US Competition Pilot Poll and Election

[[email protected]]

Hello US contest pilots.
The annual competition rules poll and election of rules subcommittee members is now open at
http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
The poll and election is open to all pilots on the ranking list.
Please take the time to fill out the poll. provide comments and input and vote for
your next representative.
UH
SSA RC Chair

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 2:18:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Hello US contest pilots.
> The annual competition rules poll and election of rules subcommittee members is now open at
> http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> The poll and election is open to all pilots on the ranking list.
> Please take the time to fill out the poll. provide comments and input and vote for
> your next representative.
> UH
> SSA RC Chair

Oops
Dave Nadler noticed that the first question did not have checkboxes for multiple selections. I did a quick change to fix it but also noticed that 22 folks have submitted poll responses. Folks can go back and update their responses until the last day the poll is open.

Aland

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:18:06 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Hello US contest pilots.
> The annual competition rules poll and election of rules subcommittee members is now open at
> http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> The poll and election is open to all pilots on the ranking list.
> Please take the time to fill out the poll. provide comments and input and vote for
> your next representative.
> UH
> SSA RC Chair

Interesting that the question about FLARM is inherently biased against. This is a textbook case of asking a question while begging a specific response.. The question is something like "Did focusing your attention on FLARM cause a loss of situational awareness..." I consider it far more likely that focusing my attention on FLARM increased my situational awareness and said so in the comments.

A more appropriate wording would be, "Considering the information provided by, and the attention required by the FLARM display, how did use of FLARM affect your overall situational awareness?" This is much closer to a neutral question. But we know where the hearts of the writers lie.....

[Sean[_2_]]

I have been saying that the opinion poll is often designed to "steer" its readers towards particular responses for years now.

But, I have another, broader question.

Why do we mindlessly waste our time every year squabbling about US rules and opinion polls when we could simply "put the US rules out to pasture" and rejoin the international FAI system? Why is it "religion" that we continue forward with US rules? Why are US rules so important? Should we at least be considering FAI? At least asking the opinion of all our US contest pilots?

Of course, using US rules requires us to also develop and maintain our own custom scoring software tools? The truth is that Winscore is barely supportable. If our single developer, for whatever reason, suddenly quits supporting it we are in deep trouble. Winscore is a hard program to learn and few can use it effectively.

One the other hand, a proven international soaring rule system, called FAI, exists. The FAI rule system is used by most countries and the vast majority of total soaring contest worldwide, including the WGC, use the FAI rules.. By leaving US rules behind (out there somewhere, happily eating fresh grass in a lovely pasture) we would save ourselves tremendous amounts of mind-numbing debate, significant volunteer effort (rules committee) and simultaneously rejoin the world soaring community in a common, familiar and effective soaring rule system (and ranking system).

So, what is the TRUE, measured value of carrying on with our own custom "US only" soaring rule system?

What advantage do we "enjoy?" because we have our own unique rule system? What is the "return on investment" vs. the "cost" of further supporting US rules (and being isolated)?

Measurements. Do the US rules result in increased contest participation in the USA vs. other nations which use FAI? Easier contest administration? Increased safety? Better racing? Improved competition skills development? How about US international competitiveness? Junior interest? I don't see any of those measures showing any measurable improvement for the USA. In fact, relative to Europe , US soaring has fallen well behind in many of those measurements when compared to FAI countries since the US changed to US rules? Have they not? Who can prove me wrong? Data? Where are we better off?

Again, what is the TRUE value in maintaining our own unique US soaring competition rules? Why are we the only country that has its own unique rules? Why is the question of adopting FAI never part of the US rules committee's discussions (or our comedy relief opinion poll) or just in regular, broader discussions?

Are the US RC members expected to be open-minded and creative thinkers looking for the best general direction or are they US rule "church" arbiters dedicated only to the continuation of the US rules (and destroyers of any other ideas)?

What measured facts make carrying on with US Rules so critical? What would the result of a return to FAI be (the same rules used by all other soaring countries)? These are simple, basic, sensible and fundamental questions that, in my opinion, should be asked regularly by the SSA in general. Yet they NEVER are asked, formally or informally.

Is this discussion blasphemy? If so, why is that blasphemy?

Wouldn't the effort spent supporting the US rules committee be better spent on other SSA priorities? Surely we have more critical objectives? Hard things like finding ways to get more families, children and youth pilots interested in soaring. Or like youth soaring competition development. Or growing contest participation. Etc.

And yes, the question on Flarm is fairly obvious.

But more important that predictable stuff, the US rules, and its annual opinion poll have become a big yawn. As if this yearly tuning exercise is going to yield a big break-thru. What is the goal of all this US rules drudgery? What do we expect to happen? A sudden turn around in participation? Not likely. We need some big thinkers. We need some new ideas. At least we need some different voices at the table. It's getting really old.

To that point, both Michael Westbrook and I (both current US team members and both significantly younger than the average US RC member) had our US RC nominations "thrown out" by our "wise and powerful" regional directors. We were therefore not included on the current US RC election ballot. Non "good old boys" need not apply I guess...

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 9:51:38 PM UTC-6, Sean wrote:
> I have been saying that the opinion poll is often designed to "steer" its readers towards particular responses for years now.
>
> But, I have another, broader question.
>
> Why do we mindlessly waste our time every year squabbling about US rules and opinion polls when we could simply "put the US rules out to pasture" and rejoin the international FAI system? Why is it "religion" that we continue forward with US rules? Why are US rules so important? Should we at least be considering FAI? At least asking the opinion of all our US contest pilots?
>
> Of course, using US rules requires us to also develop and maintain our own custom scoring software tools? The truth is that Winscore is barely supportable. If our single developer, for whatever reason, suddenly quits supporting it we are in deep trouble. Winscore is a hard program to learn and few can use it effectively.
>
> One the other hand, a proven international soaring rule system, called FAI, exists. The FAI rule system is used by most countries and the vast majority of total soaring contest worldwide, including the WGC, use the FAI rules. By leaving US rules behind (out there somewhere, happily eating fresh grass in a lovely pasture) we would save ourselves tremendous amounts of mind-numbing debate, significant volunteer effort (rules committee) and simultaneously rejoin the world soaring community in a common, familiar and effective soaring rule system (and ranking system).
>
> So, what is the TRUE, measured value of carrying on with our own custom "US only" soaring rule system?
>
> What advantage do we "enjoy?" because we have our own unique rule system? What is the "return on investment" vs. the "cost" of further supporting US rules (and being isolated)?
>
> Measurements. Do the US rules result in increased contest participation in the USA vs. other nations which use FAI? Easier contest administration? Increased safety? Better racing? Improved competition skills development? How about US international competitiveness? Junior interest? I don't see any of those measures showing any measurable improvement for the USA. In fact, relative to Europe , US soaring has fallen well behind in many of those measurements when compared to FAI countries since the US changed to US rules? Have they not? Who can prove me wrong? Data? Where are we better off?
>
> Again, what is the TRUE value in maintaining our own unique US soaring competition rules? Why are we the only country that has its own unique rules? Why is the question of adopting FAI never part of the US rules committee's discussions (or our comedy relief opinion poll) or just in regular, broader discussions?
>
> Are the US RC members expected to be open-minded and creative thinkers looking for the best general direction or are they US rule "church" arbiters dedicated only to the continuation of the US rules (and destroyers of any other ideas)?
>
> What measured facts make carrying on with US Rules so critical? What would the result of a return to FAI be (the same rules used by all other soaring countries)? These are simple, basic, sensible and fundamental questions that, in my opinion, should be asked regularly by the SSA in general. Yet they NEVER are asked, formally or informally.
>
> Is this discussion blasphemy? If so, why is that blasphemy?
>
> Wouldn't the effort spent supporting the US rules committee be better spent on other SSA priorities? Surely we have more critical objectives? Hard things like finding ways to get more families, children and youth pilots interested in soaring. Or like youth soaring competition development. Or growing contest participation. Etc.
>
> And yes, the question on Flarm is fairly obvious.
>
> But more important that predictable stuff, the US rules, and its annual opinion poll have become a big yawn. As if this yearly tuning exercise is going to yield a big break-thru. What is the goal of all this US rules drudgery? What do we expect to happen? A sudden turn around in participation? Not likely. We need some big thinkers. We need some new ideas. At least we need some different voices at the table. It's getting really old.
>
> To that point, both Michael Westbrook and I (both current US team members and both significantly younger than the average US RC member) had our US RC nominations "thrown out" by our "wise and powerful" regional directors. We were therefore not included on the current US RC election ballot. Non "good old boys" need not apply I guess...

Sean, I believe that only one nomination per Region is presently allowed. They may have looked at National wins, time in the sport including past wins/awards, etc as setting the bar when others applied within the same region. Experience/time does play a role in any sport as I am sure you would agree.. Some one contested this but somehow it slipped or missed getting removed.. I sincerely don't think it was done in a manner to degrade or demean anyone. These folks I have known for many years and our sport just isn't geared to this way of thinking. Please consider my thoughts as being friendly and helpful. As far as age goes, Garett Willat was a member of the rules committee when he was a younger man, ha, much younger as a matter of fact. He was a National/Regional winner and as you know has been in the sport for many years. So age is not the case.

Concerning FAI rules. Our's are already very close to FAI rules. We do have several scoring quirks as does the WGC rules. But it should also be remembered that the hosting country of the WGC can modify the rules. Our rules just pamper more to make our contests more sociable as many have felt that was the best way to go. A World Champion should be able to adapt to whatever situation he is presented with. Those Champs that I have competed against adapt and win.
Our start cylinder is different(yet its best to remember the CD has the option of a start line). But after start the task's called are still a challenge as they should be for all entrants. I know the mat is difficult as it was/has been for many including me. But now I see it as a good test/challenge of developed soaring skills. The TAT's and AST's are called when the CD (not the entrants) feel it will be a good test for the entrants at that site and contest. How can anyone with good judgement out think what the called task was and why the CD called it when not being their is beyond me.
Many folks have given many hours to develop our sport to where its today. Our rules will never please everyone but please give some thanks because without all these folks giving their time and life, we surely won't be enjoying the sport of racing sailplanes as we do.
Remember our committees, rules/old folks and good old boys got you to the WGC. Without them, where would you be.......maybe playing with a RC sailboat on a pond at a park?
Best for the WGC. Tom Kelley #711.

[Sean[_2_]]

For anyone interested in reading the FAI RULES for themselves, here is a link: http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/SC3A_2016a

The FAI rules are relatively simple and straightforward. They are also used happily, safely and effectively by the vast majority of soaring countries (all but the USA and Canada) at the regional, national and, of course, the international level at the PAGC, WGC, SGP, etc.

FAI rule competitions use Naviteer's "SeeYou" for scoring. SeeYou is, of course, a popular and successful commercial product which will be supported for years to come. This is very important. There is a great economy of scale in joining the FAI for this reason (scoring) alone. Winscore is very complex to maintain.

The FAI rules are worth a look. There are many other documents which are interesting reading as well. Imagine that if we simply adopted FAI rules, we would not need to spend so much effort on our own custom, isolationist US rules. In fact, we would need almost zero annual effort.

Let us keep open minds and not allow the US rules "cult" to scare you into thinking that FAI rules are "evil." This is a favorite pastime of theirs. I, for one (and there are many others), contend that we would be FAR better off being on the same general rules system as the rest of the soaring competition world. Again, the rest of the world uses FAI rules happily, safely and enjoyably. They also use a common ranking list: http://igcrankings.fai.org ... and a common basic website for competition scheduling, marketing, scoring, promotion, etc. That website is www.soaringspot.com.

Shouldn't we at least be considering FAI? Again why is this blasphemy? Why is this subject never included within our US RULES opinion poll?

What measurable value does the continuation of US rules provide?

What effort would be saved, short term and long, by simply adopting FAI (and putting US rules out to pasture)?

I think that it is a highly sensible conversation for our US soaring community to have.

Is this topic still "blasphemous" or will a possible switch BACK to FAI rules be carefully considered as a reasonable idea?

Please consider reading about the FAI rules for yourself. Don't simply take the word of our so-called experts like the one above. Understand how the FAI rules use Local Procedures (LPs). LPs are a critical FAI rule document (similar to a US rules pilot kit) written by host club organizers (and the CD) to define key local procedures such as the start, finish and associated things in the context of the specific airport that the competition is being held. The LPs allow flexibility for club leaders and CDs to make things safe, comprehensive and comfortable for all competitors.

I'm going to set up a monthly conference call / webex (all invited) to start an ongoing conversation on FAI rules and get US (and Candian) pilots familiar with FAI rules and the differences with US rules. I'm going to bring on guest speakers from other countries to answer questions and talk about key topics. These sessions will, of course, be archived on YouTube for future viewing. PM me if you would like information on how to join this conference series.

Sean

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 09:21:03 UTC-6, Sean wrote:
> For anyone interested in reading the FAI RULES for themselves, here is a link: http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/SC3A_2016a
>

> The FAI rules are relatively simple and straightforward. They are also used happily, safely and effectively by the vast majority of soaring countries (all but the USA and Canada) at the regional, national and, of course, the international level at the PAGC, WGC, SGP, etc.
>


This document is for World and Continental FAI contests. Do you have any links for individual countries and what they use? I am not familiar with any local rules other than what is used within the US.

> FAI rule competitions use Naviteer's "SeeYou" for scoring. SeeYou is, of course, a popular and successful commercial product which will be supported for years to come. This is very important. There is a great economy of scale in joining the FAI for this reason (scoring) alone. Winscore is very complex to maintain.
>

Sean I agree that the SSA should get out of the software business. SeeYou will not support the current SSA rules but could come close.

Please note that SeeYou requires the use of "scripts" and they have to be maintained, should be minimal, but none the less SeeYou competition is not as simple as plug and play. I am sure you saw this at the Chillhowee event.

> The FAI rules are worth a look. There are many other documents which are interesting reading as well. Imagine that if we simply adopted FAI rules, we would not need to spend so much effort on our own custom, isolationist US rules. In fact, we would need almost zero annual effort.
>
> Let us keep open minds and not allow the US rules "cult" to scare you into thinking that FAI rules are "evil." This is a favorite pastime of theirs.. I, for one (and there are many others), contend that we would be FAR better off being on the same general rules system as the rest of the soaring competition world. Again, the rest of the world uses FAI rules happily, safely and enjoyably. They also use a common ranking list: http://igcrankings..fai.org ... and a common basic website for competition scheduling, marketing, scoring, promotion, etc. That website is www.soaringspot.com.
>


As 711 pointed out if the SSA was to bite off the FAI way of doing things then everyone has to confirm to their rules and procedures. And yes everyone would have to get a Sporting license, a waste of money in my mind.

The www.soaringspot.com is maintained and owned by Naviter and like above if you commit to it you ave to commit to their processes, rules and priorities. The folks from Naviter were very helpful and flexible during the worlds in Uvalde but they had to make a custom version of SeeYou competition for Uvalde to support the Local Procedures. Not sure if any of the changes survived.

From a event coordinator and scorers point of view the complete picture has to be addressed; event signup, competitor data being passed to the scoring programs to eliminate administration issues, score sheets, task sheets, grid sheets, posting of scores and even the rankings that John L does. Most of these steps are done by and automated with WINSCORE.

Sure they could be duplicated but time and effort will be required. Again I would like to understand how other countries handle their local and regional competitions.

> Shouldn't we at least be considering FAI? Again why is this blasphemy? Why is this subject never included within our US RULES opinion poll?
>
> What measurable value does the continuation of US rules provide?
>
> What effort would be saved, short term and long, by simply adopting FAI (and putting US rules out to pasture)?
>
> I think that it is a highly sensible conversation for our US soaring community to have.
>
> Is this topic still "blasphemous" or will a possible switch BACK to FAI rules be carefully considered as a reasonable idea?
>
> Please consider reading about the FAI rules for yourself. Don't simply take the word of our so-called experts like the one above. Understand how the FAI rules use Local Procedures (LPs). LPs are a critical FAI rule document (similar to a US rules pilot kit) written by host club organizers (and the CD) to define key local procedures such as the start, finish and associated things in the context of the specific airport that the competition is being held. The LPs allow flexibility for club leaders and CDs to make things safe, comprehensive and comfortable for all competitors.
>

Let's not confuse documentation with implementation. Parts of the scoring parameters are hard coded in SeeYou competition but could be changed with the 'scripts' but watch out for the slippery slope.
> I'm going to set up a monthly conference call / webex (all invited) to start an ongoing conversation on FAI rules and get US (and Candian) pilots familiar with FAI rules and the differences with US rules. I'm going to bring on guest speakers from other countries to answer questions and talk about key topics. These sessions will, of course, be archived on YouTube for future viewing. PM me if you would like information on how to join this conference series.
>
> Sean

I will try to participate, to learn, and offer my experience. I have scored SSA regional and national competitions sing WINSCORE and the Open Class at the worlds in Uvalde in 2012 using SeeYou Competition.

BTW major procedural changes have been made to SeeYou competition in the last couple of years, just an example of how organizers need to stay on top of the changes and make sure they can find folks to handle the tasks.

One other area that should be explored is the training and of more CD's and Scorers. There are only a handful of each left.

[Sean[_2_]]

Good points Ron.

[krasw]

Our national competition rules are translation of Sporting Code 3 Annex A, and I've done the translation myself. Some paragraphs were omitted because they were needed in international events only, and some were slightly modified. Since we do not have IGC class structure, that paragraph was rewritten completely. The job took few evenings and 99% of the effort was translation. We update rules every year after Annex A update (usually a line or two). Contest organisers provide local prodecures suited to their needs. This has been going on for at least a decade without any problems.

[Per Carlin]

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 10:29:40 AM UTC+2, krasw wrote:
> Our national competition rules are translation of Sporting Code 3 Annex A, and I've done the translation myself. Some paragraphs were omitted because they were needed in international events only, and some were slightly modified. Since we do not have IGC class structure, that paragraph was rewritten completely. The job took few evenings and 99% of the effort was translation. We update rules every year after Annex A update (usually a line or two). Contest organisers provide local prodecures suited to their needs. This has been going on for at least a decade without any problems.

Same goes for Sweden.
We have out national rules, which are based on the IGC SC3. There are a few national adjustments, but not more than that I can more or less participate in a IGC completions without spending hours in reading and understanding SC 3.
When we arrange Open “international” competitions in Sweden do we usually use SC3 to avoid the issues that our guests does not understand Swedish and therefore cant not read our national rules.

[Tom (TK)]

My sporting license comes with a copy of Air & Space magazine each month. Well worth the money!

[Tony[_5_]]

THATS why I keep getting Air and Space...

[Sean[_2_]]

Ron, in regards to the US returning FAI rules, I for one believe that the value of being part of the international FAI system (vs being separatist) is well worth any minor initial change/adoption challenges.

The FAI rules are not hard to learn (easy really), they are just quite different than US rules. This creates two very different styles of competition.. In many ways FAI rules are "contextually simpler" when compared to US rules (simple example, start and finish penalties and other scoring formulas).. Of course that is just my opinion. But I am fairly certain that I am not alone in that opinion. To me, the key motivator is always going to be "getting back on the same page as all of our peer countries" and not being the "odd ball nation."

Beyond that simple value is, of course, the removal of the US rules scoring software development burden (and ease of use issue). Guy has been a champion of volunteerism. An amazing, giving man. But eventually we need to stop burdening him with this endless project, especially if all that hard work is not providing any measurable return on his investment.

Again, the value of the US soaring community being "a real" part" of the international gliding community (rather than outsiders) is very significant. We will also find significant value in other areas such as pilot ranking "commonality", tasking commonality (being the same basic sport or something very different and almost experimental) and in general "rules stability." The US rules are constantly changing and because of the system constantly under intense pressure to change dramatically. See Flarm and what almost happened last winter. US rules are unstable. Under FAI there will be more stability.

I think there are many hard value benefits (scoring) and many, many soft benefits (community) that will pay off over time if we re-adopt FAI.

There is also the significant value of putting all the effort that goes into the US rules committee and repurposing those volunteers towards other key SSA priorities. Priorities such as youth pilot development, club growth, contest attendance, cross country transition, general SSA membership strategy, marketing and promotion, etc, etc. I'm sure this list is extensive.

Sure, there will be a short initial learning curve for us to change back to FAI but that is minuscule when compared to our current system of rules which are in a constant state of flux. Significant effort is required to maintain our software each season. It takes significant effort to do a season of US rules committee opinion poll, associated debate and then implement changes. That same effort would have us all well prepared for a new 2017 season of FAI rules in a single winter. A change to FAI would also end all future cycles of our annual US rule change process. This is sensible as maintaining our own seperate system of US rules provides us with NO MEASURABLE VALUE JUSTIFICATION for doing so.

I believe that many US pilots have a growing dissatisfaction with the low realized value of being on an entirely different rules system than all other soaring nations. If we can't show our pilots what we are gaining by supporting an entirely unique rule system, this dissatisfaction will continue to grow rapidly making it increasingly difficult to stay on the present course. That is not a good enviornment for growth, enjoyment, etc.

It's time. We need to let go of the US rules in favor of FAI and becoming part of the international soaring community again. No more being the odd ball.

Sean

[Ron Gleason]

On Friday, 7 October 2016 07:59:01 UTC-6, Sean wrote:
> Ron, in regards to the US returning FAI rules, I for one believe that the value of being part of the international FAI system (vs being separatist) is well worth any minor initial change/adoption challenges.
>
> The FAI rules are not hard to learn (easy really), they are just quite different than US rules. This creates two very different styles of competition. In many ways FAI rules are "contextually simpler" when compared to US rules (simple example, start and finish penalties and other scoring formulas). Of course that is just my opinion. But I am fairly certain that I am not alone in that opinion. To me, the key motivator is always going to be "getting back on the same page as all of our peer countries" and not being the "odd ball nation."
>
> Beyond that simple value is, of course, the removal of the US rules scoring software development burden (and ease of use issue). Guy has been a champion of volunteerism. An amazing, giving man. But eventually we need to stop burdening him with this endless project, especially if all that hard work is not providing any measurable return on his investment.
>
> Again, the value of the US soaring community being "a real" part" of the international gliding community (rather than outsiders) is very significant.. We will also find significant value in other areas such as pilot ranking "commonality", tasking commonality (being the same basic sport or something very different and almost experimental) and in general "rules stability." The US rules are constantly changing and because of the system constantly under intense pressure to change dramatically. See Flarm and what almost happened last winter. US rules are unstable. Under FAI there will be more stability.
>
> I think there are many hard value benefits (scoring) and many, many soft benefits (community) that will pay off over time if we re-adopt FAI.
>
> There is also the significant value of putting all the effort that goes into the US rules committee and repurposing those volunteers towards other key SSA priorities. Priorities such as youth pilot development, club growth, contest attendance, cross country transition, general SSA membership strategy, marketing and promotion, etc, etc. I'm sure this list is extensive.
>
> Sure, there will be a short initial learning curve for us to change back to FAI but that is minuscule when compared to our current system of rules which are in a constant state of flux. Significant effort is required to maintain our software each season. It takes significant effort to do a season of US rules committee opinion poll, associated debate and then implement changes. That same effort would have us all well prepared for a new 2017 season of FAI rules in a single winter. A change to FAI would also end all future cycles of our annual US rule change process. This is sensible as maintaining our own seperate system of US rules provides us with NO MEASURABLE VALUE JUSTIFICATION for doing so.
>
> I believe that many US pilots have a growing dissatisfaction with the low realized value of being on an entirely different rules system than all other soaring nations. If we can't show our pilots what we are gaining by supporting an entirely unique rule system, this dissatisfaction will continue to grow rapidly making it increasingly difficult to stay on the present course. That is not a good enviornment for growth, enjoyment, etc.
>
> It's time. We need to let go of the US rules in favor of FAI and becoming part of the international soaring community again. No more being the odd ball.
>
> Sean

Sean, I will let you fight the movement issue as I do not have enough invested in competing at the US or world level. My investment has been and will probably continue to be assisting with coordinating and running events.

The number of venues able or willing to hold events has shrunk and is limited to just a handful. Along with this the number of people willing to run events has shrunk as has the pool of tow pilots.

Bit of a chicken and egg situation; rules used are moot if there are no venues or competition sites available.

[Tango Eight]

Sean:

Adopting FAI rules might be the final nail for the sport in the US. Club doesn't replace Sports, so you lose participation there. There's no way to combine standards with 15m under FAI rules, so now the standard class is completely dead and gone for good. Guys with old ships racing in the handicapped "combined FAI class" (can't we just call it 15m, pretty please?) will be less inclined to race with 27s and V2s and come to think of it, ASW-20Bs and Cs, Ventus As and Bs and LS-6s don't fit *anywhere* in the FAI rules scheme of things, so those guys are either racing at parity with 27s (aggravating!) or just SOL.

What this means is that your average regional race will now consist of 18m, a much smaller 15m class and a Club Class that might be 2/3 the size of the Sports class is replaces.

You need to get your head out of your 18m cockpit and think about the less well heeled trying to participate in the other classes. You need us. Without us, your races either get a lot more expensive and a lot less interesting socially or people just give up altogether.

It's pretty distressing seeing only 20 guys at a race that used to regularly host twice that number (New Castle). Incidentally, 8 of the 13 gliders racing in 15m were either standards or old 15m ships. I'm really pleased that BRSS was willing to work their tails off to host only 20 of us. Is it reasonable to expect that they'll do it for 12?

I'd like to take the opportunity here to thank the RC for creating the std + 15m combined class, because the racing in that class has been a great deal of fun.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

I'm not a current participant, but I look forward to competing in the future. I find the discussion of native/international rules interesting.

As an analogy, alpine ski racing in the United States separately maintains its own set of equipment rules. This is costly, confusing, and leads to various growing pains when young athletes move to international competition. Much of the membership would prefer the simpler, unified international ruleset, but a small mafia with the free time to join committees in the US continues to reinvent the wheel for their own purposes. It appears common sense is prevailing and the trend over the last few years has been towards normalization.

Some here have discussed the issue of licensing fees. Surely one does not need to pay the international license fee for every competitor in order to photocopy the rulebook. I have participated in several sports where rules and methods are copied by one organization without fees paid to belong and be ranked in the original organization. Running a local ranking system is much simpler than running an entirely separate set of rules.

I don't personally know Sean or Tom Kelley but when Tom replied with a variety of petty personal attacks I was not impressed.

I believe the biggest problem with a separate set of rules is the negative impact on performance at events that matter by the few who excel to that level. The results (or lack thereof) speak for themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Gliding_Championships

Hopefully I'll compete with some of you in the future,
Garrett McEwen

PS: Tom, how many youtube followers do you have? I just checked and the SSA official youtube account has 362 followers. That's approximately half what an average teenage girl has. Maybe lets not harass a guy that actually tries to share Soaring with a broader audience in the US.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 5:30:10 AM UTC+13, Tango Eight wrote:
> Sean:
>
> Adopting FAI rules might be the final nail for the sport in the US. Club doesn't replace Sports, so you lose participation there. There's no way to combine standards with 15m under FAI rules, so now the standard class is completely dead and gone for good. Guys with old ships racing in the handicapped "combined FAI class" (can't we just call it 15m, pretty please?) will be less inclined to race with 27s and V2s and come to think of it, ASW-20Bs and Cs, Ventus As and Bs and LS-6s don't fit *anywhere* in the FAI rules scheme of things, so those guys are either racing at parity with 27s (aggravating!) or just SOL.
>
> What this means is that your average regional race will now consist of 18m, a much smaller 15m class and a Club Class that might be 2/3 the size of the Sports class is replaces.
>
> You need to get your head out of your 18m cockpit and think about the less well heeled trying to participate in the other classes. You need us. Without us, your races either get a lot more expensive and a lot less interesting socially or people just give up altogether.
>
> It's pretty distressing seeing only 20 guys at a race that used to regularly host twice that number (New Castle). Incidentally, 8 of the 13 gliders racing in 15m were either standards or old 15m ships. I'm really pleased that BRSS was willing to work their tails off to host only 20 of us. Is it reasonable to expect that they'll do it for 12?
>
> I'd like to take the opportunity here to thank the RC for creating the std + 15m combined class, because the racing in that class has been a great deal of fun.

I may be mistaken here, but I feel as if you're talking about what classes events are held for, while Sean is talking about questions such as task types and scoring formulas. And they are totally independent things!

Sure, if you want to enter the Worlds then you'll have to choose some current FAI class to enter in.

And learn the FAI contest rules instead of the US contest rules, and how to best makes use of them to your advantage.

One is about what piece of plastic you sit in. The other is about what is inside your head.

Even if you adopt FAI tasking and scoring, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent you from running a contest with whatever class entry rules you want to. Have a 1-26 class if there are a lot of them near you. Have a PW5+AC4+Ka6 class if that's what people have. Or make an event for gliders with a BGA handicap (sorry -- is there a US equivalent?) between 88 (LS1, DG100) and 96 (Cirrus 18.8, Janus A/B, DG300, Speed Astir, DG1000 18, PIK 20, LS4) if you've got a lot of people with gliders like that. Or whatever.

Who stops you? No one.

Running an event with some wacky special class or classes that fits your available entrants is pretty much a zero marginal cost thing to do.

And you can use FAI tasking and scoring for it. Which puts a lower cognitive load on pilots, who only have to learn one set of rules, and removes the need to maintain and debate local tasking and scoring rules.

(and of course IGC handicaps instead of BGA ones if you want .. I just wanted to emphasise that you don't have to go IGC for everything)

Or have I misrepresented Sean?

[[email protected]]

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 12:30:10 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:

> You need to get your head out of your 18m cockpit and think about the less well heeled trying to participate in the other classes. You need us. Without us, your races either get a lot more expensive and a lot less interesting socially or people just give up altogether.
>

Applauding...thank you Evan...well said!

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 10:35:25 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> I'm not a current participant, but I look forward to competing in the future. I find the discussion of native/international rules interesting.
>
> As an analogy, alpine ski racing in the United States separately maintains its own set of equipment rules. This is costly, confusing, and leads to various growing pains when young athletes move to international competition.. Much of the membership would prefer the simpler, unified international ruleset, but a small mafia with the free time to join committees in the US continues to reinvent the wheel for their own purposes. It appears common sense is prevailing and the trend over the last few years has been towards normalization.
>
> Some here have discussed the issue of licensing fees. Surely one does not need to pay the international license fee for every competitor in order to photocopy the rulebook. I have participated in several sports where rules and methods are copied by one organization without fees paid to belong and be ranked in the original organization. Running a local ranking system is much simpler than running an entirely separate set of rules.
>
> I don't personally know Sean or Tom Kelley but when Tom replied with a variety of petty personal attacks I was not impressed.
>
> I believe the biggest problem with a separate set of rules is the negative impact on performance at events that matter by the few who excel to that level. The results (or lack thereof) speak for themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Gliding_Championships
>
> Hopefully I'll compete with some of you in the future,
> Garrett McEwen
>
> PS: Tom, how many youtube followers do you have? I just checked and the SSA official youtube account has 362 followers. That's approximately half what an average teenage girl has. Maybe lets not harass a guy that actually tries to share Soaring with a broader audience in the US.

Trust me, my posts weren't made with any thought of you in mind. But I don't do "You Tube videos", don't belong to any "Cults" or "Coop" attempts. The only "expert" certificate I have deals with qualifying with a handgun during the 6 years I spent in the Vietnam war.
But I do have over 50 years in this sport so I can understand your post as you state as it comes from someone "extremely naive". During this 50+ year time frame our sport has grown to where it is now. I encourage you to briefly look at its past.

Recently, this last summer, we had several World Class pilot's show up in Nephi( where we held 3 Nationals combined) to try to make the event financially successful for the contest organizers. In years pass each National would fill to 65, not anymore. We had 62 total. The World Class pilot's who came had no problems adapting to our rules and one ended up at the top of the score sheet in "Open Class". Others have done the same. We hear no complaints.

The past members of our rules committee, including the SSA BOD, and so many others, not only have freely given their time but are all highly educated, successful professionals in their selected fields. Very capable to lead our sport IMHO.

Maybe a reread of Seans first post might be in order. But my first post tried to give insight to Sean in response to his "feelings". I did do a little "jab" at the end, but he is a champion sailboat racer. All meant in fun. Some may have read it differently. I meant it as no harm, no foul. I apologize if taken differently. Some readers don't hear the "voice" behind the words and apply their own.

But I will stand by my second post as it was made with "sarcastic humor" in mind. Also I won't hide from my posts by changing my SSA address or email address as other's have done.

Evan, T8, makes a valid statement. I thank him for that. That with the past and present SSA BOD along with the present and past members of the rules committee I will always support and give "Thanks" to. They also are NOT members of a "Cult", but "Open" minded individuals who have volunteered their time in many areas of our sport. Myself, along with well over 25 filled logbooks, hundreds of students trained, etc., doesn't even come close to the time they have given to keep our sport alive and trying to grow. They will welcome you at whatever event you choose, as I.

I encourage you to "learn" more, gain knowledge and become educated, also review the many topics freely discussed on RAS. In the end, the wheel will still go around, around and around ending up at the same place it started. That's why I brought up the You Tube "views", as a friendly reminder to Sean, as you have shown, as so little interest is seen. His time might be better spent raising funds/studying, etc. for his chosen endeavors. But it is his choice and my mistake in trying to help.

Best. Tom #711.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 2:18:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Hello US contest pilots.
> The annual competition rules poll and election of rules subcommittee members is now open at
> http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> The poll and election is open to all pilots on the ranking list.
> Please take the time to fill out the poll. provide comments and input and vote for
> your next representative.
> UH
> SSA RC Chair

The problem I see is you could fly under FAI rules and the CD could still just call AAT, just like it is now.
So maybe talk with CD's and try to get more Racing Task, that would be half the battle.
Glennnnnnnnn

[Tango Eight]

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 1:18:07 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 5:30:10 AM UTC+13, Tango Eight wrote:
> > Sean:
> >
> > Adopting FAI rules might be the final nail for the sport in the US. Club doesn't replace Sports, so you lose participation there. There's no way to combine standards with 15m under FAI rules, so now the standard class is completely dead and gone for good. Guys with old ships racing in the handicapped "combined FAI class" (can't we just call it 15m, pretty please?) will be less inclined to race with 27s and V2s and come to think of it, ASW-20Bs and Cs, Ventus As and Bs and LS-6s don't fit *anywhere* in the FAI rules scheme of things, so those guys are either racing at parity with 27s (aggravating!) or just SOL.
> >
> > What this means is that your average regional race will now consist of 18m, a much smaller 15m class and a Club Class that might be 2/3 the size of the Sports class is replaces.
> >
> > You need to get your head out of your 18m cockpit and think about the less well heeled trying to participate in the other classes. You need us. Without us, your races either get a lot more expensive and a lot less interesting socially or people just give up altogether.
> >
> > It's pretty distressing seeing only 20 guys at a race that used to regularly host twice that number (New Castle). Incidentally, 8 of the 13 gliders racing in 15m were either standards or old 15m ships. I'm really pleased that BRSS was willing to work their tails off to host only 20 of us. Is it reasonable to expect that they'll do it for 12?
> >
> > I'd like to take the opportunity here to thank the RC for creating the std + 15m combined class, because the racing in that class has been a great deal of fun.
>
> I may be mistaken here, but I feel as if you're talking about what classes events are held for, while Sean is talking about questions such as task types and scoring formulas. And they are totally independent things!
>
> Sure, if you want to enter the Worlds then you'll have to choose some current FAI class to enter in.
>
> And learn the FAI contest rules instead of the US contest rules, and how to best makes use of them to your advantage.
>
> One is about what piece of plastic you sit in. The other is about what is inside your head.
>
> Even if you adopt FAI tasking and scoring, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent you from running a contest with whatever class entry rules you want to. Have a 1-26 class if there are a lot of them near you. Have a PW5+AC4+Ka6 class if that's what people have. Or make an event for gliders with a BGA handicap (sorry -- is there a US equivalent?) between 88 (LS1, DG100) and 96 (Cirrus 18.8, Janus A/B, DG300, Speed Astir, DG1000 18, PIK 20, LS4) if you've got a lot of people with gliders like that. Or whatever.
>
> Who stops you? No one.
>
> Running an event with some wacky special class or classes that fits your available entrants is pretty much a zero marginal cost thing to do.
>
> And you can use FAI tasking and scoring for it. Which puts a lower cognitive load on pilots, who only have to learn one set of rules, and removes the need to maintain and debate local tasking and scoring rules.
>
> (and of course IGC handicaps instead of BGA ones if you want .. I just wanted to emphasise that you don't have to go IGC for everything)
>
> Or have I misrepresented Sean?

Hi Bruce,

Those are interesting points, thanks.

I don't understand the motivation here myself. The idea that switching to FAI rules saves work for anyone is obviously mistaken. None of this stuff happens by itself, it all takes work. The US RC does it's work very publicly compared to the IGC, so there's this (mistaken) impression that it's a bigger deal. It isn't. Ask our IGC rep about that.

Probably, the motivation has more to do with tasking. I have a couple of things to say about that (directed at this topic, not to Bruce).

There is huge tasking variety available under both rule sets and to the extent that anyone wants to *task* more like a European contest, that is already fairly achievable under US rules (scoring philosophy is different, but the same winners will win with high probability).

My view: AT's suck. You can have it one way, or the other (at the regional level): you can task something honestly challenging for the winners and land out 1/3 of the fleet (or more with one good t-storm), or you can assign something that gets almost everyone around and live with the fact that there's going to be about 15 points separating the top three places. The only places AT's don't suck are a) racing venues with uniformly excellent weather and uniformly excellent pilots, b) nationals venues where the not so excellent pilots are fully aware of what they have signed up for and likewise prepared mentally and otherwise to deal with a contest that is really hard as opposed to really fun and c) in internet bulletin board lala land where armchair tough guys can blow all their hot air in whatever degree of anonymity they choose.

You can design an AAT to keep the fleet closer together by using many turns with small radii rather than a few big open circles. But that has a truly odious downside. You end up with short task legs and you don't really go anywhere. The only thing less like XC soaring would be doing laps around a 50K triangle. That might be "racing", but it isn't anything I care about enough to hitch up the trailer and drive 13 hours to do. So when I get input, it's for longer legs... and to the extent that one needs to accommodate uncertainty in weather or variability in pilot & sailplane performance that means larger circles.

Sean had his giggle with the GP this Summer. I hear it was a good time. Well done. Short tasks over flat land in questionable weather at a venue famous for questionable weather isn't something *I* am going to drive halfway across the country to do, but if it lights someone else's candle, that's fine, I support that, I *applaud* that. But on the flip side, I'm going to get my back up when someone tries to dictate to others that "they need to task more ATs" in places that are famous for difficult terrain with big error bars on weather (the places I *will* drive halfway across the country to fly). That approach (challenging ATs), much used in the pre-GPS past, used to break a lot of gliders and broken gliders are absolutely no fun at all.

non-anonymously yours,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 9:55:48 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 1:18:07 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 5:30:10 AM UTC+13, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > Sean:
> > >
> > > Adopting FAI rules might be the final nail for the sport in the US. Club doesn't replace Sports, so you lose participation there. There's no way to combine standards with 15m under FAI rules, so now the standard class is completely dead and gone for good. Guys with old ships racing in the handicapped "combined FAI class" (can't we just call it 15m, pretty please?) will be less inclined to race with 27s and V2s and come to think of it, ASW-20Bs and Cs, Ventus As and Bs and LS-6s don't fit *anywhere* in the FAI rules scheme of things, so those guys are either racing at parity with 27s (aggravating!) or just SOL.
> > >
> > > What this means is that your average regional race will now consist of 18m, a much smaller 15m class and a Club Class that might be 2/3 the size of the Sports class is replaces.
> > >
> > > You need to get your head out of your 18m cockpit and think about the less well heeled trying to participate in the other classes. You need us. Without us, your races either get a lot more expensive and a lot less interesting socially or people just give up altogether.
> > >
> > > It's pretty distressing seeing only 20 guys at a race that used to regularly host twice that number (New Castle). Incidentally, 8 of the 13 gliders racing in 15m were either standards or old 15m ships. I'm really pleased that BRSS was willing to work their tails off to host only 20 of us. Is it reasonable to expect that they'll do it for 12?
> > >
> > > I'd like to take the opportunity here to thank the RC for creating the std + 15m combined class, because the racing in that class has been a great deal of fun.
> >
> > I may be mistaken here, but I feel as if you're talking about what classes events are held for, while Sean is talking about questions such as task types and scoring formulas. And they are totally independent things!
> >
> > Sure, if you want to enter the Worlds then you'll have to choose some current FAI class to enter in.
> >
> > And learn the FAI contest rules instead of the US contest rules, and how to best makes use of them to your advantage.
> >
> > One is about what piece of plastic you sit in. The other is about what is inside your head.
> >
> > Even if you adopt FAI tasking and scoring, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent you from running a contest with whatever class entry rules you want to. Have a 1-26 class if there are a lot of them near you. Have a PW5+AC4+Ka6 class if that's what people have. Or make an event for gliders with a BGA handicap (sorry -- is there a US equivalent?) between 88 (LS1, DG100) and 96 (Cirrus 18.8, Janus A/B, DG300, Speed Astir, DG1000 18, PIK 20, LS4) if you've got a lot of people with gliders like that. Or whatever.
> >
> > Who stops you? No one.
> >
> > Running an event with some wacky special class or classes that fits your available entrants is pretty much a zero marginal cost thing to do.
> >
> > And you can use FAI tasking and scoring for it. Which puts a lower cognitive load on pilots, who only have to learn one set of rules, and removes the need to maintain and debate local tasking and scoring rules.
> >
> > (and of course IGC handicaps instead of BGA ones if you want .. I just wanted to emphasise that you don't have to go IGC for everything)
> >
> > Or have I misrepresented Sean?
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Those are interesting points, thanks.
>
> I don't understand the motivation here myself. The idea that switching to FAI rules saves work for anyone is obviously mistaken. None of this stuff happens by itself, it all takes work. The US RC does it's work very publicly compared to the IGC, so there's this (mistaken) impression that it's a bigger deal. It isn't. Ask our IGC rep about that.
>
> Probably, the motivation has more to do with tasking. I have a couple of things to say about that (directed at this topic, not to Bruce).
>
> There is huge tasking variety available under both rule sets and to the extent that anyone wants to *task* more like a European contest, that is already fairly achievable under US rules (scoring philosophy is different, but the same winners will win with high probability).
>
> My view: AT's suck. You can have it one way, or the other (at the regional level): you can task something honestly challenging for the winners and land out 1/3 of the fleet (or more with one good t-storm), or you can assign something that gets almost everyone around and live with the fact that there's going to be about 15 points separating the top three places. The only places AT's don't suck are a) racing venues with uniformly excellent weather and uniformly excellent pilots, b) nationals venues where the not so excellent pilots are fully aware of what they have signed up for and likewise prepared mentally and otherwise to deal with a contest that is really hard as opposed to really fun and c) in internet bulletin board lala land where armchair tough guys can blow all their hot air in whatever degree of anonymity they choose.
>
> You can design an AAT to keep the fleet closer together by using many turns with small radii rather than a few big open circles. But that has a truly odious downside. You end up with short task legs and you don't really go anywhere. The only thing less like XC soaring would be doing laps around a 50K triangle. That might be "racing", but it isn't anything I care about enough to hitch up the trailer and drive 13 hours to do. So when I get input, it's for longer legs... and to the extent that one needs to accommodate uncertainty in weather or variability in pilot & sailplane performance that means larger circles.
>
> Sean had his giggle with the GP this Summer. I hear it was a good time. Well done. Short tasks over flat land in questionable weather at a venue famous for questionable weather isn't something *I* am going to drive halfway across the country to do, but if it lights someone else's candle, that's fine, I support that, I *applaud* that. But on the flip side, I'm going to get my back up when someone tries to dictate to others that "they need to task more ATs" in places that are famous for difficult terrain with big error bars on weather (the places I *will* drive halfway across the country to fly). That approach (challenging ATs), much used in the pre-GPS past, used to break a lot of gliders and broken gliders are absolutely no fun at all.
>
> non-anonymously yours,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan,

Let's forget for a moment about tasking philosophy. I think, the main point that Sean brings, and I am interested in, is why we can't have a question in pilots' opinion poll that simply asks if pilots want IGC rules or our current rules. It is not difficult to include such a question in the opinion poll and have a vote. Why argue about it? It is that simple.

Andrzej

[Sean[_2_]]

Bruce,

That sounds right.

I again go back to my fundamental question... What "true measurable value" does maintaining our own unique US rules provide us vs. the cost of being separatists from the international gliding community (in so many ways)?

Or, asked another way, what is the positive value of being part of the established and stable FAI community, short and long term, for ALL of our US (and Canadian) contest (and future contest) pilots? This should be a simple, immediate answer, should it not?

What is the cost to us all (the US contest community at current and those hopefully entering it in the near future) in time/energy/aggravation from this annual US cycle required to maintain our own unique gliding competition rules?

1) read the biased opinion poll
2) respond to it.
3) debate it
4) wait for it to the "scored," (wink, wink)
5) read the always enjoyable "interpretation" of our opinion poll responses (again, wink, wink)?
6) endure and learn significant rule changes each year.

What of all the angst created by of that process of doing it all on our own while isolating ourselves from the rest of the world?

Then, of course, there is the annual requirement to update our scoring software code, troubleshooting it's bugs every spring, etc.

I ask these questions here on RAS beyond the reach and control of certain "SSA leaders" who would prefer to control this narrative entirely. If our leaders were not biased and emotionally neutral on this topic, they would balance this discussion annually with FAI as a baseline or fallback. Does it make sense to continue forward with US rules or is it time to go back to FAI. Here is the value justification... But they never do that. FAI is instead "out of the question." Why?

They apparently have a real score to settle with the FAI. A grudge. It's not my grudge or yours, it's theirs. At the same time, they also have a real love for US rules and the process. They enjoy it. It's actually important stuff to them. They would miss it. They try to tightly control the US rules discussion (and the politics surrounding it such as election nominations). They criticize FAI endlessly yet consider the US rules to be almost divine. IMO they are working hard in the background to leverage FAI at our expense citing the glory of their experimental rules rather than arguing from within the FAI for changes. Does anyone else see this?

IMO, we are being used a little like lab rats at US contests (US contest competitors) and are being held hostage within the US rules. We are an ongoing experiment.

I contend that our US rules provide us little (to negative) value in terms of safety, participation, youth interest, contest enjoyment and international community inclusion and comradeship. I would love to debate some real data on the value these options. How is it that all other nations us FAI rules and are just fine? They are equally safe, have equal or higher participation, more juniors, better social environments, etc.

I think that it is time to strongly consider a move to FAI in the USA. Why not next season?

[Sean[_2_]]

In regards to recent Nephi comments (which are plain wrong IMO), here is a comment from another threaded discussion in which a "top international pilot" (who might have dominated his class in Nephi) made a comment regarding the US switching to FAI. This is an opinion which is shared by almost all top international pilots as I understand it.

"I personally think its a great idea to use the FAI rules, as I have explained and recommended at Nephi.... good luck with the process."

[Sean[_2_]]

Our IGC rep is heavily biased IMO.

[Michael Opitz]

There is huge tasking variety available under both rule sets and to
the ext=
ent that anyone wants to *task* more like a European contest, that
is alrea=
dy fairly achievable under US rules (scoring philosophy is different,
but t=
he same winners will win with high probability).

My view: AT's suck. You can have it one way, or the other (at the
regional=
level): you can task something honestly challenging for the winners
and la=
nd out 1/3 of the fleet (or more with one good t-storm), or you can
assign =
something that gets almost everyone around and live with the fact
that ther=
e's going to be about 15 points separating the top three places.

Evan,

I was asked to run for a slot on the USA rules committee (and lost)
back in the 1990's. I favored going to the FAI scoring format, but
ran up against a lot of resistance from the "middle of the pack"
pilots that wanted to be those 15 points from the leader. The last I
knew, the FAI scoring was not linear, and the daily winner was
normally separated from the pack pretty quickly by the equation.

The problem was that in the USA, one needs those "middle of the
pack" pilots to show up in order to make a one class contest
financially viable. Otherwise, without those guys, you would have
only the maybe 5-10 really competitive pilots show up. (unless the
contest is at a place with tremendous conditions like Minden or
Nephi)

Maybe those "middle of the pack" pilots wanted to hold out the hope
that the leader could fall in a hole (mess up somehow), and they
could then have a chance to win the contest. The further that they
are separated from the lead on a daily basis (FAI scoring rules),
makes this hope sort of fade away. I don't know, but there was a
lot of resistance to this non-linear scoring on good days. Anyway,
they voted to keep what we had...

Another problem is that the SSA membership in the USA has been
in decline, and we have gone from 3 racing classes (STD, 15m &
Open) to 6 racing classes with the inclusion of 18m, Sports & Club
classes. Now they want to add a 20m two seat class? It is
inevitable that contests will have to have multiple classes in order to
make financial sense for the organizers.

To your point of driving 13 hours, I say stop and think a little. For
the pilots wanting a team slot, it means P7 leaving great conditions
out west, and driving 4 DAYS EACH WAY to fly at Elmira in
conditions that are nowhere near as good as if he had stayed at
home. 13 hours of driving is nothing at all if one is serious about
wanting a team slot in the USA. Think 6-8 days on the road for a
nationals in 2 out of 3 years. For the 3rd year where the contest is
somewhat close, then think 6-21 hours to drive, and then that's a
relief.

RO

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

> Evan,
>
> Let's forget for a moment about tasking philosophy. I think, the main point that Sean brings, and I am interested in, is why we can't have a question in pilots' opinion poll that simply asks if pilots want IGC rules or our current rules. It is not difficult to include such a question in the opinion poll and have a vote. Why argue about it? It is that simple.
>
> Andrzej

I'm not opposed to this. But there someone has to publish a lot of background info so that well informed choices can be made. Sean, bless his heart, isn't dong a very good job of that right now (because with him what isn't personal is some dark conspiracy), so maybe *you* can give it a try.

"What is the compelling case to support a switch to FAI contest rules in the US?"

I'm all ears. If the case is truly compelling and my previously stated concerns are in fact non-issues, then I'll even vote for it.

best,
Evan

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 1:06:33 PM UTC-4, Sean wrote:
> Our IGC rep is heavily biased IMO.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:16:44 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> > Evan,
> >
> > Let's forget for a moment about tasking philosophy. I think, the main point that Sean brings, and I am interested in, is why we can't have a question in pilots' opinion poll that simply asks if pilots want IGC rules or our current rules. It is not difficult to include such a question in the opinion poll and have a vote. Why argue about it? It is that simple.
> >
> > Andrzej
>
> I'm not opposed to this. But there someone has to publish a lot of background info so that well informed choices can be made. Sean, bless his heart, isn't dong a very good job of that right now (because with him what isn't personal is some dark conspiracy), so maybe *you* can give it a try.
>
> "What is the compelling case to support a switch to FAI contest rules in the US?"
>
> I'm all ears. If the case is truly compelling and my previously stated concerns are in fact non-issues, then I'll even vote for it.
>
> best,
> Evan

Yes, Evan, I am also in agreement. Would like to see a side by side comparison of the FAI rules to ours including the scoring system used with examples. Questions asking others to supply the answers don't produce reasonable results. Doing a RAS search on "FAI" bring's back several years of discussions. Past members of the RC keep trying to explain to no avail.

Sean, along with those that wish the change to FAI rules, can easily get a email list from the SSA for all the current entrants. Put it all together with full disclosure, showing the differences, financial gains or losses, new/saved costs and who will do all this work, time required, scoring program used, etc., would be welcome as this keeps going on year after year on RAS..

I, for one, would like to see a well thought out plan showing what this change would bring. It should be done by those wishing this change. If it would foster and promote our sport, I also would vote for it.

Our IGC rep, on a side note, has paid ALL his expenses for the IGC meetings he has ever attended. He has freely given his time. He gets a standing ovation at the Seniors for all the time he has given us. Been a crew for Dick Butler, etc. Just a overall great guy. Also, a friendly comment by a "World Class Pilot" in Nephi is much different than a complaint which again has never been documented as said.

We are a small group, and as has been stated, some do travel great distances, change is require, as the internet makes us look larger than we really are. Costs have become prohibited for many. But what we need are well, thought out plans which show that change would be of benefit and then allow the entrants to make their choice.

Sean, in Hobbs, back a year or so ago did tell he feels he's not liked on the forums. Sean's a good guy with different ideas that's all. I don't think anyone feels the way he thinks they do as his ideas are always welcome.

I do wish he does put together a well thought out comparison model package for all of us to see and then give our vote to.

Best. Tom #711.

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 1:15:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Opitz wrote:
> There is huge tasking variety available under both rule sets and to
> the ext=
> ent that anyone wants to *task* more like a European contest, that
> is alrea=
> dy fairly achievable under US rules (scoring philosophy is different,
> but t=
> he same winners will win with high probability).
>
> My view: AT's suck. You can have it one way, or the other (at the
> regional=
> level): you can task something honestly challenging for the winners
> and la=
> nd out 1/3 of the fleet (or more with one good t-storm), or you can
> assign =
> something that gets almost everyone around and live with the fact
> that ther=
> e's going to be about 15 points separating the top three places.
>
> Evan,
>
> I was asked to run for a slot on the USA rules committee (and lost)
> back in the 1990's. I favored going to the FAI scoring format, but
> ran up against a lot of resistance from the "middle of the pack"
> pilots that wanted to be those 15 points from the leader. The last I
> knew, the FAI scoring was not linear, and the daily winner was
> normally separated from the pack pretty quickly by the equation.
>
> The problem was that in the USA, one needs those "middle of the
> pack" pilots to show up in order to make a one class contest
> financially viable. Otherwise, without those guys, you would have
> only the maybe 5-10 really competitive pilots show up. (unless the
> contest is at a place with tremendous conditions like Minden or
> Nephi)
>
> Maybe those "middle of the pack" pilots wanted to hold out the hope
> that the leader could fall in a hole (mess up somehow), and they
> could then have a chance to win the contest. The further that they
> are separated from the lead on a daily basis (FAI scoring rules),
> makes this hope sort of fade away. I don't know, but there was a
> lot of resistance to this non-linear scoring on good days. Anyway,
> they voted to keep what we had...
>
> Another problem is that the SSA membership in the USA has been
> in decline, and we have gone from 3 racing classes (STD, 15m &
> Open) to 6 racing classes with the inclusion of 18m, Sports & Club
> classes. Now they want to add a 20m two seat class? It is
> inevitable that contests will have to have multiple classes in order to
> make financial sense for the organizers.
>
> To your point of driving 13 hours, I say stop and think a little. For
> the pilots wanting a team slot, it means P7 leaving great conditions
> out west, and driving 4 DAYS EACH WAY to fly at Elmira in
> conditions that are nowhere near as good as if he had stayed at
> home. 13 hours of driving is nothing at all if one is serious about
> wanting a team slot in the USA. Think 6-8 days on the road for a
> nationals in 2 out of 3 years. For the 3rd year where the contest is
> somewhat close, then think 6-21 hours to drive, and then that's a
> relief.
>
> RO

Hi Mike,

About to leave for Mt Wash wave camp, will have very limited internet next few days, don't have time to respond to all your good points.

I've tried (3x) national comps, one of which required 70 hours of driving (Hobbs, from NH). I feel the pain, but mostly what I feel is that the resources required are so daunting that only the very independent and well heeled can afford to play in a serious way. It's way beyond my "ability to pay", and not just in dollar terms!

Anyhow, I think an apples/apples comparison of US Nats scored our way and scored per FAI rules will not show a change in top tier rank order, which is really what counts. The non-linearity that puts the leader way ahead works just as well the other way when he steps in a hole. Or at least that's what I recall when I kicked this around last time with others (a few years ago).

I do know one thing about FAI rules contests that I absolutely detest: it's SeeYou's presentation of scores. To get results from three classes at one contest (daily + overall) takes *SIX* web pages and me keeping notes, vs one page for any US contest. They could learn a few tricks from us, too.

Best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

I would like to hear the thoughts of the US Team Members (especially former members) on the pros/cons of (1) adopting FAI Rules; and (2) making Nationals (Club Class, 15m, 18m, Open) and select Regionals (feeder/practice contests if you will) be subject to more stringent and challenging AT tasking.

While somebody was right that SGP in Ionia was not, in terms of geography and topographical features, the least bit potentially hazardous, the contest nonetheless separated the men from the boys. Both the daily scoring (point) system for top 10 finishers each day and the AT type tasking led to a leader-board that achieved this (separated the men from the boys). If the same had been done at Mifflin or some other more technical location I believe it would have achieved the same results. Fwiw, the "middle of the pack" never complained, but rather I think appreciated the contest format for what it was as each understood where they stood at the end of the day (and every day was a new race).

Chris Schrader

[[email protected]]

To Andrez above, what a great point!

Why can't a simple question be included???

And these leaders wonder why soaring is a DIEING SPORT!!

Next year it will come down to one rule...

.....Rule #1 - NOBODY HAS ANY FUN.


In a few years, your gliders will be a much lower value. Why? If racing dwindles down to nothing, why does anyone want a racing glider??????

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:47:15 AM UTC+2, wrote:
> To Andrez above, what a great point!
>
> Why can't a simple question be included???
>
> And these leaders wonder why soaring is a DIEING SPORT!!
>
> Next year it will come down to one rule...
>
> ....Rule #1 - NOBODY HAS ANY FUN.
>
>
> In a few years, your gliders will be a much lower value. Why? If racing dwindles down to nothing, why does anyone want a racing glider??????

Lets see the side by side comparison and lets have a vote!
Mark

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 10:47:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> To Andrez above, what a great point!
>
> Why can't a simple question be included???
>
> And these leaders wonder why soaring is a DIEING SPORT!!
>
> Next year it will come down to one rule...
>
> ....Rule #1 - NOBODY HAS ANY FUN.
>
>
> In a few years, your gliders will be a much lower value. Why? If racing dwindles down to nothing, why does anyone want a racing glider??????

Wilbur,
Do I know you? Have you been racing at all? Why do you hide behind that name? Is your real name Sean? I for one still enjoy glider races, we do them at our club every weekend. You should have learned from the present election mud fight that negativity gets you exactly nowhere.
Herb Kilian, J7

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Somehow I think the dwindling number of pilots in our sport is not directly related to the US pilot poll and questionnaire . I remember when a brand new glider was about $30,000 now it is $200,000, might be casual?



On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> To Andrez above, what a great point!
>
> Why can't a simple question be included???
>
> And these leaders wonder why soaring is a DIEING SPORT!!
>
> Next year it will come down to one rule...
>
> ....Rule #1 - NOBODY HAS ANY FUN.
>
>
> In a few years, your gliders will be a much lower value. Why? If racing dwindles down to nothing, why does anyone want a racing glider??????

[Dan Marotta]

Because they're a lot of fun to fly.

On 10/10/2016 9:47 PM, wrote:
> In a few years, your gliders will be a much lower value. Why? If racing dwindles down to nothing, why does anyone want a racing glider??????

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

And a gallon of gas was $0.30 back then, too. So do we all stop driving?

On 10/11/2016 8:27 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Somehow I think the dwindling number of pilots in our sport is not directly related to the US pilot poll and questionnaire . I remember when a brand new glider was about $30,000 now it is $200,000, might be casual?
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> To Andrez above, what a great point!
>>
>> Why can't a simple question be included???
>>
>> And these leaders wonder why soaring is a DIEING SPORT!!
>>
>> Next year it will come down to one rule...
>>
>> ....Rule #1 - NOBODY HAS ANY FUN.
>>
>>
>> In a few years, your gliders will be a much lower value. Why? If racing dwindles down to nothing, why does anyone want a racing glider??????

--
Dan, 5J

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 16:30 07 October 2016, Tango Eight wrote:
>Sean:
>
>Adopting FAI rules might be the final nail for the sport in the US. Club
>d=
>oesn't replace Sports, so you lose participation there. There's no way to
>c=
>ombine standards with 15m under FAI rules, so now the standard class is
>com=
>pletely dead and gone for good. Guys with old ships racing in the
>handicap=
>ped "combined FAI class" (can't we just call it 15m, pretty please?) will
>b=
>e less inclined to race with 27s and V2s and come to think of it,
ASW-20Bs
>=
>and Cs, Ventus As and Bs and LS-6s don't fit *anywhere* in the FAI rules
>sc=
>heme of things, so those guys are either racing at parity with 27s
>(aggrava=
>ting!) or just SOL.
>
>What this means is that your average regional race will now consist of
>18m,=
> a much smaller 15m class and a Club Class that might be 2/3 the size of
>th=
>e Sports class is replaces.
>
>You need to get your head out of your 18m cockpit and think about the
less
>=
>well heeled trying to participate in the other classes. You need us.
>With=
>out us, your races either get a lot more expensive and a lot less
>interesti=
>ng socially or people just give up altogether.
>
>It's pretty distressing seeing only 20 guys at a race that used to
>regularl=
>y host twice that number (New Castle). Incidentally, 8 of the 13 gliders
>r=
>acing in 15m were either standards or old 15m ships. I'm really pleased
>th=
>at BRSS was willing to work their tails off to host only 20 of us. Is it
>r=
>easonable to expect that they'll do it for 12?
>
>I'd like to take the opportunity here to thank the RC for creating the
std
>=
>+ 15m combined class, because the racing in that class has been a great
>dea=
>l of fun. =20
>
>best,
>Evan Ludeman / T8
>
Evan, this is why we created Handicapped Distance Task. This enables
gliders with a wide range of handicaps to fly in the same class without
being disadvantaged. Jim

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Yeah, gas was actually about a dollar plus (say $1.20) back then (mid-eighties). As a student of a good debate, I hardly think comparing the capital price paid for a toy, to a resource that must be purchased weekly or more often to be mobile in our daily lives is germane. Yes the cost of everything has gone up. But when a non-nessessaity reaches a certain price point the market saturation changes.


On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:21:11 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> And a gallon of gas was $0.30 back then, too. So do we all stop driving?
>

[Dan Marotta]

Valid points, but income has gone up to match prices for the most part.
When I left the USAF in 1979 as a Captain on flight status, my pay was
roughly $25K. I spoke with an AF captain recently and she told me her
pay is about $85K. Neither of us could afford a new glider at our then
and now incomes.

....And I recall paying a low of $0.199/gallon during a gas war in the
60s. Many things have gone up and down(!) since the good old days. The
price of gas was just an easy one to remember. I recall a co-worker in
1968 paid $12K for a HOUSE... My Stemme cost a lot less than most
houses I'd live in today.

Fun to reminisce,
Dan

On 10/11/2016 11:05 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Yeah, gas was actually about a dollar plus (say $1.20) back then (mid-eighties). As a student of a good debate, I hardly think comparing the capital price paid for a toy, to a resource that must be purchased weekly or more often to be mobile in our daily lives is germane. Yes the cost of everything has gone up. But when a non-nessessaity reaches a certain price point the market saturation changes.
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:21:11 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> And a gallon of gas was $0.30 back then, too. So do we all stop driving?
>>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 1:17:27 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Valid points, but income has gone up to match prices for the most part.
> When I left the USAF in 1979 as a Captain on flight status, my pay was
> roughly $25K. I spoke with an AF captain recently and she told me her
> pay is about $85K. Neither of us could afford a new glider at our then
> and now incomes.
>
> ...And I recall paying a low of $0.199/gallon during a gas war in the
> 60s. Many things have gone up and down(!) since the good old days. The
> price of gas was just an easy one to remember. I recall a co-worker in
> 1968 paid $12K for a HOUSE... My Stemme cost a lot less than most
> houses I'd live in today.
>
> Fun to reminisce,
> Dan
>
> On 10/11/2016 11:05 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Yeah, gas was actually about a dollar plus (say $1.20) back then (mid-eighties). As a student of a good debate, I hardly think comparing the capital price paid for a toy, to a resource that must be purchased weekly or more often to be mobile in our daily lives is germane. Yes the cost of everything has gone up. But when a non-nessessaity reaches a certain price point the market saturation changes.
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:21:11 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> And a gallon of gas was $0.30 back then, too. So do we all stop driving?
> >>
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

When I bought my first glass ship in 1976 it cost a year's pay for a young engineer.
My most recent glider- not quite new, cost 1-1/2 year's pay.
The real difference in terms of gliders that can go to the event and compete is that we, in the US, have Club and Sports where a $20k glider, or maybe less, has the possibility of being competitive.
The things pilots report as the biggest barriers are time and money. Time being the commitment of a week or more of very dear vacation and the cost for travel and living expenses to attend.
FWIW
UH

[Guy Byars[_5_]]

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 9:59:01 AM UTC-4, Sean wrote:
>
> Beyond that simple value is, of course, the removal of the US rules scoring software development burden (and ease of use issue). Guy has been a champion of volunteerism. An amazing, giving man. But eventually we need to stop burdening him with this endless project, especially if all that hard work is not providing any measurable return on his investment.

Thanks, but I think I am the best judge of whether I am being burdened or not. I am now working on Winscore for 2017 which I plan will be a major update primarily in improving flight log evaluation and scoring automation.

If anyone has any Winscore "Pet Peeves", now is the time to contact me with them so I can add them to the list.

[[email protected]]

UH speaks the truth - all the other stuff that came after the original post is insignificant to new/upcoming/potential possible contest pilots.

Our current business model demands that pilots wishing to get really good - need to be very young (where time is not the issue) or older/retired/self employed with a very understanding spouse (where both money and time become less an issue). (wealthy also doesn't hurt)

The dwindling numbers problem exists in most established sports these days. There is hope - Bruno in UT seems to be doing OK - OLC has defiantly got XC flying moving - and the Sr contest is always hard to get into. (and there are lots more good spots.)

I bet none of the 3 would say that the FAI vs US rules are all that much of a hurdle.

maybe a question like "What keeps you from doing 6 contest a year?" or "how many OLC flights did you post last year?" - "how many miles did you fly last year?" "What do you need to fly more?" would be interesting. I am sure this is outside the current need of this poll - it is fine as is.

If you want the US to be a force in Soaring you need allot of people flying allot of miles - how? is a really hard thing to figure out. Especially in a country the is enormous with pilots spread out.

We have great people in a beautiful sport - so ..... there is always hope - but hope does work better with some planning & new ideas :)

WH

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:20:57 PM UTC-4, Guy Byars wrote:
>
> Thanks, but I think I am the best judge of whether I am being burdened or not. I am now working on Winscore for 2017 which I plan will be a major update primarily in improving flight log evaluation and scoring automation.
>
> If anyone has any Winscore "Pet Peeves", now is the time to contact me with them so I can add them to the list.

Thank you Guy. I appreciate your commitment to improve Winscore and the effort you volunteer.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Winscore is a great program. And Guy is very responsive to calls for help from a contest.

My main pet peeves/requests are 1) automatically find the best scoring start 2) automatically handle finishes below MSH 3) automatically find best scoring MAT turnpoints.

A fourth -- harder -- is to find a better export system so pilots can check their scores and diagnose problems. (If the scorer manually makes a wrong edit log, there is no way on earth for you to know. If the scorer manually edits someone else's log, or assigns a wrong penalty, there is no way for you to know that either.) The only way I know to do that now is to ask for the full export of the contest.

Almost all "problems with winscore" are really problems that the scorer doesn't know the rules. That's not a complaint about scorers -- most pilots don't know the rules needed to score a contest either. Scoring takes a deep knowledge of lots of details of the rules. Simpler rules are a better answer..

John Cochrane

[Sean[_2_]]

My points exactly above...

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 7:16:44 PM UTC+2, Tango Eight wrote:

> I'm not opposed to this. But there someone has to publish a lot of background info so that well informed choices can be made. Sean, bless his heart, isn't dong a very good job of that right now (because with him what isn't personal is some dark conspiracy), so maybe *you* can give it a try.
>

That is an important point. If we are going to ask people to voice an opinion on something with all kinds complexities and non-obvious implications, we will need to adequately specify the question(s) or the answers will be the proverbial "garbage in - garbage out". That's not a trivial task. The RC agonizes over how to ask questions for issues that are on people's minds in a way that avoids uninformed feedback as much as possible. Sometimes we succeed at it.

Having just gone through the task of figuring out how to poll on a far, far simpler set of questions on US rules complexity this year and having tried, personally, to start a side-by-side "FAI to US" rules comparison about a year ago I have come to the conclusion that just asking a hypothetical question (at minimum for anyone who hasn't flown both FAI and US rules) "Adopt FAI rules in the US - Y/N?" in a poll would do more harm than good. It would be used as a bludgeon by the proponents of the response with more votes and attacked as a "clearly biased" or "inadequate" question by proponents of the response with fewer votes, so hip-shooting a poll question is, IMHO, a terrible idea. It'll take some further work to figure out what question(s) might be useful and constructive - starting with a clear description of the "proposal" and at least some factual analysis of the most important differences and their implications - like this year's "rules complexity" questions, with considerably more explanation of issues and implications. Then we might get a somewhat more informed read.

Or we can just have a food fight about it.

I fully expect this topic to come up at the November RC meeting.

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 6:43:17 AM UTC-7, wrote:

> Wilbur,
> Do I know you? Have you been racing at all? Why do you hide behind that name? Is your real name Sean? I for one still enjoy glider races, we do them at our club every weekend. You should have learned from the present election mud fight that negativity gets you exactly nowhere.
> Herb Kilian, J7

is an email address of John Miller, who, among other duties, serves as a PR agent for a very excellent glider racer...many people say he is probably the best racer in the history of soaring, ever, believe me.

You can read more about Wilbur/John here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

;-)

9B

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

This is huge Andy, thanks for the information.

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 12:29:26 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> You can read more about Wilbur/John here:
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
>
> ;-)
>
> 9B

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 2:46:23 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> This is huge Andy, thanks for the information.
>
No, Jonathan. That would be "Yuuge".

:-)

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 6:51:19 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>
> Interesting that the question about FLARM is inherently biased against. This is a textbook case of asking a question while begging a specific response. The question is something like "Did focusing your attention on FLARM cause a loss of situational awareness..." I consider it far more likely that focusing my attention on FLARM increased my situational awareness and said so in the comments.
>
> A more appropriate wording would be, "Considering the information provided by, and the attention required by the FLARM display, how did use of FLARM affect your overall situational awareness?" This is much closer to a neutral question. But we know where the hearts of the writers lie.....


You should have seen the first draft... :-)

I agree your wording is more neutral. The comment box was provided specifically for the type of elaboration you make here. Feel free to fill it up. It will get read and summarized.

We already know that Flarm map-type displays help overall situational awareness a lot, so on average we are better off for having them. We don't really need to poll on that. What this question is mostly about is any potential secondary effects, including specific examples of how they come about. It wasn't clear in the drafting process that totally neutral wording would get anything other than answers about the primary as opposed to secondary effects. With more effort we might have come up with a less provocative phrasing that still fits the objective - feedback noted.

Since the introduction of flight computers - heck, variometers too, people have worried about "head in the cockpit" disease. In this case your head in the cockpit looking as something that sees better than you do ought to be a good thing most of the time. Most of the time isn't necessarily all of the time so we're asking about what probably would be very rare situations, but worth getting some data about.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 5:51:20 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 6:51:19 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> >
> > Interesting that the question about FLARM is inherently biased against. This is a textbook case of asking a question while begging a specific response. The question is something like "Did focusing your attention on FLARM cause a loss of situational awareness..." I consider it far more likely that focusing my attention on FLARM increased my situational awareness and said so in the comments.
> >
> > A more appropriate wording would be, "Considering the information provided by, and the attention required by the FLARM display, how did use of FLARM affect your overall situational awareness?" This is much closer to a neutral question. But we know where the hearts of the writers lie.....
>
>
> You should have seen the first draft... :-)
>
> I agree your wording is more neutral. The comment box was provided specifically for the type of elaboration you make here. Feel free to fill it up. It will get read and summarized.
>
> We already know that Flarm map-type displays help overall situational awareness a lot, so on average we are better off for having them. We don't really need to poll on that. What this question is mostly about is any potential secondary effects, including specific examples of how they come about. It wasn't clear in the drafting process that totally neutral wording would get anything other than answers about the primary as opposed to secondary effects. With more effort we might have come up with a less provocative phrasing that still fits the objective - feedback noted.
>
> Since the introduction of flight computers - heck, variometers too, people have worried about "head in the cockpit" disease. In this case your head in the cockpit looking as something that sees better than you do ought to be a good thing most of the time. Most of the time isn't necessarily all of the time so we're asking about what probably would be very rare situations, but worth getting some data about.
>
> 9B

Actually the first draft didn't have either of the 2 narrative questions.
Both questions were included to permit commentary on the favorable aspects of FLARM use and the possible unfavorable aspect.
Jfitch presumably has the opinion that we should only look at the favorable.. Our objective was to generate useful balanced feedback as opposed to just "Yes sir, yes sir, 3 bags full".
Hopefully pilots will give us their views.
UH

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

I suggested to RC that the preamble to "US VS FAI rules" should include a quiz to see if pilots opining actually had any idea what was in said rules. They wisely refused the idea, but its outcome is interesting to speculate about.

John Cochrane BB

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 2:29:26 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 6:43:17 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > Wilbur,
> > Do I know you? Have you been racing at all? Why do you hide behind that name? Is your real name Sean? I for one still enjoy glider races, we do them at our club every weekend. You should have learned from the present election mud fight that negativity gets you exactly nowhere.
> > Herb Kilian, J7
>
> is an email address of John Miller, who, among other duties, serves as a PR agent for a very excellent glider racer...many people say he is probably the best racer in the history of soaring, ever, believe me.
>
> You can read more about Wilbur/John here:
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
>
> ;-)
>
> 9B

You nailed it, Andy, thanks for good laugh. To Wilbur, keep up the good work of promoting your causes - love what you did 114 years ago for aviation with your bro!

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 5:51:20 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 6:51:19 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting that the question about FLARM is inherently biased against. This is a textbook case of asking a question while begging a specific response. The question is something like "Did focusing your attention on FLARM cause a loss of situational awareness..." I consider it far more likely that focusing my attention on FLARM increased my situational awareness and said so in the comments.
> > >
> > > A more appropriate wording would be, "Considering the information provided by, and the attention required by the FLARM display, how did use of FLARM affect your overall situational awareness?" This is much closer to a neutral question. But we know where the hearts of the writers lie.....
> >
> >
> > You should have seen the first draft... :-)
> >
> > I agree your wording is more neutral. The comment box was provided specifically for the type of elaboration you make here. Feel free to fill it up.. It will get read and summarized.
> >
> > We already know that Flarm map-type displays help overall situational awareness a lot, so on average we are better off for having them. We don't really need to poll on that. What this question is mostly about is any potential secondary effects, including specific examples of how they come about. It wasn't clear in the drafting process that totally neutral wording would get anything other than answers about the primary as opposed to secondary effects. With more effort we might have come up with a less provocative phrasing that still fits the objective - feedback noted.
> >
> > Since the introduction of flight computers - heck, variometers too, people have worried about "head in the cockpit" disease. In this case your head in the cockpit looking as something that sees better than you do ought to be a good thing most of the time. Most of the time isn't necessarily all of the time so we're asking about what probably would be very rare situations, but worth getting some data about.
> >
> > 9B
>
> Actually the first draft didn't have either of the 2 narrative questions.
> Both questions were included to permit commentary on the favorable aspects of FLARM use and the possible unfavorable aspect.
> Jfitch presumably has the opinion that we should only look at the favorable. Our objective was to generate useful balanced feedback as opposed to just "Yes sir, yes sir, 3 bags full".
> Hopefully pilots will give us their views.
> UH

I do not think you should just look at the unfavorable, which is the only information solicited by the question. Against a background of dislike for Flarm by a majority of the RC as documented ad nauseum in other threads, this is how I, and others I have spoken to, took it. Do you have the same curiosity about the focus of attention on moving map displays, multicolor flashy varios, and thermalling assistants?

[[email protected]]

Hear ye, hear ye, thank you Sir Herbert for those kind words my brethren.

Four score and 114 years ago, my brother and I designed this sport to attract many. We, as Americans wanted nothing more than to see a dominance in our sport at the world level. We hoped others like DB would add to our thoughts in a Concordian kind of way to one day win one for the homeland. But unfortunately, we keep getting our butts handed to us. Yet, too many pompous A-holes want to politicize the sport and F it up for the rest of us by trying to go the opposite way and confuse the best of the best by practicing a different racing game here in America.

In My Humble Opinion, as the founder of flight...

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 7:12:57 AM UTC+13, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> The biggest challenge for youth in North America is access to gliders
> that can be flown XC let alone taken away to a contest (club policy not
> performance issue).
>
> The biggest challenge for "full time" employed people is the extremely
> limited vacation time in North America.

What would you say is typical in the USA and Canada these days?

The two countries I know about (legal minimums):

New Zealand (where I'm from): 20 days paid vacation, plus 11 days paid holidays.

Russia (where I'm working now): 20 days[1] paid vacation, plus 12 days paid holidays, plus 5 day[2] New Year holiday.

[1] described as 28 days, but if you are forced to take entire weeks off then those will include Saturdays and Sundays in the 28 days. My employer forces one planned vacation of at least 14 consecutive calendar days, which means two weekends of "paid vacation" are lost, but the other 14 days can be fitted around (not on) weekends and public holidays as desired. So, effectively: 24

[2] Jan 7 is Christmas, and is always observed on the 7th, whether weekend or weekday. In addition, Jan 1-5 are holidays, but if some of those days fall on a weekend then they are moved to the 6th or 8th (only).

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

US Aircraft industry typically starts at 10 days vacation per year that you can decide what you do with, plus a couple of three day weekends during the flying season. Also typically a 4 day weekend in November, and often, the week off between Christmas and New Year's day. After 5 years with a company, you will likely get 15 vacation days a year, and after 10 years, you will likely get 20 vacation days a year. When I was "coming up the ranks", it was 15 days after 10 years with a company, and 20 days after 20 years.

And this is possibly a bit above what is "normal" for the US. So, no. We don't get much paid time off from our work.

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

Dear Luke,

Back in my day, I busted my A$$ to get the Wright Flyer to have a 3/1 L/D. Regardless of who was first, in my time, I was WINNING.

While soaring has become less popular, year after year, vacation weeks have not changed much. All I allowed at the Wright Factory was 2 weeks off. That was a century ago.

Vacation remains unchanged, soaring participation HAS changed. Boom! Mic Drop!

Thank you for your thought, but soaring was once much more popular. Orville just rolled over in his grave when he heard that about all this mess.

Strong thermals, cloudstreets, and tailwinds,

Wilbur

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 8:58:56 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>
> I do not think you should just look at the unfavorable, which is the only information solicited by the question.

I understand your point, but the purpose of the question was not to collect positive/negative "votes" about Flarm distraction, it was to understand what sort of distraction "events" might exist, if any. The comment box is the primary source of information, the Yes/No button merely sets this up, but it cannot be used as a statistical tool to make judgements about frequency of occurrence. We are collecting anecdotes to understand what, if any, meaningful scenarios might be occurring - nothing more. You can't make statistical inferences from anecdotes and the comment box(es) are the main source of data.

On reflection, we could have structured the question without the Yes/No selection entirely. It's main purpose is to tee up the comment box.

>Against a background of dislike for Flarm by a majority of the RC as documented ad nauseum in other threads, this is how I, and others I have spoken to, took it. Do you have the same curiosity about the focus of attention on moving map displays, multicolor flashy varios, and thermalling assistants?

There's a diversity of views on the RC and issues are discussed vigorously and openly. Distraction is a generic issue so, yes, those devices (especially fiddling with computers which have become more complex) are of concern. It's just that Flarm is the new source of information that *might* attract additional attention. I wouldn't read too much into the question focusing just on the new thing.

9B

[[email protected]]

Luke is right when he says the biggest challenge for youth in North America is the limited access they have to gliders that can be flown XC or taken to a contest. Solving this problem should be a top priority at the club level - make a club class ship available to people (especially youth) to fly XC or at contests and make sure it has a good working trailer. Sandhill Soaring Club is working to solve that issue this winter (consolidating a portion of its fleet to acquire a quality club class ship) and require rigging practice and dual XC instruction as part of its student pilot training syllabus, regardless of whether the FAA requires such practical training or not. In other words, if you don't expose the student pilot to XC and get their feet wet they're a whole lot less likely to have the confidence to cut the apron strings themselves after their PPG checkride. I also hope to get some of these youngsters (in their 20-30's) to go ride (fly) backseat with KS (or anyone) with a Duo. Get'em hook'd!

As for the cost associated with having a Club Class ship available for use by Juniors and other young pilots, the cost for a club to acquire a G-102, Std. Jantar, or Std. Cirrus is under $20k. This is quite reasonable when you think about it. It makes no sense to prohibit club members from flying these ships at a regionals. I'm told the Canadian Nationals leader-board was largely made up of Juniors. Is this right? How do you guys do it at SOSA and elsewhere?

Chris Schrader
Treasurer @ Sandhill Soaring Club, Gregory, MI, SSA Region 6

[Luke Szczepaniak]

Bruce. In Canada the typical employee has 10 vacation days. This "may" go up to 15 after 5 years and 20 days after 10 years of employment with the same company. My understanding is that this is simillar if not worse in the US.

Luke

[Luke Szczepaniak]

Yes, the 2016 Canadian Club Class Nationals were dominated by younger pilots - it was fantastic to see!

At SOSA we have an extremely XC friendly club culture. We have top level pilots (XG,F1,MS,JS,A1 to mention a few) who act as mentors. We are also lucky to have a good single seat fleet; 3 SZD Juniors for solo and early XC as well as 2 LS4 gliders for advanced XC. The successive boards have been generous in allowing the use of at least one junior and one ls4 (typically more) at local and remote contests. Our DG505 (for sale http://wingsandwheels.com/class/classified.php?id=1792 sorry.. couldn't resist) will usually participate with a senior pilot taking budding XC pilots in the front cockpit. Having said that there is still heavy dwmand on the club fleet. When some funds became available we ended up buying a Jantar Std.2 specifically for the junior pilots - this is not a club owned ship. Some private owners also allow juniors to fly their gliders under various arrangements. Other clubs around our area seem to be working at promoting XC as well which is encouraging.

Luke

[Sean[_2_]]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 2:29:40 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 7:16:44 PM UTC+2, Tango Eight wrote:
>
> > I'm not opposed to this. But there someone has to publish a lot of background info so that well informed choices can be made. Sean, bless his heart, isn't dong a very good job of that right now (because with him what isn't personal is some dark conspiracy), so maybe *you* can give it a try.
> >
>
> That is an important point. If we are going to ask people to voice an opinion on something with all kinds complexities and non-obvious implications, we will need to adequately specify the question(s) or the answers will be the proverbial "garbage in - garbage out". That's not a trivial task. The RC agonizes over how to ask questions for issues that are on people's minds in a way that avoids uninformed feedback as much as possible. Sometimes we succeed at it.
>
> Having just gone through the task of figuring out how to poll on a far, far simpler set of questions on US rules complexity this year and having tried, personally, to start a side-by-side "FAI to US" rules comparison about a year ago I have come to the conclusion that just asking a hypothetical question (at minimum for anyone who hasn't flown both FAI and US rules) "Adopt FAI rules in the US - Y/N?" in a poll would do more harm than good. It would be used as a bludgeon by the proponents of the response with more votes and attacked as a "clearly biased" or "inadequate" question by proponents of the response with fewer votes, so hip-shooting a poll question is, IMHO, a terrible idea. It'll take some further work to figure out what question(s) might be useful and constructive - starting with a clear description of the "proposal" and at least some factual analysis of the most important differences and their implications - like this year's "rules complexity" questions, with considerably more explanation of issues and implications. Then we might get a somewhat more informed read.
>
> Or we can just have a food fight about it.
>
> I fully expect this topic to come up at the November RC meeting.
>
> 9B

============================================

(...the following has been pecked out quickly on my cell, as usual. My apology for any spelling errors...)

Wow. I see the RAS crazies are out again, foaming at the mouth, as usual. Amusing as always, but a distraction from the very simple questions that I asked and nobody is answering. Especially the US RC and the alumni.

Again...

QUESTION 1a)
WHAT MEASURED VALUE JUSTIFIES THE CONTINUED MAINTAINCE OF OUR (UNIQUE, ISOLATIONIST) US SOARING COMPETITION RULES?

There should be tons, because the US rules are "so great" and the FAI rules are "evil," right?

List them here for me ...

QUESTION 1b)
WHAT MEASURED VALUE DOES OUR RUNNING US CONTESTS UNDER THE US SOARING COMPETITION RULES PROVIDE THE USA AS A SOARING COUNTRY?

Relevant measures of value might be:
- Increased growth to the sport of competition soaring measured in the USA as compared to other countries who dare to use those "evil" FAI rules?
- High pilot satisfaction measured with US contests and stable, growing or planned higher participation in the future.
- More US contest participation measured vs. those other countries who use those "evil" FAI rules.
- contests that are considerably more enjoyable and easier to run when measured against FAI.
- More satisfying and comprehensive tasks measured by pilots who have flown both FAI and US rules.
- Easier to use scoring software vs FAI....?
- More stable rules? Not having to endure constant changes and constant arguments each year about (for example) ridiculous anti-technology policy.
- Having people who can easily score US rules with a brief tutorial? If we cannot do this, it's a broken sport and needs to be fixed in a hurry.
- Increased contest pilot skills when measured against pilots who fly FAI contest rules?
- Improved International competition (WGC) results? If, per the line of crap fed to us by"....," US rules and tasking philosophy (cough, cough) is so great, and we fly more, higher quality, weather guessing tasks, etc, in the USA as a result, shouldn't are US pilots be killing it at the WGC vs. FAI pilots who are limited to only TAT and AT? pause........ Exactly.
- More excitement and passion about flying contests and competing in contests? Especially from youth.
- Lots of Jr. pilots flocking into the sport, our contests, and our clubs wanting to compete in contests with our cool, superior rules?

QUESTION 2) WHAT IS THE MEASURED COST TO THE US SOARING COMMUNITY FOR CHOOSING TO MAINTAIN OUR OWN (UNIQUE, ISOLATIONIST) US SOARING COMPETITION RULES AND NOT BE PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION COMMUNITY?

Relevant costs:
- The cost of having to focus the time and energy of 4 RC committee members, an SSA representative to focus on this topic each year vs. perhaps other SSA volunteer functions of greater value.
- The cost maintaining Winscore
- The cost of the constant arguments over our own rules which have proven to be highly unstable and change continuously.
- US pilots having to settle for our own isolated US pilot ranking list which nobody else on earth could really give two craps about. Vs. the FAI ranking list which includes pilots from all countries (community, rivalry, belonging...) although US contests are rarely added to the list so the rankings are not relevant. http://igcrankings.fai.org
- I could go on and on and on....
- Etc, etc.

QUESTION 3) WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN MEASURED COST/VALUE BETWEEN CONTINUING TO MAINTAIN THE (UNIQUE/ISOLATIONIST) US RULES ANNUALLY AND SIMPLY USING THE FAI RULES WHICH ARE FULLY SUPPORTED, READY TO GO AND HAPPILY, SAFELY AND SUCCESSFULLY USED BY LITERALLY ALL (<-- YES, ALL!) OTHER SOARING NATIONS?

The USA could change to FAI in 30 seconds flat. This is not delicate. This is a religion for you folks. I could run an FAI contest easily, right now, starting tomorrow in Ionia and so could anyone else. Give me a break! This is not complicated. It's a matter of religion vs. economy of scale and being part of the international community.

[[email protected]]

Sean your boldness is impressive.

But the truth is hardly anybody wants to stand up to the old crusty political figures in Soaring. That's why many won't publicly agree with you, they'd rather use an alias or remain silent.

The silent majority HAS voted in these polls, with their actions as they have one by one quit the sport.

Here is the reality. The legacy that the SSA leadership will leave behind is years of poor attendance with a steady demise. They can stand up at every convention and talk about how they will do this or that, but the truth is, they are failing. It is CRYSTAL clear, that the leadership is perfectly OK with the slow and steady demise in soaring. Actions speak louder than words.

This is the legacy they leave behind. They will blame it on all kinds of excuses, excuses and more excuses. Then they will point on one very small example has improved, but not talk about the entire sport dwindling.

Then the demise of the sport and the poor performance in the world championships is their legacy. They will be remembered by all of us for what they did not accomplish.

[Dan Marotta]

On 10/13/2016 5:08 PM, wrote:
> Sean your boldness is impressive. *** In your own mind, but your creativity is top notch! ***
>
> But the truth is hardly anybody wants to stand up to the old crusty political figures in Soaring. That's why many won't publicly agree with you, they'd rather use an alias or remain silent. *** Unlike you, Wilbur, who always uses your real name! ***
>
> The silent majority HAS voted in these polls, with their actions as they have one by one quit the sport. *** Or maybe the new folks are too tied up with their electronics or put off by the safety nazis. ***
>
> Here is the reality. The legacy that the SSA leadership will leave behind is years of poor attendance with a steady demise. They can stand up at every convention and talk about how they will do this or that, but the truth is, they are failing. It is CRYSTAL clear, that the leadership is perfectly OK with the slow and steady demise in soaring. Actions speak louder than words.
>
> This is the legacy they leave behind. They will blame it on all kinds of excuses, excuses and more excuses. Then they will point on one very small example has improved, but not talk about the entire sport dwindling.
>
> Then the demise of the sport and the poor performance in the world championships is their legacy. They will be remembered by all of us for what they did not accomplish.

*** I have the answer - Hillary for contest committee chairman! She'll
run the contest committee like she did the State Department! ***

Now I think I'll go back to drinking. My name is below. No nom de guerre.

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

These "old crusty political figures" volunteer their time and energy. Many write articles to share their knowledge with the flock. I think it is bit too harsh to call the RC anything other than guys volunteering their time for a thankless job.


On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 4:08:34 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>...
> But the truth is hardly anybody wants to stand up to the old crusty political figures in Soaring. That's why many won't publicly agree with you, they'd rather use an alias or remain silent.
>

[Bruce Hoult]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 8:54:51 AM UTC+13, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> These "old crusty political figures" volunteer their time and energy. Many write articles to share their knowledge with the flock. I think it is bit too harsh to call the RC anything other than guys volunteering their time for a thankless job.

If they didn't have to run and maintain a redundant set of rules then maybe they could volunteer their time for another better-thanked job?

Or crack open a cold one, of course.

[Sean[_2_]]

Its been almost a week.

> Again...
> WHAT MEASURED VALUE JUSTIFIES THE CONTINUED MAINTAINCE OF OUR (UNIQUE, ISOLATIONIST) US SOARING COMPETITION RULES?
>
> There should be tons, because the US rules are "so great" and the FAI rules are "evil," right?
>
> Please list them here for me ...

Nothing? Nobody has an answer for me? Nobody can produce measured data to support and justify the continuation of the US rules CIRCUS?

This is simple manangement 101 folks. If there is no value in the spend, dont spend. So, why are we wasting all this time and effort on US rules when they provide us with NO MEASURABLE VALUE?

I'll ask again.

I ask those of you supporting the continuation of the US rules (circus) to answer my SIMPLE QUESTION.

Here it is --->

***What MEASURED VALUE justifies the continued maintenance of our (unique, isolationist, ineffective) US competition rules?***

Hint: This is not a trick question. This is a very simple. If you support the US rules (circus), then you should have TONS of MEASURED VALUE points to CLEARLY JUSTIFY why all the work, volunteer time, aggravation and argueing that has been the mainstay of the US rules commitee over the years has been worth it. And why it will continue to be worth it. What is the goal of US rules? Why do we do this? What is the expectation for improvement? Why are we continueing to do this, year after year after year? In my opinion, this is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever seen in sports (and that is saying much).

Again, I'll try to help you get started here.. Valueable supporting data points justifying US rules vs FAI rules in the USA such as:

1) Higher contest numbers (people flocking to fly these great US contest and the GREAT TASKS!). NOPE.

2) The International community noticing. NOPE.

Better safety statistics. Less accidents. NOPE.

Less landouts. NOPE.

Better International Competition results? Since our rules are better, we should be flying more, learning mre and going faster. Should we not? NOPE.

Etc, Etc. NOPE. NOPE.

Why are we spending the time to carry forward rules which offer us NO VALUE?

I look forward to hearing (and debating) the supporting data that you provide us.

Sean
7T

[[email protected]]

I for one like the long MAT. Similar to an assigned task and when well set up it gives a chance for high performance and lower performance ships to compete on a reasonable basis and allows for a reasonable result for everyone to make it home. The IGC rules do not allow that kind of task

David Martin
ASG29E BV

[Branko Stojkovic]

I am with David Martin to a certain extent. Personally, I don't like the MAT tasks very much as a measure of flying skills, but they can be interesting to fly. Here's an example: On Day 2 during this year's Region 8 contest the CD shortened the Sports class MAT time from 3 to 2 hours, which in the hindsight turned out to be a mistake. After the weather improved, I decided to extend my flight and go east to check out the weather conditions there. The main reason for doing that was that I didn't want to waste half of a very interesting day sitting on the ground (or orbiting around the start gate collecting bugs). Eventually, my task time was 4:13 (more than double the minimum) and I had a very interesting and enjoyable flight. BTW, I won that day.

Being a polite peacekeeping Canadian, I would like to suggest a middle way. I would propose that SSA adopts the FAI rules and simply extends them with the inclusion of a MAT task, maybe only for the regional contests. That should satisfy both Sean and the pilots and CDs who like the flexibility of the MAT tasks.

Branko Stojkovic
Russia AC-5M XYU

[[email protected]]

David, why do you like about MAT'S?

Most MAT's I've flown, everyone seems to go in opposite directions. You fly alone, just like on a solo OLC flight. I can't compete against someone in another airmass with a different start time, so how can we really determine the winner?

What other types of racing in the whole world has different start times AND different courses? Does such a thing exist? Who created the MAT? Who is responsible for this?

To me, MAT's have become a tradition in the USA, while soaring in America continues to decline year after year. Perhaps that's why the rest of the world gives a big fat middle finger to MAT's. Hmmmm.

There is NO racing when there isn't a "SET" course!

[[email protected]]

According to Websters Dictionary,

"Race":

Noun. A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

Verb. To compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.


By definition, a MAT is not a set course. Therefor, nobody who wins or loses an MAT can honestly say they won or lost a "race."

An MAT is viewed as a glider fun-fly by the rest of the world.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

I believe in the US (likely other parts of the world as well) we go to, "glider competitions", where, at times there are races as well as "using the whole day as you see fit" based on what the CD (competition director, not RACE director, I am not aware of a RD anywhere in the world for sailplanes, I believe they're all called CD's.....).

Not picking one side vs. another, just bringing up a couple points.

Maybe Sean, in his next "race", should make SURE he has a RD, not a CD..........

Popcorn heating up.......

[Dave Leonard]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> According to Websters Dictionary,
>
> "Race":
>
> Noun. A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.
>
> Verb. To compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.
>
>
> By definition, a MAT is not a set course. Therefor, nobody who wins or loses an MAT can honestly say they won or lost a "race."
>
> An MAT is viewed as a glider fun-fly by the rest of the world.

So why do you think a head to head race is the only valid form of soaring competition? Is skill in finding lift on your own not worth isolating and measuring in a competition?

You might also note, since you seem to have dropped out of competition, that the "long MAT" referenced above is an assigned task with the option to cut it short and finish after the minimum time is up. Like an auto race that ends on the lap after the winner finishes whether you are on the lead lap or several laps back, you still get credit for finishing if you cross the line.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

I looked, didn't find a staff list, but found http://www.sgp.aero/usa2016.aspx showing a video from the CD......


So, was this a race or a competition?

[Sean[_2_]]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:44:35 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> I believe in the US (likely other parts of the world as well) we go to, "glider competitions", where, at times there are races as well as "using the whole day as you see fit" based on what the CD (competition director, not RACE director, I am not aware of a RD anywhere in the world for sailplanes, I believe they're all called CD's.....).
>
> Not picking one side vs. another, just bringing up a couple points.
>
> Maybe Sean, in his next "race", should make SURE he has a RD, not a CD..........
>
> Popcorn heating up.......

Use the day as "you see fit." What does that even mean? Are you talking about a competitive racing sport or about going for a stroll down the beach?

And now you want to use the word competition (vs. race) to further pervert US contests. Here we go...

In a marathon RACING, do they let the runners run off anywhere they want to accumulate the 26.x miles? Why not just let them use the day and see who goes the furthest but any route they choose. Do the call running a race or a competition?

In the America's Cup RACING, do they let the sailors sail around the bay for some defined number of hours and then see who went the furthest (and give them the trophy)?

In the Le Tour de France RACING, do they let the cyclist "ride around the French countryside for a month" wherever they wish" so they can "use the day" to their liking?

In swimming RACING do they let the swimmers "use the day" to swim around the pool as far and long as they wish? Why do they have lane markers?

Here is another one for you. In adventure racing, do they let the adventurers "use the day (and night)" for a week of wandering around the backcountry and then see who went the furthest, in any direction they wished to go?

Can you name any "real sport" that conducts "racing" as "wherever the competitors wish to go" so they can "use the day?" After starting anytime the want?

No? This is because that is simply not competing. Calling that competition is simply ridiculous. Any self-respecting sportsman would not call that competing. "Using the day" is not objective. Using the day is highly, highly subjective competiton at best.

In the sport of running, using the day is called "going for a run." In the sport of sailing, using the day is called "going CRUISING!" In the sport of cycling, using the day is called "going for a bike ride." In the sport of swimming, using the day is called "going for a swim." In the sport of soaring, using the day is called "going gliding." It might be called OLC, maybe. If "using the day" is what you want to do with "your day," fine. Just one thing. Do not call that racing, a competition or a contest. Do not bring down the sport of US sailplane racing any further by attempting to call that kind of subjective activity ("using the day?") a competition or contest.

Formula One could start at 6am and race until 10pm. Why don't they? Becuase there is little purpose to simply racing as long as you can. The key element to all racing sports is a clearly defined race course. Racing is about quality, not quantity. Without a race track, it simply cannot be racing.. Racing also has a fair start, a race, and a finish. In racing, the one who crosses the finish line first is the winner. How novel. A race without a start is called a time trial, maybe.

OLC is "follow the pretty clouds" soaring. I get it, but OLC is not defined and therefore is not a race. It is something else. It's a fun way to pass the time vs. flying around with zero goals or objectives, by yourself. I'll give it that. IMO, OLC type soaring is meaningless in terms of serious competition. You also do not need any real contest infrastructure to participate or conduct OLC. That is the whole point. Just go flying, running, swimming, cycling. Whatever. You don't need a CD or rules. Becuase there is no track. There is almost no definition (7 turns, whatever). All you need is a any logger. OLC is even looser than a zero turn MAT. Do you want to talk about wastefulness? Wastefulness is getting all the apparatus together for a formal contest, and wasting it on the epic gamble of a MAT task. Or wasting a decent weather day on a big radius TAT. That is a massive waste. That is shameful. Yet we see it happen all the time. Even at Nationals.

The sport of soaring (especially in the USA) is already far too subjective. You already have the concept of starting literally any time you want. Out the top, the side, the back, whatever. Not even a line. A cylinder. You already have > 95% of US tasks (TAT, MAT) which allow you huge degrees of freedom. And these OLC "like" subjective tasks are called regularly on great soaring days, not just the poor weather days. So seriously, what is the problem? Do you want even easier, more subjective tasking than you already have?

Soaring contests are not supposed to be about using the day. That's the whole point. They are about racing against your competitors, over a defined course and flying that defined course faster than them. At least it is to me. At least it is to the rest of the soaring world outside of the USA who do not use MAT tasks, EVER. That is right, NEVER MAT's. Becuase MAT's are simply ridiculous.

"Use the day." This is a concept which has almost zero to do with any competitive sport. If you want to use they day, please don't bring the entire US contest system down with you. Contests are about defined racing and should be as objective as possible. But please, go ahead. Have an OLC event.. That is cool. Especially in challenging places to fly like Nephi. I get it. That is really cool. Have fun.

On the other side of the coin, FAI tasking (used EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD EXCEPT THE USA) is about RACING (assigned tasks) as much as possible. A real sport. TATs are only called on days with questionable, doubtful or poor weather. Many FAI contests have well over 50% assigned tasks. The upcoming Australian WGC may have 75% assigned tasks (great weather, hopefully)..

Back in the US, our contest scene runs 3 (1, 2...yes, 3) AT's of every 100 contest tasks. 3%. So you "use the day" guys already enjoy roughly 97% OLC type tasking. So please don't be too upset with me about challenging your "use the day" tasking philosophy. You are already in the catbird seat. You must go to all kinds of contests, huh? Happy as pigs in the pen. Right?

Sean

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

For cry'n out loud Sean, how about coming off the fence and taking a side!!

:)
Jon
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-7, Sean wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:44:35 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> > I believe in the US (likely other parts of the world as well) we go to, "glider competitions", where, at times there are races as well as "using the whole day as you see fit" based on what the CD (competition director, not RACE director, I am not aware of a RD anywhere in the world for sailplanes, I believe they're all called CD's.....).
> >
> > Not picking one side vs. another, just bringing up a couple points.
> >
> > Maybe Sean, in his next "race", should make SURE he has a RD, not a CD..........
> >
> > Popcorn heating up.......
>
> Use the day as "you see fit." What does that even mean? Are you talking about a competitive racing sport or about going for a stroll down the beach?
>
> And now you want to use the word competition (vs. race) to further pervert US contests. Here we go...
>
> In a marathon RACING, do they let the runners run off anywhere they want to accumulate the 26.x miles? Why not just let them use the day and see who goes the furthest but any route they choose. Do the call running a race or a competition?
>
> In the America's Cup RACING, do they let the sailors sail around the bay for some defined number of hours and then see who went the furthest (and give them the trophy)?
>
> In the Le Tour de France RACING, do they let the cyclist "ride around the French countryside for a month" wherever they wish" so they can "use the day" to their liking?
>
> In swimming RACING do they let the swimmers "use the day" to swim around the pool as far and long as they wish? Why do they have lane markers?
>
> Here is another one for you. In adventure racing, do they let the adventurers "use the day (and night)" for a week of wandering around the backcountry and then see who went the furthest, in any direction they wished to go?
>
> Can you name any "real sport" that conducts "racing" as "wherever the competitors wish to go" so they can "use the day?" After starting anytime the want?
>
> No? This is because that is simply not competing. Calling that competition is simply ridiculous. Any self-respecting sportsman would not call that competing. "Using the day" is not objective. Using the day is highly, highly subjective competiton at best.
>
> In the sport of running, using the day is called "going for a run." In the sport of sailing, using the day is called "going CRUISING!" In the sport of cycling, using the day is called "going for a bike ride." In the sport of swimming, using the day is called "going for a swim." In the sport of soaring, using the day is called "going gliding." It might be called OLC, maybe. If "using the day" is what you want to do with "your day," fine. Just one thing. Do not call that racing, a competition or a contest. Do not bring down the sport of US sailplane racing any further by attempting to call that kind of subjective activity ("using the day?") a competition or contest.
>
> Formula One could start at 6am and race until 10pm. Why don't they? Becuase there is little purpose to simply racing as long as you can. The key element to all racing sports is a clearly defined race course. Racing is about quality, not quantity. Without a race track, it simply cannot be racing. Racing also has a fair start, a race, and a finish. In racing, the one who crosses the finish line first is the winner. How novel. A race without a start is called a time trial, maybe.
>
> OLC is "follow the pretty clouds" soaring. I get it, but OLC is not defined and therefore is not a race. It is something else. It's a fun way to pass the time vs. flying around with zero goals or objectives, by yourself. I'll give it that. IMO, OLC type soaring is meaningless in terms of serious competition. You also do not need any real contest infrastructure to participate or conduct OLC. That is the whole point. Just go flying, running, swimming, cycling. Whatever. You don't need a CD or rules. Becuase there is no track. There is almost no definition (7 turns, whatever). All you need is a any logger. OLC is even looser than a zero turn MAT. Do you want to talk about wastefulness? Wastefulness is getting all the apparatus together for a formal contest, and wasting it on the epic gamble of a MAT task. Or wasting a decent weather day on a big radius TAT. That is a massive waste. That is shameful. Yet we see it happen all the time. Even at Nationals.
>
> The sport of soaring (especially in the USA) is already far too subjective. You already have the concept of starting literally any time you want. Out the top, the side, the back, whatever. Not even a line. A cylinder. You already have > 95% of US tasks (TAT, MAT) which allow you huge degrees of freedom. And these OLC "like" subjective tasks are called regularly on great soaring days, not just the poor weather days. So seriously, what is the problem? Do you want even easier, more subjective tasking than you already have?
>
> Soaring contests are not supposed to be about using the day. That's the whole point. They are about racing against your competitors, over a defined course and flying that defined course faster than them. At least it is to me. At least it is to the rest of the soaring world outside of the USA who do not use MAT tasks, EVER. That is right, NEVER MAT's. Becuase MAT's are simply ridiculous.
>
> "Use the day." This is a concept which has almost zero to do with any competitive sport. If you want to use they day, please don't bring the entire US contest system down with you. Contests are about defined racing and should be as objective as possible. But please, go ahead. Have an OLC event. That is cool. Especially in challenging places to fly like Nephi. I get it. That is really cool. Have fun.
>
> On the other side of the coin, FAI tasking (used EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD EXCEPT THE USA) is about RACING (assigned tasks) as much as possible. A real sport. TATs are only called on days with questionable, doubtful or poor weather. Many FAI contests have well over 50% assigned tasks. The upcoming Australian WGC may have 75% assigned tasks (great weather, hopefully).
>
> Back in the US, our contest scene runs 3 (1, 2...yes, 3) AT's of every 100 contest tasks. 3%. So you "use the day" guys already enjoy roughly 97% OLC type tasking. So please don't be too upset with me about challenging your "use the day" tasking philosophy. You are already in the catbird seat. You must go to all kinds of contests, huh? Happy as pigs in the pen. Right?
>
> Sean

[Sean[_2_]]

I would not call head to head more valid. I would call it higher quality. Im assuming you are referring to assigned tasks vs. timed, pilot option tasks so common in the USA (TAT, MAT).

First, 95% of the time I fly at a US contest, I cannot see or detect another glider. I have excellent vision. So, I am isolated, a ton, already. I hear that this "US contest isolation" causes a big shock to our pilots at the WGC.

Back to your question on head to head vs. pilot option..

Becuase it is harder to find a lift advantage over your competitors within a more tightly defined race format. There are fewer variables, although still more than enough line choice for the best pilots to gain the advantage. And because there are less variable, small advantages are more valuable than in pilot option, timed competition. When competitors are allowed to roam the sky, 60 miles away from your competitor while being in the same "turn area" (a typical US TAT with a 30-mile radius turn area, (65% of US tasks are TAT) ) and then "find better lift" than your distant "competitor" that is often more chance than skill. Few pilots (even meteorologists or even supercomputers) can consistently and accurately predict exactly where the soaring weather will be best 30-60 minutes/miles ahead in the next "turn area" vs. other pilots of their same level. Hell, I would argue even 10 minutes ahead! This highly variable "line choice" (even the choice of line over the next few clouds) is much more critical in an assigned task because each pilot must always ultimately consolidate his/her routing back to a common point (turn point) at the end each leg of the race track (aka assigned turn point).

In a TAT, the pilot can wander along in their new reality, often flying in an entirely different airmass than their competitors. This often decides the winner in a TAT. The concept of an actual race track (assigned task) is dramatically different than just "following the pretty clouds" as they develop in front of you (easy) and being able to choose both dramatically different lines (guesses) and also exactly where YOU want to turn (different turn locations for every competitor) in each of several turn points which make up the "competition" (TAT). Therefore, TAT (or MAT) tasks are simply not very high-quality competition formats when compared to assigned tasks as the number of variables are infinitely higher. And therefore chance is a much greater factor. This is why FAI (rest of the world) only chooses TAT in poor weather when giving the pilots options is sensible and the intentianal loss in competition value and quality is justified.

Assigned tasks are also not defined by a minimum time, which is always a huge decision (aided by expensive hardware and software for many), in the MAT or TAT. A huge amount of points are gained and lost in that "where to make that final turn" TAT guess (or more accurately your fancy computer calculating this for you). In a MAT, large portions of the task is "pilot option" and therefore chance abounds in each of many "guesses." Chance is enormous in these "pilot option" task types. In an assigned task, the competition (FAI, not the USA) is at least a race around a set racing track. The objective is simply to go as fast as you can, period. Less variables. Less chance. Higher quality competition.

Head to head sailplane racing only truly exists in SGP. SGP is fascinating to watch. It is simply not the leeching, gaggle fest that some would claim. It is actually quite the opposite. The field thins out amazingly quickly. SGP is extremely high-quality competition. Every decision is critical..

In all other forms of current soaring competition, even the WGC, there is absolutely zero limitation on pilots choosing their start time (a huge, HUGE variable...too huge). You can wait until 4pm or go as the gate opens at 1pm. Now add a MAT task to that competition format which already allows such starting freedom (chance). Or even add a long MAT with 30 minutes to burn on pilot choice turn points at the end of the assigned turns. Or even a wide radius TAT (22 miles is average in the USA). These pilot option tasks are highly (extremely) influenced by the pilot's guess on the best routing (and timing). And that routing/timing may provide hugely different options for the pilots based on their guess on when to start. This is highly chance/guess driven.

These free form, choose your route, OLC type tasks are already 95%+ of US tasking. An assigned task (a real one, not the perverted US rules version which is NOT a race) is more objective but the start time is still a major, often key factor (when pilots of equal skill are concerned). And there are still massive routing decisions which are even more critical in assigned tasks. Only SGP is the only truly objective form of sailplane competition. Chance is reduced by orders of magnitude in SGP over other task types.

Again, in the US today, you have 97% TAT or MAT. Only 3% AT (US perverted version). So those who disagree with me should be ecstatic.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Figures, you MISSED my original intent, it was NOT a discussion of racing or contests, it was word usage.

Most of the "soaring planet" goes to "glider contests/competitions", while there may be racing,it is not a given.
We have a CD at these events.
Sometimes racing is involved.

You, Sean, have provided a platform for glider racing. I think it's worth changing the main rules guy title to Racing Director, so people understand the difference.
I would HATE to have you deal with contestants that wanted a competition but only had races.

A bunch of us go to the HHSC Snowbird competition, no speed involved, can't say I have any real complaints.

You want a race, go to a race.
You put together a race, have a Race Director, otherwise, you may mislead someone........sucks to be you.

While I have competed for a couple decades in US soaring competitions, I have not for a few years.

I only replied to this thread when the time limit on it was about done.

You want a race, you have one.
Others in the US can do your race, or do competitions.

As to US rules vs. FAI rules, that is another thread.

[Sean[_2_]]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 6:40:58 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Figures, you MISSED my original intent, it was NOT a discussion of racing or contests, it was word usage.
>
> Most of the "soaring planet" goes to "glider contests/competitions", while there may be racing,it is not a given.
> We have a CD at these events.
> Sometimes racing is involved.
>
> You, Sean, have provided a platform for glider racing. I think it's worth changing the main rules guy title to Racing Director, so people understand the difference.
> I would HATE to have you deal with contestants that wanted a competition but only had races.
>
> A bunch of us go to the HHSC Snowbird competition, no speed involved, can't say I have any real complaints.
>
> You want a race, go to a race.
> You put together a race, have a Race Director, otherwise, you may mislead someone........sucks to be you.
>
> While I have competed for a couple decades in US soaring competitions, I have not for a few years.
>
> I only replied to this thread when the time limit on it was about done.
>
> You want a race, you have one.
> Others in the US can do your race, or do competitions.
>
> As to US rules vs. FAI rules, that is another thread.

Charlie, I honestly have little idea what you are trying to say in your post above. But I do appreciate the response. Please allow me to try and respond in a very heartfelt way.

I think you are claiming that US sailplane racing is not racing? It's a competition and therefore not a race because the guy who sets the tasks and governs the event is the "contest director" and not a "race director?" Is this correct? Let us look at a few other "racing sports."
- The people who run the Tour de France are called officials. Is the Tour de France not a race?
- The people who run a Formula One race are called officials. Is Formula One not racing?
- The people who run the America's Cup competition are called the event authority or event directors. Is Americas Cup not racing?
- The person in charge of a rowing competition is also called the director. Is rowing not racing?

Regardless, citing the name of the event leaders title as containing the word "competition" (the event) and not "race" (the individual parts that make up the event, contest or competition) is fairly pointless.

But I do agree with you on one thing. The absolute fact that US soaring "competition" (especially US!) is NOT racing. We do not race gliders in the USA. Even though many like to try to refer to US contests as containing "races" or "racing." Or that a TAT task is a "race?" Or a MAT being a race. How silly. Amazing right? What is the matter with these clowns? Calling a US contest task a race! LOL. ;-)

You are spot on Charlie. US contests have never been racing, at least for as long as I have followed it. I have been saying this here for several years now. Oh, how the US rules/tasking "good old boy" crowd hates it when I do. But so what. They need to hear the truth from time to time. The truth is that US "contests" have morphed (and continue to morph) into something much closer to OLC (or perhaps tiddlywinks) than a racing sport. For many of us this is very sad. We want to race, at least some of the time.

I can't tell you how many times I have tried to explain our sport to friends or colleagues. Just this week I did a TV interview. It was great fun and as always, explaining the experience of soaring was wonderful. Explaining the competition format and task (not assigned, the other crap) was absolutely painful. In fact, the producer almost immediately edited the timed, pilot option tasks out of the interview. They were horrified by the concept I think. What does that say to us? The fact is that non-glider pilots (even many glider pilots in fact) usually cannot make sense of the US gliding competition. Of course, Sailplane Grand Prix is immediately understood and exciting to spectators and friends.

We conduct nearly zero glider racing in the USA. You absolutely nailed it. You have me, dead to rights. Even our event/contest official is called the "Contest Director" and not a "Race Director. How about "Time/Distance Accumulation basically anywhere you choose to go, Director?" That would be more accurate. Would that title be better for you? How about Tiddlywinks director? US tasking is, almost exclusively now, a "distance/time" accumulation game with a high degree of chance. It's boring as hell.

Again, you are absolutely right Charlie, US tasking, US contests, US glider "competition" is absolutely NOT racing. Most US pilots are actually quite terrified of true racing or assigned tasks. This is sad. They squirm in their chairs when assigned tasks are called and lobby for the "B (TAT) task" almost immediately. I have watched this often with mild amusement (but mostly sadness and frustration). I really do think that our US tasking (despite great intentions) is a major part of the reason that the sport of soaring has suffered so much decline in recent years here in the USA. Especially when compared to ALL OTHER SOARING NATIONS (outside of the USA) which compete under FAI tasking (50% assigned tasks).

Young people want to race! They love racing bicycles (road, mountain, etc).. The love racing sailboats. They love racing in track events. The love adventure racing. They love racing on ski's and snowboards. They love racing period. Can you name a successful, thriving, growing sport where the name of the game is..."go out and get as much mileage as you can in three hours?" Oh, by the way, you will probably never see another competitor during that time. Isn't that exciting? Remember, you are NOT racing. You are at a contest! See, that guy over there, he is named the CONTEST DIRECTOR. Never say the word race again! Oh, and you'll have to wait 3-4 hours to see your score. Oh, and the scoring will be on some obscure website that nobody will ever care about (especially your friends). The results will not be presented on any social media channels, ever. No excitement. No reports of the event, at all. A big snooze. Boring. S T U P I D! But good luck with this Charlie. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe US contests are amazing and I must re-double my efforts to convince myself that a HAT task is awesome. I promise to try.

FAI sailplane racing, on the other had, IS racing on any "competition" day with suitable weather. That is their way. And generally, their definition of suitable is realistic. They use starting lines and finish lines. They love assigned tasks. Assigned task RACING is what they (competition directors and the competitors (RACERS!)) are hoping for when they get up in the AM and check the weather. They are disappointed when a TAT must be called. The want objective racing, not "chance tasks" aka TAT. A MAT would be met with pitchforks, ridicule, and intense laughter. FAI events run roughly 50% (or greater) assigned tasks in fact. And their AT is not the "US perversion" of the assigned task with its variable distance element (no longer a race around a set track).

If wanting to race gliders in the USA is wrong, I don't want to be right. The tasking we compete under here the USA today is an utter disgrace to all sports. 3% assigned tasks (don't forget this is the extra distance optional US rules version). 97% of US tasks encourage significant pilot option, "chance tasks."

[[email protected]]

On the SSA website, you have to click on "Sailplane Racing" to get to contests. That's because the SSA was CREATED for "Racing."

I've been to too many gliderports in the USA and listened to the old timers speak to younger generations about how "back in my day, racing was racing." This conversation seems to happen enough, to be a major contributor to the demise of Soaring in the USA.

That's not motivational to hear George Moffat tell someone who is considering buying a racing sailplane. That's a big turn off when pilots stop and think about spending $80,000 for a racing glider that you can't race.

Sailplane Races in America have turned into Geo Cashing Contests in the Sky.. That's as boring as Pokémon Go.

Perhaps we should have two groups in America. A racing league for the serious competitors who have been pussified by the detachment from the rest of the world racing league and one league where nobody is interested in speed.

Sailplane Racing Association verses Tiddlywinks Geo-Cashing Pokémon Go League.

[[email protected]]

It's time for a REVOLUTION in the Soaring Society of America.

Otherwise, we will continue to shrink and shrink.

The SSA leaders will be judged on their ability to make changes. If not, they are not effective leaders! Thank you for your volunteering spirit, but if you are contributing in a harmful way to our sport, leading it into poor attendance worse every year, you need to stop as you are not helping the sport. We need leaders who are helpers not hinderers.

SSA Leadership, all eyes are on you. What do you want to remembered by? Our politicians are remembered as ineffective and ringing up the national debt.. It's your choice, wake up face reality, get in with the rest of the world.

Next election it is time to nominate and replace the leaders with good intentions, with one who are capable and competent.

This is a reality of our sport collapsing. We've taken the excitement out and now the foundation is no longer solid. This can be undone.

[Branko Stojkovic]

It looks like there we have a chicken-and-egg problem here, with two opposing propositions:

(a) The sport of soaring in America is on the decline because the contest rules are geared towards older pilots who'd prefer roaming through the skies all day to racing. Since this type of contest flying is not attractive to the younger competitive pilots, they are leaving the sport in droves.

(b) The decline in the sport of soaring in America is caused by the lack of new young glider pilots entering the ranks. Consequently, the glider pilot population is rapidly aging and the older pilots, who are now in the overwhelming majority, are tailoring the contest rules according to their own preferences. Most of the the senior pilots aren't very competitive and they enter contests in order to socialize and get some flying in. Others, who are still competitive at heart, realize that they no longer possess the psycho-physical capabilities required to be competitive with the hotshots like Sean, who are in their prime. Both groups of geezers, although for slightly different reasons, prefer the loosey-goosey tasks (like MAT and TAT with 30 mile radius) that currently prevail in the US contests.

From what I can tell, Sean and Wilbur subscribe to the proposition (a) and claim that changing the rules and turning the US contests into true racing competitions would bring about a renaissance in the sport of soaring in America.

However, what if the proposition (b) is the one much closer to the truth? What if the current arcane US contest rules are not the root cause, but rather the effect of the aging glider population and the decline in the sport of soaring in America? Then changing them would not do much, if anything, to fix the root cause of the problem.

As an illustration, take a look at the number of contestants in this year's Senior Soaring Championship (55 entries, 6 guests, and 7 on the waiting list), and compare it to this year's US Junior National Camp and Contest (6 entries). I rest my case.

However, there is a definite bright side for the competitive US glider pilots in their prime: they should find it relatively easy to do well enough in the US contests (given the past-their-prime competition) in order to qualify for the US gliding team. Compare this to the German or French gliding teams, where even the recent world champions are not assured of being selected.

Branko Stojkovic
XYU

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I think everyone knows the chicken is just an eggs way of making another egg.


On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 8:32:40 AM UTC-7, Branko Stojkovic wrote:
> It looks like there we have a chicken-and-egg problem here, with two opposing propositions:
>

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 1:20:14 PM UTC+2, wrote:
> On the SSA website, you have to click on "Sailplane Racing" to get to contests. That's because the SSA was CREATED for "Racing."
>
> I've been to too many gliderports in the USA and listened to the old timers speak to younger generations about how "back in my day, racing was racing." This conversation seems to happen enough, to be a major contributor to the demise of Soaring in the USA.
>
> That's not motivational to hear George Moffat tell someone who is considering buying a racing sailplane. That's a big turn off when pilots stop and think about spending $80,000 for a racing glider that you can't race.
>
> Sailplane Races in America have turned into Geo Cashing Contests in the Sky. That's as boring as Pokémon Go.
>
> Perhaps we should have two groups in America. A racing league for the serious competitors who have been pussified by the detachment from the rest of the world racing league and one league where nobody is interested in speed.
>
> Sailplane Racing Association verses Tiddlywinks Geo-Cashing Pokémon Go League.

I love it!
Mark

[Sean[_2_]]

Perhaps (though I strongly disagree) but still you still avoid (along with many) the key question...

What measured value does maintaining US rules provide vs. the efficiency and stability of using FAI rules (like every other country on earth does, happily, successfully and safely)?

Sure, the SSA has created a hugely disproportionate, anemic, senior heavy age distribution for itself and simultaneously conditioned it's membership to react negatively to the any suggestion of racing, assigned task or adopting the same rules which are used happily, successfully, and safely by all other soaring nations. But that situation IN NOW WAY justifies continuing down the existing failed course with US rules and wasting all the time, energy and resources.

Yes, we need to start focusing far, far more aggressively (vs not at all) on re-developing youth in contest soaring. This is essential. But we need to re-connect with the international soaring community and stop isolating ourselves and softening our pilots skills. There is incredible value in that reconnection with FAI and the international community which our "elders" insist that we leave on the table.

We need to immediately refocus the wasted efforts of our failed (zero to negative net value) US rules on higher priority efforts.

The idea that we are old and grumpy (US soaring, SSA) and a rule change won't improve participation for the "old guys" is just awful. So is saying that youth will not respond. Look at Britain. look at Germany. Australia. Etc, etc. We need some 18-32 yr olds on our rules committee. We need to stop putting only the good old boys on the rules committee. The current crop actually works to keep youth or "non like minded" contest pilots off thier precious RC. This is corrupt, unhealthy and shameful, and they know it.

[Papa3[_2_]]

This is going to end up being a long post. But, I've thought about this stuff - a lot. The problem with these RAS debates is that a small number of people who have really strong opinions tend to create a lot of noise that gets in the way of real analysis.

Since very few people will read this whole post, I'm going to put the punch line first. Based on actual data collected from a reasonably large sample of potential racing pilots, it's pretty clear that the rules have nothing to do with keeping people out. Time is number one. Skill building is number two. Rules was way down on the list - in the bottom third.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxnbDYh4DxZPbk5Yc2FQMTMxWnM

Now the full story.

A couple of years ago I actually put in the effort to gather some data. Now, a data-driven argument is nowhere near as fun as an ad hominem one, so for that I apologize in advance. The following describes a detailed survey I did back in 2011.

The objective of my study was to figure out why more people weren't flying contests. It started out with the assumption that people who owned gliders had gone far enough that they were hooked. In other words, they have taken the first big step toward (potentially) becoming a competition pilot. It's not a perfect assumption, but it's a good first approximation.

Next, I had to find out if there were a lot of potential racing gliders in our local area that were sitting around in trailers and hangars not doing much. Then, I had to figure out why the owners of those gliders weren't participating in races. The results were interesting and a little surprising in some ways and pretty predictable in others.

I know that the actuaries and statisticians among us will find all sorts of flaws, but I'm not aware of anyone in the US who has better data. So until someone comes up with a better analysis, here goes...

I started out by going to every glider operation in Region 2 asking the active pilots/usual suspects to help get me in touch with others who owned gliders. This covered primarily Wurtsboro, Middletown, Blairstown, Van Sant, Beltzville, PGC, Brandywine, and Morgantown. Figure that's eastern PA, NJ, and Southeastern NY - most of Region 2. I cross-checked the information against the FAA database of registered gliders in those states. I was able to "find" and get in touch with about 2/3 of the registered gliders based in this area along with their owners/pilots and got them to take an online survey. I definitely got the majority of glass single place ships covered (figuring those are the most likely to be used for XC and racing). So, while not complete, the survey should at least be statistically significant.

The survey and results are in the attached spreadsheet. I haven't tried to make it pretty, but I did grab screenshots from the survey in the PDF. Here's the big picture:

- 66 glider owners responded after a lot of work tracking people down. That's a pretty nice yield.
- 2/3 of those owners claim to "regularly" fly XC (I defined as more than 50KM from the home field). I thought that was a pleasant surprise; I would've figured half or less. We've been working for at least 15 years in Region 2 to drive participation in the OLC and local contests, so maybe that's having some impact.
- About half claim to participate in local/online contests (OLC and the Governor's Cup)
- Almost the same number claim to have participated in an SSA Sanctioned contest in the last 3 years. That was surprising... half the people who own a glider in our area say they flew a contest. I did a little cross checking and the ranking list, and those numbers seem to be plausible. I suspect that's better than in many other regions.
- As far as "why you don't participate in SSA Sanctioned contests", the results were fairly scattered. If you look at only the "Top 3 Reasons" (i..e. those that were ranked as the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd roadblock), it was in order:
* Time
* Something Else
* Rainouts

The "Something Else" was set up to let folks give their thoughts/concerns, so the answers are all over the map. The results are similar if you look at only the Top 2 reasons. The something else freeform responses are included in the spreadsheet.

Rules complexity or frustration with rules was... drumroll please... third from last (7th out of 9).

My takeaway here is that there's not some silver bullet that would suddenly increase participation. HOWEVER, it does suggest that rules/fairness/competition concerns that tend to occupy the minds of the hardcore racing pilot are (not surprisingly) not nearly as important to the fence sitters. IF we're serious about increasing participation (and if that's the charter of the Rules Committee or the SRA or some other interested group), the lessons seem to be:

- Test out more long-weekend races or other formats that minimize having to take long vacations.
- Create a structure that would allow newbies and folks with families to feel comfortable (e.g. the Mifflin beginner's contests, Caesar Creek XC and Racing Camp, etc.)
- Create a more structured marketing and awareness campaign targeted at the potential competitors. For instance, I think a list comprising pilots who ARE on the OLC list with some reasonable number of points (say 750 or more) and are NOT on the SSA Ranking List would be a great place to start using publicly available data.

Point being, while a few hardcore rules wonks argue over how many turnpoints fit on the head of a pin, a whole group of potential racing pilots isn't being addressed at all. This isn't unique to soaring, but since we have a small population of potential pilots to start with, we can't afford to address all potential populations.

Erik Mann (P3)



On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:32:40 AM UTC-4, Branko Stojkovic wrote:
> It looks like there we have a chicken-and-egg problem here, with two opposing propositions:
>
> (a) The sport of soaring in America is on the decline because the contest rules are geared towards older pilots who'd prefer roaming through the skies all day to racing. Since this type of contest flying is not attractive to the younger competitive pilots, they are leaving the sport in droves.
>
> (b) The decline in the sport of soaring in America is caused by the lack of new young glider pilots entering the ranks. Consequently, the glider pilot population is rapidly aging and the older pilots, who are now in the overwhelming majority, are tailoring the contest rules according to their own preferences. Most of the the senior pilots aren't very competitive and they enter contests in order to socialize and get some flying in. Others, who are still competitive at heart, realize that they no longer possess the psycho-physical capabilities required to be competitive with the hotshots like Sean, who are in their prime. Both groups of geezers, although for slightly different reasons, prefer the loosey-goosey tasks (like MAT and TAT with 30 mile radius) that currently prevail in the US contests.
>
> From what I can tell, Sean and Wilbur subscribe to the proposition (a) and claim that changing the rules and turning the US contests into true racing competitions would bring about a renaissance in the sport of soaring in America.
>
> However, what if the proposition (b) is the one much closer to the truth? What if the current arcane US contest rules are not the root cause, but rather the effect of the aging glider population and the decline in the sport of soaring in America? Then changing them would not do much, if anything, to fix the root cause of the problem.
>
> As an illustration, take a look at the number of contestants in this year's Senior Soaring Championship (55 entries, 6 guests, and 7 on the waiting list), and compare it to this year's US Junior National Camp and Contest (6 entries). I rest my case.
>
> However, there is a definite bright side for the competitive US glider pilots in their prime: they should find it relatively easy to do well enough in the US contests (given the past-their-prime competition) in order to qualify for the US gliding team. Compare this to the German or French gliding teams, where even the recent world champions are not assured of being selected.
>
> Branko Stojkovic
> XYU

[SoaringXCellence]

Erik,

Nice analysis, Thanks for the effort. I also think that the "us/them" discussion overlooks the vast differences in distance that US competitors have to travel in order to compete "nationally". That plays in the time factor. In most European countries the travel across the country can be done in a day, two at the most, while if you want to do that in the US you need 4 days minimum (unless you want to be too fatigued to fly when you get there).

I'm in the "old man" age group, but I also want to race a defined course. I've been part of the soaring scene since the late '60's, as a crew first and then just an onlooker as my family came and the left home. I now get to jump in with both feet (wings) but the "contests" are not racing, just as Sean complains.

I'm on the west coast and it would take more than 15 days to take the trip to the SGP in FL. Not in the cards for me. I might have to take up the gauntlet to try and run one on the left coast.

Sean, I'll get in touch.

Mike

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 6:03:31 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> This is going to end up being a long post. But, I've thought about this stuff - a lot. The problem with these RAS debates is that a small number of people who have really strong opinions tend to create a lot of noise that gets in the way of real analysis.
>
> Since very few people will read this whole post, I'm going to put the punch line first. Based on actual data collected from a reasonably large sample of potential racing pilots, it's pretty clear that the rules have nothing to do with keeping people out. Time is number one. Skill building is number two. Rules was way down on the list - in the bottom third.

Thanks Erik.

Same story in Region 1.

-Evan

[[email protected]]

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 6:03:31 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> > This is going to end up being a long post. But, I've thought about this stuff - a lot. The problem with these RAS debates is that a small number of people who have really strong opinions tend to create a lot of noise that gets in the way of real analysis.
> >
> > Since very few people will read this whole post, I'm going to put the punch line first. Based on actual data collected from a reasonably large sample of potential racing pilots, it's pretty clear that the rules have nothing to do with keeping people out. Time is number one. Skill building is number two. Rules was way down on the list - in the bottom third.
>
> Thanks Erik.
>
> Same story in Region 1.
>
> -Evan

P3 & T8:

In your research, where did "cost" fall in the spectrum of "other reasons"? It sounds like focusing on time issues and making the camp/competition experience a good one is of more value than trying to run an event on absolute minimum $$?

J9

[Papa3[_2_]]

The approach was a "rank each reason" in priority order from 1 - 9. 1 is most important. 9 is least. This type of question then gets a scoring based on how many times it ranks first, second, etc. Pollsters will tell you that the top 3-4 matter; after that the ranking is less important as people really don't know how to differentiate between lower priorities.

Making a long story short, Expense was right in the middle. Definitely not top 3 but not negligible. Clearly there are folks who want to participate with the absolute minimum of expense and others who show up with quarter million motor homes.

Since it might be hard to read understand the spreadsheet, I'll just list the inhibitors in ranking order:

1. Time (by a wide margin)
2. Something else
3. Skill (comfort in a contest/XC setting)
4. Safety/risk
5. Rainouts (which I basically equate to time as well)
6. Expense
7. Rules complexity
8. Glider (not competitive)
9. Avionics (not competitive or current).

FWIW, the Something Else answer was probably not a good test design. If you read the text, they basically fall within the above (competing priorities, job demands, family not willing to come to comps, etc.). There are a few people who just categorically don't want to ruin gliding with competition.. There are also age and health issues. Some folks are linchpins of their club as a CFI and don't feel able to get away. etc.

But again, for the purposes of this discussion, it's clear that Rules don't keep people out. They may end up frustrating some people, but the survey would have captured that since people who got out of racing would have showed up. That's not to say rules don't lead some people to move on. But with scarce resources, it's my sense that more focus on recruitment and innovative contest structures would be way more beneficial.

P3






On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:59:50 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 6:03:31 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> > > This is going to end up being a long post. But, I've thought about this stuff - a lot. The problem with these RAS debates is that a small number of people who have really strong opinions tend to create a lot of noise that gets in the way of real analysis.
> > >
> > > Since very few people will read this whole post, I'm going to put the punch line first. Based on actual data collected from a reasonably large sample of potential racing pilots, it's pretty clear that the rules have nothing to do with keeping people out. Time is number one. Skill building is number two. Rules was way down on the list - in the bottom third.
> >
> > Thanks Erik.
> >
> > Same story in Region 1.
> >
> > -Evan
>
> P3 & T8:
>
> In your research, where did "cost" fall in the spectrum of "other reasons"? It sounds like focusing on time issues and making the camp/competition experience a good one is of more value than trying to run an event on absolute minimum $$?
>
> J9

[Tango Eight]

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:59:50 AM UTC-4, wrote:

> P3 & T8:
>
> In your research, where did "cost" fall in the spectrum of "other reasons"? It sounds like focusing on time issues and making the camp/competition experience a good one is of more value than trying to run an event on absolute minimum $$?
>
> J9

Hi J9,

There are only a couple of guys we know that complain in any serious way about entry fees. It's not a very defensible complaint. No one thinks for a moment that anyone is making any money off contest organizing.

T8

[[email protected]]

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:48:30 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> The approach was a "rank each reason" in priority order from 1 - 9. 1 is most important. 9 is least. This type of question then gets a scoring based on how many times it ranks first, second, etc. Pollsters will tell you that the top 3-4 matter; after that the ranking is less important as people really don't know how to differentiate between lower priorities.
>
> Making a long story short, Expense was right in the middle. Definitely not top 3 but not negligible. Clearly there are folks who want to participate with the absolute minimum of expense and others who show up with quarter million motor homes.
>
> Since it might be hard to read understand the spreadsheet, I'll just list the inhibitors in ranking order:
>
> 1. Time (by a wide margin)
> 2. Something else
> 3. Skill (comfort in a contest/XC setting)
> 4. Safety/risk
> 5. Rainouts (which I basically equate to time as well)
> 6. Expense
> 7. Rules complexity
> 8. Glider (not competitive)
> 9. Avionics (not competitive or current).
>
> FWIW, the Something Else answer was probably not a good test design. If you read the text, they basically fall within the above (competing priorities, job demands, family not willing to come to comps, etc.). There are a few people who just categorically don't want to ruin gliding with competition. There are also age and health issues. Some folks are linchpins of their club as a CFI and don't feel able to get away. etc.
>
> But again, for the purposes of this discussion, it's clear that Rules don't keep people out. They may end up frustrating some people, but the survey would have captured that since people who got out of racing would have showed up. That's not to say rules don't lead some people to move on. But with scarce resources, it's my sense that more focus on recruitment and innovative contest structures would be way more beneficial.
>
> P3
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:59:50 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 6:03:31 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> > > > This is going to end up being a long post. But, I've thought about this stuff - a lot. The problem with these RAS debates is that a small number of people who have really strong opinions tend to create a lot of noise that gets in the way of real analysis.
> > > >
> > > > Since very few people will read this whole post, I'm going to put the punch line first. Based on actual data collected from a reasonably large sample of potential racing pilots, it's pretty clear that the rules have nothing to do with keeping people out. Time is number one. Skill building is number two. Rules was way down on the list - in the bottom third.
> > >
> > > Thanks Erik.
> > >
> > > Same story in Region 1.
> > >
> > > -Evan
> >
> > P3 & T8:
> >
> > In your research, where did "cost" fall in the spectrum of "other reasons"? It sounds like focusing on time issues and making the camp/competition experience a good one is of more value than trying to run an event on absolute minimum $$?
> >
> > J9

Erik, thanks for de-bunking Sean's and Wilbur's arguments so decisively. When John Cochrane came back from the World's in Hungary a couple of years back he did comment to us about not being familiar enough with all the rules but he also complained bitterly about parts of them that let competitors land short of the finish to get a higher score and the high spread of scores on low completion days. I feel for the few pilots that make it to international contests but let's not throw out what has evolved here in N.
America over many decades just because Sean (and Wilbur) say so.
Herb, J7

[Papa3[_2_]]

Herb,

I didn't want this to be an "us and them" discussion. I just think given scarce resources, time would be better spent on increasing the population of pilots from the bottom up rather than focusing energy on things that only really matter to a small number of people. I'm actually on the fence regarding rules (FAI vs.SSA) - I don't feel strongly enough to come down one way or the other.

Anyway, back to data. I took the time to extract the qualitative comments from the survey. They certainly make interesting reading. As stated up thread, there is definitely a strong element of "time" in many of these responses. Time off from work. Time away from family. Time sitting around not doing much while it rains. etc. Related to this theme is the "pressure" we get put under to have a racing day when you've been sitting in the rain for 3 days. The world is a different place than it was at the peak of racing in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. While my wife and family support my racing, they're most definitely not gonna pile into the station wagon for a mad rush across the country a la Dick Schreder.

It really sounds to me like smaller (closer to home) weekend races with less overhead and even "pop-up" contests (i.e. when good weather is coming say 3 days advance notice) would help. Imagine a model where contests are weighted based on the quality of competition (using pilot ranking list for example) such that have some benchmark to make sure contests are "real". It would also behoove pilots to recruit their friends to get critical mass for desired classes (e.g. "hey rick, we need another 18 meter guy, how about you come down").

So, here are all of the comments from the referenced survey:

• Safety and cross-country education oriented introduction to the area and tasks. (ie Hank's "newbie contest pilot" talks at the beginning of R2N each year)
• I would LOVE to fly competitions. If there were babysitters for toddlers available on each flying day -- I'd be there!
• I have absolutely no interest in competing. It's not what I'm looking for, from soaring.
• More free time.
• Not going to happen in a 1-26. But having a 'novice' category might help.
• Have to find the time to to fly regularly and get proficient.
• Busy racing cars & sailboats as you know. Maybe get back into soaring in a few years. I don't fly enough now to feel safe flying a contest.
• I don't feel quite enough "at home" in anything other than a 1-26 to fly in a competition. I need to fly higher performance gliders more to be comfortable landing out, gaggling and to judge just what I can and can't do safely.
• Having had a touch of cancer a couple of years ago, priorities changed.
• i don't fly enough to feel prepared for the more difficult tasks. flying takes too much time from other things.
• The last several years have been a mess with work demands and dealing with affairs for an elderly parent with dementia with the result I didn't fly my ship at all in 2011. College visits and A two week vacation to Italy to celebrate my daughter's HS graduation took precedence this year with my somewhat reduced vacation time from my previous position. My esteemed partner went to Mifflin. With the vacation constraints, I think experimenting with different models other than a single week or quicker decisions regarding a no fly day at contests which would allow me to get work related stuff done and not use a vacation day - benefits of a job that allows for remote working. Late August contests like Dansville are to me riskier for weather than Mifflin in May. Never have thought about Fairfield much despite proximity. Soaring camps for newbie XC pilots prior to or in conjunction may help increase participation. Also, things like non-sanctioned contests like the Little Guys meets.
• I can't be bothered assembling the glider anymore, so contests are out of the question
• More vacation days
• I am too busy with glider flight instruction duties; when our other instructor goes to a contest, I do all club training flights.
• Just time to get better - but having weekend races and two seater races would be great and get me there quicker..
• I am not interested in competition. I'm interested in Badge flying
• I am most interested in getting back into weekly flying and XC (especially Gov Cup/OLC). I need to train up my skills since I've been away from weekly flying for most of 4 years. At this stage, I don't have the extended time for or interest in major competition flying outside of Gov Cup. But I never say never.
• Beginners Training
• More families at the meet, so that I can guarantee my wife it,ll be 'good' for the kids
• Time and money
• not much; just (quite a bit) in the future - i'm not there (yet, hopefully) in terms of ability.
• I need a large breasted 23 year old swedish nanny to travel with me.
• Good weather and mainly weekend flying. A little short on time off....
• XC flying is only one of my hobbies and they all benefit from the same weather. So contests of shorter duration would interest me more.
• At 73, I don't like the stress of competition flying and the prospect of sitting around or flying on days when the weather is bad or marginal. Therefore, I am unlikely to fly in competitions anymore. Your survey is a good idea.
• I've flown twice as a team in the 1-26 Championships, and we were going to fly last year in Indiana, but the weather put a stop to that idea.. 1-26 contests are fun. Might go for the Bus Class at Wurtsboro. I'm really not interested in going up against the big boys.
• Might consider one per year if there was a competitive class...13..5 might work.
• Eric: If I had had the time, I would have come to Wurtsboro and would love to go to Mifflin.
• I answered yes and am precluded from participating but for the record, weather is a BIG problem, and safety is right on it's heals - they are of course related. The rules are absurdly complicated.
• I'd be willing to crew at a regional event to gain first hand perspective on what goes on at the meets

[Matt Herron Jr.]

I didn't see it mentioned, but aren't there some safety concerns with the types of finishes allowed in FAI rules VS SSA? I want to live to fly another day.

Second point; When discussing MATs, Sean seems to equate a pilot's opportunity to make strategic decisions with "luck". I like the MAT task because it draws on more skills and experience than just "how fast can you fly through the same air as the other guy?". Picking the best route for your skill level, the weather, and the performance of your ship in the day's conditions are strategic decisions that reflect the the skill and experience of one pilot over another. There may be a small level of chance involved, but even then, a pilot may choose to take a chance on a particular decision based on his particular standing in the contest so far.

Keep the MAT

Matt Herron

[[email protected]]

Matt Heron,

If safety is your top priority, then MAT's should be your least favorite task. The MAT is the most dangerous task possible. When you have a large group of aircraft flying in random directions back and forth over an area, not under air traffic control directions, you are setting up pilots for having a high chance of a mid air collision. An organized route drastically limits the chances of flying head to head with everyone going on a task (think FAI triangle IE).

Ask any air traffic controller how scary it would be for him to have 50 planes changing course, altitude, speed in a completely unpredictable manner and ask him how confidant he would be in the safety.

Even fly-in's for powered aircraft at Oshkosh or Sun n Fun have arrival and departure routes to fly to limit the chance of a mid air and keep it organized.

Perhaps you've never lost a friend to a mid air collision and know the reality that this is.

Folks we have two sets of rules in every country for soaring. First set of rules is the laws of the land, second set is the FAI competition rules. When we host a world championship here in America, we don't use the cockamamie rules of the SSA, we use FAR's and FAI, in that order. Don't forget that..

If you had a mid air and survived by bailing out. Even a good aviation lawyer could not defend you if you were violating FAR 91.13 "Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.".....if you were participating in a MAT.

Even with AAT's and TAT's smart CD's will utilize a steering turnpoint.

MAT's are VERY careless and wreckless.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:53:29 AM UTC-4, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> I didn't see it mentioned, but aren't there some safety concerns with the types of finishes allowed in FAI rules VS SSA? I want to live to fly another day.
>
> Second point; When discussing MATs, Sean seems to equate a pilot's opportunity to make strategic decisions with "luck". I like the MAT task because it draws on more skills and experience than just "how fast can you fly through the same air as the other guy?". Picking the best route for your skill level, the weather, and the performance of your ship in the day's conditions are strategic decisions that reflect the the skill and experience of one pilot over another. There may be a small level of chance involved, but even then, a pilot may choose to take a chance on a particular decision based on his particular standing in the contest so far.
>
> Keep the MAT
>
> Matt Herron

Matt, how is that different than OLC? The only good MAT is MAT that has more points than one can make in a day. A MAT with one turn point is simply fly around for points task. Since you can see too far forward it is pretty much a luck game.

If you look at score sheets, top pilots always end at the top, except when MAT with one turn point is involved. I am not going to bring up names here. I have heard enough swearing by these pilots right after MAT tasks.

Andrzej

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 12:31:19 PM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:53:29 AM UTC-4, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > I didn't see it mentioned, but aren't there some safety concerns with the types of finishes allowed in FAI rules VS SSA? I want to live to fly another day.
> >
> > Second point; When discussing MATs, Sean seems to equate a pilot's opportunity to make strategic decisions with "luck". I like the MAT task because it draws on more skills and experience than just "how fast can you fly through the same air as the other guy?". Picking the best route for your skill level, the weather, and the performance of your ship in the day's conditions are strategic decisions that reflect the the skill and experience of one pilot over another. There may be a small level of chance involved, but even then, a pilot may choose to take a chance on a particular decision based on his particular standing in the contest so far.
> >
> > Keep the MAT
> >
> > Matt Herron
>
> Matt, how is that different than OLC? The only good MAT is MAT that has more points than one can make in a day. A MAT with one turn point is simply fly around for points task. Since you can see too far forward it is pretty much a luck game.
>
> If you look at score sheets, top pilots always end at the top, except when MAT with one turn point is involved. I am not going to bring up names here. I have heard enough swearing by these pilots right after MAT tasks.
>
>

Typing too fast so let me correct the post.

Matt, how is that different from OLC? The only good MAT is a MAT that has more points than one can make in a day. A MAT with one turn point is simply fly around for points task. Since you can not see too far forward, it is pretty much a luck game.

If you look at score sheets, top pilots always end up at the top, except when a MAT with one turn point is involved. I am not going to bring up names here. I have heard enough swearing by these pilots right after MAT tasks.

[[email protected]]

Herb,

Erik didn't de-bunk anything. He's just found data to confirm the demise of sailplane racing and soaring for a variety of reasons. I also don't place much value in a survey using answers regarding sizes of breasts of younger women as a reason to withdraw from the sport. His research has confirmed that what our leadership has done has unfortunately been ineffective.

Are you suggesting that we keep things on the same path? Do you feel that the demise is simply "it is what is it"?

If you viewed this beloved sport in a way of your health, or a company you own, or anything that's valued, would you just keep doing the same thing and expect different results?

[Ron Gleason]

On Sunday, 23 October 2016 10:25:12 UTC-6, wrote:
..
>
> Folks we have two sets of rules in every country for soaring. First set of rules is the laws of the land, second set is the FAI competition rules. When we host a world championship here in America, we don't use the cockamamie rules of the SSA, we use FAR's and FAI, in that order. Don't forget that.
>

The above statement is not accurate. At the 2012 Uvalde Worlds there were specific changes implemented via the local procedures, sorry I do not have a copy nor could I find a copy online, to FAI rules regarding the flight rules that mimicked the SSA rules. Specifically a start cylinder was able to be used, maximum start height was used, and minimum finish altitudes were implemented. I also believe that the maximum turnpoint cylinder diameter was increased but I could be wrong. A custom version of SeeYou competitions was made available for the 2012 worlds.

Ron Gleason
2012 Uvalde Open Class scorer

[[email protected]]

Folks,


Albert Einstein said "the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result."

John Wooden said “Failure isn’t fatal, but failure to change might be”

Colin Powell said "There are no secrets to success. It is the preparation, hard work and learning from failure."

The sport of soaring is failing in the United States. Are we willing to make changes to learn from our failures? Or will we just continue on a path of insanity.

We can't change costs, but we can take a lesson from other countries who are successful at growing the sport of soaring and learn what we are doing differently that is failing.

What are you afraid of???

[Papa3[_2_]]

Regarding the data. There were 580 people on the SSA Pilot Ranking List in the year that I did the survey. I got 66 responses. Depending on how you want to look at it, the respondents were either about an 11 percent sample or a 6 percent sample (about half of the people had competed in a sanctioned contest and half hadn't). By anyone's measure, that's a statistically significant survey.

If you want to have a facts-based discussion on the issue, then go ahead and design and execute a better survey.

And maybe use your real name - it makes it so much more transparent.

Erik Mann (P3)


On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 12:54:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Herb,
>
> Erik didn't de-bunk anything. He's just found data to confirm the demise of sailplane racing and soaring for a variety of reasons. I also don't place much value in a survey using answers regarding sizes of breasts of younger women as a reason to withdraw from the sport. His research has confirmed that what our leadership has done has unfortunately been ineffective.
>
> Are you suggesting that we keep things on the same path? Do you feel that the demise is simply "it is what is it"?
>
> If you viewed this beloved sport in a way of your health, or a company you own, or anything that's valued, would you just keep doing the same thing and expect different results?

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 2:35:21 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> Regarding the data. There were 580 people on the SSA Pilot Ranking List in the year that I did the survey. I got 66 responses. Depending on how you want to look at it, the respondents were either about an 11 percent sample or a 6 percent sample (about half of the people had competed in a sanctioned contest and half hadn't). By anyone's measure, that's a statistically significant survey.
>
> If you want to have a facts-based discussion on the issue, then go ahead and design and execute a better survey.
>
> And maybe use your real name - it makes it so much more transparent.
>
> Erik Mann (P3)
>
>
>

The 2011 pilot poll asked about participation and barriers to participation in topic 6. I recall that the responses very much agreed with those shown in the P3 poll.
Time and money mentioned a lot. Rules and tasks- not much.
I agree with P3- it is good to know who you are exchanging views with. An experienced competition pilot or somebody that rode in the sniffer once?
UH

[Tango Eight]

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:20:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:

> I agree with P3- it is good to know who you are exchanging views with. An experienced competition pilot or somebody that rode in the sniffer once?
> UH

I think it's just Sean talkin' to himself.

T8

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

I would bet money that he is talking to Wilbur.......... but, that's my bet....... YMMV......

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Matt Heron,
>
> If safety is your top priority, then MAT's should be your least favorite task. The MAT is the most dangerous task possible. When you have a large group of aircraft flying in random directions back and forth over an area, not under air traffic control directions, you are setting up pilots for having a high chance of a mid air collision. An organized route drastically limits the chances of flying head to head with everyone going on a task (think FAI triangle IE).
>
> Ask any air traffic controller how scary it would be for him to have 50 planes changing course, altitude, speed in a completely unpredictable manner and ask him how confidant he would be in the safety.
>
> Even fly-in's for powered aircraft at Oshkosh or Sun n Fun have arrival and departure routes to fly to limit the chance of a mid air and keep it organized.
>
> Perhaps you've never lost a friend to a mid air collision and know the reality that this is.
>
> Folks we have two sets of rules in every country for soaring. First set of rules is the laws of the land, second set is the FAI competition rules. When we host a world championship here in America, we don't use the cockamamie rules of the SSA, we use FAR's and FAI, in that order. Don't forget that.
>
> If you had a mid air and survived by bailing out. Even a good aviation lawyer could not defend you if you were violating FAR 91.13 "Careless or reckless operation.
> (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.".....if you were participating in a MAT.
>
> Even with AAT's and TAT's smart CD's will utilize a steering turnpoint.
>
> MAT's are VERY careless and wreckless.

Hi Wilbur,

I appreciate your passion on the subject. I am always open to being persuaded by facts. Do you have any to back up your claim that MAT's are wreckless? Is there a statistically significant increase in the number of fatalities, mid-airs, or near misses during US sanctioned contests over the last five years VS any other type of task? The data should be available. Convince me. If you can't however, then you should be willing to change YOUR position.

My safety concerns re FAI rules concern low altitude finishes. Are these allowed? I seem to recall a great deal of effort has gone into the SSA rules to make contests safer by changing finish rules.

Matt

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Sorry to nitpick....."wreckless" sorta means "no bent bits", while "reckless" is more of an attitude......

Sorta my issue with an "FAA near miss", so we bent multiple aircraft?
Bending towards George Carlin, "shouldn't it be called a 'near hit'"?

Enough said, history is almost everything.........

[Branko Stojkovic]

Hey Wilbur,

If you hope to persuade anyone, you first need to earn their respect. A good start would be signing your posts with your real name.

However, if Wilbur is just an alias that you are using to prop up your own arguments, as some have started to suspect, you should give it up.

In any case, hiding behind an alias only demonstrates that you have something to hide and that won't earn you any respect.

Branko Stojkovic
XYU

[MNLou]

Just a clarification on MATs -

I don't disagree with the safety comments on MATs without any required turnpoints.

A MAT with required steering turnpoint as the last turnpoint helps safety to some extent.

A MAT with both a required first turnpoint and a last steering turnpoint helps even more.

A Long MAT should be almost on par with regards to safety as an AT or a TAT I would think.

Lou

[Papa3[_2_]]

Hank,

Thanks for reminding us of the 2011 poll. I downloaded the comments to Section 6 over the weekend. Makes interesting reading. And you recall correctly, out of the very long list of people responded, there was only one person who cited The Rules as a major inhibitor. If I get time, I'll do some keyword mining, but you only have to read the comments quickly to find out that the main issues are:

- Time off from work/family
- Distance to contests (see point 1)
- Comfort/skills
- Costs (a little different from what I uncovered but then again this poll would naturally have that "bias" since it's focused on people who ARE competing) Note that more focus was on Total Cost (including hotels and travel) rather than "just" the competition-specific costs (with a couple notable outliers)

There's an obvious trend here if we can address it. I've got some thoughts, but it clearly revolves around smaller but well-structured contests which leverage technology (remote scoring, quality of competition, etc.) to be able to create a new type of "regional". I really think that small competitions (maybe a single class limited to 15 pilots - combined FAI, Sports, etc.) which could be run on a "pop-up" basis when a period of good weather is coming could actually be doable by many clubs and FBOs. It would require "re-engineering" the entire process of running a contest, but if enough smart minds put their energy to it I'm sure it could be done. It's like the GTA and Chicagoland models but maybe taken up a small notch.


On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:20:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 2:35:21 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> > Regarding the data. There were 580 people on the SSA Pilot Ranking List in the year that I did the survey. I got 66 responses. Depending on how you want to look at it, the respondents were either about an 11 percent sample or a 6 percent sample (about half of the people had competed in a sanctioned contest and half hadn't). By anyone's measure, that's a statistically significant survey.
> >
> > If you want to have a facts-based discussion on the issue, then go ahead and design and execute a better survey.
> >
> > And maybe use your real name - it makes it so much more transparent.
> >
> > Erik Mann (P3)
> >
> >
> >
>
> The 2011 pilot poll asked about participation and barriers to participation in topic 6. I recall that the responses very much agreed with those shown in the P3 poll.
> Time and money mentioned a lot. Rules and tasks- not much.
> I agree with P3- it is good to know who you are exchanging views with. An experienced competition pilot or somebody that rode in the sniffer once?
> UH

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> Hank,
>
> Thanks for reminding us of the 2011 poll.

Link to the poll for those who are interested in doing their own analysis/homework.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Pilot%20Opinion%20Poll%20Results%203.pdf

[[email protected]]

On the time and format issue, several national contest lately have been set up to start on a weekend and finish on the next weekend.

Unless you are local to the site, that makes the contest effect THREE work weeks, which is a no go for me, and probably many others.

I finally have a glider that is competitive in handicapped classes, sports, would have been in the Club, but the latest change to that class limits span to 15 meters.

The format that has been used successfully by the 1-26 Association for the Championships for many years has started with practice on Mon and Tues with the contest beginning on Wed. That leaves time for travel on both ends so you do not turn a National into a Regional contest. I would strongly urge this type of format for any contest that is not a regional.

Kevin
92

[Sean[_2_]]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:51:38 PM UTC-4, Sean wrote:
> I have been saying that the opinion poll is often designed to "steer" its readers towards particular responses for years now.
>
> But, I have another, broader question.
>
> Why do we mindlessly waste our time every year squabbling about US rules and opinion polls when we could simply "put the US rules out to pasture" and rejoin the international FAI system? Why is it "religion" that we continue forward with US rules? Why are US rules so important? Should we at least be considering FAI? At least asking the opinion of all our US contest pilots?
>
> Of course, using US rules requires us to also develop and maintain our own custom scoring software tools? The truth is that Winscore is barely supportable. If our single developer, for whatever reason, suddenly quits supporting it we are in deep trouble. Winscore is a hard program to learn and few can use it effectively.
>
> One the other hand, a proven international soaring rule system, called FAI, exists. The FAI rule system is used by most countries and the vast majority of total soaring contest worldwide, including the WGC, use the FAI rules. By leaving US rules behind (out there somewhere, happily eating fresh grass in a lovely pasture) we would save ourselves tremendous amounts of mind-numbing debate, significant volunteer effort (rules committee) and simultaneously rejoin the world soaring community in a common, familiar and effective soaring rule system (and ranking system).
>
> So, what is the TRUE, measured value of carrying on with our own custom "US only" soaring rule system?
>
> What advantage do we "enjoy?" because we have our own unique rule system? What is the "return on investment" vs. the "cost" of further supporting US rules (and being isolated)?
>
> Measurements. Do the US rules result in increased contest participation in the USA vs. other nations which use FAI? Easier contest administration? Increased safety? Better racing? Improved competition skills development? How about US international competitiveness? Junior interest? I don't see any of those measures showing any measurable improvement for the USA. In fact, relative to Europe , US soaring has fallen well behind in many of those measurements when compared to FAI countries since the US changed to US rules? Have they not? Who can prove me wrong? Data? Where are we better off?
>
> Again, what is the TRUE value in maintaining our own unique US soaring competition rules? Why are we the only country that has its own unique rules? Why is the question of adopting FAI never part of the US rules committee's discussions (or our comedy relief opinion poll) or just in regular, broader discussions?
>
> Are the US RC members expected to be open-minded and creative thinkers looking for the best general direction or are they US rule "church" arbiters dedicated only to the continuation of the US rules (and destroyers of any other ideas)?
>
> What measured facts make carrying on with US Rules so critical? What would the result of a return to FAI be (the same rules used by all other soaring countries)? These are simple, basic, sensible and fundamental questions that, in my opinion, should be asked regularly by the SSA in general. Yet they NEVER are asked, formally or informally.
>
> Is this discussion blasphemy? If so, why is that blasphemy?
>
> Wouldn't the effort spent supporting the US rules committee be better spent on other SSA priorities? Surely we have more critical objectives? Hard things like finding ways to get more families, children and youth pilots interested in soaring. Or like youth soaring competition development. Or growing contest participation. Etc.
>
> And yes, the question on Flarm is fairly obvious.
>
> But more important that predictable stuff, the US rules, and its annual opinion poll have become a big yawn. As if this yearly tuning exercise is going to yield a big break-thru. What is the goal of all this US rules drudgery? What do we expect to happen? A sudden turn around in participation? Not likely. We need some big thinkers. We need some new ideas. At least we need some different voices at the table. It's getting really old.
>
> To that point, both Michael Westbrook and I (both current US team members and both significantly younger than the average US RC member) had our US RC nominations "thrown out" by our "wise and powerful" regional directors. We were therefore not included on the current US RC election ballot. Non "good old boys" need not apply I guess...

Once again, watching the US rules "fanboys" react to my question about measured value reminds me of the feeling one has while watching a D-list horror movie. You sit there knowing what is coming well before the "it" happens. Then the music changes slightly, and you already know what is going to happen. Like Jaws. The first notes. Pause, then a few more. And so on. With the US rules, we can all tell what is "coming" simply by glancing at the first few questions in the now infamous "opinion poll." Or better yet by what RC election nominations the regional directors choose to "reject." Despite all this, for some unknown reason, most of you still sit there and watch the scene play out. All the while thinking to ourselves, how can the person on the screen be so blind. Then, once the "horror" has occurred, we find yourself shaking your head and wondering, why did I waste my time yet again?

But there are still some good reasons to keep pressing ahead with my simple question. It is clear that the US rule "fanboys" are uncomfortable with engaging in a direct answering to my question. Well, they should be uncomfortable. We all should have been thinking about value from the moment the US rules experiment began. I believe that our RC "holy men" never actually thought about value and that that was/is a massive fiduciary failure.

Again, my question is simple. "What measured value justifies the SSA continuing to use our custom US soaring rules vs. FAI which is used happily, safely and successfully worldwide?"

I look forward to a well thought out list.

Not a one of the key fanboys has addressed my question directly and shown any real value. Probably because they simply have no meaningful response. My question has probably caught them off guard. I find that shameful and telling. Justification of the US rules should be a slam dunk for all of you.. An immediate, ready to go, canned response that demonstrates value, why we are using US rules and why we plan to continue. That should be front and center on the SSA website too. Here is why we use our custom soaring competition rules in the USA and reject FAI. A, B, C, D, E, F.... Of course, this content is simply not there.

The truth is that they would be firing data points out as if it came out of a cannon if they had any to give. I'll bet a mini "think tank" has been commissioned to try and respond. Unfortunately, they seem to have ZERO MEASURED DATA to justify long-held positions about US rule value. Or worse, they really could care less about measuring value at all. This lack of engagement on the measured value data question (after weeks of my repeatedly asking the same simple question) proves my point, abundantly well.

I believe that the real problem is that the "US rules experiment" was that is was never evaluated as a temporary test. It simply was what we "do now." Dont ask questions, just get in line. The US rules have, in my opinion, instead become a fiercely defended religion by the circle of good old boys.. They are intolerant of challenges to their divinity and become almost angry at even the suggestion of FAI or an assigned task. US soaring competition is their property. We are just guests. We should feel lucky to be here. How dare you question us! We have been doing this for 40 years. Blah, blah, blah... "Look how stupid this is about FAI." "Look how stupid that is about FAI."

By any form of objective value measurement, the US rules have proven themselves to be a failure. Years of operation under the US rules experiment have provided us no measurable upside other than 1) being very different than FAI and 2) having OLC like tasking as it's most notable feature. We have plenty of data on the US rules effect on our sport. Down! If there were any demonstrable upside to the US rules, it would be readily apparent. What we know, for a fact, is that maintaining the US rules costs us significant time, energy, money (paying for the maintenance of winscore) and "general frustration" while simultaneously completely isolating us all (Americans and Canadian competition pilots) from the world soaring community and FAI competition standards. The USA has become the oddball of the soaring world. The only country to maintain experimental soaring rules and a soaring nation in significant decline. A country that has created a new "non-racing" sailplane competition culture (and is proud of it!).

I should note that if the FAI suddenly adopted US rules, I would be slightly (slightly, or barely) happier (but still entirely unsatisfied with the US tasking). At least we would be back on the same page with other soaring nations and friends. We could use the same ranking list, scoring software, etc. At least we would be part of the international sailplane competition community and could rest in the knowledge that we are competing in the same sport as 95% of the soaring world. But the reality is the US soaring competition is now highly, highly watered down. FAI is NOT going to adopt US rules because US tasking has morphed into something which borders on ridiculous from a competition perspective. A supposed "racing sport" that includes exactly zero racing, whatsoever.

The SSA homepage main navigation has a prominent section (ironically) titled SAILPLANE RACING. Beneath that in the sub navigation is:
-Racing Calendar
-etc., etc.

Or there is this from the first section of SAILPLANE RACING called ABOUT CONTESTS:

"RACING SAILPLANES RULE

Racing sailplanes are the most efficient flying machines ever designed by man. Computer engineered laminar flow airfoils and cantilevered composite-fiber wings carry pilot and craft at freeway and faster speeds, bending the air so precisely that altitude is traded for distance at extraordinary rates.. A modern racing sailplane converts one foot of altitude into fifty feet of forward progress, a slope barely detectible by human senses."

The definition of word "race" (Google):
race
noun
1.
a competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, {gliders}, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a SET COURSE.
"I won the first 50-lap race"
synonyms: contest, competition, event, heat, trial(s)
"Sasha won the race"

In other words, there is absolutely no glider racing in US glider contests today! Zero. Pathetic.

It is a fact that our US competitions today are almost entirely made up of OLC theme 'tasks." Even at our National Championships. The Canadian national championship (this fall, for example) ran exactly zero (Z-E-R-O, aka none) assigned tasks. They even tried to call a one turn MAT (aka HAT) task on the final day (in horrible weather) to decide its champion after a close fought week of soaring held in legendary conditions. Thankfully, the one turn HAT task was impossible to begin and the day was called due to poor weather.

Check it here to see for yourself: http://nationals.yorksoaring.com

Not a single assigned area task was called in the Canadian Nationals (FAI 15/18 m class or Club) despite exceptional soaring conditions for seven days in a row. Speeds of 100 kph were logged nearly every competition day in 15/18 and 80 kph in Club. Despite these epic conditions (often faster than in Uvalde, held over the same week), only a long list of wide radius, turn area tasks were called. Just awful. A symbol of what the US tasking philosophy has done to the lost sport of sailplane racing in North America.

In fact, US rules have resulted in over 97% timed tasks over recent years. And that number is steadily expanding towards 100%. Assigned tasks (even the perverted variable distance US version) are virtually extinct in North America. Almost everything about US rules is different from FAI rules, not just the tasking philosophy. See: finish penalties, starting procedures, etc. The SSA and its "leaders" have created an entirely different sport which should be called "NOT RACING."

OLC is glider "racing?" Give me a break. Nothing about OLC, MAT's, HATS or even TAT's is racing. Some parts of US rules make sense, but the cost of being so different from the world glider racing community is far higher that a few minor improvements in a sea of watered down crud. For what measured value do we pay the price of being the isolated oddball with nearly 100% OLC weather guess tasking and ZERO RACING WHATSOEVER?

None. Zero value. The impact of US rules appears to be quite strongly negative on US soaring competition in fact. I, for one, want to participate in the same sport as the rest of the world. I, for one, have had enough with the "mad scientist experimentation" of the current "leadership." Enough!

What we see here on RAS in this thread, especially from our US rules clergymen, instead of straight objective answers regarding measured value, is panic fire and personal attacks for even suggesting US rules are perhaps not making the grade. We get sermons and lectures about how US rules aren't the real reason for our sports slow, steady decline. The subject (measured value of US rules vs. FAI) is immediately changed, bounced around, with plenty of personal insults added in for good measure, with general flailing, spirited frothing and so on.

How dare you Sean question our "divine" rules system? You have only been competing for five years. We have been doing this for 40 years. How dare you question us. Oh, and you're not on the ballot this year US team kids, but good luck next year (wink, wink). Oh, and this has nothing to do with the fact that you are open to FAI rules and openly dislike US tasking (and support established or regulatory new technologies as inevitable). It really is impressive at times to watch how these guys play their political game.

Additionally, the standard excuses for US contest soaring's decline are offered as a justification for not considering FAI and staying the failed US rules course. All points suggesting that FAI rules have value or merit are shouted down. Keep in mind that the only question I have ever really asked here has been consistently ignored by the "architects" of the US rules.

Excuses such as:
-declining contest numbers are not the US rules or US tasking philosophy's fault
-available vacation time is the problem (disregard the fact that US tasking isn't much different than staying home and flying OLC, so why bother to travel to a US contest?)
-expendable income and money
-societal decay such as kids preferring to play on mobile devices all day and not valuing outdoor activity
-the aging US demographic doesn't want to risk any land-outs
-the slow death for US soaring is inevitable
- why end the US rules experiment if we can't endure the "stress" of change
-our biased poll said this or that, etc. (interpretation of the poll)

Really? These tired excuses are what you're going with? Still?

I'll take on one popular standard excuse. Money. I simply don't buy that gliding is too expensive. The truth is that a very nice sailplane costs far less than most small pleasure boats. Hell, many gliders cost less than the average pontoon boat. Gliders also hold most of their value, even after very long term ownership. Gliding clubs are relatively cheap, and several pilots can easily share ownership of a sailplane if the demand was there. The fact is that individuals and families buy the "toys" they want most. They invest in activities that are most highly valued. I reject the argument that gliders or gliding is "too expensive." What does that statement really mean? ATV's, campers, boats, snowmobiles, and yoga classes are too expensive depending on how you value them. So are golf clubs, country clubs, swim clubs, yacht clubs or taking regular vacations. Too expensive vs. what exactly? Too expensive is simply a human beings measure of value vs. other options. 99% of businesses would be out of business in less than a year if they accepted the statement "you are too expensive" from their customers in regards to their product or service. Successful business's carefully build, grow and nurture the perception of their products value in the minds of your clients. This is often referred to as....drum roll.....marketing.. Ta da!

Academics and uppity types usually underestimate and undervalue the importance of marketing. Many viable businesses and service organizations fail quickly because they fail to prioritize marketing highly enough. Marketing is where the real value is created and converted into success. And we have very little marketing, of any measurable sort, in the SSA. Soaring is essentially our brand. Brands must be continuously invested in and maintained. Few seem to really know what the SSA is, what value it can provide them. Few know what the sport of gliding is in the United States. We rarely have press releases. We rarely have any media attention. No wonder we are where we are.

Back to money. People don't think gliders are too expensive. They do not perceive the value of gliding "well" at this time. Why should they? Look at the SSA website. It needs a total replacement and more importantly a new set of governing goals and objectives. Leadership. Look at the SSA's youtube channel. Look at our social media content, in general. We need some strategy there. Just sharing content is not going to provide value. Are we focused on existing members or attracting new members? At best, our social media content is "not very exciting" and it clearly doesn't focus on clearly defined objectives.

Any potential net new SSA "customers" will carefully choose what purchases to make and what personal recreation investments will provide the most value to them. Youth are looking for what is cool. What are their friends doing. 20s-and 30s for making friends and meeting people. 40's for family activities. And so on. These decisions on how to spend time, on what is cool are often made online today. We need to leave the 90's behind and enter the year 2016 To survive; the SSA must become laser focused and efficient at attracting net new people into the sport of soaring via well-planned marketing on its online channels. We are simply awful at this today. What we do today doesn't yet qualify as measurable. I avoid the SSA website because it makes me ill. I would suggest that it loses us more members than it attracts. Same with our Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (very important) and Instagram. What the hell are we doing?

Look at this....https://www.ushpa.org

Now look at this...https://www.ssa.org

Any questions?

Marketing and building the soaring brand takes strategic planning and iteration. It takes bright people. It requires sensible financial investment. We cannot resign ourselves to continuous decline and inevitable failure any longer. The SSA website and social channels are not, OK. It is unacceptable. We must focus on re-booting the way the sport of gliding is perceived by the general public (people outside of flying or gliding today). We must focus on attracting and retaining youth members like our very lives depend on it (because when it comes to the SSA, it does depend on it). In 10 years, 50% of the SSA membership will be significantly less active, or no longer active. Shame on everyone here for not recognizing this 15 years ago.

Growth and markering the sport of soaring is where the wasted efforts of the US Rules Committee volunteers would be far better spent, in my opinion. We need "all hands on deck," focused on growth, youth and improving our marketing effectiveness (that is to "begin" to market our brand). Not down below deck endlessly tinkering with failed, valueless custom rules that we do not need to survive.

The problem is that the sport of soaring competition (in the US) has become "less important" to people in general when compared to other, equally expensive, time-consuming activities. The value people assign contest has declined dramatically (and continues to fall). It this NOTHING to do with the cost of a glider or of renting or a club. The value perception of contest soaring needs to be seriously addressed. I see many who complain about contest "cost" but have plenty of money to spend on other choices.

In soaring, right now, you can buy a great club/sports class glider for 25k.. For 50-60k you can buy a Lak17a which is very competitive in 15/18. It is not the money. Bottom line, we need the sport of soaring (racing vs. OLC) to become more valued. It's that simple.

Back to tasking and US rules. I strongly believe that the next generation of people who might have the capacity (affluent, smart, competitive, adventurous) to become seriously interested in sailplane competition are not going to be excited about the idea of spending a week flying around alone playing weather guessing games (then waiting 3 hours to see results). To most that is a game, not a racing sport. I think they will, like me, want to go racing. A love of racing is common in all cultures, worldwide. We need a change in how the sport is presented in the USA (difficult to explain or learn vs. simple racing). This might just start to attract some actual new people to our sport again. What do we have to lose?

If soaring competition is more attractive to more people, than more people will buy gliders and participate in contests. Simple. OLC style contests do not justify much in the way of a competition glider investment. Mainly, the vast majority of the pilots in those classes here in the USA have been flying gliders for 20-30 years. OLC was actually developed specifically for creating an even lower common denominator regarding required structural requirements vs. contests (require CM, CD, scorer, retrieve office, Winscore, certified loggers, special firmware for instruments, etc., etc.). That is all fine and good, but the fatal mistake our "leadership" has made was to confuse OLC with real gliding competition or contests. OLC is, at best, a feeder activity to real glider competition. What the US RC "geniuses" have done is panic and change US contests to replicate OLC. OLC is simple should be 5x bigger than contests. Hell, 10x. That's great. But OLC leaves a great deal to be desired in terms of objective competition that would attract youth pilots to a real sport. We could use more of both OLC and Contests last I checked. People out flying is great. But please don't think that you can or should change contest soaring into OLC. This is destroying the sport of soaring in the USA. It already has done significant damage. This is a fatal mistake.

The US response to OLC has been to expand the pilot option aspects of TAT and MAT/HAT tasking. 30-mile radius turn areas are common. Even on days with good weather. One turn MAT tasks are called at National Championships as critical contest deciding tasks. This is CDs and task committee's doing "what they are" comfortable with becuase they have no guidance or leadership in the rules (like FAI does). The US RC architects simply shrug their shoulders and say, don't look at me, its the CD's decision. Amazing. Utter failure.

This is the SSA in pure survival mode, desperately reacting to slowly dropping contest attendance. It's like lowering your products price as the only solution to slow sales. It is very hard to sustain. This now results in OLC tasking at the US and Canadian Nationals competitions. The strategy seems to be "keep lowering and lowering the bar." Well, now the bar is at about 6 inches. People dont even have to step over it anymore. Why even bother traveling to US contests to fly OLC? No crew, fine. We will call tiny 2 hour TAT or HAT tasks close to the airport. And so on. Have you ever considered that this "lowering the bar" strategy makes contest participation less attractive for many? What a bore.

Where does the SSA "lower the bar" tasking and rules strategy end? I say we need to raise the bar back up. Quality matters. Contests cannot be for everyone. Quality means more real glider racing and less OLC, pilot option, timed task, HAT task, self-serve crap. I believe contest pilots want a true challenge to aspire too. Contests should not be something that you are ready for two months after getting your license. It should be hard. Rewarding. Memorable. They should produce better glider pilots. The contest should be something that you have to learn how to do. Contests should not be just a slight formalization of what you already do when flying around at home (OLC). Oh, and by the way, what I am suggesting is essentially the same thing that is done at FAI contests around the world. Assigned tasking. TAT on days with weather concerns. Balance.

When I truly started gliding, I invested in a pure class (15/18). Sure, it wasn't cheap. But I learned relatively fast because I was flying a glider with the same performance as my far more experienced mentors. This was enormously valuable. We only flew to turnpoints, like an assigned task. I always worked hard to make the turnpoints by the way although some would turn when it got challenging. If I began soaring at an airport with mainly Libelles and only one Lake17a, I would have bought the Libelle. A no brainer.. What justifies buying a competition glider (or sailboat, or mountain bike, etc) and investing in a participating in a competition lifestyle (for me at least). A form of competition that is consistent, well run, objective, fair, comprehensive and most importantly, FUN! Delightful! Both socially and, of course, in the air. Head to head flying (racing) actually means something. This meaning, this objectivity, this excitement, this passion has been all but destroyed in the US. I honestly had more fun flying at home with the Ionia 18 meter gang. Most US contests I spend the majority of the task entirely alone managing my computer to make time/distance/weather estimation decisions. US contests are getting very boring for me (and others I suspect) because the tasks are no longer races. They are all weather guessing, strategy, chance tasks. I would be fine with 50% of this kind of tasking to manage weather concerns. But 97% OLC is ridiculous. Why bother? Furthermore, US contest scores take ages to get back each evening (not the fault of the scorer, but of our whole US direction). This time delay is even with a great scorer.

At least with an assigned task you have some idea of the result. Some satisfaction. Again, what we have today in the USA is 97% "go fly around for 2-3 hours and tell me how many miles you managed to make" and then "wait 3 more hours for me to tell you how you scored" culture. Is this really what you all want your sport to be about? Is that even a sport? I say no. That is more like a very expensive game of strategy/chance/guess (this assumed racing tasks require no strategy, which is of course entirely ridiculous)? Custom US rules, their OLC tasks and our custom scoring software and complete isolation from the soaring world. Mind numbing boring tasks. This is the total of the value that US rules provides us today.

Most of the excuses (posts above) for US contest soarings struggles are side effects of many years of blindly following the SSA's chosen path of TOTAL ISOLATION from the world soaring community. Soaring in the USA is now OLC.. Plain and simple. You can do OLC at home by yourself. An even more subjective OLC task type has recently been seriously (last couple years, I'm sure its still on the table) discussed by a US RC. In contrast, soaring competitions in the FAI environment (rest of the world) is about racing assigned tasks whenever possible. TAT's are called on poor weather days. Period.. The way it should be.

We have been led down this path by emotionally charged, closed minded, narrowly focused and perhaps arrogant leadership who truly think they know better than the rest of the world. I respect that in many ways (;-)) but eventually some positive performance metrics must be shown.

Timed, pilot choice gliding "competition" is a losing growth strategy.

Once upon a time, the US rules founders said: "follow us to the promise land!" FAI no more. US rules will be a great improvement. "We must pass the bill so you can see what is in it..." And you bought it. Hook, line and sinker. Well, here we are, a couple decades later, and it is clear that the US rules have failed to deliver measured value. Unless you somehow consider OLC US contests and falling turnout to be a strong success indicator?

Even though there is no measured value justifying a different rule system, they still want you to follow them up the mountain chanting:
-US rules are great!
-MATs (aka HATs) are great! "True tests of skill [sic]."
-Timed, pilot option tasks or death.
-Assigned tasks are evil. You'll land out (knock your eye out) kid!
-New technology is evil and must be destroyed so the old guys are happy.
-"Flarm is used only for leeching," confess and be saved!
- FAI is evil. The countryside is littered with dead European pilots trying to finish to low!

People! Stop drinking this Kool-AID that the SSA US rules clergy are feeding you. This is all BS.

If I am wrong, shouldn't US rules have clearly resulted in:
-more and better contests
-stronger growth vs. FAI rules counties
-better safety statistics
-happier more enthusiastic pilots all bushy tailed and excited to fly the superior US tasks?
-Shouldn't we have far better competition pilots than the rest of the world who fly those "ridiculous" assigned tasks 50-70% of the time?
-And therefore dominant performances at major international competitions?

You know, the FAI assingned tasks which result in all kinds of gliders landing out "all the time!" You know, since our US tasking is so progressive and superior.

You know, the US OLC/HAT tasks which train our pilot's to use their "creative thinking" and "weather knowledge" (WABOFBS). Allowing our superior US pilots to "use the day?"

We have no tasks in the USA which allow for a simple, fixed race track, ever. All (literally all) US tasks have some element of pilot option and/or are timed, pilot option tasks. Think about that for a moment.

These tasks must really train our US pilots to "use the weather" better than those fools who race around set assigned tasks? Our pilots should be far better at following the pretty clouds, should they not? How is it that we can ever lose in International competition again? How is it that we do not have waiting lists at our regional contests again? This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments that I have ever heard.

Of course none of the "value" above is true. Not a single element.

We can go on...

How about the explosive youth participation the US rules are driving for us at all levels? The exciting social environment for pilots of all ages (not just Seniors)? You know. The Junior Nationals, Women's Nationals. Junior and Women classes at all of our regional and national contests? The huge youth training camps (See Europe, Austalia, Britain) our US tasking now allows us to have because FAI rules are too dangerous? (Again, WABOFBS). Utter crap. Kool-aid overdose. Shouldn't all the superior US tasks (rules) have allowed us to really grow soaring competition at a higher rate than FAI rules?

The truth is that the traveling US rules circus has resulted in zero measured value after many, many years of trying. ZERO. Negative in fact. By any measure. If I am wrong, show me how.

The time has come to try something sensible, proven and most importantly, dramatically DIFFERENT. Look, over there... (pointing at Europe and the FAI flag planted at the soaring headquarters of all European soaring nations).....it's the FAI rules! All ready to go. Waiting for us to simply pick them up and use them. But for some, the US rules have become a religion (Science vs. Creationism), and some are clearly starting to become a little radicalized. They are "clinging" to the US rulebook. They are only supporting the continuation of US rules. Any other path is blasphemy and must be attacked as utter heresy.

You guys wonder why so few bother to vote or fill out the rules pole? That's your biggest problem right there. I suggest that many of us simply don't want to participate it YOUR US rules CIRCUS anymore. It is ridiculous. It doesn't matter. The good old boys are going to do whatever they choose. They are going to "get the Flarms." They are going to kill assigned tasks and install OLC tasks. Many, many US pilots have either already checked out or are getting close to moving on. The US rules are clearly a waste of time and resources. A pure power trip for some of the most radical. US tasks are simply not fun. Many of us are tired of this endless political churn with literally NO positive measured value to show for it.

What we are reading here, in the thread responses above this one, are desperate arguments saying that we need to keep doing the things we have been doing and work on the "other problems." Those excuses are harder to quantify.. FAI rules would immediately stabilize rules and open up our volunteer resources dramatically. We would also be on the same rules and ranking platform as the rest of the soaring world. We would also no longer need to spend the time, money and effort on supporting our own custom scoring application.

I rest my case. We all know these boys are hunkered down and not going to change.

Isn't it way past time to get some "different thinkers" at the helm here. At least on the bridge. Nope. They chose to block the nominations of the only two younger pilots (both current US team pilots) for example. What a joke.

Again, US rules clergy, please answer my simple question. What value does all the effort required to maintain the US rules provide us? How is our sport in the US better because of your endless, ongoing crusades? Why not utilize the FAI rule system and move on? It's time.

If you can't easily prove the value of US rules, if you cannot quantify the value, you are simply not being honest with yourself.

[[email protected]]

Why are the racing committee pilots who post on this forum on a regular basis refusing to comment or answer these questions?

These guys will answer easy questions on this forum about winglets, tow hitches, flarm to you name it! But when it comes to the tough questions about the demise in our sport.....TOTAL SILENCE!!

[[email protected]]

holy cow - I am too new to contests to comment on such complicated subjects. (Not enough skin in the game yet)

BUT - that was the longest post I have ever seen - 5,133 words, remarkable - The Declaration of Independence is 1,317. It may not be silence - it may be slow readers ;)


WH

[Dan Marotta]

Maybe because it doesn't take an hour and a half to read the "wordy"
questions...? Keep it simple, Wilbur, and without so many silly
accusations and you might get more and better responses.

On 10/26/2016 7:29 AM, wrote:
> Why are the racing committee pilots who post on this forum on a regular basis refusing to comment or answer these questions?
>
> These guys will answer easy questions on this forum about winglets, tow hitches, flarm to you name it! But when it comes to the tough questions about the demise in our sport.....TOTAL SILENCE!!
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Branko Stojkovic]

OK, I'll bit first.

On the subject of US rules versus FAI rules, my vote is for switching over to FAI rules in the US and Canada.

Heck, the only reason Canadian nationals are flown by US rules is to make it easier for Canadians when they compete in the US contests. By the same token, it would be easier for the US and Canadian pilots to compete in international contests if the US and Canadian comps were flown under the FAI rules.

On the subject of challenging the old boys club who are protecting their turf, good luck with that one Sean. It's doable, but be prepared for a very long battle. Remember the adage "old attitudes change one funeral at a time"..

As for the tone of your posts: I understand your frustration, but ridiculing those whose opinions you are trying to change ain't helping. Just my 2 cents.

Branko Stojkovic
XYU

[Craig Reinholt]

Dan, didn't you know that "tonnage" and shouting at the top of your voice ALWAYS wins? ;-)
Craig

[N97MT]

I am a 30+ year SSA member and have never raced in competition. Time and family. Helped dad at one National in Elmira and several Regionals in the early years. He got out because of time and money. I helped Sean at one R6 competition. I did not measure anything there. I was just glad to help my soaring comrades run a competition.

Now looking at this from a broader perspective, it looks like this is not just a "Rule A or B" argument. Sean's arguments are going way beyond that. Having been slapped down by the Region Director, it sounds like that really hurt.

It sounds to me Sean like you need to go to the SSA member base, convince them of your arguments and get your POV into the SSA governing structure that way. That is of course if you still believe in the SSA as being the best organization to change this through. From what I understand it is the Region members that vote their Region Directors into office.

Most SSA members do not read the RAC I believe. It is going to take much more then needling people in this thread to get your POV across.

And your arguments really need to be positive. Look at it from a plain SSA member perspective and answer their questions "What's in it for me?" and "Why should I...?" If you cannot do that, it will be very, very difficult to convince most people.

[Sean[_2_]]

Branko,

You can say that again. Funerals are probably what it will take unfortunately.

5000 words. That's funny that someone counted them. For me it was 45 minutes of cell phone typing on the bus/cab/car to the airport.

Much of this crowd is afraid of open forum and frank talk.

They shouldn't be. It's healthy. I have nothing to hide. Neither should anyone else hide their feelings. That's the problem, many of the good old boys have deep passions, but they are afraid to debate. The RC is a system of control for them.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Tha assigned task is legal under US rules. The finish gate is legal under US rules. There is nothing that stops a CD from calling huge assigned tasks and a 50 foot finish gate every day, if pilots at a contest want it. This is not a rules issue.

Sean, you're the one trying to ban things from the top.

And we've been through this over and over and over and over. Please find something productive to do

John Cochrane

[Sean[_2_]]

John,

Saying that "certain features" of FAI rules are available today for SSA (US rules) CDs to use, if they wish (wink, wink), is entirely different than a discussion about the value that US rules provide and if we should switch to FAI based on an objective discussion about that measured value of US rules. When is the last time that a US/SSA sanctioned contest used a starting line, or finish line? And seriously, a SSA contest CD calling an assigned tasks is about as rare as purple flying unicorn rides at Walmart. These things are so rare here in the United States and Canada that they are entirely irrelevant to discuss or offer.

I, for one, want to fly ALL US glider competitions under the exact system that the rest of the world uses. FAI. Period. Specific features "offered" by US rules are not the solution. FAI RULES are used by ALL OTHER SOARING COUNTRIES safely, happily and effectively.

The only solution, for me, is the SSA shelving its custom/falied US rules experiiment and rejoining the FAI rules community. The SSA being a true partner of the world soaring competition community (FAI), rather than a challenger/loner at every turn. Rejoining FAI has loads of other important value for all current and future US pilots. And, of course, there is a significant savings in annual cost (time and energy (and ire)) of endlessly maintaining our custom, experimental and failed (zero measurable value) US rules system. We can repurpose those volunteers to other objectIves rather than re-creating everything from scratch and constantly changing.

This is a question of major religions, not a splitting hairs debate about enabling/disabling minor features within the same religion.

I think this debate is very productive. For us youngins, it sets the stage for where the SSA can go in 3-5 years. Perhaps 10. Perhaps sooner!

Bottom line, US rules do not add value. Why waste all that time and effort and irritation? You boys can simply walk away from this madness. Then we can only complain to the FAI. You'll be free!

Sean

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:18:06 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Hello US contest pilots.
> The annual competition rules poll and election of rules subcommittee members is now open at
> http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php
> The poll and election is open to all pilots on the ranking list.
> Please take the time to fill out the poll. provide comments and input and vote for
> your next representative.
> UH
> SSA RC Chair

Trust me #6 is just the best!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw9-xVCmLP0

Best. Tom #711.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

But the fact is, with AT available, CDs are not hearing a loud chorus from pilots, "give us long hard ATs with lots of gaggles and landouts." If that were happening, the US RC (That I am not a member of) would be moving in your direction. The RC wants happy pilots, pretty much period. If the pilots start clamoring for long hard ATs, gaggles and landouts, then you'd have some sort of leg to stand on. Till then, my view of the pilot-friendly RC is that they're not going to ram anything down pilots and CDs throats.

John Cochrane

[Sean[_2_]]

John,

Um, did you really just tell me that assigned tasks equal "lots of gaggles and lots of land-outs." Do you really believe that? Is that really what you think assigned tasks represent to the sport of soaring? The sport of sailplane racing worldwide? WOW. Just wow. I am shocked and embarrassed by your viewpoint.

First, what is the matter with landing out? Are you saying US rules contests do not result in any land outs? Are you claiming that US contests produce less land outs that FAI? I think the numbers would surprise you...

That kind of pure & ridiculous bias, from you or the typical US RC member of recent years, is exactly the problem with the SSA. It is also why we are in a steady decline. US contests are hardly a sport anymore. Statements like yours above infuriate many. Saying assigned tasks are about "lots of gaggles and lots land outs" is also simply untrue. It is intentionally misleading. You should be ashamed. US rules (and especially tasking) really is a religion to you. Unfortunately, it appears to be fairly radical one.

How long until you guys start sending the suicide bombers up my driveway. ;-) Geeze. Sorry man, yeah, I would like to race my sailplane. Please? I would like to fly more that ONE assigned task a year in a US contest. What the hell is so wrong with racing? You guys have already set up US contests to result in 97% experimental, timed, pilot option, OLC tasks? Do you really intend to make US contests 100% OLC? Really? That is criminal. That is malpractice. That is ridiculous. That is incredibly bad for the sport. No wonder the FAI essentially ignores the US.

The truth is that FAI Assigned Tasks (US AT's simply do not qualify as racing) are about sailplanes racing around a set track. Assigned tasks are also, by far, the easiest task for a beginner to learn. No computer needed. No learning how to determine when to turn for the finish, (also requiring significant computer expertise), etc. No scoring software needed either. FAI Assigned Tasks are regularly used in ALL other soaring nations, worldwide. Only the USA (under the leadership of the SSA and its RC) does not use assigned tasks in its competitions. And all other soaring countries fly assigned tasks regularly, happily, safely and successfully in their sailplane competitions. It is really, really arrogant of you to say, "assigned tasks are about lots of gaggles and land outs..." Are you saying that the soaring world is "full of idiots" for flying assigned tasks? Sure seems to me that you are saying exactly that. Is the world really aiming to land out lots? Utterly ridiculous.

Last I checked, even your own SSA website states "Glider racing" on the home page and throughout the site. You might want to get that fixed. Becuase US tasking produces exactly ZERO RACING. This is a cold, hard fact. A fact you are apparently very happy about.

The US Rules governed SSA contests result in roughly 3% AT's (US, non-race AT's) annually. Without question, the weather required to support great AT racing occurs far, far more than 3%. For other folks reading this, before John claims otherwise with another bias, untrue whopper, AT's are, generally, called on days with strong weather and no thunderstorm risk. Sure, a mass land out might happen, but that is highly unlikely.

Labelling AT's as assuring lots of lots of gaggle's and lots of land outs is ridiculous. You are better than this John. Seriously, I hope that you are better than this.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

I thought you wanted world-style racing. That involves 1/3 - 2/3 assigned tasks, typically longer than US tasks, and the rest turn area tasks. There are lots more landouts at worlds.

I didn't realize that now you want short assigned tasks where everyone gets home, not the real world experience.

And again and again and again... CDs can call all the assigned tasks they want. If that's all you want it's in the rules now.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

BB,

Thank you for all that you have done for soaring. John you are a winner in my book for even making it into the world championships.

Do you think you could had a better chance of winning the world championships if you had been practicing under the standard fai rules? Or at least had a higher score? How difficult was it to change gears from one set of rules to the other?

Respectfully,
MJ

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Rules were not such a big deal. Tactics were enormous, and both my biggest failures and greatest learning experience. In weak weather the gaggle tactics are everything. It doesn't require just flying under their rules. You have to fly really big contests, and fly with them. You have to anticipate what the other gliders will do, and where the gaggle will form. Who was to know that the upwind end of the start line at 5000' was the wrong place to be, and the downwind end at 2500' was the right place to be? (Because that's where the germans and french were, hence the gaggle formed there, left form there and hung together through abysmal weak first leg).

Yes, if the US had a vibrant contest scene with 65 gliders in each nationals class, all flying exactly under IGC rules, with long long tasks, lots of landouts, lots of foreigners coming to fly so we see how they fly and learn to anticipate their moves, we would do better at worlds, and I would have done a lot better at worlds.

Just passing "use IGC rules" for every contest in the US will not make that happen. Most of our nationals classes struggle to attract 15-20 pilots. Those pilots don't aggressively fly gaggles even if they are flying AT. If we fly contests so you absolutely must have a crew or a motor, half of the pilots including me will not show up. The crowd who now flies OLC will absolutely not show up. 6 pilots flying together under IGC rules is worse training than 25 pilots flying under US rules. 50 pilots flying under US rules is even better. A huge difference at worlds is just the size of the thing. When there are 15 contenders it's a lot different than when there are three. When the sky is full of gliders you get a lot more practice at gaggle flying than when there are only a few of you, and who cares about the scoring formula.

The right answer are specialized contests and events in the US run to train for world events. The US team is making that happen. The grand prix are making that happen.

We have the assigned task. We have the turn area task. Nationals call maybe one MAT per contest. Tasking is really not an issue. The only difference between US and IGC rules is a slightly more complex scoring formula under IGC rules. The big difference is the size and competitiveness of the contests.. No change in rules, especially one that makes it harder to attend, is going to fix that

John Cochrane

[Craig Funston]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 9:35:31 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> Rules were not such a big deal. Tactics were enormous, and both my biggest failures and greatest learning experience. In weak weather the gaggle tactics are everything. It doesn't require just flying under their rules. You have to fly really big contests, and fly with them. You have to anticipate what the other gliders will do, and where the gaggle will form. Who was to know that the upwind end of the start line at 5000' was the wrong place to be, and the downwind end at 2500' was the right place to be? (Because that's where the germans and french were, hence the gaggle formed there, left form there and hung together through abysmal weak first leg).
>
> Yes, if the US had a vibrant contest scene with 65 gliders in each nationals class, all flying exactly under IGC rules, with long long tasks, lots of landouts, lots of foreigners coming to fly so we see how they fly and learn to anticipate their moves, we would do better at worlds, and I would have done a lot better at worlds.
>
> Just passing "use IGC rules" for every contest in the US will not make that happen. Most of our nationals classes struggle to attract 15-20 pilots. Those pilots don't aggressively fly gaggles even if they are flying AT. If we fly contests so you absolutely must have a crew or a motor, half of the pilots including me will not show up. The crowd who now flies OLC will absolutely not show up. 6 pilots flying together under IGC rules is worse training than 25 pilots flying under US rules. 50 pilots flying under US rules is even better. A huge difference at worlds is just the size of the thing. When there are 15 contenders it's a lot different than when there are three.. When the sky is full of gliders you get a lot more practice at gaggle flying than when there are only a few of you, and who cares about the scoring formula.
>
> The right answer are specialized contests and events in the US run to train for world events. The US team is making that happen. The grand prix are making that happen.
>
> We have the assigned task. We have the turn area task. Nationals call maybe one MAT per contest. Tasking is really not an issue. The only difference between US and IGC rules is a slightly more complex scoring formula under IGC rules. The big difference is the size and competitiveness of the contests. No change in rules, especially one that makes it harder to attend, is going to fix that
>
> John Cochrane

Well said John, thanks! Where's the "like" button? ;-)

Craig Funston

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Perhaps some of the readers here (if there are any left) aren't clear on just what the differences are between US and IGC rules.

1. Units. IGC rules specify kilometers, meters. If you're serious about practicing IGC rules, switch out your instruments. This is serious. At least one US pilot missed a podium from miles vs. km switch

2. Scoring formula. This is the big one. As the number of landouts increase, both US and international rules give more distance points and less speed points. The IGC switch is much stronger, so that by the time you have 100% landouts (including slow finishers) you are fighting for 1000 distance points.

This has major strategic implications. Depending on the number of landouts, you change from "speed mode" to "distance mode." It's what makes sticking with the gaggle, and playing start roulette even to the point of guranteed landout, more important at worlds. The reward for being the only finisher is much smaller. The penalty for being the only landout is much more severe.

One consequence is that you really need a team captain on the ground relaying landout information. Another consequence is that you land out more often and really need a crew or a motor.

The scoring formula also leads to some weirdness. It is sometimes advantageous to deliberately land out just short of the airport. Again, you need deep understanding of the rules and a captain to pull this off.

Fortunately, many at the IGC are starting to recognize that this scoring formula is behind many problems, and they might fix it. That will lead to major changes in tactics. Teams who are really good at the tactics that exploit the pathologies of the scoring formula will likely object.

3. Start and finish. These are minor, but the geometry is different. IGC has limited altitude starts with no 2 minute rule. Hence wind up inside the cloud and dive under the line works. If you don't want to do that, watch out for the other guys who do. Unlimited altitude option means getting into cloud and wave are possiblities.

The typical finish now allows speed points for a landout a few miles from the airport. This too is a technique to practice. Hmm.


4. Communication. Team flying is allowed, and ground to air communication is allowed. Right now, teams are assembling ground based flarm receivers to relay long distance information. Needless to say you need a dedicated weather person.

Pilot to pilot communication is now allowed at US regionals, and seems not to be a big issue. I don't see why we don't allow more communication at nationals.

The big difference is not in the rules. The worlds tend to call more assigned tasks than we do, and they tend to fly in more hopeless weather than we do. Like in the US, there are a lot more points to be made on the turn area task days when people go their own way. If there were demand for it, it would be easy enough to call longer assigned tasks in the rain in the US too..

European contests in general attract far larger numbers of gliders. As in last post, that's a huge difference.

Most smaller countries don't try to have nationals in every class. If we wanted a large contest experience, we should do what they do, and have national contests that mix FAI classes with water and handicaps. That option exists in both our rules and IGC rules.

Most of IGC rules are not really rules, but the details are left to local procedures. Someone has to write those.

On many issues the IGC rules are more a set of guidelines. The US rules are much more precise about times, protests, and so forth.

Yes, the IGC doesn't have MAT, but in response to much complaining the unrestricted or one turnpoint MAT is not much used in US nationals. I've had some great MAT flights, like a nearly 1000k ridge flight at Mifflin, under MAT rules.

John Cochrane BB

[Sean[_2_]]

Again, John's statements above are simply false.

Every other soaring country, in the world, uses the FAI rules system. Other than the US and, reluctantly, Canada. Think about that. How is that possible if what John and the US "leaders" say about FAI competition is true? If what John (and the peanut gallery) say's was true, shouldn't the sport of FAI contest soaring be dead in all other countries? Perhaps FAI nations are insane? This is what John is saying essentially. Or, could it be, possibly, that we are insane?

- Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein

All other soaring countries do not all have crews (or motors) for all contest pilots. This is utter crap. An outright lie. Ridiculous. They do not all land out in contests all over the world. Nonsense. You do not need a crew or a motor to fly FAI contests. Again, I cite simple research.

These constant, ridiculous assertions from our US rules "team" is nothing more than a political "smoke and mirrors game." A religion with evangelists essentially. "You must have a motor." "You must have a crew. " "You will all land out." "The gaggles will be constant, one big spinning gaggle (with collisions falling out the bottom) consisting of Karl Streidich and 15 leeches in tow!" Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my...

This is simply not the case, and the examples are, literally, every other soaring nation in the world which holds FAI competitions. Again, think about that. It is incredible (ridiculous) to make statements which are so obviously wrong. Yet they make these statements again and again. Its delusional.

The truth is that the US rules gang (deep FAI rules haters) have wildly oversold and over-reacted to a problem that doesn't exist (except in their own minds), and now our sport has all but been ruined by it. Racing has been destroyed. We are all held hostage by this radical US rules false mindset. They are happy to double down on their false attacks against FAI and assigned tasking. It is truly incredible to watch. The US rules boys are becoming radical. They are lashing out. They are angry that I am challenging them.

FAI is a different sport because of a) tasking (90%) and b) scoring formula's (10%). FAI is about racing first. Glider racing. Just as it says on the homepage of the SSA website (falsely). The US is OLC, and racing is nearly down to zero. The US has simply departed from the sport of glider racing. The US is now, "OLC nation." Canada is too, sadly.

I say shame. Shame on multiple levels. This villianization of FAI has to stop.

In regards to SGP USA, please! The SSA has run exactly zero sanctioned contest "Grand Prix" races to date. Period. FAI SGP USA has zero to do with the SSA or with US Rules. This is why it seems to be successful. SGP USA is the exact opposite of US Rules. Again, think about that for a moment.

FAI rules would be better for the USA because the US would be on the same page as the rest of the soaring competition world. There are great benefits to playing in the same sport rather as the world rather than a participating in a sideshow experiment led by people who regularly attack FAI. Again, the rest of the soaring competition rules us FAI happily, safely and effectively. FAI is NOT the MAD MAX horror scene which John (and the peanut gallery) continually paints for us.

Plus, if we switched to FAI and stopped the annual US rules "circus," we would also stop all the costs (hard and soft) which come along with maintaining our custom US rules (like their personal playset) which provide ZERO MEASURABLE VALUE to the rest of us. The US rules circus is essentially a handful of mad scientists running around making major changes every year, banning Flarm, banning smart phones, banning ADSB, in a panic, etc. Complex, simplify, ban, unban. US rules are pure madness. US rules are a negative.

We need to stop these guys from continuing their stranglehold on our sport in the USA. Enough is enough. It's time. What do you have to lose. US rules are providing no improved metrics. Zero.

[Ron Gleason]

On Thursday, 27 October 2016 12:03:02 UTC-6, Sean wrote:
> Again, John's statements above are simply false.
>
> Every other soaring country, in the world, uses the FAI rules system. Other than the US and, reluctantly, Canada. Think about that. How is that possible if what John and the US "leaders" say about FAI competition is true? If what John (and the peanut gallery) say's was true, shouldn't the sport of FAI contest soaring be dead in all other countries? Perhaps FAI nations are insane? This is what John is saying essentially. Or, could it be, possibly, that we are insane?
>
> - Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein
>
> All other soaring countries do not all have crews (or motors) for all contest pilots. This is utter crap. An outright lie. Ridiculous. They do not all land out in contests all over the world. Nonsense. You do not need a crew or a motor to fly FAI contests. Again, I cite simple research.
>
> These constant, ridiculous assertions from our US rules "team" is nothing more than a political "smoke and mirrors game." A religion with evangelists essentially. "You must have a motor." "You must have a crew. " "You will all land out." "The gaggles will be constant, one big spinning gaggle (with collisions falling out the bottom) consisting of Karl Streidich and 15 leeches in tow!" Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my...
>
> This is simply not the case, and the examples are, literally, every other soaring nation in the world which holds FAI competitions. Again, think about that. It is incredible (ridiculous) to make statements which are so obviously wrong. Yet they make these statements again and again. Its delusional.
>
> The truth is that the US rules gang (deep FAI rules haters) have wildly oversold and over-reacted to a problem that doesn't exist (except in their own minds), and now our sport has all but been ruined by it. Racing has been destroyed. We are all held hostage by this radical US rules false mindset. They are happy to double down on their false attacks against FAI and assigned tasking. It is truly incredible to watch. The US rules boys are becoming radical. They are lashing out. They are angry that I am challenging them.
>
> FAI is a different sport because of a) tasking (90%) and b) scoring formula's (10%). FAI is about racing first. Glider racing. Just as it says on the homepage of the SSA website (falsely). The US is OLC, and racing is nearly down to zero. The US has simply departed from the sport of glider racing. The US is now, "OLC nation." Canada is too, sadly.
>
> I say shame. Shame on multiple levels. This villianization of FAI has to stop.
>
> In regards to SGP USA, please! The SSA has run exactly zero sanctioned contest "Grand Prix" races to date. Period. FAI SGP USA has zero to do with the SSA or with US Rules. This is why it seems to be successful. SGP USA is the exact opposite of US Rules. Again, think about that for a moment.
>
> FAI rules would be better for the USA because the US would be on the same page as the rest of the soaring competition world. There are great benefits to playing in the same sport rather as the world rather than a participating in a sideshow experiment led by people who regularly attack FAI. Again, the rest of the soaring competition rules us FAI happily, safely and effectively. FAI is NOT the MAD MAX horror scene which John (and the peanut gallery) continually paints for us.
>
> Plus, if we switched to FAI and stopped the annual US rules "circus," we would also stop all the costs (hard and soft) which come along with maintaining our custom US rules (like their personal playset) which provide ZERO MEASURABLE VALUE to the rest of us. The US rules circus is essentially a handful of mad scientists running around making major changes every year, banning Flarm, banning smart phones, banning ADSB, in a panic, etc. Complex, simplify, ban, unban. US rules are pure madness. US rules are a negative..
>
> We need to stop these guys from continuing their stranglehold on our sport in the USA. Enough is enough. It's time. What do you have to lose. US rules are providing no improved metrics. Zero.

Sean, the system is rigged 8-)

[Branko Stojkovic]

I must admit that I'm having a lot of fun watching the discussion on this thread and I'd like to make a few additional points.

Neither the US nor the FAI rules mandate the proportion in which the AT and TAT (and MAT in US) tasks should be called during a contest. This is left to the the discretion of the CD. Therefore, Sean if you were a CD at US nationals, you would probably call 70% AT and 30% TAT tasks, which you could do under the current US rules. Conversely, another CD could call 100% TAT tasks with huge zones under the FAI rules.

Safety and gaggles are a totally separate issues. John has flown in the worlds and has seen how scary the gaggles can be. I have flown in three different worlds since 2008 and I know what John is talking about. Sean, with all due respect, you haven't yet had that experience, although you will soon have a chance to see it firsthand in Benalla, where 80% of the days should be blue.

The worst experience for me was in 2013 in Argentina with blue days and thermals topping out at 3000' AGL, not to mention the 30 knot wind. The gaggles were scary, especially in the CLub class where young European hot-shot pilots flew very aggressively. On the competition day 3 I lost my nerve before the start gate. While thermalling in a big gaggle, another pilot entered the thermal at high speed, flew about 10' below me and then pulled up right in front of me. I peeled off and decided to fly the rest of that task alone, so I started 15 minutes after everyone else had started. BTW, this was the 3rd or 4th close encounter I had in as many days. Needless to say, flying alone on a blue day cost me a lot because I didn't manage to finish the task. From talking to other pilots during this contest, I gathered that at least 80% of them didn't feel comfortable with the safety situation. One even gave up and went home in protest.

Now, some of the young guys seem to prefer this kind of close contact racing. They are usually less experienced, less risk averse and more eager to prove themselves. Enter the Sailplane Grand Prix, a godsend for guys who like it hot.

So, I don't really think that the current situation is so bad. Maybe what we need is more SGP events in North America for those who want to truly race and Sean has done a great job being the driving force behind this.

As for the classical style gliding contests, I am personally quite happy with how things are. Regarding the rules, I don't really think that US needs to maintain a separate set because the current FAI rules are flexible enough, other than allowing the MAT tasks (the benefits of which are debatable). If SSA focused instead on improving the FAI rules, it could make things better for everyone!

It is a bit ironic that the current IGC president is from the US (Eric Mozer). Maybe he should weigh in on this discussion.


Branko Stojkovic
XYU

[Sean[_2_]]

Branko,

As I understand FAI rules, at least a 50/50 ratio (AT/TAT) mandated by FAI. This may just be for WGC or category one events. But I think a mandate for a 50/50 ratio is very smart. It is at least an excellent guideline.

We cannot allow CDs to call this MAT/HAT US crap and no racing tasks. Especially at Nationals.

Better yet, with FAI, if the conditions warrant, we could see 70-80% Assigned Tasks called at the upcoming WGC, Australia. Beautiful!!!! Proper racing. At least some racing!

Think about Uvalde for example. Or anywhere strong and dry or on any great soaring day. Why waste that kind of weather on a TAT or MAT (or a HAT)? Tasks designed to deal with poor weather. Great soaring days are days to race. Flying a TAT in Uvalde or Hobbs on a strong, zero storm chance day is a complete waste of weather. A waste of the day! We all know we have plenty of poor weather days to guess the weather.

Just look at the Canadian Nationals this summer. 100 kph speeds day after day after day! Legendary, steady soaring weather in beautiful flat farm field terrain. But this still resulted 7 100% TATs. 7 in a row were called for the best Canadian flying conditions EVER EXPERIENCED! Zero assigned tasks. In fact, the conditions at the 216 Canadian Nationals (Aug 2016) were literally WAY BETTER than Uvalde's soaring conditions which were held at the exact same time. One the 8th day of the Canadian Nationals, they even went for the HAT task. They almost ruined a great contest by trying to desperately squeeze in any of four (yes 4) one turn HAT options. This was going to, potentially, decide their National Championship? One N, one S, one E, one W. A complete "roll the dice" task. Ridiculous. Shameful. Unsporting.

This is why US tasking stinks. And I mean stinks bad. We must have higher standards. Quality matters. AT is high quality racing. TATs are for questionable weather. MATs and HATs are crap beneath the sport of sailplane racing.

We need to disarm this foolishness and get back to sanity and stability with FAI rules and FAI tasking. There is a good reason why they are successful with it. It works. Sure nothing is perfect. But US rules and US tasking is awful.

Sean

[Ron Gleason]

On Thursday, 27 October 2016 15:09:18 UTC-6, Sean wrote:
> Branko,
>
> As I understand FAI rules, at least a 50/50 ratio (AT/TAT) mandated by FAI. This may just be for WGC or category one events. But I think a mandate for a 50/50 ratio is very smart. It is at least an excellent guideline.
>
> We cannot allow CDs to call this MAT/HAT US crap and no racing tasks. Especially at Nationals.
>
> Better yet, with FAI, if the conditions warrant, we could see 70-80% Assigned Tasks called at the upcoming WGC, Australia. Beautiful!!!! Proper racing. At least some racing!
>
> Think about Uvalde for example. Or anywhere strong and dry or on any great soaring day. Why waste that kind of weather on a TAT or MAT (or a HAT)? Tasks designed to deal with poor weather. Great soaring days are days to race. Flying a TAT in Uvalde or Hobbs on a strong, zero storm chance day is a complete waste of weather. A waste of the day! We all know we have plenty of poor weather days to guess the weather.
>
> Just look at the Canadian Nationals this summer. 100 kph speeds day after day after day! Legendary, steady soaring weather in beautiful flat farm field terrain. But this still resulted 7 100% TATs. 7 in a row were called for the best Canadian flying conditions EVER EXPERIENCED! Zero assigned tasks. In fact, the conditions at the 216 Canadian Nationals (Aug 2016) were literally WAY BETTER than Uvalde's soaring conditions which were held at the exact same time. One the 8th day of the Canadian Nationals, they even went for the HAT task. They almost ruined a great contest by trying to desperately squeeze in any of four (yes 4) one turn HAT options. This was going to, potentially, decide their National Championship? One N, one S, one E, one W. A complete "roll the dice" task. Ridiculous. Shameful. Unsporting.
>
> This is why US tasking stinks. And I mean stinks bad. We must have higher standards. Quality matters. AT is high quality racing. TATs are for questionable weather. MATs and HATs are crap beneath the sport of sailplane racing.
>
> We need to disarm this foolishness and get back to sanity and stability with FAI rules and FAI tasking. There is a good reason why they are successful with it. It works. Sure nothing is perfect. But US rules and US tasking is awful.
>
> Sean

From the 2016 Annex A for Section 3 of FAI Sporting Code for World and Continental Gliding Championships, valid from October 1 2016

6.1 TASK TYPES The following task types are available for use during the
Championships. A single task type should not be used for more than 67% of the
Championship Days in each class.
• Racing Task
• Assigned Area Task

As has been stated before each championship under the FAI rules has local procedures that supersedes Annex A. Regardless the language is suggestive not authoritative.

Sean, I hope you are having lots of discussion with the team leader for Australia. Everyone has to be on the same page!

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Just a note here, 2/3 of all ASG-29's made have been an engine, only a handful of these are in the US, most in Europe.

I for one gave up land outs when flying a Nimbus 4, started to plan for out landings at airports. I now fly a glider twice as expensive as the Nimbus (although only 18 meters). You are one of the few who's wife supports and is involved in gliding, many pilots, do not have crew, that is just a fact of soaring today. Perhaps FAI is looking to change their rules to match the US :0

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:03:02 AM UTC-7, Sean wrote:
>>
> All other soaring countries do not all have crews (or motors) for all contest pilots. This is utter crap. An outright lie.

[Sean[_2_]]

No question there. It is rigged. And fortified. But I I am only getting started. This is just playtime.

John and I actually were together last Saturday night. It was a pleasant evening by the fire. We basically came to the conclusion, all things considered, that the right solution was FAI rules for Nationals and US rules for regionals. And more OLC events for beginners. I could accept that, but I would not like it. Not one bit.

I think that compromise is probably right thing considering the current situation. But it needs to happen now. I would even accept the tasking portion with the US scoring for expediancy, but what's the point of going halfway. But I still feel strongly that it is arrogant of the US to have its own rules and undermine and attack the FAI rules as they do. The misinformation is astounding. Many of these statements thrown at FAI competition is just untrue. FAI does not have more or less gaggle and/or more of less landouts. It is equally safe, statistically.

I think this quote sum's this debate up perfectly...

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain

The US rules boys know for sure that FAI rules are.....insert garbage here. They have bet the farm on it. Our fearless leaders think that FAI is bad becuase racing around a fixed course will lead to nothing but land outs and gaggle's. This is their basic premise. At best it is misleading and bias. But at worst, it just aint so. And the result has been the creation of a new sport based on OLC thinking. The result is ZERO sailplane racing remains in the USA.

So this discussion has a very simple battle line. Do we want "some" real, objective racing competiton in the USA or only timed, pilot option, OLC games?

This discussion is about what worthy compitition is and is not? Hell, it is about asking outselves what is a sport? What is a game or a puzzle? We know for sure that FAI is 50% real racing and the US rules are 100% not real racing.

I often wonder, why does the FAI support the SSA as the USA's national aero-club if they attack their soaring rules and us their own, entirely different rules. Do we know how this has been allowed to get this far?

[Ron Gleason]

> I often wonder, why does the FAI support the SSA as the USA's national aero-club if they attack their soaring rules and us their own, entirely different rules. Do we know how this has been allowed to get this far?

The FAI does not pick the SSA rather they pick the NAA and the NAA designates the SSA. Layers of energy sucking bureaucracy.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

"The result is ZERO sailplane racing remains in the USA... Do we want "some" real, objective racing competiton in the USA or only timed, pilot option, OLC games? "

Wow. So, the IGC requirement for 1/3 assigned tasks, vs. US allows all assigned tasks but typically has fewer, plus the IGC devaluation formula that boosts distance score based on landouts up to 1000 points rather than... heck, I don't know the rules either, something like 750 in the US, adds up to "zero" racing in the US?

I think at this point the hyperbole undermines any sensible discussion.

John Cochrane

[Sean[_2_]]

Yes John.

50% assigned tasks in FAI

3% (modified US variable distance) pseudo assigned tasks in the US.

I could care less about the scoring. That is relative.

US rules pervert a racing sport into not racing.

FAI still respects racing.

I want FAI, and to end the failed, unjustified (measured, objective value) US rules experiment. The only success Us rules can claim is the total destruction of any actual racing in the USA (and Canada it seems).

Sean

[Rich Owen[_2_]]

Ladies and Gentelmen,

I have enjoyed all the conversation on this subject over the last few weeks.. As I sit in the #1 Irish bar in Houston Texas I feel that there is a very simple answer to everyone's dilemma. For all those folks that want racing tasks, be the CD. Maybe the better answer is to gradually get away from exclusive TAT contests. I was fortunate to CD the Region 5 South contest 3 years in a row. I liked calling AT's as Task A if the weather supported it. In the last 2 years I landed out almost everyone due to unusual weather during the day. We have numerous safe landout opportunities and private airports so there were no damages to any ships. It is the south so we had numerous volunteers to go get those who landed out.

If I was calling a task in more difficult terrain I would be more cautious and probably call a TAT. Unless the task area had enough turn points in the area of the airport, I would never call a MAT. Even a long MAT. See me and I'll give you my take on that type of task.

I have the greatest respect for all pilots in this thread. I'm a newby in racing but I don't do too bad. As a retired fighter pilot, I have sent pilots into combat off aircraft carriers. But as a CD I can tell you, when I sent my fellow pilots on task I worried about them just as much. Not that they couldn't make it back but if they landed out and got hurt it was on me. The Canadians fly under the same rules as us. I count XG and F1 as very good friends. They don't do too bad in the Worlds and as Sean pointed out, their last National had 100% TAT's.

If I was on the Race Committee, I would ask our pilots at the more competitive events what their desires are. Then ask some of our more vocal pilots to give up flying a contest and CD an event or at least be the task advisor. The vast majority of us do this for fun and the challenge. These goals are not mutually exclusive. Have a good night....stay hi, fly fast and come home.

Rich Owen
ZO, EA, 1K, KJ
PS - I have a motor in 2 out of 4 of these gliders

[krasw]

Wow, not having time to read even half of everything I have to comment on few of them:

1. In FAI rules there is no binding rule for speed task / area task relation. The wording is "SHOULD" and this makes the rule totally unnecessary (IMHO). In last WGC there was 3 mass landout days because organizers read this rule as "MUST". I reminded stewards about this, and they reminded organizers, lo and behold, we got area tasks after that without mass landouts.

2. I have yet to witness advantage taken from landing out just short of airport, in real world situation, this is very academic. Yes the advantage of coming home when everyone lands out close by can be close to zero.

3. I have never flown altitude restricted starts (flatland pilot, obviously). There is speed restriction for preventing dives, I think. 99% of competitions you have normal start line, you cross it and start racing, without any manouvres.

4. Landing out after finish ring is possible because the concept of finish ring and minimum altitude are (after so many years) still very poorly understood. Minimum AND maximum radius, plus corresponding minimum altitudes should be written into FAI rules to prevent this stupidness.

5. Dedicated weather person, hah... Flarm radar network though, yes even I have entertained that idea. But what if you select "no tracking" option in your flarm?

[WB]

At some point, nearly every sport ends up ruined and facing extinction or major reform because of "gamesmen". What are "gamesmen"? Gamesmen are those who, if they can't win through superior performance, will figure out how to exploit the rules to win, spirit of the game be damned.

The soaring world certainly has it's share of gamesmen. Example: Landing out an entire national team to devalue the day to keep the better pilots from winning.

My position is that the rules should preserve the spirit of the sport and discourage the gamesmen.


Wallace Berry (Not hiding behind a pseudonym, not hiding behind "safety", not a gamesman.)

[Dan Marotta]

Not a racer, but a somewhat interested reader.

Can't a CD fly in the race? If not, why not? And if he can, then why
doesn't he?

On 10/28/2016 12:18 AM, Rich Owen wrote:
> Ladies and Gentelmen,
>
> I have enjoyed all the conversation on this subject over the last few weeks. As I sit in the #1 Irish bar in Houston Texas I feel that there is a very simple answer to everyone's dilemma. For all those folks that want racing tasks, be the CD. Maybe the better answer is to gradually get away from exclusive TAT contests. I was fortunate to CD the Region 5 South contest 3 years in a row. I liked calling AT's as Task A if the weather supported it. In the last 2 years I landed out almost everyone due to unusual weather during the day. We have numerous safe landout opportunities and private airports so there were no damages to any ships. It is the south so we had numerous volunteers to go get those who landed out.
>
> If I was calling a task in more difficult terrain I would be more cautious and probably call a TAT. Unless the task area had enough turn points in the area of the airport, I would never call a MAT. Even a long MAT. See me and I'll give you my take on that type of task.
>
> I have the greatest respect for all pilots in this thread. I'm a newby in racing but I don't do too bad. As a retired fighter pilot, I have sent pilots into combat off aircraft carriers. But as a CD I can tell you, when I sent my fellow pilots on task I worried about them just as much. Not that they couldn't make it back but if they landed out and got hurt it was on me. The Canadians fly under the same rules as us. I count XG and F1 as very good friends. They don't do too bad in the Worlds and as Sean pointed out, their last National had 100% TAT's.
>
> If I was on the Race Committee, I would ask our pilots at the more competitive events what their desires are. Then ask some of our more vocal pilots to give up flying a contest and CD an event or at least be the task advisor. The vast majority of us do this for fun and the challenge. These goals are not mutually exclusive. Have a good night....stay hi, fly fast and come home.
>
> Rich Owen
> ZO, EA, 1K, KJ
> PS - I have a motor in 2 out of 4 of these gliders

--
Dan, 5J

[Ron Gleason]

On Friday, 28 October 2016 10:39:33 UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Not a racer, but a somewhat interested reader.
>
> Can't a CD fly in the race? If not, why not? And if he can, then why
> doesn't he?
>
> On 10/28/2016 12:18 AM, Rich Owen wrote:
> > Ladies and Gentelmen,
> >
> > I have enjoyed all the conversation on this subject over the last few weeks. As I sit in the #1 Irish bar in Houston Texas I feel that there is a very simple answer to everyone's dilemma. For all those folks that want racing tasks, be the CD. Maybe the better answer is to gradually get away from exclusive TAT contests. I was fortunate to CD the Region 5 South contest 3 years in a row. I liked calling AT's as Task A if the weather supported it. In the last 2 years I landed out almost everyone due to unusual weather during the day. We have numerous safe landout opportunities and private airports so there were no damages to any ships. It is the south so we had numerous volunteers to go get those who landed out.
> >
> > If I was calling a task in more difficult terrain I would be more cautious and probably call a TAT. Unless the task area had enough turn points in the area of the airport, I would never call a MAT. Even a long MAT. See me and I'll give you my take on that type of task.
> >
> > I have the greatest respect for all pilots in this thread. I'm a newby in racing but I don't do too bad. As a retired fighter pilot, I have sent pilots into combat off aircraft carriers. But as a CD I can tell you, when I sent my fellow pilots on task I worried about them just as much. Not that they couldn't make it back but if they landed out and got hurt it was on me.. The Canadians fly under the same rules as us. I count XG and F1 as very good friends. They don't do too bad in the Worlds and as Sean pointed out, their last National had 100% TAT's.
> >
> > If I was on the Race Committee, I would ask our pilots at the more competitive events what their desires are. Then ask some of our more vocal pilots to give up flying a contest and CD an event or at least be the task advisor. The vast majority of us do this for fun and the challenge. These goals are not mutually exclusive. Have a good night....stay hi, fly fast and come home.
> >
> > Rich Owen
> > ZO, EA, 1K, KJ
> > PS - I have a motor in 2 out of 4 of these gliders
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

From the 2016 SSA FAI Nationals Rulebook

3.1.3 Competition Director
3.1.3.1 The Competition Director (hereinafter referred to as the CD) shall be an experienced competition official nominated by the sponsor at least 60 days before the contest and approved by the SSA Contest Committee. The CD works for the Contest Manager, but is responsible to the SSA for insuring compliance with these rules and fair competition.
3.1.3.2 The CD supervises the Contest Competition Committee, task selection, flight documentation procedures and analysis, start and finish procedures and scoring.
3.1.3.3 The CD must not be an entrant in any competition over which that CD has authority.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

In pretty much ANY " competition" there will be those that either exploit "loopholes" or find a way to "cheat".

Enough said.

Any governing body, "shall review rules based on intent and what others may come up with" to either clarify the rules/intent or to close loopholes.
I ran (as a competitor) a lot of SCCA events in the US, their "catch all" phrase was, "unless allowed, consider it outside the rule intent"!

To some of this, and other discussions on RAS, peeps are splitting hairs.

A US contest site can pick basic rules as they see fit.
You don't like them, don't go.
You want to tweak them, then speak up.

I will hazard a guess that multiple peeps on RAS (with the SSA as a governing body....) will ask that they change wording on their website for "contest results" to change wording to remove racing.
You want "racing", go to an event Sean and/or Wilbur support.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

So, you don't like contest flying in the US, then volunteer like others and run it like you see fit as a CD.
I've been a CD (granted, HHSC Snowbird event, for more than 1 year, not points paying, GTG at the end of the season..).

I have also helped at contests in the NE as sniffer/advisor.

[Papa3[_2_]]

As Ron mentions, it's in the rules. But why? The CD has the potential to influence the outcome of a contest in his/her favor if he/she is competing.. Here's a classic example. The CD is in first place by a small margin going into the last day. It's a weakish day, so the sort where places can shift significantly. The CD ultimately has the call as to whether to go out on task. If he/she cancels the day, the folks in contention (2nd, 3rd, etc.) will obviously have a gripe that the day was cancelled just to protect the lead.

Also, having tried flying tasks while also CDing, I'll say that as a practical matter, it's not easy. On many days, there's a lot going on in the hour or so between launch and gate opening. Checking with advisors. Keeping track of gate opening times. Checking weather radar, METARs, etc. if you are on the edge of a system. I've done it from the cockpit a couple of times, and that was admittedly a mistake. So instead you have to wait on the ground until the last task is opened, then launch and try to catch up. Not gonna work, especially on a weak day where you need the start gaggles.

P3

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:14:18 PM UTC+3, Papa3 wrote:
> As Ron mentions, it's in the rules. But why? The CD has the potential to influence the outcome of a contest in his/her favor if he/she is competing. Here's a classic example. The CD is in first place by a small margin going into the last day. It's a weakish day, so the sort where places can shift significantly. The CD ultimately has the call as to whether to go out on task. If he/she cancels the day, the folks in contention (2nd, 3rd, etc.) will obviously have a gripe that the day was cancelled just to protect the lead.
>
> Also, having tried flying tasks while also CDing, I'll say that as a practical matter, it's not easy. On many days, there's a lot going on in the hour or so between launch and gate opening. Checking with advisors. Keeping track of gate opening times. Checking weather radar, METARs, etc. if you are on the edge of a system. I've done it from the cockpit a couple of times, and that was admittedly a mistake. So instead you have to wait on the ground until the last task is opened, then launch and try to catch up. Not gonna work, especially on a weak day where you need the start gaggles.

I was in a PW5 regionals (come to think of it, may have been the nationals) where the CD took off in his LS7 (I think .. std class anyway) and flew the task. Of course he always landed before any of us...

I was downloading the flight logs and doing the scoring, once I got back from the tasks and had dinner.

[Sean[_2_]]

Guys/Gals two things.

1) All the folks participating seriously in this thread are good people. I cannot think of one glider pilot that I have met who is not a great guy and gal. They are generally incredible people in fact. The sport of gliding is full of some of the brightest and most impressive people that I have ever met. This is part of what attracts me to the sport. Generally, we all mean well. Some of us are very passionate about the sport of glider racing.. And even though I clearly strongly disagree with some of you, my disagreement with you ends there. I think most of you already know this well as many of us are having side discussions and participating in some fairly constructive, amusing email threads on this topic. This threads debate has been sharp, but also highly valuable. I see this debate as a specific, important debate about the short and long term governing philosophy regarding competition format within the SSA. Many new questions have been asked in this thread. It asks what the value of being "one" with the soaring competiton world (FAI) vs. continuing to be an isolated, independent one with the burden of maintaining its own competition infrastructure.

2) I am aware that the likelihood of anything major (or even minor) changing my way, in the current environment, is unlikely.

But I strongly that a voice for FAI competition format in the SSA is needed....

Thanks for all who have contributed from both viewpoints, or in between.

Sean

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 3:46:00 PM UTC-6, Sean wrote:
> Guys/Gals two things.
>
> 1) All the folks participating seriously in this thread are good people. I cannot think of one glider pilot that I have met who is not a great guy and gal. They are generally incredible people in fact. The sport of gliding is full of some of the brightest and most impressive people that I have ever met. This is part of what attracts me to the sport. Generally, we all mean well. Some of us are very passionate about the sport of glider racing. And even though I clearly strongly disagree with some of you, my disagreement with you ends there. I think most of you already know this well as many of us are having side discussions and participating in some fairly constructive, amusing email threads on this topic. This threads debate has been sharp, but also highly valuable. I see this debate as a specific, important debate about the short and long term governing philosophy regarding competition format within the SSA. Many new questions have been asked in this thread. It asks what the value of being "one" with the soaring competiton world (FAI) vs. continuing to be an isolated, independent one with the burden of maintaining its own competition infrastructure.
>
> 2) I am aware that the likelihood of anything major (or even minor) changing my way, in the current environment, is unlikely.
>
> But I strongly that a voice for FAI competition format in the SSA is needed...
>
> Thanks for all who have contributed from both viewpoints, or in between.
>
> Sean

#9.....takes care of "Hats", #6...Teacher wins as you should of brought an "Apple". #1...for my friend....the "Landout Queen of Cordele".

Best. Tom. #711.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw9-xVCmLP0

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks - I see your points. I wouldn't have thought about cheating or
influencing matters to your advantage. Guess that's why I'm not in
politics (from the Greek poli meaning "many" and ticks, i.e., blood
sucking parasites).

On 10/28/2016 12:14 PM, Papa3 wrote:
> As Ron mentions, it's in the rules. But why? The CD has the potential to influence the outcome of a contest in his/her favor if he/she is competing. Here's a classic example. The CD is in first place by a small margin going into the last day. It's a weakish day, so the sort where places can shift significantly. The CD ultimately has the call as to whether to go out on task. If he/she cancels the day, the folks in contention (2nd, 3rd, etc.) will obviously have a gripe that the day was cancelled just to protect the lead.
>
> Also, having tried flying tasks while also CDing, I'll say that as a practical matter, it's not easy. On many days, there's a lot going on in the hour or so between launch and gate opening. Checking with advisors. Keeping track of gate opening times. Checking weather radar, METARs, etc. if you are on the edge of a system. I've done it from the cockpit a couple of times, and that was admittedly a mistake. So instead you have to wait on the ground until the last task is opened, then launch and try to catch up. Not gonna work, especially on a weak day where you need the start gaggles.
>
> P3

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

I hope this discussion is not over, it's been a day without a post?
It's all I got 😎
Glen

[Sean[_2_]]

Not much left to say W! Now we will "wait and see" what the latest round of the annual "US RC change fiesta" will come up with based on their "assessment" of their "opinion" poll. I think we all know (agree or disagree) what is coming.

Reading the comments was quite entertaining.

Also the response level to the poll seems amazingly low.

Unfortunately, very little (probably nothing) will change in regards to my points on reviving racing in SSA contests. For now they continue to hold the political advantage.

The USA (and Canada) will, for now, remain OLC NATION (literally no racing whatsoever). In fact, the US rules are more likely to move even farther away from racing in the years to come with "OLC tasks" possibly being created and introduced into actual US "contests" (and even less fake US assigned tasks). These OLC "tasks?" may even be allowed at US National championships.. Would that even be surprising at this point?

I tried to get on the US RC ballot. I fought for weeks to even get a response from our region 6 director and was forced to call other SSA officials for help. I was definitely willing to commit the time. Ultimately they circled the wagons. My efforts, along with M.Westbrook's was ultimately (curiously) "disallowed" (wink, wink) via the wisdom of our regional directors. An interesting process for sure.

Again, my simple question. "What measurable value justifies to continued maintenance of the experimental (arguably very failed) US rules vs. simply utilizing the same rule system which every other nation on planet earth which holds soaring competition uses safely, effectively and happily?"

This question has been completely ignored by the SSA leadership. They fear answering it. Regardless, It's an important, sensible question considering the reality of the international soaring competition world and the USA's contest participation struggles.

I have all the time in the world...

Let me know when you guys get the courage up to respond.

Sean

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-5, Sean wrote:

> I tried to get on the US RC ballot. I fought for weeks to even get a response from our region 6 director and was forced to call other SSA officials for help. I was definitely willing to commit the time. Ultimately they circled the wagons. My efforts, along with M.Westbrook's was ultimately (curiously) "disallowed" (wink, wink) via the wisdom of our regional directors.. An interesting process for sure.
>
> Let me know when you guys get the courage up to respond.
>
> Sean

For what it is worth, Sean, I tried very hard to get ALL people who are willing to serve on the RC to be "on the ballot". There is a change pending (see it mentioned on the website), and I asked about it. Was told it was likely going to get completed and approved so Regional Directors could submit more than one candidate for the RC spot. It did not happen, and I was only permitted to make one nomination. I made my choice based on the fact that Mike has indicated a willingness to serve on the Handicap Committee if I was only permitted one nomination for the open RC positions. Finding that people generally seem to run from office instead of for it, I took the opportunity to try and maximize the participation of people from that are willing to volunteer their time.

As to the proposed change to the RC nominating process, I am still ACTIVELY pursuing it to assure that the changes WILL be completed and approved at the Winter SSA Board meeting. Once done, directors will not have to come up with a way to decide "Who do I put forward if I have more than one volunteer?"

Steve Leonard
Region 10 SSA Director