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

On Jan 24, 9:28*am, Berry wrote:
In article ,
*"John Bojack" wrote:



Are you guys getting the message that we're tired of the constant rule
changes?

Listen...admittedly you guys are brilliant minds, leaders in your
professions (which are also related tecnically to this rules/mathematical
interpretation of soaring-thing), *and you're donating your time and doing
what you think is best to improve soaring contests. * Thank You!
But.....

Perhaps this constant tweaking and re-creating is de-emphasizing the flying
aspects too much. * *Analagous to the days of pre-GPS where a good map
reader could best another (superior flying) pilot simply because he never
got lost....now one can best another pilot simply (no....it's complicated)
because he interprets and uses these (complex) rules better. * * *I don't do
my own taxes, nor take out my own gall-bladder.....but defer these jobs to
professionals who are better qualified than I. * Charlie Spratt once told me
"These guys STUDY the rules and USE them to their advantage". * I'm thinking
of hiring a "soaring contest analyst advisor" who I can hand my flight trace
over to upon landing and then be advised by them to drop a day, claim
whatever various bonuses I may have qualified for, or to just give up and
go home because I have no statistical chance of winning.... (another sore
spot--- come on you big guns, poor sportsmanship to just leave when you
can't win.....what if the rest of us, your usual cannon-fodder, did this all
the time when you're kicking our asses? *You'd be left all alone in your
sand box.)

Back to the rules....

Example....flying at a past Newcastle contest one year there was a tough day
when only one pilot (a local guy flying a 1-35) got around the course. * A
gaggle of his fellow-class competitors counted the number of gliders on the
ground while rounding the second (airport) turnpoint, clandestinely
conferred, and realized there wouldn't be a valid contest day if they just
landed.....and they did. * *The finisher got ZERO credit/points/recognition
for his effort. * * Your rules sometimes reward the wrong pilots. *Granted
this is a simplified example and it was probably safer to have landed with
everyone else, but it makes a point.

Henry (Romeo) *said it well.....it's a tough sport, but that's what makes it
worth doing. * May the adventuresome, supremely-skilled and undaunted pilots
amongst us prevail (safely, of course). *Kill all the (soaring) lawyers.
(also Shakespearean, R).

Less TATs, *less penalization for landouts, *less rules, *less rule
changes.....PLEEEEEASE. * While at it, let's align the USA contests more
with the world championship competitions so we can get practiced for them
and fare better in those results.

J4

Well said J4!

WB

Hmmmm...

I think it's important to separate out disagreement about any
particular rule versus whether the rules should be "frozen" in some
state. I for one LIKE the idea that the rules evolve - not because I
think it confers some advantage to students of the rules, but because
it improves the sport over time. I, too, remember the days of
Instamatic cameras, visually sighted start and finish gates (with and
without speed or height limits) and getting hopelessly lost in haze so
dense you could barely make out the ground directly beneath you. I
still miss the "worm burner" finishes, but you can have the rest - and
a lot of people think you can take the worm burners too (JJ? ;-))

Obviously, technology like GPS has made a huge difference. Few would
argue that the associated rule changes to support GPS are bad, and we
are now seeing introduction of new technologies like SPOT and FLARM
that could change things for the better in unforseen ways if we have
the vision to take advantage of them. But, put aside for the moment
the big technological shifts. You only need to go back a few years to
find things like changes in the finish rules that took a few years to
evolve, but have lead to rules that are simpler, fairer, safer and
easier to manage in the cockpit.

Given the issues of safety and fairness it seems prudent to evolve the
rules slowly over time - with due consideration for unnecessary
"churn" in rulemaking. I haven't seen the net benefit of a few recent
changes and proposals, but I see the value in letting the process play
out.

These aren't massive changes that require wholesale re-thinking of
racing strategy, but we also all know soaring has always had a
significant mental element. It's what so many people like about racing
- it makes you think really hard. I find a few things new to think
about every year - even without changes in the rules. Yes, by studying
the few changes in rules every year you might be able to figure out
something to save you a couple of minutes on course - maybe,
sometimes. I'd observe that the RC is trying hard to take those sorts
of thing out of the rules - balanced against considerations about
complexity.

That said, things can go overboard which is why speaking up is
important. I just think we should all think carefully about exactly
what it is we are asking for before we ask them to close the patent
office.

9B