SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Minutes from the SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting are now posted on the SSA website:

https://www.ssa.org/files/member/2018%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20-%20Final%2012-07-18.pdf

There are many detailed items in the minutes. For clarity of communication, the introduction to the most significant item (#19 in the minutes, starting on page 9) is reproduced below:

RC intends to move towards FAI-based rules capable of being scored by SeeYou or similar commercial tasking/scoring software and/or WinScore by 2021.

This will happen in three steps:

2019
- Make adjustments to US Rules to add FAI-like AT turn cylinders and finish configuration.
- Develop and begin execution of plans for 2020 contest trials and longer-term transition – rules, local procedures, training and change management, handicaps (esp. Sports Class), PRL and UST implications, systems integration with SSA.org, SoaringSpot, FAI ranking, financial implications.

2020
- Run 3-4 trial contests (including 2 Nationals) under a US rule system based on FAI – contests should be of sufficient size to reach a significant proportion of the pilot community, particularly the most active pilots
- Collect detailed pilot feedback and input from trials

2021
- Roll out of “final� rules and systems, infrastructure, training, fees, etc. based on trial system plus adjustments based on learnings/pilot feedback/refinement.

For the Competition Rules Committee
Andy Blackburn, Chair

[[email protected]]

Please post link to current FAI soaring contest rules. Thanks.

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:01:37 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Please post link to current FAI soaring contest rules. Thanks.

https://www.fai.org/igc-documents .

Annex A is Rules for World and Continental Gliding Championships.

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:10:05 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Minutes from the SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting are now posted on the SSA website:
>
> https://www.ssa.org/files/member/2018%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20-%20Final%2012-07-18.pdf
>
> There are many detailed items in the minutes. For clarity of communication, the introduction to the most significant item (#19 in the minutes, starting on page 9) is reproduced below:
>
> RC intends to move towards FAI-based rules capable of being scored by SeeYou or similar commercial tasking/scoring software and/or WinScore by 2021.
>
> This will happen in three steps:
>
> 2019
> - Make adjustments to US Rules to add FAI-like AT turn cylinders and finish configuration.
> - Develop and begin execution of plans for 2020 contest trials and longer-term transition – rules, local procedures, training and change management, handicaps (esp. Sports Class), PRL and UST implications, systems integration with SSA.org, SoaringSpot, FAI ranking, financial implications.
>
> 2020
> - Run 3-4 trial contests (including 2 Nationals) under a US rule system based on FAI – contests should be of sufficient size to reach a significant proportion of the pilot community, particularly the most active pilots
> - Collect detailed pilot feedback and input from trials
>
> 2021
> - Roll out of “final� rules and systems, infrastructure, training, fees, etc. based on trial system plus adjustments based on learnings/pilot feedback/refinement.
>
> For the Competition Rules Committee
> Andy Blackburn, Chair

Thanks guys.

Three cheers for most of this.

Q: what happens to our handicapped combined classes, e.g. the popular 15m + std class? Are they retained (I argue that they need to be)? Does the handicapping change?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Hi Evan.

Some of the details are in the minutes.

Overall, the intention is to do what most other countries do, which is to develop and evaluate US National and Regional rules based on FAI Rules that are used for WGC contests. Where FAI either contains features that are unsuitable for National/Regional competitions or lacks features that are necessary the RC would contemplate making appropriate adjustments.

You might have read the parallel thread on the Australian Multiclass Nationals where they have combined 15m/Std and 18M/Open with handicaps in order to ensure classes have an minimum required number of pilots. As near as we can tell that is an adjustment on top of the FAI Rules used for WGC Competition. While the RC is not contemplating that exact structure for the US, it is an example of how FAI WGC Rules get adapted to suit the needs of National or “Regional� competition.

As to US versus other handicap systems that get used internationally, that is being evaluated. For the most part the raw handicaps (once you invert the scale for US) are quite similar (within a couple of percent), except for very long-winged gliders where the US handicaps are less favorable. If we intend to retain combined FAI handicapped class and Sports Class in the US system - and the current thinking is to try to do so - it might require a handicap system with reference weights and handicap weight adjustment formulas. Whether such a system would be based on the US handicap database or could be based on the handicap systems that are used elsewhere is being evaluated. There are a number of gliders on the US handicap list that don’t exist elsewhere - they seem to be mostly US-centric designs, so we’d need to evaluate whether and how to fill those gaps if they turn out to be gliders that actually get flown in competition - if we were to favor changing over.

There are dozens to hundreds of topics like this that need to be worked through in a deliberate, thoughtful, fair, safe and operationally detailed way.. That means that many questions that people have deep interest in may not have definitive answers for quite some time. The RC asks for your support and indulgence as we work through that process.

For the US Competition Rules Committee
Andy Blackburn, Chair

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Updated link to the meeting minutes.

https://www.ssa.org/files/member/2018%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20-%20Final%2012-07-18.pdf

9B

[SoaringXCellence]

The heading at the top of all the minutes says "November 3, 2017" Was this an error or are these from the meeting in 2017?

MB

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:03:34 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Updated link to the meeting minutes.
>
> https://www.ssa.org/files/member/2018%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20-%20Final%2012-07-18.pdf
>
> 9B

Andy(9B), is the below whats planned or a typo?

• AT turn configuration; RC to reduce the AT radius to ½ mile.
o X to incorporate the change

Is not the current FAI AT turn diameter 1 km(radius .5 km)? If so, should the RC not reduce the radius to .31 mile?

Also, please do clarify, all the RC members not living in Palo Alto got their on their bucks and they also covered all their expenses?

Kudos to all.

Best. #711.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Updated link has the correct date. Nothing else changed.

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Tom,

Not a typo.

We picked a round-ish number. Also, some expressed a concern over going smaller right away, so the intermediate step is to go 0.50 miles instead of 0.3107 miles so pilots can get a little more used to the different traffic patterns when converging on a smaller target. Pilots will need to develop slightly different tyrnpoint habits. Best not to learn the hard way if we can avoid it.

Obviously there’s a bigger question about how to handle the pretty clear US pilot preference for miles, feet and knots and whether you round some of the metric numbers to some number of decimal places in English units or mandate that everyone fly in a mixed feet/kilometers, knots/kph environment. No final decision on that.

Andy Blackburn

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 4:05:07 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Not a typo.
>
> We picked a round-ish number. Also, some expressed a concern over going smaller right away, so the intermediate step is to go 0.50 miles instead of 0.3107 miles so pilots can get a little more used to the different traffic patterns when converging on a smaller target. Pilots will need to develop slightly different tyrnpoint habits. Best not to learn the hard way if we can avoid it.
>
> Obviously there’s a bigger question about how to handle the pretty clear US pilot preference for miles, feet and knots and whether you round some of the metric numbers to some number of decimal places in English units or mandate that everyone fly in a mixed feet/kilometers, knots/kph environment. No final decision on that.
>
> Andy Blackburn

Well, the poll results wanted a FAI AT TP, not a USA RC adjusted TP. But thank you for at least answering my question and the RC's reasoning.

Last question.
Now, will you score to center of TP for a AT with just one fix inside of circle as they do world wide using the FAI rules or are you going to score the fix inside the AT TP which gives you greatest distance flown? I might have missed that on how it will be scored.

Again Andy, thank you. When you get your new toy flying get us some pictures!

Best. #711.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 3:41:54 PM UTC-8, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 4:05:07 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > Not a typo.
> >
> > We picked a round-ish number. Also, some expressed a concern over going smaller right away, so the intermediate step is to go 0.50 miles instead of 0.3107 miles so pilots can get a little more used to the different traffic patterns when converging on a smaller target. Pilots will need to develop slightly different tyrnpoint habits. Best not to learn the hard way if we can avoid it.
> >
> > Obviously there’s a bigger question about how to handle the pretty clear US pilot preference for miles, feet and knots and whether you round some of the metric numbers to some number of decimal places in English units or mandate that everyone fly in a mixed feet/kilometers, knots/kph environment. No final decision on that.
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
>
> Well, the poll results wanted a FAI AT TP, not a USA RC adjusted TP. But thank you for at least answering my question and the RC's reasoning.
>
> Last question.
> Now, will you score to center of TP for a AT with just one fix inside of circle as they do world wide using the FAI rules or are you going to score the fix inside the AT TP which gives you greatest distance flown? I might have missed that on how it will be scored.
>
> Again Andy, thank you. When you get your new toy flying get us some pictures!
>
> Best. #711.

We're taking this one step at a time Tom. We realize people will have lots of questions and there will be lots of different views expressed along the way. We certainly want to hear it, but we don't want to "knee jerk" answers until we work through how things actually will work in practice - from contest registration to transmission of results to all the systems that use that information.Â*

Next big step in the process is posting of the proposed rules for 2019.

For the Rules Committee
Andy Blackburn

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 8:04:16 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 3:41:54 PM UTC-8, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 4:05:07 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > Not a typo.
> > >
> > > We picked a round-ish number. Also, some expressed a concern over going smaller right away, so the intermediate step is to go 0.50 miles instead of 0.3107 miles so pilots can get a little more used to the different traffic patterns when converging on a smaller target. Pilots will need to develop slightly different tyrnpoint habits. Best not to learn the hard way if we can avoid it.
> > >
> > > Obviously there’s a bigger question about how to handle the pretty clear US pilot preference for miles, feet and knots and whether you round some of the metric numbers to some number of decimal places in English units or mandate that everyone fly in a mixed feet/kilometers, knots/kph environment. No final decision on that.
> > >
> > > Andy Blackburn
> >
> > Well, the poll results wanted a FAI AT TP, not a USA RC adjusted TP. But thank you for at least answering my question and the RC's reasoning.
> >
> > Last question.
> > Now, will you score to center of TP for a AT with just one fix inside of circle as they do world wide using the FAI rules or are you going to score the fix inside the AT TP which gives you greatest distance flown? I might have missed that on how it will be scored.
> >
> > Again Andy, thank you. When you get your new toy flying get us some pictures!
> >
> > Best. #711.
>
> We're taking this one step at a time Tom. We realize people will have lots of questions and there will be lots of different views expressed along the way. We certainly want to hear it, but we don't want to "knee jerk" answers until we work through how things actually will work in practice - from contest registration to transmission of results to all the systems that use that information.Â*
>
> Next big step in the process is posting of the proposed rules for 2019.
>
> For the Rules Committee
> Andy Blackburn

A suggestion I wish you would consider... throw the pro-FAI guys a bone. Make our AT task (for 2019) an FAI style AT task. Line start, no altitude limits, 500m radius tag & go turns (fixed scored distance). Score it according to US speed/distance/completion ratio rules so it doesn't get over weighted relative to other tasks in same contest.


best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Tony[_5_]]

At least get rid of the criss cross crash insanity.

[[email protected]]

I hope the "pro-FAI guys" realize that the adoption of the FAI rules will necessitate the elimination of the "Airfield Bonus".

I'm looking forward to the old George Moffat philosophy where a death dive to a landout in the boonies to pick up a few points is preferable to a landing at a safe airfield below.

Oh, and no more "staring out the cylinder top" nonsense either.

Guy Byars

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:39:44 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I hope the "pro-FAI guys" realize that the adoption of the FAI rules will necessitate the elimination of the "Airfield Bonus".
>
> I'm looking forward to the old George Moffat philosophy where a death dive to a landout in the boonies to pick up a few points is preferable to a landing at a safe airfield below.
>
> Oh, and no more "staring out the cylinder top" nonsense either.
>
> Guy Byars

Or that safety finish. "Real" pilots get to the finish.
UH

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 11:25:58 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:39:44 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > I hope the "pro-FAI guys" realize that the adoption of the FAI rules will necessitate the elimination of the "Airfield Bonus".
> >
> > I'm looking forward to the old George Moffat philosophy where a death dive to a landout in the boonies to pick up a few points is preferable to a landing at a safe airfield below.
> >
> > Oh, and no more "staring out the cylinder top" nonsense either.
> >
> > Guy Byars
>
> Or that safety finish. "Real" pilots get to the finish.
> UH



I'm not really a "pro-FAI" guy but I've found myself persuaded by the guys that are.

The new for 2018 78.5 square mile area start (if you can reach MSH) that degenerates into a 31.4 mile circumference ring start (if you cannot) is what changed my opinion.

The US "beer can" start has always had (in my view) too much tactical importance, especially in crummy conditions. The change from "half a can" to "whole can" turned out to be a half beer too many for me. Some CD's are especially good at calling an MSH that you might, or might not be able to reach and guessing wrong (as a contestant) can be costly!

As far as the safety finish goes, I'm told that t-storm likelihood is handled (correctly, if the weather guy and task setter are on their game) by a larger ring finish (in the initial task call).

Moreover... since US Nats are getting FAI ranking points *now*, what would prevent us from keeping things like the existing safety finish and airport bonus?

Thanks for all you do, Guy & Hank.

best,
Evan / T8

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:10:05 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Minutes from the SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting are now posted on the SSA website:
>
> https://www.ssa.org/files/member/2018%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20-%20Final%2012-07-18.pdf
>
> There are many detailed items in the minutes. For clarity of communication, the introduction to the most significant item (#19 in the minutes, starting on page 9) is reproduced below:
>
> RC intends to move towards FAI-based rules capable of being scored by SeeYou or similar commercial tasking/scoring software and/or WinScore by 2021.
>
> This will happen in three steps:
>
> 2019
> - Make adjustments to US Rules to add FAI-like AT turn cylinders and finish configuration.
> - Develop and begin execution of plans for 2020 contest trials and longer-term transition – rules, local procedures, training and change management, handicaps (esp. Sports Class), PRL and UST implications, systems integration with SSA.org, SoaringSpot, FAI ranking, financial implications.
>
> 2020
> - Run 3-4 trial contests (including 2 Nationals) under a US rule system based on FAI – contests should be of sufficient size to reach a significant proportion of the pilot community, particularly the most active pilots
> - Collect detailed pilot feedback and input from trials
>
> 2021
> - Roll out of “final� rules and systems, infrastructure, training, fees, etc. based on trial system plus adjustments based on learnings/pilot feedback/refinement.
>
> For the Competition Rules Committee
> Andy Blackburn, Chair

Respectfully, neither Guy's or UH's comments are exactly correct. It is perfectly acceptable to have both an airfield bonus and safety finish. Note in the local procedures for the WWGC they provide for limiting start height and speed.

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 12:37:54 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:10:05 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Minutes from the SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting are now posted on the SSA website:
> >
> > https://www.ssa.org/files/member/2018%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20-%20Final%2012-07-18.pdf
> >
> > There are many detailed items in the minutes. For clarity of communication, the introduction to the most significant item (#19 in the minutes, starting on page 9) is reproduced below:
> >
> > RC intends to move towards FAI-based rules capable of being scored by SeeYou or similar commercial tasking/scoring software and/or WinScore by 2021.
> >
> > This will happen in three steps:
> >
> > 2019
> > - Make adjustments to US Rules to add FAI-like AT turn cylinders and finish configuration.
> > - Develop and begin execution of plans for 2020 contest trials and longer-term transition – rules, local procedures, training and change management, handicaps (esp. Sports Class), PRL and UST implications, systems integration with SSA.org, SoaringSpot, FAI ranking, financial implications..
> >
> > 2020
> > - Run 3-4 trial contests (including 2 Nationals) under a US rule system based on FAI – contests should be of sufficient size to reach a significant proportion of the pilot community, particularly the most active pilots
> > - Collect detailed pilot feedback and input from trials
> >
> > 2021
> > - Roll out of “final� rules and systems, infrastructure, training, fees, etc. based on trial system plus adjustments based on learnings/pilot feedback/refinement.
> >
> > For the Competition Rules Committee
> > Andy Blackburn, Chair
>
> Respectfully, neither Guy's or UH's comments are exactly correct. It is perfectly acceptable to have both an airfield bonus and safety finish. Note in the local procedures for the WWGC they provide for limiting start height and speed.

The WWGC local procedures are worth a read and to see the variations (additions/changes) from what is in SC3a http://wwgc.com.au/downloads/Club%20and%20Sports%20Local%20Rules%202019.pdf

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 12:37:54 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:10:05 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Minutes from the SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting are now posted on the SSA website:
> >
> > https://www.ssa.org/files/member/2018%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20-%20Final%2012-07-18.pdf
> >
> > There are many detailed items in the minutes. For clarity of communication, the introduction to the most significant item (#19 in the minutes, starting on page 9) is reproduced below:
> >
> > RC intends to move towards FAI-based rules capable of being scored by SeeYou or similar commercial tasking/scoring software and/or WinScore by 2021.
> >
> > This will happen in three steps:
> >
> > 2019
> > - Make adjustments to US Rules to add FAI-like AT turn cylinders and finish configuration.
> > - Develop and begin execution of plans for 2020 contest trials and longer-term transition – rules, local procedures, training and change management, handicaps (esp. Sports Class), PRL and UST implications, systems integration with SSA.org, SoaringSpot, FAI ranking, financial implications..
> >
> > 2020
> > - Run 3-4 trial contests (including 2 Nationals) under a US rule system based on FAI – contests should be of sufficient size to reach a significant proportion of the pilot community, particularly the most active pilots
> > - Collect detailed pilot feedback and input from trials
> >
> > 2021
> > - Roll out of “final� rules and systems, infrastructure, training, fees, etc. based on trial system plus adjustments based on learnings/pilot feedback/refinement.
> >
> > For the Competition Rules Committee
> > Andy Blackburn, Chair
>
> Respectfully, neither Guy's or UH's comments are exactly correct. It is perfectly acceptable to have both an airfield bonus and safety finish. Note in the local procedures for the WWGC they provide for limiting start height and speed.

True- organizers MAY limit start height and speed. Or they may not
In contrasting the 2 rules sets, GFB is correct. There is no start out the top, there is no airfield bonus, and there is no safety finish. It is also true that "local procedures" can provide for many adjustments to meet local needs, subject to what may conflict with the intent of SC3a and capabilities provided in the scoring program selected.
UH

[Craig Funston[_3_]]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:25:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:39:44 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > I hope the "pro-FAI guys" realize that the adoption of the FAI rules will necessitate the elimination of the "Airfield Bonus".
> >
> > I'm looking forward to the old George Moffat philosophy where a death dive to a landout in the boonies to pick up a few points is preferable to a landing at a safe airfield below.
> >
> > Oh, and no more "staring out the cylinder top" nonsense either.
> >
> > Guy Byars
>
> Or that safety finish. "Real" pilots get to the finish.
> UH

Hank, when you say "safety finish" are you addressing use of a remote finish point in the event of bad weather or having a minimum finish altitude at a set distance from the field?

If it's the latter then that's not necessarily gone. I've flown an FAI contest where we did have a minimum finish height at the finish circle.

Best regards,
Craig

[[email protected]]

No doubt the SSA Rules Committee has their hands full regarding the integration of FAI practices into US contest rules and scoring. Very tough job; thanks Andy, Bif, Hank, David, Rich, and John for your service to the SSA. And thank you Guy Byars for all your pro bono software work to provide Winscore.

Understood, the Rules Committee is acting on feedback from the results of the recent SSA’s pilot opinion poll. However, the intent of integrating FAI practices is not clear. I would appreciate the Rules Committee clarifying whether its prime objective is to increase the participation of US competition – OR – is the prime objective to better prepare Team USA for future international competition? Certainly, you would agree these are two distinctly different issues requiring different solutions.

[[email protected]]

Do FAI rules allow us to change the task in the air with a roll call as often happens? I thought FAI contests publish the tasks really early in the day and stick to it even if the task goes through a storm that pops up before launch.
Chris

[[email protected]]

Has anyone asked if we could add some of the (missing) US centric glider models to the FAI handicap list?
That might make it easier to switch to their system.
Chris

[krasw]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:24:50 AM UTC+2, wrote:
> Has anyone asked if we could add some of the (missing) US centric glider models to the FAI handicap list?
> That might make it easier to switch to their system.
> Chris

Latest FAI Handicap list turned into fiasco because it took a political stance that all old club class gliders should be replaced by newer ones instead of objectively handicapping performance differences. No fair competitions are possible with these handicaps. Do yourself a favour: do not adopt FIA handicaps as a basis for wider handicap list. SC3 does not allow handicaps to any class other than club class so you have a freedom to do whatever you like in national level, though sending teams to Club class WGC without underhandicapped glider ('55, 304 etc.) would be a huge waist of money.

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-5, Craig Funston wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:25:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:39:44 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > I hope the "pro-FAI guys" realize that the adoption of the FAI rules will necessitate the elimination of the "Airfield Bonus".
> > >
> > > I'm looking forward to the old George Moffat philosophy where a death dive to a landout in the boonies to pick up a few points is preferable to a landing at a safe airfield below.
> > >
> > > Oh, and no more "staring out the cylinder top" nonsense either.
> > >
> > > Guy Byars
> >
> > Or that safety finish. "Real" pilots get to the finish.
> > UH
>
> Hank, when you say "safety finish" are you addressing use of a remote finish point in the event of bad weather or having a minimum finish altitude at a set distance from the field?
>
> If it's the latter then that's not necessarily gone. I've flown an FAI contest where we did have a minimum finish height at the finish circle.
>
> Best regards,
> Craig

See Rule 10.9.5.

best,
Evan

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> No doubt the SSA Rules Committee has their hands full regarding the integration of FAI practices into US contest rules and scoring. Very tough job; thanks Andy, Bif, Hank, David, Rich, and John for your service to the SSA. And thank you Guy Byars for all your pro bono software work to provide Winscore.
>
> Understood, the Rules Committee is acting on feedback from the results of the recent SSA’s pilot opinion poll. However, the intent of integrating FAI practices is not clear. I would appreciate the Rules Committee clarifying whether its prime objective is to increase the participation of US competition – OR – is the prime objective to better prepare Team USA for future international competition? Certainly, you would agree these are two distinctly different issues requiring different solutions.

UH- My personal philosophy is to put maximum emphasis on safety(of course #1), followed by doing the things that maximize participation, from the entry level to the top level. This understandably can be in conflict with actions that mat favor US Team selection and performance at the WGC.
The most recent pilot poll results do not, in my view, agree with my philosophy.
The task of the RC is to seek and implement the best trade off between two conflicting objectives. I know that there is a sincere effort on the part of the RC to accomplish this objective.
Speaking for myself.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 8:18:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > No doubt the SSA Rules Committee has their hands full regarding the integration of FAI practices into US contest rules and scoring. Very tough job; thanks Andy, Bif, Hank, David, Rich, and John for your service to the SSA.. And thank you Guy Byars for all your pro bono software work to provide Winscore.
> >
> > Understood, the Rules Committee is acting on feedback from the results of the recent SSA’s pilot opinion poll. However, the intent of integrating FAI practices is not clear. I would appreciate the Rules Committee clarifying whether its prime objective is to increase the participation of US competition – OR – is the prime objective to better prepare Team USA for future international competition? Certainly, you would agree these are two distinctly different issues requiring different solutions.
>
> UH- My personal philosophy is to put maximum emphasis on safety(of course #1), followed by doing the things that maximize participation, from the entry level to the top level. This understandably can be in conflict with actions that mat favor US Team selection and performance at the WGC.
> The most recent pilot poll results do not, in my view, agree with my philosophy.
> The task of the RC is to seek and implement the best trade off between two conflicting objectives. I know that there is a sincere effort on the part of the RC to accomplish this objective.
> Speaking for myself.
> UH

Polls are very nice and make everyone feel included, but I am not so sure that in turn becomes a mandate.

I like uniformity when ever possible. I like playing with the same or similar rules. But in moving to an international rules from Local rules I think you have to start at the beginning.

Are the FAI and US goals/priorities the same?
Are the physical/structural issues that require a difference?

In discussions these can be sorted out - in a poll you get a direction not a mandate.

My take is that the pilots polled want to have US rules look more like International and the opportunity to race like international pilots, but I am not so sure it calls for blind adoption. Which by the phased approach seems to be how it is moving. Bravo.

Great job RC - keep talking and tweaking... please.

WH

[Dan Marotta]

Speaking as a non-competition, but curious pilot; when a WGC is held in
the US, whose rules are used to fly the competition, US or FAI? I assume
they use FAI rules so I've got to ask, why would you fly by one set of
rules in your own country at the local, regional, and national level and
then try to compete by a different set at the world level?Â* Seems
counter productive to me.

Make all the usual rationalizations like, weather, local terrain,
Popsicles before takeoff, etc., but the simple fact remains:Â* you're
simply handicapping yourselves by not using the same set of rules all of
the time.

On 12/11/2018 7:27 AM, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 8:18:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>> No doubt the SSA Rules Committee has their hands full regarding the integration of FAI practices into US contest rules and scoring. Very tough job; thanks Andy, Bif, Hank, David, Rich, and John for your service to the SSA. And thank you Guy Byars for all your pro bono software work to provide Winscore.
>>>
>>> Understood, the Rules Committee is acting on feedback from the results of the recent SSA’s pilot opinion poll. However, the intent of integrating FAI practices is not clear. I would appreciate the Rules Committee clarifying whether its prime objective is to increase the participation of US competition – OR – is the prime objective to better prepare Team USA for future international competition? Certainly, you would agree these are two distinctly different issues requiring different solutions.
>> UH- My personal philosophy is to put maximum emphasis on safety(of course #1), followed by doing the things that maximize participation, from the entry level to the top level. This understandably can be in conflict with actions that mat favor US Team selection and performance at the WGC.
>> The most recent pilot poll results do not, in my view, agree with my philosophy.
>> The task of the RC is to seek and implement the best trade off between two conflicting objectives. I know that there is a sincere effort on the part of the RC to accomplish this objective.
>> Speaking for myself.
>> UH
> Polls are very nice and make everyone feel included, but I am not so sure that in turn becomes a mandate.
>
> I like uniformity when ever possible. I like playing with the same or similar rules. But in moving to an international rules from Local rules I think you have to start at the beginning.
>
> Are the FAI and US goals/priorities the same?
> Are the physical/structural issues that require a difference?
>
> In discussions these can be sorted out - in a poll you get a direction not a mandate.
>
> My take is that the pilots polled want to have US rules look more like International and the opportunity to race like international pilots, but I am not so sure it calls for blind adoption. Which by the phased approach seems to be how it is moving. Bravo.
>
> Great job RC - keep talking and tweaking... please.
>
> WH

--
Dan, 5J

[Mike C]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 8:40:47 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Speaking as a non-competition, but curious pilot; when a WGC is held in
> the US, whose rules are used to fly the competition, US or FAI? I assume
> they use FAI rules so I've got to ask, why would you fly by one set of
> rules in your own country at the local, regional, and national level and
> then try to compete by a different set at the world level?Â* Seems
> counter productive to me.
>
> Make all the usual rationalizations like, weather, local terrain,
> Popsicles before takeoff, etc., but the simple fact remains:Â* you're
> simply handicapping yourselves by not using the same set of rules all of
> the time.

> Dan, 5J

Quite right Dan.

Speaking as a SSA member.

Why make it so difficult? Keep the Sports Class rules American and allow the FAI classes to be FAI. It is common sense. If it is reasoned that it takes three seasons to allow American competition pilots the time to understand FAI rules, they should not be representing the USA in competition. The switch back to FAI rules should happen and should not be a long drawn out process. Sometimes people have to let go of cherished ideas that they are long attached to and try to understand what is logical and right. American exceptionalism should be based on competence, not on a faux superior sense of isolation from the rest of the world. We have a few skilled younger (and seasoned) pilots that have displayed superior talent, are passionate and could be among the best in the world if they are given a level playing field to hone and expand their skills. The Society should invest in their success in any and all ways available.

Mike Carris

[[email protected]]

News from Europe -

The contest will include many new and exciting possibilities, including an opportunity for the pilots to use a limited amount of stored energy during the race. Each race will include an allowance of electrical energy that the pilot can use whenever he thinks appropriate. It could be used to avoid an outlanding or rescue from a low spot. Or it could be used to enhance the sailplane’s performance during the flight or on final glide.

WH

[Craig Funston[_3_]]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 4:03:51 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-5, Craig Funston wrote:
> > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:25:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:39:44 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > > I hope the "pro-FAI guys" realize that the adoption of the FAI rules will necessitate the elimination of the "Airfield Bonus".
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking forward to the old George Moffat philosophy where a death dive to a landout in the boonies to pick up a few points is preferable to a landing at a safe airfield below.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, and no more "staring out the cylinder top" nonsense either.
> > > >
> > > > Guy Byars
> > >
> > > Or that safety finish. "Real" pilots get to the finish.
> > > UH
> >
> > Hank, when you say "safety finish" are you addressing use of a remote finish point in the event of bad weather or having a minimum finish altitude at a set distance from the field?
> >
> > If it's the latter then that's not necessarily gone. I've flown an FAI contest where we did have a minimum finish height at the finish circle.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Craig
>
> See Rule 10.9.5.
>
> best,
> Evan

Thanks Evan,I understand the rules. I was just trying to discern whether the language used was based on an older colloquial term or the specific definition in the rules.

Best regards,
Craig

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 5:07:03 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:24:50 AM UTC+2, wrote:
> > Has anyone asked if we could add some of the (missing) US centric glider models to the FAI handicap list?
> > That might make it easier to switch to their system.
> > Chris
>
> Latest FAI Handicap list turned into fiasco because it took a political stance that all old club class gliders should be replaced by newer ones instead of objectively handicapping performance differences. No fair competitions are possible with these handicaps. Do yourself a favour: do not adopt FIA handicaps as a basis for wider handicap list. SC3 does not allow handicaps to any class other than club class so you have a freedom to do whatever you like in national level, though sending teams to Club class WGC without underhandicapped glider ('55, 304 etc.) would be a huge waist of money.

______________

Handicapping is an issue that seems to have been compounded by recent moves as described above (I haven't seen the final results - we just got done doing a comparison with what I believe were last year's handicaps). I tend to agree that handicapping ought be a best estimate for equalizing performance (understanding that no single number can be a perfect adjustment under all conditions), not a tool for preferentially advantaging certain gliders. In the US if we want to retain Sports Class and FAI Handicapped Classes, we may need to include some sort of wing loading adjustment formula. That might be layered on top of international handicaps, or adjustments made to that list and/or gaps for missing gliders filled. All of that is TBD.

Andy Blackburn

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 6:48:28 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 5:07:03 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:24:50 AM UTC+2, wrote:
> > > Has anyone asked if we could add some of the (missing) US centric glider models to the FAI handicap list?
> > > That might make it easier to switch to their system.
> > > Chris
> >
> > Latest FAI Handicap list turned into fiasco because it took a political stance that all old club class gliders should be replaced by newer ones instead of objectively handicapping performance differences. No fair competitions are possible with these handicaps. Do yourself a favour: do not adopt FIA handicaps as a basis for wider handicap list. SC3 does not allow handicaps to any class other than club class so you have a freedom to do whatever you like in national level, though sending teams to Club class WGC without underhandicapped glider ('55, 304 etc.) would be a huge waist of money.
>
> ______________
>
> Handicapping is an issue that seems to have been compounded by recent moves as described above (I haven't seen the final results - we just got done doing a comparison with what I believe were last year's handicaps). I tend to agree that handicapping ought be a best estimate for equalizing performance (understanding that no single number can be a perfect adjustment under all conditions), not a tool for preferentially advantaging certain gliders. In the US if we want to retain Sports Class and FAI Handicapped Classes, we may need to include some sort of wing loading adjustment formula. That might be layered on top of international handicaps, or adjustments made to that list and/or gaps for missing gliders filled. All of that is TBD.
>
> Andy Blackburn

It's a bit challenging to talk about "European" or "FAI' handicaps as there are multiple systems in use e.g.:

- Sporting Code https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/sc3ah_2018a.pdf
Club and Double seater only. Carries handicaps to 3 decimal places.
Provides for weight adjustments up and down
Colored by non-aerodynamic considerations mentioned earlier

- DMSt (German) - no weight adjustments https://www.daec.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/2018/Sportarten/Segelflug/DMSt-WO_2018ki.pdf

- OLC - no weight adjustments. Can't figure a way to download this list

- SeeYou - no weight adjustment likely the same as OLC,
but again can't download or compare easily

[RW[_2_]]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 12:20:39 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Do FAI rules allow us to change the task in the air with a roll call as often happens? I thought FAI contests publish the tasks really early in the day and stick to it even if the task goes through a storm that pops up before launch.
> Chris

Change possible 20 min before first glider T/O
So no confusion, and no zombies flying all together same time programming not looking out.
Ryszard

[RW[_2_]]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 11:33:22 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 11:25:58 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:39:44 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > I hope the "pro-FAI guys" realize that the adoption of the FAI rules will necessitate the elimination of the "Airfield Bonus".
> > >
> > > I'm looking forward to the old George Moffat philosophy where a death dive to a landout in the boonies to pick up a few points is preferable to a landing at a safe airfield below.
> > >
> > > Oh, and no more "staring out the cylinder top" nonsense either.
> > >
> > > Guy Byars
> >
> > Or that safety finish. "Real" pilots get to the finish.
> > UH
>
>
>
> I'm not really a "pro-FAI" guy but I've found myself persuaded by the guys that are.
>
> The new for 2018 78.5 square mile area start (if you can reach MSH) that degenerates into a 31.4 mile circumference ring start (if you cannot) is what changed my opinion.
>
> The US "beer can" start has always had (in my view) too much tactical importance, especially in crummy conditions. The change from "half a can" to "whole can" turned out to be a half beer too many for me. Some CD's are especially good at calling an MSH that you might, or might not be able to reach and guessing wrong (as a contestant) can be costly!
>
> As far as the safety finish goes, I'm told that t-storm likelihood is handled (correctly, if the weather guy and task setter are on their game) by a larger ring finish (in the initial task call).
>
> Moreover... since US Nats are getting FAI ranking points *now*, what would prevent us from keeping things like the existing safety finish and airport bonus?
>
> Thanks for all you do, Guy & Hank.
>
> best,
> Evan / T8

If you look at the traces of pilots landing out , while safety landing is imposed.
They are still going to the finish , only storm is stronger, than their computer (still away) is thinking.Very few pilots actually divert( only those deserve safety finish). So it is a US scam. If weatherman tells 4pm will be storm, we should plan to be back before, and not gamble, and not have extra cushion of safety finish to bail us up.
Ryszard

[RW[_2_]]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> No doubt the SSA Rules Committee has their hands full regarding the integration of FAI practices into US contest rules and scoring. Very tough job; thanks Andy, Bif, Hank, David, Rich, and John for your service to the SSA. And thank you Guy Byars for all your pro bono software work to provide Winscore.
>
> Understood, the Rules Committee is acting on feedback from the results of the recent SSA’s pilot opinion poll. However, the intent of integrating FAI practices is not clear. I would appreciate the Rules Committee clarifying whether its prime objective is to increase the participation of US competition – OR – is the prime objective to better prepare Team USA for future international competition? Certainly, you would agree these are two distinctly different issues requiring different solutions.

Quite opposite, old US rules made most pilots crueless( no low finish, no show for crew).
Old rules tread National competition pilots as Student Pilots and are way too complicated for new competition pilots.
Ryszard

[RW[_2_]]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 6:07:03 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:24:50 AM UTC+2, wrote:
> > Has anyone asked if we could add some of the (missing) US centric glider models to the FAI handicap list?
> > That might make it easier to switch to their system.
> > Chris
>
> Latest FAI Handicap list turned into fiasco because it took a political stance that all old club class gliders should be replaced by newer ones instead of objectively handicapping performance differences. No fair competitions are possible with these handicaps. Do yourself a favour: do not adopt FIA handicaps as a basis for wider handicap list. SC3 does not allow handicaps to any class other than club class so you have a freedom to do whatever you like in national level, though sending teams to Club class WGC without underhandicapped glider ('55, 304 etc.) would be a huge waist of money.

Do yourself favor : look at US handicap list first.
Our US clubs are swarmed with D2 and V1 and LS6 and ASW28, this is why they are in US Club Class :)
Ryszard

[RW[_2_]]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 9:27:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 8:18:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > No doubt the SSA Rules Committee has their hands full regarding the integration of FAI practices into US contest rules and scoring. Very tough job; thanks Andy, Bif, Hank, David, Rich, and John for your service to the SSA. And thank you Guy Byars for all your pro bono software work to provide Winscore.
> > >
> > > Understood, the Rules Committee is acting on feedback from the results of the recent SSA’s pilot opinion poll. However, the intent of integrating FAI practices is not clear. I would appreciate the Rules Committee clarifying whether its prime objective is to increase the participation of US competition – OR – is the prime objective to better prepare Team USA for future international competition? Certainly, you would agree these are two distinctly different issues requiring different solutions.
> >
> > UH- My personal philosophy is to put maximum emphasis on safety(of course #1), followed by doing the things that maximize participation, from the entry level to the top level. This understandably can be in conflict with actions that mat favor US Team selection and performance at the WGC.
> > The most recent pilot poll results do not, in my view, agree with my philosophy.
> > The task of the RC is to seek and implement the best trade off between two conflicting objectives. I know that there is a sincere effort on the part of the RC to accomplish this objective.
> > Speaking for myself.
> > UH
>
> Polls are very nice and make everyone feel included, but I am not so sure that in turn becomes a mandate.
>
> I like uniformity when ever possible. I like playing with the same or similar rules. But in moving to an international rules from Local rules I think you have to start at the beginning.
>
> Are the FAI and US goals/priorities the same?
> Are the physical/structural issues that require a difference?
>
> In discussions these can be sorted out - in a poll you get a direction not a mandate.
>
> My take is that the pilots polled want to have US rules look more like International and the opportunity to race like international pilots, but I am not so sure it calls for blind adoption. Which by the phased approach seems to be how it is moving. Bravo.
>
> Great job RC - keep talking and tweaking... please.
>
> WH

Bill,
US is a tiny island of soaring.
100 times more pilots out there are making improvements.
Past SSA government was blind to all changes, regardless 2 US reps in IGC,
and was plowing wrong way.
Ryszard

[RW[_2_]]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 8:18:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > No doubt the SSA Rules Committee has their hands full regarding the integration of FAI practices into US contest rules and scoring. Very tough job; thanks Andy, Bif, Hank, David, Rich, and John for your service to the SSA.. And thank you Guy Byars for all your pro bono software work to provide Winscore.
> >
> > Understood, the Rules Committee is acting on feedback from the results of the recent SSA’s pilot opinion poll. However, the intent of integrating FAI practices is not clear. I would appreciate the Rules Committee clarifying whether its prime objective is to increase the participation of US competition – OR – is the prime objective to better prepare Team USA for future international competition? Certainly, you would agree these are two distinctly different issues requiring different solutions.
>
> UH- My personal philosophy is to put maximum emphasis on safety(of course #1), followed by doing the things that maximize participation, from the entry level to the top level. This understandably can be in conflict with actions that mat favor US Team selection and performance at the WGC.
> The most recent pilot poll results do not, in my view, agree with my philosophy.
> The task of the RC is to seek and implement the best trade off between two conflicting objectives. I know that there is a sincere effort on the part of the RC to accomplish this objective.
> Speaking for myself.
> UH

Hank,
Pools from last 10 years where ignored.
You guys would not listen .
Switching to FAI rules is not so rosy.
Every country out there has easy regionals to qualify to hard Nationals, but we let totally new pilots with silver badge to risk their lives at Nationals as long there is a space. Not safety first approach to me,: money first approach.
Ryszard
pilots to fly complicated tasks to fresh pilots.

[RW[_2_]]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:14:27 AM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 6:48:28 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 5:07:03 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:24:50 AM UTC+2, wrote:
> > > > Has anyone asked if we could add some of the (missing) US centric glider models to the FAI handicap list?
> > > > That might make it easier to switch to their system.
> > > > Chris
> > >
> > > Latest FAI Handicap list turned into fiasco because it took a political stance that all old club class gliders should be replaced by newer ones instead of objectively handicapping performance differences. No fair competitions are possible with these handicaps. Do yourself a favour: do not adopt FIA handicaps as a basis for wider handicap list. SC3 does not allow handicaps to any class other than club class so you have a freedom to do whatever you like in national level, though sending teams to Club class WGC without underhandicapped glider ('55, 304 etc.) would be a huge waist of money.
> >
> > ______________
> >
> > Handicapping is an issue that seems to have been compounded by recent moves as described above (I haven't seen the final results - we just got done doing a comparison with what I believe were last year's handicaps). I tend to agree that handicapping ought be a best estimate for equalizing performance (understanding that no single number can be a perfect adjustment under all conditions), not a tool for preferentially advantaging certain gliders. In the US if we want to retain Sports Class and FAI Handicapped Classes, we may need to include some sort of wing loading adjustment formula. That might be layered on top of international handicaps, or adjustments made to that list and/or gaps for missing gliders filled. All of that is TBD.
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
>
> It's a bit challenging to talk about "European" or "FAI' handicaps as there are multiple systems in use e.g.:
>
> - Sporting Code https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/sc3ah_2018a.pdf
> Club and Double seater only. Carries handicaps to 3 decimal places.
> Provides for weight adjustments up and down
> Colored by non-aerodynamic considerations mentioned earlier
>
> - DMSt (German) - no weight adjustments https://www.daec.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/2018/Sportarten/Segelflug/DMSt-WO_2018ki.pdf
>
> - OLC - no weight adjustments. Can't figure a way to download this list
>
> - SeeYou - no weight adjustment likely the same as OLC,
> but again can't download or compare easily

Rest of the world have more mixed classes than we in US, and water is a pilot problem, not a score guy.
Ryszard

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 3:12:07 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:

> Not safety first approach to me,: money first approach.

Money First? What a moronic statement.

Competition soaring.... its a gold mine.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 3:12:07 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:

> Switching to FAI rules is not so rosy.
> Every country out there has easy regionals to qualify to hard Nationals, but we let totally new pilots with silver badge to risk their lives at Nationals as long there is a space. Not safety first approach to me,: money first approach.
> Ryszard
> pilots to fly complicated tasks to fresh pilots.



OK, I will put my 2 cents in ... but everybody reading should understand that I flew the FIRST real contest of my life last summer -- region 3, at age 67 ... and I had my glider CFI at age 19. A demanding career, a child and divorce are the explanation of that. But I flew in the sky with Hank and Ryzard ... and I had a lot of fun and nothing got broken and I didn't even land out.

I suck as a contest pilot, but I've got over 2,500 hours of flying a lot of types, comm & CFI licenses, etc.

There are many comments about edge-case rules here that I don't even follow.. The comment that gets me to respond here is "new pilots with silver badge to risk their lives at Nationals" ... and I have not flown a Nationals .. .though the club-class Nationals was held at the Region 3 (we (flew as a team) entered the sports class in a Discus) and it didn't seem so intimidating -- the club class tasks weren't all that different from the sports class, and given that Peter Scarpelli whipped our class in a ASG-29 (flying 18 m), maybe we should have been in the club-class, and hence the Nationals.

I greatly appreciate all the friendly help we got, including Hank and Ryzard. I learned a lot -- hope to fly with you guys again. I hope nobody here sees anything I say as carping. But getting back to the point(s) ...

The SSA rules say "safe and fair competition" .. and I don't see why Nationals should be MUCH less safe than regionals. Longer and more difficult tasks ... sure. And I acknowledge that there is an inevitable increase in risks (particularly for the novice pilot) in longer, harder tasks. But most of the hazards of a soaring contest should not be that different, and for everybody's sake we should try to keep the hazards down, in all contests.

I'm not advising newbies to enter nationals; I would not do that. But if somebody says "risking their lives..." that sure gets my attention, and we should look really hard at anything that produces that.

Contests are very high work-load. Even as an experienced pilot, I was aware of the high work-load of being in my first contest, simply because so much was new ... and the rules are a big part of the workload for the unfamiliar. It's not obvious to me that the FAI rules are worse in this regard ... does anyone see specific issues that are? What are they?

I have no problem with experience criteria for entering nationals, if the experienced pilots see this as wise for safety ... interesting question is what they should be? This gets back to the question of what are the specific incremental risks of a nationals, and what experience would prepare/qualify for them?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 8:49:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 3:12:07 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
>
> > Switching to FAI rules is not so rosy.
> > Every country out there has easy regionals to qualify to hard Nationals, but we let totally new pilots with silver badge to risk their lives at Nationals as long there is a space. Not safety first approach to me,: money first approach.
> > Ryszard
> > pilots to fly complicated tasks to fresh pilots.
>
>
>
> OK, I will put my 2 cents in ... but everybody reading should understand that I flew the FIRST real contest of my life last summer -- region 3, at age 67 ... and I had my glider CFI at age 19. A demanding career, a child and divorce are the explanation of that. But I flew in the sky with Hank and Ryzard ... and I had a lot of fun and nothing got broken and I didn't even land out.
>
> I suck as a contest pilot, but I've got over 2,500 hours of flying a lot of types, comm & CFI licenses, etc.
>
> There are many comments about edge-case rules here that I don't even follow. The comment that gets me to respond here is "new pilots with silver badge to risk their lives at Nationals" ... and I have not flown a Nationals ... .though the club-class Nationals was held at the Region 3 (we (flew as a team) entered the sports class in a Discus) and it didn't seem so intimidating -- the club class tasks weren't all that different from the sports class, and given that Peter Scarpelli whipped our class in a ASG-29 (flying 18 m), maybe we should have been in the club-class, and hence the Nationals.
>
> I greatly appreciate all the friendly help we got, including Hank and Ryzard. I learned a lot -- hope to fly with you guys again. I hope nobody here sees anything I say as carping. But getting back to the point(s) ...
>
> The SSA rules say "safe and fair competition" .. and I don't see why Nationals should be MUCH less safe than regionals. Longer and more difficult tasks ... sure. And I acknowledge that there is an inevitable increase in risks (particularly for the novice pilot) in longer, harder tasks. But most of the hazards of a soaring contest should not be that different, and for everybody's sake we should try to keep the hazards down, in all contests.
>
> I'm not advising newbies to enter nationals; I would not do that. But if somebody says "risking their lives..." that sure gets my attention, and we should look really hard at anything that produces that.
>
> Contests are very high work-load. Even as an experienced pilot, I was aware of the high work-load of being in my first contest, simply because so much was new ... and the rules are a big part of the workload for the unfamiliar. It's not obvious to me that the FAI rules are worse in this regard .... does anyone see specific issues that are? What are they?
>
> I have no problem with experience criteria for entering nationals, if the experienced pilots see this as wise for safety ... interesting question is what they should be? This gets back to the question of what are the specific incremental risks of a nationals, and what experience would prepare/qualify for them?

Nationals are no more life risking than regional contests. The skill level is higher by a bit, the tasking has more challenge, and the duration longer, but the risk to pilot safety is not greater. What Ryzard asserted is not true.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Nationals are no more life risking than regional contests. The skill level is higher by a bit, the tasking has more challenge, and the duration longer, but the risk to pilot safety is not greater. What Ryzard asserted is not true.
> UH

One hopes that is true ... my belief is that risks on course depend very strongly on the terrain/venue and the contest committee; wiser/warier pilots can pick their venues, but have no control over tasking.

Starts & weather strike me as the greatest risks; I won't pontificate as I'm not so experienced at contests.

Ryzard's sarcastic comment about handicapping

"Our US clubs are swarmed with D2 and V1 and LS6 and ASW28, this is why they are in US Club Class :) "

is bang on, but is not about the contest rules per se, nor about hazards. I don't know any American club with glider(s) that have handicaps much better than 1, let alone sending anybody with one to a contest. L-201s, Std. Cirrus, G-102 ... club gliders rarely get better than that in the USA. Lord help you if you try to fly a 1-26 in the sport class ... but there's 1-26 class.

I have some arguments with the handicapping scheme, but that's an argument for another day -- don't think there is any possibility of a fixed one-coefficient handicap that will be fair, and seemingly nobody wants to deal with anything else.

I do understand why the best pilots want to fly sailplanes at the top end of the handicap range in any handicap class -- it's to have any chance at all of dropping the leeches.

I learned a bunch of things from flying the Region 3 (really great contest BTW and very friendly place and people, big thanks to the folks at Finger Lakes who put it on) ... but one of them is "the Hank Nixon rule" ... do not follow the leader that the pack has been leeching over the high-ground to the last or second-to-last turnpoint ... from 500' below. You will end up landing out in difficult terrain.

How do I know this? I ended up doing several of these retrieves. Hank and his friends came along to help one of the worst of these. (Thanks!) rec.soaring doesn't allow photos, or I'd post one of these land-outs -- a super-experienced pilot pulled off a no-harm-done landing in a wretched field with about a 20° slope, taller-than-knee-deep alfalfa, difficult access .... and ticks.

Another one of these scrape-off-the-leeches retrieves rescued two guys out of the same badly-rutted soy field, and featured all of us casting about for about a 1/2 hour to find a tail-wheel broken off -- I found most of it. (for anyone reading this who doesn't know, tailwheels on most fiberglass sailplanes are designed to intentionally break off to prevent worse damage to the fuselage ... this is a nuisance, not a crisis)

I was flying the sports class, starting behind the club class, and didn't want to leech but there wasn't anybody obvious to leech if I'd wanted to. (Leeching Peter Scarpelli in his ASG-29 ... not!) I flew conservatively on my own and never landed out.

The Finger Lakes region has excellent landing sites generally but it does have ridges, many of which even have good landing sites on top (but not all) ... most top out at about 2500' but a few go over 3000' even 3500' ... we never had a day with cloud bases much over 4500' ... funny how every task had a late turn-point over the high-ground! Safe and fair, I completely agree. It's pilot judgement: if you are leeching and you are low, time to quit leeching, gain some altitude ... admit reality. A really safety-minded contest committee could arrange a designated "leeches land here" field though?

Transitions ... safety and handicaps are about transitions too.

If you've had the patience to get this far with me, my point is that most contests should be FUN! Handicapping is never going to be "fair:" just go out and fly and try to beat yourself. If you are really serious racer material, don't fly the handicapped classes ... and probably you would be irritated to have me in your contest, except I'll be the cannon-fodder that makes you look good.

I can probably adjust to FAI rules ... no biggie. The problem of why America's teams look like chumps in international competitions isn't one that I'm going to fix; I'll never be in anything like that league. But I do think it is a good thing for the USA to align with the world rules, just on general principles. And folks, we've got to stop the idea that we need kiddie-wheel rules because we are Americans. If there are problems with the FAI rules then we should work to get those changed, and I'd surely think that if those problems are real the rest of the world would see the point.