To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the Rules Committee.

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

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

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)

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)

On Jan 24, 11:04*am, "Karl Striedieck" wrote:

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.

My understading of the rules process is that before a rule is
implemented at Nationals it is first tried out at Regionals for a
year. The start anywhere rule was tried in 2008 at Regionals, but the
rule that was evaluated is not the rule that is proposed to be applied
at Regionals and Nationals for 2009.

My understanding is that the start anywhwere rule that was evaluated
at Regionals was modified, not to simplify it (which it certainly does
not), but to discourage starts from the back, even though there
appears to be no evidence from 2008 Regionals that there is a
problem.

If the rule is to be changed from the one that was evaluated doesn't
the rules process require a further year of evaluation at Regional
level before it is applied at Nationals?


Andy

On Jan 24, 11:04*am, "Karl Striedieck" wrote:
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.

KS,
"Most pilots" is made up of gray haired (me included) pilots that vote
to make rule changes to fit their age. The rules are thus biased
towards old timers that can't see so well anymore, don't have the
quick minds anymore, don't have the staminal that we did when we were
young, don't have the competitive drive to push for hours anymore,
etc. I don't have the perfect answer but I'm not racing simplying
because the fun of racing isn't there anymore. I can blame the rules
or my lack of spunk that I had 30 years ago to go diving through a
limbo gate and worm burner finishes. I remember seeing you making it a
point of finishing at the same time as another pilot and being even
lower! Why did you do this? Simple, it was fun for you and all of us.
We eliminated because we got older (and not that much smarter),
simple. That was fun and exciting when we were all younger. So now the
rules have evolved to support the old folks. No wonder the lack of
participation and the so called safer rules are being discussed. It's
time to step aside and somehow get the excitment back for the younger
pilots AND put the spectator back in the sport. The thrill for the
younger pilots (like we were a long time ago) will stimulate the cycle
from the bottom up.
OF

On Jan 24, 1:04*pm, "Karl Striedieck" wrote:

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.


Karl Striedieck

Karl,

We can debate whether it's the rules themselves, the verbiage used, or
something else, but we have to admit that certain aspects of the rules
are more-or-less inscrutable to someone who has not actually flown in
a contest. In fact, I'd bet that there are a handfull of rules that
fall into this category even for veterans. Just on example:


11.6.3.2 ‡ For finishers whose TOC is less than MINTIME:
STOC = MINTIME - (MINTIME - TOC) * UTFACTOR
For a Turn-area task:
UTFACTOR = 0.1 + 6 * ((DIST / MAXTATDIST) - 0.85) (but not less than
0.1, nor greater than
1.0) otherwise, UTFACTOR = 0.1

Several of the scoring formulas, if left to stand on their own, are
almost impossible to understand without real examples in front of
you. As a sometime scorer, I understand them, but ask even the
slightly above average racing pilot...the vision of a dog looking at
thunder leaps to mind.

Other examples that impact strategy include:

- From the existing start cylinder rule, the interpretation of what
happens if you start out the top but nick the cylinder again on the
way out on course. How many pilots know how to check their score to
see if they have been penalized incorrectly. I haven't yet got my
hands around the new rule.
- The strategy around finishes when comparing the possibility of
performing a rolling finish vs. trying to climb up to bottom of the
finish cylinder.
- Safety finishes.

Now, in some cases, the appendix to the rules helps (to a greater or
lesser extent). BUT, even here, there's room for improvement; many
of the explanations assume that the reader already has the basic
context, when in fact that's often exactly what's missing (I think the
academics call this cognitive dissonance).

One obvious problem is the fact that the SRA Guide to Competition is 5
years or more old and thus completely outdated. Fixing this would be
one huge step; I'd volunteer to add content except that I'm not sure
I exactly understand some of the rules :-) Seriously though, the
primary updates that impact the "fun factor" revolve around start
strategy and finish strategy with maybe one or two other minor points,
so this isn't as daunting as it sounds.

Another potential step would be to require that the Appendix itself be
a part of the rules change process (such that the wording of the
Appendix is part of the rule). We can/should require a "plain
English" interpretation of any rule that impacts scoring/strategy.
Certainly, the impact of any action that a pilot can control needs to
be pointed out.

Finally, the frequency of rules changes really is an issue. It's not
just the burden on pilots to read the rules (it's a toss-up between
doing that and getting started on my taxes). No, the real issue is
that we are layering more and more complexity on both the scoring
software and the in-flight navigation software upon which we have
become 100% reliant. Anyone who has scored a contest lately or who
has looked under the covers of Winscore will tell you that it is
amazing that we actually get accurate scores out at all (which is, in
fact, not always the case). Not because Guy hasn't done yeoman work
(he has), but because there are so many IF/THEN/ELSE clauses that
have to be updated every time something changes. IMO, we could
easily move to alternate year rules updates with the proviso to allow
an "emergency modification for safety" under tightly controlled
situations (e.g. the rule created a glaring safety issue which was
demonstrated in the prior season).

So, to summarize, three things we could do to make the rules less
opaque:

1. Change them less frequently.
2. Require the appendix to provide plain English interpretations of
all formulas.
3. Update the SRA Guide to the Rules.

Respectfully,
P3

There have been some good comments on these two posting (my original
and this spinoff). But also a lot of unjust criticism. When I started
this a few days ago I had no idea it would turn into a "let's tell the
Rules Committee what we REALLY think" exercise. Well, what I really
think is the RC does an excellent job of evolving the Rules each year
to respond to pilot input, safety issues, and feedback from the prior
year's flying. They're not perfect (see below) but I'm not bitching in
general. I also agree the RC considers participation (i.e., all the
factors that go into how many pilots actually compete in contests)
when they consider a Rules change.

What I am concerned about is how much weight participation is given.
The example I used--the RC's decisions in the past two years to
significantly restrict what can be used as a backup flight recorder at
national contests--is, I admit, near and dear to my heart, er, wallet--
but it's not a bad example. In my view, the RC took steps to tighten
the Rules primarily to insure the integrity of competition by
preventing possible cheating but without actually weighing the
likelihood of cheating or the potential adverse consequences vs. the
potential benefits.

We can debate whether my concern is valid. UH says not and I have the
utmost respect not only for his integrity and commitment but also for
his single-handed promotion of cross-country and contest flying among
less experienced pilots over the years. He's personally brought more
pilots into competition soaring than anyone else I know. KS has also
been on the forefront of this movement with pre-regional competition
soaring camps held at Mifflin and encouraging reverse seeding to get
newer guys into highly popular contests.

Still, if this were the business world and a manager told me one of
his objectives was to encourage participation while managing the
other, more obvious aspects of the Rules process, I'd suggest defining
a way to measure how effective he/she is. For example, under this
philosophy the RC would be chartered formally not just with
promulgating and managing Rules to insure fair and safe competition
leading to the selection of regional and national champions and
members of the US team, but also with the popularity and growth of the
competitive movement. To use a buzzword, some metrics we might track
every year could include:

1. Total entrants in all SSA-sanctioned contests (the "gross" number,
including pilots who fly more than one contest): this is a measure of
contest flying popularity
2. Total active contest pilots in SSA-sanctioned contests (i.e., the
number of unique names who show up regardless of how many times they
compete): this is a measure of contest audience size
3. Same data for non-SSA-sanctioned contests, including season-long
local contests such as the Governor's Cup in NY/NJ/PA. This is one
(and only one) measure of the potential market available to SSA
contest organizers.
4. Number of pilots who participated two years ago but not last year:
i.e., "drop outs." And reasons why: temporary, permanent, why, etc.
5. Number of new contest pilots each year: how many are coming into
the sport. And how they entered, at what level, with what prior
experience, with the help of a competition camp or mentor (e.g., UH's
efforts), etc. The old "how did you find us" question on a warranty
card.
6. Long-term drop-out/entry/re-entry trends, and why.
7. Comparison of contests who charge late fees vs. not, charge per two
vs. include in the entry fee, hold the contest at the same site every
year vs. rotate within the region, use reverse seeding, etc. In other
words, what works and what doesn't, in particular in the context of
Rules changes.
8. Analysis of the impact, if any, of specific Rules changes on the
above factors. Yeah, this would be difficult, but perhaps not
impossible, at least for major changes. Everyone would agree
conceptually that imposing a one-time $100,000 fee on contest pilots
would doubtless cripple competition soaring. Yet many scoff that a one-
time "fee" of $3,000 (the original GPS loggers) or $1,000 (current IGC-
approved backup loggers) will have any impact. But where is the break
point? I certainly don't know and I don't think the RC does either.

To my last point, we don’t ASK the RC to pay attention to growth
rates, participation, drop outs, entries, etc. They do to some extent,
informally, because they're good guys. But we don't measure their
results using any of these metrics, nor do they report on them every
year. In fact, the publication of one of them, #2, by P1 is what got
me started.

I didn't intend to question the competence or direction or motivation
or integrity of the RC when I started this. I still don't. I just
happen to think that they MIGHT have made a different decision in the
case of allowing commercial-off-the-shelf GPS receivers (COTS) as
backup flight recorders if they had to weigh the benefits of higher
security against the potential adverse impact of pilots being forced
to buy a second expensive flight recorder.

I'm also concerned that there's a tendency on this forum to divide
competition pilots into two groups: serious contenders for the US Team
and everyone else, for whom a contest is a fun vacation and the loss
of a few points or even a day is no big deal. I'm here to say that
there's a third group: serious pilots who want to do well but know
they're not in contention for the team. I read the Rules, I practice
when I can, and I spend the money to go to one nationals and at least
one popular regionals every year. I begrudge every point. Having
someone tell me that "oh, it's only a few points so don't worry about
it" raises my blood pressure, whether it's the RC or a scorer who
doesn't want to go back into WinScore again to enter a landout bonus
or whatever. I fly to win every day; I'm just not successful very much
of the time. But soaring isn't my life. I'm in the middle of a
divorce (an amicable one, by the way) with two girls three years away
from college and I can't drop $1,000 in a new flight recorder, which I
will "use" a dozen or so times a year and only really use if my
primary logger fails, and not feel anger that a proper cost/benefit
analysis wasn't done. I paid $250 to buy two clock cameras years ago,
a large premium over non-clock 35mm cameras, because the Rules said
that's what I had to have. I never used the clock feature.The Rules
changed. To build on KS's statement, that $250 is probably about the
same, after inflation, as what it would cost for me to buy another IGC
logger today. Since my IGC logger has failed four times in the eight
years I've owned it, and since I'm a serious pilot, I can't afford to
fly without a backup. When the Rules were changed for 2008 to
eliminate the perfectly good cheap COTS backup I had used for several
years, I wanted to know why. I still do. It's a question that I think
ought to be raised about every Rules change that involves equipment.
And potentially about every Rules change that alters the understanding
of or accessibility to competition soaring. Just my opinion.

The RC does a great job of what most pilots think we expect them to
do. I'm just exploring the notion of asking them to do more…formally.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

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

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)


I used to enjoy soaring contests, from the ground. Watching the gliders come
home, distant gray plumes of no longer needed water, then the whistling
sound as they'd come blazing through the gate to the cheers of those
gathered. All gone in the name of safety.

How do you promote something the public can't even see? Some have tried
making it a "video game" to watch on TV - - that's good too, but hollow
without the visceral experience of the old finish gate.

bumper
zz
Minden
QV & MKIII (the best cheapest toys for you glider)

In article ,
"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

Well said J4!

WB