WGC Club Class Day 2 Scoring

On Jan 14, 5:57*pm, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 3:35:44 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 1:04:43 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Excellent post Jerzy.

Reading some of the Worlds blog posts (and definitely many RAS posts) its as if a propaganda campaign demonizing IGC rules is underway in the US.. *This is in apparent response to the group of US club class owners and contest pilots asking for an SSA SANCTIONED US club class for years. *What was offered after years of begging is a massively morphed barely recognizable "in name only "US club class."

In my opinion (At the US nationals) the successful sports class should remain unchanged, the club class should closely resemble IGC Club Class and pilots of club level gliders SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION to fly Sports or Club.

Club Nationals IS INTENDED to qualify a US pilot for the FAI CLUB CLASS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS after all.

Everyone has a choice, nobody is left behind.

Simple! *Clean and very little risk of dissatisfaction...

55 pilots have signed the WE WANT FAI / IGC RULES SSA SANCTIONED US *CLUB CLASS PETITION. *Major names, etc, etc.

Sean

F2

Regarding propaganda campaigns: not having a horse in this race, I see valid reasoning on both sides and very little flaming although the protagonists appear to be quite opinionated. *If someone would put a gun to my head and force me to choose I'd go Sports Class. *Any set of rules that allows for 3km finals in near ground effect, jumping roads, risking to hit photographers standing on their cars, having to make 180 turns near the ground, low energy landings in general and the like are too much excitement for me. *I'd have no qualms about IGC Rule fans holding their own contests but participation will be low IMHO.

I see the propagandist have succeeded again! FAI rules allow for finish altitudes of 5000 feet AGL or more if contest management sees fit. We can all agree this is exagerated but the point is that contest management is responsible for a safe contest. *Just like in the US.

Sean Franke

Please, please, please let's not start up the whole "we must have pure
club class with IGC rules at Mifflin in May" all over again. We've
beat it to death. Not happening. The organizers and scorers don't want
to do it, and we don't do huge rules changes for nationals at the last
moment.

If you want this to happen, running a regional under IGC rules would
be an excellent way to show that pilots desire this format and you
know enough about the rules to make it work. Then we'll revisit the
whole business in the fall.

Last time, when we ran the pilot opinion poll, a huge majority said
they liked the structure of Mifflin, and zero -- zero -- comments said
"we must have pure club class and IGC rules." Give us a hint, during
the regular rules change season, ok? We will obviously poll the use of
IGC rules in November.

John Cochrane

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:42:12 PM UTC+10:30, Tony wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:29:20 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:

More FAI rules silliness: http://tinyurl.com/aasl8mg







T8



a Rule that creates an incentive for that kind of behavior is pretty silly I think, but I don't see any igc file in the club class mass landout on Day 2 that backs up the story. Perhaps it was a story of what they would've done, or had done at some time in the past.

Disappointing no one seems to actually read the rules these days.
Not only is there no evidence this actually happened, the penalty is 1pt/metre below finish height *NOT EXCEEDING ACHIEVED SPEED POINTS*. Of which you get none for an outlanding, so no harm in finishing below height if it's not possible otherwise. (Sporting Code 3, Annex A, 8.7 "Incorrect Finish")

On Jan 15, 5:54*am, wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:42:12 PM UTC+10:30, Tony wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:29:20 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:

More FAI rules silliness:http://tinyurl.com/aasl8mg

T8

a Rule that creates an incentive for that kind of behavior is pretty silly I think, but I don't see any igc file in the club class mass landout on Day 2 that backs up the story. Perhaps it was a story of what they would've done, or had done at some time in the past.

Disappointing no one seems to actually read the rules these days.
Not only is there no evidence this actually happened, the penalty is 1pt/metre below finish height *NOT EXCEEDING ACHIEVED SPEED POINTS*. Of which you get none for an outlanding, so no harm in finishing below height if it's not possible otherwise. (Sporting Code 3, Annex A, 8.7 "Incorrect Finish")

I recall Rick's post calling it an "unsafe flying" penalty, not a "low
finish" penalty, but I'm not sure.
A lot for a pilot to keep straight finishing a long final glide at
53.00 knots and 20 meters above a busy road.

John Cochrane

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:54:57 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Disappointing no one seems to actually read the rules these days.
Not only is there no evidence this actually happened, the penalty is 1pt/metre below finish height *NOT EXCEEDING ACHIEVED SPEED POINTS*. Of which you get none for an outlanding, so no harm in finishing below height if it's not possible otherwise. (Sporting Code 3, Annex A, 8.7 "Incorrect Finish")

The devil is in the details.
I've been told that the penalty, in Gonzales Chaves, would be issued
for dangerous flying at low altitude, as a low finish crosses a road.
The intention seems to be to prevent dangerous situations with
possible glider-car/truck collisions.

So it seems that the penalty might in this case well exceed the speed
points for the completed task.

I have no opinions about it, just an observation.
Safety first, anyway.

aldo cernezzi
www.voloavela.it

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:48:27 AM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
Can someone explain this one to me:



http://www.soaringspot.net/wgc2012/r...aily/day2.html


Unsafe flying penalty is issued flying over the road less than 15 meters. The option available is to land in a good field before the road. There are a significant number of fields larger and as good as the airfield in the contest area.

Sean Franke

The post refers to the 'finish penalty'...
"Instead of making a finish, he made a single circle, landed outside the Ring, and carefully rolled to within 100 meters of it. Instead of being the only finisher that day, he opted to be the closest landout. By doing this he avoided the finish penalty and maximized his score."
Regardless, why not land one paddock inside the circle then and be sure to have the most distance points?