USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website.
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary.pdf

The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013.

For the committee,
John Godfrey (QT)

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary.pdf
>
>
>
> The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013.
>
>
>
> For the committee,
>
> John Godfrey (QT)

John,

The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4?


Lane
XF

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
>
> > The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website.
>
> >
>
> > http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary.pdf
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For the committee,
>
> >
>
> > John Godfrey (QT)
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4?
>
>
>
>
>
> Lane
>
> XF

There was lively discussion about this in the RC meeting. In theory, once the race ends it shouldn't matter where you land. However, an RC member pointed out that there have been instances where a convenient field next to the contest site did not welcome gliders and that we would be inviting problems to remove the land at the airport requiremet. So the decision for now was to retain the requirement to still land at the contest site, but not because it is part of the race per se.

QT

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:00:54 AM UTC-6, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote: > On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: > > > The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. > > > > > > http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. > > > > > > > > > > > > For the committee, > > > > > > John Godfrey (QT) > > > > John, > > > > The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2..4? > > > > > > Lane > > XF There was lively discussion about this in the RC meeting. In theory, once the race ends it shouldn't matter where you land.. However, an RC member pointed out that there have been instances where a convenient field next to the contest site did not welcome gliders and that we would be inviting problems to remove the land at the airport requiremet. So the decision for now was to retain the requirement to still land at the contest site, but not because it is part of the race per se. QT

Then tell the pilots that they probably shouldn't land in that field.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

>
> There was lively discussion about this in the RC meeting. In theory,
once the race ends it shouldn't matter where you land. However, an RC
member pointed out that there have been instances where a convenient
field next to the contest site did not welcome gliders and that we would
be inviting problems to remove the land at the airport requiremet. So
the decision for now was to retain the requirement to still land at the
contest site, but not because it is part of the race per se.
>
> QT
>

Please allow for the organizers to put specific fields in local
procedures instead making it a blanket rule. Most of the rules are
written to promote safety and reduce the temptation for unsafe
behaviour. In my opinion this rule encourages unsafe behaviour as the
pilot is enticed to land at the airport to get speed points regardless
of the situation. Yes, while sitting at my computer I can say that if
forced with the decision I would choose flight safety over points, land
at the safest location and then launch a protest with the CD, but why
make that part of the equation at all?

Cheers,
Luke Szczepaniak

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: > The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. > > http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary.pdf > > > > The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. > > > > For the committee, > > John Godfrey (QT) John, The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4? Lane XF

With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport.
Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations.
UH

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 1:14:51 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote: > On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: > The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. > > http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary.pdf > > > > The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. > > > > For the committee, > > John Godfrey (QT) John, The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4? Lane XF With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport. Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations. UH

for those of us flying lower than typical performance gliders, the higher finish height is appreciated.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport.
> Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations.
> UH

Just to expand and clarify what Hank is saying here... The guidance to
use a finish at least 700 feet also comes from the fact that you can
finish up to 200 feet low and still receive full speed points, with
only a 40 point penalty. So a 700 foot finish is "really" a 500 foot
finish, and CDs should think about the 200 foot buffer zone when
setting the finish height. 300 feet and a mile is pretty low at many
airports!

The rule says "at least." If 500 feet, one mile and 40 knots is a bit
squeaky at your airport, the CD can, and should, raise it further than
the suggested 700 feet.

As for landing at the airport after finish... If there is a 40 mph
crosswind, or a crash makes all runways unuseable, or something of the
sort, and the CD has not called a safety finish, do what's safe and
argue about it afterwards! So far, it has never happened, so we're a
bit arguing about angels on the head of a pin, though I'm sure we'll
revisit the issue.

John Cochrane

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:14:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: > The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. > > http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary.pdf > > > > The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. > > > > For the committee, > > John Godfrey (QT) John, The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4? Lane XF
>
>
>
> With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport.
>
> Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations.
>
> UH

Here we go: Another danged patch job.

Pilots are complaining that 500 / 1 mile is too low? Excuse me? Any *pilot* can finish as high as he damned well pleases. Airmanship, anyone? Helllllooooooooooooo!

A digression: Personally, I liked the old zero height finish line... a LOT. You had a lot of skin in that game (all of it, to be exact). And we took it pretty seriously. A lot of factors to think about and a lot of judgement to exercise. And man was it ever a blast. And there were plenty of times I elected to finish at 300' or even higher because it was just the smart thing to do that particular moment in time. Oddly enough, contest soaring was a lot more popular then. Ever since, we've been making it easier and participation falls and falls.

Back on subject: Now, evidently, we've got dumb asses flying who think if they fly right to the minimum that they are guaranteed safety, or at least safe energy for the pattern, and a rules committee that seeks to oblige. I disagree with this approach. It's possible we need to smarten up some pilots: let's do that rather than continuing to dumb down the rules!

If the CD thinks he needs a special finish gate, he or in the case I am about to relate "she" can do this already (Hi Jacquie). We did it at Wurtsboro due to extreme local terrain and a lot of first time contestants (IIRC it was a 1000 over the airport). I believe I set the US record for a finish height penalty there when thermals died and I crawled home on the ridge and then the ridge died and so I was about 700' low (but still safe). Aggravating, but amusing. And thankfully back before this nasty -200' / no speed points rule.

Quit taking the power of superior judgement away from those that display it in the utterly futile attempt to cover for those that don't!

T8

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Jan 7, 7:12*pm, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:14:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > > On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: > The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary.pdf> > > > The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. > > > > For the committee, > > John Godfrey (QT) John, The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4? Lane XF
>
> > With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport.
>
> > Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations.
>
> > UH
>
> Here we go: Another danged patch job.
>
> Pilots are complaining that 500 / 1 mile is too low? *Excuse me? *Any *pilot* can finish as high as he damned well pleases. *Airmanship, anyone? *Helllllooooooooooooo!
>
> A digression: Personally, I liked the old zero height finish line... a LOT. *You had a lot of skin in that game (all of it, to be exact). *And we took it pretty seriously. *A lot of factors to think about and a lot of judgement to exercise. *And man was it ever a blast. *And there were plenty of times I elected to finish at 300' or even higher because it was just the smart thing to do that particular moment in time. *Oddly enough, contest soaring was a lot more popular then. *Ever since, we've been making it easier and participation falls and falls.
>
> Back on subject: *Now, evidently, we've got dumb asses flying who think if they fly right to the minimum that they are guaranteed safety, or at least safe energy for the pattern, and a rules committee that seeks to oblige.. *I disagree with this approach. *It's possible we need to smarten up some pilots: let's do that rather than continuing to dumb down the rules!
>
> If the CD thinks he needs a special finish gate, he or in the case I am about to relate "she" can do this already (Hi Jacquie). *We did it at Wurtsboro due to extreme local terrain and a lot of first time contestants (IIRC it was a 1000 over the airport). *I believe I set the US record for a finish height penalty there when thermals died and I crawled home on the ridge and then the ridge died and so I was about 700' low (but still safe). *Aggravating, but amusing. And thankfully back before this nasty -200' / no speed points rule.
>
> Quit taking the power of superior judgement away from those that display it in the utterly futile attempt to cover for those that don't!
>
> T8

You said it quite well Evan. Personal responsibility is a thing of the
past. Why bother racing let's give everyone a participation diploma.

[Sean F (F2)]

Hey I want one of those diploma's!

[kirk.stant]

I also totally agree with Evan. I still prefer the old 50' finish line over the airport - a totally out-the-cockpit visual finish that was exciting and lots of fun - both to fly and watch. Dangerous? Yes - if you didn't do it right. But so is landing, apparently, judging by the frequency of pattern accidents!

I understand the pressure the RC is under to make our sport safe, and most of the changes are good, but we run the risk of ending up with a safe sport that nobody bothers to participate in.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for any finish gates, however - just like an all-AT contest...

Kirk
66

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:02:08 PM UTC+1, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website.
> For the committee,
> John Godfrey (QT)

John, rule 10.7.2.9 (radio communications) conflicts with the following rules. Suggest something along the lines of "Air-to-air and ground-to-air radio communication for any other reason than safety that does not comply with the following rules is prohibited; an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty may apply."

Kirk
66

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Jan 8, 5:41*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> I also totally agree with Evan. *I still prefer the old 50' finish line over the airport - a totally out-the-cockpit visual finish that was exciting and lots of fun - both to fly and watch. *Dangerous? Yes - if you didn't do it right. *But so is landing, apparently, judging by the frequency of pattern accidents!
>
> I understand the pressure the RC is under to make our sport safe, and most of the changes are good, but we run the risk of ending up with a safe sport that nobody bothers to participate in.
>
> I'm not holding my breath waiting for any finish gates, however - just like an all-AT contest...
>
> Kirk
> 66

Guys,
The finish gate is not gone. I like (and prefer) the finish gate.
However I believe (you may not) that there are times when it is
appropriate for a race to not end at a finish gate, hence the
cylinder. As an aside, you can nail your final glide much closer with
a cylinder finish without risking your neck. After all, passing
through a gate and making a circuit slows you down.
QT

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Jan 8, 7:24*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:02:08 PM UTC+1, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website.
> > For the committee,
> > John Godfrey (QT)
>
> John, rule 10.7.2.9 (radio communications) conflicts with the following rules. *Suggest something along the lines of "Air-to-air and ground-to-air radio communication for any other reason than safety that does not comply with the following rules is prohibited; an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty may apply."
>
> Kirk
> 66

Perhaps the nomenclature is a bit confusing.

The [N] 10.7.2.9 rule appears in the National rules.
It is replaced by the [RX] 10.7.2.9 rule in the Regional rules.
The remaining [RX] rules appear in the Regional rules only.
QT

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:30:32 AM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Jan 8, 5:41*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > I also totally agree with Evan. *I still prefer the old 50' finish line over the airport - a totally out-the-cockpit visual finish that was exciting and lots of fun - both to fly and watch. *Dangerous? Yes - if you didn't do it right. *But so is landing, apparently, judging by the frequency of pattern accidents!
>
> >
>
> > I understand the pressure the RC is under to make our sport safe, and most of the changes are good, but we run the risk of ending up with a safe sport that nobody bothers to participate in.
>
> >
>
> > I'm not holding my breath waiting for any finish gates, however - just like an all-AT contest...
>
> >
>
> > Kirk
>
> > 66
>
>
>
> Guys,
>
> The finish gate is not gone. I like (and prefer) the finish gate.
>
> However I believe (you may not) that there are times when it is
>
> appropriate for a race to not end at a finish gate, hence the
>
> cylinder. As an aside, you can nail your final glide much closer with
>
> a cylinder finish without risking your neck. After all, passing
>
> through a gate and making a circuit slows you down.
>
> QT

No problem with the cylinder where it's indicated. Perry regional with 65 gliders is a good example of where it's clearly indicated. Problem is with 700 foot patch job that doesn't address more fundamental and dangerous issue.

T8

PS: my other problem is that I'm not going to be present to watch HW's reaction when he hears/reads about this :-).

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/07/2013 7:12 PM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> A digression: Personally, I liked the old zero height finish line... a LOT. You had a lot of skin in that game (all of it, to be exact). And we took it pretty seriously. A lot of factors to think about and a lot of judgement to exercise. And man was it ever a blast. And there were plenty of times I elected to finish at 300' or even higher because it was just the smart thing to do that particular moment in time. Oddly enough, contest soaring was a lot more popular then. Ever since, we've been making it easier and participation falls and falls.

> Quit taking the power of superior judgement away from those that display it in the utterly futile attempt to cover for those that don't!

Evan, you hit the nail on the head.. I couldn't agree more,

Cheers,
Luke Szczepaniak

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 4:41:01 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:
> I also totally agree with Evan. I still prefer the old 50' finish line over the airport - a totally out-the-cockpit visual finish that was exciting and lots of fun - both to fly and watch. Dangerous? Yes - if you didn't do it right. But so is landing, apparently, judging by the frequency of pattern accidents!
>
>
>
> I understand the pressure the RC is under to make our sport safe, and most of the changes are good, but we run the risk of ending up with a safe sport that nobody bothers to participate in.
>
>
>
> I'm not holding my breath waiting for any finish gates, however - just like an all-AT contest...
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

The line vs. cylinder, the height of the cylinder, and the task decisions are all up to the CD. A contest with all assigned tasks and a finish line is available by the rules. Talk to your local CD/CM -- or be the CD/CM -- if you want it.

John Cochrane

[Dan Marotta]

I'm not a contest pilot, but, to you, Evan, I say, "Hear, hear!"



"Evan Ludeman" > wrote in message
...
On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:14:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: >
> > The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA
> > website. > >
> > http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary.pdf > >
> > > > The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18,
> > 2013. > > > > For the committee, > > John Godfrey (QT) John, The
> > proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish
> > cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the
> > requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change
> > eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4? Lane XF
>
>
>
> With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be
> no issues with landing safely on the airport.
>
> Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that
> 500 ft is marginal in some situations.
>
> UH

Here we go: Another danged patch job.

Pilots are complaining that 500 / 1 mile is too low? Excuse me? Any
*pilot* can finish as high as he damned well pleases. Airmanship, anyone?
Helllllooooooooooooo!

A digression: Personally, I liked the old zero height finish line... a LOT.
You had a lot of skin in that game (all of it, to be exact). And we took it
pretty seriously. A lot of factors to think about and a lot of judgement to
exercise. And man was it ever a blast. And there were plenty of times I
elected to finish at 300' or even higher because it was just the smart thing
to do that particular moment in time. Oddly enough, contest soaring was a
lot more popular then. Ever since, we've been making it easier and
participation falls and falls.

Back on subject: Now, evidently, we've got dumb asses flying who think if
they fly right to the minimum that they are guaranteed safety, or at least
safe energy for the pattern, and a rules committee that seeks to oblige. I
disagree with this approach. It's possible we need to smarten up some
pilots: let's do that rather than continuing to dumb down the rules!

If the CD thinks he needs a special finish gate, he or in the case I am
about to relate "she" can do this already (Hi Jacquie). We did it at
Wurtsboro due to extreme local terrain and a lot of first time contestants
(IIRC it was a 1000 over the airport). I believe I set the US record for a
finish height penalty there when thermals died and I crawled home on the
ridge and then the ridge died and so I was about 700' low (but still safe).
Aggravating, but amusing. And thankfully back before this nasty -200' / no
speed points rule.

Quit taking the power of superior judgement away from those that display it
in the utterly futile attempt to cover for those that don't!

T8

[gliderstud]

HW won't read the rules until the practice day anyway. 500ft..700ft...it all sucks anyway. I don't understand how pilots read 'finish height minimum' as 'maximum'. Just finish at the height you feel comfortable with. I would say my first contest I was high everytime, but 66 was there and we all had to climb up to the airport runway and I'm pretty sure "standby" ment pull.....

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:35:05 PM UTC+1, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Jan 8, 7:24*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:02:08 PM UTC+1, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
>
> > > The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website.
>
> > > For the committee,
>
> > > John Godfrey (QT)
>
> >
>
> > John, rule 10.7.2.9 (radio communications) conflicts with the following rules. *Suggest something along the lines of "Air-to-air and ground-to-air radio communication for any other reason than safety that does not comply with the following rules is prohibited; an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty may apply."
>
> >
>
> > Kirk
>
> > 66
>
>
>
> Perhaps the nomenclature is a bit confusing.
>
>
>
> The [N] 10.7.2.9 rule appears in the National rules.
>
> It is replaced by the [RX] 10.7.2.9 rule in the Regional rules.
>
> The remaining [RX] rules appear in the Regional rules only.
>
> QT

Doh! Understood.

66