USA Contest Rules Suck! ==> :) <==

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Other than having been - and remaining - thoroughly enamored with soaring (and
all its varied aspects) since bumbling into it in the early '70s, I have no
dog in the "racing vs. competition (aka US rules vs. FAI rules) tempest," but
since no one else has mentioned a few thoughts that have occurred to me as a
result of pondering things broached in another thread, I thought I would.
You're welcome! :)
- - - - - -

On 10/18/2016 9:50 AM, Sean wrote:

>> 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
>

The above was a followup to the (annotated) post immediately below, initially
posted 5 days prior...

On 10/13/2016 4:20 PM, Sean wrote:
<Snip...>

> 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?

Might, "Because we can and it seemed/seems like a good idea to us," be
completely adequate?
- - - - - -

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

Heh - nice straw man.
- - - - - -

> 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?

Have I missed something? Is soaring worldwide (not to mention FAI-rules'
contests) expanding?
- - - - - -

> 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.

Hmmm...asking volunteers who choose to do things because they find it worth
their $0/hour time, to assign a dollar value to that time, kind of misses the
point of volunteering, doesn't it?
- - - - - -

> 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.

Having evidently answered your questions to your own satisfaction, why
continue to keep your undershorts in a wad? As the Prime Mover behind the
First Ever Sailplane Grand Prix in the U.S.A. (==> a NON-Trivial undertaking
by anyone's measure <==) *AND* having working knowledge of Management 101 (as
deduced from your followup post), surely you know you've already put your
finger on Management 101's "proper course of action" - and I quote: "I could
run an FAI contest easily, right now, starting tomorrow in Ionia..."

I submit that doing so would be more likely to effect change than ranting on RAS.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

[Sean[_2_]]

Um, where to begin.

Bob,

We have 5 folks (John Good who can, as I understand it, veto the US RC's voting (not sure if he is elected or "appointed") and the then 4 RC members) who spend significant time maintaining the US rules each year. Of course all of us pilots must put up with elections, voting, leading opinion poll questions, etc. Then, of course, there is the SSA BOD who can veto John Good (I believe). All of these folks (volunteers of course), as well of ALL the pilots (not volunteers, many who would prefer to be part of the international community - FAI) must endure the endless US rules circus year after year. The value of all this is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. Many of us (and growing) don't like the US rules, the constant grind of debate and changes that occurs each year. It's exhausting, unnecessary, isolationist and in may ways wasteful of valueable volunteer resources. See anti technology efforts like banning smart phones, banning apps or banning Flarm normal operation.

In regards the running FAI events (yes, I could losisticaly tomorrow, no problem and so could anyone else) I am not "free" to run FAI events as I wish (and I don't wish to do this outside of the SSA). Sure, there are work around me for this but for now let's play by those rules. I intend to continue arguing for the SSA to consider adopting FAI rules and systems (and dump its own failed custom rules circus). But even if I wished to run my own FAI events, as it stands now, the SSA will attempt to block and interfere with my doing so. That is the recent history. The SGP event has a slight modification in its governing authority language which allowed me to "get around" the SSA (thank goodness). I'm certain they would have interfered if they had the ability to do so. I understand they tried but can't be certain.. They did make things VERY difficult for the FAI at the 2012 WGC Ulvalde. This caused great controversy. Essentially the SSA demanded US type rule changes be used at the WGC in lieu of the FAI rules. Obviously they did not appreciate those demands. Similar behavior occurred at the PAGC Chilhowee with Club Class handicap (SSA demanded the US handicaps be used) and US finish procedures (among other procedures), causing great unrest with the poor FAI referee appointed to ensure the event was run to the standards of FAI. The SSA's interference in the PAGC event was so significant that the event was nearly cancelled as I understand it. Ultimately the Club Class designation was removed from the PAGC event and the event designation for that class was changed to an FAI handicap event (their version of Sports class). Amazing.

You see the SSA is, currently, the named "National Aeroclub" for the United States and this allows them to stick their nose into any sanctioned FAI event run in the USA. Unless they "sign off," the event will not be recognized by the FAI. Talk about a conflict of interest! And, clearly, they are quite willing to stick their nose in deep wherever they can. They basically refuse to allow FAI events to occur "unmolested" by US rule "philosophy?." I intend to change this.

Now that we have that clarified Bob, your response completely missed (I'm sure this is a simple mistake on your part) addressing my key question about the value US rules provide. I hope you return to address that question. I'll repeat it below...

Bob, what "measured value" justifies the SSA maintaining its own unique, custom soaring competition rule system?

Please cite the many areas of measured value that are a result of US rules vs. using FAI (like the rest of the world does, happily, successfully and safely).

Safety?
Participation?
Growth?
Enthusiasm?
Simplicity?
Cost?
Resources?

I look forward to your response.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Replying to my initial post in this tongue-in-cheek-titled thread...

On 10/20/2016 9:08 AM, Sean wrote:
> Um, where to begin.

<Snippage (for reasons of "posting brevity") of summary-overview of FAI/SSA
organizational relationship in general and how that relationship is alleged to
have been "an influencing force of the negative kind" (my words) at recent
FAI-sanctioned contests in the USA...>

Thank you for that (snipped) information (both factual and alleged), some of
which I was priorly familiar (i.e. the factual bits relating to FAI's and
SSA's "official relationship"), and some of which I was entirely ignorant
prior to your post.

A coupla "for the record" bits of information before I get into the guts of
this post...

1) Relative to "USA contest rules", by way of trying to remain "RAS-informed,"
I've done the "fly-on-the-wall-bit, for a l-o-n-g time" (beaucoup years, he
sighs, referring to the passage of time, not the topic itself), "just because
I'm interested in most soaring-related topics."

2) I have no opinions regarding "which set of contest rules is better," even
though I'm genuinely curious of the opinions - both what and why - held by
those who fly contests. Further, I completely understand why competitors quite
naturally hold strong opinions regarding rules (cf: G. Moffat!).

I "get it" you were indulging (somewhat?) in hyperbole in claiming elsewhere
that you or anyone else could easily "hold a contest under FAI rules
tomorrow"...AND that if you did so "it likely wouldn't count" in FAI
sanctioning terms for pilot rankings because of the formal FAI/SSA
interrelationship likely (in your opinion) bollixing up the works.

What I remain somewhat unclear on is (believe it or not!) WHY you so strongly
hold the opinion that soaring can only be saved in the USA by way only of
"FAI-rules-based sanctioned contests." (Or am I getting even this wrong?) In
my original post I posed the (non-rhetorical) question: "Is soaring worldwide
(not to mention FAI-rules' contests) expanding?" I did so, because part of the
mental picture I form from your heartfelt posts on this topic strongly
suggests I should, as in (see below)...

> Now that we have that clarified Bob, your response completely missed (I'm
> sure this is a simple mistake on your part) addressing my key question
> about the value US rules provide. I hope you return to address that
> question. I'll repeat it below...
>
> Bob, what "measured value" justifies the SSA maintaining its own unique,
> custom soaring competition rule system?
>
> Please cite the many areas of measured value that are a result of US rules
> vs. using FAI (like the rest of the world does, happily, successfully and
> safely).
>
> Safety? Participation? Growth? Enthusiasm? Simplicity? Cost? Resources?
>
> I look forward to your response.
>

Safety - What data exists ANYwhere comparing the two formats?

Participation/Growth (lumped because they're "closely coupled") - I'd welcome
data from (say) the "10 leading soaring countries" shedding light (of any
sort) on how contest participation/growth (or not)
correlates/affects/impacts/etc. soaring in general in each country.

Enthusiasm - good luck measuring!

Simplicity - color me ignorant on this one (and likely-by-personal-choice to
remain that way), though I'll posit that FAI as an organization likely devotes
not-inconsiderable time and effort "annually tweaking their rules" as they see
fit, for (likely) "similar reasons as does any rules-making sanctioning body."
Just because it's less obvious (public?) than similar "tweaking" by the US
Rules Committee/organization doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Cost - we've already established there are no-to-vanishingly-low U.S. DOLLAR
costs because everyone's a volunteer. True for FAI? (I "get it" your position
is there are BIG non-dollar negative-costs you link to the USA's approach.)

Resources - I suppose a person might argue that 100% of the "freed-up if-only
FAI rules were used" resources would transfer in equal measure "elsewhere in
SSA...to its and USA soaring's benefit," but (IMO) to do so would demonstrate
a serious lack of insight into human nature. When it comes to volunteering,
people do what they want to do, because they want to do it...and NOT because
they'd rather be doing some other form of volunteering. That's not to suggest
any volunteer might not have a "fallback volunteering list" but who's to say,
if they do, the next "target organization" is the same one for which they're
already volunteering? IOW, this is a dubious argument, in my view.

As to "value provided," I (think I) "get it" that the FAI is the "world
arbiter" of "internationally-recognized aerial records" along with being "the
800-lb international gorilla promoting air sports," and as such, an argument
can be made that failing to use their rule set in contests arguably
complicates/worsens things for USA pilots eventually making it onto our
various internationally-competing teams. What I "don't get" is how failing to
abide by their rules is killing USA soaring.

I also "get it" that you, personally, would much prefer to be flying contests
by FAI rules, and I "get it" that you choose to try and change SSA's
thinking/position on this front rather than "going it alone." For some reason,
though, the ostensibly-unrelated-to-soaring aphorism of "attracting more flies
with honey than vinegar" keeps flitting in and out of my mind!

Respectfully,
Bob W.