USA: Regional Contest Entry w/ Drop Outs

[Tim Hanke]

The Region 3 Contest was just canceled in Dansville when 5 people
within the last week of the contest withdrew. Doesn't sound like a big
deal but when you only have 20 pilots signed up, its a huge deal.

Now reading Charlie “Lite” Minner 's Region 9N report, they had 20
pilots bail out of the contest within the last week or simply didn't
show up. They were planning for 50 pilots and only now have 30 pilots.
This is a huge impact on the contest staff and simply is not fair to
the efforts that the have put into planning the event.

What do you think is going on? Is this an economic problem or an aging
soaring population?
How do we prevent these issues from causing future organizers from
saying "forget it" to hosting a contest?
Thoughts?

Tim Hanke "H"
Region 3 Contest Registration

[Marc Ramsey[_3_]]

From another perspective, out here in Region 11, we often end up running
regional contests with as few as 7 or 8 pilots. What kind of organizer
cancels the event less than a week before, as a result of dropping from 20
to 15 entrants? I'd certainly think twice before planning to attend an
event put on by organizers who give up that easily...

Marc

At 23:25 12 August 2009, Tim Hanke wrote:
>The Region 3 Contest was just canceled in Dansville when 5 people
>within the last week of the contest withdrew. Doesn't sound like a big
>deal but when you only have 20 pilots signed up, its a huge deal.
>
>Now reading Charlie =93Lite=94 Minner 's Region 9N report, they had 20
>pilots bail out of the contest within the last week or simply didn't
>show up. They were planning for 50 pilots and only now have 30 pilots.
>This is a huge impact on the contest staff and simply is not fair to
>the efforts that the have put into planning the event.
>
>What do you think is going on? Is this an economic problem or an aging
>soaring population?
>How do we prevent these issues from causing future organizers from
>saying "forget it" to hosting a contest?
>Thoughts?
>
>Tim Hanke "H"
>Region 3 Contest Registration
>

[Tuno]

Tim,

No doubt the economy is part of it, but who can tell for sure.

There is absolutely a way to prevent this from causing problems for
future organizers: increase the required deposit, and make most or all
of it non-refundable inside a window of time before the contest.

The organizers make firm commitments with tow pilots and other
critical resources; the pilots must be willing to make similar
commitments.

~ted/2NO

[Tim Taylor]

On Aug 12, 7:30*pm, Marc Ramsey >
wrote:
> From another perspective, out here in Region 11, we often end up running
> regional contests with as few as 7 or 8 pilots. *What kind of organizer
> cancels the event less than a week before, as a result of dropping from 20
> to 15 entrants? *I'd certainly think twice before planning to attend an
> event put on by organizers who give up that easily...
>
> Marc
>

Marc,

Awfully harsh response. Yes you may run contest with that number if
you are planning for it, but with last minutes drop outs it can hurt
financially.

Most sites have to bring in tow planes and pilots which means ferry
costs and hotels.

There are dinner reservations with minimums, helping cover your staff
expenses, etc, etc, etc.

Unless you are willing to make up the difference out of your pocket
what do you do?

I think we need higher deposits and longer lead time for when you can
withdraw.

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I agree with Tim. I have run several contests and was personally
financially affected by the HUGE number of last minute drop outs - and the
several pilots that showed up without pre-registering. The same was true
for regional contests and national contests. I found it extremely
inconsiderate to see many pilots register and then backed-out a few weeks or
days or minutes before the start of the contest. Several never officially
backed-out - they just didn't show up. It made it nearly impossible to
pre-plan towplanes, dinner events, airport tie-down areas, etc. I won't run
a contest again until the SSA changes the deposit fees, etc. I found that
it nearly impossible to break even financially if the contest has less than
30 contestants. If you plan for that number and get only 20, you will
disappoint all the towplane owners and the contest organizers lose a lot of
money. I don't know how you can break even running a contest for 7 or 8
competitors - not with the fee structure the SSA imposes on contest
organizers.

Paul Remde

"Tim Taylor" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 12, 7:30 pm, Marc Ramsey >
wrote:
> From another perspective, out here in Region 11, we often end up running
> regional contests with as few as 7 or 8 pilots. What kind of organizer
> cancels the event less than a week before, as a result of dropping from 20
> to 15 entrants? I'd certainly think twice before planning to attend an
> event put on by organizers who give up that easily...
>
> Marc
>

Marc,

Awfully harsh response. Yes you may run contest with that number if
you are planning for it, but with last minutes drop outs it can hurt
financially.

Most sites have to bring in tow planes and pilots which means ferry
costs and hotels.

There are dinner reservations with minimums, helping cover your staff
expenses, etc, etc, etc.

Unless you are willing to make up the difference out of your pocket
what do you do?

I think we need higher deposits and longer lead time for when you can
withdraw.

[[email protected]]

Yeah.. sounds like the answer may be full contest fee payments and a
higher late entry surcharge.


> Marc,
>
> Awfully harsh response. *Yes you may run contest with that number if
> you are planning for it, but with last minutes drop outs it can hurt
> financially.
>
> Most sites have to bring in tow planes and pilots which means ferry
> costs and hotels.
>
> There are dinner reservations with minimums, helping cover your staff
> expenses, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Unless you are willing to make up the difference out of your pocket
> what do you do?
>
> I think we need higher deposits and longer lead time for when you can
> withdraw.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 7:59*am, wrote:
> Yeah.. sounds like the answer may be full contest fee payments and a
> higher late entry surcharge.
>
>
>
> > Marc,
>
> > Awfully harsh response. *Yes you may run contest with that number if
> > you are planning for it, but with last minutes drop outs it can hurt
> > financially.
>
> > Most sites have to bring in tow planes and pilots which means ferry
> > costs and hotels.
>
> > There are dinner reservations with minimums, helping cover your staff
> > expenses, etc, etc, etc.
>
> > Unless you are willing to make up the difference out of your pocket
> > what do you do?
>
> > I think we need higher deposits and longer lead time for when you can
> > withdraw.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rules area 5.4 addresses this
Max deposit was raised from $100 to $150 this year. Late surcharge may
be imposed of up to $50.
Deposits are refundable within 30 days of the start at organizers
descretion.
The other dilemna is that if deposits are super high, folks may not
want to put $ at risk so wait longer to enter.
There are no easy answers on this.
There are also some pretty regular "weasels" that put entries in and
then look at the weather and cancel. I know of a couple that can be
relied on as 80% likely to not show. Pretty rude.
Then there is the guy that entered 2 contests for the same week- A
true weasel. If I were the organizer on that, this pilot would
definitely be permitted to have his entry deposit put toward the
contest shortfall.
Knowing the folks running R3, they are not likely to be as harsh as
I'm inclined to be. They took this decision very seriously, but due to
some internal pressure in the club, can't run the contest at a loss.
It's too bad because they always run a great contest and I know they
will again in the future.
Crabby because I'll be working instead of racing with my grandson.
UH

[jcarlyle]

I'm sorry that this happened and that a lot of work was for naught.
But maybe some good can come from it, by making it clear to newbies
that minimum turnout is required at contests. The contest invitations
I've seen have emphasized the maximum number of entrants, but I don't
recall seeing that a minimum number was required.

I have no suggestions on what to do about no shows. Emergencies do
happen, but I can't believe emergencies happened to 25% to 40% of the
people who sign up. Sounds like selfishness and rudeness to me.

-John

[Tony Condon[_2_]]

As a pilot who has never flown a contest, I think the entry fees are high
enough. Typically by the time you pay for entry fees and tows its
something like 600 bucks right? That's what I recall paying when I
registered for the Region 7 contest that Paul Remde organized a few years
back. I had to withdraw when I wasn't able to finish my Silver Badge in
time. I really struggled coming up with that money at the time just to
register. That 600ish dollars would pretty much pay for a seasons worth
of tows at home.

I can understand the financial problem faced with dropouts. The only
solution in my mind would be to make the entry fees non-refundable. That
would help the organizers have more of a sure thing. Course there would
be a few pilots who might not fly because they would be on the fence and
not want to risk the money. Allowing late entry with no penalty might
help with that, but im not sure what sort of pain that creates for contest
management.

I've really been enjoying watching the SPOT tracks of the Region 9 and 10
contests and have been following the daily results with much more interest
than I ever have for any contest. It might help that I recognize a few
names on the list. Maybe next year if I still have a job I can line up
the vacation time and afford the entry fee to fly Sports Class.




-Tony Condon
Cherokee II N373Y

[John Cochrane]

The underlying issue is participation. If 50 people were signed up to
come, losing 10 at the last moment wouldn't be such a big deal. And 50
makes for a much more profitable contest, and a better use of CD,
scorer, and other volunteer time.

I don't have easy answers. Raising fees and more nonrefundable
deposits sounds like a way to get to 6 person contests where everybody
shows up, not very appetizing. How to make contests more appetizing,
so that everyone in the region wants to be there, is the big question

John Cochrane BB

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 10:24*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> The underlying issue is participation. If 50 people were signed up to
> come, losing 10 at the last moment wouldn't be such a big deal. And 50
> makes for a much more profitable contest, and a better use of CD,
> scorer, and other volunteer time.
>
> I don't have easy answers. Raising fees and more nonrefundable
> deposits sounds like a way to get to 6 person contests where everybody
> shows up, not very appetizing. How to make contests more appetizing,
> so that everyone in the region wants to be there, is the big question
>
> John Cochrane BB

John emphasizes an important point related to this topic. The Rules
subcommittee looks very hard at issues related to participation, cost
being one significant issue. We also know we need to keep organizers
viable.
As to making it appealing, let me note some of the things the
Dansville gang does very well.
Friendly site with no cost camping, showers and lots of room.
Usually 3 organized meals to keep folks together.
Rookie training course for newbies with active coaching- This began at
this site about 20 yr ago.
Very experienced contest staff ensuring good tasking and few if any
glitches.

Barriers to entry- perceived or real(perceived has a significant
affect becoming barrier to real participation) are important and we
all need to look at eliminating or at least reducing them.
It's worth noting that these folks put a good bit of work into getting
ready for this contest and that, plus some money they won't recover,
goes down the drain.
UH

[Sam Giltner[_1_]]

At 14:39 13 August 2009, wrote:
>On Aug 13, 10:24=A0am, John Cochrane
>wrote:
>> The underlying issue is participation. If 50 people were signed up to
>> come, losing 10 at the last moment wouldn't be such a big deal. And
50
>> makes for a much more profitable contest, and a better use of CD,
>> scorer, and other volunteer time.
>>
>> I don't have easy answers. Raising fees and more nonrefundable
>> deposits sounds like a way to get to 6 person contests where everybody
>> shows up, not very appetizing. How to make contests more appetizing,
>> so that everyone in the region wants to be there, is the big question
>>
>> John Cochrane BB
>
>John emphasizes an important point related to this topic. The Rules
>subcommittee looks very hard at issues related to participation, cost
>being one significant issue. We also know we need to keep organizers
>viable.
>As to making it appealing, let me note some of the things the
>Dansville gang does very well.
>Friendly site with no cost camping, showers and lots of room.
>Usually 3 organized meals to keep folks together.
>Rookie training course for newbies with active coaching- This began at
>this site about 20 yr ago.
>Very experienced contest staff ensuring good tasking and few if any
>glitches.
>
>Barriers to entry- perceived or real(perceived has a significant
>affect becoming barrier to real participation) are important and we
>all need to look at eliminating or at least reducing them.
>It's worth noting that these folks put a good bit of work into getting
>ready for this contest and that, plus some money they won't recover,
>goes down the drain.
>UH
>How can solutions be considered without more research into why the
problem exist? 5U

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

Ya gotta love it. A few years ago the problem was pilots showing up
unannounced, swamping the organizers with more entries than they had
towplanes or accommodations. The "solution": a late-entry surcharge.

Who could *possibly* have foreseen that...anyone who thinks he/she
*might* want to fly the contest would enter it in order to avoid the
late-entry surcharge and then cancel later (hopefully while still
entitled to a refund) if unable to participate. How rude! I still
remember one senior, highly respected (including by me) Rules
Committee member who brushed off my objections to the proposed late-
entry surcharge by advising me that "all you have to do is send a
postcard advising them of your intent to enter."

People--even pilots--respond fairly predictably to economic incentives/
disincentives. But this isn't Washington. The solution to every
problem isn't a new tax or a new law. We already have a law we should
pay more attention to: the law of unintended consequences. As John
Cochrane opined, these latest knee-jerk reactions are a recipe for 6-
person contests where everyone shows up.

Just my opinion. :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

[[email protected]]

On Aug 19, 10:40*pm, Chip Bearden > wrote:
> Ya gotta love it. A few years ago the problem was pilots showing up
> unannounced, swamping the organizers with more *entries than they had
> towplanes or accommodations. The "solution": a late-entry surcharge.
>
> Who could *possibly* have foreseen that...anyone who thinks he/she
> *might* want to fly the contest would enter it in order to avoid the
> late-entry surcharge and then cancel later (hopefully while still
> entitled to a refund) if unable to participate. How rude! I still
> remember one senior, highly respected (including by me) Rules
> Committee member who brushed off my objections to the proposed late-
> entry surcharge by advising me that "all you have to do is send a
> postcard advising them of your intent to enter."
>
> People--even pilots--respond fairly predictably to economic incentives/
> disincentives. But this isn't Washington. The solution to every
> problem isn't a new tax or a new law. We already have a law we should
> pay more attention to: the law of unintended consequences. As John
> Cochrane opined, these latest knee-jerk reactions are a recipe for 6-
> person contests where everyone shows up.
>
> Just my opinion. :)
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> USA

This topic reveals a complex balancing act.
Ensure contests are available to those who want to participate.
Ensure that the organizers provide the infrastructure and resources to
run a fair, safe , and fun contest.
Keep costs "reasonable"(always subjective) for contestants.
Provide for "reasonable" positive balance between costs and income for
organizers.
"Drop ins" can be quite helpful in filling those spaces left by drop
outs.
That said, let describe an example from earlier this year. An
organizer called me 2 weeks before his contest- a nationals, and said
he had about 20-22 confirmed(had deposits) entries, about maybe 18 of
whom had signed up before the close of entry priority 60 days before.
He was hearing by the grapevine that , IF the weather was looking
nice, he might have another 5 or 6 drop in. Sounds like a
windfall ,huh! The real problem for him was that he had tugs arranged
locally based on expected entry, and now he MIGHT have to import
another tug from who knows where at the last minute to have enough
resources to launch within the 1 hour window expected.
This can also extend to water resources, number of folks at welcoming
parties that need to get fed, nunber of chairs and tables to have
available for meetings, tiedown places prepared, towropes needed- the
list gets long. Some of these are things anticipated by the late entry
fee provision.
What would "you" do?
I told this organizer he was under no obligation to accept drop ins
unless he could handle them without messing up what they spent a year
putting into place.
All those of us that have commented about what I call rude behavior
want is for pilots to act in a courteous manner so that organizers are
not put into situations that make them reconsider running contests.
There are no knee jerk actions being considered by the RC, but we hope
there is a way to keep this from becoming a bigger problem. We don't
want to see any more cancelled contests at the last minute which
affest everybody negatively.
UH
SSA Competition Rules Subcommitteee Chair

[Papa3]

On Aug 20, 8:43*am, wrote:
> On Aug 19, 10:40*pm, Chip Bearden > wrote:

> What would "you" do?
>
> UH
> SSA Competition Rules Subcommitteee Chair- Hide quoted text -
>

I wouldn't volunteer to run a contest. Ever. I think anyone who does
either needs to have his/her head examined or at minimum be placed on
meds until the temptation passes. :-)

Seriously, if we're talking about unintended consequences, then
consider this. Several local contests lose money and the club
officers or other affected parties decide "enough". Suddenly, there
are only two or 3 super-regional type events that only those with a 92
or above seeding can get into. Or, the towpilots in the region get
word that the contests may not honor their committment to use their
services, so they decide not to participate. Certainly solves the
problems for the "cheapskates" - there's nowhere to race.

It boggles the mind that pilots expect the organizers to take on 100%
of the financial risk for minimal or no reward. I've looked at the
financials from a number of contests, and several of them lost
anywhere from a couple hundred bucks to well over a grand. Were I a
board member in those clubs, I'd certainly be asking some serious
questions about whether this was the right thing for the broader
membership.

So, I for one would gladly pay a reasonable, non-refundable deposit at
every contest. I don't throw away money carelessly, but this is a
matter of principle and long-term survival of regional contests.

Respectfully,
P3

[Andy[_10_]]

On Aug 13, 7:00*am, Tony Condon >
wrote:
> As a pilot who has never flown a contest, I think the entry fees are high
> enough. *Typically by the time you pay for entry fees and tows its
> something like 600 bucks right? *That's what I recall paying when I
> registered for the Region 7 contest that Paul Remde organized a few years
> back. *I had to withdraw when I wasn't able to finish my Silver Badge in
> time. *I really struggled coming up with that money at the time just to
> register. *That 600ish dollars would pretty much pay for a seasons worth
> of tows at home. *

As a matter of principle I don't think it's right to expect others to
carry the costs of our choices - even if our choices are forced on us
by personal life circumstances beyond our control. Signing up for a
contest is a commitment. With that commitment comes responsibility.

I think it would be reasonably straightforward to estimate the
marginal cost of a dropout to a typical contest - or at least within a
range. I think it is reasonable to charge last-minute dropouts this
amount, which could be reduced subject to drop-ins or last-minute cost-
reduction measures at the organizer's discretion. You could even put
the charge on a sliding scale from the preferential entry deadline.

Ferry costs, personnel lodging, meal deposits/guarantees and pilot
materials tend to be fixed costs. The bulk of the cost of a contest is
the tows themselves. Much of the cost of the tow is fuel plus an
allowance for maintenance, so you can argue that much of the tow cost
is variable. Since tow pilots already take some risk due to poor
weather, you could say that most of the tow fee is a variable cost,
though I'd be likely to want to cover some "opportunity cost" for tow
pilots who show up and get less than the expected number of tows due
to no-shows. Sanction fees are variable, I believe, as may be some
other costs. To the extent that things like meals cost are subject to
minimum commitments you could envision allowing the first "n" dropouts
off the hook, but charging "n+1" their full cost of going below the
minimum. This creates an incentive for pilots to drop out as soon as
they know rather than sitting on the information as costs mount for
the organizers.

To the extent that organizers want to subsidize the cost of dropouts
to make signing up a bit less of a commitment and potentially increase
participation, that should be their choice, but I'd favor trying to
reduce the financial cost to organizers of poor drop-out etiquette.

9B

[John Cochrane]

Alas, the more you charge people who drop out, in terms of non-
refundable deposits and so forth, the more pilots will simply show up
at the last moment without registering. One could, I suppose, send
them home, but then we end up with even fewer pilots and even fewer
contests.

Let's think instead about how to make contests more fun and more
attractive so more people want to show up in the first place, and less
costly to put on so more clubs and operators want to run them.

John Cochrane BB

[Frank Whiteley]

On Aug 21, 6:14*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 7:00*am, Tony Condon >
> wrote:
>
> > As a pilot who has never flown a contest, I think the entry fees are high
> > enough. *Typically by the time you pay for entry fees and tows its
> > something like 600 bucks right? *That's what I recall paying when I
> > registered for the Region 7 contest that Paul Remde organized a few years
> > back. *I had to withdraw when I wasn't able to finish my Silver Badge in
> > time. *I really struggled coming up with that money at the time just to
> > register. *That 600ish dollars would pretty much pay for a seasons worth
> > of tows at home. *
>
> As a matter of principle I don't think it's right to expect others to
> carry the costs of our choices - even if our choices are forced on us
> by personal life circumstances beyond our control. Signing up for a
> contest is a commitment. With that commitment comes responsibility.
>
> I think it would be reasonably straightforward to estimate the
> marginal cost of a dropout to a typical contest - or at least within a
> range. I think it is reasonable to charge last-minute dropouts this
> amount, which could be reduced subject to drop-ins or last-minute cost-
> reduction measures at the organizer's discretion. You could even put
> the charge on a sliding scale from the preferential entry deadline.
>
> Ferry costs, personnel lodging, meal deposits/guarantees and pilot
> materials tend to be fixed costs. The bulk of the cost of a contest is
> the tows themselves. Much of the cost of the tow is fuel plus an
> allowance for maintenance, so you can argue that much of the tow cost
> is variable. Since tow pilots already take some risk due to poor
> weather, you could say that most of the tow fee is a variable cost,
> though I'd be likely to want to cover some "opportunity cost" for tow
> pilots who show up and get less than the expected number of tows due
> to no-shows. Sanction fees are variable, I believe, as may be some
> other costs. To the extent that things like meals cost are subject to
> minimum commitments you could envision allowing the first "n" dropouts
> off the hook, but charging "n+1" their full cost of going below the
> minimum. This creates an incentive for pilots to drop out as soon as
> they know rather than sitting on the information as costs mount for
> the organizers.
>
> To the extent that organizers want to subsidize the cost of dropouts
> to make signing up a bit less of a commitment and potentially increase
> participation, that should be their choice, but I'd favor trying to
> reduce the financial cost to organizers of poor drop-out etiquette.
>
> 9B

The SSA sanction fee is $45/pilot for a regional and the event
insurance is ~$850 if unsanctioned and discounted to ~$550 if
sanctioned. Note that in many cases, local premises liability is
_not_ in effect during an 'air meet'. That detail killed our local
friendly contest.

Frank Whiteley

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

9B's and BB' comments point us in an interesting direction: i.e.,
thinking about glider contests in terms of marketing mix and pricing
policy. After all, organizers are selling a product in competition
with other uses for pilots' time and money. And pilots are no more
"entitled" to glider contests than they are to free gasoline at the
pump.

I can't help it. My father voted Republican his entire life. I'm a
free-market maven. If pilot behavior and organizers' responses drive
us towards 2 or 3 super regionals that only the top-ranked pilots can
gain entry to, so be it. If that should happen, however, I strongly
suspect we would see the advent of more local and regional contests,
perhaps with innovative pricing schemes, that would soon grow big
enough to qualify for (demand?) regional sanctioning.

In the business world, companies routinely study their successful
competitors to learn how to do it better. So what do regionals like
New Castle and Perry and Mifflin and Parowan--all of whom routinely
turn pilots away--do that make them so popular? Why does Region 6 N
(Ionia) draw decent crowds year after year in mid August in Michigan,
a time when this former midwesterner would normally not even bother
driving to the gliderport? Former operator Jerry Benz used to say he
always made money on this contest, so I guess he had it figured out.

A few years ago, Region 1 advertised a sliding-scale entry fee based
on the number of entrants: the more pilots who signed up, the lower
would be the entry fee. I don't know whether this had any effect but
it was an interesting idea. How about a discount for anyone who enters
ahead of time and pays the full, non-refundable fee, like an advance-
purchase airline ticket? Would anyone do that? I guess it depends on
the discount. Would SSA pass along a lower sanction fee in exchange
for being able to keep it regardless of whether the pilot showed up?
Or how about staggered deadlines with increasingly higher fees the
later you enter (yes, I realize this is another twist on the late-
entry surcharge I was complaining about, but I'm making trouble; I
don't have to be consistent).

Switching sports, most marathons in the U.S. offer a lower rate for
those who enter 3 to 6 months in advance, a higher rate for 60 days
out, and still higher for 30 days out or race-weekend registration,
etc. No refunds, ever. A few allow participants to transfer their
entry to another runner, for a fee. Or to defer entry to a subsequent
year, usually with another fee. I'm not saying any of this will work
for soaring contests but with marathons, each race director is free to
design what he/she feels is the optimal combination of race course,
organization, amenities, predicted weather, reputation, etc. And
there's no limit on what a marathon can charge. Some are in the $40
range. Others are over $100...and still close out early. The big ones
often reserve places for runners who raise money for specific
charities: how about "Guaranteed Entry to Perry 2010: Just Raise
$1,000 for the SSA--Sign up your club members and buddies to
contribute $0.10 per mile for every mile you fly, with a $20 bonus if
you win a day or place in the top 3 overall!". None of this may work
with soaring contests but perhaps it's worth looking at some new
concepts, as 9B has proposed. As I said earlier, pilots respond to
financial incentives/disincentives just like everyone else. The trick
is to design such incentives so they accomplish the desired objective,
not just to react in a knee-jerk fashion.

In addition to being free market, I'm also a cynic. Glider pilots are,
on average, a cut above your average consumer. But we have all kinds,
too. So moralizing about how unfair it is not to show up at the last
minute even though a pilot has complied with the rules and, in
addition, forfeits his deposit won't solve this "problem".

Beyond that, there are some thornier questions. If there are only 6 or
7 pilots who will show up for a given regional, should we be trying to
save that regional with new rules and/or fees...or to encourage the
sponsor to take steps to become more competitive? I've flown Region 3
numerous times, including when it's been held at Dansville, NY. It's a
great organization and a fine site where I and my family have had
wonderful times. But I recall two things: (1) August weather in
upstate NY is iffy; and (2) in recent years, the "late entry
surcharge" warning has often been very prominent and "in your face".
I'm sure it's not intended to be offensive but it's put me off.
Moreover, I wonder how many pilots (including yours truly) will put in
our vacation request and plan the kids' summer activities around a
week at Region 3 remembering 2009 when the party was cancelled on
short notice. That's the organizers' decision--and it may have been
the right one--but it has future implications. And those organizers
shouldn't complain next time around if advance registrations are even
lower. Region 3/Dansville was always risky because of the weather. It
just got riskier.

Contrast this with the relatively new and increasingly popular Region
4 North at Mid-Atlantic Soaring Assoc. (Fairfield, PA) in mid October,
a curious time for a contest with short days and in the middle of the
school year. At least in the past, the organizers have encouraged
pilots to show up without worrying about the late-entry surcharge. The
more the merrier. Yes, M-ASA is more flexible than many contest sites:
the club has its own fleet of towplanes, a large volunteer base, and a
facility that can handle a big crowd. Still, they've found a formula
that works, having tried Memorial Day and the 4th of July in prior
years with uneven success. It's even beginning to siphon pilots away
from New Castle, the traditional end-of-the-season get together a few
weeks earlier.

It's a Darwinian process. Our sport is small. If we try to prop up
weak contests with new fees, there will be fewer pilots at the other,
perhaps more deserving contests. Is that what we want?

I don't have the answers. It's much easier to ask questions. :) As
easy as it is to call for new fees and regulations to enforce
"responsible behavior."

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

[Andy[_10_]]

On Aug 21, 6:31*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> Alas, the more you charge people who drop out, in terms of non-
> refundable deposits and so forth, the more pilots will simply show up
> at the last moment without registering. *One could, I suppose, send
> them home, but then we end up with even fewer pilots and even fewer
> contests.
>
> Let's think instead about how to make contests more fun and more
> attractive so more people want to show up in the first place, and less
> costly to put on so more clubs and operators want to run them.
>
> John Cochrane BB

Good point - I was focused on some of the bigger western contests with
significant numbers of super-dedicated racing pilots typically in
attendance. I suspect the behavior would vary - the few contests that
regularly fill up would likely loose only a few pre-registrants,
smaller contests would likely loose a lot more. The problem of course
is no-shows affect the smaller contests much more adversely since they
are at the low end of the scale curve.

I still think there is a balance whereby you can create an incentive
for both pre-registering AND for not dropping out last-minute while at
the same time not sticking organizers with an un-economic proposition
should significant numbers of pilots no-show. I am a bit less
concerned with the drop-in crowd since you can usually accommodate a
few before towplane capacity becomes an issue and you can turn away
people if there are too many. I would think the risk of being turned
away would be an incentive to register since many of us spend almost
as much on gas to get to the contest as we due on contest fees (aside
from tows). I wonder whether there is a "maybe" status that costs more
but is fully refundable and puts you on a lower entry status than the
"non-refundable" entry. Airline tickets often are priced this way.

As a strawman imagine you could register for a contest for $200 (non-
refundable) prior to the preferential entry deadline and for $275
(refundable) after the PED. After the PED you'd also stand in line
after all the early registrants in terms of priority, including the
possibility that you won't be admitted like today. At 10 days prior to
the contest all entry fees become non-refundable. Organizers could
relax some of the restrictions for cancellations beyond the pilot's
control such as broken glider and legitimate work/family emergencies.
Registration fees would go towards fixed expenses of the contest so
the overall cost for participants wouldn't change. It might or might
not help early registration, but at least organizers would have a
better sense of who's really committed to coming versus not.

Just a preliminary idea - I'm sure it's full of holes.

9B

[Micki]

At 10 days prior to
> the contest all entry fees become non-refundable. Organizers could
> relax some of the restrictions for cancellations beyond the pilot's
> control such as broken glider and legitimate work/family emergencies.
> Registration fees would go towards fixed expenses of the contest so
> the overall cost for participants wouldn't change. It might or might
> not help early registration, but at least organizers would have a
> better sense of who's really committed to coming versus not.
>
> Just a preliminary idea - I'm sure it's full of holes.
>
> 9B

I have been reading this thread with GREAT interest. I have been the
organizer for a few years (trained by the BEST!), and I usually have a
50% drop out/drop off ratio for Parowan. I usually get over 100
applications, to fill 50-55 spots. Preferential entry, Super-Regional
Status, Rankings had nothing to do with this ratio; It's been the same
for the last three years, even this last year using the new improved
"Super-Regional" rules. However this summer was the first time I
opened a NEW contest site. I can't believe using the same ratio
expectation made such a difference in the financial aspect.

I agree that we don't want to make any rules from a "knee-jerk"
reaction. The late entry fee was laughable IMHO, because I have yet
to see or organize a contest, where I wasn't grateful for the few that
showed up last minute to fill an opening from a pilot that did a no-
call-no-show.

I would prefer a "black-list" approach. I have several pilots that I
know have a propensity to register, not let me know, then not show
up. Those are the ones that cost me a fortune at the contest, and put
future contests at jeopardy.

I even had one pilot this year send me an e-mail on day 1 of the
contest (after two days of practice), and state that he guessed I
figured that he wasn't showing up, and I should donate his deposit to
the Jr. Team. DONATE????? what about his meals already ordered, his
portion of the ferry fees to get tow planes out there, his portion of
the tables and chairs, his portion of the hangar rental, his portion
of the porta-potties? Many other things that organizers have to pay
up front, without knowing how many rude pilots will or will not show
up? This year I had to cancel meals (with cancellation fees), cancel
audio equipment, cancel porta-potties, borrow equipment instead of
rent or purchase when needed...and more. I was really upset about
cancelling the microphone, because Charlie-Lite, my CD, is recovering
from throat cancer, and really needed that microphone, but I just
couldn't afford it, because so many people didn't show up at the
contest.

I would like to recommend that if an organizer had a no-call-no-show
experience with a pilot, that they could/would maintain a
communication with other contest organizers, and that individual pilot
would lose their seeding/ranking. I have 4 pilots that I would
immediately put on that list, and do not wish to see their names again
within the on-line registration for any contest that I organize in the
future. They would have to "earn" their trust with me again, however,
I am not allowed to (SSA rules) discriminate against these pilots that
have literally "stolen" monies from me as a contest organizer. That
doesn't even count the glider pilot that made off with a hand-held at
a FBO, that I had to replace out of contest monies.

I have learned at great expense with money and time (neither of which
I have much) to be a contest organizer, in order to recruit more
people to the sport of soaring, and competition in particular. I WANT
to increase the 4% participation of glider pilots in competition. I
set up my little organization as a non-profit, however, with glider
pilots not showing up, it adds a whole new meaning to NON-profit. I
think that the contest organizers that are still out there need to
unite and demand our own RIGHTS....let's not show any preferential
seeding treatment to those that are blacklisted, by their own lack of
courtesy and financial responsibility to us poor organizers trying to
figure out what pilots are going to show up or not using our magic
crystal balls. Too bad my crystal ball is in the repair shop.

Micki Minner

[Micki]

>Too bad my crystal ball is in the repair shop.

I just had a private e-mail about my previous posting...in this e-mail
it stated that perhaps contest organization was moving away from
fostering the sport. Well, of course, who said that contests should
be run out of the goodness of one's heart, and be willing to take
financial losses that weren't of their own making? Who said that
contest organizers had to be non-profit? who said that if I were
willing to organize a contest, that I shouldn't be making a profit?
(although the point of my previous post wasn't whether or not I made
any profit, that is BESIDE the point). I also heard from another
contest organizer that they "cooked" the books to make it look like
they earned less money because they didn't want glider pilots to know
that they ran a good AND profitable contest. I have had another
glider pilot tell me to stop ordering meals, if that was the
problem.

Why should an organizer run at a loss to be "good" for the sport? Why
do the people who make the rules protect the pilots who race, but not
the organizers who hold the races. I don't think it is good for the
sport to have contests with only 6 participants, I don't think it is
good for the sport to cancel a contest, but I would rather cancel the
contest then have it boil down to that few. Most contests are run by
a club, and I agree that this is exactly where contests should be
run! However, what incentive does a club have besides a little fun
and a LOT of hard work, if they aren’t sure they can break even or
make a profit. Most clubs can’t afford to host a contest, if they
can’t make a profit. And why should they?

The problem is simply that people do not indicate whether or not they
are really going to show up. The secondary issue, is what is there to
gain from organizing contests. I am sure that the pilots who
regularly participate in contests would like to keep organizers
running them for their benefit......in order to race...but let's get
real folks....the rules are for the glider pilots, and don't do
anything to protect the organizers. The attempt to "raise" the
deposit was obviously a rule that did nothing to stop the trend. I
don't mind pilots registering, and then changing their minds, I do
mind pilots that don't tell the contest organizer that they decided to
not show up. Their paltry deposits, don't make up for the "no-call-no-
show" aggravation.

Whether or not I made a profit at any one contest shouldn't even be
asked in this discussion. It is totally none of the business of the
people in rec.aviation; friends, or the rules committee. The only
people who SHOULD ask, are the people that ran the contest, and the
contestants that did show up. The process should be so protected for
the organizers, that they always make a profit; otherwise there is no
reason for anyone to organize a contest at all. THEN how good would
it be for the sport? how many people would we have rising out of the
regionals to fly in the nationals and represent us in the worlds?

I want to continue organizing contests, and teaching clubs how to run
contests and opening up new contest sites. I want there to be future
contests, but this disturbing trend evidenced by Dansville (a great
group, and organizer) is not suprising, and they should not be shamed
because they did the only business-like thing they could. If we don't
run this like a business, then there won't be any future contests for
glider pilots to race. that would be the worst part, no contests, and
the 4% dropping even further, because there would be no opportunity to
make racers out of any more glider pilots.

Micki

[Andy[_10_]]

On Aug 22, 3:08*pm, Micki > wrote:
> >Too bad my crystal ball is in the repair shop.
>
> I just had a private e-mail about my previous posting...in this e-mail
> it stated that perhaps contest organization was moving away from
> fostering the sport. *Well, of course, who said that contests should
> be run out of the goodness of one's heart, and be willing to take
> financial losses that weren't of their own making? *Who said that
> contest organizers had to be non-profit? *who said that if I were
> willing to organize a contest, that I shouldn't be making a profit?
> (although the point of my previous post wasn't whether or not I made
> any profit, that is BESIDE the point). *I also heard from another
> contest organizer that they "cooked" the books to make it look like
> they earned less money because they didn't want glider pilots to know
> that they ran a good AND profitable contest. *I have had another
> glider pilot tell me to stop ordering meals, if that was the
> problem.
>
> Why should an organizer run at a loss to be "good" for the sport? *Why
> do the people who make the rules protect the pilots who race, but not
> the organizers who hold the races. *I don't think it is good for the
> sport to have contests with only 6 participants, I don't think it is
> good for the sport to cancel a contest, but I would rather cancel the
> contest then have it boil down to that few. *Most contests are run by
> a club, and I agree that this is exactly where contests should be
> run! *However, what incentive does a club have besides a little fun
> and a LOT of hard work, if they aren’t sure they can break even or
> make a profit. *Most clubs can’t afford to host a contest, if they
> can’t make a profit. *And why should they?
>
> The problem is simply that people do not indicate whether or not they
> are really going to show up. *The secondary issue, is what is there to
> gain from organizing contests. *I am sure that the pilots who
> regularly participate in contests would like to keep organizers
> running them for their benefit......in order to race...but let's get
> real folks....the rules are for the glider pilots, and don't do
> anything to protect the organizers. *The attempt to "raise" the
> deposit was obviously a rule that did nothing to stop the trend. *I
> don't mind pilots registering, and then changing their minds, I do
> mind pilots that don't tell the contest organizer that they decided to
> not show up. *Their paltry deposits, don't make up for the "no-call-no-
> show" aggravation.
>
> Whether or not I made a profit at any one contest shouldn't even be
> asked in this discussion. *It is totally none of the business of the
> people in rec.aviation; friends, or the rules committee. *The only
> people who SHOULD ask, are the people that ran the contest, and the
> contestants that did show up. *The process should be so protected for
> the organizers, that they always make a profit; otherwise there is no
> reason for anyone to organize a contest at all. *THEN how good would
> it be for the sport? *how many people would we have rising out of the
> regionals to fly in the nationals and represent us in the worlds?
>
> I want to continue organizing contests, and teaching clubs how to run
> contests and opening up new contest sites. *I want there to be future
> contests, but this disturbing trend evidenced by Dansville (a great
> group, and organizer) is not suprising, and they should not be shamed
> because they did the only business-like thing they could. *If we don't
> run this like a business, then there won't be any future contests for
> glider pilots to race. that would be the worst part, no contests, and
> the 4% dropping even further, because there would be no opportunity to
> make racers out of any more glider pilots.
>
> Micki

Well said Micki. It bizarre to me that anyone thinks people involved
in the various businesses that support soaring make a lot of money -
or that they should be non-profit.

Ideally you'd want an way to encourage pilots to register reasonably
early, not "drop out" at the last minute and feel like they can still
"drop in" if their schedule suddenly opens up - all without
encouraging pilots who know they can come to delay registering.
Airlines refer to this as "yield management" and pricing/terms are the
main tools they use. I think in soaring we could additionally use more
active communication and "reputation" factors. Banning pilots from
competition for a period of time is too severe, but you could subtract
seeding points for unexcused absences. I personally prefer the
financial penalty as it makes the punishment fit the crime.

One idea is to require pilots to "confirm" their attendance 1-2 weeks
prior to the contest - possibly by making an additional non-refundable
deposit. Without the additional deposit you become a "soft" entrant
and go to the end of the line for entry (if the contest fills up or
there aren't enough towplanes - you're out), tie-downs, meals, etc.
Then at least contest organizers know that you might not be coming and
have some better ability to plan. It also allows over-subscribed
contests to notify pilots on the wait list while there's still some
time to make plans.

9B

[Tuno]

Micki: I agree with Andy -- well said. Pilots should face a loss of
more than $100 if they fail to show up without sufficient notice.

When the Arizona Soaring Association hosted the 2006 Region 9 at Turf
we faced a major problem when the Air Force Academy pulled out at the
last minute. Due to the generosity of just two local pilots -- and I
will name them, Chris Woods and Mike Rubenstein (both of whom donated
unused meals and tows) -- we avoided a loss by the skin of our teeth.
And hosting a regional at Turf is much less of a headache than at
Parowan.

Keep your chin up, Micki, it is always the 5% of peelots that cause
90% of your grief. The rest of the pilots cheer the efforts of you and
Charlie and I for one hope you start making enough money from these
things to buy yourself something nice!

-ted/2NO/contestjunkie

[Andy[_10_]]

On Aug 23, 10:13*am, Tuno > wrote:
> Micki: I agree with Andy -- well said. Pilots should face a loss of
> more than $100 if they fail to show up without sufficient notice.
>
> When the Arizona Soaring Association hosted the 2006 Region 9 at Turf
> we faced a major problem when the Air Force Academy pulled out at the
> last minute. Due to the generosity of just two local pilots -- and I
> will name them, Chris Woods and Mike Rubenstein (both of whom donated
> unused meals and tows) -- we avoided a loss by the skin of our teeth.
> And hosting a regional at Turf is much less of a headache than at
> Parowan.
>
> Keep your chin up, Micki, it is always the 5% of peelots that cause
> 90% of your grief. The rest of the pilots cheer the efforts of you and
> Charlie and I for one hope you start making enough money from these
> things to buy yourself something nice!
>
> -ted/2NO/contestjunkie

Okay I ran some numbers on this - based on the detailed financial
report for the 2009 R9 contest (thanks Micki).

Without agonizing over details - the total cost for a 60-glider
contest is about $45,000. About $10,000 is truly fixed costs. Another
$6,000 goes to meals which are mostly-fixed (subject to minimum
commitments some time in advance) and about $25,000 goes to tows which
are semi-variable (fuel is a variable cost and tow pilots tend to take
much of the risk of less than anticipated numbers of tows due to
weather or drop-outs). Sanction fees and other purely variable costs
make up the balance.

If you add it all up, you should be able to cover the fixed costs
(including meals) for a non-refundable deposit of $275 and a $375
deposit would allow you to cover for 25% of the no-show tow fees as
well.

I'm sure a smaller contest would have more fixed expenses per pilot.

So my idea would be to make the deposit $350, $250 of which is
refundable prior to the Preferential Entry Deadline and none of which
is refundable after 2 weeks prior to the first practice day. It would
be up to the organizers to decide on special exceptions such as for
broken gliders.

9B

[Andy[_10_]]

On Aug 23, 11:15*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 10:13*am, Tuno > wrote:

> So my idea would be to make the deposit $350, $250 of which is
> refundable prior to the Preferential Entry Deadline and none of which
> is refundable after 2 weeks prior to the first practice day. It would
> be up to the organizers to decide on special exceptions such as for
> broken gliders.
>
> 9B

Correction - I meant the $350 deposit would be fully refundable prior
to the PED, $250 would be refundable AFTER the PED and none would be
refundable within 2 weeks of the first contest day.

9B
9B

[[email protected]]

On Aug 21, 7:52*pm, Chip Bearden > wrote:
> 9B's and BB' comments point us in an interesting direction: i.e.,
> thinking about glider contests in terms of marketing mix and pricing
> policy. After all, organizers are selling a product in competition
> with other uses for pilots' time and money. And pilots are no more
> "entitled" to glider contests than they are to free gasoline at the
> pump.
>
> I can't help it. My father voted Republican his entire life. I'm a
> free-market maven. If pilot behavior and organizers' responses drive
> us towards 2 or 3 super regionals that only the top-ranked pilots can
> gain entry to, so be it. If that should happen, however, I strongly
> suspect we would see the advent of more local and regional contests,
> perhaps with innovative pricing schemes, that would soon grow big
> enough to qualify for (demand?) regional sanctioning.
>
> In the business world, companies routinely study their successful
> competitors to learn how to do it better. So what do regionals like
> New Castle and Perry and Mifflin and Parowan--all of whom routinely
> turn pilots away--do that make them so popular? Why does Region 6 N
> (Ionia) draw decent crowds year after year in mid August in Michigan,
> a time when this former midwesterner would normally not even bother
> driving to the gliderport? Former operator Jerry Benz used to say he
> always made money on this contest, so I guess he had it figured out.
>
> A few years ago, Region 1 advertised a sliding-scale entry fee based
> on the number of entrants: the more pilots who signed up, the lower
> would be the entry fee. I don't know whether this had any effect but
> it was an interesting idea. How about a discount for anyone who enters
> ahead of time and pays the full, non-refundable fee, like an advance-
> purchase airline ticket? Would anyone do that? I guess it depends on
> the discount. Would SSA pass along a lower sanction fee in exchange
> for being able to keep it regardless of whether the pilot showed up?
> Or how about staggered deadlines with increasingly higher fees the
> later you enter (yes, I realize this is another twist on the late-
> entry surcharge I was complaining about, but I'm making trouble; I
> don't have to be consistent).
>
> Switching sports, most marathons in the U.S. offer a lower rate for
> those who enter 3 to 6 months in advance, a higher rate for 60 days
> out, and still higher for 30 days out or race-weekend registration,
> etc. No refunds, ever. A few allow participants to transfer their
> entry to another runner, for a fee. Or to defer entry to a subsequent
> year, usually with another fee. I'm not saying any of this will work
> for soaring contests but with marathons, each race director is free to
> design what he/she feels is the optimal combination of race course,
> organization, amenities, predicted weather, reputation, etc. And
> there's no limit on what a marathon can charge. Some are in the $40
> range. Others are over $100...and still close out early. The big ones
> often reserve places for runners who raise money for specific
> charities: how about "Guaranteed Entry to Perry 2010: Just Raise
> $1,000 for the SSA--Sign up your club members and buddies to
> contribute $0.10 per mile for every mile you fly, with a $20 bonus if
> you win a day or place in the top 3 overall!". None of this may work
> with soaring contests but perhaps it's worth looking at some new
> concepts, as 9B has proposed. As I said earlier, pilots respond to
> financial incentives/disincentives just like everyone else. The trick
> is to design such incentives so they accomplish the desired objective,
> not just to react in a knee-jerk fashion.
>
> In addition to being free market, I'm also a cynic. Glider pilots are,
> on average, a cut above your average consumer. But we have all kinds,
> too. So moralizing about how unfair it is not to show up at the last
> minute even though a pilot has complied with the rules and, in
> addition, forfeits his deposit won't solve this "problem".
>
> Beyond that, there are some thornier questions. If there are only 6 or
> 7 pilots who will show up for a given regional, should we be trying to
> save that regional with new rules and/or fees...or to encourage the
> sponsor to take steps to become more competitive? I've flown Region 3
> numerous times, including when it's been held at Dansville, NY. It's a
> great organization and a fine site where I and my family have had
> wonderful times. But I recall two things: (1) August weather in
> upstate NY is iffy; and (2) in recent years, the "late entry
> surcharge" warning has often been very prominent and "in your face".
> I'm sure it's not intended to be offensive but it's put me off.
> Moreover, I wonder how many pilots (including yours truly) will put in
> our vacation request and plan the kids' summer activities around a
> week at Region 3 remembering 2009 when the party was cancelled on
> short notice. That's the organizers' decision--and it may have been
> the right one--but it has future implications. And those organizers
> shouldn't complain next time around if advance registrations are even
> lower. Region 3/Dansville was always risky because of the weather. It
> just got riskier.
>
> Contrast this with the relatively new and increasingly popular Region
> 4 North at Mid-Atlantic Soaring Assoc. (Fairfield, PA) in mid October,
> a curious time for a contest with short days and in the middle of the
> school year. At least in the past, the organizers have encouraged
> pilots to show up without worrying about the late-entry surcharge. The
> more the merrier. Yes, M-ASA is more flexible than many contest sites:
> the club has its own fleet of towplanes, a large volunteer base, and a
> facility that can handle a big crowd. Still, they've found a formula
> that works, having tried Memorial Day and the 4th of July in prior
> years with uneven success. It's even beginning to siphon pilots away
> from New Castle, the traditional end-of-the-season get together a few
> weeks earlier.
>
> It's a Darwinian process. Our sport is small. If we try to prop up
> weak contests with new fees, there will be fewer pilots at the other,
> perhaps more deserving contests. Is that what we want?
>
> I don't have the answers. It's much easier to ask questions. :) As
> easy as it is to call for new fees and regulations to enforce
> "responsible behavior."
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> USA

I understand the concept of a free market. Simply said, it is a
condition in which a "supplier" offers goods or services for a price
and "customers" choose to partake or not.
Our situation is a bit different, in my view. We have
"providers"(organizers) and "beneficiaries" (contestants). We have to
ensure that needed conditions are met for both. Fees aren't the
answer, but we need to look at how to make sure organizers can
continue to provide us a field to play on.
True, Jerry Benz was heard to say he never lost money. I was also
there in '89 when we ended with the first no contest in many years and
contestants didn't get a dime back after only flying 3 days. Many
vowed never to return, and many haven't. Privately I have heard a
couple gripes about organizers taking advantage of contestants, but
mostly I see it as the opposite.
One possibility which comes to mind is to permit organizers to freeze
the size of the field at the end of preferential entry so they know
how many to accomodate. They could then accept, at their discression,
whatever number they choose to handle the usual dropouts, many of whom
do so for good and unexpected reasons.
Thhis has been a good discussion.
UH