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

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