Potential $300 increase in contest fees?

[[email protected]]

Reading the latest Rules Committee meeting minutes I see item number 14 slips a "tax" in the rules. $50 charge by waiver for any contest pilot showing up without a crew. Note it is $50 PER DAY!

This was not included in the pilot poll, we currently have a sanctioning fee surplus, the minutes state that almost all of the 2012 contests reported a profit.

Is it productive to increase contest fees by $300 for participants? Will this create more or less participation in regionals? Is there really an unbearable burden placed on contest organizers when it comes to crewless pilots?

As an active contest pilot with a wife that participates 50% of the time I have found that my "friend pool" has done an effective job of retrieving for each other. We make the required call to the retrieve office but in reality we arrange our own retrieves.

If you feel that the $300 "tax" is unwarranted please voice your opinion.

Lane
XF

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:05:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Reading the latest Rules Committee meeting minutes I see item number 14 slips a "tax" in the rules. $50 charge by waiver for any contest pilot showing up without a crew. Note it is $50 PER DAY!
>
>
>
> This was not included in the pilot poll, we currently have a sanctioning fee surplus, the minutes state that almost all of the 2012 contests reported a profit.
>
>

> Is it productive to increase contest fees by $300 for participants? Will this create more or less participation in regionals? Is there really an unbearable burden placed on contest organizers when it comes to crewless pilots?
>
>
>
> As an active contest pilot with a wife that participates 50% of the time I have found that my "friend pool" has done an effective job of retrieving for each other. We make the required call to the retrieve office but in reality we arrange our own retrieves.
>
>
>
> If you feel that the $300 "tax" is unwarranted please voice your opinion.
>
>
>
> Lane
>
> XF

Possibly the word "tax" should be replaced with "penalty". And possibly the rules committee is stating that they neither encourage or prohibit such a charge but are in fact neutral. I just want to squish this counterproductive idea right now!

Lane
XF

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Dec 16, 11:05*am, wrote:
> Reading the latest Rules Committee meeting minutes I see item number 14 slips a "tax" in the rules. *$50 charge by waiver for any contest pilot showing up without a crew. *Note it is $50 PER DAY!
>
> This was not included in the pilot poll, we currently have a sanctioning fee surplus, the minutes state that almost all of the 2012 contests reported a profit.
>
> Is it productive to increase contest fees by $300 for participants? *Will this create more or less participation in regionals? *Is there really an unbearable burden placed on contest organizers when it comes to crewless pilots?
>
> As an active contest pilot with a wife that participates 50% of the time I have found that my "friend pool" has done an effective job of retrieving for each other. *We make the required call to the retrieve office but in reality we arrange our own retrieves.
>
> If you feel that the $300 "tax" is unwarranted please voice your opinion.
>
> Lane
> XF

Whoa there, let's not get too exited. Here is the minutes item

14. Permit organizers to charge increased entry for pilots that show
up without a crew.
Suggestion is for $50/day surcharge. Larry Knauer 6/4/12.

Discussed and decided that organizers may request waivers for
additional fees.
Caution that such a charge may cause pilots to expect specific
services and
assistance in return for the fee.

There is absolutely no movement towards implementing such fees in the
rules!

Larry didn't make a lot of money at Parowan and was annoyed by
problems some crewless pilots were causing him, especially clearing
the runway at the end of the day. He put in the suggestion, and like
all suggestions we receive, it made its way on to the agenda.

We tend to be pretty free-market about regionals, so if someone really
wants something like this, he can try it by waiver.

If anyone asks RC advice, however, most of us (I'd say all of us, but
I can't remember exactly) would counsel that a $300 tax for showing up
crewless would be a terrible idea, for all sorts of obvious reasons.
There are better ways to organize launch and runway clearing issues.

The "expect services" summarizes a longer discussion. As a perpetually
crewless pilot, I would be delighted to pay $300...IF, what I get in
return is, someone to bring my stuff back, park my car, retrieve me at
the end of the day, come get me when I land out, and have a cold beer
waiting. $300 is cheap compared to the cost of bringing along a full
time crew.

A pure tax with no service is going to cause a lot of resentment and,
more importantly, pilots will simply vote with their feet and go to
more welcoming contests.

I'm glad to see people are reading the minutes. Hint: Keep going.

John Cochrane

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:05:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Reading the latest Rules Committee meeting minutes I see item number 14
> > slips a "tax" in the rules. $50 charge by waiver for any contest pilot
> > showing up without a crew. Note it is $50 PER DAY!
> >
> >
> >
> > This was not included in the pilot poll, we currently have a sanctioning
> > fee surplus, the minutes state that almost all of the 2012 contests
> > reported a profit.
> >
> >
>
> > Is it productive to increase contest fees by $300 for participants? Will
> > this create more or less participation in regionals? Is there really an
> > unbearable burden placed on contest organizers when it comes to crewless
> > pilots?
> >
> >
> >
> > As an active contest pilot with a wife that participates 50% of the time I
> > have found that my "friend pool" has done an effective job of retrieving
> > for each other. We make the required call to the retrieve office but in
> > reality we arrange our own retrieves.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you feel that the $300 "tax" is unwarranted please voice your opinion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lane
> >
> > XF
>
> Possibly the word "tax" should be replaced with "penalty". And possibly the
> rules committee is stating that they neither encourage or prohibit such a
> charge but are in fact neutral. I just want to squish this counterproductive
> idea right now!
>
> Lane
> XF


Thanks for catching this and bringing to wider attention, Lane.

Any contest charging $300 for showing up crewless would not have me as
an entrant. For starters, I suspect that such a contest would not draw
enough entrants to make in the first place. Second, I can't afford it.
Not everyone flying contests has a $100k rig with bucks to spare.

WB
Flying a roughly Libelle shaped pile of fiberglass, with a B-40 as the
most sophisticated instrument in the panel, and a 25 year-old crew
vehicle.

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

[Mike the Strike]

As one of the officials at the Parowan Nationals, I can echo Larry's frustration with pilots that failed to properly control their energy management on landing - I ended up being one of the "volunteer" crews for some of these dingbats.

My solution would be quite different. Rather than penalize crew-less pilots, I would charge repeat offenders a retrieval fee of $1 for each foot that their glider falls short of any required runway exit. Blocking the single runway at the end of the day when dozens of gliders are returning is horrible airmanship.

To put this in perspective, at least one glider was over a thousand feet short!

Mike

[Tim Newport-Peace[_2_]]

At 16:15 17 December 2012, Wallace Berry wrote:
>In article ,
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:05:45 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
>> > Reading the latest Rules Committee meeting minutes I see item number
14
>
>> > slips a "tax" in the rules. $50 charge by waiver for any contest
pilot
>
>> > showing up without a crew. Note it is $50 PER DAY!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This was not included in the pilot poll, we currently have a
>sanctioning
>> > fee surplus, the minutes state that almost all of the 2012 contests
>> > reported a profit.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > Is it productive to increase contest fees by $300 for participants?
>Will
>> > this create more or less participation in regionals? Is there really
>an
>> > unbearable burden placed on contest organizers when it comes to
>crewless
>> > pilots?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > As an active contest pilot with a wife that participates 50% of the
>time I
>> > have found that my "friend pool" has done an effective job of
>retrieving
>> > for each other. We make the required call to the retrieve office but
>in
>> > reality we arrange our own retrieves.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If you feel that the $300 "tax" is unwarranted please voice your
>opinion.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Lane
>> >
>> > XF
>>
>> Possibly the word "tax" should be replaced with "penalty". And
possibly
>the
>> rules committee is stating that they neither encourage or prohibit such
a
>
>> charge but are in fact neutral. I just want to squish this
>counterproductive
>> idea right now!
>>
>> Lane
>> XF
>
>
>Thanks for catching this and bringing to wider attention, Lane.
>
>Any contest charging $300 for showing up crewless would not have me as
>an entrant. For starters, I suspect that such a contest would not draw
>enough entrants to make in the first place. Second, I can't afford it.
>Not everyone flying contests has a $100k rig with bucks to spare.
>
>WB
>Flying a roughly Libelle shaped pile of fiberglass, with a B-40 as the
>most sophisticated instrument in the panel, and a 25 year-old crew
>vehicle.
>
Now if there was a $50 'Au Vache' charge which was passed on without
deduction to the unfortunate who has to retrieve you, it would seem only
fair.

[Bob Kuykendall]

While I agree with Lane that such a rule would be too heavy handed an
approach, I can certainly understand its utility on a couple of broad
fronts:

1. I think that soaring contests are too often too insular. At too
many contests you see the same old faces and no new ones. Putting in
place measures that encourage pilots to bring crew would increase
exposure of the sport to new pilots and also to not-yet pilots.

2. I can certainly agree that contests with a high percentage of
crewless pilots can be a pain. Most such pilots do indeed take
reasonable precautions to ensure that their crewlessness does not
adversely affect other pilots or the contest as a whole. However, it
doesn't take much bad luck or bad weather for things to go to worms in
a hurry.

3. Despite protestations to the contrary, I persist in the conviction
that crewless pilots typically don't bring their full game to a
contest. The measure of conservativity required to compete on that
basis denies everybody the kind of contest experience they could be
getting. I've seen time and again how one hot competitor will inspire
everybody to bring it up a notch, and that is less likely to happen
where the majority are tiptoeing between aeroretrive opportunities.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, December 17, 2012 2:47:27 PM UTC-6, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> While I agree with Lane that such a rule would be too heavy handed an approach, I can certainly understand its utility on a couple of broad fronts: 1. I think that soaring contests are too often too insular. At too many contests you see the same old faces and no new ones. Putting in place measures that encourage pilots to bring crew would increase exposure of the sport to new pilots and also to not-yet pilots. 2. I can certainly agree that contests with a high percentage of crewless pilots can be a pain. Most such pilots do indeed take reasonable precautions to ensure that their crewlessness does not adversely affect other pilots or the contest as a whole. However, it doesn't take much bad luck or bad weather for things to go to worms in a hurry. 3. Despite protestations to the contrary, I persist in the conviction that crewless pilots typically don't bring their full game to a contest.. The measure of conservativity required to compete on that basis denies everybody the kind of contest experience they could be getting. I've seen time and again how one hot competitor will inspire everybody to bring it up a notch, and that is less likely to happen where the majority are tiptoeing between aeroretrive opportunities. Thanks, Bob K.

to the contrary, offering visiting pilots crew for a fixed cost per day may encourage new pilots to go to a contest.

Perhaps the better way to offer it would be something like "Crew is available for the low low price of $50 per day. A 50 point penalty per occurence will apply if you block the runway after landing."

btw i enjoyed reading through the RC Minutes and look forward to seeing the proposed rules when they are posted. Particular interested in the new rules allowing radio use at regionals. This will come in really handy at the regional i'm planning to organize this season, where I expect a 50%+ "newbie" rate.

[gliderstud]

Meanwhile the organizer is paying or trying to subsidize the ground crew that is helping YOU out, so YOU can have fun, and YOU can go flying. There is a higher percentage of effort on their part for the average crewless pilot.. While the pilot brought a crew or possibly paying (Ok im going to be sexist here) wife tax which could range between .5%-300% of your personal contest budget. Bringing a crew and putting them in a hotel plus food is going to run you a lot higher rate than what was recommended. Yes there are pilot pools for land-outs but sometimes that doesn't work out as well. I have in the past sent employees on retrieves, meanwhile I am paying them, and getting you out of a field.

BB has a point, there are people that would gladly pay $50/day or some amount to have a helping hand, like he described. I think that should be the condition, not just hey we are going to charge you guys more... But even $5/day to get a High School student out there pushing you off the runway because you cannot fly to Private Pilot Standards (Mikes recommendation of a spot landing fee on single runway airports), not to mention everything else, tow gear, wing-runner... Look at it as a pool to hire a few kids to be there for you.

Unfortunately not everyone wants to volunteer two weeks of their time to watch you fly...IF they did then wouldn't everyone have a crew with them?

I have been crewless, brought crew, and organizer...

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
gliderstud > wrote:

> Meanwhile the organizer is paying or trying to subsidize the ground crew that
> is helping YOU out, so YOU can have fun, and YOU can go flying. There is a
> higher percentage of effort on their part for the average crewless pilot.
> While the pilot brought a crew or possibly paying (Ok im going to be sexist
> here) wife tax which could range between .5%-300% of your personal contest
> budget. Bringing a crew and putting them in a hotel plus food is going to run
> you a lot higher rate than what was recommended. Yes there are pilot pools
> for land-outs but sometimes that doesn't work out as well. I have in the past
> sent employees on retrieves, meanwhile I am paying them, and getting you out
> of a field.
>
> BB has a point, there are people that would gladly pay $50/day or some amount
> to have a helping hand, like he described. I think that should be the
> condition, not just hey we are going to charge you guys more... But even
> $5/day to get a High School student out there pushing you off the runway
> because you cannot fly to Private Pilot Standards (Mikes recommendation of a
> spot landing fee on single runway airports), not to mention everything else,
> tow gear, wing-runner... Look at it as a pool to hire a few kids to be there
> for you.
>
> Unfortunately not everyone wants to volunteer two weeks of their time to
> watch you fly...IF they did then wouldn't everyone have a crew with them?
>
> I have been crewless, brought crew, and organizer...

Did I miss the part about the $300 providing one with a dedicated crew
from the contest organizer?

I am not sure what "higher percentage of effort on their part" you are
referring to. When I go crewless, which is as seldom as possible, other
than asking a neighboring pilot to help me rig (which I certainly
reciprocate), I am pretty much self contained. I get my ship to the grid
on my own and I clear the runway expeditiously on my own. I admit that
the launch crew may have to help me attach my canopy.

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

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

> >vehicle.
> >
> Now if there was a $50 'Au Vache' charge which was passed on without
> deduction to the unfortunate who has to retrieve you, it would seem only
> fair.


Isn't it already customary to buy the retrieve crew dinner?


Heck, if I had $50 for every time I have retrieved someone else, I could
have almost paid for all of the times I have been retrieved.

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

[LOV2AV8]

Here's an idea, have the contest at an airport that doesn't require downwind landings to the last 1000' as the norm. I'm sure some agency would have a good time asking the pilot of a destroyed glider why they elected to land downwind to the last 1000' of runway. How's the saying go.......altitude above you and runway behind you?

[Richard[_9_]]

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:39:08 PM UTC-8, LOV2AV8 wrote:
> Here's an idea, have the contest at an airport that doesn't require downwind landings to the last 1000' as the norm. I'm sure some agency would have a good time asking the pilot of a destroyed glider why they elected to land downwind to the last 1000' of runway. How's the saying go.......altitude above you and runway behind you?

Finally someone stated one of the real problems with this particular location for a contest. It was not lack of crew. The additional issue at this site that was even more troubling was not using all the runway for takeoff to the south. Many gliders even the two seaters that opted to push back to the end of the grid for takeoff were 50' or less off the ground as they passed the departure end of the runway. If there was a problem shortly after takeoff the option was barb wire fence, freeway , wires, truck stop!!!!

Other than that it is a great place to fly.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Scott Alexander[_2_]]

As if a contest isn't already expensive enough! This rule will cause
contest participation to go down. I for one, will not be attending
any contests that apply this $300 fee.

$500 in gas getting to the contest
$500 for a place to stay (hotel, or RV rental)
$600 in contest fees
$200 for nightly dinners

That's $1,800 total for 6 days of soaring!

Add another $300 for a grand total of $2,100 for 6 days of flying.

For $2,100 I can take my wife and two kids on a 7 day all inclusive
Caribbean cruise!!!!

.......or I can fly crew less on my own for 6 day at my home airport
for $270 ( 6 tows at $45 each).


In my humble opinion, this will greatly lower contest participation if
implemented.

[Craig R.]

I think this has to do with a great deal of frustration by the contest management from some pilots (solo and even with crews) going into "beer thirty" mode when their glider comes to a stop on the runway. Instead of the pilot quickly getting out and clearing their glider from the runway, moving it immediately to their tiedown and THEN beginning the BS session, they start right away with any pilot near them on what a day they had. NO consideration of the guys landing behind them, just selfishness on their part. I see this at every contest I fly and it has happened to me multiple times at Parowan where the situation is heightened by the airport configuration. Safety can obviously become a factor. I can fully understand and support contest managements fee/fine for such rude behavior.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, December 23, 2012 2:19:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Alexander wrote:
> As if a contest isn't already expensive enough! This rule will cause contest participation to go down. I for one, will not be attending any contests that apply this $300 fee. $500 in gas getting to the contest $500 for a place to stay (hotel, or RV rental) $600 in contest fees $200 for nightly dinners That's $1,800 total for 6 days of soaring! Add another $300 for a grand total of $2,100 for 6 days of flying. For $2,100 I can take my wife and two kids on a 7 day all inclusive Caribbean cruise!!!! ......or I can fly crew less on my own for 6 day at my home airport for $270 ( 6 tows at $45 each). In my humble opinion, this will greatly lower contest participation if implemented.

To repeat- THIS IS NOT A RULE! AND it will not become one.
That said, if an organizer asks to be able to put such a policy in place, the RC will likely permit it.
My prdiction is that the market will say "Hell no" and the idea will die a quiet death.
UH
RC Chair