FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

The fall opinion poll will contain a question asking US pilots if they wish us to change as much as possible to IGC rules, in particular tasks, tasking philosophy, scoring formulas, units (metric/US), start/finish/turnpoint geometry, equipment requirements (flight recorders), class definitions etc. We will also be sampling opinions at SRA meetings during contests this year.

With a full sampling pilot views on this question -- separated from the future of club class nationals(which will be another, separate question) -- in hand, the RC will discuss the issue in the fall.

This is the normal procedure for rules changes, especially major ones like throwing out half of an entire rule book (US) and trying to merge it (contest times, bids, sanction process, entries, ranking list, list of officials, rule adjudication process, rule making process) with another rule book (IGC). I hope you will agree doing that on the fly between now and May is impractical.

Given that this process is in place, may I suggest giving it a rest for a while?

John Cochrane

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 8:05:35 AM UTC-8, wrote:
The fall opinion poll will contain a question asking US pilots if they wish us to change as much as possible to IGC rules, in particular tasks, tasking philosophy, scoring formulas, units (metric/US), start/finish/turnpoint geometry, equipment requirements (flight recorders), class definitions etc.. We will also be sampling opinions at SRA meetings during contests this year.



With a full sampling pilot views on this question -- separated from the future of club class nationals(which will be another, separate question) -- in hand, the RC will discuss the issue in the fall.



This is the normal procedure for rules changes, especially major ones like throwing out half of an entire rule book (US) and trying to merge it (contest times, bids, sanction process, entries, ranking list, list of officials, rule adjudication process, rule making process) with another rule book (IGC). I hope you will agree doing that on the fly between now and May is impractical.



Given that this process is in place, may I suggest giving it a rest for a while?



John Cochrane

I hope when fall opinion poll questions are created it will incorporate thoughts from outside the RC. My guess is that response from the petition and this thread was a surprise. It was a surprise because the right questions on this topic have not been asked in prior RC opinion polls.

Obviously there are enough pilots to field one FAI rules based class. There is no reason to make this an "all or nothing" change. Most US pilots want and should fly contests under the current format. Don't change or throw out the book. Create a new FAI US Club Class from the ground up for those who want it.

Sean Franke, HA

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:31:26 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:35:57 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class. If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...fb_connected=1 Sean F2



As part of preparing for the BOD meeting, and possible discussion of this topic,I did an analysis of the responses to the petition site. I used tha best data available to me, that is the SSA membership list, ranking list, and contest results. I did not go back more than 3 years. This was done 3 weeks ago and may be not completely current.

I found

56 responders

6 not SSA members

29 on the current ranking list and thus eligible to compete in US nationals

21 are known or believed to own or have ready availability of Club ships.

18 of those are IGC conforming.



As and update on current events, the US Club class was approved as part of the 2013 rules changes in Houston.

Currently the Mifflin contest has 14 entries in US Club of which 8 are on the IGC list. I'm hoping for 20 or more so we can continue to move toward Club becoming a class strong enough to be paired with classes other than Sports or, hopefully strong enough to stand on it's own.

UH

UH, The petition list does not represent ALL pilots who support the idea. Keep in mind the free website hosting this petition could be more user friendly. There are many who attempted to sign but don't appear on the list. I watched first hand a pilot signed up but didn't verify a second time as required. His posting didn't take. Mitch Hudson sent me an email saying he signed but his name has not appeared. The free website has limitations.

Numbers are encouraging.

*How many in addition have tried to sign but it didn't take?
*How may would sign but don't know about the petition?

29 on the ranking list who own, possibly will buy or borrow a Club Class to compete is strong. Not to mention pilots whose posting didn't take or don't know about the movement. This could be the strongest sailplane racing class in the US. Of course, it's not going to happen this year. I hope the RC will give this movement a fair chance.

Sean Franke, HA

I hope when fall opinion poll questions are created it will incorporate thoughts from outside the RC. My guess is that response from the petition and this thread was a surprise. It was a surprise because the right questions on this topic have not been asked in prior RC opinion polls.

Obviously there are enough pilots to field one FAI rules based class. There is no reason to make this an "all or nothing" change. Most US pilots want and should fly contests under the current format. Don't change or throw out the book. Create a new FAI US Club Class from the ground up for those who want it.

Sean Franke, HA

We certainly need to separate the question "use IGC rules" from the question "what should a club class nationals look like." Many pilots may want to see a separate club class nationals using US rules, and many pilots may want to fly their 15 meter gliders under IGC rules.

My own opinion is that mixing rules this profoundly different at US contests will cause havoc.

Contest A uses 5 mile radius US start with 2 minutes, start out the top, and credit for extra distance; miles and feet; credit for distance in turnpoints, soft buffers for minor mistakes, the US finish.

Contest B uses a 10 km start line, no top, groundspeed limited, kilometers and meters, no credit for distance in turnpoints, no buffers for minor mistakes, etc.

If John Seaborn can get confused, imagine Joe Pilot. Imagine poor Joe CD who has to keep two totally different sets of rules and procedures in mind. Contests are full of enough screwups and poor understanding of the rules, as it is! This strikes me as a recipe for confusion.

But, we'll hear what everyone has to say.

I don't get your first comment. Of course the poll incorporates opinion from outside the RC. That's why we send it to all 600 pilots on the seeding list, not just 4 RC members! That's why we do it! That's why there is a free form comments section, and we read every one of them. That's why we have SRA meetings in advance to know what the issues are

John Cochrane

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:27:08 AM UTC-8, wrote:




I hope when fall opinion poll questions are created it will incorporate thoughts from outside the RC. My guess is that response from the petition and this thread was a surprise. It was a surprise because the right questions on this topic have not been asked in prior RC opinion polls.



Obviously there are enough pilots to field one FAI rules based class. There is no reason to make this an "all or nothing" change. Most US pilots want and should fly contests under the current format. Don't change or throw out the book. Create a new FAI US Club Class from the ground up for those who want it.



Sean Franke, HA



We certainly need to separate the question "use IGC rules" from the question "what should a club class nationals look like." Many pilots may want to see a separate club class nationals using US rules, and many pilots may want to fly their 15 meter gliders under IGC rules.



My own opinion is that mixing rules this profoundly different at US contests will cause havoc.



Contest A uses 5 mile radius US start with 2 minutes, start out the top, and credit for extra distance; miles and feet; credit for distance in turnpoints, soft buffers for minor mistakes, the US finish.



Contest B uses a 10 km start line, no top, groundspeed limited, kilometers and meters, no credit for distance in turnpoints, no buffers for minor mistakes, etc.



If John Seaborn can get confused, imagine Joe Pilot. Imagine poor Joe CD who has to keep two totally different sets of rules and procedures in mind. Contests are full of enough screwups and poor understanding of the rules, as it is! This strikes me as a recipe for confusion.



But, we'll hear what everyone has to say.



I don't get your first comment. Of course the poll incorporates opinion from outside the RC. That's why we send it to all 600 pilots on the seeding list, not just 4 RC members! That's why we do it! That's why there is a free form comments section, and we read every one of them. That's why we have SRA meetings in advance to know what the issues are



John Cochrane

What I'm trying to say is I hope future poll questions on this topic will be in a format that will not skew the response in a predetermined direction, one way or the other.

I think havoc really amounts to different. Contest B can use a start line or circle (similar to US cylinder). No top or a top above expected lift. Safer than 2 minutes below then start out of the top. Ground speed limited not really applicable. Kilometer & Meters or Feet & Miles, whatever doesn't matter. Credit for distance in turnpoints, just different not havoc. Stronger difference in points for minor mistakes. YES, makes you a stronger pilot. Finish is the same for both rules. Not havoc just different.

Sean Franke, HA

Great conversation. I am not challenging the details, flexibility. I think the USRC, although I criticize the power they wield, wield it in the true belief that rhey are making soaring safer and therefore better attended. To a certain extent that may be true (maybe not).

I am only trying to shake loose from the cage we US pilots are held in and make some level of FAI rule soaring available in the USA. I also wish to shake the stigma of FAI rule soaring being flat out dangerous or irresponsible by sighting regularly that the rest if the world uses these rules and have equal safety results and perhaps better attendance (via better racing and tasking).

Nobody is bad here. We all want growth and prosperity for our sport. I am simply trying to carve out a choice for US/Canadian pilots and it appears that may happen although the USRC, for example, wants to impose its will by only approving the bid for a major US based FAI contest if we use US starting rules in lieu of FAI rules. This is an example of the dictatrial nature I dislike. The reason for this was their belief that FAI is "unsafe." Those are rather bold and important assumptions.

I vote for letting the US pilots have a choice!

Sean

I think the USRC, although I criticize the power they wield,............the dictatrial nature I dislike.

I vote for letting the US pilots have a choice!
Sean

This "power they wield" and "dictatrial" (sic) nature is a bunch of hooey. US rules work from the bottom up not top down.

If you want to see some merging of US and IGC rules at US contests, get off your butt, write down the actual set of rules you want to use, submit a bid with a request for waiver, and run such a contest. Stop whining for someone else to do all the work.

That's how the system works. It's not top down, or "dictatrial." New ideas start by waiver at regionals. Especially new ideas involving really big changes to rules and procedures.

Even if all the pilots on the poll say they want IGC rules, and the RC all decides we're for it, we would have to follow exactly the same process: find a CD willing to run the experiment by waiver at regionals, write the waiver, get all the details worked out in writing, run the experiment, find the bugs, see if the concept actually works. Poll again to see if pilots like it. Introduce it in regionals. Poll again. Move it to nationals.

US pilots do have the choice! They can run pretty much any contest they want, if they can persuade the RC that the waiver they want makes any sense at all.

You are, in fact, asking for the opposite: for the RC to impose this from the top, without the usual experimentation. Sorry, that's not how it works.

Write the rules
Get a waiver
Run a contest

Until then, stop bitching!

John Cochrane

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:17:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:31:26 AM UTC-8, wrote: On Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:35:57 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote: Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class. If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...fb_connected=1 Sean F2 As part of preparing for the BOD meeting, and possible discussion of this topic,I did an analysis of the responses to the petition site. I used tha best data available to me, that is the SSA membership list, ranking list, and contest results. I did not go back more than 3 years. This was done 3 weeks ago and may be not completely current. I found 56 responders 6 not SSA members 29 on the current ranking list and thus eligible to compete in US nationals 21 are known or believed to own or have ready availability of Club ships. 18 of those are IGC conforming. As and update on current events, the US Club class was approved as part of the 2013 rules changes in Houston. Currently the Mifflin contest has 14 entries in US Club of which 8 are on the IGC list. I'm hoping for 20 or more so we can continue to move toward Club becoming a class strong enough to be paired with classes other than Sports or, hopefully strong enough to stand on it's own. UH UH, The petition list does not represent ALL pilots who support the idea. Keep in mind the free website hosting this petition could be more user friendly. There are many who attempted to sign but don't appear on the list. I watched first hand a pilot signed up but didn't verify a second time as required. His posting didn't take. Mitch Hudson sent me an email saying he signed but his name has not appeared. The free website has limitations. Numbers are encouraging. *How many in addition have tried to sign but it didn't take? *How may would sign but don't know about the petition? 29 on the ranking list who own, possibly will buy or borrow a Club Class to compete is strong. Not to mention pilots whose posting didn't take or don't know about the movement. This could be the strongest sailplane racing class in the US. Of course, it's not going to happen this year. I hope the RC will give this movement a fair chance. Sean Franke, HA

Please read my observations.
29 was the number of pilots that could enter the contest mentioned.
21 was US Club group
18 was IGC Club group.
Given the apperently extensive e-mail campaign, complete with scare tactics like
"if this goes through we'll never have a real Club class"(my paraphrasing), I don't think you guys missed too many possibles.
The "chance", as currently enacted is:
1- Participate in US Club and help it grow to where it can stand on it's own as a class.
2- Help it grow and evolve, as it may well and likely should over time.

My proposed scenario to the RC was to make Club independent of the Sports tie in after 2 seasons of 20 entries. This would show it is a viable class that organzers could bid on and expect to get a reasonable turnout.
The RC, as group, was not prepared to go that far, which dissapointed me personally.
That said, if we can get 20 or better at Mifflin, we could be well on our way.
We have 14 signed up as of yesterday.
The other option is to sulk, bitch, moan, call us names, go on strike, or whatever can be done to try to prove us wrong.

UH

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:59:25 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:17:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:31:26 AM UTC-8, wrote: On Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:35:57 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote: Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class. If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...fb_connected=1 Sean F2 As part of preparing for the BOD meeting, and possible discussion of this topic,I did an analysis of the responses to the petition site. I used tha best data available to me, that is the SSA membership list, ranking list, and contest results. I did not go back more than 3 years. This was done 3 weeks ago and may be not completely current. I found 56 responders 6 not SSA members 29 on the current ranking list and thus eligible to compete in US nationals 21 are known or believed to own or have ready availability of Club ships. 18 of those are IGC conforming. As and update on current events, the US Club class was approved as part of the 2013 rules changes in Houston. Currently the Mifflin contest has 14 entries in US Club of which 8 are on the IGC list. I'm hoping for 20 or more so we can continue to move toward Club becoming a class strong enough to be paired with classes other than Sports or, hopefully strong enough to stand on it's own. UH UH, The petition list does not represent ALL pilots who support the idea. Keep in mind the free website hosting this petition could be more user friendly. There are many who attempted to sign but don't appear on the list. I watched first hand a pilot signed up but didn't verify a second time as required. His posting didn't take. Mitch Hudson sent me an email saying he signed but his name has not appeared. The free website has limitations. Numbers are encouraging. *How many in addition have tried to sign but it didn't take? *How may would sign but don't know about the petition? 29 on the ranking list who own, possibly will buy or borrow a Club Class to compete is strong. Not to mention pilots whose posting didn't take or don't know about the movement. This could be the strongest sailplane racing class in the US. Of course, it's not going to happen this year. I hope the RC will give this movement a fair chance. Sean Franke, HA



Please read my observations.

29 was the number of pilots that could enter the contest mentioned.

21 was US Club group

18 was IGC Club group.

Given the apperently extensive e-mail campaign, complete with scare tactics like

"if this goes through we'll never have a real Club class"(my paraphrasing), I don't think you guys missed too many possibles.

The "chance", as currently enacted is:

1- Participate in US Club and help it grow to where it can stand on it's own as a class.

2- Help it grow and evolve, as it may well and likely should over time.



My proposed scenario to the RC was to make Club independent of the Sports tie in after 2 seasons of 20 entries. This would show it is a viable class that organzers could bid on and expect to get a reasonable turnout.

The RC, as group, was not prepared to go that far, which dissapointed me personally.

That said, if we can get 20 or better at Mifflin, we could be well on our way.

We have 14 signed up as of yesterday.

The other option is to sulk, bitch, moan, call us names, go on strike, or whatever can be done to try to prove us wrong.



UH

I'll sign up soon for the Low Performance Sports Class Division. That will make 15.

An email campaign is a good idea but hasn't been done yet. Certainly 10 emails sent out isn't "extensive". US FAI Club Class still has plenty of room to be effectively marketed. So far results are promising.

Keep in mind discontent with the RC only came after Club Class advocates ran several super regionals as instructed and we were ignored. What was created by the RC doesn't resemble Club Class or the format proven in the Super Regions.

Sean Franke, HA

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:45:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:47:58 PM UTC-8, wrote:





I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.







Sean







Dear Sean. This is an interesting project. Actually reading the IGC rules and explaining how the US would use them "without exception" might do us all some good.







I have been working on a similar project, and will have a comparison table to go with the fall poll, where pilots can voice their opinions.







You’re looking for “annex A” here







http://www.fai.org/igc-documents







Here are some particular issues you might answer for us. You propose to use the IGC rules "without exception," yet those rules make no mention of national or regional contests. For example,







How many pilots does it take to make a valid contest? (US: 8 finishers with score more than 40% of the winner)







IGC 1.3.2 If any one class does not have at least ten participants from at least five (four for Continental Championships) NACs on the first Championship day, the contest shall take place but no Champion will be declared.







What do you plan to do about that?







What kind of organization do you need (we have CD, rules committee etc)







1.4.2 Facilities The Organisers shall provide:



a. All facilities necessary for the satisfactory operation of the Championships.



b. The travel and living expenses for Stewards and Jury Members, other than the Chief Steward and Jury President.







2.2.1 Stewards The IGC-Bureau shall nominate a Chief Steward, at least one year prior to the event, plus at least one other Steward, of nationalities different to that of the Organisers,







2.2.2



International Jury



a. A nominated Jury shall consist of the President of the Jury plus two Members. The President shall be appointed by the IGC. Both Members shall normally be appointed by the IGC,







If you plan to use IGC rules "without exception" have fun getting all these people over to the US and paying for them.







Who gets to go to the contest? For US nationals, there is a ranking list, preferential entry procedure, etc. IGC rules:











3.1 SELECTION OF TEAMS Each NAC shall select its own Team Captain, competitors, and assistants.







3.2 QUALIFICATIONS A competitor must be a citizen or resident of the country of the entering NAC and satisfy the conditions of the FAI Sporting Code, General Section 3.7 on citizenship and representation, and must;



a. Hold a gold badge, or, hold a silver badge and have competed in at least two National Championships;



b. Have flown at least 250 hours as a pilot in command, of which at least 100 hours must be in sailplanes;



c. Hold a currently valid FAI Sporting Licence.....







Those are the rules. Can't go unless you've been to two nationals!







3.4.3



Pilots



a. Each NAC may enter the number of pilots approved by the IGC and specified in the Local Procedures, but not more than two pilots (two crews in the 20 metre Multi-seat Class) in any class, or 3 pilots in any class at Junior and Women Championships....







For Continental Championships with a limited number of nations participating the IGC Bureau may approve a higher number of pilots per class.











That sounds like fun. No more seeding list, the NAC says who gets to go...







What about equipment, inspections etc?







4.1.2 Each competing sailplane …



b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the configuration in which it will be flown.







Well, here's another big change. No showing up at 9 am on the first contest day. We need scrutineering, 72 hours before the contest starts. Why? Well, Sean wants to play by IGC rules without exception. Oh, yes, we need a scrutineer too.







Oh, and another subject dear to your heart, artificial horizons.







… No instruments permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be used during the contest. If carried on board they must be reported to the Organisers during the acceptance check and preferably be made inoperative. The Organisers may specify instruments and procedures covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.







Flight logs and flight recorders?







All remarks made during the inspection must be complied with not later than 20:00 on the day before the first scheduled competition day. By that time Flight Logs (see 5.4) from all FRs in use must also have been delivered to Competition Office. Noncompliance will result in denied competition launches







5.4 CONTROL PROCEDURES Flights shall be controlled by GNSS Flight Recorders (FR).



a. All FRs approved by the IGC up to two months prior to the Opening Day shall be accepted. A valid calibration certificate must be provided for each FR.



The FAI SC Section 3 requires that Flight Recorders have been calibrated within the previous 24 months.







Aah, that's interesting. No more of this loosey-goosey US rules letting Ilec SN10s or other non-certified flight recorders play. You WILL have an IGC certified recorder WITH calibration trace or else. I'm sure that will be popular with your club class.







We could go on. This is all nuts of course. These rules are simply not written to handle a national championships.







OK, enough.







What all countries who "use IGC rules" do, in fact, is to merge some aspects of IGC rules -- scoring formulas, in particular -- with a bunch of national rules. NOBODY uses IGC rules by themselves, because, as reading the rules makes clear, it simply is completely unworkable. EVERY country has their own modifications, in particular to the list of the club class pilots.







I hope you read the rules and produce the table. Then it will be clear what you are really advocating is that somebody write a whole new rule book somehow combining the two.







Now that sounds like a fun project







John Cochrane



John, you tout "without exception" several times. Nowhere in the petition text body does it state "without exception". Before the petition was made public I reviewed, edited and changed the text state "The purpose of this petition is to demonstrate the number of US pilots who want formation of the new US Club Class to adopt FAI (IGC) rules, handicaps and tasking philosophy". You are right in that EXACT adoption in nationals with IGC Stewards, Jury and so on is not relevant or practical. The "without exception" you keep bringing up again and again IS in the URL which was not editable before making public.





So this brings up a question. Have you actually read the petition or just the URL?



Your comments are noted and I welcome your help in creating a US Club Class based on IGC rules format.



Sean Franke, HA

The stated purpose of the petition is "US Club Class Association petition for SSA adoption of FAI rules for 2013 US Club Class Nationals" not "some FAI rules"
and is specifically addressing 2013. Interestingly enough, this petition was not put on the BOD agenda by the regional director (as another petition on a different subject was by another director).