USA Competition Rules Changes Proposed for 2013

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

Thanks to all who provided feedback during the comment period (which ended January 18). Small revisions have been made to the proposed changes and will be submitted to the SSA BOD for approval at the February 23rd meeting.

The revised document detailing the changes is available at:
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20Final.pdf

For the committee,
John Godfrey (QT)

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Jan 21, 3:51*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> Thanks to all who provided feedback during the comment period (which ended January 18). *Small revisions have been made to the proposed changes and will be submitted to the SSA BOD for approval at the February 23rd meeting.
>
> The revised document detailing the changes is available at:
> * *http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20Fi...
>
> For the committee,
> John Godfrey (QT)

Did you guys just add AT in Modern and Club Class? Wow!

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:19:54 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Jan 21, 3:51*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote: > Thanks to all who provided feedback during the comment period (which ended January 18). *Small revisions have been made to the proposed changes and will be submitted to the SSA BOD for approval at the February 23rd meeting. > > The revised document detailing the changes is available at: > * *http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20Fi... > > For the committee, > John Godfrey (QT) Did you guys just add AT in Modern and Club Class? Wow!

It was there in the draft from the beginning. One of the reasons for doing the classes the way we did was to provide that possibility.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 21, 2013 7:06:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:19:54 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 3:51*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote: > Thanks to all who provided feedback during the comment period (which ended January 18). *Small revisions have been made to the proposed changes and will be submitted to the SSA BOD for approval at the February 23rd meeting. > > The revised document detailing the changes is available at: > * *http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20Fi.... > > For the committee, > John Godfrey (QT) Did you guys just add AT in Modern and Club Class? Wow!
>
>
>
> It was there in the draft from the beginning. One of the reasons for doing the classes the way we did was to provide that possibility.
>
> UH

Also, I guess this is as good a place as any to note that this year's
Sports National is now open in both Sports and US Club class. A handful
of us have registered in US Club Class so far. Please, update your registration
if you want to compete in the Club Class. We need 12 to actually run
the class.

Thanks,
Matt

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:47:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 7:06:33 PM UTC-5, wrote: > On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:19:54 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote: > > > On Jan 21, 3:51*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote: > Thanks to all who provided feedback during the comment period (which ended January 18). *Small revisions have been made to the proposed changes and will be submitted to the SSA BOD for approval at the February 23rd meeting. > > The revised document detailing the changes is available at: > * *http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20Fi... > > For the committee, > John Godfrey (QT) Did you guys just add AT in Modern and Club Class? Wow! > > > > It was there in the draft from the beginning. One of the reasons for doing the classes the way we did was to provide that possibility. > > UH Also, I guess this is as good a place as any to note that this year's Sports National is now open in both Sports and US Club class. A handful of us have registered in US Club Class so far. Please, update your registration if you want to compete in the Club Class. We need 12 to actually run the class. Thanks, Matt

The rules are not official until the BOD approves them in February. There is a long history of adopting rules as proposed by the RC.
The Mifflin folks will want to know what to expect so feel free to note youyr intentions.
UH

[RW[_2_]]

On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:51:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:47:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 21, 2013 7:06:33 PM UTC-5, wrote: > On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:19:54 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote: > > > On Jan 21, 3:51*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote: > Thanks to all who provided feedback during the comment period (which ended January 18). *Small revisions have been made to the proposed changes and will be submitted to the SSA BOD for approval at the February 23rd meeting. > > The revised document detailing the changes is available at: > * *http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20Fi.... > > For the committee, > John Godfrey (QT) Did you guys just add AT in Modern and Club Class? Wow! > > > > It was there in the draft from the beginning. One of the reasons for doing the classes the way we did was to provide that possibility. > > UH Also, I guess this is as good a place as any to note that this year's Sports National is now open in both Sports and US Club class. A handful of us have registered in US Club Class so far. Please, update your registration if you want to compete in the Club Class. We need 12 to actually run the class. Thanks, Matt
>
>
>
> The rules are not official until the BOD approves them in February. There is a long history of adopting rules as proposed by the RC.
>
> The Mifflin folks will want to know what to expect so feel free to note youyr intentions.
>
> UH

How about Perry ?
Will we have little handicaps there for FAI classes ?
Ryszard Krolikowski

[[email protected]]

>
> How about Perry ?
>
> Will we have little handicaps there for FAI classes ?
>
> Ryszard Krolikowski

That's up to organizers and CDs, with pilot input. The rules provide great flexibility for regional contests. The downside of flexibility is you have to think a bit about what you want.

Some of the many available options

Classic FAI classes: open, 18, 15, standard, 13.5. Senior, Junior, Feminine if you want.

Handicapped FAI classes. FAI class rules. Water ok or dry, at organizer discretion. Handicap ranges anything you want. Handicap ranges can and IMHO should overlap -- let pilots on the edge decide where they want to fly. You can stop handicapping at some point but still allow lower performance in as done with standard nationas.

Classes can be divided by pilot skill or ambition (length, difficulty or type of task, i.e. "leisure class" with 2 hour tasks vs. "seizure class" with 4 hour tasks, "assigned task class" vs. "TAT MAT class", etc.), organizational features (team / radio / mentoring / silent; wet / dry; drop a day vs. regular scoring) as well as by glider type.

Classic sports class

Multiple sports classes. Any handicap range you want. "US club" from 0.899 and below is fine. "US team club" is fine. "FAI club" is fine. "13.5 and less wingspan" is fine. "Below club" is one I wish we had more of -- all gliders whose handicap is greater than allowed on the US team club class list.

All of the above ideas for classes based on tasks, rules options, etc. are fine based on the rules. But it does mean CDs and CMs need to think a bit about what will be most attractive to their pilots, and pilots with strong opinions might want to talk to their CDs about what they want. I've already lobbied for radio usage at Perry!

John Cochrane

[Tony[_5_]]

Why do you need to lobby for radio and sage? I thought the 2013 rules will allow radio use.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:19:40 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> Why do you need to lobby for radio and sage? I thought the 2013 rules will allow radio use.

The rules for 2013 permit pilot to pilot radio communication in regional contests without the previously required waiver. The organizers may choose to allow this or not and are permitted to establish procedures appropriate for their contest.
UH
RC Chair

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Jan 22, 3:06*pm, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:19:40 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > Why do you need to lobby for radio and sage? I thought the 2013 rules will allow radio use.
>
> The rules for 2013 permit pilot to pilot radio communication in regional contests without the previously required waiver. The organizers may choose to allow this or not and are permitted to establish procedures appropriate for their contest.
> UH
> RC Chair

It will be interesting to see how this rule is received. 27% of pilots
were opposed to this rule. Are these pilots going to stay home or try
to make the best out of the situation and give it a try. I see good
arguments on both sides.

I did not see much in terms of implementation thoughts or guidance
e.g. are all pilots still required to listen on 123.3? I assume yes
since the other rule is still in place. Do we allow pilots to talk on
other frequencies than the 123.3? If so do we designate one or two of
them or is it free for all? Designated frequencies for a given contest
would be good for monitoring what is going on. I would like to know
who is flying in what group and how that translates to results on the
score sheet.

Most pilots don't have radios allowing them to listen to two
frequencies are these pilots going to tune out of 123.3 causing safety
issues. In the worlds as I understand each team is assigned their
frequency. Are pilots also required to listen to another frequency for
safety reasons. I assume this must be true at least during the start
and finish what about the task?

This is a subject that needs to be well thought through. I would
expect some guidance so we don't have wild west every contest doing
something else causing plenty of confusion.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:01:13 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Jan 22, 3:06*pm, wrote: > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:19:40 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote: > > Why do you need to lobby for radio and sage? I thought the 2013 rules will allow radio use. > > The rules for 2013 permit pilot to pilot radio communication in regional contests without the previously required waiver. The organizers may choose to allow this or not and are permitted to establish procedures appropriate for their contest. > UH > RC Chair It will be interesting to see how this rule is received. 27% of pilots were opposed to this rule. Are these pilots going to stay home or try to make the best out of the situation and give it a try. I see good arguments on both sides. I did not see much in terms of implementation thoughts or guidance e.g. are all pilots still required to listen on 123..3? I assume yes since the other rule is still in place. Do we allow pilots to talk on other frequencies than the 123.3? If so do we designate one or two of them or is it free for all? Designated frequencies for a given contest would be good for monitoring what is going on. I would like to know who is flying in what group and how that translates to results on the score sheet. Most pilots don't have radios allowing them to listen to two frequencies are these pilots going to tune out of 123.3 causing safety issues. In the worlds as I understand each team is assigned their frequency. Are pilots also required to listen to another frequency for safety reasons. I assume this must be true at least during the start and finish what about the task? This is a subject that needs to be well thought through. I would expect some guidance so we don't have wild west every contest doing something else causing plenty of confusion.

You raise some very good points.
If you were the competition director for a regional contest with, say 30 gliders in 2 classes,like Sports and FAI, what guidelines would you put into place?
UH

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Jan 22, 6:42*pm, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:01:13 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 3:06*pm, wrote: > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:19:40 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote: > > Why do you need to lobby for radio and sage? I thought the 2013 rules will allow radio use. > > The rules for 2013 permit pilot to pilot radio communication in regional contests without the previously required waiver. The organizers may choose to allow this or not and are permitted to establish procedures appropriate for their contest. > UH > RC Chair It will be interesting to see how this rule is received. 27% of pilots were opposed to this rule. Are these pilots going to stay home or try to make the best out of the situation and give it a try. I see good arguments on both sides. I did not see much in terms of implementation thoughts or guidance e.g. are all pilots still required to listen on 123.3? I assume yes since the other rule is still in place. Do we allow pilots to talk on other frequencies than the 123.3? If so do we designate one or two of them or is it free for all? Designated frequencies for a given contest would be good for monitoring what is going on. I would like to know who is flying in what group and how that translates to results on the score sheet. Most pilots don't have radios allowing them to listen to two frequencies are these pilots going to tune out of 123.3 causing safety issues. In the worlds as I understand each team is assigned their frequency. Are pilots also required to listen to another frequency for safety reasons. I assume this must be true at least during the start and finish what about the task? This is a subject that needs to be well thought through. I would expect some guidance so we don't have wild west every contest doing something else causing plenty of confusion.
>
> You raise some very good points.
> If you were the competition director for a regional contest with, say 30 gliders in 2 classes,like Sports and FAI, what guidelines would you put into place?
> UH

I don't have the answers.
1) Keep the 123.3 free of radio pollution.
2) Everyone is required to monitor 123.3 at all times. I have to admit
in the past due to excessive radio chatter I lowered the volume and I
missed safety alerts. There is no excuse for this.
3) I would probably let pilots choose their frequencies. Pilots should
keep in mind they should not be violating Federal rules by picking
frequencies they should not be on.
4) Every team should register their frequency so it is no secret and a
list is available to all pilots.
5) There is also a need for one more point that stresses the
importance of fully focusing on 123.3 before start and within x miles
from finish.

Anyway this is just my point of view, in no way I claim I thought this
through but it seems like these guidelines could work. I wonder what
others think.

[[email protected]]

As the minutes show, the RC recognizes the radio issues problem, but does not think that passing one size fits all rules from on high, in the absence of any experience, is the way to do it. What works for a 6 glider sports class regionals and what works for 60 gliders in a big event like Perry will be different. What works when the focus is "mentoring" and what works when the focus is "practice pair flying" will be different.

Obviously a wise CD will tell pilots to stay off 123.3 in the 15 minutes before the start, and stay off 123.3 or use a unicom frequency for traffic during launch.

In general, I think it will be a good idea for us all to stay away from too much winter rule-making. There is a tendency to make complex procedures to avoid imaginary problems. I think it would be better to keep it loose, see where there are really problems, and address them as they come up.

The Feburary Soaring will contain several articles on radios in contests, to spark thoughts not just about rules but about how we can use this change to make contests more fun for everybody.

John Cochrane

[Juanman[_2_]]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:28:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> As the minutes show, the RC recognizes the radio issues problem, but does not think that passing one size fits all rules from on high, in the absence of any experience, is the way to do it. What works for a 6 glider sports class regionals and what works for 60 gliders in a big event like Perry will be different. What works when the focus is "mentoring" and what works when the focus is "practice pair flying" will be different.
>
>
>
> Obviously a wise CD will tell pilots to stay off 123.3 in the 15 minutes before the start, and stay off 123.3 or use a unicom frequency for traffic during launch.
>
>
>
> In general, I think it will be a good idea for us all to stay away from too much winter rule-making. There is a tendency to make complex procedures to avoid imaginary problems. I think it would be better to keep it loose, see where there are really problems, and address them as they come up.
>
>
>
> The Feburary Soaring will contain several articles on radios in contests, to spark thoughts not just about rules but about how we can use this change to make contests more fun for everybody.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

At the Worlds each team is assigned a frequency, which is public. Anyone can follow the transmissions (provided they speak several languages :-) Team HQ also use this frequency to talk to their pilots.

Pilots are on the contest frequency until after starting and shortly before finishing.

[Sean F (F2)]

I am a big fan of team flying in the US rules. However, flying in complex contest environments with multiple frequencies warrants some additional precautions and responsibilities that contest management and team flying pilots should be required to follow...

1) Contest manager's/directors should find (and confirm before each year's contest) a number of team frequencies as part of their preparation for the contest. Perhaps only 5-8 are needed even for a large event like Perry or Nationals to begin with. These frequencies should be provided to those wishing to team fly on a first come first serve basis. A limited number of team channels would be smart at first. Letting team contest pilots pick their own "willi-nilli" frequency is asking for trouble. These frequencies should be published (part of the pilots kit) so other pilots can identify the frequencies other teams might be on in an emergency or for a special circumstance (freq sheet carried in cockpit or published on task sheet).

2) In combination with "1)", it should be required that team flying pilots with assigned team frequencies must have a second radio (handheld) and monitor 123.3 while on the team channel during the task. This is a simple, very low cost communication solution which eliminates various "team's" from being oblivious to the other pilots around them if communication is necessary.. It is the only responsible way to fly as a team on a separate frequency in my opinion. If this rule not complied with, then team flying privileges should be revoked from that team. Perhaps only one glider of the pair needs the handheld, but some basic form of 123.3 monitoring must be required.

Sean
F2

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:08:03 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I am a big fan of team flying in the US rules. However, flying in complex contest environments with multiple frequencies warrants some additional precautions and responsibilities that contest management and team flying pilots should be required to follow... 1) Contest manager's/directors should find (and confirm before each year's contest) a number of team frequencies as part of their preparation for the contest. Perhaps only 5-8 are needed even for a large event like Perry or Nationals to begin with. These frequencies should be provided to those wishing to team fly on a first come first serve basis. A limited number of team channels would be smart at first. Letting team contest pilots pick their own "willi-nilli" frequency is asking for trouble. These frequencies should be published (part of the pilots kit) so other pilots can identify the frequencies other teams might be on in an emergency or for a special circumstance (freq sheet carried in cockpit or published on task sheet). 2) In combination with "1)", it should be required that team flying pilots with assigned team frequencies must have a second radio (handheld) and monitor 123.3 while on the team channel during the task. This is a simple, very low cost communication solution which eliminates various "team's" from being oblivious to the other pilots around them if communication is necessary. It is the only responsible way to fly as a team on a separate frequency in my opinion. If this rule not complied with, then team flying privileges should be revoked from that team. Perhaps only one glider of the pair needs the handheld, but some basic form of 123.3 monitoring must be required. Sean F2

Monotoring the contest frequency is a really good idea, but how would that ever be enforced?
Can you advise frequencies you think would be usable. I know of 123.3, 123.5, and 122.75 as being legal. Where would we get other legal frequencies?
The devil is in the details.
UH

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:23:14 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:08:03 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote: > I am a big fan of team flying in the US rules. However, flying in complex contest environments with multiple frequencies warrants some additional precautions and responsibilities that contest management and team flying pilots should be required to follow... 1) Contest manager's/directors should find (and confirm before each year's contest) a number of team frequencies as part of their preparation for the contest. Perhaps only 5-8 are needed even for a large event like Perry or Nationals to begin with. These frequencies should be provided to those wishing to team fly on a first come first serve basis. A limited number of team channels would be smart at first. Letting team contest pilots pick their own "willi-nilli" frequency is asking for trouble. These frequencies should be published (part of the pilots kit) so other pilots can identify the frequencies other teams might be on in an emergency or for a special circumstance (freq sheet carried in cockpit or published on task sheet). 2) In combination with "1)", it should be required that team flying pilots with assigned team frequencies must have a second radio (handheld) and monitor 123.3 while on the team channel during the task. This is a simple, very low cost communication solution which eliminates various "team's" from being oblivious to the other pilots around them if communication is necessary. It is the only responsible way to fly as a team on a separate frequency in my opinion. If this rule not complied with, then team flying privileges should be revoked from that team. Perhaps only one glider of the pair needs the handheld, but some basic form of 123.3 monitoring must be required. Sean F2 Monotoring the contest frequency is a really good idea, but how would that ever be enforced? Can you advise frequencies you think would be usable. I know of 123.3, 123.5, and 122.75 as being legal. Where would we get other legal frequencies? The devil is in the details. UH

i believe 122.85 is also good for air-to-air? otherwise to be proper you'll need to contact the FCC.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Jan 23, 1:08*pm, "Sean F (F2)" > wrote:
> I am a big fan of team flying in the US rules. *However, flying in complex contest environments with multiple frequencies warrants some additional precautions and responsibilities that contest management and team flying pilots should be required to follow...
>
> 1) Contest manager's/directors should find (and confirm before each year's contest) a number of team frequencies as part of their preparation for the contest. *Perhaps only 5-8 are needed even for a large event like Perry or Nationals to begin with. *These frequencies should be provided to those wishing to team fly on a first come first serve basis. *A limited number of team channels would be smart at first. *Letting team contest pilots pick their own "willi-nilli" frequency is asking for trouble. *These frequencies should be published (part of the pilots kit) so other pilots can identify the frequencies other teams might be on in an emergency or for a special circumstance (freq sheet carried in cockpit or published on task sheet).
>
> 2) In combination with "1)", it should be required that team flying pilots with assigned team frequencies must have a second radio (handheld) and monitor 123.3 while on the team channel during the task. *This is a simple, very low cost communication solution which eliminates various "team's" from being oblivious to the other pilots around them if communication is necessary. *It is the only responsible way to fly as a team on a separate frequency in my opinion. *If this rule not complied with, then team flying privileges should be revoked from that team. *Perhaps only one glider of the pair needs the handheld, but some basic form of 123.3 monitoring must be required.
>
> Sean
> F2

Team flying in US regionals is not likely to resemble team flying in
the WGC. As Hank points out, we don't have legal frequencies to hand
out to everybody. Moreover, our pilots do not naturally come in two-
pilot national teams, who have practiced pair flying extensively. And,
biggest of all, the point here is not to give practice for the US
team, it is for all of us to have fun.

Given all these facts, I expect pilot-to-pilot communication at
regionals to develop in a much less structured way. I expect there
will be a lot more "mentoring." I expect larger and less formal groups
to form.

Most of all, this must be fun. If we get to the end of the season and
team members say "that was great practice," but everybody else says
"that was a pain in the butt, and now I feel like I can't compete
without a hot team member," the experiment will be over. If you're a
"hot" pilot, and you want this to continue, be extra courteous and
inclusive this season!

With all this in mind, it will probably be better to have one main
frequency for each class. That makes it easier to find people as you
go along. It also preserves some of the traditional safety principle
of being able to talk to each other on a common frequency. It makes
the sportsmanship and openness aspect more reasonable. Teams of
hotshots should not mind a few lemmings tagging along and learning
their tricks. And it doesn't chew up the few available frequencies.

Mandating two radios is a lot of extra rules. When we allow team
flying, we're giving up on the idea that everyone is on 123.3.
(Though, in reality, lots of pilots already were turning off their
radios.)

However, that means we will all have to be careful about not talking
too much. Pilots who want to do very close pair flying and talk all
the time probably should find their own frequency.

The lack of frequencies means we should probably allow use of 123.3,
with commonsense restrictions like not talking just before the start
gate opens, and during launch and recovery unless a separate unicom
frequency is being used for those.

More thoughts in "team flying," the first link here

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/soaring/index.htm#safety_rules

Let me repeat the big picture though. For most of us, do not think of
this innovation as meaning that regoinals will all be two-pilot teams
practicing wingtip to wingtip pair flying and talking constantly on
one assigned radio frequency. For most of us, this is likely to mean
more informal cooperation mentoring in larger groups, and the big
payoff should be having more fun and learning more. When thinking
about how to structure things, keep that picture in mind.

John Cochrane.

[Sean F (F2)]

Agreed, perhaps just a strong recommendation. ;-)

For available frequencies I would imagine contacting local/regional ATC and asking for a meeting or recommendation for some open frequencies?

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

Spratt must be doing several hundred rpm at this point.

Charlie hated unnecessary radio chatter at contests . I can remember him
chastising the offenders: "You bark like a bunch of dogs..."

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

[4Z]

On Jan 24, 8:06*am, Wallace Berry > wrote:
> Spratt must be doing several hundred rpm at this point.
>
> Charlie hated unnecessary radio chatter at contests . I can remember him
> chastising the offenders: "You bark like a bunch of dogs..."
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Allow me to suggest solution to most of these problems. Most of the
problems seem to be from lack of frequencies in the VHF band. Why
bother? Those who want to chat air to air can just go purchase those
spiffy family band walky talky type radios for well under $100. They
have a lot of frequencies, discrete calling, VOX, headphones,
microphones, and who knows what else. And they're legal. I use them
a lot for other activties. Sure, it may take a little bit of effort to
find some clear channels but it can be done. At 5 watts they would
have enough range for a reasonable distance in the air. Or have them
use their cell phones. I don't see why we would have to congest our
very limited frequencies. I am very leery of flying in a contest that
either has constant radio chatter or a significant number of
contestants just turning their radios off to get away from said
chatter. If it gets too chattery I suspect I will quit competing. I
view this as a very serious safety issue. Those who want to talk can
find ways to do it without mucking up the airbands the rest of us
monitor. Remember the ras discussions about using cellphones and
other communication technology? Let's think just a little bit outside
the (aviation radio) box. This isn't rocket science. Tim

[Mike the Strike]

Gone are the days when 123.3 was used pretty much by gliders alone. A couple of years ago, the frequency was also allocated here in Arizona to a local commercial operator for ground to air operations. When they first came on the air, they started yelling at gliders to "get off their frequency". Even now, when they are not overpowering us with their high-power transmitters, we get users from nearby Mexico stepping all over us. Now, many of us don't use 123.3 - sticking with either our airport frequency (122.9) or 123.5.

Finding frequencies for glider/glider communications in the aircraft band is going to be a challenge.

Mike

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

> <Snip...> ...A
> couple of years ago, the frequency was also allocated here in Arizona to a
> local commercial operator for ground to air operations.

For the record...and making no claim to be an FAR/CFR anal wizard, my
understanding (from my instructor and eventually from reading material over
the years) has always been 123.3 has NEVER been "a glider only" frequency in
the U.S. I *think* 123.5 similarly was allocated for multiple - if specific -
users. Feel free to look it up.

In any event, flight school use has been a written-into part of 123.3
allocation since at least 1972, I believe.

Mostly, it's been ignorant glider pilots who (mistakenly) have thought of
those two U.S. frequencies as "exclusively for glider pilots". I'll wager a
good beer the Arizona commercial operator somehow or other selectively
read/heard what he wanted to regarding others' legal right to be on 123.3! Why
should glider nuts be the only misguided souls on the planet?

Bob - yeah it's still winter in the northern hemisphere - W.

[Mike the Strike]

Yes indeed, all the frequencies have always had multiple users, but in nearly thirty years of flying in the USA, I've experienced that 123.3 has only recently become so congested with high-power commercial users.

There is now no way that it could be used in southern Arizona for the official contest frequency because of all this congestion.

Mike

[Richard[_9_]]

Exactly what frequencies would the Contest Rules comittee recommend.

this is a list of the legal ones.

108.000-
112.000 MHz Aviation Terminal VOR and ILS Navigation (80 Channels) Yes
112.000-
117.950 MHz Aviation VOR Navigation (120 Channels) Yes
118.000-
136.000 MHz Aviation Communication (720 Channels) Yes
121.500 MHz Aviation Distress Yes
121.600 MHz Civil Air Patrol (Authorized use only) Yes
121.700 MHz Aviation Ground Control Yes
118.000-
121.400 MHz Air Traffic Control (Towers and ARTCC's) Yes
121.600 MHz Civil Air Patrol Training Beacons Yes
121.650 MHz Aviation Ground Control Yes
121.700 MHz Aviation Ground Control Yes
121.750 MHz Aviation Ground Control Yes
121.775 MHz Civil Air Patrol Training Beacons Yes
121.800 MHz Aviation Ground Control Yes
121.850 MHz Aviation Ground Control Yes
121.900 MHz Aviation Ground Control Yes
121.900 MHz Flight Schools Yes
121.957 MHz Flight Service Stations Yes
122.000 MHz Flight Advisory Service Yes
122.025-
122.675 MHz Flight Service Stations Yes
122.250 MHz Balloons Yes
122.400 MHz Flight Service Stations Yes
122.600 MHz Flight Service Stations Yes
122.700 MHz Aviation UNICOM Uncontrolled Airports Yes
122.725 MHz Aviation UNICOM Private Airports Yes
122.750 MHz Aviation Air to Air Communications Yes
122.775 MHz Air Shows & Air-to-air Communications Yes
122.800 MHz Aviation UNICOM Uncontrolled Airports Yes
122.825 MHz ARINC Yes
122.850 MHz Aviation Multicom Yes
122.875 MHz ARINC Yes
122.900 MHz Aviation UNICOM Uncontrolled Airports and Search and Rescue Training Yes
122.925 MHz Aviation UNICOM/Multicom/Air Shows Yes
122.950 MHz Aviation UNICOM Controlled Airports Yes
122.975 MHz Aviation UNICOM Yes
122.975 MHz Airplane to Airplane (high altitude airliners) Yes
123.000 MHz Aviation UNICOM Yes
123.050 MHz Aviation UNICOM Yes
123.050 MHz Aviation Heliports Yes
123.075 MHz Aviation UNICOM Yes
123.075 MHz Aviation Heliports Yes
123.000 MHz Aviation UNICOM Uncontrolled airports Yes
123.025 MHz Helicopters Air-to-air Communications Yes
123.050 MHz Aviation UNICO Heliports Yes
123.075 MHz Aviation UNICOM Heliports Yes
123.100 MHz Search and Rescue/Civil Air Patrol Yes
123.125-
123.476 MHz Flight Test Yes
123.200 MHz Flight Schools Yes
123.300 MHz Flight Schools & Balloons Yes
123.325 MHz Air Shows Yes
123.350 MHz NASA Yes
123.400 MHz Flight Schools Yes
123.425 MHz Air Shows Yes
123.450 MHz Air to Air (trans-ocean unofficial) Yes, but out of range
123.475 MHz U.S. Army Golden Knights Yes
123.500 MHz Flight Schools & Balloons Yes
123.525-
123.575 MHz Flight testing Yes
123.600-
128.800 MHz Air Traffic Control (Towers/ARTCC's) Yes
126.200 MHz Military Airport Towers Yes
128.625 MHz NASA/NOAA Research Yes
128.825-
132.000 MHz ARINC Yes
130.650 MHz Military Airlift Command Yes
134.100 MHz Military Airports - Ground Control Approach (GCA) Radar Yes
135.850 MHz Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Yes
135,950 MHz Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Yes

Richard,

[[email protected]]

Jeezes.....

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:59:51 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Jeezes.....

Does this rule allowing radio comms make ANY sense given the lack of frequencies available???

Sure the option is available, but good luck making any effective use of it.

RC - I know the spirit of the rule is to allow limited comms between pilots for fun. But you have got to know that this WILL evolve into "teams of two" or "shark packs" whose goal will be to work together to win. As this happens, will teams going on any "available " frequency make us any friends in aviation world and with the FCC???

EY