

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:53:11 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Sean and John,
>
>
>
> Yes, fixed ballast is allowed in US sports class rules. My concern is the Erik Nelson, Sarah Arnold, superfit lightweight pilots that will be at a disadvantage in the proposed CC unless they lead ballast up to MTOW. You can't add 100# under your seat without adding tail ballast. Most spar shelves are limited to 5kg. Few have an A&P do a proper installation. I know of weights slipping into control mechanisms. I remember Robbie Robertson. Weight behind your head is stupid.
>
>
>
> I have flown an ASW24 at MTOW against a very light LS8 at the Sports nats.. Our handicap weight adjustments work very well, both up and down. We flew with identical handicaps. They adjust the FAI CC rules for overweight, so it would not be any more work to adjust for underweight. No added complexity.
>
> Rick Walters
>

Rick: I agree, and wasn't clear. The point of the US rule that changes handicap in both directions is precisely so pilots will not feel the need to use extra weight.

We talked about banning extra weight this year but decided not too much change at once. I completely agree that extra weights are a bad idea. We just need one crash with the bags of lead involved and you can imagine the fallout.

Adjusting the handicap for light weight is one little example where I humbly think US rules are a bit ahead of IGC rules, and an example why I still think it's wise for US contests to use US rules. Some of the "complexity" is beneficial.

John Cochrane

[email protected]

December 6th 12, 09:33 PM

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 6:20:16 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> There is no rules-required official scoring program. Use a slide rule
>
> if you want to. 1-26ers use their own program.

There is no rules-required scoring program for US regional contests. National contests mandate Winscore. Other program will be considered for national contests only after successfuly scoring a regional contest.

Sean F (F2)

December 7th 12, 01:06 AM

We will have some very interesting scoring news in the days to come.

Nearing 40 signatures with 38 just today.

Sean

F2

Chilhowee[_2_]

December 7th 12, 01:56 AM

Since I weigh only 125 lbs, and since I've seen my name in this thread
a few times I suppose I can add a few comments. I fly a Discus b in
sports/club class competition and have tried both with and without
ballast. For me the handicap adjustment is not worth it to fly at 720
lbs (6.3 lbs/sq ft). A super-light Discus truly does climb like a
1-26... I'll let you guys fill in how it glides. I realize that not
all club class gliders are so wing loading sensitive and for some it
might be more advantages to take the handicap adjustment.

I've never flown any glider in which I didn't have to add some type of
ballast, most of the time lead bags and sometimes the little lead bars
up by my feet. Since I am also shorter than the heavier pilots there
is plenty of room to safely stow the lead bags behind my seat pan and
it is secured in a responsible manner. I haven't been in soaring as
long as most of you, so maybe there are things that I just don't know,
but as an A & P, IA, and flight instructor I feel perfectly safe in my
current situation.

The biggest reason that I am thankful ballasting is not out-lawed in
WGC competition is because without it I could not fly a comparable
glider with my teammate. Without ballast team flying would be much
less effective or even impossible.

One last thing is I have to say is "WOW, did Guy Byars just say he'd
be happy to update Winscore with an option for FAI scoring?" Maybe
others missed it. That would be great, especially if there were a fun
regional planned under FAI rules...

Sarah Arnold

[email protected]

December 7th 12, 03:26 PM

On Thursday, December 6, 2012 8:56:44 PM UTC-5, Chilhowee wrote:
> One last thing is I have to say is "WOW, did Guy Byars just say he'd
> be happy to update Winscore with an option for FAI scoring?" Maybe
> others missed it. That would be great, especially if there were a fun
> regional planned under FAI rules...
>

Yes, I did say that and I meant it. But be careful what you wish for...

If you are going to hold a contest and STRICTLY follow the FAI rules to the letter, then that necessitates tasking and scoring in kilometers. If you read the FAI rules, you will see that the tasking parameters (cylinder radii, minimum task distances... etc) are all specified in km. Simply changing the units display on the task sheet will give you odd things like a turnpoint cylinder of 0.310686 miles or a Min Task distance of 62.1371 miles.

So if you then decide to change the task parameters to convenient English units, then you are no longer using the FAI rules, but something you made up yourself... like the SSA does now.

The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots. These issues need to be decided by the various appointed comittees and organizers. I am willing to work with them to implement what they decide in Winscore for next season.

Guy Byars

Sean F (F2)

December 7th 12, 06:49 PM

Up to 41 petition signatures...

I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?

[email protected]

December 7th 12, 07:59 PM

On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:49:52 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Up to 41 petition signatures...
>
>
>
> I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?

Compelling your representatives to do what? The petition does not describe any concrete, actionable steps.

If you want some change to the structure of this year's already-scheduled sports class nationals at Mifflin, you need a clear, detailed, and explicit written statement of what you want and how it can be accomplished.

If you want to run a club class regional by FAI rules, put together a clear written plan conforming to the requirements for ssa sanction.

Send these to the contest committee chair, not a new petition. There's a lot of complaint about rules committee not listening, but you have to give us something concrete to work on.

If you want someone else to figure all this out... well, we did, and the current structure is the best we could come up with. Your turn.

John Cochrane

Wallace Berry[_2_]

December 7th 12, 08:32 PM

In article >,
"Sean F (F2)" > wrote:

> Up to 41 petition signatures...
>
> I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what
> percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public
> debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?

I am a signer of the petition, own a club class glider (h301 Libelle),
and often fly club/sports contests, including a couple of nationals. I
should say as well, that I have no U.S. Team aspirations (I could maybe
admit to fleeting fantasies), so I do not have as much at stake as some
here. For me, it's just about fun.

Guy alluded to the "spirit" of the FAI rules. That, not the "letter" of
the FAI rules, is where we should go. Keeping a little pressure on the
racing committee towards this goal is good and the petition is an
excellent way to do that. However,there is a fine line between keeping
an issue in front of someone and beating them over the head with it.
Knowing, or at least acquainted, with most of the racing committee, I
think that in they are paying attention and do find the petition
compelling. I chafe at the slow and incremental pace of progress towards
an FAI type club class in the U.S., but at the same time, I can
understand the committee taking a conservative stance on change. The
status quo ain't great, but we could do much worse. "Unintended
Consequences" do occur.

Consider that the committee is at least heading in the right direction.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[email protected]

December 7th 12, 09:51 PM

On Friday, December 7, 2012 3:32:54 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> In article >, "Sean F (F2)" > wrote: > Up to 41 petition signatures... > > I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what > percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public > debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives? I am a signer of the petition, own a club class glider (h301 Libelle), and often fly club/sports contests, including a couple of nationals. I should say as well, that I have no U.S. Team aspirations (I could maybe admit to fleeting fantasies), so I do not have as much at stake as some here. For me, it's just about fun. Guy alluded to the "spirit" of the FAI rules. That, not the "letter" of the FAI rules, is where we should go. Keeping a little pressure on the racing committee towards this goal is good and the petition is an excellent way to do that. However,there is a fine line between keeping an issue in front of someone and beating them over the head with it. Knowing, or at least acquainted, with most of the racing committee, I think that in they are paying attention and do find the petition compelling. I chafe at the slow and incremental pace of progress towards an FAI type club class in the U.S., but at the same time, I can understand the committee taking a conservative stance on change. The status quo ain't great, but we could do much worse. "Unintended Consequences" do occur. Consider that the committee is at least heading in the right direction. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

I've stayed away from the conversation for a while to see what develops and try to get a sense of the driving issue(s) in this "debate"- maybe not the best word.
Drivers- as well as I can tell from RAS comments and exchanges with some of the more passionate Club folks.
1- I think this is #1- We want to fly assigned tasks because it feels more like a race.
2- No MAT's
3- Same gliders as they race "in the rest of the world". "We can't let a 2-33 spoil our race".
4- Underlying- we want to practice for the world championship.
5- We think the other guys(those flying under the predominately Eurocentric rules) do it better.
6- It's "simpler", "safer", and "more fun". Who wouldn't want that?

I discussed with a couple serious Club guys some options the RC thinks could get us to a workable compromise.
Before describing those, the RC's major cornerstone points:'
1- Nobody goes home.
2- Closely compatible with US rules and procedures so pilots coming up from regionals don't have big changes and so Club can practically and safely be run concurrently with Sports(Modern Sports).

What we have discussed "off line":
1- AT is in for Club. That is in the plan.
2- MAT stays-Calm down guys! What we have asked is why a "long MAT" that is one that has all possible legs defined such that the fast guys/gliders will finish somewhat overtime, but the slower pilots/gliders can drop off and come home when time runs out. Effectively this is an AT but with a way to allow participation of slower pilots/gliders to not have to land out, while still fully challanging the top pilots.
When I proposed this compromise position, the conversation pretty well stopped.
It would be easy and workable to provide guidance in Club that does not use options like 1 turn MAT's (effectively the old POST).
3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play?
Task guidance that makes tasking set based upon the Club range with fair warning to that effect to others can work to allow these folks to come yet make the class predominately Club oriented. When long MAT is used for the AT's, everyone is accomodated.
4. The US RC emphasizes making the best contest experience for all, understanding that this may mean compromising preparation for the 30 or so that are US team players.
5. This is a subjective point where many folks will differ. In the US, we have made a number of innovations in areas like starts, finishes, airport bonus, safety finish, etc. thatwe strongly believe are better and safer than the other guys.
6. I've commented on this sub topic previously.

My sense is that a very few Club pilots are really hard over on this and that
many others much less so.
It would be good to hear from some new voices. We know where HA stands.
Still listening
UH

Sean F (F2)

December 7th 12, 11:05 PM

Im sorry, I think you were assuming that I was talking about the RC when I said the word "representatives." I was talking SSA BOD. My apology.

The RC simply makes rule recommendations to the SSA BOD. The upcoming SSA winter BOD meeting which will contain the US Club Class "BOD approval vote" will late February, 2013. The SSA BOD ultimately must provide approval on the rules recommendation presented "traditionally" but the RC for the new US Club Class to be officially sanctioned. If the RC is remains unmoved by the petition, I suspect the SSA BOD might be. I am not sure why all proposed US classes require the US RC to be involved (126 for example). More on that later.

Again, I think the RC does a great, great job and means well. They have all been on the job for some time. They are very passionate about their highly custom, unique soaring rules system. The US Rules are, for example, twice as long as FAI rules. The members of the US RC are all good people for sure. But it is important to remember that they have created an entirely new soaring rules system "utopia!" They therefore have separated all US pilots from the rest of the soaring world which uses FAI. Canadians are also, in part, sucked into this as well in some cases. Nonetheless, the US RC takes great pride in this although they may not see it as I have just explained it. I have no major issue with US rules personally. They are fine, but for many in the US we would like to HAVE THE CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!! We would like, in at least one US class, to be in alignment with the REST OF THE WORLD in the soaring rules. It also happens that the FAI rules are the rules used for ALL World Championship events. We are therefore completely isolated at current by the actions of the US RC in terms of soaring competition. The RC clearly fights with passion to maintain this bubble. They wield GREAT power over the bubble. We as US pilots have been fairly passive until now on challenging the complete isolation from the rest of the soaring world.

So, yes, this is a bit of a rebellion against the "ruling" class. But its not as bad as that may seem on the surface.

It is worth stating again, clearly, that we are NOT trying to alter any of the existing US classes in any way with this petition. We simply wish for our US Club Class (which we had requesting for years) to actually be the FAI Club Class which WAS REQUESTED since day one! The whole point of requesting this class (from the beginning to now) was to be in alignment with the FAI Club Class.

Consider that It was entirely UNNECESSARY for the US RC to assume that when the US Club Class owners and pilots requested a SSA sanctioned US "Club Class" that they also wanted the RC to cobble up US rules modifications to go along with it! In fact, all that needed to happen here with this request for a SSA sanctioned US Club Class sanction was to SIMPLY APPROVE IT and let it happen. No modification of the FAI rules was necessary or requested. No time was needed. Sports Class should carry on as is!

I am also concerned that the US RC does not utilize the right tools in regards to getting the opinions of ALL members. It seems a very dark, closed process this annual poll. It raises serious concerns about objectivity and transparency. Why must this be so closely guarded and private? Why can this process not be public, open and transparent? A simple, public Y/N poll is far more effective on key topics. Polls are subject to interpretation and are all about the "design" of the questions. People rarely use polls to generate "pure" data. They want to see certain answers! That is the point of a poll. They power of the poll is being able to set ONLY THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANT ANSWERED! In the case of the SSA poll, only a few (or 2 choices are often provided on broad topics. More later...

Our petition, on the other hand, is a highly transparent effort to PROVE (to all (SSA, BOD, WORLD), not just the US RC) the strong desire which exists with many US Pilots for a US Club Class which is in tight alignment with the rest of the world's soaring rules. These pilots are (in most cases) publicly, proudly, confidently stating their opinions on a ver specific, well defined topic. They want "just one" US Nationals to follow the world FAI standard as opposed to the US RC vision. This cannot be that bad! You would think, in some cases, that we are proposing the RC drink pure snake venom.. What are they so afraid of? There must be more to this thing which I do not yet fully understand...

Now, in terms of the recent statement challenging Sean Franke and I to make a plan for the RC since they have already submitted theirs. That is an interesting request. I thought the essence of our petition spelled that out fairly clearly.

That said, it is odd to me that the RC has not taken the opportunity to propose ANY compromise to its original proposal based on the 41 signature strong petition, this thread, the many behind the scenes email conversations, etc. Despite the passionate RC arguments against FAI, it is clear to us that we can easily run an FAI Club Class for Nationals next year and even use the exact same software, Winscore. So in terms of our proposal, here is what we want: FAI rules Club Class within the Sports Class Nationals next year, in Mifflin (or perhaps at a separate site). It is that simple. It only become "complicated" when the RC changed the Club Class to the point that it is unrecognizable to the world standard FAI Club Class!

Again: The long standing (albeit unique) US SSA Sports class remains EXACTLY THE SAME in our proposal. Keep that AS IS!!! FAI Club Ship owners who "choose" to fly in the new US FAI Club Class are welcomed to do so (these ARE the pilots who requested a US FAI Club Class in the first place!). Clearly there are a great deal of pilots who are excited about that opportunity presenting itself (especially since this new class with qualify US pilots for the Club Class World Championships). Nobody is left behind. If a pilots within the FAI Club Range chooses, they can REMAIN in US SSA Sports Class and fly MAT's and AAT's! Everyone is HAPPY! What is the problem with this again? Seriously? What am I missing?

In conclusion, it is fairly amazing to me peck this out on my iPhone on my flight home this evening, that the group of US pilots who have basically been requesting a popular FAI soaring class be sanctioned for the US are no being told (by the RC) to "go away" BECAUSE they simply want a class to be in alignment with what the rest of the world uses! Is it just me or is that simple fact stunning. We need to be more fluid as an organization (SSA). We are not voting on debt ceilings here. This is not that difficult. There is great upside allowing a single FAI class in the US. There is almost ZERO downside.

Yet many are deeply disappointed and are being offered only one option. Take it or leave it. Not very diplomatic.

Sean
F2

[email protected]

December 8th 12, 12:27 AM

On Friday, December 7, 2012 11:59:50 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:49:52 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > Up to 41 petition signatures...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?
>
>
>
> Compelling your representatives to do what? The petition does not describe any concrete, actionable steps.
>
>
>
> If you want some change to the structure of this year's already-scheduled sports class nationals at Mifflin, you need a clear, detailed, and explicit written statement of what you want and how it can be accomplished.
>
>
>
> If you want to run a club class regional by FAI rules, put together a clear written plan conforming to the requirements for ssa sanction.
>
>
>
> Send these to the contest committee chair, not a new petition. There's a lot of complaint about rules committee not listening, but you have to give us something concrete to work on.
>
>
>
> If you want someone else to figure all this out... well, we did, and the current structure is the best we could come up with. Your turn.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I think the petition title is clear "SSA adoption of FAI rules for 2013 US Club Class Nationals" The actionable step is make US Club Class FAI. In other words NOT another US Rules based class.

Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin. Club Class proponents are saying if you are going to change structure then this is what WE want. I think pilots who are actually going to fly the class should have a say. Don't you?

By the way, it's been said to prove the concept at a super-regional. At what super-regional has the RC version of Club Class been tested and proven?

I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?

The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.

Sean Franke (HA)

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 8th 12, 01:17 AM

On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:27:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin.

[...]

> I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?
>
>
>
> The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.

T8

[email protected]

December 8th 12, 01:19 AM

> 3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play?

> UH

A SGS 2-33 is possible but SGS 1-26 is more likely. However, let's use the 2009 Sports Class Nationals as and example. There was an ASW-28 and ASK-14. Both are considered Club Class gliders under the RC proposal. How is a CD going to set a reasonable AT with such a disparity in performance?

Sean Franke (HA)

[email protected]

December 8th 12, 01:23 AM

On Friday, December 7, 2012 5:17:10 PM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:27:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin.
>
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
>
>
>
> Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.
>
>
>
> T8

1. Tasking
2. Handicap range

Sean Franke (HA)

[email protected]

December 8th 12, 01:44 AM

> Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.
>
>
>
> T8

Evan:

The CC we ran at Moriarty was defined as follows:

SSA Handicaps .935 - 1.05 (if my rememberance is correct), Plus Ventus (15m), LS6 (15m), ASW-20 (15m). And that was it!

This was done to capture many HP's at the higher end and to capture the 304CZ's at the lower end, plus ASW-20's that are allowed at worlds, AND adding V1's and LS6's per the request of members of the RC.

Importantly, it did not allow for the current crop of Std Class ships (D2, LS8, ASW-28. They still have their class. And it did not allow for any of the 1.05 and up ships either. The Sparrowhawks, Russias, Apis, have their own class coming too.

It is the RANGE expansion by the RC that is very much at odds with the historical practice of CC around the world - and at Moriarty.

I can hear the argument coming my way now: "but we do not tell anyone to go away in any other class..."

Well yes we do. Open ships can't race in 18m or 15m class, 18m and 15m can't race in Std Class. Defining a class is about defining it with boundaries so as to make the racing better. Otherwise we just end up with Sports Class that is bifurcated and one part of it is called Club Class.

EY

Sean F (F2)

December 8th 12, 01:51 AM

+1.

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 8th 12, 02:07 AM

On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:44:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > T8
>
>
>
> Evan:
>
>
>
> The CC we ran at Moriarty was defined as follows:
>
>
>
> SSA Handicaps .935 - 1.05 (if my rememberance is correct), Plus Ventus (15m), LS6 (15m), ASW-20 (15m). And that was it!
>
>
>
> This was done to capture many HP's at the higher end and to capture the 304CZ's at the lower end, plus ASW-20's that are allowed at worlds, AND adding V1's and LS6's per the request of members of the RC.
>
>
>
> Importantly, it did not allow for the current crop of Std Class ships (D2, LS8, ASW-28. They still have their class. And it did not allow for any of the 1.05 and up ships either. The Sparrowhawks, Russias, Apis, have their own class coming too.
>
>
>
> It is the RANGE expansion by the RC that is very much at odds with the historical practice of CC around the world - and at Moriarty.
>
>
>
> I can hear the argument coming my way now: "but we do not tell anyone to go away in any other class..."
>
>
>
> Well yes we do. Open ships can't race in 18m or 15m class, 18m and 15m can't race in Std Class. Defining a class is about defining it with boundaries so as to make the racing better. Otherwise we just end up with Sports Class that is bifurcated and one part of it is called Club Class.
>
>
>
> EY

Thanks... yep, right there on the info page (facepalm).

However, that *is* unique. You can race a 1-26 in open class if you like. But you aren't going to get any consideration in tasking.

T8

Richard Walters

December 8th 12, 02:30 AM

Can someone explain why the IGC does not allow ASW20B&C
models in CC WGC? Granted the B&C are slightly better
performing, and some have winglets, but handicaps can take care
of those differences.

It would help fill out contest rosters.

Regards
Rick Walters

[email protected]

December 8th 12, 03:19 AM

On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:19:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > 3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play? > UH A SGS 2-33 is possible but SGS 1-26 is more likely. However, let's use the 2009 Sports Class Nationals as and example. There was an ASW-28 and ASK-14. Both are considered Club Class gliders under the RC proposal. How is a CD going to set a reasonable AT with such a disparity in performance? Sean Franke (HA)

By utilizing the long MAT concept the you refuse to discuss.
Everybody starts pretty much at the same time like AT. They fly the same course, except the low performance gliders skip the last turn so they don't land in a field. It is proven and it works.
Please read what I wrote.
UH

[email protected]

December 8th 12, 04:05 AM

On Friday, December 7, 2012 6:30:09 PM UTC-8, Richard Walters wrote:
> Can someone explain why the IGC does not allow ASW20B&C
>
> models in CC WGC? Granted the B&C are slightly better
>
> performing, and some have winglets, but handicaps can take care
>
> of those differences.
>
>
>
> It would help fill out contest rosters.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Rick Walters

There was no distinction between ASW-20 A,B,C in previous WGC. The carve out comes into play for Argentina where the ASW-20 could be an interesting glider of choice. They have been acceptable in the past and I see no reason to exclude B & C (15 meter) in US Club Class.

Winglets are allowed with a 0.01 handicap penalty not to exceed 1.09 combined handicap.

Sean Franke (HA)

[email protected]

December 8th 12, 04:10 AM

On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:19:37 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:19:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > > 3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play? > UH A SGS 2-33 is possible but SGS 1-26 is more likely. However, let's use the 2009 Sports Class Nationals as and example. There was an ASW-28 and ASK-14. Both are considered Club Class gliders under the RC proposal. How is a CD going to set a reasonable AT with such a disparity in performance? Sean Franke (HA)
>
>
>
> By utilizing the long MAT concept the you refuse to discuss.
>
> Everybody starts pretty much at the same time like AT. They fly the same course, except the low performance gliders skip the last turn so they don't land in a field. It is proven and it works.
>
> Please read what I wrote.
>
> UH

UH, I understand the concept. However, a MAT is NO substitute for AT. Everyone fly's the SAME course in AT. Slower or lower performance gliders cutting turn points is not flying the same course.

Sean Franke (HA)

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 8th 12, 02:25 PM

On Friday, December 7, 2012 11:10:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:19:37 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:19:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > 3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play? > UH A SGS 2-33 is possible but SGS 1-26 is more likely. However, let's use the 2009 Sports Class Nationals as and example. There was an ASW-28 and ASK-14. Both are considered Club Class gliders under the RC proposal. How is a CD going to set a reasonable AT with such a disparity in performance? Sean Franke (HA)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > By utilizing the long MAT concept the you refuse to discuss.
>
> >
>
> > Everybody starts pretty much at the same time like AT. They fly the same course, except the low performance gliders skip the last turn so they don't land in a field. It is proven and it works.
>
> >
>
> > Please read what I wrote.
>
> >
>
> > UH
>
>
>
> UH, I understand the concept. However, a MAT is NO substitute for AT. Everyone fly's the SAME course in AT. Slower or lower performance gliders cutting turn points is not flying the same course.
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Let's pick it apart. You and UH are both right on significant points.

Long MAT and AT have significant similarities. They do feel similar (not by any means identical) for guys of roughly equal performance. The fast guys still win.

They also have significant differences. The legs are shorter on a long MAT.. 180 mile long MAT has a bunch of 20 - 30 mile legs. Maybe the first two can be reasonably long on a good day. AT might be two turnpoints. Result is that the fleet tends to stay closer together on the MAT, there's just less room for deviation on a short leg. It feels different too in that you are (usually) going to get farther from home on the AT, see more terrain and you aren't going to be over the same terrain repeatedly, as can often happen in a long MAT. Some of this can be dealt with by determined and creative task setting.

The races get very different if we task such that you have to fly fast until the end of the day to finish the course. Is this what you want to do? It's probably the way to make the Nats a better training & selection tool for WGC. If we do that, the gig becomes a lot more work, a lot more aggravation for the landees and a lot less barbeque and camaraderie at the airport.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[email protected]

December 9th 12, 02:48 PM

42 have signed the petition FAI Rules for the US Club Class Nationals

See: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/

Thank you George

Sean Franke (HA)

John Carlyle

December 9th 12, 07:29 PM

I had a look at the SSA Contest results, and I can't tell if mixed rules (US and FAI) were tried at the super regional held in Moriarty last year. If (1) the Club Class FAI petition succeeds, and (2) the contest organizer changes his mind, then Mifflin might be the first mixed rule Nationals contest..

I may have missed it, but I don't believe anyone has asked the pilots flying Sports Class at Mifflin in May 2013 how they'd feel about flying under US rules while another Class at the same contest was flying under FAI rules.

Speaking for myself, I'm not eager to be in such an experiment. In my view there are chances for things to go wrong, and I'd prefer that mixed rules flying be tried somewhere else, without me participating.

-John

[email protected]

December 9th 12, 07:58 PM

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 11:29:22 AM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
> I had a look at the SSA Contest results, and I can't tell if mixed rules (US and FAI) were tried at the super regional held in Moriarty last year. If (1) the Club Class FAI petition succeeds, and (2) the contest organizer changes his mind, then Mifflin might be the first mixed rule Nationals contest.
>
>
>
> I may have missed it, but I don't believe anyone has asked the pilots flying Sports Class at Mifflin in May 2013 how they'd feel about flying under US rules while another Class at the same contest was flying under FAI rules..
>
>
>
> Speaking for myself, I'm not eager to be in such an experiment. In my view there are chances for things to go wrong, and I'd prefer that mixed rules flying be tried somewhere else, without me participating.
>
>
>
> -John

I'm curious John, what conflicts do you see with Sports Class? The same start and finish can be used. The difference is a narrower handicap range, only AT and AAT and scoring formula. How does that effect a US rules based Sports Class?

Sean Franke (HA)

[email protected]

December 9th 12, 08:23 PM

BTW John, I appreciate your question. I feel many have misperceptions about FAI and its integration. Some have spun negative image and scare tactics to keep FAI out of the US.
Sean Franke (HA)

John Carlyle

December 9th 12, 09:22 PM

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 2:58:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Sunday, December 9, 2012 11:29:22 AM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
>
> > I had a look at the SSA Contest results, and I can't tell if mixed rules (US and FAI) were tried at the super regional held in Moriarty last year. If (1) the Club Class FAI petition succeeds, and (2) the contest organizer changes his mind, then Mifflin might be the first mixed rule Nationals contest.
>
> > I may have missed it, but I don't believe anyone has asked the pilots flying Sports Class at Mifflin in May 2013 how they'd feel about flying under US rules while another Class at the same contest was flying under FAI rules.
>
> > Speaking for myself, I'm not eager to be in such an experiment. In my view there are chances for things to go wrong, and I'd prefer that mixed rules flying be tried somewhere else, without me participating.
>
> > -John
>
>
>
> I'm curious John, what conflicts do you see with Sports Class? The same start and finish can be used. The difference is a narrower handicap range, only AT and AAT and scoring formula. How does that effect a US rules based Sports Class?
>
> Sean Franke (HA)
>
On Sunday, December 9, 2012 3:23:46 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> BTW John, I appreciate your question. I feel many have misperceptions about FAI and its integration. Some have spun negative image and scare tactics to keep FAI out of the US.
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Sean,

What concerns me the most are reports that FAI rules result in gaggle flying. For the relatively new to competition pilots that Sports Class attracts, I can think of a few ways that gaggle flying could cause real problems at the start, during the task, and at the finish.

At the start Sports Class could be milling around near the top of the cylinder close to the course line when suddenly a large group of gliders (the entire Club Class) could zoom by just under Vne. You'd definitely need different start areas with different first course lines.

During the task Sports Class gliders could be caught by a large part of the Club Class in a thermal. This wouldn't be the comparatively tame pre-start large gaggle thermal experience, but a large number of experienced contest pilots with their game face on, flying aggressively to get and keep any possible advantage, in the company of relatively new to competition pilots.

At the finish a Sports Class glider pilot could find himself making an approach along with most of the Club Class. Mifflin can handle 6 simultaneous approaches, but more than that could get real exciting (dangerous).

I'm sure that you, or someone else experienced with both US and FAI rules, could think of other potential problems with flying mixed rules (and probably you/they could think of possible ways to minimize these problems, too. But I'm afraid that until mixed rules are actually tried during a contest we won't understand all of the areas where things could go wrong. And I'd rather not be at that particular contest...

-John

Mike C

December 9th 12, 10:00 PM

U.S. rules in Moriarty last year. We chose the handicaps allowed for Club and Modern classes through a waiver.

Being able to operate with waivers when holding Club/Modern Contests, has been easy, allowing for a lot of flexibility.

Thanks to everyone involved at the SSA, and a some very dedicated volunteers, we have had two successful Club/Modern Super Regionals, with very good participation. In each class the pilots who flew the best were at the top.

Mike

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:29:22 PM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
> I had a look at the SSA Contest results, and I can't tell if mixed rules (US and FAI) were tried at the super regional held in Moriarty last year. If (1) the Club Class FAI petition succeeds, and (2) the contest organizer changes his mind, then Mifflin might be the first mixed rule Nationals contest.
>
>
>
> I may have missed it, but I don't believe anyone has asked the pilots flying Sports Class at Mifflin in May 2013 how they'd feel about flying under US rules while another Class at the same contest was flying under FAI rules..
>
>
>
> Speaking for myself, I'm not eager to be in such an experiment. In my view there are chances for things to go wrong, and I'd prefer that mixed rules flying be tried somewhere else, without me participating.
>
>
>
> -John

[email protected]

December 9th 12, 11:35 PM

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 1:22:39 PM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
> On Sunday, December 9, 2012 2:58:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, December 9, 2012 11:29:22 AM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I had a look at the SSA Contest results, and I can't tell if mixed rules (US and FAI) were tried at the super regional held in Moriarty last year. If (1) the Club Class FAI petition succeeds, and (2) the contest organizer changes his mind, then Mifflin might be the first mixed rule Nationals contest.
>
> >
>
> > > I may have missed it, but I don't believe anyone has asked the pilots flying Sports Class at Mifflin in May 2013 how they'd feel about flying under US rules while another Class at the same contest was flying under FAI rules.
>
> >
>
> > > Speaking for myself, I'm not eager to be in such an experiment. In my view there are chances for things to go wrong, and I'd prefer that mixed rules flying be tried somewhere else, without me participating.
>
> >
>
> > > -John
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm curious John, what conflicts do you see with Sports Class? The same start and finish can be used. The difference is a narrower handicap range, only AT and AAT and scoring formula. How does that effect a US rules based Sports Class?
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
>
> >
>
> On Sunday, December 9, 2012 3:23:46 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > BTW John, I appreciate your question. I feel many have misperceptions about FAI and its integration. Some have spun negative image and scare tactics to keep FAI out of the US.
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
>
>
>
>
>
> Sean,
>
>
>
> What concerns me the most are reports that FAI rules result in gaggle flying. For the relatively new to competition pilots that Sports Class attracts, I can think of a few ways that gaggle flying could cause real problems at the start, during the task, and at the finish.
>
>
>
> At the start Sports Class could be milling around near the top of the cylinder close to the course line when suddenly a large group of gliders (the entire Club Class) could zoom by just under Vne. You'd definitely need different start areas with different first course lines.
>
>
>
> During the task Sports Class gliders could be caught by a large part of the Club Class in a thermal. This wouldn't be the comparatively tame pre-start large gaggle thermal experience, but a large number of experienced contest pilots with their game face on, flying aggressively to get and keep any possible advantage, in the company of relatively new to competition pilots.
>
>
>
> At the finish a Sports Class glider pilot could find himself making an approach along with most of the Club Class. Mifflin can handle 6 simultaneous approaches, but more than that could get real exciting (dangerous).
>
>
>
> I'm sure that you, or someone else experienced with both US and FAI rules, could think of other potential problems with flying mixed rules (and probably you/they could think of possible ways to minimize these problems, too. But I'm afraid that until mixed rules are actually tried during a contest we won't understand all of the areas where things could go wrong. And I'd rather not be at that particular contest...
>
>
>
> -John

John, gaggle flying happens mostly in AT and weak days. With the RC proposal AT will happen next year with both lower and higher handicap range gliders flying US Rules in Mifflin. So in that respect you can expect more gaggle flying next year with current RC proposal.

An FAI rules based class in Mifflin will have no increased gaggling than what is currently proposed. No matter which rules are applied gaggle flying before the start is unavoidable. I have flow FAI and US Rule based contests. My biggest gaggle flying experience by far was under US Rules. BTW, I have flown four FAI contests and never seen anyone make a red line start.

It's a common US perception that FAI contest = extreme gaggle, unsafe and aggressive flying. This myth is perpetuated by those trying to keep simpler, common sense FAI Rules out of the US.

We are trying to accomplish three goals with FAI rules:
1. Narrow handicap range
2. AT and AAT only
3. IGC scoring

All are 100% compatible in Mifflin.

Sean Franke (HA)

Sean F (F2)

December 10th 12, 07:51 PM

44 Signatures.

At pace to be near 60 by New Years.

By February 23rd, who knows...

John Carlyle

December 10th 12, 08:57 PM

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 6:35:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> John, gaggle flying happens mostly in AT and weak days. With the RC proposal AT will happen next year with both lower and higher handicap range gliders flying US Rules in Mifflin. So in that respect you can expect more gaggle flying next year with current RC proposal.
>
> An FAI rules based class in Mifflin will have no increased gaggling than what is currently proposed. No matter which rules are applied gaggle flying before the start is unavoidable. I have flow FAI and US Rule based contests. My biggest gaggle flying experience by far was under US Rules. BTW, I have flown four FAI contests and never seen anyone make a red line start..
>
> It's a common US perception that FAI contest = extreme gaggle, unsafe and aggressive flying. This myth is perpetuated by those trying to keep simpler, common sense FAI Rules out of the US.
>
> We are trying to accomplish three goals with FAI rules:
> 1. Narrow handicap range
> 2. AT and AAT only
> 3. IGC scoring
>
> All are 100% compatible in Mifflin.
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Sean,

I don’t doubt your description, but I think your experience at the Worlds was atypical. All accounts I’ve read about flying in the Worlds have mentioned the huge on-course gaggles. Also, one of the RC members believes that the large on-course gaggle strategy is a direct result of the FAI rules themselves.

I’ve flown at Mifflin in a variety of weather conditions, and the largest on-course gaggle I’ve been in was 5 gliders. I flew at another contest site where every day I’d be in on-course gaggles of 20+ gliders. I didn’t enjoy it, and although I can deal with it if required, I’m not anxious to fly in another contest where such large on-course gaggles might be likely.

If your petition to the SSA succeeds, please make sure to ask those pilots flying in traditional Sports Class at Mifflin 2013 if they want to fly in the first mixed rule competition.

-John

[email protected]

December 10th 12, 10:20 PM

On Monday, December 10, 2012 12:57:54 PM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
> On Sunday, December 9, 2012 6:35:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > John, gaggle flying happens mostly in AT and weak days. With the RC proposal AT will happen next year with both lower and higher handicap range gliders flying US Rules in Mifflin. So in that respect you can expect more gaggle flying next year with current RC proposal.
>
> >
>
> > An FAI rules based class in Mifflin will have no increased gaggling than what is currently proposed. No matter which rules are applied gaggle flying before the start is unavoidable. I have flow FAI and US Rule based contests. My biggest gaggle flying experience by far was under US Rules. BTW, I have flown four FAI contests and never seen anyone make a red line start.

John Carlyle

December 10th 12, 11:05 PM

On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:20:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> The RC current proposal for Mifflin 2013 includes AT which is known to increase gaggles. If they succeed should Mifflin pilots be asked if they want to fly in the first AT two handicap division Sports Class Nationals?
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Hank Nixon already gave a "heads up" on this possibility on Nov 7 in this forum. Knowing Hank, I expect that if the CC is approved by the SSA BOD, he'll be making even more announcements. So you don't have to worry about it, Sean.

-John

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 12th 12, 01:40 PM

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:28:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 3:05:17 PM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
>
> > On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:20:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > The RC current proposal for Mifflin 2013 includes AT which is known to increase gaggles. If they succeed should Mifflin pilots be asked if they want to fly in the first AT two handicap division Sports Class Nationals?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sean Franke (HA)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hank Nixon already gave a "heads up" on this possibility on Nov 7 in this forum. Knowing Hank, I expect that if the CC is approved by the SSA BOD, he'll be making even more announcements. So you don't have to worry about it, Sean.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -John
>
>
>
> John, it's good to hear concerns and suggestions. Based on what I hear from you and others, the Sports Class should remain intact without rule changes. If AT is introduced so will gaggles. There are some like you who don't care to fly in a class with gaggles.
>
>
>
> Evan stated some advantages and merits of MAT such as less work and more BBQ's. If the Sports Class added AT there would be fewer MAT's.
>
>
>
> Guy posted "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>
>
>
> What makes sense to preserve Sports Class as an all inclusive handicap class under current US rules. In ADDITION ADD US Club Class at the same venue under FAI rules. This way no one goes home and 99% are happy. Fly in the class you prefer. Club Class can, if necessary, have a separate start area and be tasked differently than Sports Class reducing glider traffic. Those who don't care for MAT (I'm one)aren't forced to fly it. Also, those who want something different that US rules have a place to fly. The US Club Class should preserve FAI spirit but make compatible with US pilots. Variations might include handicap acceptance and unit format.
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Using the entry lists/gliders from recent Sports Nats as a baseline, this proposal doesn't work. Surely that's obvious.

T8

[email protected]

December 12th 12, 02:31 PM

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:40:04 AM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:28:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Monday, December 10, 2012 3:05:17 PM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:20:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The RC current proposal for Mifflin 2013 includes AT which is known to increase gaggles. If they succeed should Mifflin pilots be asked if they want to fly in the first AT two handicap division Sports Class Nationals?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Sean Franke (HA)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Hank Nixon already gave a "heads up" on this possibility on Nov 7 in this forum. Knowing Hank, I expect that if the CC is approved by the SSA BOD, he'll be making even more announcements. So you don't have to worry about it, Sean.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > -John
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > John, it's good to hear concerns and suggestions. Based on what I hear from you and others, the Sports Class should remain intact without rule changes. If AT is introduced so will gaggles. There are some like you who don't care to fly in a class with gaggles.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Evan stated some advantages and merits of MAT such as less work and more BBQ's. If the Sports Class added AT there would be fewer MAT's.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Guy posted "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What makes sense to preserve Sports Class as an all inclusive handicap class under current US rules. In ADDITION ADD US Club Class at the same venue under FAI rules. This way no one goes home and 99% are happy. Fly in the class you prefer. Club Class can, if necessary, have a separate start area and be tasked differently than Sports Class reducing glider traffic. Those who don't care for MAT (I'm one)aren't forced to fly it. Also, those who want something different that US rules have a place to fly. The US Club Class should preserve FAI spirit but make compatible with US pilots. Variations might include handicap acceptance and unit format.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
>
>
>
> Using the entry lists/gliders from recent Sports Nats as a baseline, this proposal doesn't work. Surely that's obvious.
>
>
>
> T8

Sorry, it's not obvious. Please explain.

Sean Franke (HA)

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 12th 12, 04:08 PM

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:31:38 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:40:04 AM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:28:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Monday, December 10, 2012 3:05:17 PM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:20:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > The RC current proposal for Mifflin 2013 includes AT which is known to increase gaggles. If they succeed should Mifflin pilots be asked if they want to fly in the first AT two handicap division Sports Class Nationals?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Sean Franke (HA)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Hank Nixon already gave a "heads up" on this possibility on Nov 7 in this forum. Knowing Hank, I expect that if the CC is approved by the SSA BOD, he'll be making even more announcements. So you don't have to worry about it, Sean.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > -John
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > John, it's good to hear concerns and suggestions. Based on what I hear from you and others, the Sports Class should remain intact without rule changes. If AT is introduced so will gaggles. There are some like you who don't care to fly in a class with gaggles.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Evan stated some advantages and merits of MAT such as less work and more BBQ's. If the Sports Class added AT there would be fewer MAT's.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Guy posted "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > What makes sense to preserve Sports Class as an all inclusive handicap class under current US rules. In ADDITION ADD US Club Class at the same venue under FAI rules. This way no one goes home and 99% are happy. Fly in the class you prefer. Club Class can, if necessary, have a separate start area and be tasked differently than Sports Class reducing glider traffic. Those who don't care for MAT (I'm one)aren't forced to fly it. Also, those who want something different that US rules have a place to fly. The US Club Class should preserve FAI spirit but make compatible with US pilots. Variations might include handicap acceptance and unit format.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sean Franke (HA)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Using the entry lists/gliders from recent Sports Nats as a baseline, this proposal doesn't work. Surely that's obvious.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > T8
>
>
>
> Sorry, it's not obvious. Please explain.
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Taking 2012 Sports as an example... there were 27 moderns (by anyone's definition), 4 gray area ships (LS-6, V1, ASW-20B/C), 11 "Argentina Definition" FAI Club Class gliders and 2 low performance. 15 gliders is marginal for a Nationals class. 11 is not marginal, it's a non-starter. RC definition yields 17 "Club Class" gliders which still isn't great and now has all of the tasking problems that you object to.

If you do a similar analysis on 2009, 10 and 11 Sports Nats, the numbers are even worse.

The best attended Club Class (Argentina Definition) in the US so far was Cordele (2009 maybe?) with 17 ships. Your races at Moriarity were viable only because you let in gray area ships.

This conversation would, I think, go a whole lot differently if there was any evidence there was a chance of getting 25+ club class (by any definition) gliders on the Nationals grid. So far, there isn't.

T8

Mike C

December 12th 12, 04:30 PM

On the other hand Evan, the Sports Class Nationals at Parowan was being held just a week after the Super Regional in Moriarty, and attracted Club Class pilots that might otherwise had been at Moriarty.

Mike

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:08:32 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:31:38 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:40:04 AM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:28:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Monday, December 10, 2012 3:05:17 PM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:20:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > The RC current proposal for Mifflin 2013 includes AT which is known to increase gaggles. If they succeed should Mifflin pilots be asked if they want to fly in the first AT two handicap division Sports Class Nationals?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Sean Franke (HA)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Hank Nixon already gave a "heads up" on this possibility on Nov 7 in this forum. Knowing Hank, I expect that if the CC is approved by the SSA BOD, he'll be making even more announcements. So you don't have to worry about it, Sean.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > -John
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > John, it's good to hear concerns and suggestions. Based on what I hear from you and others, the Sports Class should remain intact without rule changes. If AT is introduced so will gaggles. There are some like you who don't care to fly in a class with gaggles.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Evan stated some advantages and merits of MAT such as less work and more BBQ's. If the Sports Class added AT there would be fewer MAT's.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Guy posted "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > What makes sense to preserve Sports Class as an all inclusive handicap class under current US rules. In ADDITION ADD US Club Class at the same venue under FAI rules. This way no one goes home and 99% are happy. Fly in the class you prefer. Club Class can, if necessary, have a separate start area and be tasked differently than Sports Class reducing glider traffic.. Those who don't care for MAT (I'm one)aren't forced to fly it. Also, those who want something different that US rules have a place to fly. The US Club Class should preserve FAI spirit but make compatible with US pilots. Variations might include handicap acceptance and unit format.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Sean Franke (HA)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Using the entry lists/gliders from recent Sports Nats as a baseline, this proposal doesn't work. Surely that's obvious.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > T8
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sorry, it's not obvious. Please explain.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
>
>
>
> Taking 2012 Sports as an example... there were 27 moderns (by anyone's definition), 4 gray area ships (LS-6, V1, ASW-20B/C), 11 "Argentina Definition" FAI Club Class gliders and 2 low performance. 15 gliders is marginal for a Nationals class. 11 is not marginal, it's a non-starter. RC definition yields 17 "Club Class" gliders which still isn't great and now has all of the tasking problems that you object to.
>
>
>
> If you do a similar analysis on 2009, 10 and 11 Sports Nats, the numbers are even worse.
>
>
>
> The best attended Club Class (Argentina Definition) in the US so far was Cordele (2009 maybe?) with 17 ships. Your races at Moriarity were viable only because you let in gray area ships.
>
>
>
> This conversation would, I think, go a whole lot differently if there was any evidence there was a chance of getting 25+ club class (by any definition) gliders on the Nationals grid. So far, there isn't.
>
>
>
> T8

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 12th 12, 05:00 PM

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:30:32 AM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> On the other hand Evan, the Sports Class Nationals at Parowan was being held just a week after the Super Regional in Moriarty, and attracted Club Class pilots that might otherwise had been at Moriarty.
>

Be sure to look at Sports Nats from 2009 (Harris Hill) and 2011 (Chilhowee) too -- those contests may better reflect the grid we are likely to get at Mifflin.

FWIW: I support that which helps build the sport. If we can build a viable club class that is net positive for the sport, I'm all for it. So far, I'm simply skeptical. If I seem opposed, that's probably because I take exception to the methods being employed here and all the BS being hurled publicly at the RC.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Sean F (F2)

December 12th 12, 07:58 PM

BS? Ok, so you have said this about us...allow me a brief reply.

46 people clearly feel they are not being represented by the RC per the rule they have offered as the new "US Club Class." That's why they have signed the petition. That's why we started it. No other path was open. All the doors were locked. It was clearly stated offline that FAI rules is a NON STARTER. Ok...

So we decided to go another route. And have been attacked ever since by the establishment players. Meanwhile, more pilots will sign the petition. Many others are very supportive but have choose not to sign, yet. How could this be?

You claim our petition and defense of our beliefs on this forum is a bad tactic? Having a petition that asks a clear question about FAI rules is BS? US pilots publicly voicing their wishes, their opinions about this specific topic is a bad thing? Really? Should we have simply relied on the RC poll and poll data? Is that, not, BS? Obviously the poll and its "analysis" resulted in the US club class rule? Meanwhile almost every major player in the US who owns a club ship is LOUDLY supporting an FAI Club Class. How can their be such a massive deviation from these clear voices in the polling data? Where is the polling data by the way? Clearly the Poll method leaves "something to be desired...!" We prefer direct, simple questions if you have not noticed. (I'll focus more on the poll method flaws soon.)

I wish to suggest that the US soaring environment is not the private utopia for the RC to mold into their private vision and "control." We should not in competition with the rest of the world on rules leadership. Perhaps the RC needs some new members? Some new viewpoints? They have succeeded in completely isolating all US pilots from the rest of the competitive soaring world. US pilots of any aspiration have no choice then to play a different game. The cold fact here js that MANY within the US want a choice to fly under pure, UNMOLESTED FAI in at least one US class!

I personally agree with many US rules. But that does not mean that a choice should not be available. ESPECIALLY WHEN SUCH A LARGE NUMBER OF PRESTIGIOUS US PILOTS HAVE PUBLICLY STATED THIER DESIRE FOR A SSA SANCTIONED US FAI CLASS (AND CLEARLY PROVEN THE "POLL" IS DEEPLY FLAWED). This should not be a dictatorship. Listening to the people should be primary. We are only talking about one small meager class here. This is not blasphemy here! Or is it?

In response to this request we hear comments like "non-starter..." all to often. Many are growing increasingly frustrated as they follow the conversation here. Many from past debates on this topic a reinvigorated. I see this as long term positive. You probably won't understand.

How is having one US class which is in alignment with THE REST OF THE WORLD SO BAD AGAIN?

We are speaking pure facts here on this side of the argument. Nothing we have said is out if hand. This is simply an open, specific petition on FAI club class vs what the RC has proposed via their poll and their "wisdom...".. And it's causing great panic in my opinion? Why?

Why not simply listen to your fellow pilots? You know, the ones with club ships? What is the underlying motivation of intentionally avoiding FAI rules at any cost?

Why is it impossible for the US RC to allow a class which they rest of the world uses every day? How is that a problem? It's mind boggling.

None of the RC has a club class glider. AND we suggest a solution that allows ANY AND ALL pilots with FAI club ships to have THE CHOICE to fly in either format.

Keep the sports class AS IS. Everyone is happy. Little changes for those who hate this idea or have bought into the propaganda that FAI contest equals certain land out and high risk. Club class gets its class and this conversation goes away!

And don't worry about us Evan, we will manage our attendance just fine. When SSA sanctioned FAI US Club gets approved many will make a point to fly it IN ADDITION to the many who have signed the petition. I promise.

Perhaps this is the fear I am smelling...allowing us to succeed with an FAI class? Hmmmm?

Sean
F2

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 12th 12, 08:21 PM

Sports class "as is" with club class means a huge hole out of the
middle, and the sparrowhawk competing with no other gliders between it
and an ASW27. That just doesn't work. The sparrowhawk will go home and
not come back. Forget about "sports class as is plus club class" until
we have enough club eligible gliders showing up to populate both.

There is one petition that counts -- the one where people show up at a
contest with a glider and a check. We haven't had 50 pilots at sports
nationals in club gliders ever. First you show up and race, then we
talk about how to tweak the rules.

The Mifflin experiment gives about 95% of what you wanted -- limited
handicap range allowing more gaggle flying and assigned tasks / long
MATs. If that works, attracts 25+ gliders, and the SRA meeting at
Mifflin (I can't wait for that one) indicates strong support for
moving further in the direction of FAI rules. we can keep going. If
you and the 50 signatories stay home, the game is up.

If full-on FAI rules are in fact so immensely attractive, and people
really are staying home from Mifflin because they can't stand the
thought of a beat up 20B or sparrowhawk sharing the grid with them,
and they're dying to reprogram their instruments to kilometers to
practice for the worlds, then a FAI rules regional will attract 50
pilots and prove the concept. Remember, pilots not on the seeding list
who have never flown contests cannot fly a nationals, so you can't
talk about people who just hate our rules so much and love FAI rules
that they don't fly contests at all.

Last year, artificial horizons. This year, FAI rules, in all their
glory. I can't wait for next year.

John Cochrane

[email protected]

December 12th 12, 09:08 PM

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:58:02 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> None of the RC has a club class glider.

Though maybe not a major player, one RC member has been active in Sports with a conforming Club glider. I owned and flew a conforming Club glider in the last Sports nationals I flew and currently own 2 Club class gliders. I'm not quite as disconnected as you might imply. Just a minor correction to your information.
So far, I don't think I have attacked anyone, though we certainly have had a spirited exchange.
UH

Sean F (F2)

December 12th 12, 09:10 PM

"Sports class "as is" with club class means a huge hole out of the middle.."

:-)

So what?

Other than "the hole" (which you claim will occur and I doubt), nothing changes from last years 2012 Sports Class Nationals where ASG29's & ASH25's happily competed (in mass) with 135's and PW5's

Example: http://www.ssa.org/members/contestreports/ContestResultsFullDetail.asp?contestId=2200&ContestDetailId=6685&ContestName=Sports+Class+Nationals

This was a great event with the normal Sports Class range, no? Everyone had a great time just as they have been having for years and years in US Sports Class and under its tasking philosophy. The US Sports class, unique in all the world, is an all inclusive class which provides competition for the full range of ALL US racing gliders. Why change this if the tasking is not going to change? Why would a hole in handicap range matter? The Club Class folks want a true CLUB CLASS. Not a Sports Class Low class.

REMEMBER...the US Rules "evangelists" (RC) are pretty certain (maybe polling data?) that many do not want to fly FAI (land outs, safety, gaggles, etc....). So the hole you claim will form will be filled in with pilots who choose US Rules Sports Class but fly FAI Club gliders.

The FAI Club Class guys either show up in big numbers and have a ball or nothing changes and we continue to fly in Sports as normal.

Everyone wins. Everyone is happy. Everyone has a choice. Nobody is left home...

Although I suspect that the "big boys" in sports class (you know, Ventus 2's, etc) want to cut the bottom off so they can have more challenging tasks themselves. The Club Class FAI crowd understands this! But, that is another problem that should not impact or concern club class pilots who have been asking FOR YEARS for a US CLUB CLASS. We already have an established worldwide successful class. We just want to fly it, unmolested and undiluted by utopian visionaries.

Sean
F2

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 12th 12, 09:54 PM

"Beat up 20B"

*Beat*up*?!?

Oh, the outrage!!

-T8 (ASW-20B) (B stands for "Best")

(j/k)

[email protected]

December 12th 12, 11:51 PM

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:21:26 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> Sports class "as is" with club class means a huge hole out of the
> middle, and the sparrowhawk competing with no other gliders between it
> and an ASW27. That just doesn't work.

It will continue to work as it has in the past. Holes in the middle, low end or high end are irrelevant to an all inclusive Sports Class. If rules and tasking are unchanged then you will get the SAME result, regardless of sailplane mix. It has worked in the past. It will continue to work the same way in the future.

> We haven't had 50 pilots at sports
> nationals in club gliders ever. First you show up and race, then we
> talk about how to tweak the rules.

Too many Club Class pilots feel like we have been there and done that. We were told build and fly a super regional. We did. We were told do it again.. We did. Where does it end? Current RC "Club Class" resembles NOTHING of want was built and flown in the super regionals.

> The Mifflin experiment gives about 95% of what you wanted -- limited
> handicap range allowing more gaggle flying and assigned tasks / long
> MATs.

Stating "95% of want you wanted" is completely inaccurate. Cutting the handicap list down the middle isn't limited handicap range. It certainly doesn't make it Club Class. AT can't happen if just ONE low performance glider shows up. MAT's were EXCLUDED from the super regional. MAT's are no substitute for AT. Besides the RC label "Club Class", which obviously has no resemblance to a real Club Class, I don't think we have anything.

> If that works, attracts 25+ gliders. If
> you and the 50 signatories stay home, the game is up.

I predict the 50 signatories will either stay home or participate at the same level IF the current RC proposal goes into effect. It's insane to expect a different result unless you change. Do you really think those who want a genuine Club Class will market and recruit for a US rules based mass handicap contest labeled "Club Class"? Come on, let's get real.

F2 took Region 6 from 10 pilots to 40 through his marketing efforts. He was excited and motivated. Do you really think he will do the same for the RC's "Club Class"? What about others including me? What about those already staying home?

> If full-on FAI rules are in fact so immensely attractive, and people
> really are staying home from Mifflin because they can't stand the
> thought of a beat up 20B or sparrowhawk sharing the grid with them,
> and they're dying to reprogram their instruments to kilometers to
> practice for the worlds...
> John Cochrane

No one is suggesting leaving out the ASW20B or mandating kilometers. We should keep in mind Guy's post "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."

Sean Franke (HA)

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 13th 12, 04:06 PM

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:51:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:21:26 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > Sports class "as is" with club class means a huge hole out of the
>
> > middle, and the sparrowhawk competing with no other gliders between it
>
> > and an ASW27. That just doesn't work.
>
>
>
> It will continue to work as it has in the past. Holes in the middle, low end or high end are irrelevant to an all inclusive Sports Class. If rules and tasking are unchanged then you will get the SAME result, regardless of sailplane mix. It has worked in the past. It will continue to work the same way in the future.
>
>
>
> > We haven't had 50 pilots at sports
>
> > nationals in club gliders ever. First you show up and race, then we
>
> > talk about how to tweak the rules.
>
>
>
> Too many Club Class pilots feel like we have been there and done that. We were told build and fly a super regional. We did. We were told do it again. We did. Where does it end? Current RC "Club Class" resembles NOTHING of want was built and flown in the super regionals.
>
>
>
> > The Mifflin experiment gives about 95% of what you wanted -- limited
>
> > handicap range allowing more gaggle flying and assigned tasks / long
>
> > MATs.
>
>
>
> Stating "95% of want you wanted" is completely inaccurate. Cutting the handicap list down the middle isn't limited handicap range. It certainly doesn't make it Club Class. AT can't happen if just ONE low performance glider shows up. MAT's were EXCLUDED from the super regional. MAT's are no substitute for AT. Besides the RC label "Club Class", which obviously has no resemblance to a real Club Class, I don't think we have anything.
>
>
>
> > If that works, attracts 25+ gliders. If
>
> > you and the 50 signatories stay home, the game is up.
>
>
>
> I predict the 50 signatories will either stay home or participate at the same level IF the current RC proposal goes into effect. It's insane to expect a different result unless you change. Do you really think those who want a genuine Club Class will market and recruit for a US rules based mass handicap contest labeled "Club Class"? Come on, let's get real.
>
>
>
> F2 took Region 6 from 10 pilots to 40 through his marketing efforts. He was excited and motivated. Do you really think he will do the same for the RC's "Club Class"? What about others including me? What about those already staying home?
>
>
>
>
>
> > If full-on FAI rules are in fact so immensely attractive, and people
>
> > really are staying home from Mifflin because they can't stand the
>
> > thought of a beat up 20B or sparrowhawk sharing the grid with them,
>
> > and they're dying to reprogram their instruments to kilometers to
>
> > practice for the worlds...
>
> > John Cochrane
>
>
>
>
>
> No one is suggesting leaving out the ASW20B or mandating kilometers. We should keep in mind Guy's post "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

You're basically making the case that "Sports Class Sucks" due to the impossibly wide handicap spread. I don't disagree (but I don't make policy). FWIW, I've always thought that Sports at the Nats level was a waste of time for just this reason and I never go. I've flown a couple of narrow handicap range regional contests that included (at most) LS-4s to 18 m ships. That worked pretty well imo and I'd do it again.

Cutting the middle out of Sports makes the problem more glaring, but I do concede the point that it doesn't fundamentally change anything. I've known all along that 27s and better are not meaningfully competing in any way with 1-34s and Ka anythings and I have always thought it silly to put them on the same scoresheet at the *Nationals* level. Regionals are a different story. I fully support an entry level / less intimidating sports class at the regional level.

One 20B guy's take (i.e. mine): If I go to Mifflin I'll fly modern. I'll do that because I think I'll like the tasking better and I learn more chasing faster gliders.

Btw: no one likes the MAT. I've seen it called creatively and well once or twice, but more often it creates a huge luck factor (choose your own turnpoints) or turns a beautiful soaring day into an annoying rat maze of 20 and 30 miles legs (long MAT).

From what I can see of the numbers, we would need to include Venti (a/b/c), LS-6s and 20B/C in order to make an "FAI" club class viable in the Eastern US, and probably Western as well. I am merely curious: is this a deal breaker for you? What about winglets? At the beginning of the thread, the objective very clearly conveyed was "FAI rules without exception", now we appear to be having an actual exchange of ideas. I suggest we leave Mifflin 2013 out of the discussion for the moment. Looking for more common ground here.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[email protected]

December 13th 12, 06:40 PM

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:06:53 AM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:51:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:21:26 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Sports class "as is" with club class means a huge hole out of the
>
> >
>
> > > middle, and the sparrowhawk competing with no other gliders between it
>
> >
>
> > > and an ASW27. That just doesn't work.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It will continue to work as it has in the past. Holes in the middle, low end or high end are irrelevant to an all inclusive Sports Class. If rules and tasking are unchanged then you will get the SAME result, regardless of sailplane mix. It has worked in the past. It will continue to work the same way in the future.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > We haven't had 50 pilots at sports
>
> >
>
> > > nationals in club gliders ever. First you show up and race, then we
>
> >
>
> > > talk about how to tweak the rules.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Too many Club Class pilots feel like we have been there and done that. We were told build and fly a super regional. We did. We were told do it again. We did. Where does it end? Current RC "Club Class" resembles NOTHING of want was built and flown in the super regionals.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > The Mifflin experiment gives about 95% of what you wanted -- limited
>
> >
>
> > > handicap range allowing more gaggle flying and assigned tasks / long
>
> >
>
> > > MATs.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Stating "95% of want you wanted" is completely inaccurate. Cutting the handicap list down the middle isn't limited handicap range. It certainly doesn't make it Club Class. AT can't happen if just ONE low performance glider shows up. MAT's were EXCLUDED from the super regional. MAT's are no substitute for AT. Besides the RC label "Club Class", which obviously has no resemblance to a real Club Class, I don't think we have anything.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > If that works, attracts 25+ gliders. If
>
> >
>
> > > you and the 50 signatories stay home, the game is up.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I predict the 50 signatories will either stay home or participate at the same level IF the current RC proposal goes into effect. It's insane to expect a different result unless you change. Do you really think those who want a genuine Club Class will market and recruit for a US rules based mass handicap contest labeled "Club Class"? Come on, let's get real.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > F2 took Region 6 from 10 pilots to 40 through his marketing efforts. He was excited and motivated. Do you really think he will do the same for the RC's "Club Class"? What about others including me? What about those already staying home?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > If full-on FAI rules are in fact so immensely attractive, and people
>
> >
>
> > > really are staying home from Mifflin because they can't stand the
>
> >
>
> > > thought of a beat up 20B or sparrowhawk sharing the grid with them,
>
> >
>
> > > and they're dying to reprogram their instruments to kilometers to
>
> >
>
> > > practice for the worlds...
>
> >
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > No one is suggesting leaving out the ASW20B or mandating kilometers. We should keep in mind Guy's post "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
>
>
>
> You're basically making the case that "Sports Class Sucks" due to the impossibly wide handicap spread. I don't disagree (but I don't make policy). FWIW, I've always thought that Sports at the Nats level was a waste of time for just this reason and I never go. I've flown a couple of narrow handicap range regional contests that included (at most) LS-4s to 18 m ships. That worked pretty well imo and I'd do it again.
>
>
>
> Cutting the middle out of Sports makes the problem more glaring, but I do concede the point that it doesn't fundamentally change anything. I've known all along that 27s and better are not meaningfully competing in any way with 1-34s and Ka anythings and I have always thought it silly to put them on the same scoresheet at the *Nationals* level. Regionals are a different story. I fully support an entry level / less intimidating sports class at the regional level.
>
>
>
> One 20B guy's take (i.e. mine): If I go to Mifflin I'll fly modern. I'll do that because I think I'll like the tasking better and I learn more chasing faster gliders.
>
>
>
> Btw: no one likes the MAT. I've seen it called creatively and well once or twice, but more often it creates a huge luck factor (choose your own turnpoints) or turns a beautiful soaring day into an annoying rat maze of 20 and 30 miles legs (long MAT).
>
>
>
> From what I can see of the numbers, we would need to include Venti (a/b/c), LS-6s and 20B/C in order to make an "FAI" club class viable in the Eastern US, and probably Western as well. I am merely curious: is this a deal breaker for you? What about winglets? At the beginning of the thread, the objective very clearly conveyed was "FAI rules without exception", now we appear to be having an actual exchange of ideas. I suggest we leave Mifflin 2013 out of the discussion for the moment. Looking for more common ground here.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."

ASW 20 B and C are excluded at the current WGC. B and C's have not been excluded in the past. There certainly is no reason to exclude ANY 15 meter ASW 20 from the US Club Class.

Winglets are already allowed in FAI Club Class with a handicap penalty.

There has been discussion on Ventus 1 and LS 6. I see the argument both ways. I don't believe including those gliders will make the Club Class necessarily more successful. We already have momentum to make the FAI US Club Class the most popular racing class. Keep in mind we have people ready to market and grow the class. F2 grew Region 6N from 10 pilots to 40. It's reasonable to expect significant FAI US Club Class growth. We are not just pulling gliders from the Sports Class roster.

We are proposing starting a new class, not excluding them (V1 and LS6)from an existing contest. So here is the question: Should V1's and LS6 stay in Sports Class under US Rules or be allowed in the new FAI US Club Class? I'd like to hear comments.

Sean Franke (HA)

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 13th 12, 07:41 PM

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:40:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> We already have momentum to make the FAI US Club Class the most popular racing class.

Your evidence for this assertion?

T8

[email protected]

December 13th 12, 08:03 PM

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:41:46 AM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:40:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > We already have momentum to make the FAI US Club Class the most popular racing class.
>
>
>
> Your evidence for this assertion?
>
>
>
> T8

Based on petition support:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/

Also, committed marketing talent and discussions with like minded pilots ready to take this to the next level.

Sean Franke (HA)

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 13th 12, 08:16 PM

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:03:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:41:46 AM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:40:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > We already have momentum to make the FAI US Club Class the most popular racing class.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Your evidence for this assertion?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > T8
>
>
>
> Based on petition support:
>
>
>
> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
>
>
> Also, committed marketing talent and discussions with like minded pilots ready to take this to the next level.
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

lol.

I was hoping for a more reality based discussion.

T8

[email protected]

December 13th 12, 09:30 PM

I received an email with good questions about the petition and FAI US Club Class. Here are my answers:

Q. I feel bad for those that own nice ships that would be excluded from the fun?
A. I agree FAI rules are fun compared to US Rules. Guys with nice ASG29’s and V2’s really need to talk to the rules committee if they want FAI rules for their class. I don’t think anyone in Club Class would object to high performance (or low performance) gliders as a “G” guest in the Club Class. Currently “G” guests get scored but not ranked. Keep in mind tasking would ONLY be based on pure Club Class gliders.

Q. What about a poor guy that spent his retirement money on a LS 6 or a ASW 20c?
A. ASW 20 b and c have been allowed in past WGC and should be INCLUDED in the FAI US Club Class. I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."

Q. By the official FAI definition aren’t Ventus 1s also excluded?
A. Yes. However, there is discussion about LS6 and V1’s either staying in US Rules Sports Class or being allowed in FAI US Club Class.

Q. What happens to the Sports Class when this all goes down?
A. Nothing changes in Sports Class. Club Class eligible gliders have the choice of staying in Sports Class or fly US FAI Club Class. All other gliders stay in the Sports Class

Q. Will there be less participation overall?
A. No, in fact the opposite. We will grow participation. FAI US Club Class advocates are ready to market and grow the class. We are not just pulling from the Sports Class roster. One Club Class advocate alone grew Region 6 participation from 8 gliders to 45.

Q. Aren’t we a shrinking, dying sport as it is? Do we really want to put up more barriers?
A. Exactly, putting up barriers to growth won’t help our shrinking sport. We want to give pilots a contest choice. We want pilots given the option to say YES not told NO. Let’s attract those who stay at home disenchanted with US Rules. Let’s channel enthusiasm in a positive growth direction. There is little chance enthusiastic FAI Club Class advocates will take time to market participation for another US Rules based class.

Sean Franke (HA)

If you are in agreement join us on the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite..com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/

[email protected]

December 13th 12, 10:15 PM

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I received an email with good questions about the petition and FAI US Club Class. Here are my answers:
>
>
>
> Q. I feel bad for those that own nice ships that would be excluded from the fun?
>
> A. I agree FAI rules are fun compared to US Rules. Guys with nice ASG29’s and V2’s really need to talk to the rules committee if they want FAI rules for their class. I don’t think anyone in Club Class would object to high performance (or low performance) gliders as a “G” guest in the Club Class. Currently “G” guests get scored but not ranked. Keep in mind tasking would ONLY be based on pure Club Class gliders.
>
>
>
> Q. What about a poor guy that spent his retirement money on a LS 6 or a ASW 20c?
>
> A. ASW 20 b and c have been allowed in past WGC and should be INCLUDED in the FAI US Club Class. I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>
>
>
> Q. By the official FAI definition aren’t Ventus 1s also excluded?
>
> A. Yes. However, there is discussion about LS6 and V1’s either staying in US Rules Sports Class or being allowed in FAI US Club Class.
>
>
>
> Q. What happens to the Sports Class when this all goes down?
>
> A. Nothing changes in Sports Class. Club Class eligible gliders have the choice of staying in Sports Class or fly US FAI Club Class. All other gliders stay in the Sports Class
>
>
>
> Q. Will there be less participation overall?
>
> A. No, in fact the opposite. We will grow participation. FAI US Club Class advocates are ready to market and grow the class. We are not just pulling from the Sports Class roster. One Club Class advocate alone grew Region 6 participation from 8 gliders to 45.
>
>
>
> Q. Aren’t we a shrinking, dying sport as it is? Do we really want to put up more barriers?
>
> A. Exactly, putting up barriers to growth won’t help our shrinking sport. We want to give pilots a contest choice. We want pilots given the option to say YES not told NO. Let’s attract those who stay at home disenchanted with US Rules. Let’s channel enthusiasm in a positive growth direction. There is little chance enthusiastic FAI Club Class advocates will take time to market participation for another US Rules based class.
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)
>
>
>
> If you are in agreement join us on the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/

This petition is totally meaningless and useless due to the fact that it is a one answer railroad job. If the creators were looking for useful information they would have also asked how many pilots are satisfied with the action of the rules committee, and/or didn't want any changes made to the sports class at all.

My prediction is that if said options were offered to the pilots who have/will fly sports class this petition would be overwhelmingly rejected.

KS

[email protected]

December 13th 12, 10:45 PM

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:15:03 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > I received an email with good questions about the petition and FAI US Club Class. Here are my answers:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Q. I feel bad for those that own nice ships that would be excluded from the fun?
>
> >
>
> > A. I agree FAI rules are fun compared to US Rules. Guys with nice ASG29’s and V2’s really need to talk to the rules committee if they want FAI rules for their class. I don’t think anyone in Club Class would object to high performance (or low performance) gliders as a “G” guest in the Club Class. Currently “G” guests get scored but not ranked. Keep in mind tasking would ONLY be based on pure Club Class gliders.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Q. What about a poor guy that spent his retirement money on a LS 6 or a ASW 20c?
>
> >
>
> > A. ASW 20 b and c have been allowed in past WGC and should be INCLUDED in the FAI US Club Class. I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Q. By the official FAI definition aren’t Ventus 1s also excluded?
>
> >
>
> > A. Yes. However, there is discussion about LS6 and V1’s either staying in US Rules Sports Class or being allowed in FAI US Club Class.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Q. What happens to the Sports Class when this all goes down?
>
> >
>
> > A. Nothing changes in Sports Class. Club Class eligible gliders have the choice of staying in Sports Class or fly US FAI Club Class. All other gliders stay in the Sports Class
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Q. Will there be less participation overall?
>
> >
>
> > A. No, in fact the opposite. We will grow participation. FAI US Club Class advocates are ready to market and grow the class. We are not just pulling from the Sports Class roster. One Club Class advocate alone grew Region 6 participation from 8 gliders to 45.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Q. Aren’t we a shrinking, dying sport as it is? Do we really want to put up more barriers?
>
> >
>
> > A. Exactly, putting up barriers to growth won’t help our shrinking sport. We want to give pilots a contest choice. We want pilots given the option to say YES not told NO. Let’s attract those who stay at home disenchanted with US Rules. Let’s channel enthusiasm in a positive growth direction. There is little chance enthusiastic FAI Club Class advocates will take time to market participation for another US Rules based class.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If you are in agreement join us on the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
>
>
> This petition is totally meaningless and useless due to the fact that it is a one answer railroad job. If the creators were looking for useful information they would have also asked how many pilots are satisfied with the action of the rules committee, and/or didn't want any changes made to the sports class at all.
>
>
>
> My prediction is that if said options were offered to the pilots who have/will fly sports class this petition would be overwhelmingly rejected.
>
>
>
> KS

Yes, Sports Class pilots should be offered the option of flying in FAI US Club Class at Mifflin. There is no reason to change the Sports Class, leave it as-is. Give pilots a choice. This petition is about developing a new class proven in several super-regionals. It's now time to take it to the next level.

Sean Franke (HA)

Papa3[_2_]

December 14th 12, 12:37 AM

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
>
> Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.
>

Been "enjoying" the witty banter back and forth on this one but staying out of the fray...until now.

It strikes me that this whole debate is taking us in a direction that, quite frankly, is pretty much irrelevant. Those of us who truly love sailplane racing and are committed to the sport should have one and only one primary objective, and that is growing the number of participants. Do we really believe that the specific rule set we fly under is a major factor in whether people do or don't show up for races? I sure don't.

While opinions are nice, some hard data is better. This past summer, I went to the effort to create a formal survey that tried to get to the bottom of participation in contests. The survey was aimed at the pilots in eastern Region II and Region I (those who fly in the Governor's Cup area that I've been watching over for the last 15 years) who own or co-own a glider (there are a few folks who might be able to wrangle a club ship for a competition, but selected group is easier to isolate). I managed to track down the owners of about 80% of the sailplanes registered in this area and got those owners to participate in the survey - no mean feat! With 65 responses, it covered about 75% of the available fleet in our area, ie. a very significant majority.

The numbers that matter:

- 68% (44) of the respondents routinely fly more than 50KM from home base (i.e. cross country)
- 51% (32) of the respondents routinely post flights to either the OLC or the Governor's Cup (our local version of the OLC with team and individual points)
- 52% (33) of the respondents have participated in one or more SSA Regional or National competitions in the last three years.

Take a minute to absorb this. Basically, a fairly significant number already compete in some form of SSA contest. There are a decent number (11 or 12) who fly XC but don't compete in anything. This is obviously the most attractive group to target.

I then asked those who hadn't competed in a regionals or nationals to rank the reasons for non-participation from 8 defined reasons plus a 9th "other" reason. The three LEAST important inhibitors were:

- Panel and instruments not competitive (i.e. flight computer and other geewhiz gadgetry)
- Glider not competitive
- Rules complexity

So, the issues we are fighting over (rules and glider competitiveness) are among the two least important issues to the people we really need to reach , in particular those who fly XC but don't race. It's prety clear that if we switched to an FAI Rules set and a constrained list of ships, we wouldn't suddenly find 10 or 15 LS4s or Discus B's that would come out of the woodwork to join our nationals or super-regional Club Class contests. All we would be doing is to re-shuffle the existing participation and maybe lose a few folks in the process.

In case you were wondering, the top 3 reasons cited for not attending a regionals or nationals were:

- Time
- Skills (not comfortable going XC in a racing format)
- Other (more when I get to it)

We'd all be much better served by focusing on how we could build excitement and interest in sailplane racing through a progressive training program, more local contests, and other efforts of that sort rather than bludgeoning the Rules Committe with a petition that is entirely one sided by definition..

I think I'll go sand wings or something...

Erik Mann P3
LS8-18 (formerly club class LS4)

Luke Szczepaniak

December 14th 12, 03:42 PM

Originally this was a reply to the Club Class Nationals thread but I'm
starting a new topic as I ended up going off on a tangent. Please keep
in mind that opinions are like butt-holes and everyone has one, I'm
only throwing in my $.05 to provide the US RC with another data-point...

The current Sports class format isn't for everyone and is driving (some)
people away. I really hated Sports class, apart from my first US
contest I always chose a different class if available. In fact, the
Sports class format was one of the reasons I sold my SZD-55 and moved
onto the ASW-27. Those without a competitive ship in 15m or Std. class
need an alternative to Sports class. There are a few ways of doing this
- introducing limited handicapping to the other classes is one of them,
adding a "new" narrow range class (Club) achieves the same thing leaving
the other classes “pure”.

Additionally to the wide handicap range, however, I feel that the
tasking across all the classes plays a major role in the current
downward trend in contest attendance. I think that pilots are
frustrated by driving many miles, spending a lot of money, and burning
their vacation time just to fly a 2-3 hr task. The turn areas in AAT’s
are too big while the distances between the areas are too short. There
are definitely not enough Assigned Tasks being called. The long MAT is
fine, but not a substitute for AST, furthermore, it is not usually
called instead we are given 1 or 2 tp’s… More of the flyable day needs
to be utilized instead of worrying about making it home in time for dinner.

I realize that writing rules is always a compromise, and you will never
make everyone (or is it anyone?) happy, furthermore, there are many
factors other than rules that play a big role in the types of task that
are being called at contests. Even though I don’t agree with some of
the rules, I would like to congratulate the US RC on their methodical
and thoughtful approach to writing them. At the same time I urge you to
listen to the opinion of pilots who are not satisfied with the current
format.

Respectfully
Luke Szczepaniak

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 14th 12, 04:08 PM

On Dec 14, 9:42*am, Luke Szczepaniak > wrote:
> Originally this was a reply to the Club Class Nationals thread but I'm
> starting a new topic as I ended up going off on a tangent. *Please keep
> in mind that opinions are like butt-holes and everyone has one, *I'm
> only throwing in my $.05 to provide the US RC with another data-point...
>
> The current Sports class format isn't for everyone and is driving (some)
> people away. *I really hated Sports class, apart from my first US
> contest I always chose a different class if available. *In fact, the
> Sports class format was one of the reasons I sold my SZD-55 and moved
> onto the ASW-27. *Those without a competitive ship in 15m or Std. class
> need an alternative to Sports class. *There are a few ways of doing this
> - introducing limited handicapping to the other classes is one of them,
> adding a "new" narrow range class (Club) achieves the same thing leaving
> the other classes “pure”.
>
> Additionally to the wide handicap range, however, I feel that the
> tasking across all the classes plays a major role in the current
> downward trend in contest attendance. *I think that pilots are
> frustrated by driving many miles, spending a lot of money, and burning
> their vacation time just to fly a 2-3 hr task. *The turn areas in AAT’s
> are too big while the distances between the areas are too short. *There
> are definitely not enough Assigned Tasks being called. *The long MAT is
> fine, but not a substitute for AST, furthermore, it is not usually
> called instead we are given 1 or 2 tp’s… *More of the flyable day needs
> to be utilized instead of worrying about making it home in time for dinner.

Sean F (F2)

December 14th 12, 08:07 PM

50 people signing a petition counter your viewpoint is not reality? I think the problem with the current leadership is worse than I imagined.

Sean F (F2)

December 14th 12, 08:07 PM

50 people signing a petition counter your viewpoint is not reality? I think the problem with the current leadership is worse than I imagined.

Sean F (F2)

December 14th 12, 08:08 PM

50 people signing a petition counter your viewpoint is not reality? I think the problem with the current leadership is worse than I imagined.

Mark Schmidt L4

December 14th 12, 11:48 PM

As someone new to competition, I have little to add about the subtleties of FAI vs. Sports Class rules. However, if the point of the petition is to grow participation in racing, Papa 3's data shows that this is almost irrelevant.

One's first few contests can be intimidating, so if we want to increase participation at races, one important way is to make pilots new to racing feel welcome and support them. I was fortunate at the Logan superregionals in 2011 and the Parowan Nationals this year to have several people go out of their way to help me (this is by no means a complete list):

EY Tim McAllister -- incredibly generous with his time as a mentor at Logan

BB John Cochrane -- at Logan, John retrieved me not once but twice after distant landouts (BTW this was when he was in 1st or 2nd, and if I'm not mistaken the Worlds were on the line. I am sure he would have preferred to be resting up for the next day rather than driving around Idaho at 11 pm)

KS Karl Striedick -- went out of his way to offer kind words after I had a good day at Parowan, which meant more to me than my lucky 4th placing

TT Tim Taylor -- many, many helpful suggestions at Parowan

There has been some passionate discussion here about changing a few rules. The rules are important, especially where they affect safety. However, I would suggest that some portion of that passion and excitement be saved for the gliderport, helping somebody with unfamiliar tail letters and perhaps no crew. Actions and attitude like those I was fortunate enough to benefit from will do more to keep new pilots, even those flying club ships like my LS-4, coming back and thus growing racing, than arguments over cylinders vs. start lines and ATs vs. TATs.

Respectfully,
Mark Schmidt / L4

Mark Schmidt L4

December 14th 12, 11:53 PM

As someone new to competition, I have little to add about the subtleties of FAI vs. Sports Class rules. However, if the point of the petition is to grow participation in racing, Papa 3's data shows that this is almost irrelevant.

One's first few contests can be intimidating, so if we want to increase participation at races, one important way is to make pilots new to racing feel welcome and support them. I was fortunate at the Logan superregionals in 2011 and the Parowan Nationals this year to have several people go out of their way to help me (this is by no means a complete list):

EY Tim McAllister -- incredibly generous with his time as a mentor at Logan

BB John Cochrane -- at Logan, John retrieved me not once but twice after distant landouts (BTW this was when he was in 1st or 2nd, and if I'm not mistaken the Worlds were on the line. I am sure he would have preferred to be resting up for the next day rather than driving around Idaho at 11 pm)

KS Karl Striedieck -- went out of his way to offer kind words after I had a good day at Parowan, which meant more to me than my lucky 4th placing

TT Tim Taylor -- many, many helpful suggestions at Parowan

There has been some passionate discussion here about changing a few rules. The rules are important, especially where they affect safety. However, I would suggest that some portion of that passion and excitement be saved for the gliderport, helping somebody with unfamiliar tail letters and perhaps no crew. Actions and attitude like those I was fortunate enough to benefit from will do more to keep new pilots, even those flying club ships like my LS-4, coming back and thus growing racing, than arguments over cylinders vs. start lines and ATs vs. TATs.

Respectfully,
Mark Schmidt / L4

Mark Schmidt L4

December 14th 12, 11:56 PM

As someone new to competition, I have little to add about the subtleties of FAI vs. Sports Class rules. However, if the point of the petition is to grow participation in racing, Papa 3's data shows that this is almost irrelevant.

One's first few contests can be intimidating, so if we want to increase participation at races, one important way is to make pilots new to racing feel welcome and support them. I was fortunate at the Logan superregionals in 2011 and the Parowan Nationals this year to have several people go out of their way to help me (this is by no means a complete list):

EY Tim McAllister -- incredibly generous with his time as a mentor at Logan

BB John Cochrane -- at Logan, John retrieved me not once but twice after distant landouts (BTW this was when he was in 1st or 2nd, and if I'm not mistaken the Worlds were on the line. I am sure he would have preferred to be resting up for the next day rather than driving around Idaho at 11 pm)

KS Karl Striedieck -- went out of his way to offer kind words after I had a good day at Parowan, which meant more to me than my lucky 4th placing

TT Tim Taylor -- many, many helpful suggestions at Parowan

There has been some passionate discussion here about changing a few rules. The rules are important, especially where they affect safety. However, I would suggest that some portion of that passion and excitement be saved for the gliderport, helping somebody with unfamiliar tail letters and perhaps no crew. Actions and attitude like those I was fortunate enough to benefit from will do more to keep new pilots, even those flying club ships like my LS-4, coming back and thus growing racing, than arguments over cylinders vs. start lines and ATs vs. TATs.

Respectfully,
Mark Schmidt / L4

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:37:09 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:

> I then asked those who hadn't competed in a regionals or nationals to rank the reasons for non-participation from 8 defined reasons plus a 9th "other" reason. The three LEAST important inhibitors were:
>
>
>
> - Panel and instruments not competitive (i.e. flight computer and other geewhiz gadgetry)
>
> - Glider not competitive
>
> - Rules complexity

Mark Schmidt L4

December 15th 12, 12:18 AM

As someone new to competition, I have little to add about the subtleties of FAI vs. Sports Class rules. However, if the point of the petition is to grow participation in racing, Papa 3's data shows that this is almost irrelevant.

One's first few contests can be intimidating, so if we want to increase participation at races, one important way is to make pilots new to racing feel welcome and support them. I was fortunate at the Logan superregionals in 2011 and the Parowan Nationals this year to have several people go out of their way to help me (this is by no means a complete list):

EY Tim McAllister -- incredibly generous with his time as a mentor at Logan

BB John Cochrane -- at Logan, John retrieved me not once but twice after distant landouts (BTW this was when he was in 1st or 2nd, and if I'm not mistaken the Worlds were on the line. I am sure he would have preferred to be resting up for the next day rather than driving around Idaho at 11 pm)

KS Karl Striedieck -- went out of his way to offer kind words after I had a good day at Parowan, which meant more to me than my lucky 4th placing

TT Tim Taylor -- many, many helpful suggestions at Parowan

There has been some passionate discussion here about changing a few rules. The rules are important, especially where they affect safety. However, I would suggest that some portion of that passion and excitement be saved for the gliderport, helping somebody with unfamiliar tail letters and perhaps no crew. Actions and attitude like those I was fortunate enough to benefit from will do more to keep new pilots, even those flying club ships like my LS-4, coming back and thus growing racing, than arguments over cylinders vs. start lines and ATs vs. TATs.

Respectfully,
Mark Schmidt / L4

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:37:09 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> I then asked those who hadn't competed in a regionals or nationals to rank the reasons for non-participation from 8 defined reasons plus a 9th "other" reason. The three LEAST important inhibitors were:
>
> - Panel and instruments not competitive (i.e. flight computer and other geewhiz gadgetry)
> - Glider not competitive >
> - Rules complexity

Tony[_5_]

December 15th 12, 12:47 AM

On Friday, December 14, 2012 6:18:26 PM UTC-6, Mark Schmidt L4 wrote:
> As someone new to competition, I have little to add about the subtleties of FAI vs. Sports Class rules. However, if the point of the petition is to grow participation in racing, Papa 3's data shows that this is almost irrelevant.
>
>
>
> One's first few contests can be intimidating, so if we want to increase participation at races, one important way is to make pilots new to racing feel welcome and support them. I was fortunate at the Logan superregionals in 2011 and the Parowan Nationals this year to have several people go out of their way to help me (this is by no means a complete list):
>
>
>
> EY Tim McAllister -- incredibly generous with his time as a mentor at Logan
>
>
>
> BB John Cochrane -- at Logan, John retrieved me not once but twice after distant landouts (BTW this was when he was in 1st or 2nd, and if I'm not mistaken the Worlds were on the line. I am sure he would have preferred to be resting up for the next day rather than driving around Idaho at 11 pm)
>
>
>
> KS Karl Striedieck -- went out of his way to offer kind words after I had a good day at Parowan, which meant more to me than my lucky 4th placing
>
>
>
> TT Tim Taylor -- many, many helpful suggestions at Parowan
>
>
>
> There has been some passionate discussion here about changing a few rules.. The rules are important, especially where they affect safety. However, I would suggest that some portion of that passion and excitement be saved for the gliderport, helping somebody with unfamiliar tail letters and perhaps no crew. Actions and attitude like those I was fortunate enough to benefit from will do more to keep new pilots, even those flying club ships like my LS-4, coming back and thus growing racing, than arguments over cylinders vs. start lines and ATs vs. TATs.
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Mark Schmidt / L4
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:37:09 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
>
> > I then asked those who hadn't competed in a regionals or nationals to rank the reasons for non-participation from 8 defined reasons plus a 9th "other" reason. The three LEAST important inhibitors were:
>
> >
>
> > - Panel and instruments not competitive (i.e. flight computer and other geewhiz gadgetry)
>
> > - Glider not competitive >
>
> > - Rules complexity

bravo! A good first experience is a must.

I *almost* went to the last Region 7 contest in Albert Lea circa 2007. I was on failed barograph trace away from getting in, as I needed an approved silver distance flight to enter. It turned out the contest was rained out, the regional only flew one day. My club-mate and friend spent all week rigging and de-rigging and has hardly flown his glider since, and certainly hasn't flown a contest. In the end I was glad I didn't go, because it would've left me with a bad experience. Not to mention that I was completely unprepared, not really financially able to swing attending, had no idea what flying any closed course task was like let alone a contest task, even if the flying had been good i probably would've been totally overwhelmed.

Fast forward a few years and I had a great time at the 2010 Region 10 contest. Now I had money, knew what a contest task was, and had proved I could actually go somewhere and make it back. It worked out nicely that the contest was small (15-ish) and the weather was AWESOME. Even if I hadn't won 2 days and placed 3rd I would've had a great time. And it made me want to come back for more!

kirk.stant

December 15th 12, 07:52 AM

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:40:52 PM UTC+1, wrote:
>
> We are proposing starting a new class, not excluding them (V1 and LS6)from an existing contest. So here is the question: Should V1's and LS6 stay in Sports Class under US Rules or be allowed in the new FAI US Club Class? I'd like to hear comments.
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Sean, I fly an LS6 and I will not fly sports for the same reason you wont fly sports: No speed tasks and ridiculous tasking if the Nimbus and 2-33 show up. Yuck.

I flew the 2011 Moriarty Super Regional, and liked it - and I've been flying handicapped in the ASA series for a long time, mainly AT and AATs.

I'm happy sticking to FAI 15M, even if (at least out West) i'm at a disadvantage - mainly because its still really me and not my glider that makes me slower than a -29 or V2 (most of the time...).

But I would like to have more race options, and by limiting the US Club to not including later 20s, LS6s, or V1s, you are keeping out a bunch of potential racers.

Seems to me, at the regional level, get the biggest crowd you can but task for the FAI class performance. At the national level, fine, limit to FAI if you want - anyone serious enough to go to a Nationals can find a club class glider to take. My experience at Moriarty was that being at the high end of the performance handicap range actually hurts - I would have done better, I think, if I had competed in the Modern class, trying to chase down the faster gliders, instead of trying to run away from the slower (!) ones...

Kirk
66

[email protected]

December 15th 12, 02:37 PM

On Friday, December 14, 2012 11:52:39 PM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:40:52 PM UTC+1, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > We are proposing starting a new class, not excluding them (V1 and LS6)from an existing contest. So here is the question: Should V1's and LS6 stay in Sports Class under US Rules or be allowed in the new FAI US Club Class? I'd like to hear comments.
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
>
>
>
> Sean, I fly an LS6 and I will not fly sports for the same reason you wont fly sports: No speed tasks and ridiculous tasking if the Nimbus and 2-33 show up. Yuck.
>
>
>
> I flew the 2011 Moriarty Super Regional, and liked it - and I've been flying handicapped in the ASA series for a long time, mainly AT and AATs.
>
>
>
> I'm happy sticking to FAI 15M, even if (at least out West) i'm at a disadvantage - mainly because its still really me and not my glider that makes me slower than a -29 or V2 (most of the time...).
>
>
>
> But I would like to have more race options, and by limiting the US Club to not including later 20s, LS6s, or V1s, you are keeping out a bunch of potential racers.
>
>
>
> Seems to me, at the regional level, get the biggest crowd you can but task for the FAI class performance. At the national level, fine, limit to FAI if you want - anyone serious enough to go to a Nationals can find a club class glider to take. My experience at Moriarty was that being at the high end of the performance handicap range actually hurts - I would have done better, I think, if I had competed in the Modern class, trying to chase down the faster gliders, instead of trying to run away from the slower (!) ones....
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

Kirk, great comments. Interesting thought about opening up handicap range at Regional contests to encourage participation.

Keep in mind for the first time ASW20 B and C's are excluded from current WGC. Maybe because the ASW20 is expected to be a formidable glider given soaring conditions in Argentina. Some say (others don't) that B and C's are better performing than ASW20 A. This is likely the reason for current exclusion because of WGC locaton.

For US Club Class purposes ALL 15 meter ASW20's (A,B and C) should be included.

You brought this thread back home. It's about a CHOICE.

For some reason the RC is against an FAI CHOICE. We have a significant voice from those who ACTUALLY will fly Club Class saying WE WANT US FAI CLUB CLASS. Why won't the RC support us, the customer? So far only the RC and a few who have no intention of flying Club Class are opposed.

Kirk, I hope to see more posts from pilots like you in support.

Sean Franke (HA)

Join the petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

December 15th 12, 08:04 PM

On Friday, December 14, 2012 3:07:25 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> 50 people signing a petition counter your viewpoint is not reality? I think the problem with the current leadership is worse than I imagined.

Well wishers are great. But what makes a competition go are (qualified) pilots with sailplanes. Of 47 signatories, about half are qualified (you need to have been scored in a regional). Of the rest, who is actually even thinking about attending? We don't know: you have not asked. Your assessment of this petition's numbers is -- in my view -- wishful thinking.

I've run the numbers on past contests and referred to them here. That's "reality based" to me. It's a little marginal. The RC sees the same trends I do, sensibly has put in place a procedure that covers all likely scenarios. You guys stamp your feet, disparage the folks that question your (obviously) wishful thinking, claim that you "smell fear" (I loved that one) and wear out your caps lock keys in response. Oooooookaaaaaaay.

Many of us agree with you that the low performance end of sports class causes issues w.r.t. tasking and scoring. One possible solution here is to put your efforts into recruiting *more* low performance guys. Get a dozen of the below FAI CC performance guys to show up and we can run three classes, with the low performance guys in a class of their own. I think just about everyone would be happy with that. I'll bet we could even get some RC action on that one.

Btw... since you are such a fan... why didn't you take the opportunity to run a club class at Ionia? Seems odd. Ah well.

One more constructive suggestion: next time you get the idea to tell someone else how their contest should be run, consider speaking with them (i.e. the organizer / sponsor / CM) privately first and see if you can get them interested in your idea. Karl, btw, has asked the RC for variances on Nationals rules for Mifflin before. He didn't get approved in the case I am thinking of, but the point is that there are plenty of people in this sport who do think creatively about how to build participation and they... aren't... your... adversaries.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[email protected]

December 15th 12, 09:07 PM

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:04:02 PM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Friday, December 14, 2012 3:07:25 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > 50 people signing a petition counter your viewpoint is not reality? I think the problem with the current leadership is worse than I imagined.
>
>
>
> Well wishers are great. But what makes a competition go are (qualified) pilots with sailplanes. Of 47 signatories, about half are qualified (you need to have been scored in a regional). Of the rest, who is actually even thinking about attending? We don't know: you have not asked. Your assessment of this petition's numbers is -- in my view -- wishful thinking.
>
>
>
> I've run the numbers on past contests and referred to them here. That's "reality based" to me. It's a little marginal. The RC sees the same trends I do, sensibly has put in place a procedure that covers all likely scenarios. You guys stamp your feet, disparage the folks that question your (obviously) wishful thinking, claim that you "smell fear" (I loved that one) and wear out your caps lock keys in response. Oooooookaaaaaaay.
>
>
>
> Many of us agree with you that the low performance end of sports class causes issues w.r.t. tasking and scoring. One possible solution here is to put your efforts into recruiting *more* low performance guys. Get a dozen of the below FAI CC performance guys to show up and we can run three classes, with the low performance guys in a class of their own. I think just about everyone would be happy with that. I'll bet we could even get some RC action on that one.
>
>
>
> Btw... since you are such a fan... why didn't you take the opportunity to run a club class at Ionia? Seems odd. Ah well.
>
>
>
> One more constructive suggestion: next time you get the idea to tell someone else how their contest should be run, consider speaking with them (i.e. the organizer / sponsor / CM) privately first and see if you can get them interested in your idea. Karl, btw, has asked the RC for variances on Nationals rules for Mifflin before. He didn't get approved in the case I am thinking of, but the point is that there are plenty of people in this sport who do think creatively about how to build participation and they... aren't.... your... adversaries.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan, the major frustration is an apparent hypocrisy coming from the RC.

Club Class pilots were told to "prove your concept in a Regional". We did several times. I think listening to the same broken record gets old after a while. If the RC said, OK your due diligence is noted let's take this to the Nationals, there would be no issues.

Instead the RC created their own version of "Club Class" which besides the name resembles nothing close to a genuine Club Class. Certainly nothing close to what many worked hard for at several super-regionals.

If concepts need to be proven first at a Super-Regional then show me which regional the RC tested their "Club Class" version?

Yes, we have a valid reason to "stamp feet". We are calling "foul". The only "disparaged folks" are those who have worked hard over the past few years to create a genuine Club Class.

Sean Franke (HA)

[email protected]

December 16th 12, 08:35 AM

Sean (HA)

See my comments to your statements: Rick Walters (3R)

> Kirk, great comments. Interesting thought about opening up handicap range at Regional contests to encourage participation.
> Keep in mind for the first time ASW20 B and C's are excluded from current WGC. Maybe because the ASW20 is expected to be a formidable glider given soaring conditions in Argentina. Some say (others don't) that B and C's are better performing than ASW20 A. This is likely the reason for current exclusion because of WGC locaton.

I don't believe this is the first time ASW20B&C have been excluded from a CC WGC. There were no ASW20A,B,or C flown in the 2008 CC WGC or the 2010 CC WGC. I think this (Argentina) is the first time an ASW20A has ever been allowed. B&C models are higher performing due to their increased weight,and blown turbulators. They would handicap out at 1.09 so they could not be flown with winglets or overweight because that would put them over the max 1.09 handicap allowed by IGC.
3R
>
>
>
> For US Club Class purposes ALL 15 meter ASW20's (A,B and C) should be included.

So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R
>
>
>
> For some reason the RC is against an FAI CHOICE. We have a significant voice from those who ACTUALLY will fly Club Class saying WE WANT US FAI CLUB CLASS. Why won't the RC support us, the customer? So far only the RC and a few who have no intention of flying Club Class are opposed.

You say only a few who have no intention of flying the CC are opposed. I flew the 2008 Sports nats in a CC approved ASW24 and won. And yes, I am opposed to a strict adoption of the IGC CC rules. 3R

>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)
>

[email protected]

December 16th 12, 03:16 PM

> I don't believe this is the first time ASW20B&C have been excluded from a CC WGC. There were no ASW20A,B,or C flown in the 2008 CC WGC or the 2010 CC WGC. I think this (Argentina) is the first time an ASW20A has ever been allowed. B&C models are higher performing due to their increased weight,and blown turbulators. They would handicap out at 1.09 so they could not be flown with winglets or overweight because that would put them over the max 1.09 handicap allowed by IGC.

I happened to be at the 2010 CC WGC. You're right, there were no ASW 20 flying. However, they were allowed. In the handicap list there was NO distinction between ASW 20 A,B or C. I have the list if you would like a copy. ASW 20 (15m) was 1.08. ASW 20 WL (15m) was 1.09.

> So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R

I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."

> You say only a few who have no intention of flying the CC are opposed. I flew the 2008 Sports nats in a CC approved ASW24 and won. And yes, I am opposed to a strict adoption of the IGC CC rules. 3R

What version of the IGC CC Rules would you not be opposed to adopting?

Sean Franke (HA)

Join the petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/

[email protected]

December 16th 12, 03:57 PM

Sean (HA)

> I happened to be at the 2010 CC WGC. You're right, there were no ASW 20 flying. However, they were allowed. In the handicap list there was NO distinction between ASW 20 A,B or C. I have the list if you would like a copy. ASW 20 (15m) was 1.08. ASW 20 WL (15m) was 1.09.

I have a copy of the 2008, 2010, and 2012 IGC CC handicap lists. I researched this back to the first CC WGC in 2001. The first time an ASW20 was raced was at the 2011 EGC, where one participated. Argentina will see the first ASW20's in a WGC. A slightly heavy pilot in an ASW20 with winglets can not fly in your IGC CC national contest. Why would you want to leave this large fleet out?
>

> > So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R

> I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."

Doesn't sound like strict IGC rules adoption to me, which is what several of you have been demanding. 3R
>
> > You say only a few who have no intention of flying the CC are opposed. I flew the 2008 Sports nats in a CC approved ASW24 and won. And yes, I am opposed to a strict adoption of the IGC CC rules. 3R
>
> What version of the IGC CC Rules would you not be opposed to adopting?

What version are you suggesting? I have heard "adopt IGC rules", period! I am only aware of one version of IGC rules. Everyone knows my issues with the IGC rules since I have stated them several times on this forum: 1. Lead weight up to MTOW is ridiculous (several pilots will need 100 pounds of lead to get to MTOW, (Erik and Sarah to name two.) 2. Straight in landing finishes. 3. Allowed glider list is too small. Why limit participation? 3R
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)
>
>
>
> Join the petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/

[email protected]

December 16th 12, 04:24 PM

On Sunday, 16 December 2012 09:57:51 UTC-6, wrote:
> Sean (HA)
>
>
>
> > I happened to be at the 2010 CC WGC. You're right, there were no ASW 20 flying. However, they were allowed. In the handicap list there was NO distinction between ASW 20 A,B or C. I have the list if you would like a copy.. ASW 20 (15m) was 1.08. ASW 20 WL (15m) was 1.09.
>
>
>
> I have a copy of the 2008, 2010, and 2012 IGC CC handicap lists. I researched this back to the first CC WGC in 2001. The first time an ASW20 was raced was at the 2011 EGC, where one participated. Argentina will see the first ASW20's in a WGC. A slightly heavy pilot in an ASW20 with winglets can not fly in your IGC CC national contest. Why would you want to leave this large fleet out?
>
> >
>
>
>
> > > So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R
>
>
>
> > I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>
>
>
> Doesn't sound like strict IGC rules adoption to me, which is what several of you have been demanding. 3R
>
> >
>
> > > You say only a few who have no intention of flying the CC are opposed.. I flew the 2008 Sports nats in a CC approved ASW24 and won. And yes, I am opposed to a strict adoption of the IGC CC rules. 3R
>
> >
>
> > What version of the IGC CC Rules would you not be opposed to adopting?
>
>
>
> What version are you suggesting? I have heard "adopt IGC rules", period! I am only aware of one version of IGC rules. Everyone knows my issues with the IGC rules since I have stated them several times on this forum: 1. Lead weight up to MTOW is ridiculous (several pilots will need 100 pounds of lead to get to MTOW, (Erik and Sarah to name two.) 2. Straight in landing finishes. 3. Allowed glider list is too small. Why limit participation? 3R
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke (HA)
> I have really enjoyed reading this post. Just a quick note on the participation of ASW 20s. The first time I encountered on was a the WGC 2008 in Rieti when a 20 was entered by a South African pilot. If I recall correctly at that time we had to do some work to determine the reference weight and it flew with a handicap of 1.09.
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Join the petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 16th 12, 04:45 PM

>
> > So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R
>
> I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>

This is just hilarious. The petition says IGC rules. Period. Metric
units. IGC club class list. 0.5 kilometer turnpoints with no credit
for distance inside (makes it real fun when a gaggle approaches, all
trying to get exactly one fix in the circle), Start line, no starts
out the top, unlimited altitude or limited altitude with no time limit
-- VNE dives out of the clouds. Mandated AT/TAT percentage forcing
assigned tasks into thunderstorms (Uvalde). IGC speed/distance points
with major strategic implications. Team flying. Ground to pilot
communication allowed; better have a team captain to tell you what's
going on. IGC speed/distance formulas. Occasions when it's better to
land in the field next to the airport than finish. And so on.

Ok, at least there is some coherence and clarity to the proposal. But
now, you want to have the "spirit" of FAI rules. For a National
contest at Miffin. In May.

So who is gong to figure out the "spirit"? Just what rules are we
going to be flying under? You want someone to cut and paste together
two rule books, while consulting you for spiritual advice along the
way? Now there's a practical proposal

John Cochrane

[email protected]

December 16th 12, 05:22 PM

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:45:26 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> >
>
> > > So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R
>
> >
>
> > I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."
>
> >
>
>
>
> This is just hilarious. The petition says IGC rules. Period. Metric
>
> units. IGC club class list. 0.5 kilometer turnpoints with no credit
>
> for distance inside (makes it real fun when a gaggle approaches, all
>
> trying to get exactly one fix in the circle), Start line, no starts
>
> out the top, unlimited altitude or limited altitude with no time limit
>
> -- VNE dives out of the clouds. Mandated AT/TAT percentage forcing
>
> assigned tasks into thunderstorms (Uvalde). IGC speed/distance points
>
> with major strategic implications. Team flying. Ground to pilot
>
> communication allowed; better have a team captain to tell you what's
>
> going on. IGC speed/distance formulas. Occasions when it's better to
>
> land in the field next to the airport than finish. And so on.
>
>
>
> Ok, at least there is some coherence and clarity to the proposal. But
>
> now, you want to have the "spirit" of FAI rules. For a National
>
> contest at Miffin. In May.
>
>
>
> So who is gong to figure out the "spirit"? Just what rules are we
>
> going to be flying under? You want someone to cut and paste together
>
> two rule books, while consulting you for spiritual advice along the
>
> way? Now there's a practical proposal
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

There is nothing hilarious about the RC ignoring hard work from several Club Class super regionals and making a SGS 1-26 a "Club Class" glider.

What we expected was continuation of proven Club Class regional success to the National level. That didn't happen, not even close.

The petition states "The purpose of this petition is to demonstrate the number of US pilots who want formation of the new US Club Class to adopt FAI (IGC) rules, handicaps and tasking philosophy." Philosophy is the key word.

When you read comments from the petition, some desire exact adoption while other prefer a variation. All want an alternative to US Rules format.

No need to readdress the drama rhetoric regarding IGC rules. I've already posted a response.

Sean Franke (HA)

Join the petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 16th 12, 05:31 PM

> What we expected was continuation of proven Club Class regional success to the National level. *That didn't happen, not even close.
>

And this is exactly what you got. The club class regionals were run
under US rules, with US tasking guidelines, and US club class list.
Exactly this concept was moved to nationals.The one difference at
Mifflin will be (horrors) we will allow the 2 or so lower performance
gliders that typically show up to sports to play in club class. For
obvious reasons, which we've gone over endlessly.

Compare what you're asking: a different list of gliders, and a totally
different set of rules. This was not tried at the regional level, not
even close.

We are bringing the concept from regionals to nationals. It's you who
are asking for something totally different and untried.

At the risk of sounding a little ****y, may I suggest that you try
flying an entire national contest, once, under US rules, and then see
if it really is not providing you with enough challenge?

John Cochrane

[email protected]

December 16th 12, 06:13 PM

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:31:13 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > What we expected was continuation of proven Club Class regional success to the National level. *That didn't happen, not even close.
>
> >
>
>
>
> And this is exactly what you got. The club class regionals were run
>
> under US rules, with US tasking guidelines, and US club class list.
>
> Exactly this concept was moved to nationals.The one difference at
>
> Mifflin will be (horrors) we will allow the 2 or so lower performance
>
> gliders that typically show up to sports to play in club class. For
>
> obvious reasons, which we've gone over endlessly.
>
>
>
> Compare what you're asking: a different list of gliders, and a totally
>
> different set of rules. This was not tried at the regional level, not
>
> even close.
>
>
>
> We are bringing the concept from regionals to nationals. It's you who
>
> are asking for something totally different and untried.
>
>
>
> At the risk of sounding a little ****y, may I suggest that you try
>
> flying an entire national contest, once, under US rules, and then see
>
> if it really is not providing you with enough challenge?
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

No, it's not exactly. Not even close.

There were two guiding IGC philosophies at previous Club Class super regionals.

1. Narrow handicap range. Yes, it was based on established US Club Class gliders. BTW, this range is close to IGC. The RC is adding Discus 2, LS8 and SGS 1-26, 2-22.... Explain how this is exact? There will be no limit to the number of lower performance gliders. Traditional Club Class tasking can't be accomplished.

2. Tasking based on AT and AAT only. NO MAT. Club Class super regionals were run to mirror IGC tasking philosophy. Is the RC going to allow MAT in their version of "Club Class"? YES. How is that exact?

So again, we expected continuation of proven Club Class regional success (and guiding philosophies) to the National level. Super regionals accomplished a shift towards IGC format.

Sean Franke (HA)

Sean F (F2)

December 16th 12, 10:59 PM

Greetings from Turks and Caicos!

48 signatures. About 6 with tech diff will be signing shortly as soon as I have time to sort them.

So that's soon to be 50+ who have signed a petition asking the USRC to stop molesting the Club Class which has been asked for by watering it down with a greatly expanded handicap range and tasking philosophy.

I think the RC are truly great great people and I know they have a passion for the rules philosophy they have created. But it is not a failure to simply allow an IGC Club Class to happen and see where it goes. All the US rukes classes remain fully intact! NOBODY is left behind with sports class remaining as is... This is so easy, such a simple decision... Just let go! We will make it huge...

Give US pilots a choice to join the rest of the world in one small class.................

Sean
F2

Sean F (F2)

December 16th 12, 11:05 PM

If you would like to read, consider or even sign our Petition for the US RC to recommend an SSA sanctioned IGC/FAI rules US Club Class at the 2013 Nationals moving forward, please follow this link: http://www.thepetitionsite..com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1

48 other fellow pilots (most proud owners of Club Class ships) have already signed and you can see their signatures and read their comments as well at the link above!

Sincerely!

Sean
F2

Sean F (F2)

December 17th 12, 09:02 PM

In response to comment calling the public petition for a TRUE...US Club Class into question, I must chuckle a bit. Well, actually a lot. Again, great people on the RC I personally respect and enjoy. But on this point roughly 50 US Club Ship owners have considerable discrepancies in opinion. It appears that rather significant communication gaps exist with the US RC. We can and will have disagreements over such matters but remain friends, gentleman and passionate pilots who love the sport together. This petition is about choice. Is choice good? Is providing an option to US pilots good? US rules or IGC?

Our petition is actually VERY SIMPLE. If said pilot wants the option to fly IGC rules (handicap range and taking philosophy), they signed the petition. If they do not, or are not sure, they did not sign. The petition leaves zero room for subjective question design (and omission), interpretation or "analysis...".

50 US pilots have clearly, openly, publicly, proudly voted or the formation of an IGC rules based US Club Class! We (50+ and growing steadily) are very proud of this petition and continue to grow each day as the visibility into this topic grows.

Sean
F2

kirk.stant

December 18th 12, 09:19 AM

On Monday, December 17, 2012 10:02:46 PM UTC+1, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> In response to comment calling the public petition for a TRUE...US Club Class into question, I must chuckle a bit. Well, actually a lot. Again, great people on the RC I personally respect and enjoy. But on this point roughly 50 US Club Ship owners have considerable discrepancies in opinion. It appears that rather significant communication gaps exist with the US RC. We can and will have disagreements over such matters but remain friends, gentleman and passionate pilots who love the sport together. This petition is about choice. Is choice good? Is providing an option to US pilots good? US rules or IGC?
>
>
>
> Our petition is actually VERY SIMPLE. If said pilot wants the option to fly IGC rules (handicap range and taking philosophy), they signed the petition. If they do not, or are not sure, they did not sign. The petition leaves zero room for subjective question design (and omission), interpretation or "analysis...".
>
>
>
> 50 US pilots have clearly, openly, publicly, proudly voted or the formation of an IGC rules based US Club Class! We (50+ and growing steadily) are very proud of this petition and continue to grow each day as the visibility into this topic grows.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2

Why don't you guys quit whining and just go have your race, FAI rules and all! Nobody is stopping you - there isn't a law that says you can't have your own race outside the SSA franchise. We've been doing it for years in Arizona, with our own subset of rules. And we have a lot of fun.

If a lot of Club Class gliders show up, and everybody has fun, then you will have a leg to stand on. Right now, all I see and hear is a lot of bitching and moaning about how the SRA is dissing the poor little Club Class, etc....

But I guess I won't bother, since my glider isn't retro enough.

Kirk
66

[email protected]

December 18th 12, 05:30 PM

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:19:43 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2012 10:02:46 PM UTC+1, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > In response to comment calling the public petition for a TRUE...US Club Class into question, I must chuckle a bit. Well, actually a lot. Again, great people on the RC I personally respect and enjoy. But on this point roughly 50 US Club Ship owners have considerable discrepancies in opinion. It appears that rather significant communication gaps exist with the US RC. We can and will have disagreements over such matters but remain friends, gentleman and passionate pilots who love the sport together. This petition is about choice. Is choice good? Is providing an option to US pilots good? US rules or IGC?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Our petition is actually VERY SIMPLE. If said pilot wants the option to fly IGC rules (handicap range and taking philosophy), they signed the petition. If they do not, or are not sure, they did not sign. The petition leaves zero room for subjective question design (and omission), interpretation or "analysis...".
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 50 US pilots have clearly, openly, publicly, proudly voted or the formation of an IGC rules based US Club Class! We (50+ and growing steadily) are very proud of this petition and continue to grow each day as the visibility into this topic grows.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean
>
> >
>
> > F2
>
>
>
> Why don't you guys quit whining and just go have your race, FAI rules and all! Nobody is stopping you - there isn't a law that says you can't have your own race outside the SSA franchise. We've been doing it for years in Arizona, with our own subset of rules. And we have a lot of fun.
>
>
>
> If a lot of Club Class gliders show up, and everybody has fun, then you will have a leg to stand on. Right now, all I see and hear is a lot of bitching and moaning about how the SRA is dissing the poor little Club Class, etc...
>
>
>
> But I guess I won't bother, since my glider isn't retro enough.
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

Kirk, you are right. We can do this outside of the SSA. However, there are drawbacks.

1. Lower participation. Attendance will be diminished without SSA sanctioning. Many don't have resources to fly two major contest the same year. You must fly an SSA sanctioned contest to get seeding points.

2. US Team. The USTC will not recognize a non-sanctioned contest for US Team placing. It's a bit ironic that a contest flown under IGC rules wouldn't be recognized for US Team placing under this scenario.

3. Hurt Sports Class. We don't want to draw Club Class gliders from the Sports Class to another venue. Holding a separate non-sanctioned Club Class "Nationals" at another location will force pilots to choose which location they want to fly on their limited time and financial budget. Our proposal will help Sports Class organizers by ADDING gliders to their location. We want to see Sports Class held intact and at the same contest hold an FAI US Club Class Nationals.

Sean Franke (HA)

kirk.stant

December 19th 12, 01:44 PM

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:30:48 PM UTC+1, wrote:

> Kirk, you are right. We can do this outside of the SSA. However, there are drawbacks.
> 1. Lower participation. Attendance will be diminished without SSA sanctioning. Many don't have resources to fly two major contest the same year. You must fly an SSA sanctioned contest to get seeding points.
> 2. US Team. The USTC will not recognize a non-sanctioned contest for US Team placing. It's a bit ironic that a contest flown under IGC rules wouldn't be recognized for US Team placing under this scenario.
> 3. Hurt Sports Class. We don't want to draw Club Class gliders from the Sports Class to another venue. Holding a separate non-sanctioned Club Class "Nationals" at another location will force pilots to choose which location they want to fly on their limited time and financial budget. Our proposal will help Sports Class organizers by ADDING gliders to their location. We want to see Sports Class held intact and at the same contest hold an FAI US Club Class Nationals.
>
Sean, your proposal by definition is going to limit participation and hurt Sports class. You cut off access to a bunch of not-quite-competitive gliders at the upper end, and I guarantee you will scare off the newby sports class guys with your "foreign, unsafe" FAI rules that emphasize start gaggling and mass landouts (remember, newbies still read Soaring cover to cover). And how many club class racers really care if they get seeding points? They may just want to race.

Setup a contest - advertise it as FAI and see who comes. Let anyone race, but if they are outside Club Class just score them as guests, and don't task for them (tough on 2-33s and ETAs, so what...). See what happens - and if is a success, petition the USTC to recognise the scores for US Club Class team selection.

Good luck - really. I truly hope Club Class works (and figure in a few years my LS6 will be legal, anyway), but I'm not sure the current approach is working.

Kirk
66

[email protected]

December 19th 12, 03:16 PM

> SeeYou is popular scoring program. Will Winsocore need to be upgraded if SeeYou us uesd?
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Respectfully and with no ill will to Naviter, please chat with those who scored Uvalde 2012 WGC before making changes to your choice of scoring programs.

SYC may work fine outside the US but IMHO is not yet ready for scoring US contests. SYC is a flight analysis program which has been altered and redirected to score. To accomplish this, many different "menus" have been layered into the program and they are very difficult to "discover" when a "fix" is required.

In contrast, Winscore was designed "from the ground up" as a scoring program specifically for US competition. It is supported "locally" and Guy Byars is obviously committed to keeping Winscore current.

Why change? Lets keep things "Made in the USA"!

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 19th 12, 05:21 PM

Last two cents on these issues:

1. On "the rules committee doesn't listen." From the 2013 pilot
opinion poll

Question:

Split sports class into 'club' and 'modern FAI.' 'Club' allows all
gliders below, say, 0.90, while 'Modern' allows all gliders but
tasking and handicap adjustment stop at, say, 0.92. The two contests
are co-located, and revert to a single class if less than, say, 12
pilots in each class show up.

Approve 71%
Disapprove 9%
Don'tCare 6%

Poll http://ssa.org/files/member/2012%20SSA%20Pilot%20Opinion%20Poll%20Results.pdf

This is about the strongest approval we get for anything. Read
through the comments. I cannot find a single one suggesting that club
be carved off and fly strict IGC rules. (I just checked again,
searching for "FAI" "IGC" and "Club" just to be sure.) I'm not sure
with this feedback how on earth we were supposed to dream this one
up.

If 50 of you really think the current proposal is atrocious, and club
had to be moved to nationals only in full IGC purity, where were you
on the pilot opinion poll? OK, well, this is our process, and be sure
that it will appear on next year's poll, if you still feel this way,
answer then.

2. On "run an IGC contest if you want." This is a good idea. Better
than an unsanctioned regional, there has long been talk that the US
should run an IGC "continental championship." With FAI classes as well
as club class, this could be a big draw for pilots with world
ambitions from all over the US and Canada, international pilots who
want good igc rankings, as well as a US team practice. Needless to
say, such contests use full IGC rules and class definitions. The
minutes of the RC meeting

http://ssa.org/files/member/2012%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20Final.pdf

record substantial support for such a contest. This idea just needs
an enthusiastic contest manager and director ready to do all the
work. How about it, Seans?

John Cochrane

BruceGreeff

December 19th 12, 07:58 PM

For What it is worth.

The South African competition committee runs FAI Club class rules, with
a wider range of handicaps allowed to encourage participation.

Result as at day 5 at this year's Nationals - 3rd year of the allowing
the higher performance gliders in.

# CN Pilot Team Glider Total
1. TG Tommie Grobler ASW 19b 3871
2. YP Iain Rennie Astir CS 3814
3. L1 Konrad Stark AVP ASW 15 3586
4. ZP Kevin Mitchell DG400 3101
5. LEO Marcus Nouwens ASW27a 3041
6. YA Jean du Plessis Club Astir 3023
7. 01 Stephan van den Berg Std Jantar 1593
8. JB Jaco Burger AVP LS1f 1430
9. 122 Garth Beavon Astir CS 547

So there are 33% higher performance flapped 15m racers in there.
ASW19b - 1:41
DG400 - 1:42
ASW27a - 1:48

The rest are in the 1:35-37 range and best glide at lower speeds and
over narrower speed ranges.

That said - The racing seems to be quite well balanced by handicap - the
higher performance gliders do not seem to have much advantage.

Seems I was wrong - on the topic of contestants moving up and dropping
the traditional club class ships.

Of course the tasking and handicapping is critical.

So - it appears a straight FAI club class does work, even when you open
the handicap range up. Now - if there was more participation it would be
nice, but the poor participation is not caused by using FAI Club rules.

My advice would be - Go run a contest and see what happens. You will
probably be pleasantly surprised.

On 2012/12/19 7:21 PM, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> Last two cents on these issues:
>
> 1. On "the rules committee doesn't listen." From the 2013 pilot
> opinion poll
>
> Question:
>
> Split sports class into 'club' and 'modern FAI.' 'Club' allows all
> gliders below, say, 0.90, while 'Modern' allows all gliders but
> tasking and handicap adjustment stop at, say, 0.92. The two contests
> are co-located, and revert to a single class if less than, say, 12
> pilots in each class show up.
>
> Approve 71%
> Disapprove 9%
> Don'tCare 6%
>
> Poll http://ssa.org/files/member/2012%20SSA%20Pilot%20Opinion%20Poll%20Results.pdf
>
> This is about the strongest approval we get for anything. Read
> through the comments. I cannot find a single one suggesting that club
> be carved off and fly strict IGC rules. (I just checked again,
> searching for "FAI" "IGC" and "Club" just to be sure.) I'm not sure
> with this feedback how on earth we were supposed to dream this one
> up.
>
> If 50 of you really think the current proposal is atrocious, and club
> had to be moved to nationals only in full IGC purity, where were you
> on the pilot opinion poll? OK, well, this is our process, and be sure
> that it will appear on next year's poll, if you still feel this way,
> answer then.
>
> 2. On "run an IGC contest if you want." This is a good idea. Better
> than an unsanctioned regional, there has long been talk that the US
> should run an IGC "continental championship." With FAI classes as well
> as club class, this could be a big draw for pilots with world
> ambitions from all over the US and Canada, international pilots who
> want good igc rankings, as well as a US team practice. Needless to
> say, such contests use full IGC rules and class definitions. The
> minutes of the RC meeting
>
> http://ssa.org/files/member/2012%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20Final.pdf
>
> record substantial support for such a contest. This idea just needs
> an enthusiastic contest manager and director ready to do all the
> work. How about it, Seans?
>
> John Cochrane
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[email protected]

December 19th 12, 08:25 PM

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:58:10 PM UTC-5, BruceGreeff wrote:
> For What it is worth. The South African competition committee runs FAI Club class rules, with a wider range of handicaps allowed to encourage participation. Result as at day 5 at this year's Nationals - 3rd year of the allowing the higher performance gliders in. # CN Pilot Team Glider Total 1. TG Tommie Grobler ASW 19b 3871 2. YP Iain Rennie Astir CS 3814 3. L1 Konrad Stark AVP ASW 15 3586 4. ZP Kevin Mitchell DG400 3101 5. LEO Marcus Nouwens ASW27a 3041 6. YA Jean du Plessis Club Astir 3023 7. 01 Stephan van den Berg Std Jantar 1593 8. JB Jaco Burger AVP LS1f 1430 9. 122 Garth Beavon Astir CS 547 So there are 33% higher performance flapped 15m racers in there. ASW19b - 1:41 DG400 - 1:42 ASW27a - 1:48 The rest are in the 1:35-37 range and best glide at lower speeds and over narrower speed ranges. That said - The racing seems to be quite well balanced by handicap - the higher performance gliders do not seem to have much advantage. Seems I was wrong - on the topic of contestants moving up and dropping the traditional club class ships. Of course the tasking and handicapping is critical. So - it appears a straight FAI club class does work, even when you open the handicap range up. Now - if there was more participation it would be nice, but the poor participation is not caused by using FAI Club rules. My advice would be - Go run a contest and see what happens. You will probably be pleasantly surprised. On 2012/12/19 7:21 PM, John Cochrane wrote: > > Last two cents on these issues: > > 1. On "the rules committee doesn't listen." From the 2013 pilot > opinion poll > > Question: > > Split sports class into 'club' and 'modern FAI..' 'Club' allows all > gliders below, say, 0.90, while 'Modern' allows all gliders but > tasking and handicap adjustment stop at, say, 0.92. The two contests > are co-located, and revert to a single class if less than, say, 12 > pilots in each class show up. > > Approve 71% > Disapprove 9% > Don'tCare 6% > > Poll http://ssa.org/files/member/2012%20SSA%20Pilot%20Opinion%20Poll%20Results.pdf > > This is about the strongest approval we get for anything. Read > through the comments. I cannot find a single one suggesting that club > be carved off and fly strict IGC rules. (I just checked again, > searching for "FAI" "IGC" and "Club" just to be sure.) I'm not sure > with this feedback how on earth we were supposed to dream this one > up. > > If 50 of you really think the current proposal is atrocious, and club > had to be moved to nationals only in full IGC purity, where were you > on the pilot opinion poll? OK, well, this is our process, and be sure > that it will appear on next year's poll, if you still feel this way, > answer then. > > 2.. On "run an IGC contest if you want." This is a good idea. Better > than an unsanctioned regional, there has long been talk that the US > should run an IGC "continental championship." With FAI classes as well > as club class, this could be a big draw for pilots with world > ambitions from all over the US and Canada, international pilots who > want good igc rankings, as well as a US team practice. Needless to > say, such contests use full IGC rules and class definitions. The > minutes of the RC meeting > > http://ssa.org/files/member/2012%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20Final.pdf > > record substantial support for such a contest. This idea just needs > an enthusiastic contest manager and director ready to do all the > work. How about it, Seans? > > John Cochrane > -- Bruce Greeff T59D #1771

It would have been a bit wider if my fiend Nick Gradinski did not have a last minute paperwork issue that prevented him from participating with his KA-6.
UH

[email protected]

December 20th 12, 04:21 PM

> In contrast, Winscore was designed "from the ground up" as a scoring program specifically for US competition. It is supported "locally" and Guy Byars is obviously committed to keeping Winscore current.
>
> Why change? Lets keep things "Made in the USA"!

Hey, leave me out of this one!

I agreed to upgrade Winscore for 2013 to score using the IGC/FAI rules in addition to the US-SSA rules. I have had requests for this in the past, and it is a good improvement to the program regardless of the current debate.

I plan to have any distance (radii SMTD... etc) specified in the IGC rules in km to be a user input. That way the program can be used by the purists, or those that want things specified in convenient statute miles.

Scoring software is not an issue in this debate.

Guy Byars

[email protected]

December 21st 12, 01:41 AM

>
> Sean, your proposal by definition is going to limit participation and hurt Sports class. You cut off access to a bunch of not-quite-competitive gliders at the upper end, and I guarantee you will scare off the newby sports class guys with your "foreign, unsafe" FAI rules that emphasize start gaggling and mass landouts (remember, newbies still read Soaring cover to cover).. And how many club class racers really care if they get seeding points? They may just want to race.
>

Kirk, Sports Class will continue to have the same results even if Club Class gliders move into a separate class at the same venue. Yes, the Sports Class category will have fewer gliders because some are now in the Club Class category. Organizers will be happy to see increased overall participation.. Based on petition and previous marketing results I see a meaningful participation increase.

Suggesting a newbie will be scared off is ludicrous. IGC rules are at minimum just as safe as US rules. If a newbie has a Club Class glider, the option of flying US rules in Sports Class is an option. This petition is about having a choice. I have flown IGC contests many times. I have not experienced your ascertation of increased start gaggling and mass landouts under IGC rules. How many IGC contests have you flown to base your opinion?

Sean Franke (HA)

>
> Setup a contest - advertise it as FAI and see who comes. Let anyone race, but if they are outside Club Class just score them as guests, and don't task for them (tough on 2-33s and ETAs, so what...). See what happens - and if is a success, petition the USTC to recognise the scores for US Club Class team selection.
>
>
>
> Good luck - really. I truly hope Club Class works (and figure in a few years my LS6 will be legal, anyway), but I'm not sure the current approach is working.
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

kirk.stant

December 21st 12, 07:59 AM

On Friday, December 21, 2012 2:41:42 AM UTC+1, wrote:

> Kirk, Sports Class will continue to have the same results even if Club Class gliders move into a separate class at the same venue. Yes, the Sports Class category will have fewer gliders because some are now in the Club Class category. Organizers will be happy to see increased overall participation. Based on petition and previous marketing results I see a meaningful participation increase.
>
Sean, you can't have it both ways - Club Class gliders are the core of Sports class. Personally, I don't care for Sports class, so it's academic, but a new guy in the sport with his newly purchased ASW-19 might think otherwise.
>
> Suggesting a newbie will be scared off is ludicrous. IGC rules are at minimum just as safe as US rules. If a newbie has a Club Class glider, the option of flying US rules in Sports Class is an option. This petition is about having a choice. I have flown IGC contests many times. I have not experienced your ascertation of increased start gaggling and mass landouts under IGC rules. How many IGC contests have you flown to base your opinion?

Sean, you are being elitist - something I'm accused of frequently! Ask pilots of racing gliders who don't race why they don't race and you will get a lot of answers, but a lot are scared off by "all the rules". Advertising a contest as following "foreign FAI rules" is not going to make those pilots more likely to show up! And please note that I didn't say FAI rules are more dangerous, I said that someone who is thinking about getting into the sport and gets his information from reading Soaring or RAS is probably going to get that impression. Read Moffat's Winning - I thought it was exciting, but some would find it scary!

Again, I wish you guys luck. But the "we are the hotshots and want to do things our way because we know better" attitude is getting a bit old ;^) Just do it.

Kirk
66
Starting to look for a 15M regional to go to this summer...

Mike C

December 21st 12, 05:31 PM

Kirk,

Looks like Moriarty will be having a conventional Region 9 Contest this year.

Sean F (F2)

December 22nd 12, 01:59 PM

The Petition has hit 50 signatures!

When I get back from vacation after Xmas I have 4 more who are having browser based trouble signing the petition.

Next goal is 60. Funny, I arbitrarily selected a goal of 100. Even I thought there was no chance of reaching it. Now I am beginning to wonder :-).

We will definitely apply to the SSA for a waiver for an FAI Club Class in Ionia (R6N) this season. So If you are interested please sign up for Region 6 North, sign up for Sports Class and send me an email about your intentions to fly FAI Club. There should be a fairly strong turnout (could be as high as 15-18)!

Merry Xmas and happy holidays to everyone. I am enjoying this debate and no matter what happens I am very much looking forward to soaring next season!

Best,

Sean
F2

Sean F (F2)

January 3rd 13, 03:31 PM

54 signatures.

Sean F (F2)

January 3rd 13, 03:52 PM

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:31:34 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> 54 signatures.

It appears that we may already be as high as 75 signatures. I have learned over the holidays that it is likely that numerous signers have not had their signatures appear on the website due to not responding to the verification email (which may have gone into your spam folder).

Please take a look in your spam folder under the search "petition" and respond to this email via the link provided OR simply resign and check your inbox to confirm the signature.

Here is the link to sign the TRUE US Club Class petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1

Best,

Sean Fidler
F2/7T

Sean F (F2)

January 28th 13, 08:33 PM

56 signatures (about 10 having some kind of tech difficulty).

Thats now well over 50 current US contest pilots, most OWNING Club Class gliders and have been doing so for many years (committed), many TOP US CONTEST PILOTS (Sean, Sarah, Peter, etc), many top Jr's, many average Joe's who are asking for the rules committee to approve what it was asked for in the first place, and IGC Club Class Nationals to qualify US pilots for the World Championships.

If you would like to see the signatures OR sign the petition yourself...just click this link: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1

Sean
F2

Sean F (F2)

January 29th 13, 02:24 PM

Papa3[_2_]

January 29th 13, 06:22 PM

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:24:59 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> 57

Heinz

[email protected]

January 30th 13, 05:34 PM

Guy

Thanks for your clarity and sanity on this issue - and of course for
all your work on winscore - much appreciated..

Peter

On Thursday, 20 December 2012 08:21:25 UTC-8, wrote:
> > In contrast, Winscore was designed "from the ground up" as a scoring program specifically for US competition. It is supported "locally" and Guy Byars is obviously committed to keeping Winscore current.
>
> >
>
> > Why change? Lets keep things "Made in the USA"!
>
>
>
>
>
> Hey, leave me out of this one!
>
>
>
> I agreed to upgrade Winscore for 2013 to score using the IGC/FAI rules in addition to the US-SSA rules. I have had requests for this in the past, and it is a good improvement to the program regardless of the current debate.
>
>
>
> I plan to have any distance (radii SMTD... etc) specified in the IGC rules in km to be a user input. That way the program can be used by the purists, or those that want things specified in convenient statute miles.
>
>
>
> Scoring software is not an issue in this debate.
>
>
>
> Guy Byars

Sean F (F2)

February 23rd 13, 09:35 PM

Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class.

If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1

Sean
F2

CLewis95

February 23rd 13, 10:45 PM

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:35:57 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class.
>
>
>
> If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below.
>
>
>
> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2

Sean .. Is there some sort of FAI VS SSA "Rules Comparison Table" anywhere that would give a rough overview of the differences?

thx
Curt - 95
Genesis 2

Sean F (F2)

February 24th 13, 12:38 AM

Good idea. I'll see if we can put something together.

In general, the USRC openly considers FAI rules to be dangerous and irresponsible and their US rules alternative (dictated to the US soaring community) as the solution to FAIs dangerous irresponsibility. In addition, the USRC believes that their rules are not only safer but superior in generating flourishing contest attendance (especially with new or casual contest pilots). In other words, US pilots would not fly FAI rule events as they are too "hard core.". US rules on the other hand, with there increased safety and "decreased likelihood" of land outs greatly improves attendance. No need for crews, less difficult tasks, etc.

We (probably 100 US and Candian pilots, almost 60 have signed) see FAI rules as real/true glider racing (Assigned tasks and Assigned Area tasks only). The rest of the world soaring community (VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET BASICALLY) happily uses FAI rules for every contest and has since the sport began. Statistically safety is approximately equal between the World standard FAI rules and the essentially obscure US rules. The US is in isolation from the rest of the world as we are almost a different sport (checkers vs. chess). The US rules are 2-3x longer than FAI rules for example.

I personally would like to see, for now, that US regionals retain the US rules and national championships should immediately adopt FAI rules as they qualify US pilots for the World Championship. I want there to be a choice in the USA. I wish to disarm the USRC of the ability to act as dictators to all US pilots (and contests) on what rules are best to use. I think there is significant misinformation about the FAI rules in the USA because of a bit if a publicity campaign against them for a reason I do not fully understand. I think there is clearly (sixty signatures from jr pilots to top US world level pilots) strong demand for FAI rules events within the US dispite this negative publicity campaign by the USRC. I feel the USRC is on a bit of a crusade to somehow pressure change the FAIs rules and uses the US contests as a test lab.

I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.

Sean

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 02:47 AM

>
> I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.
>
> Sean

Dear Sean. This is an interesting project. Actually reading the IGC rules and explaining how the US would use them "without exception" might do us all some good.

I have been working on a similar project, and will have a comparison table to go with the fall poll, where pilots can voice their opinions.

You’re looking for “annex A” here

http://www.fai.org/igc-documents

Here are some particular issues you might answer for us. You propose to use the IGC rules "without exception," yet those rules make no mention of national or regional contests. For example,

How many pilots does it take to make a valid contest? (US: 8 finishers with score more than 40% of the winner)

IGC 1.3.2 If any one class does not have at least ten participants from at least five (four for Continental Championships) NACs on the first Championship day, the contest shall take place but no Champion will be declared.

What do you plan to do about that?

What kind of organization do you need (we have CD, rules committee etc)

1.4.2 Facilities The Organisers shall provide:
a. All facilities necessary for the satisfactory operation of the Championships.
b. The travel and living expenses for Stewards and Jury Members, other than the Chief Steward and Jury President.

2.2.1 Stewards The IGC-Bureau shall nominate a Chief Steward, at least one year prior to the event, plus at least one other Steward, of nationalities different to that of the Organisers,

2.2.2
International Jury
a. A nominated Jury shall consist of the President of the Jury plus two Members. The President shall be appointed by the IGC. Both Members shall normally be appointed by the IGC,

If you plan to use IGC rules "without exception" have fun getting all these people over to the US and paying for them.

Who gets to go to the contest? For US nationals, there is a ranking list, preferential entry procedure, etc. IGC rules:

3.1 SELECTION OF TEAMS Each NAC shall select its own Team Captain, competitors, and assistants.

3.2 QUALIFICATIONS A competitor must be a citizen or resident of the country of the entering NAC and satisfy the conditions of the FAI Sporting Code, General Section 3.7 on citizenship and representation, and must;
a. Hold a gold badge, or, hold a silver badge and have competed in at least two National Championships;
b. Have flown at least 250 hours as a pilot in command, of which at least 100 hours must be in sailplanes;
c. Hold a currently valid FAI Sporting Licence.....

Those are the rules. Can't go unless you've been to two nationals!

3.4.3
Pilots
a. Each NAC may enter the number of pilots approved by the IGC and specified in the Local Procedures, but not more than two pilots (two crews in the 20 metre Multi-seat Class) in any class, or 3 pilots in any class at Junior and Women Championships....

For Continental Championships with a limited number of nations participating the IGC Bureau may approve a higher number of pilots per class.

That sounds like fun. No more seeding list, the NAC says who gets to go..

What about equipment, inspections etc?

4.1.2 Each competing sailplane …
b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the configuration in which it will be flown.

Well, here's another big change. No showing up at 9 am on the first contest day. We need scrutineering, 72 hours before the contest starts. Why? Well, Sean wants to play by IGC rules without exception. Oh, yes, we need a scrutineer too.

Oh, and another subject dear to your heart, artificial horizons.

… No instruments permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be used during the contest. If carried on board they must be reported to the Organisers during the acceptance check and preferably be made inoperative. The Organisers may specify instruments and procedures covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.

Flight logs and flight recorders?

All remarks made during the inspection must be complied with not later than 20:00 on the day before the first scheduled competition day. By that time Flight Logs (see 5.4) from all FRs in use must also have been delivered to Competition Office. Noncompliance will result in denied competition launches

5.4 CONTROL PROCEDURES Flights shall be controlled by GNSS Flight Recorders (FR).
a. All FRs approved by the IGC up to two months prior to the Opening Day shall be accepted. A valid calibration certificate must be provided for each FR.
The FAI SC Section 3 requires that Flight Recorders have been calibrated within the previous 24 months.

Aah, that's interesting. No more of this loosey-goosey US rules letting Ilec SN10s or other non-certified flight recorders play. You WILL have an IGC certified recorder WITH calibration trace or else. I'm sure that will be popular with your club class.

We could go on. This is all nuts of course. These rules are simply not written to handle a national championships.

OK, enough.

What all countries who "use IGC rules" do, in fact, is to merge some aspects of IGC rules -- scoring formulas, in particular -- with a bunch of national rules. NOBODY uses IGC rules by themselves, because, as reading the rules makes clear, it simply is completely unworkable. EVERY country has their own modifications, in particular to the list of the club class pilots.

I hope you read the rules and produce the table. Then it will be clear what you are really advocating is that somebody write a whole new rule book somehow combining the two.

Now that sounds like a fun project

John Cochrane

February 24th 13, 03:01 AM

On 2/23/2013 5:38 PM, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Good idea. I'll see if we can put something together.
>
> In general, the USRC openly considers FAI rules to be dangerous and irresponsible and their US rules alternative (dictated to the US soaring community) as the solution to FAIs dangerous irresponsibility. In addition, the USRC believes that their rules are not only safer but superior in generating flourishing contest attendance (especially with new or casual contest pilots). In other words, US pilots would not fly FAI rule events as they are too "hard core.". US rules on the other hand, with there increased safety and "decreased likelihood" of land outs greatly improves attendance. No need for crews, less difficult tasks, etc.
>
> We (probably 100 US and Candian pilots, almost 60 have signed) see FAI rules as real/true glider racing (Assigned tasks and Assigned Area tasks only). The rest of the world soaring community (VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET BASICALLY) happily uses FAI rules for every contest and has since the sport began. Statistically safety is approximately equal between the World standard FAI rules and the essentially obscure US rules. The US is in isolation from the rest of the world as we are almost a different sport (checkers vs. chess). The US rules are 2-3x longer than FAI rules for example.
>
> I personally would like to see, for now, that US regionals retain the US rules and national championships should immediately adopt FAI rules as they qualify US pilots for the World Championship. I want there to be a choice in the USA. I wish to disarm the USRC of the ability to act as dictators to all US pilots (and contests) on what rules are best to use. I think there is significant misinformation about the FAI rules in the USA because of a bit if a publicity campaign against them for a reason I do not fully understand. I think there is clearly (sixty signatures from jr pilots to top US world level pilots) strong demand for FAI rules events within the US dispite this negative publicity campaign by the USRC. I feel the USRC is on a bit of a crusade to somehow pressure change the FAIs rules and uses the US contests as a test lab.
>
> I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.
>
> Sean
>
I sure hope you actually read the rules before you put this little
comparison together. You might be surprised.

IMHO you are mostly wrong with your "facts", but I've only flown a
couple of contests under IGC rules. I see no reason to prefer IGC rules,
except maybe for the MAT task still in US rules. I understand some
people have an extreme aversion to that one.

Here's my comparison:

The IGC start rules have lots of flexibility, but none of the options
are as good as the US cylinder, when its properly used (max height below
cloudbase / top of lift).

The smaller turnpoint zones used by IGC are a step back to where US
rules were in the mixed camera / GPS days. Really changes little.
Substitutes traffic converging on a point for slightly less predictable
traffic. US rules introduce an extra tactical twist.

This is another place where other countries use some interesting
turnpoint shapes for ATs as an option to deal with tricky weather.

Finish rules are flexible for both, very similar. In practice WGCs tend
to be different, but not driven by the rules.

Tasking philosophy is not rules driven. Its based on the CD. Influenced
in WGC by the chief steward and by task advisers in the US. The ability
to fall back to a task B or C in flight as used in the US is a huge
improvement in my opinion. The language barrier at WGCs makes inflight
changes more of a problem.

The rules are not simpler for either. The US rules have the complexity
of starting where you actually leave the cylinder rather than the center
of the line or cylinder arc. This adds a little tactical twist with US
rules and makes the traffic converge at the one optimal point in IGC
rules. Thats a complexity for the scorer, not the pilot. Same with
turnpoints on Assigned Tasks.

The scoring formulas are also different. Primarily in how days are
devalued. On full valued speed tasks, IGC rules you loose 20 points per
percent slower than the winner. By US rules its 10 point per percent.
That alone doesn't matter except for tie breaking. Both systems devalue
for short tasks. By IGC rules further speed devaluation also starts with
the first landout or slow finisher. By US rules devaluation doesn't kick
in until 20% landout for AAT/MAT or 40% for AT. The devaluation of speed
differences is also far greater for IGC rules.

US rules also have a few "tie breakers". Like partial credit for amount
of time under the min for AAT/MAT. And for slow finishers. US rules
compress the point differences for very slow finishers. IGC rules, all
very slow finishers tie.

The devaluation rules change "the points stakes", so competitive risks
should be weighed differently, particularly when you can tell how the
day will likely turn out. Thats the sort of thing that doesn't show up
with more casual competitors that may not recognize the gains possible
from good tactics.

The devaluation formulas are another area where other countries differ
from IGC rules (England for example). There is no "correct" way to
combine scores from different days. Depends on whether you think every
day should count the same or whether "luck influenced" days should have
less effect on the outcome. IGC rules take the philosophy that at the
WGC level, any landout or very slow finisher among the very good pilots
indicates some extra degree of luck that should be reflected in the
scores. US rules take the approach that a few bozo's landing out should
not effect the day's results for the top pilots.

US rules have harsher airspace penalties for first offense. Both are
pretty much a "death penalty". US rules have an airport bonus for
landouts not in the IGC rules.

Teams play a bigger part in IGC rules. Not just pilot teams, but team
captains, ground support, tactical advice, met support, etc. IGC still
does not allow anything other than aircraft voice comm radio and FLARM /
trackers. No inflight weather displays, alternate comm, etc. Contact
with ATC only for landing permission, no contact with FSS allowed.

For handicaps, it seems most countries have their own system. For "club
class" eligible lists, it also appears most countries have their own.
And several of our peers (Australia and England for example) use the
same system as is planned for the Sports Nationals this year. Max
performance limit, but no minimum limit. They don't seem to care if the
equivalent of a 2-33 shows up. Maybe because they task for the upper end
of the range and aren't as concerned with land outs anyway.

Neither set of rules is that difficult to read, particularly if you skip
the administrivia which is the bulk of both. Not that the administrivia
is unimportant. It will have to be changed a lot to be used in a US
national or regional contest. But you will need to check every year as
both are moving targets.

-Dave Leonard
(not now or ever on the US rules committee)

Richard Walters

February 24th 13, 05:19 AM

At 00:38 24 February 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>Good idea. I'll see if we can put something together. =20
>
>In general, the USRC openly considers FAI rules to be
dangerous and
>irrespo=
>nsible and their US rules alternative (dictated to the US soaring
>community=
>) as the solution to FAIs dangerous irresponsibility. In
addition, the
>USR=
>C believes that their rules are not only safer but superior in
generating
>=
>flourishing contest attendance (especially with new or casual
contest
>pilot=
>s). In other words, US pilots would not fly FAI rule events as
they are
>to=
>o "hard core.". US rules on the other hand, with there
increased safety
>an=
>d "decreased likelihood" of land outs greatly improves
attendance. No
>need=
> for crews, less difficult tasks, etc.
>
>We (probably 100 US and Candian pilots, almost 60 have
signed) see FAI
>rule=
>s as real/true glider racing (Assigned tasks and Assigned Area
tasks
>only).=
> The rest of the world soaring community (VIRTUALLY EVERY
OTHER COUNTRY
>ON=
> THE PLANET BASICALLY) happily uses FAI rules for every
contest and has
>sin=
>ce the sport began. Statistically safety is approximately equal
between
>th=
>e World standard FAI rules and the essentially obscure US
rules. The US
>is=
> in isolation from the rest of the world as we are almost a
different
>sport=
> (checkers vs. chess). The US rules are 2-3x longer than FAI
rules for
>exa=
>mple.
>
>I personally would like to see, for now, that US regionals retain
the US
>ru=
>les and national championships should immediately adopt FAI
rules as they
>q=
>ualify US pilots for the World Championship. I want there to be
a choice
>i=
>n the USA. I wish to disarm the USRC of the ability to act as
dictators
>to=
> all US pilots (and contests) on what rules are best to use. I
think
>there=
> is significant misinformation about the FAI rules in the USA
because of a
>=
>bit if a publicity campaign against them for a reason I do not
fully
>unders=
>tand. I think there is clearly (sixty signatures from jr pilots to
top US
>=
>world level pilots) strong demand for FAI rules events within
the US
>dispit=
>e this negative publicity campaign by the USRC. I feel the
USRC is on a
>bi=
>t of a crusade to somehow pressure change the FAIs rules and
uses the US
>co=
>ntests as a test lab.
>
>I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.
>
>Sean
>

Sean,

Since I am apparently part of this negative publicity campaign,
please answer how 80 pounds of lead in the cockpit is not an
issue with you? You have never responded to my comments on
the pitfalls of IGC CC rules. A skinny pilot in a Discus A has to
load up to MTOW that matches a heavy guy in a Discus B,
otherwise he is giving up a lot of performance. A heavy guy in
an ASW20 can not enter Club Class because he falls outside the
handicap range.

Our US sports class rules modify the handicap up and down to
allow for weight differences. Progressive, smart and safe. What
a concept.

For the record I have flown 8 IGC contests.

Former dictator,
Richard Walters 3R

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 02:31 PM

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:35:57 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class. If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1 Sean F2

As part of preparing for the BOD meeting, and possible discussion of this topic,I did an analysis of the responses to the petition site. I used tha best data available to me, that is the SSA membership list, ranking list, and contest results. I did not go back more than 3 years. This was done 3 weeks ago and may be not completely current.
I found
56 responders
6 not SSA members
29 on the current ranking list and thus eligible to compete in US nationals
21 are known or believed to own or have ready availability of Club ships.
18 of those are IGC conforming.

As and update on current events, the US Club class was approved as part of the 2013 rules changes in Houston.
Currently the Mifflin contest has 14 entries in US Club of which 8 are on the IGC list. I'm hoping for 20 or more so we can continue to move toward Club becoming a class strong enough to be paired with classes other than Sports or, hopefully strong enough to stand on it's own.
UH

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 02:38 PM

>
> -Dave Leonard
>
> (not now or ever on the US rules committee)

Be careful. If you keep writing thoughtful, sensible, well-informed things like this you won't stay off RC for long!

John Cochrane

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 03:45 PM

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:47:58 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> >
>
> > I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.
>
> >
>
> > Sean
>
>
>
> Dear Sean. This is an interesting project. Actually reading the IGC rules and explaining how the US would use them "without exception" might do us all some good.
>
>
>
> I have been working on a similar project, and will have a comparison table to go with the fall poll, where pilots can voice their opinions.
>
>
>
> You’re looking for “annex A” here
>
>
>
> http://www.fai.org/igc-documents
>
>
>
> Here are some particular issues you might answer for us. You propose to use the IGC rules "without exception," yet those rules make no mention of national or regional contests. For example,
>
>
>
> How many pilots does it take to make a valid contest? (US: 8 finishers with score more than 40% of the winner)
>
>
>
> IGC 1.3.2 If any one class does not have at least ten participants from at least five (four for Continental Championships) NACs on the first Championship day, the contest shall take place but no Champion will be declared.
>
>
>
> What do you plan to do about that?
>
>
>
> What kind of organization do you need (we have CD, rules committee etc)
>
>
>
> 1.4.2 Facilities The Organisers shall provide:
>
> a. All facilities necessary for the satisfactory operation of the Championships.
>
> b. The travel and living expenses for Stewards and Jury Members, other than the Chief Steward and Jury President.
>
>
>
> 2.2.1 Stewards The IGC-Bureau shall nominate a Chief Steward, at least one year prior to the event, plus at least one other Steward, of nationalities different to that of the Organisers,
>
>
>
> 2.2.2
>
> International Jury
>
> a. A nominated Jury shall consist of the President of the Jury plus two Members. The President shall be appointed by the IGC. Both Members shall normally be appointed by the IGC,
>
>
>
> If you plan to use IGC rules "without exception" have fun getting all these people over to the US and paying for them.
>
>
>
> Who gets to go to the contest? For US nationals, there is a ranking list, preferential entry procedure, etc. IGC rules:
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.1 SELECTION OF TEAMS Each NAC shall select its own Team Captain, competitors, and assistants.
>
>
>
> 3.2 QUALIFICATIONS A competitor must be a citizen or resident of the country of the entering NAC and satisfy the conditions of the FAI Sporting Code, General Section 3.7 on citizenship and representation, and must;
>
> a. Hold a gold badge, or, hold a silver badge and have competed in at least two National Championships;
>
> b. Have flown at least 250 hours as a pilot in command, of which at least 100 hours must be in sailplanes;
>
> c. Hold a currently valid FAI Sporting Licence.....
>
>
>
> Those are the rules. Can't go unless you've been to two nationals!
>
>
>
> 3.4.3
>
> Pilots
>
> a. Each NAC may enter the number of pilots approved by the IGC and specified in the Local Procedures, but not more than two pilots (two crews in the 20 metre Multi-seat Class) in any class, or 3 pilots in any class at Junior and Women Championships....
>
>
>
> For Continental Championships with a limited number of nations participating the IGC Bureau may approve a higher number of pilots per class.
>
>
>
>
>
> That sounds like fun. No more seeding list, the NAC says who gets to go..
>
>
>
> What about equipment, inspections etc?
>
>
>
> 4.1.2 Each competing sailplane …
>
> b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the configuration in which it will be flown.
>
>
>
> Well, here's another big change. No showing up at 9 am on the first contest day. We need scrutineering, 72 hours before the contest starts. Why? Well, Sean wants to play by IGC rules without exception. Oh, yes, we need a scrutineer too.
>
>
>
> Oh, and another subject dear to your heart, artificial horizons.
>
>
>
> … No instruments permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be used during the contest. If carried on board they must be reported to the Organisers during the acceptance check and preferably be made inoperative. The Organisers may specify instruments and procedures covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
>
>
>
> Flight logs and flight recorders?
>
>
>
> All remarks made during the inspection must be complied with not later than 20:00 on the day before the first scheduled competition day. By that time Flight Logs (see 5.4) from all FRs in use must also have been delivered to Competition Office. Noncompliance will result in denied competition launches
>
>
>
> 5.4 CONTROL PROCEDURES Flights shall be controlled by GNSS Flight Recorders (FR).
>
> a. All FRs approved by the IGC up to two months prior to the Opening Day shall be accepted. A valid calibration certificate must be provided for each FR.
>
> The FAI SC Section 3 requires that Flight Recorders have been calibrated within the previous 24 months.
>
>
>
> Aah, that's interesting. No more of this loosey-goosey US rules letting Ilec SN10s or other non-certified flight recorders play. You WILL have an IGC certified recorder WITH calibration trace or else. I'm sure that will be popular with your club class.
>
>
>
> We could go on. This is all nuts of course. These rules are simply not written to handle a national championships.
>
>
>
> OK, enough.
>
>
>
> What all countries who "use IGC rules" do, in fact, is to merge some aspects of IGC rules -- scoring formulas, in particular -- with a bunch of national rules. NOBODY uses IGC rules by themselves, because, as reading the rules makes clear, it simply is completely unworkable. EVERY country has their own modifications, in particular to the list of the club class pilots.
>
>
>
> I hope you read the rules and produce the table. Then it will be clear what you are really advocating is that somebody write a whole new rule book somehow combining the two.
>
>
>
> Now that sounds like a fun project
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

John, you tout "without exception" several times. Nowhere in the petition text body does it state "without exception". Before the petition was made public I reviewed, edited and changed the text state "The purpose of this petition is to demonstrate the number of US pilots who want formation of the new US Club Class to adopt FAI (IGC) rules, handicaps and tasking philosophy". You are right in that EXACT adoption in nationals with IGC Stewards, Jury and so on is not relevant or practical. The "without exception" you keep bringing up again and again IS in the URL which was not editable before making public.

So this brings up a question. Have you actually read the petition or just the URL?

Your comments are noted and I welcome your help in creating a US Club Class based on IGC rules format.

Sean Franke, HA

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 04:05 PM

The fall opinion poll will contain a question asking US pilots if they wish us to change as much as possible to IGC rules, in particular tasks, tasking philosophy, scoring formulas, units (metric/US), start/finish/turnpoint geometry, equipment requirements (flight recorders), class definitions etc. We will also be sampling opinions at SRA meetings during contests this year.

With a full sampling pilot views on this question -- separated from the future of club class nationals(which will be another, separate question) -- in hand, the RC will discuss the issue in the fall.

This is the normal procedure for rules changes, especially major ones like throwing out half of an entire rule book (US) and trying to merge it (contest times, bids, sanction process, entries, ranking list, list of officials, rule adjudication process, rule making process) with another rule book (IGC). I hope you will agree doing that on the fly between now and May is impractical.

Given that this process is in place, may I suggest giving it a rest for a while?

John Cochrane

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 04:49 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 8:05:35 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> The fall opinion poll will contain a question asking US pilots if they wish us to change as much as possible to IGC rules, in particular tasks, tasking philosophy, scoring formulas, units (metric/US), start/finish/turnpoint geometry, equipment requirements (flight recorders), class definitions etc.. We will also be sampling opinions at SRA meetings during contests this year.
>
>
>
> With a full sampling pilot views on this question -- separated from the future of club class nationals(which will be another, separate question) -- in hand, the RC will discuss the issue in the fall.
>
>
>
> This is the normal procedure for rules changes, especially major ones like throwing out half of an entire rule book (US) and trying to merge it (contest times, bids, sanction process, entries, ranking list, list of officials, rule adjudication process, rule making process) with another rule book (IGC). I hope you will agree doing that on the fly between now and May is impractical.
>
>
>
> Given that this process is in place, may I suggest giving it a rest for a while?
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I hope when fall opinion poll questions are created it will incorporate thoughts from outside the RC. My guess is that response from the petition and this thread was a surprise. It was a surprise because the right questions on this topic have not been asked in prior RC opinion polls.

Obviously there are enough pilots to field one FAI rules based class. There is no reason to make this an "all or nothing" change. Most US pilots want and should fly contests under the current format. Don't change or throw out the book. Create a new FAI US Club Class from the ground up for those who want it.

Sean Franke, HA

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 05:17 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:31:26 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:35:57 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class. If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1 Sean F2
>
>
>
> As part of preparing for the BOD meeting, and possible discussion of this topic,I did an analysis of the responses to the petition site. I used tha best data available to me, that is the SSA membership list, ranking list, and contest results. I did not go back more than 3 years. This was done 3 weeks ago and may be not completely current.
>
> I found
>
> 56 responders
>
> 6 not SSA members
>
> 29 on the current ranking list and thus eligible to compete in US nationals
>
> 21 are known or believed to own or have ready availability of Club ships.
>
> 18 of those are IGC conforming.
>
>
>
> As and update on current events, the US Club class was approved as part of the 2013 rules changes in Houston.
>
> Currently the Mifflin contest has 14 entries in US Club of which 8 are on the IGC list. I'm hoping for 20 or more so we can continue to move toward Club becoming a class strong enough to be paired with classes other than Sports or, hopefully strong enough to stand on it's own.
>
> UH

UH, The petition list does not represent ALL pilots who support the idea. Keep in mind the free website hosting this petition could be more user friendly. There are many who attempted to sign but don't appear on the list. I watched first hand a pilot signed up but didn't verify a second time as required. His posting didn't take. Mitch Hudson sent me an email saying he signed but his name has not appeared. The free website has limitations.

Numbers are encouraging.

*How many in addition have tried to sign but it didn't take?
*How may would sign but don't know about the petition?

29 on the ranking list who own, possibly will buy or borrow a Club Class to compete is strong. Not to mention pilots whose posting didn't take or don't know about the movement. This could be the strongest sailplane racing class in the US. Of course, it's not going to happen this year. I hope the RC will give this movement a fair chance.

Sean Franke, HA

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 05:27 PM

>
>
> I hope when fall opinion poll questions are created it will incorporate thoughts from outside the RC. My guess is that response from the petition and this thread was a surprise. It was a surprise because the right questions on this topic have not been asked in prior RC opinion polls.
>
> Obviously there are enough pilots to field one FAI rules based class. There is no reason to make this an "all or nothing" change. Most US pilots want and should fly contests under the current format. Don't change or throw out the book. Create a new FAI US Club Class from the ground up for those who want it.
>
> Sean Franke, HA

We certainly need to separate the question "use IGC rules" from the question "what should a club class nationals look like." Many pilots may want to see a separate club class nationals using US rules, and many pilots may want to fly their 15 meter gliders under IGC rules.

My own opinion is that mixing rules this profoundly different at US contests will cause havoc.

Contest A uses 5 mile radius US start with 2 minutes, start out the top, and credit for extra distance; miles and feet; credit for distance in turnpoints, soft buffers for minor mistakes, the US finish.

Contest B uses a 10 km start line, no top, groundspeed limited, kilometers and meters, no credit for distance in turnpoints, no buffers for minor mistakes, etc.

If John Seaborn can get confused, imagine Joe Pilot. Imagine poor Joe CD who has to keep two totally different sets of rules and procedures in mind. Contests are full of enough screwups and poor understanding of the rules, as it is! This strikes me as a recipe for confusion.

But, we'll hear what everyone has to say.

I don't get your first comment. Of course the poll incorporates opinion from outside the RC. That's why we send it to all 600 pilots on the seeding list, not just 4 RC members! That's why we do it! That's why there is a free form comments section, and we read every one of them. That's why we have SRA meetings in advance to know what the issues are

John Cochrane

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 05:54 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:27:08 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> >
>
> >
>
> > I hope when fall opinion poll questions are created it will incorporate thoughts from outside the RC. My guess is that response from the petition and this thread was a surprise. It was a surprise because the right questions on this topic have not been asked in prior RC opinion polls.
>
> >
>
> > Obviously there are enough pilots to field one FAI rules based class. There is no reason to make this an "all or nothing" change. Most US pilots want and should fly contests under the current format. Don't change or throw out the book. Create a new FAI US Club Class from the ground up for those who want it.
>
> >
>
> > Sean Franke, HA
>
>
>
> We certainly need to separate the question "use IGC rules" from the question "what should a club class nationals look like." Many pilots may want to see a separate club class nationals using US rules, and many pilots may want to fly their 15 meter gliders under IGC rules.
>
>
>
> My own opinion is that mixing rules this profoundly different at US contests will cause havoc.
>
>
>
> Contest A uses 5 mile radius US start with 2 minutes, start out the top, and credit for extra distance; miles and feet; credit for distance in turnpoints, soft buffers for minor mistakes, the US finish.
>
>
>
> Contest B uses a 10 km start line, no top, groundspeed limited, kilometers and meters, no credit for distance in turnpoints, no buffers for minor mistakes, etc.
>
>
>
> If John Seaborn can get confused, imagine Joe Pilot. Imagine poor Joe CD who has to keep two totally different sets of rules and procedures in mind. Contests are full of enough screwups and poor understanding of the rules, as it is! This strikes me as a recipe for confusion.
>
>
>
> But, we'll hear what everyone has to say.
>
>
>
> I don't get your first comment. Of course the poll incorporates opinion from outside the RC. That's why we send it to all 600 pilots on the seeding list, not just 4 RC members! That's why we do it! That's why there is a free form comments section, and we read every one of them. That's why we have SRA meetings in advance to know what the issues are
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

What I'm trying to say is I hope future poll questions on this topic will be in a format that will not skew the response in a predetermined direction, one way or the other.

I think havoc really amounts to different. Contest B can use a start line or circle (similar to US cylinder). No top or a top above expected lift. Safer than 2 minutes below then start out of the top. Ground speed limited not really applicable. Kilometer & Meters or Feet & Miles, whatever doesn't matter. Credit for distance in turnpoints, just different not havoc. Stronger difference in points for minor mistakes. YES, makes you a stronger pilot. Finish is the same for both rules. Not havoc just different.

Sean Franke, HA

Sean F (F2)

February 24th 13, 06:39 PM

Great conversation. I am not challenging the details, flexibility. I think the USRC, although I criticize the power they wield, wield it in the true belief that rhey are making soaring safer and therefore better attended. To a certain extent that may be true (maybe not).

I am only trying to shake loose from the cage we US pilots are held in and make some level of FAI rule soaring available in the USA. I also wish to shake the stigma of FAI rule soaring being flat out dangerous or irresponsible by sighting regularly that the rest if the world uses these rules and have equal safety results and perhaps better attendance (via better racing and tasking).

Nobody is bad here. We all want growth and prosperity for our sport. I am simply trying to carve out a choice for US/Canadian pilots and it appears that may happen although the USRC, for example, wants to impose its will by only approving the bid for a major US based FAI contest if we use US starting rules in lieu of FAI rules. This is an example of the dictatrial nature I dislike. The reason for this was their belief that FAI is "unsafe." Those are rather bold and important assumptions.

I vote for letting the US pilots have a choice!

Sean

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 10:02 PM

> I think the USRC, although I criticize the power they wield,............the >dictatrial nature I dislike.
>
> I vote for letting the US pilots have a choice!
> Sean

This "power they wield" and "dictatrial" (sic) nature is a bunch of hooey. US rules work from the bottom up not top down.

If you want to see some merging of US and IGC rules at US contests, get off your butt, write down the actual set of rules you want to use, submit a bid with a request for waiver, and run such a contest. Stop whining for someone else to do all the work.

That's how the system works. It's not top down, or "dictatrial." New ideas start by waiver at regionals. Especially new ideas involving really big changes to rules and procedures.

Even if all the pilots on the poll say they want IGC rules, and the RC all decides we're for it, we would have to follow exactly the same process: find a CD willing to run the experiment by waiver at regionals, write the waiver, get all the details worked out in writing, run the experiment, find the bugs, see if the concept actually works. Poll again to see if pilots like it. Introduce it in regionals. Poll again. Move it to nationals.

US pilots do have the choice! They can run pretty much any contest they want, if they can persuade the RC that the waiver they want makes any sense at all.

You are, in fact, asking for the opposite: for the RC to impose this from the top, without the usual experimentation. Sorry, that's not how it works.

Write the rules
Get a waiver
Run a contest

Until then, stop bitching!

John Cochrane

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 10:59 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:17:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:31:26 AM UTC-8, wrote: > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:35:57 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote: > > > Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class. If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1 Sean F2 > > > > As part of preparing for the BOD meeting, and possible discussion of this topic,I did an analysis of the responses to the petition site. I used tha best data available to me, that is the SSA membership list, ranking list, and contest results. I did not go back more than 3 years. This was done 3 weeks ago and may be not completely current. > > I found > > 56 responders > > 6 not SSA members > > 29 on the current ranking list and thus eligible to compete in US nationals > > 21 are known or believed to own or have ready availability of Club ships. > > 18 of those are IGC conforming. > > > > As and update on current events, the US Club class was approved as part of the 2013 rules changes in Houston. > > Currently the Mifflin contest has 14 entries in US Club of which 8 are on the IGC list. I'm hoping for 20 or more so we can continue to move toward Club becoming a class strong enough to be paired with classes other than Sports or, hopefully strong enough to stand on it's own. > > UH UH, The petition list does not represent ALL pilots who support the idea. Keep in mind the free website hosting this petition could be more user friendly. There are many who attempted to sign but don't appear on the list. I watched first hand a pilot signed up but didn't verify a second time as required. His posting didn't take. Mitch Hudson sent me an email saying he signed but his name has not appeared. The free website has limitations. Numbers are encouraging. *How many in addition have tried to sign but it didn't take? *How may would sign but don't know about the petition? 29 on the ranking list who own, possibly will buy or borrow a Club Class to compete is strong. Not to mention pilots whose posting didn't take or don't know about the movement. This could be the strongest sailplane racing class in the US. Of course, it's not going to happen this year. I hope the RC will give this movement a fair chance. Sean Franke, HA

Please read my observations.
29 was the number of pilots that could enter the contest mentioned.
21 was US Club group
18 was IGC Club group.
Given the apperently extensive e-mail campaign, complete with scare tactics like
"if this goes through we'll never have a real Club class"(my paraphrasing), I don't think you guys missed too many possibles.
The "chance", as currently enacted is:
1- Participate in US Club and help it grow to where it can stand on it's own as a class.
2- Help it grow and evolve, as it may well and likely should over time.

My proposed scenario to the RC was to make Club independent of the Sports tie in after 2 seasons of 20 entries. This would show it is a viable class that organzers could bid on and expect to get a reasonable turnout.
The RC, as group, was not prepared to go that far, which dissapointed me personally.
That said, if we can get 20 or better at Mifflin, we could be well on our way.
We have 14 signed up as of yesterday.
The other option is to sulk, bitch, moan, call us names, go on strike, or whatever can be done to try to prove us wrong.

UH

[email protected]

February 25th 13, 12:32 AM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:59:25 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:17:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:31:26 AM UTC-8, wrote: > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:35:57 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote: > > > Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class. If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1 Sean F2 > > > > As part of preparing for the BOD meeting, and possible discussion of this topic,I did an analysis of the responses to the petition site. I used tha best data available to me, that is the SSA membership list, ranking list, and contest results. I did not go back more than 3 years. This was done 3 weeks ago and may be not completely current. > > I found > > 56 responders > > 6 not SSA members > > 29 on the current ranking list and thus eligible to compete in US nationals > > 21 are known or believed to own or have ready availability of Club ships. > > 18 of those are IGC conforming. > > > > As and update on current events, the US Club class was approved as part of the 2013 rules changes in Houston. > > Currently the Mifflin contest has 14 entries in US Club of which 8 are on the IGC list. I'm hoping for 20 or more so we can continue to move toward Club becoming a class strong enough to be paired with classes other than Sports or, hopefully strong enough to stand on it's own. > > UH UH, The petition list does not represent ALL pilots who support the idea. Keep in mind the free website hosting this petition could be more user friendly. There are many who attempted to sign but don't appear on the list. I watched first hand a pilot signed up but didn't verify a second time as required. His posting didn't take. Mitch Hudson sent me an email saying he signed but his name has not appeared. The free website has limitations. Numbers are encouraging. *How many in addition have tried to sign but it didn't take? *How may would sign but don't know about the petition? 29 on the ranking list who own, possibly will buy or borrow a Club Class to compete is strong. Not to mention pilots whose posting didn't take or don't know about the movement. This could be the strongest sailplane racing class in the US. Of course, it's not going to happen this year. I hope the RC will give this movement a fair chance. Sean Franke, HA
>
>
>
> Please read my observations.
>
> 29 was the number of pilots that could enter the contest mentioned.
>
> 21 was US Club group
>
> 18 was IGC Club group.
>
> Given the apperently extensive e-mail campaign, complete with scare tactics like
>
> "if this goes through we'll never have a real Club class"(my paraphrasing), I don't think you guys missed too many possibles.
>
> The "chance", as currently enacted is:
>
> 1- Participate in US Club and help it grow to where it can stand on it's own as a class.
>
> 2- Help it grow and evolve, as it may well and likely should over time.
>
>
>
> My proposed scenario to the RC was to make Club independent of the Sports tie in after 2 seasons of 20 entries. This would show it is a viable class that organzers could bid on and expect to get a reasonable turnout.
>
> The RC, as group, was not prepared to go that far, which dissapointed me personally.
>
> That said, if we can get 20 or better at Mifflin, we could be well on our way.
>
> We have 14 signed up as of yesterday.
>
> The other option is to sulk, bitch, moan, call us names, go on strike, or whatever can be done to try to prove us wrong.
>
>
>
> UH

I'll sign up soon for the Low Performance Sports Class Division. That will make 15.

An email campaign is a good idea but hasn't been done yet. Certainly 10 emails sent out isn't "extensive". US FAI Club Class still has plenty of room to be effectively marketed. So far results are promising.

Keep in mind discontent with the RC only came after Club Class advocates ran several super regionals as instructed and we were ignored. What was created by the RC doesn't resemble Club Class or the format proven in the Super Regions.

Sean Franke, HA

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

February 25th 13, 12:47 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:45:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:47:58 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sean
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Dear Sean. This is an interesting project. Actually reading the IGC rules and explaining how the US would use them "without exception" might do us all some good.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have been working on a similar project, and will have a comparison table to go with the fall poll, where pilots can voice their opinions.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You’re looking for “annex A” here
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.fai.org/igc-documents
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Here are some particular issues you might answer for us. You propose to use the IGC rules "without exception," yet those rules make no mention of national or regional contests. For example,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > How many pilots does it take to make a valid contest? (US: 8 finishers with score more than 40% of the winner)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > IGC 1.3.2 If any one class does not have at least ten participants from at least five (four for Continental Championships) NACs on the first Championship day, the contest shall take place but no Champion will be declared.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What do you plan to do about that?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What kind of organization do you need (we have CD, rules committee etc)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1.4.2 Facilities The Organisers shall provide:
>
> >
>
> > a. All facilities necessary for the satisfactory operation of the Championships.
>
> >
>
> > b. The travel and living expenses for Stewards and Jury Members, other than the Chief Steward and Jury President.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2.2.1 Stewards The IGC-Bureau shall nominate a Chief Steward, at least one year prior to the event, plus at least one other Steward, of nationalities different to that of the Organisers,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2.2.2
>
> >
>
> > International Jury
>
> >
>
> > a. A nominated Jury shall consist of the President of the Jury plus two Members. The President shall be appointed by the IGC. Both Members shall normally be appointed by the IGC,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If you plan to use IGC rules "without exception" have fun getting all these people over to the US and paying for them.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Who gets to go to the contest? For US nationals, there is a ranking list, preferential entry procedure, etc. IGC rules:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 3.1 SELECTION OF TEAMS Each NAC shall select its own Team Captain, competitors, and assistants.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 3.2 QUALIFICATIONS A competitor must be a citizen or resident of the country of the entering NAC and satisfy the conditions of the FAI Sporting Code, General Section 3.7 on citizenship and representation, and must;
>
> >
>
> > a. Hold a gold badge, or, hold a silver badge and have competed in at least two National Championships;
>
> >
>
> > b. Have flown at least 250 hours as a pilot in command, of which at least 100 hours must be in sailplanes;
>
> >
>
> > c. Hold a currently valid FAI Sporting Licence.....
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Those are the rules. Can't go unless you've been to two nationals!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 3.4.3
>
> >
>
> > Pilots
>
> >
>
> > a. Each NAC may enter the number of pilots approved by the IGC and specified in the Local Procedures, but not more than two pilots (two crews in the 20 metre Multi-seat Class) in any class, or 3 pilots in any class at Junior and Women Championships....
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For Continental Championships with a limited number of nations participating the IGC Bureau may approve a higher number of pilots per class.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That sounds like fun. No more seeding list, the NAC says who gets to go...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What about equipment, inspections etc?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 4.1.2 Each competing sailplane …
>
> >
>
> > b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the configuration in which it will be flown.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Well, here's another big change. No showing up at 9 am on the first contest day. We need scrutineering, 72 hours before the contest starts. Why? Well, Sean wants to play by IGC rules without exception. Oh, yes, we need a scrutineer too.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Oh, and another subject dear to your heart, artificial horizons.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > … No instruments permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be used during the contest. If carried on board they must be reported to the Organisers during the acceptance check and preferably be made inoperative. The Organisers may specify instruments and procedures covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Flight logs and flight recorders?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > All remarks made during the inspection must be complied with not later than 20:00 on the day before the first scheduled competition day. By that time Flight Logs (see 5.4) from all FRs in use must also have been delivered to Competition Office. Noncompliance will result in denied competition launches
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 5.4 CONTROL PROCEDURES Flights shall be controlled by GNSS Flight Recorders (FR).
>
> >
>
> > a. All FRs approved by the IGC up to two months prior to the Opening Day shall be accepted. A valid calibration certificate must be provided for each FR.
>
> >
>
> > The FAI SC Section 3 requires that Flight Recorders have been calibrated within the previous 24 months.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Aah, that's interesting. No more of this loosey-goosey US rules letting Ilec SN10s or other non-certified flight recorders play. You WILL have an IGC certified recorder WITH calibration trace or else. I'm sure that will be popular with your club class.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We could go on. This is all nuts of course. These rules are simply not written to handle a national championships.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > OK, enough.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What all countries who "use IGC rules" do, in fact, is to merge some aspects of IGC rules -- scoring formulas, in particular -- with a bunch of national rules. NOBODY uses IGC rules by themselves, because, as reading the rules makes clear, it simply is completely unworkable. EVERY country has their own modifications, in particular to the list of the club class pilots.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I hope you read the rules and produce the table. Then it will be clear what you are really advocating is that somebody write a whole new rule book somehow combining the two.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now that sounds like a fun project
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > John Cochrane
>
>
>
> John, you tout "without exception" several times. Nowhere in the petition text body does it state "without exception". Before the petition was made public I reviewed, edited and changed the text state "The purpose of this petition is to demonstrate the number of US pilots who want formation of the new US Club Class to adopt FAI (IGC) rules, handicaps and tasking philosophy". You are right in that EXACT adoption in nationals with IGC Stewards, Jury and so on is not relevant or practical. The "without exception" you keep bringing up again and again IS in the URL which was not editable before making public.
>
>
>
>
>
> So this brings up a question. Have you actually read the petition or just the URL?
>
>
>
> Your comments are noted and I welcome your help in creating a US Club Class based on IGC rules format.
>
>
>
> Sean Franke, HA

The stated purpose of the petition is "US Club Class Association petition for SSA adoption of FAI rules for 2013 US Club Class Nationals" not "some FAI rules"
and is specifically addressing 2013. Interestingly enough, this petition was not put on the BOD agenda by the regional director (as another petition on a different subject was by another director).

[email protected]

February 25th 13, 01:58 PM

So Club Class advocates have 2 years to prove the rules committee Club Class concept out? That is a a pretty short leash on development, isn't it? Especially given the World Class Experiment of many, many years. I'll continue to work to prove the concept, but my commitment to the "process" is considerably dimmed by what has happened.

And on the incessant demand that proponents of Club Class, or IGC rules, or whatever, "get off their asses" and "seek out waivers" to prove out concepts, etc., it sure seems like even if we do all that, if it conflicts with the longstanding and closely held beliefs of member(s) of the RC, then it will just about go nowhere in the long-term. That's just how it appears. And appearances speak volumes...

Thanks for the continued chance to prove out Club Class, but I am disappointed in how it has been presented to the advocates of Club Class here in the US.

Sincerely,
Tim McAllister EY

[email protected]

February 25th 13, 02:20 PM

On Monday, February 25, 2013 7:58:37 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> So Club Class advocates have 2 years to prove the rules committee Club Class concept out? That is a a pretty short leash on development, isn't it? Especially given the World Class Experiment of many, many years. I'll continue to work to prove the concept, but my commitment to the "process" is considerably dimmed by what has happened.
>
>
>
> And on the incessant demand that proponents of Club Class, or IGC rules, or whatever, "get off their asses" and "seek out waivers" to prove out concepts, etc., it sure seems like even if we do all that, if it conflicts with the longstanding and closely held beliefs of member(s) of the RC, then it will just about go nowhere in the long-term. That's just how it appears. And appearances speak volumes...
>
>
>
> Thanks for the continued chance to prove out Club Class, but I am disappointed in how it has been presented to the advocates of Club Class here in the US.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tim McAllister EY

Tim:

My suggestion for waivers was only about IGC rules, not about club class. I hope you agree that dropping some as-yet unwritten mixture of US and IGC rules on a nationals two months from now is not a good idea, and this proposal for a whole new rule book (in any class) really does need to be tried once at a regionals.

Club did indeed prove itself with moderate success at regionals (10-15 pilots, not 20-30), and that's why there is a club section of sports nationals. It has everything club advocates asked for, except one thing: if a guy shows up to the sports nationals with a sparrowhawk, we are not going to make him go home, nor will we make him fly the same task in a class that has nothing less than an ASW27 in it.

When we crafted this compromise, we did not realize what a terrible burden it would be to ask clubbies to share the sky with one or two such gliders.

If we can get decent turnout at Mifflin, and organizers willing to put on such a contest, I do not think a separate club class nationals, with US rules and US team list, will take that long. The only thing holding it back is concern that not enough gliders will show up.

On this end, it seems like a moving goal post, and a constant stream of demands for instant action. "Nationals now" it started. No, we have to try it at regionals first, like everything else. We crafted a nationals, that rather cleverly (I thought) addressed the longstanding problem, i.e if we create club, we write all the lower performance gliders out of US competition. The response? "We must have IGC club class list, and IGC rules! We must have it now, without trying it at regionals!" Nobody said anything about that -- dissatisfaction with the US team list or the need for IGC rules -- the first time around, and nobody said a word about it on the fall opinion poll.

If we have a separate US club class with US rules and US team list, will this stop? Or will the goal posts move again?

John Cochrane

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

February 25th 13, 02:39 PM

On Monday, February 25, 2013 9:20:12 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 7:58:37 AM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> > So Club Class advocates have 2 years to prove the rules committee Club Class concept out? That is a a pretty short leash on development, isn't it? Especially given the World Class Experiment of many, many years. I'll continue to work to prove the concept, but my commitment to the "process" is considerably dimmed by what has happened.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And on the incessant demand that proponents of Club Class, or IGC rules, or whatever, "get off their asses" and "seek out waivers" to prove out concepts, etc., it sure seems like even if we do all that, if it conflicts with the longstanding and closely held beliefs of member(s) of the RC, then it will just about go nowhere in the long-term. That's just how it appears. And appearances speak volumes...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for the continued chance to prove out Club Class, but I am disappointed in how it has been presented to the advocates of Club Class here in the US.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> >
>
> > Tim McAllister EY
>
>
>
> Tim:
>
>
>
> My suggestion for waivers was only about IGC rules, not about club class. I hope you agree that dropping some as-yet unwritten mixture of US and IGC rules on a nationals two months from now is not a good idea, and this proposal for a whole new rule book (in any class) really does need to be tried once at a regionals.
>
>
>
> Club did indeed prove itself with moderate success at regionals (10-15 pilots, not 20-30), and that's why there is a club section of sports nationals. It has everything club advocates asked for, except one thing: if a guy shows up to the sports nationals with a sparrowhawk, we are not going to make him go home, nor will we make him fly the same task in a class that has nothing less than an ASW27 in it.
>
>
>
> When we crafted this compromise, we did not realize what a terrible burden it would be to ask clubbies to share the sky with one or two such gliders..
>
>
>
> If we can get decent turnout at Mifflin, and organizers willing to put on such a contest, I do not think a separate club class nationals, with US rules and US team list, will take that long. The only thing holding it back is concern that not enough gliders will show up.
>
>
>
> On this end, it seems like a moving goal post, and a constant stream of demands for instant action. "Nationals now" it started. No, we have to try it at regionals first, like everything else. We crafted a nationals, that rather cleverly (I thought) addressed the longstanding problem, i.e if we create club, we write all the lower performance gliders out of US competition. The response? "We must have IGC club class list, and IGC rules! We must have it now, without trying it at regionals!" Nobody said anything about that -- dissatisfaction with the US team list or the need for IGC rules -- the first time around, and nobody said a word about it on the fall opinion poll.
>
>
>
> If we have a separate US club class with US rules and US team list, will this stop? Or will the goal posts move again?
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

It definitely seems a moving goal post. The Club Class advocates do not speak with one voice or consistent agenda. Perhaps if the club class advocates could form a coherent (individuals identified) group and speak with one voice this could move things forward more effectively.
QT

Sean F (F2)

February 25th 13, 05:25 PM

OK...Ill stop bitching. I am excited about what is coming in 2014. Time to stop shaking the trees and start flying. I have the glider packed up and ready for Florida!

:-)

Sean

RW[_2_]

March 1st 13, 09:49 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:19:19 AM UTC-5, Richard Walters wrote:
> At 00:38 24 February 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>
> >Good idea. I'll see if we can put something together. =20
>
> >
>
> >In general, the USRC openly considers FAI rules to be
>
> dangerous and
>
> >irrespo=
>
> >nsible and their US rules alternative (dictated to the US soaring
>
> >community=
>
> >) as the solution to FAIs dangerous irresponsibility. In
>
> addition, the
>
> >USR=
>
> >C believes that their rules are not only safer but superior in
>
> generating
>
> >=
>
> >flourishing contest attendance (especially with new or casual
>
> contest
>
> >pilot=
>
> >s). In other words, US pilots would not fly FAI rule events as
>
> they are
>
> >to=
>
> >o "hard core.". US rules on the other hand, with there
>
> increased safety
>
> >an=
>
> >d "decreased likelihood" of land outs greatly improves
>
> attendance. No
>
> >need=
>
> > for crews, less difficult tasks, etc.
>
> >
>
> >We (probably 100 US and Candian pilots, almost 60 have
>
> signed) see FAI
>
> >rule=
>
> >s as real/true glider racing (Assigned tasks and Assigned Area
>
> tasks
>
> >only).=
>
> > The rest of the world soaring community (VIRTUALLY EVERY
>
> OTHER COUNTRY
>
> >ON=
>
> > THE PLANET BASICALLY) happily uses FAI rules for every
>
> contest and has
>
> >sin=
>
> >ce the sport began. Statistically safety is approximately equal
>
> between
>
> >th=
>
> >e World standard FAI rules and the essentially obscure US
>
> rules. The US
>
> >is=
>
> > in isolation from the rest of the world as we are almost a
>
> different
>
> >sport=
>
> > (checkers vs. chess). The US rules are 2-3x longer than FAI
>
> rules for
>
> >exa=
>
> >mple.
>
> >
>
> >I personally would like to see, for now, that US regionals retain
>
> the US
>
> >ru=
>
> >les and national championships should immediately adopt FAI
>
> rules as they
>
> >q=
>
> >ualify US pilots for the World Championship. I want there to be
>
> a choice
>
> >i=
>
> >n the USA. I wish to disarm the USRC of the ability to act as
>
> dictators
>
> >to=
>
> > all US pilots (and contests) on what rules are best to use. I
>
> think
>
> >there=
>
> > is significant misinformation about the FAI rules in the USA
>
> because of a
>
> >=
>
> >bit if a publicity campaign against them for a reason I do not
>
> fully
>
> >unders=
>
> >tand. I think there is clearly (sixty signatures from jr pilots to
>
> top US
>
> >=
>
> >world level pilots) strong demand for FAI rules events within
>
> the US
>
> >dispit=
>
> >e this negative publicity campaign by the USRC. I feel the
>
> USRC is on a
>
> >bi=
>
> >t of a crusade to somehow pressure change the FAIs rules and
>
> uses the US
>
> >co=
>
> >ntests as a test lab.
>
> >
>
> >I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.
>
> >
>
> >Sean
>
> >
>
>
>
> Sean,
>
>
>
> Since I am apparently part of this negative publicity campaign,
>
> please answer how 80 pounds of lead in the cockpit is not an
>
> issue with you? You have never responded to my comments on
>
> the pitfalls of IGC CC rules. A skinny pilot in a Discus A has to
>
> load up to MTOW that matches a heavy guy in a Discus B,
>
> otherwise he is giving up a lot of performance. A heavy guy in
>
> an ASW20 can not enter Club Class because he falls outside the
>
> handicap range.
>
>
>
> Our US sports class rules modify the handicap up and down to
>
> allow for weight differences. Progressive, smart and safe. What
>
> a concept.
>
>
>
> For the record I have flown 8 IGC contests.
>
>
>
> Former dictator,
>
> Richard Walters 3R

Rick, I dont see any problem even with 200lb ballast as long you have it secured and within the weight and ballast limits.
Max weight for club class glider comes from manufacturer manual(not invented by IGC).It is total max, less wings water(tail water ok)
If your heavy pilot 'falls outside the
handicap range"in IGC contest he can not legally fly anywhere.(US or rest of the world)
Ryszard