USA and FAI rules

Mr. Ray Galloway (P1) asked for me to post the following note:


There has been much discussion over the differences between the FAI rules and the US rules. This is partly due to the fact that the US is the only country that does not follow FAI rules.

At the 1985 WGC the US team was among the top contenders. In 2010 WGC, the last year that figures are available, we were 23 out of 24. In 25 years we have gone from near the top to next to last.

There is one indisputable fact---they are wining and we are losing. Maybe we should consider joining the rest of the world.

Thanks for any help.

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:45:55 PM UTC-8, rlovinggood wrote:
Mr. Ray Galloway (P1) asked for me to post the following note:

There has been much discussion over the differences between the FAI rules and the US rules. This is partly due to the fact that the US is the only country that does not follow FAI rules.

At the 1985 WGC the US team was among the top contenders. In 2010 WGC, the last year that figures are available, we were 23 out of 24. In 25 years we have gone from near the top to next to last.

There is one indisputable fact---they are wining and we are losing. Maybe we should consider joining the rest of the world.

Thanks for any help.

Actually we were 13th out of 20 teams at Uvalde in 2012. Yes, we have a long way to go.
Richard Walters
US Team Committee

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:02:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:45:55 PM UTC-8, rlovinggood wrote:

Mr. Ray Galloway (P1) asked for me to post the following note:



There has been much discussion over the differences between the FAI rules and the US rules. This is partly due to the fact that the US is the only country that does not follow FAI rules.



At the 1985 WGC the US team was among the top contenders. In 2010 WGC, the last year that figures are available, we were 23 out of 24. In 25 years we have gone from near the top to next to last.



There is one indisputable fact---they are wining and we are losing. Maybe we should consider joining the rest of the world.



Thanks for any help.



Actually we were 13th out of 20 teams at Uvalde in 2012. Yes, we have a long way to go.

Richard Walters

US Team Committee

We have to wait for the conclusion of the WGC at Chaves and combine it with Uvalde before we know the team standing for WGC 2012/2013. Good too hear from you.

Amen to that. I think that there was too much push for "fairness" in soaring. There will always be losers and winners. Anybody not willing to accept that fact should give up soaring and take on knitting. "Someone" is, in my opinion, skewing facts about the FAI rules and this is why soaring pilots (many of which have never read the FAI rules) are “somewhat” skeptical about adopting the FAI rules. This issue is similar to the adoption of the metric system in the USA- the entire world is using it and we are not. We are paying price for that. When someone looks at the contest scores at the world level we are coming next to last. This time in Argentina we have a pilot who is actively promoting adoption of the FAI rules by the soaring community and the SSA. This pilot, Sean Franke, is actually performing better than many pilots representing the US in the past twenty some years. All the whining should go away; fly what you have. If you can’t compete in 15m, standard, then fly the sports class, or if adopted the FAI Club Class. Fly whatever you can afford and enjoy it. You need to do what is right for the sport and not what, at the moment, is good for you. This sport is dying in the USA. I am not a teenager anymore, but I am one of the youngest guys at any airport I visited in the past and I have been flying for 33 years now. Support the FAI rules; if not for you than maybe for someone who can make best of it. Jacek, Pasco, WA

On Jan 15, 8:45*pm, rlovinggood wrote:
Mr. Ray Galloway (P1) asked for me to post the following note:

There has been much discussion over the differences between the FAI rules and the US rules.
This is partly due to the fact that the US is the only country that
does not follow FAI rules.

This is simply not true. The vast majority of countries, in fact, use
their own rules. Look em' up; it's not hard, just look up the national
soaring association (equivalent of ssa.org) and then find their
contest rules. Canada, UK, Australia are all in English so you can see
them. You will find nice long rules just like ours. You will not find
"for competition rules see IGC annex A" period, full stop.

It is true that many countries bend their rules towards the IGC
standard, for example in scoring formulas, turnpoint definitions,
start and finish definitions, etc. It is also true that almost all
countries modify these and other rules and procedures, as well as
filling in the vast blank space in FAI rules covered under "local
procedures." Contrariwise, it is also true that many features of US
rules are similar to FAI rules. We do, after all, fly assigned and
area tasks, defined in pretty much the same way. But it is simply not
true that they 'follow FAI rules" and we do not.

At the 1985 WGC the US team was among the top contenders. In 2010 WGC, the last year that figures are available, we were 23 out of 24. In 25 years we have gone from near the top to next to last.

There is one indisputable fact---they are wining and we are losing. Maybe we should consider joining the rest of the world.


The Rules Committee faces a really tough problem. Shall we design
contests whose number one goal is to train pilots to do well at world
gliding championships -- even if that means that we see fewer pilots
participating, fewer contests being run, smaller turnouts at the
contests we do run, organizers losing money? Or should we design
contests whose number one goals are safety, fun, and widespread
participation; getting people involved in contest soaring?

Put aside the question of which set of rules will attract more people
-- the camp that says "use FAI rules and more will come" has an
argument, but needs to prove its case by running regionals under FAI
rules and seeing if US pilots do indeed prefer that format. And we can
end up either way on that question.

But answer for us Ray and Ray's deeper question: which should be the
GOAL: producing a better world team, or participation:

Should we turn all our contests into "team training camps" to prepare
people for the.hard decisions they will face in contests like
Argentina? To wit,
-gaggle and start tactics,
-team/pair flying,
-extensive ground support,
-deep knowledge of world rules quirks, like when you should
intentionally land out 100 meter short of the finish line or when you
should abandon the chance of getting home and just go for distance in
the cylinders,
-day after day of landing out on long assigned tasks, meaning full
time crew is mandatory,
-or (as in Uvlade) dealing with tasks that force you to fly into
thunderstorms,
-eventually (as in europe) buying and learning the art of motor
management
-tactics for unlimited altitude starts (thermal wave at Uvalde,
gaggling in clouds elsewhere); tactics for limited altitude no time
limit starts (VNE dives)
-final glides to a line 3 km short of the airport; landing in fields
0-3 km of the airport

etc. etc.

This is not a rant. These are just some of the features of contests
run under FAI rules that require long study and practice to master.
And US pilots are not that great at many of these aspects, and moving
all our contests to mirror WGC conditions would undoubtedly produce a
small number of pilots who were much better at flying in WGC
contests.

So far, the RC has felt that running contests these ways would attract
fewer people, be less fun, moderately less safe, and much less well
attended. Again, we can and will have that argument later.

For now, which should be our number one goal? A great team, even if
that means smaller and more expensive contests? Or participation, fun,
and development, even if that means a somewhat less successful world
team?

This is not an easy question

I hope we can split the difference a bit with more team training camps
(open to all pilots) run under FAI rules, and I would love for one of
the FAI rules fanatics to put in the effort to run a continental
championship under FAI rules. I would love for one of them to run
regionals under FAI rules to put the "build it and they will come"
theory to the test.

John Cochrane

Thanks for any help.

You're welcome! Now, help us with this tough issue.

John,

You do have a tough job as a leader within the US RC at times. I respect that. Despite your considerable and noble effort, there is a large problem with the way US soaring rules are managed within the SSA at present. I would also guess that you do this job because you love it and are passionate about it. You probably have some goals you are looking to achieve. That said...

1) The US Rules Committee's "all or nothing & take it or leave it" methodology is flawed. Rules in the US need NOT be one way or the other. The US could easily have at least one national contest each year which utilizes IGC rules. Especially when a "choice" to participate in Sports or Club is offered.

REVIEW: MY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2013 SPORTS/CLUB NATIONALS: US Sports Class remains as is. US IGC Club range gliders can choose to fly in either Sports or US IGC Club Nationals. The winner of the "US IGC Club Class Nationals" goes to World Championships (Also IGC btw...)! If 12 gliders sign up for US IGC Club Class Nationals, all gliders are dumped into Sports Class Nationals as has been standard within the US for years and no IGC US Club Class happens...

2) The assumption (and numerous statements as such) that IGC rules EQUALS less attendance is plain wrong. It is just not that simple. Yet you post this statement (IGC = low attendance and low pilot happiness) again and again and again... It's as if all other countries flying IGC rules contests are running Kamikaze missions! These statements are pure propaganda and irresponsible.

3) Yes, some US pilots agree with the assumptions about US contest participation going up (or a slowing of the decent) if every effort is made to ensure everyone returns home each day. What is not touted in US circles is the fact that soaring countries around the world regularly run wonderful, successful, enjoyable and fun IGC rule contests. IGC rules are not evil. But if you get your news form the US RC you would think these pilots were all facing certain death and miserable. This is unfair to newer US pilots and over time has given ICC a bad (yet uneducated) reputation in the US. I personally don't mind US Rules contests. That said I have not had the chance to race IGC yet. I have an open mind. I have left the Kool Aid on the table as have many others...

4) I and many others within the USA would like the choice to fly IGC rules in the US and not have to travel to Germany, Poland or France to do it. We are tired of being held hostage by the SSA. IGC rules have not been allowed in the SSA for many years. The time has come to allow it as a choice. MATs and AAT's are just not attractive to pilots who want glider racing.

5) Clearly, many (50+) in the US (see my US IGC Club Class petition...) do not agree with the US Rules "all or nothing" attitude (IGC or US). Talk about being LEFT BEHIND! For many US Pilots (and Canadian), a true IGC rules racing class in North America is intensely appealing. Yet the US RC seems to consistently attack people who argue for a choice to offer IGC rules as if we are arch enemies! Look at the reports from Argentina hammering the IGC rules at every opportunity for example. It's amazing really.

A golden opportunity still exists to be responsive to a very large group of US pilots who have ASKED FOR IGC RULES Club Class Nationals for many years! Please refrain from attacks on them for questioning why the RC instead come up with a completely yet another completely new US class that is ENTIRELY NEW and FAR AWAY from the IGC Club Class they had requested!

My proposed solution solves many issues. My solution leaves NOBODY behind. And most importantly my solution gives all US Club Class pilots the CHOICE to fly their preference without any concerns.

Sean
F2


On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:03:25 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Jan 15, 8:45*pm, rlovinggood wrote:

Mr. Ray Galloway (P1) asked for me to post the following note:



There has been much discussion over the differences between the FAI rules and the US rules.

This is partly due to the fact that the US is the only country that

does not follow FAI rules.



This is simply not true. The vast majority of countries, in fact, use

their own rules. Look em' up; it's not hard, just look up the national

soaring association (equivalent of ssa.org) and then find their

contest rules. Canada, UK, Australia are all in English so you can see

them. You will find nice long rules just like ours. You will not find

"for competition rules see IGC annex A" period, full stop.



It is true that many countries bend their rules towards the IGC

standard, for example in scoring formulas, turnpoint definitions,

start and finish definitions, etc. It is also true that almost all

countries modify these and other rules and procedures, as well as

filling in the vast blank space in FAI rules covered under "local

procedures." Contrariwise, it is also true that many features of US

rules are similar to FAI rules. We do, after all, fly assigned and

area tasks, defined in pretty much the same way. But it is simply not

true that they 'follow FAI rules" and we do not.



At the 1985 WGC the US team was among the top contenders. In 2010 WGC, the last year that figures are available, we were 23 out of 24. In 25 years we have gone from near the top to next to last.



There is one indisputable fact---they are wining and we are losing. Maybe we should consider joining the rest of the world.





The Rules Committee faces a really tough problem. Shall we design

contests whose number one goal is to train pilots to do well at world

gliding championships -- even if that means that we see fewer pilots

participating, fewer contests being run, smaller turnouts at the

contests we do run, organizers losing money? Or should we design

contests whose number one goals are safety, fun, and widespread

participation; getting people involved in contest soaring?



Put aside the question of which set of rules will attract more people

-- the camp that says "use FAI rules and more will come" has an

argument, but needs to prove its case by running regionals under FAI

rules and seeing if US pilots do indeed prefer that format. And we can

end up either way on that question.



But answer for us Ray and Ray's deeper question: which should be the

GOAL: producing a better world team, or participation:



Should we turn all our contests into "team training camps" to prepare

people for the.hard decisions they will face in contests like

Argentina? To wit,

-gaggle and start tactics,

-team/pair flying,

-extensive ground support,

-deep knowledge of world rules quirks, like when you should

intentionally land out 100 meter short of the finish line or when you

should abandon the chance of getting home and just go for distance in

the cylinders,

-day after day of landing out on long assigned tasks, meaning full

time crew is mandatory,

-or (as in Uvlade) dealing with tasks that force you to fly into

thunderstorms,

-eventually (as in europe) buying and learning the art of motor

management

-tactics for unlimited altitude starts (thermal wave at Uvalde,

gaggling in clouds elsewhere); tactics for limited altitude no time

limit starts (VNE dives)

-final glides to a line 3 km short of the airport; landing in fields

0-3 km of the airport



etc. etc.



This is not a rant. These are just some of the features of contests

run under FAI rules that require long study and practice to master.

And US pilots are not that great at many of these aspects, and moving

all our contests to mirror WGC conditions would undoubtedly produce a

small number of pilots who were much better at flying in WGC

contests.



So far, the RC has felt that running contests these ways would attract

fewer people, be less fun, moderately less safe, and much less well

attended. Again, we can and will have that argument later.



For now, which should be our number one goal? A great team, even if

that means smaller and more expensive contests? Or participation, fun,

and development, even if that means a somewhat less successful world

team?



This is not an easy question



I hope we can split the difference a bit with more team training camps

(open to all pilots) run under FAI rules, and I would love for one of

the FAI rules fanatics to put in the effort to run a continental

championship under FAI rules. I would love for one of them to run

regionals under FAI rules to put the "build it and they will come"

theory to the test.



John Cochrane



Thanks for any help.



You're welcome! Now, help us with this tough issue.

MATs and AAT's are just not attractive to pilots who want glider racing.
Sean F (F2)

Your comment above is incorrect. There have been 6 race days in the Argentina CC WGC so far and four have been AAT. AAT are very popular at IGC contests.

Richard Walters

Respectfully I have known P1 since he weighed 172 lbs. and had dark hair and probably the only one to have kiss the top of his bald head ( Cordele Nantionals). His concerns regarding the rules we fly under have been a nagging thorn in his side and will most likely carry them to his grave.
I was in his camp until a light bulb went off at a SRC meeting in Perry a few years ago when a Committee member revealed some of the FAI rules that I found hard to accept, mainly in the scoring area. At this meeting was a former US Team member and he informed me that not flying under FAI rules did not really affect his flying at the Worlds. I now believe that the rules the US competes under are far better than FAI in allowing me to enjoy what all of the deserving have created.
I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.
Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.
R

I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.
Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.
R

Yeah, I'm really surprised that this winter's flame war has been over
the idea of using IGC rules, like next spring, at nationals. I thought
for sure that flarm radar (require stealth mode?), the team-flying and
pilot to pilot communication experiment, and the structure of future
national competition (more handicaps? merge classes?) would be the
huge issues we'd be discussing over the winter. Surely, these are the
issues that have bedeviled the rules committee the most -- we really
don't have clean simple answers here. And, in practice, they still
look to me like the issues with the likely most profound impact on US
contest soaring this and in the next few years.

A minor point. As I think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever for
the US to have two sets of rules as fundamentally different as IGC and
US going on at the same time. If one contest uses a line, no altitude
limit, kilometers, and no penalty buffer zones, while the next contest
uses a cylinder, altitude limit, miles, and buffer zones, there will
be no end of confusion. Scorers and CDs can barely keep up with one
set of rules. It also makes no sense to create a completely new set of
hybrid rules halfway between US and IGC, losing the many years of
experience behind every single paragraph in the US rules and opening
us up to who knows how many bugs.

So, the question really is, should the US go wholehog to IGC annex A
for its rules, in all classes. The RC is starting to be attracted to
the idea, because then we could all quit and go home, and if you don't
like a rule, call Switzerland.

Look for it to be polled in the fall.

John Cochrane

Forgot word "as." ...as attractive...