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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available
Hey I want one of those diploma's!
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available
I also totally agree with Evan. I still prefer the old 50' finish line over the airport - a totally out-the-cockpit visual finish that was exciting and lots of fun - both to fly and watch. Dangerous? Yes - if you didn't do it right. But so is landing, apparently, judging by the frequency of pattern accidents!
I understand the pressure the RC is under to make our sport safe, and most of the changes are good, but we run the risk of ending up with a safe sport that nobody bothers to participate in. I'm not holding my breath waiting for any finish gates, however - just like an all-AT contest... Kirk 66 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available
On Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:02:08 PM UTC+1, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. For the committee, John Godfrey (QT) John, rule 10.7.2.9 (radio communications) conflicts with the following rules. Suggest something along the lines of "Air-to-air and ground-to-air radio communication for any other reason than safety that does not comply with the following rules is prohibited; an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty may apply." Kirk 66 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available
On Jan 8, 5:41*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
I also totally agree with Evan. *I still prefer the old 50' finish line over the airport - a totally out-the-cockpit visual finish that was exciting and lots of fun - both to fly and watch. *Dangerous? Yes - if you didn't do it right. *But so is landing, apparently, judging by the frequency of pattern accidents! I understand the pressure the RC is under to make our sport safe, and most of the changes are good, but we run the risk of ending up with a safe sport that nobody bothers to participate in. I'm not holding my breath waiting for any finish gates, however - just like an all-AT contest... Kirk 66 Guys, The finish gate is not gone. I like (and prefer) the finish gate. However I believe (you may not) that there are times when it is appropriate for a race to not end at a finish gate, hence the cylinder. As an aside, you can nail your final glide much closer with a cylinder finish without risking your neck. After all, passing through a gate and making a circuit slows you down. QT |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available
On Jan 8, 7:24*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:02:08 PM UTC+1, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. For the committee, John Godfrey (QT) John, rule 10.7.2.9 (radio communications) conflicts with the following rules. *Suggest something along the lines of "Air-to-air and ground-to-air radio communication for any other reason than safety that does not comply with the following rules is prohibited; an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty may apply." Kirk 66 Perhaps the nomenclature is a bit confusing. The [N] 10.7.2.9 rule appears in the National rules. It is replaced by the [RX] 10.7.2.9 rule in the Regional rules. The remaining [RX] rules appear in the Regional rules only. QT |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:30:32 AM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:41*am, "kirk.stant" wrote: I also totally agree with Evan. *I still prefer the old 50' finish line over the airport - a totally out-the-cockpit visual finish that was exciting and lots of fun - both to fly and watch. *Dangerous? Yes - if you didn't do it right. *But so is landing, apparently, judging by the frequency of pattern accidents! I understand the pressure the RC is under to make our sport safe, and most of the changes are good, but we run the risk of ending up with a safe sport that nobody bothers to participate in. I'm not holding my breath waiting for any finish gates, however - just like an all-AT contest... Kirk 66 Guys, The finish gate is not gone. I like (and prefer) the finish gate. However I believe (you may not) that there are times when it is appropriate for a race to not end at a finish gate, hence the cylinder. As an aside, you can nail your final glide much closer with a cylinder finish without risking your neck. After all, passing through a gate and making a circuit slows you down. QT No problem with the cylinder where it's indicated. Perry regional with 65 gliders is a good example of where it's clearly indicated. Problem is with 700 foot patch job that doesn't address more fundamental and dangerous issue. T8 PS: my other problem is that I'm not going to be present to watch HW's reaction when he hears/reads about this :-). |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available
On 01/07/2013 7:12 PM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
A digression: Personally, I liked the old zero height finish line... a LOT. You had a lot of skin in that game (all of it, to be exact). And we took it pretty seriously. A lot of factors to think about and a lot of judgement to exercise. And man was it ever a blast. And there were plenty of times I elected to finish at 300' or even higher because it was just the smart thing to do that particular moment in time. Oddly enough, contest soaring was a lot more popular then. Ever since, we've been making it easier and participation falls and falls. Quit taking the power of superior judgement away from those that display it in the utterly futile attempt to cover for those that don't! Evan, you hit the nail on the head.. I couldn't agree more, Cheers, Luke Szczepaniak |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 4:41:01 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:
I also totally agree with Evan. I still prefer the old 50' finish line over the airport - a totally out-the-cockpit visual finish that was exciting and lots of fun - both to fly and watch. Dangerous? Yes - if you didn't do it right. But so is landing, apparently, judging by the frequency of pattern accidents! I understand the pressure the RC is under to make our sport safe, and most of the changes are good, but we run the risk of ending up with a safe sport that nobody bothers to participate in. I'm not holding my breath waiting for any finish gates, however - just like an all-AT contest... Kirk 66 The line vs. cylinder, the height of the cylinder, and the task decisions are all up to the CD. A contest with all assigned tasks and a finish line is available by the rules. Talk to your local CD/CM -- or be the CD/CM -- if you want it. John Cochrane |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available
I'm not a contest pilot, but, to you, Evan, I say, "Hear, hear!"
"Evan Ludeman" wrote in message ... On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:14:51 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:05:47 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:02:08 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote: The proposed changes to the 2013 competition rules are posted on the SSA website. http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...%20Summary.pdf The deadline for comments to the Rules Committee is January 18, 2013. For the committee, John Godfrey (QT) John, The proposed rules state that the race ends at the edge of the finish cylinder. I know there has been some interest in eliminating the requirement for a landing back at the launch airport. Will this change eliminate that requirement as per 11.2.2.4? Lane XF With the expectation that you will be finishing at 700 ft, there should be no issues with landing safely on the airport. Finish height is raised, in part, based upon pilot feedback at Perry that 500 ft is marginal in some situations. UH Here we go: Another danged patch job. Pilots are complaining that 500 / 1 mile is too low? Excuse me? Any *pilot* can finish as high as he damned well pleases. Airmanship, anyone? Helllllooooooooooooo! A digression: Personally, I liked the old zero height finish line... a LOT. You had a lot of skin in that game (all of it, to be exact). And we took it pretty seriously. A lot of factors to think about and a lot of judgement to exercise. And man was it ever a blast. And there were plenty of times I elected to finish at 300' or even higher because it was just the smart thing to do that particular moment in time. Oddly enough, contest soaring was a lot more popular then. Ever since, we've been making it easier and participation falls and falls. Back on subject: Now, evidently, we've got dumb asses flying who think if they fly right to the minimum that they are guaranteed safety, or at least safe energy for the pattern, and a rules committee that seeks to oblige. I disagree with this approach. It's possible we need to smarten up some pilots: let's do that rather than continuing to dumb down the rules! If the CD thinks he needs a special finish gate, he or in the case I am about to relate "she" can do this already (Hi Jacquie). We did it at Wurtsboro due to extreme local terrain and a lot of first time contestants (IIRC it was a 1000 over the airport). I believe I set the US record for a finish height penalty there when thermals died and I crawled home on the ridge and then the ridge died and so I was about 700' low (but still safe). Aggravating, but amusing. And thankfully back before this nasty -200' / no speed points rule. Quit taking the power of superior judgement away from those that display it in the utterly futile attempt to cover for those that don't! T8 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2013 Proposed Competition Rules Changes Available
HW won't read the rules until the practice day anyway. 500ft..700ft...it all sucks anyway. I don't understand how pilots read 'finish height minimum' as 'maximum'. Just finish at the height you feel comfortable with. I would say my first contest I was high everytime, but 66 was there and we all had to climb up to the airport runway and I'm pretty sure "standby" ment pull.....
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2012 Final Proposed Changes to US Competition Rules Posted | John Godfrey (QT)[_2_] | Soaring | 1 | March 4th 12 12:27 AM |
2011 USA Proposed Competition Rules Changes Posted. | John Godfrey (QT)[_2_] | Soaring | 22 | December 31st 10 02:54 PM |
Proposed US Competition Rules Changes for 2010 | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | December 17th 09 05:20 PM |
2008 Proposed US Competition Rules Changes | [email protected] | Soaring | 18 | December 31st 07 07:21 PM |
Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site | Ken Kochanski (KK) | Soaring | 79 | January 27th 05 06:51 PM |