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

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:14:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.



Constructively,



Evan Ludeman / T8



I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.



It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.



Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?



Sean Franke

If that's all you can find to nitpick, then I guess the rest of the message found it's mark?

The way I see it, *if* we ran American Sports next to FAI CC at Mifflin (which we won't), we'd more or less double the admin load. That's a solvable problem (maybe a second scorer / assistant CD, whatever). But the point is, our normal process is to try out the bright ideas at the regional level and develop a base of experience that can be shared when it's time to run a Nationals.

Personally, I'm real curious to see how shutting out the "killer bees" (that would be ASW-20Bs, Ventus Bs, LS-6Bs) and their kin is going to help participation. The best evidence available so far suggests that it could reduce participation by about 25% (I'm looking at R9 the last couple years). Again, the better environment to sort this out is at the regional level.

Good luck.

T8, out.

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:14:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.



Constructively,



Evan Ludeman / T8



I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.



It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.



Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?



Sean Franke

If that's all you can find to nitpick, then I guess the rest of the message found its mark?

The way I see it, *if* we ran American Sports next to FAI CC at Mifflin (which we won't), we'd more or less double the admin load. That's a solvable problem (maybe a second scorer / assistant CD, whatever). But the point is, our normal process is to try out the bright ideas at the regional level and develop a base of experience that can be shared when it's time to run a Nationals.

Personally, I'm curious to see how shutting out the "killer bees" (that would be ASW-20Bs, Ventus Bs, LS-6Bs) and their kin is going to help participation. The best evidence available so far suggests that it could reduce participation by about 25% (I'm looking at R9 the last couple years). Again, the better environment to sort this out is at the regional level.

Good luck.

T8, out.

I'm for a seperate club class nationals. I would love to compete in one.

Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:35:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
I'm for a seperate club class nationals. I would love to compete in one.



Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??

Scott, Sarah Arnold and Sean Franke are the two highest ranking US Club Class pilots and will be flying in Argentina. They qualified by flying gliders listed on the US CC list. No one was barred from the team.
Richard Walters
US Team Committee Chair

On Nov 27, 8:35*am, wrote:
I'm for a seperate club class nationals. *I would love to compete in one.

There will be a separate club class nationals, at Mifflin. See you
there.

The question is the definition of "club class" and the rules to be
followed.

Class: 1) the current IGC list for Argentina 2) the US team "club
class" list that has been in force for many years, which extends the
handicap range very slightly and allows many gliders not on the IGC
list 3) #2 plus all lower performing gliders, so the latter are not
shut out of US national competition.

If you're voting for #1, do you own such a glider, and are you on the
seeding list? Have you looked at the numbers of such gliders showing
up to previous sports class nationals to gauge if sufficient gliders
will show up?

If you're voting for #1 or #2, what is your plan for lower performance
gliders? (No, Sean, 1-26 + Nimbus 4 does not work with the middle cut
out. We need a realistic plan backed by numbers.)

Rules: Are you joining Sean in the idea that Mifflin should use IGC
rules (plus local procedures yet to be written), despite nobody in the
US having tried to run a national contest under said rules (except the
team that ran Uvalde, and I can guarantee they're not coming to CD
Mifflin), all but 1 or 2 pilots who have been to WGC never having
flown under said rules and no evidence that anyone has read them?

If the issue is club class in general, and the general plan for the
future, despite the wildly misleading tone of Sean's post, it's there
for the asking. We've been running club class regionals for several
years, to try to build interest in the class. Sean, where have you
been? (At regionals, the issue of lower performance being shut out is
a bit less pressing, as there is more competition from nearby
regionals.)

If anyone wants to run one under IGC rules, he's welcome. If IGC rules
work, and attract pilots at regionals, and everyone having tried it
thinks it's more fun, they move to nationals. That's the standard
procedure. Not, jump off a cliff and see if the parachute opens.

If the issue is club class in general, this year's plan for Mifflin
sports nationals is designed as a sensible next step, which preserves
the knowledge gained in regional competition and keeps the sports
class alive.

Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??

Not sure what you mean by this. The club class team for 2013 Argentina
won fair and square and have the highest ranking according to the US
team selection formula. If you mean, why are other pilots who you
think are better not going, (such as the actual winners of previous
sports class contests) it's simple: Because the US team and SSA paid a
lot of attention to similar requests from club class advocates and
restricted team selection to those who entered sports class in club
class gliders. (Yes, they do listen. Maybe too much, according to your
comment.)

John Cochrane

Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??

Not sure what you mean by this......
John Cochrane

I understand the rules which prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to
compete in WGC 2013 in Argentina. My question to all reading this
forum is why we're these rules created? What's the reason for this
rule to prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to compete in a club class
world championship? Just curious of the history behind how this came
about.

This

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:02:10 PM UTC-5, Scott Alexander wrote:
Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??



Not sure what you mean by this......

John Cochrane



I understand the rules which prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to

compete in WGC 2013 in Argentina. My question to all reading this

forum is why we're these rules created? What's the reason for this

rule to prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to compete in a club class

world championship? Just curious of the history behind how this came

about.

This restriction was dropped per the announcement on the SSA website Sept 2010 and ratified by the SSA BOD Jan 2011.
QT

Scott,

Please read Hank's earlier post. He explains why the CC selection was limited in the past. The experiment is over and now anyone can qualify. DJ has not moved up to a CC aircraft, so he can not qualify.

Richard Walters

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:02:10 PM UTC-8, Scott Alexander wrote:
Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??



Not sure what you mean by this......

John Cochrane



I understand the rules which prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to

compete in WGC 2013 in Argentina. My question to all reading this

forum is why we're these rules created? What's the reason for this

rule to prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to compete in a club class

world championship? Just curious of the history behind how this came

about.

RE IGC rules and scoring for CC

Some things to consider when contemplating using IGC rules for the new Club Class Nationals.

1. Start line procedure - speed control, safety.
2. Finish line- straight in rolling finishes? Good practice for WGC, but is this what we want to do? Does the airport support such finishes?
3. PRL ( pilot ranking list)- pilots flying in CC nats using IGC scores will find they score about 15% less than they did under US rules. This will impact PRL seeding, and possibly the ability to enter oversubscribed contests ( Perry and Seniors.) Small point, but something to be aware of.

Regards
Richard Walters
US Team Committee Chair

1. Start line procedure - speed control, safety.

2. Finish line- straight in rolling finishes? Good practice for WGC, but is this what we want to do? Does the airport support such finishes?


1. A start line AND start ring are both options under IGC rules. IF the CD CHOOSES a start line then I envision two start areas. Multiple start zones have already been done in the US. Sports Class will use a standard start cylinder. Club Class IGC MAY use a line start which would be nearby but not overlapping. Separating half the fleet may be safer as well. The CD can still limit start height in IGC.

2. A finish line AND finish ring are both options under IGC rules. I would expect if an IGC Club Class is coupled with a US based rules class then they would have the SAME finish ring and finish altitude. When/where applicable a European style finish could be used.

If anyone wants to run one under IGC rules, he's welcome. If IGC rules
work, and attract pilots at regionals, and everyone having tried it
thinks it's more fun, they move to nationals. That's the standard
procedure. Not, jump off a cliff and see if the parachute opens

The petition has 7 (and growing) current or former US Team Members who prefer IGC rules for the Club Class. These are pilots who have tried both sides. The fun, ease and simpleness of IGC WILL attract more pilots.

Let's be realistic. We can be confident if the parachute has been tried, works and tested internationally then it will work here as well.

Sean Franke