There is a process for changing rules and changes are not based on some whim
of a rules committee member. One of the steps in this process includes an
annual competition pilots poll and it is rare to never that a significant
change is adopted where the pilots voted against it. The bottom line is that
most pilots want these changes.

As for bringing back "the good old days"- no thanks. Cameras and film
developing, daredevil starts, AT's with their mass landouts and thunderstorm
probing are not for me ( anymore).

As to the increased fees mentioned by Chip, factor in inflation and there
has been no increase.

It is easy to fire off a post about putting "fun" back in competition or
making the rules simpler. But without a suggestion about how to achieve
these goals the writer is engaged in idle, cabin fever chatter. This will
evaporate in April.

For those pilots who think the rules are too complicated (and have read
them, which probably eliminates the majority) what specific rule would you
suggest eliminating/simplifying?

Another aspect of rules writing that can make them seem complicated and be a
turn off to the rulees is the amount of verbiage used. The SSA contest rules
could probably be dehydrated down to half the current content, but the cost
would be an increase in interpretation required in the field. On the other
hand, there are rules that could use even more specificity. In the end it is
guess at what seems practical.

One item that has been incorporated into nationals this year (regionals last
year) is the "start anywhere" rule change favored by a majority on the pilot
poll. In an effort to simplify it "anywhere" has been defined as the front
half of the cylinder. Still, this adds a new (and interesting) dimension to
the task which some may find unwelcome.

As pointed out earlier, the aspect of whether competition is growing or
shrinking depends on how the stats are arranged. However, attendance at
contests has not shrunk to the same degree as SSA membership in the last 25
years as it has gone from 18,000 to 12,000. By this measure contest flying
is a shining example of success. It will be interesting to note any impact
of the current economic blowout on contest attendance.

Karl Striedieck




"bildan" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 7:17 am, wrote:
On Jan 24, 8:39 am, "John Bojack" wrote:



Are you guys getting the message that we're tired of the constant rule
changes?

Listen...admittedly you guys are brilliant minds, leaders in your
professions (which are also related tecnically to this
rules/mathematical
interpretation of soaring-thing), and you're donating your time and
doing
what you think is best to improve soaring contests. Thank You!
But.....

Perhaps this constant tweaking and re-creating is de-emphasizing the
flying
aspects too much. Analagous to the days of pre-GPS where a good map
reader could best another (superior flying) pilot simply because he
never
got lost....now one can best another pilot simply (no....it's
complicated)
because he interprets and uses these (complex) rules better. I don't do
my own taxes, nor take out my own gall-bladder.....but defer these jobs
to
professionals who are better qualified than I. Charlie Spratt once told
me
"These guys STUDY the rules and USE them to their advantage". I'm
thinking
of hiring a "soaring contest analyst advisor" who I can hand my flight
trace
over to upon landing and then be advised by them to drop a day, claim
whatever various bonuses I may have qualified for, or to just give up
and
go home because I have no statistical chance of winning.... (another
sore
spot--- come on you big guns, poor sportsmanship to just leave when you
can't win.....what if the rest of us, your usual cannon-fodder, did this
all
the time when you're kicking our asses? You'd be left all alone in your
sand box.)

Back to the rules....

Example....flying at a past Newcastle contest one year there was a tough
day
when only one pilot (a local guy flying a 1-35) got around the course. A
gaggle of his fellow-class competitors counted the number of gliders on
the
ground while rounding the second (airport) turnpoint, clandestinely
conferred, and realized there wouldn't be a valid contest day if they
just
landed.....and they did. The finisher got ZERO credit/points/recognition
for his effort. Your rules sometimes reward the wrong pilots. Granted
this is a simplified example and it was probably safer to have landed
with
everyone else, but it makes a point.

Henry (Romeo) said it well.....it's a tough sport, but that's what makes
it
worth doing. May the adventuresome, supremely-skilled and undaunted
pilots
amongst us prevail (safely, of course). Kill all the (soaring) lawyers.
(also Shakespearean, R).

Less TATs, less penalization for landouts, less rules, less rule
changes.....PLEEEEEASE. While at it, let's align the USA contests more
with the world championship competitions so we can get practiced for
them
and fare better in those results.

J4

It's interesting that the example you provide is a scenario that
doesn't happen now because the RC revised day devaluation in a way
that eliminates day killing by guys who choose not to go on course.
Should we have stopped improving the rules and skipped this change?
As we all learn, and the sport evolves, the rules do change, but these
are not massive. It takes the same skill sets to win today as it did 5
yr ago and the same skill sets to compete at the world level.
Re WGC rules; They use a combination of common rules and some "local"
rules which we don't. They also have stewards on site to interpret and
apply them. Pilots have ground folks to provide tactical advise as to
how to take advantage of subtleties in scoring such as when you get a
higher score if you land out than if you finish. Our scoring formulas
have evolved to be closer to WGC in terms of distance vs speed. This
has reduced the "penalization" for landouts.
Task selection is according to the guide to the rules, supposed to be
a mix of task types. It is up to the CD's and task advisors to apply
this correctly. At one time we considered a hard rule to enforce this,
but abandoned it due to the high likelyhood that contest days would be
lost due to failure to comply with the hard mix specified.
We get about 50-60 suggestions for changes from pilots and organizers
each year. Each is considered. Some are good ideas which we try to use
to make the sport better for all of us. Most go in the scrap bin. We
consider changes carefully. Sometimes we miss the mark. But we do not
tyhink that we should just stop trying to make the sport better.
There will always be a few vocal critics that won't agree with our
actions. This forum provides a great place for them to vent. Just
because they are loud or angry however, doesn't make them right.
Our basic philosophy is and will remain that out rules are very good,
though complex just below the surface, and that they should evolve
through small change.
Thanks for your comments- we do take them seriously.
UH

Warren Buffet famously says he won't invest in any company whose
business he doesn't understand.

It seems there are pilots who won't fly in contests whose rules they
don't understand.

Simplicity is beauty.

Bill Daniels
(Who remembers contest rules from 1960)