Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

Reply comments inserted below by H Nixon SSA Contest Rules Committee
Chair.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation of ELTs
in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered a
"minor" change to the rules.

The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?

Reply:SRA is volunteer organization to promote and support sailplane
racing.
The most visible activity is archiving and publishingcontest related
items such as rules activity.

Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a
2003 accident that doesn't exist as their primary
justification for mandatory installed ELTs.
It seems pretty clear this issue didn't even recieve enough
attention or bother that anyone double checked the date
before putting out their "reasoning."

Reply: 2003 date was a typo and corrected- we'll try to do better in
the future.

And a closer look at the poll says:

Do you have a portable (user activated) ELT in your glider?

Followed by:

Should ELTs be made mandatory for all participants in all
SSA contests? 42% yes.

---Notice this DIDN'T say "installed" ELTs---

If yes, should ELTs be made mandatory in:
2005: 26%
2006: 22%

They certainly didn't agree with the 78% of the polled pilots
who thought ELTs should NOT be made mandatory in 2006.

Reply: with 42% favoring requirement for mandatory ELT's, it should be
obvious that dropping numbers related to future implementation time
indicate sooner rather than later is indicated. Fully expect you will
choose to interpret in your own way. I am explaining the RC
interpretation.
It should be noted also that the Pilot Poll is one input used in these
decisions. Contest organizer input as well as addional polling during
meetings at contests and direct communication with RC members all are
used in this decision making process.



From the ELT FAQ:
"80% of those present at the SRA meeting during the
Standard Class Nationals favored mandatory ELTs"

So two months after Peter Masak died, among those who
mourned him and were close to him, 80% favored mandatory ELTs.
Notice not a SINGLE person voted for mandatory glider
installed ELT. Just ELTs in general.

Reply: Question was not worded as specifically as you might have
wished. From the viewpoint of the RC ELT means impact activated device
equivalent to those installed in airplanes.

80% sounds a lot like 4 out of 5 SRA rules members to me.
Maybe these 4 already have installed ELTs and would prefer
less competition?

Reply: 5 of 5 agreed on this. There is no motivation on the part of
this group to try to knock out the little guys. We expect to beat them
with skills, not tricks. Any action that has the potential to reduce
participation is seriously considered. Lack of action that could result
in some contest organizers deciding not to continue to run contests is
also a consideration.

And they seem to have been very creative while interpreting the
poll to mean those who DID want mandatory ELTs meant that they
wanted the kind that require installation in the glider
instead of the portable kind.

Reply: No trickery is involved. The RC simply does not believe personal
mounted non impact devices meet the need. You obviously do not agree. I
can tell you that if a contesy organizer were to ask for a waiver after
this approved( and if it is approved inn Feb'06)that would permit
personal mounted devices for use in their contest, I'm confident that
the contest committee would consider such a waiver.

What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
which are directly against the desires of a strong majority
of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected from
the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...

Reply: I respectfully submit that 42 to 56 does not constitute the
strong majority that you interpret. RC is connected to more inputs than
you may be aware.
As to the "colorful ideas" you project- insult noted and dismissed.

Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact to
have this recommendation sent back to the committee for
indefinite review, without implementation?

Reply: Take a few minutes and read the processes. In accordance with
the process for major, non emergency rule changes, this is being
announced as a future pending major change on year in advance. If it
required testing, this would be done in regionals or under waiver.
This rule will become a proposal for adoption by the SSA Board of
directors at the Feb '06 Board meeting.
By announcing this in advance, there is plenty of time for comment and
any revisions that may be appropriate.

How do we replace the committee members who supported this
rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after thanking them
for their service?

Reply: Feel free to ask your director to nominate a candidate you think
can serve the contest community well. The process for this is also
published. It should be noted that no member of the committee has ever
been voted in-or out on a single issue.

Hank Nixon SSA Contest Rules Committee Chair

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

The glider that crashed in the Omarama Saddle area of New Zealand
called a mayday and as a result the wreckage was spotted very quickly
The mayday call alerts others and gives a chance for other minds to think
of possible solutions to the problem that could be voiced if there is enough
time. At a minimum the emergency services are alerted quicker.
gary
"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41eff1ee$1@darkstar...
Marc,
It's my understanding the pilot, after declaring the high oil temp, flew
PAST Livermore and Oakland to get to the home field and
2500 foot runway of Palo Alto.

But keep in mind all of this is second hand info. For all I
know first hand, she may have had high oil temp of short
final to PAO, and the stuff I've written is just fiction.

I'm almost certain the person who related the story wasn't listening on
NORCAL, just on tower. So the timing of the oil-temp
call is in doubt.

It just seemed like this was a more timely example than the
gear up F-33 who flew past Paso Robles and Salinas on the way
to Watsonville after an electrical failure, with the battery juice
ticking away, or the numerous other examples I could make that
seemed less relevant in my mind at the time, but which
I witnessed in person and spoke to the pilot about afterwards.

Frankly, I don't have good firsthand examples from
glider flying yet. I have yet to firsthand witness
a glider injury, or even any glider damage at all.

Lucky so far, I guess. And my exposure is less. I've only
been at a gliderport for a few hundred days in my life.
Most posters on this forum have been to gliderports for
thousands of days, if I guess correctly.

And I'm not sure other than a sketchy outlanding,
when declaring an inflight emergency over radio/ELT would
apply to a glider pilot? During the glide while
under parachute canopy? In flight self-launch fire?
Spoilers frozen closed? Above a closed in wave layer?

How is somebody on the ground going to help out?
Maybe to alert SAR, or clear to land on a busy runway?

I don't see someone reading you the gear extension emergency procedures,
or talking you through IMC flight for the first time, or
suggesting diversions for weather or low fuel.

But hey, I'm open to other suggestions

In article ,
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:
I personally don't think pilots declare emergencies enough.
A few days ago, a malibu pilot here at Palo Alto had
high oil temp and didn't declare, and tried to land here.
Too high, too fast, rolled the thing off the end, destroyed
it and injured herself. Could have just declared an emergency and
landed
at Oakland instead (long, wide runway, lots of fire trucks).

Let me get this straight, you wanted her to declare an emergency and fly
across 15 miles or so of water (aka SF Bay) with high oil temp? How
about just turning around and flying the couple of miles to Moffat Field
(where they also have a long wide runway with fire engines)? Even San
Jose International is closer than Oakland.

Marc


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

You will notice in all of this verbiage that there is no
indication if the rule changes proposed by the
committee are mandatory, or subject to review and rejection
by the SSA membership as a whole.

From my reading, it seems that those soaring pilots who are
NOT YET contest pilots have no voting input whatsoever
into the SRA process. So this process is slanted to advantage
the opinions of current contest pilots, and relies
upon their evenhandedness and wisdom to ensure newly
entering pilots won't face increased barriers to competition.

Under the old system where it seems the SSA BOD was the rules
making body, perhaps there was less expertise in
the rules, but a broader base of competition pilots and
"potential" competition pilots was represented.
I don't see how this is now the case.

If you can point to me where the broader SSA membership as a whole
has voting input into this process, I would be much
obliged. I could not find this after what is, with my
apologies, a less familiar search of the documents posted.

I do want to thank you for your response, however. In none of
this is my desire to work outside of this system. The
rules committee and the competition members who answer polls
and participate apparently do this with NO compensation.
As pointed out before in a different post, no compensation means
exactly what it sounds like. Volunteers do the very best
they can, but they certainly can't be expected to watch over
this stuff like a hawk.

This is why I'm considering the suggestion that a professional
be the final word on rule changes. A professional with the
constituency of the entire SSA organization. I think that
C. Dennis Wright whould have veto over these suggested changes,
with his actions being reviewed by the SSA BOD, or something along
those lines.

If this is already the case, please let me know. I am
certain there are those more versed in the history of
this process than I...

In article .com,
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
Just to correct your understanding of the SSA organizations and
processes involved. This info is posted on the SSA and SRA sites if
you bothered to research.

http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/elect_process.htm

The SSA Competition Rules sub-Committee is a part of the Contest
Committee. The chair of the Contest Committee is appointed by the SSA
Board of Directors and serves as one of the five members of the
sub-committee (usually referred to as the "Rules Committee"). The
other four members are elected by the pilots on the SSA Pilot Ranking
List via an electronic ballot conducted each summer.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation of ELTs
in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered a
"minor" change to the rules.

The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?

Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a

What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
which are directly against the desires of a strong majority
of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected from
the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...

Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact to
have this recommendation sent back to the committee for
indefinite review, without implementation?

How do we replace the committee members who supported this
rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after thanking them
for their service?

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

In article , goneill wrote:
The glider that crashed in the Omarama Saddle area of New Zealand
called a mayday and as a result the wreckage was spotted very quickly
The mayday call alerts others and gives a chance for other minds to think
of possible solutions to the problem that could be voiced if there is enough
time. At a minimum the emergency services are alerted quicker.

The mayday came from a glider operating from a different airfield
that spotted the wreck as he was working along the ridge. The pilot
had been killed on impact.

A couple of years ago Terry Jones hit the Benmores. He survived and called
for assistance on his cellphone. Terry has carried a personal EPIRB for
years. He didn't activate it, probably because shock etc confuse the
thinking at times like that. Instead he reverted to most recently
trained behaviour and called his wife on the cellphone.

Radio or cellphone work if you're alive and have coverage. An ELT
might be better in some circumstances. What has worked recently
at Omarama is crashing in high traffic areas so you're spotted within
minutes by passing gliders.

--
Philip Plane _____
|
---------------( )---------------
Glider pilots have no visible means of support

Without arguing the merits -- the amount of time spent
posting on this topic, if applied to a job flipping
meat patties at Burger King, would have yielded enough
cash to buy an ELT. The issues were pretty clear from
the start. IMHO the horse is now dead.

9B

At 19:30 21 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
You will notice in all of this verbiage that there
is no
indication if the rule changes proposed by the
committee are mandatory, or subject to review and rejection
by the SSA membership as a whole.

From my reading, it seems that those soaring pilots
who are
NOT YET contest pilots have no voting input whatsoever
into the SRA process. So this process is slanted to
advantage
the opinions of current contest pilots, and relies
upon their evenhandedness and wisdom to ensure newly
entering pilots won't face increased barriers to competition.

Under the old system where it seems the SSA BOD was
the rules
making body, perhaps there was less expertise in
the rules, but a broader base of competition pilots
and
'potential' competition pilots was represented.
I don't see how this is now the case.

If you can point to me where the broader SSA membership
as a whole
has voting input into this process, I would be much
obliged. I could not find this after what is, with
my
apologies, a less familiar search of the documents
posted.

I do want to thank you for your response, however.
In none of
this is my desire to work outside of this system.
The
rules committee and the competition members who answer
polls
and participate apparently do this with NO compensation.
As pointed out before in a different post, no compensation
means
exactly what it sounds like. Volunteers do the very
best
they can, but they certainly can't be expected to watch
over
this stuff like a hawk.

This is why I'm considering the suggestion that a professional
be the final word on rule changes. A professional
with the
constituency of the entire SSA organization. I think
that
C. Dennis Wright whould have veto over these suggested
changes,
with his actions being reviewed by the SSA BOD, or
something along
those lines.

If this is already the case, please let me know. I
am
certain there are those more versed in the history
of
this process than I...

In article ,
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
Just to correct your understanding of the SSA organizations
and
processes involved. This info is posted on the SSA
and SRA sites if
you bothered to research.

http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/elect_process.htm

The SSA Competition Rules sub-Committee is a part of
the Contest
Committee. The chair of the Contest Committee is appointed
by the SSA
Board of Directors and serves as one of the five members
of the
sub-committee (usually referred to as the 'Rules Committee').
The
other four members are elected by the pilots on the
SSA Pilot Ranking
List via an electronic ballot conducted each summer.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation
of ELTs
in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered
a
'minor' change to the rules.

The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?

Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a

What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
which are directly against the desires of a strong
majority
of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected
from
the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...

Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact
to
have this recommendation sent back to the committee
for
indefinite review, without implementation?

How do we replace the committee members who supported
this
rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after
thanking them
for their service?

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

First of all, WOW! Thank you Mr. Nixon for your VERY prompt and
civil replies to this. I think those watching this interaction
appreciate your attention to this, and your
recognition that it has drawn some attention. I think we also
recognise that you are an UNPAID VOLUNTEER and this took some
time out of your life and some contribution
to this sport for you to reply. My gratitude is sincere, and I
thank you for your efforts here.

In article . com,
wrote:
Reply comments inserted below by H Nixon SSA Contest Rules Committee
Chair.

Reply: 2003 date was a typo and corrected- we'll try to do better in
the future.

Thank you. After some searching I suspected this was the case.
I also suspect your committee didn't anticipate this subject would
generate such interest, and so you wanted to get out information
early, and getting it EXACTLY correct wasn't as high of a priority.
If my comment came across as a bit rude, I apologise. I myself
often go for sooner and less accurate instead of later and more accurate.

Reply: with 42% favoring requirement for mandatory ELT's, it should be
obvious that...
Contest organizer input as well as addional polling during
meetings at contests and direct communication with RC members...

You got input from other sources, and that is of course important.
I would suggest two other minor changes. Allowing the individual
contest organizers to decide what they want before doing any
contest-wide mandates, and doing another poll. Use more specific wording
which specifically says "mandatory installed ELTs."
I'd like to see a poll by SSA as a whole, too.
This avoids interpretation and ambiguity.

Again, kudos to your group for doing the poll at all. The devil
is in the detailed wording.

Reply: Question was not worded as specifically as you might have
wished. From the viewpoint of the RC ELT means impact activated device
equivalent to those installed in airplanes.

Please ask the question in the next poll, with more specific wording.

Any action that has the potential to reduce
participation is seriously considered. Lack of action that could result
in some contest organizers deciding not to continue to run contests is
also a consideration.

Tough balance here. I'm putting in my voice for the participation
side, and suggesting exploring other options to ensure contest
organizer support. Contributions to SAR funds in lieu of
ELT installation, requirements for portable ELT/cell phone/radio
in lieu of installed ELT, procedures for contact requirements
(i.e. outlanded pilots MUST make contact or activate all ELTs
and call 911 within 4 hours of landing). etc. I think there
are other, better options to be tried short of mandatory installed
ELTs in all gliders.

The RC simply does not believe personal
mounted non impact devices meet the need. You obviously do not agree.

You exclude the possiblity of personal impact-activated devices.
This isn't a farfetched option.

tell you that if a contest organizer were to ask for a waiver after
this approved( and if it is approved inn Feb'06)that would permit
personal mounted devices for use in their contest, I'm confident that
the contest committee would consider such a waiver.

This would certainly attract more Australian participants
Good. I hope some contest organizers consider this.

As to the "colorful ideas" you project- insult noted and dismissed.

Some of the other posters to this group have had very, very strong
opinions on this. The strength of feelings for and against this
proposal are in some ways more important than the raw numbers
of for and against. If 51% feel mildly that this is good, and
49% feel fiercely that it is bad, there is something more subtle
going on here that deserves attention. It's not meant as an insult,
but as a recognition that there are some very strong opinions
against this idea...and this strenght of opinion is important.

Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact to
have this recommendation sent back to the committee for
indefinite review, without implementation?

Reply: Take a few minutes and read the processes. In accordance with
the process for major, non emergency rule changes, this is being
announced as a future pending major change on year in advance. If it
required testing, this would be done in regionals or under waiver.
This rule will become a proposal for adoption by the SSA Board of
directors at the Feb '06 Board meeting.

"major, non emergency rule change" ????
In the proposed rules, I read:
"8. Required use of ELT's (RCM 26, 27, Minor)"

So I thought this was a minor rule change. Again, another
typo. Devil in the details. I'm glad the RC sees this
as a major change, and will follow the implementation
schedule and accomodations for it as such.

OK. I looked through the SRA site for about an hour last night and found
no reference that this was a recommendation that would then be
reviewed by the SSA BOD. That makes a lot more sense. I'm sure this
comes as a good bit of news to many people who now understand the
process a little better (including me).

By announcing this in advance, there is plenty of time for comment and
any revisions that may be appropriate.

Good.

Reply: Feel free to ask your director to nominate a candidate you think
can serve the contest community well.

When the opportunity to nominate a new member becomes available, I will
certainly want to know his/her postition on barriers to
entry to soaring competitions, and the use of mandatory
rules affecting all competitors. And yes, I will suggest
members who lean more towards the side of fewer barriers and
heavy effort towards cheaper, more flexible, and more directly
applicable measures. And I feel this interaction, and your
voicing of the side of contest organizers, presents me and others
with another side to consider too.

Hank Nixon SSA Contest Rules Committee Chair

Hank, whether we agree or disagree, I applaud your willingness
to discuss this in a (fairly) open forum. I think it brings
a LOT of credit to your organization. Thanks for your time.

------------+
Mark J. Boyd



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Twas a typo on the SRA site. Man, I was thinking to myself
"two crashes by the same guy in two years? And in
contests? No wonder they're using this for an example!"

But in the end it was just a typo. As Rosanne Rosannadanna
used to say:

Neveeer Mindddd...

But say, whats all this hubaloo about endangered feces?

In article ,
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

So in 2003 Peter Masak crashed in a sailplane in a contest,
was uninjured, and was found quickly because he had an ELT.

I'm not sure how you got this out of anything I posted.
Peter tragically died in an accident in May 2004. He
carried an ELT which allowed the accident site to be located
relatively quickly (accident in the afternoon, rescuers on
site next morning). If not for the ELT, it is widely
believed the accident site would not have been found for
months or years. AFAIK, Peter died on impact.

I don't know what type of ELT he carried. It seems to me
that if he carried one of the newer 406 MHz units, as I was
initially told, it would make a difference as to whether
this accident should be considered when making rules about
carrying older 121.5 MHz ELT's.


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Ahem, speaking of horses, what kind of meat do they put in those
patties anyway.

Agreed. Horse 0. Pilots 1.

In article ,
Andy Blackburn wrote:
Without arguing the merits -- the amount of time spent
posting on this topic, if applied to a job flipping
meat patties at Burger King, would have yielded enough
cash to buy an ELT. The issues were pretty clear from
the start. IMHO the horse is now dead.

9B

At 19:30 21 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
You will notice in all of this verbiage that there
is no
indication if the rule changes proposed by the
committee are mandatory, or subject to review and rejection
by the SSA membership as a whole.

From my reading, it seems that those soaring pilots
who are
NOT YET contest pilots have no voting input whatsoever
into the SRA process. So this process is slanted to
advantage
the opinions of current contest pilots, and relies
upon their evenhandedness and wisdom to ensure newly
entering pilots won't face increased barriers to competition.

Under the old system where it seems the SSA BOD was
the rules
making body, perhaps there was less expertise in
the rules, but a broader base of competition pilots
and
'potential' competition pilots was represented.
I don't see how this is now the case.

If you can point to me where the broader SSA membership
as a whole
has voting input into this process, I would be much
obliged. I could not find this after what is, with
my
apologies, a less familiar search of the documents
posted.

I do want to thank you for your response, however.
In none of
this is my desire to work outside of this system.
The
rules committee and the competition members who answer
polls
and participate apparently do this with NO compensation.
As pointed out before in a different post, no compensation
means
exactly what it sounds like. Volunteers do the very
best
they can, but they certainly can't be expected to watch
over
this stuff like a hawk.

This is why I'm considering the suggestion that a professional
be the final word on rule changes. A professional
with the
constituency of the entire SSA organization. I think
that
C. Dennis Wright whould have veto over these suggested
changes,
with his actions being reviewed by the SSA BOD, or
something along
those lines.

If this is already the case, please let me know. I
am
certain there are those more versed in the history
of
this process than I...

In article ,
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
Just to correct your understanding of the SSA organizations
and
processes involved. This info is posted on the SSA
and SRA sites if
you bothered to research.

http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/elect_process.htm

The SSA Competition Rules sub-Committee is a part of
the Contest
Committee. The chair of the Contest Committee is appointed
by the SSA
Board of Directors and serves as one of the five members
of the
sub-committee (usually referred to as the 'Rules Committee').
The
other four members are elected by the pilots on the
SSA Pilot Ranking
List via an electronic ballot conducted each summer.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation
of ELTs
in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered
a
'minor' change to the rules.

The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?

Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a

What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
which are directly against the desires of a strong
majority
of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected
from
the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...

Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact
to
have this recommendation sent back to the committee
for
indefinite review, without implementation?

How do we replace the committee members who supported
this
rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after
thanking them
for their service?

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd






--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

At 20:30 21 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
Ahem, speaking of horses, what kind of meat do they
put in those
patties anyway.

Oooh, a double entendre. We are what we eat.

I think we're neighbors Mark, so I'm on my best behavior.
;-)

'I'm not dead yet...'

9B

You guys are all missing the point. if you have ever been to a contest that
unfortunately suffers a fatality, you will all quit typing and buy and ELT
immediately. Trust me, the wisdom of this has been thouroughly reviewed by
the rules comittee. Well said 9B!

"Andy Blackburn" wrote in message
...
Without arguing the merits -- the amount of time spent
posting on this topic, if applied to a job flipping
meat patties at Burger King, would have yielded enough
cash to buy an ELT. The issues were pretty clear from
the start. IMHO the horse is now dead.

9B

At 19:30 21 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
You will notice in all of this verbiage that there
is no
indication if the rule changes proposed by the
committee are mandatory, or subject to review and rejection
by the SSA membership as a whole.

From my reading, it seems that those soaring pilots
who are
NOT YET contest pilots have no voting input whatsoever
into the SRA process. So this process is slanted to
advantage
the opinions of current contest pilots, and relies
upon their evenhandedness and wisdom to ensure newly
entering pilots won't face increased barriers to competition.

Under the old system where it seems the SSA BOD was
the rules
making body, perhaps there was less expertise in
the rules, but a broader base of competition pilots
and
'potential' competition pilots was represented.
I don't see how this is now the case.

If you can point to me where the broader SSA membership
as a whole
has voting input into this process, I would be much
obliged. I could not find this after what is, with
my
apologies, a less familiar search of the documents
posted.

I do want to thank you for your response, however.
In none of
this is my desire to work outside of this system.
The
rules committee and the competition members who answer
polls
and participate apparently do this with NO compensation.
As pointed out before in a different post, no compensation
means
exactly what it sounds like. Volunteers do the very
best
they can, but they certainly can't be expected to watch
over
this stuff like a hawk.

This is why I'm considering the suggestion that a professional
be the final word on rule changes. A professional
with the
constituency of the entire SSA organization. I think
that
C. Dennis Wright whould have veto over these suggested
changes,
with his actions being reviewed by the SSA BOD, or
something along
those lines.

If this is already the case, please let me know. I
am
certain there are those more versed in the history
of
this process than I...

In article ,
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
Just to correct your understanding of the SSA organizations
and
processes involved. This info is posted on the SSA
and SRA sites if
you bothered to research.

http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/elect_process.htm

The SSA Competition Rules sub-Committee is a part of
the Contest
Committee. The chair of the Contest Committee is appointed
by the SSA
Board of Directors and serves as one of the five members
of the
sub-committee (usually referred to as the 'Rules Committee').
The
other four members are elected by the pilots on the
SSA Pilot Ranking
List via an electronic ballot conducted each summer.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation
of ELTs
in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered
a
'minor' change to the rules.

The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?

Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a

What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
which are directly against the desires of a strong
majority
of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected
from
the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...

Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact
to
have this recommendation sent back to the committee
for
indefinite review, without implementation?

How do we replace the committee members who supported
this
rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after
thanking them
for their service?

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd