Rules Committee

[Sam Giltner[_1_]]

I am currently running for the rules committee. The polls close on October
the 8th. I have created a blog so you will have the opportunity to know me
better as a potential member.
My intent is to provide you with the opportunity to express your concerns
about soaring issues. Check it out: www.5ugly.blogspot.com Thanks, Sam

[Karl Striedieck]

By the looks of Sam's blog and the"poll" on it Sam gives the appearance of a
one-issue candidate with a self interest in that issue. The rules committee
operation over the last 16 years, while not perfect, has provided US
competition pilots excellent service. One reason for this is that the voters
have elected members without a narrow agenda who were also congenial and had
a good grasp of the practical aspects of competition. (Concerning the
latter, it is interesting to note that more than 90% of the rules committee
members have been engineers!)

Additionally, I believe if Sam's agenda for the sports class were adopted we
would see the crippling of the most popular class in the US with the further
reduction of the talent pool for selection to the club class world
competitions.

Karl Striedieck


"Sam Giltner" > wrote in message
...
>I am currently running for the rules committee. The polls close on October
> the 8th. I have created a blog so you will have the opportunity to know me
> better as a potential member.
> My intent is to provide you with the opportunity to express your concerns
> about soaring issues. Check it out: www.5ugly.blogspot.com Thanks, Sam

[JJ Sinclair]

Well said, Kemo Soby
JJ

Karl Striedieck wrote:
> By the looks of Sam's blog and the"poll" on it Sam gives the appearance of a
> one-issue candidate with a self interest in that issue. The rules committee
> operation over the last 16 years, while not perfect, has provided US
> competition pilots excellent service. One reason for this is that the voters
> have elected members without a narrow agenda who were also congenial and had
> a good grasp of the practical aspects of competition. (Concerning the
> latter, it is interesting to note that more than 90% of the rules committee
> members have been engineers!)
>
> Additionally, I believe if Sam's agenda for the sports class were adopted we
> would see the crippling of the most popular class in the US with the further
> reduction of the talent pool for selection to the club class world
> competitions.
>
> Karl Striedieck
>
>
> "Sam Giltner" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I am currently running for the rules committee. The polls close on October
> > the 8th. I have created a blog so you will have the opportunity to know me
> > better as a potential member.
> > My intent is to provide you with the opportunity to express your concerns
> > about soaring issues. Check it out: www.5ugly.blogspot.com Thanks, Sam

[[email protected]]

On Sep 22, 8:48 pm, "Karl Striedieck" > wrote:

“Additionally, I believe if Sam's agenda for the sports class were
adopted we
would see the crippling of the most popular class in the US with the
further
reduction of the talent pool for selection to the club class world
competitions.“

Dear KS,

I encourage you to expound on why you think sanctioning Club Class
here in the US would act to “cripple” Sports Class.

If Club Class competes within Sports Class then any participation
change is net zero at worse—those that would otherwise have flown as a
Sports Class entrant would instead be earmarked Club Class. Either
way they are participating in the same venue. How is that a
“crippling” affect?

“Talent” pool? I personally don’t see how it makes sense for the US
to draw its global Club Class competitors from pilots having won Sport
Class flying non-qualifying gliders.

Perhaps what the rules committee should do is poll every owner of a
bona fide WGC Club Class glider to see what it is those SSA members
want to do. After all, in the big scheme of things how this matter
may affect their racing participation is really what matters. FWIW,
this Club Class glider owner welcomes a way to compete against truly
like aircraft whereby subjective handicapping is much less a factor on
the outcome, and thusly I would be compelled to compete more
frequently.

Regards,

Ray Cornay
LS-4 RD

…the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business,
engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life.
But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.
-"Dead Poet's Society"

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools. -Douglas Adams

[BB]

> If Club Class competes within Sports Class then any participation
> change is net zero at worse—those that would otherwise have flown as a
> Sports Class entrant would instead be earmarked Club Class. *Either
> way they are participating in the same venue. *How is that a
> “crippling” affect?

Not quite true. You need 5 entrants to make a class at a regional.
Many sports regionals have fewer than 10 entrants. Many more do not
have 5 entrants of each type.

You need a certain vaguer number -- 20, 30? to make a nationals
viable. We need a CD, CM, towpilots, airport, porta potties, scorer,
so on and so forth. If you split the 30 Montague entrants into the
roughly 10 club and 20 sports entries, it's not clear we have two
viable classes.

Yes, you can always run them together, but at some point, why not just
have 30 scoresheets and let everyone be a winner? If one class (let's
call it the "global" class) has 7 pilots in a nationals, does it realy
make sense to call it a separate class?

In addition, if "sports" class pulls out the middle, and conists only
of 1-26, blanik, sparrowhawk, ASH26, Nimbus 2-3-4, it becomes even
less attractive. Splitting it into three is not an option until we get
3 times as many contest pilots as we have now.

In sum, splitting is not zero cost for participation.


> “I personally don’t see how it makes sense for the US
> to draw its global Club Class competitors from pilots having won Sport
> Class flying non-qualifying gliders.

Fact: We don't do this. We already restrict team selection to club
class gliders. One can debate the wisdom of these limitations (as an
ASW27 owner who is not about to fly some cruddy standard cirrus for my
only flying vacation of the year, I deplore them), but that's not what
we're debating here. Let's keep facts straight. We're debating taking
one further step and not letting the other gliders even fly at the
contest.

>
> Perhaps what the rules committee should do is poll every owner of a
> bona fide WGC Club Class glider to see what it is those SSA members
> want to do. *After all, in the big scheme of things how this matter
> may affect their racing participation is really what matters. *FWIW,
> this Club Class glider owner welcomes a way to compete against truly
> like aircraft whereby subjective handicapping is much less a factor on
> the outcome, and thusly I would be compelled to compete more
> frequently.

Facts again: That's exactly what the SSA contest poll is doing right
now, and this question is on the poll. Ok, the poll requires that you
be on the seeding list, meaning that you have participated in a sports
regional in the last 3 years. It seems reasonable to insist that one
has at least given the current system a try before being counted for
big changes. But if you're not on the seeding list and want to
contribute, just email Hank and let him know that you promise to come
out for club class even though you've never tried sports.


Opinion:

I've flown and even won a sports nationals, and I have experienced the
much larger luck factor that a large handicap spread means. One day
the KA6 creams us since he doesn't have to cross the big blue hole;
the next day the KA6 lands out because winds are 25 mph. Clearly,
restricting handicap ranges reduces this luck factor. I think this is
the major argument for club class.

On the other hand, I think we need to make sure that there is a home
for everyone. If Nimus II and Sparrowhawks end up with nowhere to go
but one sparseley attended "sports nationals" each year, we haven't
done contest soaring a favor.

Really, the question is, how many more people will turn out if we
reduce the luck factor in scoring -- how many people really care all
that much about the scores anyway -- vs. how many people will abandon
contest soaring if there are many fewer sports class events. Sports
remains extremely popular despite its somewhat greater luck factor. Is
it really broke and in need of fixin?

So, ears on. Please think hard, answer poll questions constructively,
let us know what YOU want. That's more important in my thinking than
your opinions of what will work for everybody else.

John Cochrane BB

[AK]

On Sep 23, 2:49*pm, BB > wrote:
> > If Club Class competes within Sports Class then any participation
> > change is net zero at worse—those that would otherwise have flown as a
> > Sports Class entrant would instead be earmarked Club Class. *Either
> > way they are participating in the same venue. *How is that a
> > “crippling” affect?
>
> Not quite true. You need 5 entrants to make a class at a regional.
> Many sports regionals have fewer than 10 entrants. Many more do not
> have 5 entrants of each type.
>
> You need a certain vaguer number -- 20, 30? to make a nationals
> viable. We need a CD, CM, towpilots, airport, porta potties, scorer,
> so on and so forth. If you split the 30 Montague entrants into the
> roughly 10 club and 20 sports entries, it's not clear we have two
> viable classes.
>
> Yes, you can always run them together, but at some point, why not just
> have 30 scoresheets and let everyone be a winner? If one class (let's
> call it the "global" class) has 7 pilots in a nationals, does it realy
> make sense to call it a separate class?
>
> In addition, if "sports" class pulls out the middle, and conists only
> of 1-26, blanik, sparrowhawk, ASH26, Nimbus 2-3-4, it becomes even
> less attractive. Splitting it into three is not an option until we get
> 3 times as many contest pilots as we have now.
>
> In sum, splitting is not zero cost for participation.
>
> > “I personally don’t see how it makes sense for the US
> > to draw its global Club Class competitors from pilots having won Sport
> > Class flying non-qualifying gliders.
>
> Fact: We don't do this. We already restrict team selection to club
> class gliders. One can debate the wisdom of these limitations (as an
> ASW27 owner who is not about to fly some cruddy standard cirrus for my
> only flying vacation of the year, I deplore them), but that's not what
> we're debating here. Let's keep facts straight. We're debating taking
> one further step and not letting the other gliders even fly at the
> contest.
>
>
>
> > Perhaps what the rules committee should do is poll every owner of a
> > bona fide WGC Club Class glider to see what it is those SSA members
> > want to do. *After all, in the big scheme of things how this matter
> > may affect their racing participation is really what matters. *FWIW,
> > this Club Class glider owner welcomes a way to compete against truly
> > like aircraft whereby subjective handicapping is much less a factor on
> > the outcome, and thusly I would be compelled to compete more
> > frequently.
>
> Facts again: That's exactly what the SSA contest poll is doing right
> now, and this question is on the poll. Ok, the poll requires that you
> be on the seeding list, meaning that you have participated in a sports
> regional in the last 3 years. It seems reasonable to insist that one
> has at least given the current system a try before being counted for
> big changes. But if you're not on the seeding list and want to
> contribute, just email Hank and let him know that you promise to come
> out for club class even though you've never tried sports.
>
> Opinion:
>
> I've flown and even won a sports nationals, and I have experienced the
> much larger luck factor that a large handicap spread means. One day
> the KA6 creams us since he doesn't have to cross the big blue hole;
> the next day the KA6 lands out because winds are 25 mph. Clearly,
> restricting handicap ranges reduces this luck factor. I think this is
> the major argument for club class.
>
> On the other hand, I think we need to make sure that there is a home
> for everyone. If Nimus II and Sparrowhawks end up with nowhere to go
> but one sparseley attended "sports nationals" each year, we haven't
> done contest soaring a favor.
>
> Really, the question is, how many more people will turn out if we
> reduce the luck factor in scoring -- how many people really care all
> that much about the scores anyway -- vs. how many people will abandon
> contest soaring if there are many fewer sports class events. Sports
> remains extremely popular despite its somewhat greater luck factor. Is
> it really broke and in need of fixin?
>
> So, ears on. Please think hard, answer poll questions constructively,
> let us know what YOU want. That's more important in my thinking than
> your opinions of what will work for everybody else.
>
> John Cochrane BB

BB,

Considering limited participation, splitting the Sports class would
not be a good idea indeed. I am with you on this, running two score
sheets is a good idea.

A restriction could be put in place that if a number of participants
is below a certain level there would be no splitting of a score sheet.
Why don’t you ask this question next year? I don’t see any downside.

On another note

The reason this year’s Sports Class Nationals was so poorly attended
is because of the location. Many more pilots from the east coast would
have attended (including I) if it did not require 4 days of non-stop
driving (one way) and a big pile of gas money. The nationals in its
current form is already a regional contest, to certain extend (with
the exception of top pilots and some who will go no matter what). You
will probably see low participation in the Standard Class nationals
next year due to the same problem. I spoke with two pilots from the
first 10 (this year) and they said they will not be attending next
year’s Standard Class nationals due to distance.

Non of these issues are easy to deal with but we need to try new
approaches.

Andrzej Kobus