USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available

The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website.
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...%20Summary.pdf

The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013.

For the committee,
John Godfrey (QT)

On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...%20Summary.pdf



The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013.



For the committee,

John Godfrey (QT)

John,

The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4?


Lane
XF

On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:

The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website.



http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...%20Summary.pdf







The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013.







For the committee,



John Godfrey (QT)



John,



The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4?





Lane

XF

There was lively discussion about this in the RC meeting. In theory, once the race ends it shouldn't matter where you land. However, an RC member pointed out that there have been instances where a convenient field next to the contest site did not welcome gliders and that we would be inviting problems to remove the land at the airport requiremet. So the decision for now was to retain the requirement to still land at the contest site, but not because it is part of the race per se.

QT

On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:00:54 AM UTC-6, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...%20Summary.pdf The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. For the committee, John Godfrey (QT) John, The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2..4? Lane XF There was lively discussion about this in the RC meeting. In theory, once the race ends it shouldn't matter where you land.. However, an RC member pointed out that there have been instances where a convenient field next to the contest site did not welcome gliders and that we would be inviting problems to remove the land at the airport requiremet. So the decision for now was to retain the requirement to still land at the contest site, but not because it is part of the race per se. QT

Then tell the pilots that they probably shouldn't land in that field.

There was lively discussion about this in the RC meeting. In theory,
once the race ends it shouldn't matter where you land. However, an RC
member pointed out that there have been instances where a convenient
field next to the contest site did not welcome gliders and that we would
be inviting problems to remove the land at the airport requiremet. So
the decision for now was to retain the requirement to still land at the
contest site, but not because it is part of the race per se.

QT


Please allow for the organizers to put specific fields in local
procedures instead making it a blanket rule. Most of the rules are
written to promote safety and reduce the temptation for unsafe
behaviour. In my opinion this rule encourages unsafe behaviour as the
pilot is enticed to land at the airport to get speed points regardless
of the situation. Yes, while sitting at my computer I can say that if
forced with the decision I would choose flight safety over points, land
at the safest location and then launch a protest with the CD, but why
make that part of the equation at all?

Cheers,
Luke Szczepaniak

On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...%20Summary.pdf The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. For the committee, John Godfrey (QT) John, The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4? Lane XF

With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport.
Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations.
UH

On Monday, January 7, 2013 1:14:51 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...%20Summary.pdf The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. For the committee, John Godfrey (QT) John, The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4? Lane XF With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport. Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations. UH

for those of us flying lower than typical performance gliders, the higher finish height is appreciated.

With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport.
Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations.
UH

Just to expand and clarify what Hank is saying here... The guidance to
use a finish at least 700 feet also comes from the fact that you can
finish up to 200 feet low and still receive full speed points, with
only a 40 point penalty. So a 700 foot finish is "really" a 500 foot
finish, and CDs should think about the 200 foot buffer zone when
setting the finish height. 300 feet and a mile is pretty low at many
airports!

The rule says "at least." If 500 feet, one mile and 40 knots is a bit
squeaky at your airport, the CD can, and should, raise it further than
the suggested 700 feet.

As for landing at the airport after finish... If there is a 40 mph
crosswind, or a crash makes all runways unuseable, or something of the
sort, and the CD has not called a safety finish, do what's safe and
argue about it afterwards! So far, it has never happened, so we're a
bit arguing about angels on the head of a pin, though I'm sure we'll
revisit the issue.

John Cochrane

On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:14:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:

On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...%20Summary.pdf The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. For the committee, John Godfrey (QT) John, The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4? Lane XF



With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport.

Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations.

UH

Here we go: Another danged patch job.

Pilots are complaining that 500 / 1 mile is too low? Excuse me? Any *pilot* can finish as high as he damned well pleases. Airmanship, anyone? Helllllooooooooooooo!

A digression: Personally, I liked the old zero height finish line... a LOT. You had a lot of skin in that game (all of it, to be exact). And we took it pretty seriously. A lot of factors to think about and a lot of judgement to exercise. And man was it ever a blast. And there were plenty of times I elected to finish at 300' or even higher because it was just the smart thing to do that particular moment in time. Oddly enough, contest soaring was a lot more popular then. Ever since, we've been making it easier and participation falls and falls.

Back on subject: Now, evidently, we've got dumb asses flying who think if they fly right to the minimum that they are guaranteed safety, or at least safe energy for the pattern, and a rules committee that seeks to oblige. I disagree with this approach. It's possible we need to smarten up some pilots: let's do that rather than continuing to dumb down the rules!

If the CD thinks he needs a special finish gate, he or in the case I am about to relate "she" can do this already (Hi Jacquie). We did it at Wurtsboro due to extreme local terrain and a lot of first time contestants (IIRC it was a 1000 over the airport). I believe I set the US record for a finish height penalty there when thermals died and I crawled home on the ridge and then the ridge died and so I was about 700' low (but still safe). Aggravating, but amusing. And thankfully back before this nasty -200' / no speed points rule.

Quit taking the power of superior judgement away from those that display it in the utterly futile attempt to cover for those that don't!

T8

On Jan 7, 7:12*pm, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:14:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:

On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary.pdf The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. For the committee, John Godfrey (QT) John, The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4? Lane XF

With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport.

Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations.

UH

Here we go: Another danged patch job.

Pilots are complaining that 500 / 1 mile is too low? *Excuse me? *Any *pilot* can finish as high as he damned well pleases. *Airmanship, anyone? *Helllllooooooooooooo!

A digression: Personally, I liked the old zero height finish line... a LOT. *You had a lot of skin in that game (all of it, to be exact). *And we took it pretty seriously. *A lot of factors to think about and a lot of judgement to exercise. *And man was it ever a blast. *And there were plenty of times I elected to finish at 300' or even higher because it was just the smart thing to do that particular moment in time. *Oddly enough, contest soaring was a lot more popular then. *Ever since, we've been making it easier and participation falls and falls.

Back on subject: *Now, evidently, we've got dumb asses flying who think if they fly right to the minimum that they are guaranteed safety, or at least safe energy for the pattern, and a rules committee that seeks to oblige.. *I disagree with this approach. *It's possible we need to smarten up some pilots: let's do that rather than continuing to dumb down the rules!

If the CD thinks he needs a special finish gate, he or in the case I am about to relate "she" can do this already (Hi Jacquie). *We did it at Wurtsboro due to extreme local terrain and a lot of first time contestants (IIRC it was a 1000 over the airport). *I believe I set the US record for a finish height penalty there when thermals died and I crawled home on the ridge and then the ridge died and so I was about 700' low (but still safe). *Aggravating, but amusing. And thankfully back before this nasty -200' / no speed points rule.

Quit taking the power of superior judgement away from those that display it in the utterly futile attempt to cover for those that don't!

T8

You said it quite well Evan. Personal responsibility is a thing of the
past. Why bother racing let's give everyone a participation diploma.