A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 11th 18, 08:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

News from Europe -

The contest will include many new and exciting possibilities, including an opportunity for the pilots to use a limited amount of stored energy during the race. Each race will include an allowance of electrical energy that the pilot can use whenever he thinks appropriate. It could be used to avoid an outlanding or rescue from a low spot. Or it could be used to enhance the sailplane’s performance during the flight or on final glide.

WH
  #32  
Old December 11th 18, 09:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Craig Funston[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 4:03:51 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-5, Craig Funston wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:25:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:39:44 AM UTC-5, wrote:
I hope the "pro-FAI guys" realize that the adoption of the FAI rules will necessitate the elimination of the "Airfield Bonus".

I'm looking forward to the old George Moffat philosophy where a death dive to a landout in the boonies to pick up a few points is preferable to a landing at a safe airfield below.

Oh, and no more "staring out the cylinder top" nonsense either.

Guy Byars

Or that safety finish. "Real" pilots get to the finish.
UH


Hank, when you say "safety finish" are you addressing use of a remote finish point in the event of bad weather or having a minimum finish altitude at a set distance from the field?

If it's the latter then that's not necessarily gone. I've flown an FAI contest where we did have a minimum finish height at the finish circle.

Best regards,
Craig


See Rule 10.9.5.

best,
Evan


Thanks Evan,I understand the rules. I was just trying to discern whether the language used was based on an older colloquial term or the specific definition in the rules.

Best regards,
Craig
  #33  
Old December 12th 18, 12:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 608
Default SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 5:07:03 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:24:50 AM UTC+2, wrote:
Has anyone asked if we could add some of the (missing) US centric glider models to the FAI handicap list?
That might make it easier to switch to their system.
Chris


Latest FAI Handicap list turned into fiasco because it took a political stance that all old club class gliders should be replaced by newer ones instead of objectively handicapping performance differences. No fair competitions are possible with these handicaps. Do yourself a favour: do not adopt FIA handicaps as a basis for wider handicap list. SC3 does not allow handicaps to any class other than club class so you have a freedom to do whatever you like in national level, though sending teams to Club class WGC without underhandicapped glider ('55, 304 etc.) would be a huge waist of money.


______________

Handicapping is an issue that seems to have been compounded by recent moves as described above (I haven't seen the final results - we just got done doing a comparison with what I believe were last year's handicaps). I tend to agree that handicapping ought be a best estimate for equalizing performance (understanding that no single number can be a perfect adjustment under all conditions), not a tool for preferentially advantaging certain gliders. In the US if we want to retain Sports Class and FAI Handicapped Classes, we may need to include some sort of wing loading adjustment formula. That might be layered on top of international handicaps, or adjustments made to that list and/or gaps for missing gliders filled. All of that is TBD.

Andy Blackburn

  #34  
Old December 12th 18, 02:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 6:48:28 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 5:07:03 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:24:50 AM UTC+2, wrote:
Has anyone asked if we could add some of the (missing) US centric glider models to the FAI handicap list?
That might make it easier to switch to their system.
Chris


Latest FAI Handicap list turned into fiasco because it took a political stance that all old club class gliders should be replaced by newer ones instead of objectively handicapping performance differences. No fair competitions are possible with these handicaps. Do yourself a favour: do not adopt FIA handicaps as a basis for wider handicap list. SC3 does not allow handicaps to any class other than club class so you have a freedom to do whatever you like in national level, though sending teams to Club class WGC without underhandicapped glider ('55, 304 etc.) would be a huge waist of money.


______________

Handicapping is an issue that seems to have been compounded by recent moves as described above (I haven't seen the final results - we just got done doing a comparison with what I believe were last year's handicaps). I tend to agree that handicapping ought be a best estimate for equalizing performance (understanding that no single number can be a perfect adjustment under all conditions), not a tool for preferentially advantaging certain gliders. In the US if we want to retain Sports Class and FAI Handicapped Classes, we may need to include some sort of wing loading adjustment formula. That might be layered on top of international handicaps, or adjustments made to that list and/or gaps for missing gliders filled. All of that is TBD.

Andy Blackburn


It's a bit challenging to talk about "European" or "FAI' handicaps as there are multiple systems in use e.g.:

- Sporting Code https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/sc3ah_2018a.pdf
Club and Double seater only. Carries handicaps to 3 decimal places.
Provides for weight adjustments up and down
Colored by non-aerodynamic considerations mentioned earlier

- DMSt (German) - no weight adjustments https://www.daec.de/fileadmin/user_u...-WO_2018ki.pdf

- OLC - no weight adjustments. Can't figure a way to download this list

- SeeYou - no weight adjustment likely the same as OLC,
but again can't download or compare easily
  #35  
Old December 25th 18, 08:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
RW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 12:20:39 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Do FAI rules allow us to change the task in the air with a roll call as often happens? I thought FAI contests publish the tasks really early in the day and stick to it even if the task goes through a storm that pops up before launch.
Chris


Change possible 20 min before first glider T/O
So no confusion, and no zombies flying all together same time programming not looking out.
Ryszard
  #36  
Old December 25th 18, 08:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
RW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 11:33:22 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 11:25:58 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:39:44 AM UTC-5, wrote:
I hope the "pro-FAI guys" realize that the adoption of the FAI rules will necessitate the elimination of the "Airfield Bonus".

I'm looking forward to the old George Moffat philosophy where a death dive to a landout in the boonies to pick up a few points is preferable to a landing at a safe airfield below.

Oh, and no more "staring out the cylinder top" nonsense either.

Guy Byars


Or that safety finish. "Real" pilots get to the finish.
UH




I'm not really a "pro-FAI" guy but I've found myself persuaded by the guys that are.

The new for 2018 78.5 square mile area start (if you can reach MSH) that degenerates into a 31.4 mile circumference ring start (if you cannot) is what changed my opinion.

The US "beer can" start has always had (in my view) too much tactical importance, especially in crummy conditions. The change from "half a can" to "whole can" turned out to be a half beer too many for me. Some CD's are especially good at calling an MSH that you might, or might not be able to reach and guessing wrong (as a contestant) can be costly!

As far as the safety finish goes, I'm told that t-storm likelihood is handled (correctly, if the weather guy and task setter are on their game) by a larger ring finish (in the initial task call).

Moreover... since US Nats are getting FAI ranking points *now*, what would prevent us from keeping things like the existing safety finish and airport bonus?

Thanks for all you do, Guy & Hank.

best,
Evan / T8


If you look at the traces of pilots landing out , while safety landing is imposed.
They are still going to the finish , only storm is stronger, than their computer (still away) is thinking.Very few pilots actually divert( only those deserve safety finish). So it is a US scam. If weatherman tells 4pm will be storm, we should plan to be back before, and not gamble, and not have extra cushion of safety finish to bail us up.
Ryszard
  #37  
Old December 25th 18, 08:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
RW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
No doubt the SSA Rules Committee has their hands full regarding the integration of FAI practices into US contest rules and scoring. Very tough job; thanks Andy, Bif, Hank, David, Rich, and John for your service to the SSA. And thank you Guy Byars for all your pro bono software work to provide Winscore.

Understood, the Rules Committee is acting on feedback from the results of the recent SSA’s pilot opinion poll. However, the intent of integrating FAI practices is not clear. I would appreciate the Rules Committee clarifying whether its prime objective is to increase the participation of US competition – OR – is the prime objective to better prepare Team USA for future international competition? Certainly, you would agree these are two distinctly different issues requiring different solutions.


Quite opposite, old US rules made most pilots crueless( no low finish, no show for crew).
Old rules tread National competition pilots as Student Pilots and are way too complicated for new competition pilots.
Ryszard
  #38  
Old December 25th 18, 08:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
RW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 6:07:03 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:24:50 AM UTC+2, wrote:
Has anyone asked if we could add some of the (missing) US centric glider models to the FAI handicap list?
That might make it easier to switch to their system.
Chris


Latest FAI Handicap list turned into fiasco because it took a political stance that all old club class gliders should be replaced by newer ones instead of objectively handicapping performance differences. No fair competitions are possible with these handicaps. Do yourself a favour: do not adopt FIA handicaps as a basis for wider handicap list. SC3 does not allow handicaps to any class other than club class so you have a freedom to do whatever you like in national level, though sending teams to Club class WGC without underhandicapped glider ('55, 304 etc.) would be a huge waist of money.


Do yourself favor : look at US handicap list first.
Our US clubs are swarmed with D2 and V1 and LS6 and ASW28, this is why they are in US Club Class
Ryszard
  #39  
Old December 25th 18, 08:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
RW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 9:27:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 8:18:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
No doubt the SSA Rules Committee has their hands full regarding the integration of FAI practices into US contest rules and scoring. Very tough job; thanks Andy, Bif, Hank, David, Rich, and John for your service to the SSA. And thank you Guy Byars for all your pro bono software work to provide Winscore.

Understood, the Rules Committee is acting on feedback from the results of the recent SSA’s pilot opinion poll. However, the intent of integrating FAI practices is not clear. I would appreciate the Rules Committee clarifying whether its prime objective is to increase the participation of US competition – OR – is the prime objective to better prepare Team USA for future international competition? Certainly, you would agree these are two distinctly different issues requiring different solutions.


UH- My personal philosophy is to put maximum emphasis on safety(of course #1), followed by doing the things that maximize participation, from the entry level to the top level. This understandably can be in conflict with actions that mat favor US Team selection and performance at the WGC.
The most recent pilot poll results do not, in my view, agree with my philosophy.
The task of the RC is to seek and implement the best trade off between two conflicting objectives. I know that there is a sincere effort on the part of the RC to accomplish this objective.
Speaking for myself.
UH


Polls are very nice and make everyone feel included, but I am not so sure that in turn becomes a mandate.

I like uniformity when ever possible. I like playing with the same or similar rules. But in moving to an international rules from Local rules I think you have to start at the beginning.

Are the FAI and US goals/priorities the same?
Are the physical/structural issues that require a difference?

In discussions these can be sorted out - in a poll you get a direction not a mandate.

My take is that the pilots polled want to have US rules look more like International and the opportunity to race like international pilots, but I am not so sure it calls for blind adoption. Which by the phased approach seems to be how it is moving. Bravo.

Great job RC - keep talking and tweaking... please.

WH


Bill,
US is a tiny island of soaring.
100 times more pilots out there are making improvements.
Past SSA government was blind to all changes, regardless 2 US reps in IGC,
and was plowing wrong way.
Ryszard
  #40  
Old December 25th 18, 09:12 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
RW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Now Available

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 8:18:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
No doubt the SSA Rules Committee has their hands full regarding the integration of FAI practices into US contest rules and scoring. Very tough job; thanks Andy, Bif, Hank, David, Rich, and John for your service to the SSA.. And thank you Guy Byars for all your pro bono software work to provide Winscore.

Understood, the Rules Committee is acting on feedback from the results of the recent SSA’s pilot opinion poll. However, the intent of integrating FAI practices is not clear. I would appreciate the Rules Committee clarifying whether its prime objective is to increase the participation of US competition – OR – is the prime objective to better prepare Team USA for future international competition? Certainly, you would agree these are two distinctly different issues requiring different solutions.


UH- My personal philosophy is to put maximum emphasis on safety(of course #1), followed by doing the things that maximize participation, from the entry level to the top level. This understandably can be in conflict with actions that mat favor US Team selection and performance at the WGC.
The most recent pilot poll results do not, in my view, agree with my philosophy.
The task of the RC is to seek and implement the best trade off between two conflicting objectives. I know that there is a sincere effort on the part of the RC to accomplish this objective.
Speaking for myself.
UH


Hank,
Pools from last 10 years where ignored.
You guys would not listen .
Switching to FAI rules is not so rosy.
Every country out there has easy regionals to qualify to hard Nationals, but we let totally new pilots with silver badge to risk their lives at Nationals as long there is a space. Not safety first approach to me,: money first approach.
Ryszard
pilots to fly complicated tasks to fresh pilots.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US Contest Rules Committee Meeting Minutes [email protected] Soaring 7 December 19th 17 05:48 AM
SSA Competition Rules Committee Meeting Minutes [email protected] Soaring 11 December 13th 16 04:40 AM
Minutes of 2015 USA Rules Committee Meeting Posted John Godfrey (QT)[_2_] Soaring 2 December 15th 15 11:10 PM
SSA Competition Rules Meeting Minutes [email protected] Soaring 3 December 4th 09 09:04 PM
2005 SSA Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Posted Ken Kochanski (KK) Soaring 1 December 20th 05 06:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.