Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

HL Falbaum wrote:
A quick (and not exhaustive) search on Google turned up the WGC rules
for
1999. I could not find rules for anything later, though I am sure
they
exist. Would someone please direct me to the site for the most
current
rules?

All international rules are at the FAI website. What you're looking is
at:

http://www.fai.org/sporting_code/sc3.asp#sc3a

-Tom

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

Well perhaps if most contestants were racing in 2-33's,
this might not be such a hot idea...

Somewhere in this thread the idea of being responsible
to others, surfaces here and there. And what sort
of monetary value to attach to that. In some states,
such as Colorado...a hunting or fishing license absolves
one from paying for the search to find him out in the
woods if something goes wrong. This is cheap insurance
for that unlikely occurance.

When I look at what guys pay to go race...in time,
effort and dineros...is this an onerous requirement?

Hard to say, $2k is a lot of money. $300 seems to
be below the pain threshold for most. But I suspect
the ELT discussion is actually more then just talking
about putting something in the glider to help with
body recovery....

At 16:30 14 January 2005, Wayne Paul wrote:

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.

Cheaper 406 MHz models are on the way.

http://www.artex.net/me406.html

I can't seem to find any G-activated 406 MHz units
with a GPS input, except for ones that require 28 volts
for the interface unit.

Any leads?

9B

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

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

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

BGMIFF wrote:
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!

I have been to a contest with a fatality, and no one even thought about
buying an ELT. It happened near the airport. Does one fatality near the
airport in a contest area (Ephrata, WA) in 30 years justify mandatory
ELTs for everyone? I don't think so, especially since our area is 95%+
open rolling hills that are easy to search. Here's my proposal:

1) The Rules Committee promotes and encourages ELT use. If this is a
good idea, it can be sold, though it might take a few years to get close
to 100% usage at contests.

2) The rules allow any contest director to require an ELT as a condition
of entry. This lets the CD to make the tradeoff between potentially
fewer entries and the amount of grief and anguish the contest operations
people are willing to risk. After all, the ELT is being installed for
THEIR benefit, so they should have a say in the value of this benefit.

3) The pilot is encouraged to discuss the cost of the ELT and it's
benefit with the pilot's spouse and other family members. It is for
THEIR benefit that the ELTs are being mandated, so they should have a
choice on spending their dollars for it, or for some other benefit.

Personally, I fly with a mounted ELT, mostly because it makes my wife
feel better about the extensive cross-country flying I do (it might
possibly even help me, if I survive the crash). It can be activated
manually, so I don't have to depend on impact.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

-I would like to add one change to Eric's proposal and that is
concerning the requirement for a mounted ELT. I understand the
differences of a mounted/g switch activation and personal ELT's. I
would hope that with all the personal ones being carried by pilots
already, that these would be accepted for a period of time. I would
very much like to have a unit with the GPS and aircraft code but not at
the present cost. I presently have a personal ELT and would have to
consider the expense of obtaining a present mounted model and only
using it until the price becomes more reasonable for the new soon to be
mandated 405 models. So, I suggest and request the Rules committee
allow the personal ELT's at those contests where ELT's will be
required. A suggestion to those contests where ELT's would be
required. There should be an adequate contestant notification period
of time. I suggest nothing less than six months before the contest
date.
Tom
Idaho

Eric Greenwell wrote:
BGMIFF wrote:
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!

I have been to a contest with a fatality, and no one even thought
about
buying an ELT. It happened near the airport. Does one fatality near
the
airport in a contest area (Ephrata, WA) in 30 years justify mandatory

ELTs for everyone? I don't think so, especially since our area is
95%+
open rolling hills that are easy to search. Here's my proposal:

1) The Rules Committee promotes and encourages ELT use. If this is a
good idea, it can be sold, though it might take a few years to get
close
to 100% usage at contests.

2) The rules allow any contest director to require an ELT as a
condition
of entry. This lets the CD to make the tradeoff between potentially
fewer entries and the amount of grief and anguish the contest
operations
people are willing to risk. After all, the ELT is being installed for

THEIR benefit, so they should have a say in the value of this
benefit.

3) The pilot is encouraged to discuss the cost of the ELT and it's
benefit with the pilot's spouse and other family members. It is for
THEIR benefit that the ELTs are being mandated, so they should have a

choice on spending their dollars for it, or for some other benefit.

Personally, I fly with a mounted ELT, mostly because it makes my wife

feel better about the extensive cross-country flying I do (it might
possibly even help me, if I survive the crash). It can be activated
manually, so I don't have to depend on impact.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA