USA and FAI rules

This discussion should be more about tasking than rules.

My $0.02: more ATs, please, especially in good wx. No 30 mile radius AATs unless it's some kind of ridge or wave day and the course line is bloody obvious to all. No "rat maze" long MATs with 11 legs all less than 30 miles, zizagging across the home airport. Creatively called long MAT with longer legs, covering more terrain is okay.

And: bring back the low finish at the airport in venues where it makes sense.

We can do all that under US rules or FAI rules, it makes no difference to me.


T8

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:00:17 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
This discussion should be more about tasking than rules.



My $0.02: more ATs, please, especially in good wx. No 30 mile radius AATs unless it's some kind of ridge or wave day and the course line is bloody obvious to all. No "rat maze" long MATs with 11 legs all less than 30 miles, zizagging across the home airport. Creatively called long MAT with longer legs, covering more terrain is okay.



And: bring back the low finish at the airport in venues where it makes sense.



We can do all that under US rules or FAI rules, it makes no difference to me.





T8

Forgot most important point of all: "Use all the weather". We leave way too much weather on the table when it's good. This is the one redeeming aspect of the MAT. If the CD has cold feet and calls 2.5 hours when 3.5 is easy and 4 is possible, I at least have the option of leaving best scoring aside and using up the day.

T8

On Jan 17, 7:06*am, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:00:17 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
This discussion should be more about tasking than rules.

My $0.02: more ATs, please, especially in good wx. *No 30 mile radius AATs unless it's some kind of ridge or wave day and the course line is bloody obvious to all. *No "rat maze" long MATs with 11 legs all less than 30 miles, zizagging across the home airport. *Creatively called long MAT with longer legs, covering more terrain is okay.

And: bring back the low finish at the airport in venues where it makes sense.

We can do all that under US rules or FAI rules, it makes no difference to me.

T8

Forgot most important point of all: "Use all the weather". *We leave way too much weather on the table when it's good. *This is the one redeeming aspect of the MAT. *If the CD has cold feet and calls 2.5 hours when 3.5 is easy and 4 is possible, I at least have the option of leaving best scoring aside and using up the day.

T8

I agree with all this -- but these are CD issues not rules issues.
TALK TO YOUR CD! The rules are very flexible, and set up so contests
can serve the wishes of the pilots who are there. We just need to
communicate better. Want short tasks and long beer? Fine. Want long
use the day tasks? Want assigned tasks with 25% landouts? Tell the
CD!

John Cochrane

I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.
Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.
R

Yeah, I'm really surprised that this winter's flame war has been over
the idea of using IGC rules, like next spring, at nationals. I thought
for sure that flarm radar (require stealth mode?), the team-flying and
pilot to pilot communication experiment, and the structure of future
national competition (more handicaps? merge classes?) would be the
huge issues we'd be discussing over the winter. Surely, these are the
issues that have bedeviled the rules committee the most -- we really
don't have clean simple answers here. And, in practice, they still
look to me like the issues with the likely most profound impact on US
contest soaring this and in the next few years.

A minor point. As I think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever for
the US to have two sets of rules as fundamentally different as IGC and
US going on at the same time. If one contest uses a line, no altitude
limit, kilometers, and no penalty buffer zones, while the next contest
uses a cylinder, altitude limit, miles, and buffer zones, there will
be no end of confusion. Scorers and CDs can barely keep up with one
set of rules. It also makes no sense to create a completely new set of
hybrid rules halfway between US and IGC, losing the many years of
experience behind every single paragraph in the US rules and opening
us up to who knows how many bugs.

So, the question really is, should the US go wholehog to IGC annex A
for its rules, in all classes. The RC is starting to be attracted to
the idea, because then we could all quit and go home, and if you don't
like a rule, call Switzerland.

Look for it to be polled in the fall.

John Cochrane

Hi John,

Let me reverse the idea he is it possible to propose to the IGC to adopt the US SSA rules? In that case we could fly worldwide under the same rules and all the issues would go away. Jacek, Pasco, WA

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:17:35 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.

Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.

R



Yeah, I'm really surprised that this winter's flame war has been over

the idea of using IGC rules, like next spring, at nationals. I thought

for sure that flarm radar (require stealth mode?), the team-flying and

pilot to pilot communication experiment, and the structure of future

national competition (more handicaps? merge classes?) would be the

huge issues we'd be discussing over the winter. Surely, these are the

issues that have bedeviled the rules committee the most -- we really

don't have clean simple answers here. And, in practice, they still

look to me like the issues with the likely most profound impact on US

contest soaring this and in the next few years.



A minor point. As I think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever for

the US to have two sets of rules as fundamentally different as IGC and

US going on at the same time. If one contest uses a line, no altitude

limit, kilometers, and no penalty buffer zones, while the next contest

uses a cylinder, altitude limit, miles, and buffer zones, there will

be no end of confusion. Scorers and CDs can barely keep up with one

set of rules. It also makes no sense to create a completely new set of

hybrid rules halfway between US and IGC, losing the many years of

experience behind every single paragraph in the US rules and opening

us up to who knows how many bugs.



So, the question really is, should the US go wholehog to IGC annex A

for its rules, in all classes. The RC is starting to be attracted to

the idea, because then we could all quit and go home, and if you don't

like a rule, call Switzerland.



Look for it to be polled in the fall.



John Cochrane

I honestly don't get it, either. There are things about the US rules I really like: the airport bonus comes to mind immediately. There are things I really dislike: the way we treat motorgliders (I stay quiet only because there are so few MGs in 15m. It's just not the same game.).

The reason I can't get too worked up about flying FAI vs US is that I am more concerned with soaring well than scoring well. I find that when I soar well, the score takes care of itself. I am pretty sure I would find that this was also the case under FAI rules.

T8

On Jan 17, 10:49*am, ASM wrote:
Hi John,

Let me reverse the idea he is it possible to propose to the IGC to adopt the US SSA rules? In that case we could fly worldwide under the same rules and all the issues would go away. Jacek, Pasco, WA

We can propose all we want, and many have. So far, no luck. Ken
Sorenson and John Good were unable to get the IGC to accept our start
procedure at Uvalde, resulting in a few starts where some competitors
got up in thermal wave and others didn't.

John Cochrane

I agree as well, tasking (ATs whenever humanly possible) is a critical issue and concern. Team flying has already been addressed (wonderful!). Many of the common sense US safety rules are (more than) fine with me personally although I cannot speak for everyone.

I see no relative difference in a 500 ft finish and ground finish other than higher risk. I personally like the safety factor as it has very little downside. If, however, the finish height was zero I would be ok. The rules are not the safety issue the pilots are.

1) If US rules had guidelines for more ATs I believe contest customer sat. goes up!

And 2) If there was one US Club Class Nationals run with IGC rules (even slightly "moderated" IGC) the USA would be a better place!

Sean
F2

At the Uvalde worlds 2012 there were 6 racing tasks and 7 Area tasks.

ASW27BV

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:51:33 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:49*am, ASM wrote:

Hi John,



Let me reverse the idea he is it possible to propose to the IGC to adopt the US SSA rules? In that case we could fly worldwide under the same rules and all the issues would go away. Jacek, Pasco, WA



We can propose all we want, and many have. So far, no luck. Ken

Sorenson and John Good were unable to get the IGC to accept our start

procedure at Uvalde, resulting in a few starts where some competitors

got up in thermal wave and others didn't.



John Cochrane

I heard that there was a massive protest over start altitude limits during the practice (re, "training") period in Uvalde and the result was this nutty unlimited start. But I can't recall that I ever heard *why* there was an objection to an altitude limit.

T8