Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

gracias'

KK


wrote:
Ken,

the site looks great and I appreciate the way you presented the rules
changes. thanks!

OC

"Eric Greenwell" wrote
Can experimentally licensed aircraft (like my glider) legally install C91
units? I'm not clear on that, but there are plenty of places selling
EBC-102a ELTs, so somebody must be able to use them.

I re-read the rule and since ELT's are not required for gliders (only
airplanes as previously discussed here ad infinitum), I will change my
opinion to say that none of the other requirements of the rule applies to
gliders. I say this because the sentence that states no new installations
may use c91 ELT's says "those required by paragraph (a) - and the ELT is not
required by paragraph (a) for gliders, so I could argue that none of the FAR
requirements are applicable to a non-airplane.

But this view may not be shared by all FSDO's or IA's should you choose to
make a new installation in your glider certificated in any category. I would
also infer that the annual test and logbook entry would not be required, but
I may be out on a limb here tilting a windmill or something like that.

I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new,
improved ELTs are cheaper!

Amen - the FAA would allow you to do that - if they required an ELT in your
aircraft.

Don't they use their own rules, not the SSA rules? I'm assuming you mean
the 1-26 Nationals. Or did you mean the Sports Class Nationals?

The 1-26 Nationals are an SSA sanctioned contest, right? I'll need an SSA
membership to fly in the contest, so I believe it qualifies under the
proposed rule as an "SSA Competition". If not, I'd be interested to hear
that from someone with the real scoop.

Jim

jphoenix wrote:
The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of
TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as
accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91
ELT
may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in
no
case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no
chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it
installed.

A 406 mHz unit would be best, but I'd MUCH prefer to spend the money
on
a transponder - if I had to spend the money. At least with a
transponder I could get a FL 180 waiver.

My portable, parachute-mounted ELT does not comply with the proposed
contest rule.

This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the
Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm
thinking lead balloon on this one.

Jim

Reply and update on thinking.
RC is reviewing and most likely will revise text to reflect C91 or C91a
units.
As to 1-26'rs, they are sanctioned by SSA but have their own rules
system and do not fall under these rules.
Thanks for input from all
H Nixon RC Chair

Reply and update on thinking.
RC is reviewing and most likely will revise text to reflect C91 or
C91a
units.
As to 1-26'rs, they are sanctioned by SSA but have their own rules
system and do not fall under these rules.
Thanks for input from all
H Nixon RC Chair

That sounds good. Thanks Hank.

comcast webnews wrote:

I personally feel that we should move in the direction of the WGC
scoring
formulas. Possibly adopt the WGC formulas 100%, or possibly a blend
of our
current system and the WGC system.

I wonder how many pilots in favor of moving to WGC scoring formulas
have actually read them? (Actually, how many poll respondents have
actually read the US scoring formulas?!)

The idea sounds nice, "let's score the way the worlds are, so our guys
get used to that and do better." But when you actually look at the mess
in the world scoring formulas, you realize "why should we screw up
every contest in the US just because the world rules are screwed up?"

Two small examples, second-hand from the last worlds.

1) Start gate with limited height but not limited speed or the US
two-minute rule. Back to dive-bombing. Do you really want that?

2) MAT style task is distance in a set time. It allows the strategy of
timing-out low, way downwind, then trying to scratch back to the
airport to see if you can get the bonus for finishing at home. Do you
really want to do this at US contests?

And of course, world and European devaluation rules give a huge benefit
to gaggling. I hear there was a day in an Australian worlds where
pilots simply refused to go out on course since nobody wanted to be
first. Again, do we really want that?

Are US contests places for US pilots to have fun, compete, learn to do
better in a safe environment, or are they just a training camp for the
top 5 or so who want to go to the worlds? The poll question on "goals"
suggested a lot more pilots in favor of the former, not the latter.

If you move to WGC scoring, what do you do when you see obvious safety
or procedural problems? Here, you call up UH or the current rules
committee chairman, and it gets fixed. If you're committed to WGC
scoring, fixing the simplest problem has to wait for the IGC to move on
it. This is like having the UN in charge of parking regulations.
John Cochrane (BB)

So let me think through the logic here for a minute.

1. We would like to promote contests and ideally get as many if not all
sailplanes and pilots participating. This has many good benefits by
promoting soaring, public image, and pilot profecency.

2. We want to require ELT's in (nearly) all gliders participating in
contests due to the additional safety they provide.

Does not 1+2 equal we would like nearly all gliders to have ELT's?

If this is such a saftey issue, Why don't we offer credit to all
gliders entered into an SSA Sanctioned Contest (reduced entry fee) for
a few years. Basically I am thinking that we offer a maximum of a $200
credit per glider entered spread out over a few years. In this way a
contestant can basically get their money back for installing an ELT.
Sure this would reduce the already limited income to the SSA but as has
been quoted here before "what is the price of safety?" especially when
someone else is paying for it.

Brian





wrote:
Would someone please tell me - without rancor and name calling - how
the rule requiring ELT's for all SSA events in 2006 came to be. If I
read the 2004 poll correctly, 58% of the respondents did not want
ELT's
required at all and only about 22% wanted them by 2006. If the polls
are not going to have a bearing in the rules then why do them?

Tom
Idaho
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
http://sailplane-racing.org/

Ken Kochanski
SRA Secretary

I feel strongly ELT contest requirement will lead to the removal of glider
ELT exception. The exemption loss will cost us $2,000+ with transition to
406 MHz units.

It will be hard for the SSA to argue that ELTs are not essential for all
gliders when the SSA states they are essential for contest rescue efforts.

Why would anyone accept the argument that the whereabouts of a downed
contest pilot is more important then the whereabouts of a casual weekend
pilot.

Wayne


"Brian" wrote in message
oups.com...
So let me think through the logic here for a minute.

1. We would like to promote contests and ideally get as many if not all
sailplanes and pilots participating. This has many good benefits by
promoting soaring, public image, and pilot profecency.

2. We want to require ELT's in (nearly) all gliders participating in
contests due to the additional safety they provide.

Does not 1+2 equal we would like nearly all gliders to have ELT's?

If this is such a saftey issue, Why don't we offer credit to all
gliders entered into an SSA Sanctioned Contest (reduced entry fee) for
a few years. Basically I am thinking that we offer a maximum of a $200
credit per glider entered spread out over a few years. In this way a
contestant can basically get their money back for installing an ELT.
Sure this would reduce the already limited income to the SSA but as has
been quoted here before "what is the price of safety?" especially when
someone else is paying for it.

Brian





wrote:
Would someone please tell me - without rancor and name calling - how
the rule requiring ELT's for all SSA events in 2006 came to be. If I
read the 2004 poll correctly, 58% of the respondents did not want
ELT's
required at all and only about 22% wanted them by 2006. If the polls
are not going to have a bearing in the rules then why do them?

Tom
Idaho
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
http://sailplane-racing.org/

Ken Kochanski
SRA Secretary

comcast webnews wrote:
I looked over the 2004 opinion poll again because I remembered that
there
was a fairly strong mandate to change our Scoring formulas.

quote:
8.0 WGC-style Scoring

8.1 Should SSA contests adopt the scoring and devaluation formulas
used
at the World Gliding Championships?
Yes 104 61%
No 54 32%


Twice as many people agreed as disagreed, so why was no action taken
on
this?

I personally feel that we should move in the direction of the WGC
scoring
formulas. Possibly adopt the WGC formulas 100%, or possibly a blend
of our
current system and the WGC system.

I think adopting it will help us select and breed pilots so the US be
more
competitive in the world championships.

As a negative side effect of the WGC system there seems to be such a
stronger bias toward speed that middle of the score sheet pilots such
as
myself used to scoring 750-900 points per day would likely be
discouraged by
scoring much lower [300-600points?]. This could cause frustration
and
pilots more likely to drop out of competition flying. However I'm in
favor
of moving toward the WGC formulas at least partially.

Chris

Reply:
Chris Who? Always nice to know who we are sharing with.
Change to WGC scoring , or somehting similar, is a major change that
requires significant study, testing, and feedback before adoption.
There are many attributes of scoring and tasking at the World level
which may well not fit how we race here.
In any case- minutes of RC meeting, which are also available to you at
the same site say:
40 Use IGC scoring system Comments

Discuss later. Under study. No change for 2005. Possibly try on a dual
scoring basis once we work out the details. 2xx agreed to chair a sub
sub committee to study this.

Thanks for sharing
UH RC Chair

wrote:
snip
Chris

Reply:
Chris Who? Always nice to know who we are sharing with.


"Chris Who", well let me reply by asking "UH Who?"
- hey just playing games here.

Chris Ruf - a name you will find on the lower half of the score sheets.



Change to WGC scoring , or somehting similar, is a major change that
requires significant study, testing, and feedback before adoption.
There are many attributes of scoring and tasking at the World level
which may well not fit how we race here.
In any case- minutes of RC meeting, which are also available to you
at
the same site say:
40 Use IGC scoring system Comments

Discuss later. Under study. No change for 2005. Possibly try on a
dual
scoring basis once we work out the details. 2xx agreed to chair a sub
sub committee to study this.

Thanks for sharing
UH RC Chair

So long as it is not forgotten that is fine. I am not proposing that
we adopt all the WGC rules instead of US rules. High speed dangerous
start gates and forced downwind landouts are not what I would seek to
adopt. My goal would be to look at how cross-country and speed skills
are rewarded in the WGC scoring system, then compare it to the US
scoring formulas. There may be some adjustments we can make that would
help us better pick and breed US pilots to be competitive in Worlds.
Hopefully a compromise could be found that does not require a massive
overhaul, but would bring us more in alignment.

I think it is a topic worthy of more study and discussion. I don't
have a fixed opinion on the matter.

Chris Ruf

Did anyone even bother to contemplate the effect the 2006 mandatory ELT
rule would have on US contest participation? I am a casual contest
pilot, normally flying in only one or two a year. If the rule comes
down, I won't be happy about it, but I probably will scrape together the
money. But, it isn't someone like me you have to worry about.

What it's going to do is kill off a lot of the regional contests out
here are the west coast (and probably elsewhere). The pilots who are
already hooked on contests will pay the price. Those who participate
even less frequently than I, or who just want to try it out (and may
eventually get hooked) will hem and haw about getting an ELT, and then
simply won't show up. You'll also lose most of the entrants that fly
club ships in Sports Class. I'd guess that at least half of the
entrants in the 2004 Region 11 FAI contest would not have participated
if ELTs had been required. I'd also guess that the Region 11 Sports
Class contest would cease to exist if the ELT rule was in place.

I, too, have sat around in a gliderport office late into the evening
waiting (in vain) for a missing pilot to show up alive. I understand
the desire to reduce this burden on contest officials in the future.
But, if the result of this seemingly sensible rule is a significant
reduction in the number of people participating in US contests, is it
really worth the cost?

Marc