US Competition Pilot Poll and Election

On Sunday, 23 October 2016 10:25:12 UTC-6, wrote:
..

Folks we have two sets of rules in every country for soaring. First set of rules is the laws of the land, second set is the FAI competition rules. When we host a world championship here in America, we don't use the cockamamie rules of the SSA, we use FAR's and FAI, in that order. Don't forget that.


The above statement is not accurate. At the 2012 Uvalde Worlds there were specific changes implemented via the local procedures, sorry I do not have a copy nor could I find a copy online, to FAI rules regarding the flight rules that mimicked the SSA rules. Specifically a start cylinder was able to be used, maximum start height was used, and minimum finish altitudes were implemented. I also believe that the maximum turnpoint cylinder diameter was increased but I could be wrong. A custom version of SeeYou competitions was made available for the 2012 worlds.

Ron Gleason
2012 Uvalde Open Class scorer

Folks,


Albert Einstein said "the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result."

John Wooden said “Failure isn’t fatal, but failure to change might be�

Colin Powell said "There are no secrets to success. It is the preparation, hard work and learning from failure."

The sport of soaring is failing in the United States. Are we willing to make changes to learn from our failures? Or will we just continue on a path of insanity.

We can't change costs, but we can take a lesson from other countries who are successful at growing the sport of soaring and learn what we are doing differently that is failing.

What are you afraid of???

Regarding the data. There were 580 people on the SSA Pilot Ranking List in the year that I did the survey. I got 66 responses. Depending on how you want to look at it, the respondents were either about an 11 percent sample or a 6 percent sample (about half of the people had competed in a sanctioned contest and half hadn't). By anyone's measure, that's a statistically significant survey.

If you want to have a facts-based discussion on the issue, then go ahead and design and execute a better survey.

And maybe use your real name - it makes it so much more transparent.

Erik Mann (P3)


On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 12:54:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Herb,

Erik didn't de-bunk anything. He's just found data to confirm the demise of sailplane racing and soaring for a variety of reasons. I also don't place much value in a survey using answers regarding sizes of breasts of younger women as a reason to withdraw from the sport. His research has confirmed that what our leadership has done has unfortunately been ineffective.

Are you suggesting that we keep things on the same path? Do you feel that the demise is simply "it is what is it"?

If you viewed this beloved sport in a way of your health, or a company you own, or anything that's valued, would you just keep doing the same thing and expect different results?

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 2:35:21 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
Regarding the data. There were 580 people on the SSA Pilot Ranking List in the year that I did the survey. I got 66 responses. Depending on how you want to look at it, the respondents were either about an 11 percent sample or a 6 percent sample (about half of the people had competed in a sanctioned contest and half hadn't). By anyone's measure, that's a statistically significant survey.

If you want to have a facts-based discussion on the issue, then go ahead and design and execute a better survey.

And maybe use your real name - it makes it so much more transparent.

Erik Mann (P3)




The 2011 pilot poll asked about participation and barriers to participation in topic 6. I recall that the responses very much agreed with those shown in the P3 poll.
Time and money mentioned a lot. Rules and tasks- not much.
I agree with P3- it is good to know who you are exchanging views with. An experienced competition pilot or somebody that rode in the sniffer once?
UH

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:20:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:

I agree with P3- it is good to know who you are exchanging views with. An experienced competition pilot or somebody that rode in the sniffer once?
UH

I think it's just Sean talkin' to himself.

T8

I would bet money that he is talking to Wilbur.......... but, that's my bet....... YMMV......

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Matt Heron,

If safety is your top priority, then MAT's should be your least favorite task. The MAT is the most dangerous task possible. When you have a large group of aircraft flying in random directions back and forth over an area, not under air traffic control directions, you are setting up pilots for having a high chance of a mid air collision. An organized route drastically limits the chances of flying head to head with everyone going on a task (think FAI triangle IE).

Ask any air traffic controller how scary it would be for him to have 50 planes changing course, altitude, speed in a completely unpredictable manner and ask him how confidant he would be in the safety.

Even fly-in's for powered aircraft at Oshkosh or Sun n Fun have arrival and departure routes to fly to limit the chance of a mid air and keep it organized.

Perhaps you've never lost a friend to a mid air collision and know the reality that this is.

Folks we have two sets of rules in every country for soaring. First set of rules is the laws of the land, second set is the FAI competition rules. When we host a world championship here in America, we don't use the cockamamie rules of the SSA, we use FAR's and FAI, in that order. Don't forget that.

If you had a mid air and survived by bailing out. Even a good aviation lawyer could not defend you if you were violating FAR 91.13 "Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.".....if you were participating in a MAT.

Even with AAT's and TAT's smart CD's will utilize a steering turnpoint.

MAT's are VERY careless and wreckless.

Hi Wilbur,

I appreciate your passion on the subject. I am always open to being persuaded by facts. Do you have any to back up your claim that MAT's are wreckless? Is there a statistically significant increase in the number of fatalities, mid-airs, or near misses during US sanctioned contests over the last five years VS any other type of task? The data should be available. Convince me. If you can't however, then you should be willing to change YOUR position.

My safety concerns re FAI rules concern low altitude finishes. Are these allowed? I seem to recall a great deal of effort has gone into the SSA rules to make contests safer by changing finish rules.

Matt

Sorry to nitpick....."wreckless" sorta means "no bent bits", while "reckless" is more of an attitude......

Sorta my issue with an "FAA near miss", so we bent multiple aircraft?
Bending towards George Carlin, "shouldn't it be called a 'near hit'"?

Enough said, history is almost everything.........

Hey Wilbur,

If you hope to persuade anyone, you first need to earn their respect. A good start would be signing your posts with your real name.

However, if Wilbur is just an alias that you are using to prop up your own arguments, as some have started to suspect, you should give it up.

In any case, hiding behind an alias only demonstrates that you have something to hide and that won't earn you any respect.

Branko Stojkovic
XYU

Just a clarification on MATs -

I don't disagree with the safety comments on MATs without any required turnpoints.

A MAT with required steering turnpoint as the last turnpoint helps safety to some extent.

A MAT with both a required first turnpoint and a last steering turnpoint helps even more.

A Long MAT should be almost on par with regards to safety as an AT or a TAT I would think.

Lou