US Rules Committee to ban XC Soar in US soaring competitioneffective immediately? - Ahh the "genius!"

No fatalities in OLC.

ZAP

Which proves only that dead people don't send in traces.

John Cochrane

T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.

I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?

While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.

I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.

The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.

For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...e%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?

The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?

I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?

It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.

In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!

We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2


On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:

I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it."..

I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.

RAS

OLC isn't racing.

T8

The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.

Brad

Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
equivalent to tigers.

Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
scratching mine.

T8

T8 has run off to create a new thread he aptly labels "On Racing." Probably another subtle effort to discount OLC as not "real racing" or competition per my last post. Talk about running and hiding.

I continue to strongly disagree with this "vision" of OLC not being real competition. I think free distance is outstanding personally! I think of OLC as a great asset to soaring in the United States. OLC's simplicity and popularity can teach the contest community a great deal about what is really important in glider competition, PARTICIPATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dont believe that T8 intentionally insulted the OLC. But I think he should respond in more detail as to why OLC, in his opinion, is not scratching him effectively.

These attitudes are extremely important in terms of participation and interest/focus in attracting new pilots vs. appeasing the "old guard" in my opinion. This is our leadership...and they are controlling (with an iron fist in some ways) the rules and terms by which we all might compete in contests..

Sean
F2

On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.

I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?

While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.

I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.

The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.

For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...e%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?

The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?

I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?

It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.

In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!

We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2


On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:

I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".

I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.

RAS

OLC isn't racing.

T8

The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.

Brad

Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
equivalent to tigers.

Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
scratching mine.

T8



On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.

I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?

While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.

I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.

The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.

For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...e%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?

The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?

I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?

It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.

In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!

We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2


On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:

I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".

I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.

RAS

OLC isn't racing.

T8

The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.

Brad

Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
equivalent to tigers.

Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
scratching mine.

T8



On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.

I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?

While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.

I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.

The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.

For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...e%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?

The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?

I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?

It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.

In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!

We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2


On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:

I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".

I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.

RAS

OLC isn't racing.

T8

The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.

Brad

Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
equivalent to tigers.

Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
scratching mine.

T8

s

On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.

I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?

While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.

I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.

The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.

For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...e%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?

The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?

I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?

It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.

In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!

We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2


On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:

I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".

I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.

RAS

OLC isn't racing.

T8

The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.

Brad

Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
equivalent to tigers.

Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
scratching mine.

T8



On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.

I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?

While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.

I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.

The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.

For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...e%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?

The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?

I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?

It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.

In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!

We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2


On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:

I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".

I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.

RAS

OLC isn't racing.

T8

The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.

Brad

Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
equivalent to tigers.

Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
scratching mine.

T8



On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.

I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?

While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.

I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.

The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.

For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...e%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?

The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?

I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?

It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.

In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!

We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2


On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:

I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".

I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.

RAS

OLC isn't racing.

T8

The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.

Brad

Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
equivalent to tigers.

Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
scratching mine.

T8



On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.

I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?

While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.

I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.

The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.

For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...e%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?

The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?

I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?

It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.

In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!

We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2


On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:

I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".

I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.

RAS

OLC isn't racing.

T8

The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.

Brad

Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
equivalent to tigers.

Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
scratching mine.

T8

On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:28:19 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
T8 has run off to create a new thread he aptly labels "On Racing." Probably another subtle effort to discount OLC as not "real racing" or competition per my last post. Talk about running and hiding.

I continue to strongly disagree with this "vision" of OLC not being real competition. I think free distance is outstanding personally! I think of OLC as a great asset to soaring in the United States. OLC's simplicity and popularity can teach the contest community a great deal about what is really important in glider competition, PARTICIPATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sean,

OLC isn't "racing". Nor is badge and record flying. They are all different flavors of the same activity, but they each have their unique aspects. IMO, none of them is "better" than the other, but they do emphasize different skills. There are a few pilots out there who pursue all three aspects of our sport with great success. There are others who do well in one or two but not all three. So be it.

As a dedicated racing pilot who also actively pursues records and participates in the OLC, I fervently hope that the OLC can help feed the ranks of competition pilots. However, I am under no delusion that the numbers will ever be even close to equal. The OLC, as a decentralized, DIY contest makes it very easy to participate - no long drives, no vacation, no need to learn rules or practice the unique elements (start strategy, TAT vs. MAT vs. AAT, etc.). The best we can hope for is that a few OLC pilots become interested enough in serious XC to investigate record flying and racing.

Sincerely,
Erik Mann (P3)

Maybe we can get groups of our local pilots/clubs to fly contest tasks and
post on OLC. All it takes is for someone to declare the task for the day
and the pilots to decide to take the challenge. This might even spark a few
pilots to try a contest...

My observation at Moriarty during the summer is that most of the private
owners will show up at the launch point around the same time and could
easily fly an "assigned task". Practically speaking, however, most would
just prefer to go out and have a good time and go to a sanctioned contest
once or twice a year.


"Papa3" wrote in message
news:25083709.1909.1330471920481.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlt17...
On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:28:19 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
T8 has run off to create a new thread he aptly labels "On Racing."
Probably another subtle effort to discount OLC as not "real racing" or
competition per my last post. Talk about running and hiding.

I continue to strongly disagree with this "vision" of OLC not being real
competition. I think free distance is outstanding personally! I think of
OLC as a great asset to soaring in the United States. OLC's simplicity
and popularity can teach the contest community a great deal about what is
really important in glider competition, PARTICIPATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sean,

OLC isn't "racing". Nor is badge and record flying. They are all
different flavors of the same activity, but they each have their unique
aspects. IMO, none of them is "better" than the other, but they do
emphasize different skills. There are a few pilots out there who pursue
all three aspects of our sport with great success. There are others who do
well in one or two but not all three. So be it.

As a dedicated racing pilot who also actively pursues records and
participates in the OLC, I fervently hope that the OLC can help feed the
ranks of competition pilots. However, I am under no delusion that the
numbers will ever be even close to equal. The OLC, as a decentralized, DIY
contest makes it very easy to participate - no long drives, no vacation, no
need to learn rules or practice the unique elements (start strategy, TAT vs.
MAT vs. AAT, etc.). The best we can hope for is that a few OLC pilots
become interested enough in serious XC to investigate record flying and
racing.

Sincerely,
Erik Mann (P3)

On Friday, February 24, 2012 11:37:56 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
wrote:
This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
of the XCSoar group.

No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. To remind you of how it
really was, here's what you replied to:

"As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
won't put much work into it."

Can you?

Max

As a constructive thought for all of the software developers out there, working on either a commercial or an open-source model:

This isn't the first nor is it the last time that local rules/procedures are going to come up. You already have significant differences in areas such as task formats, scoring optimization, airspace configuration, and many, many others. If I were in your shoes, I would certainly consider a localization scheme that allows you to manage various UI and feature sets based on chosen location. From there, it's not hard to see a way forward in terms of compliance AND perhaps to further improve the usability of the software at the same time.

I would suggest that the various rule-making bodies at various NACs certainly have the right and even the responsibilty to set standards, so digging in one's heals will probably just result in frustration on all sides...

Respectfully,
P3

Th



On Friday, February 24, 2012 11:37:56 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
wrote:
This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
of the XCSoar group.

No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. To remind you of how it
really was, here's what you replied to:

"As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
won't put much work into it."

Can you?

Max



On Friday, February 24, 2012 11:37:56 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
wrote:
This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
of the XCSoar group.

No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. To remind you of how it
really was, here's what you replied to:

"As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
won't put much work into it."

Can you?

Max

Reading all the posts about competitions, competition rules and the OLC is
a rather depressing demonstration about how to make a minority
sport/recreation even more so.

Racing is all about egos - as has been amply demonstrated. An artificial
set of contraints is imposed around each day's flying with the objective of
trying to compare pilots performances using a limited skills set. (E.g.
task setting and weather forecasting skills are not required. Gaggle
flying eliminates the need for thermal finding skills.)

The debate was initiated by proposals for additional constraints on
equipment to ensure a pilot with superior skills (cloud flying) does not
use them. Instead of all the over-complex technology arguments it would be
much simpler for the competition director to state a maximum flying
altitude for the day based on forecast cloud-base altitudes. This could be
say 500' below the lowest expected cloud-base on task. The obvious
objection that this would prevent pilots from fully exploiting conditions
is no more valid that banning cloud flying in the first place - it is
simply one more constraint to add to the many that competition pilots
expect.

This isn't the first nor is it the last time that local rules/procedures are going to come up. *You already have significant differences in areas such as task formats, scoring optimization, airspace configuration, and many, many others. * If I were in your shoes, *I would certainly consider a localization scheme that allows you to manage various UI and feature sets based on chosen location. * From there, it's not hard to see a way forward in terms of compliance AND perhaps to further improve the usability of the software at the same time.

Unfortunatly that is not a solution. We could build localization into
our application (like XCSoar did for things like units and UI
language) but the US RC clearly demands that the feature is not
available in the application even if you reconfigure it to a country
where the AH would be allowed. The only solution is publishing
localized applications for all different countries and organisations
and I invite everybody to come and do it. The key problem however is
still not addressed because it is so damn easy on modern devices to
install/run/uninstall the differents apps. This problem can't be
addressed by us software developers and the only solution to comply
with the rule is banning all smartphones. Since that is certainly the
wrong thing to do I would suggest to remove the stupid no-cloud-flying-
instruments rule and just use the no-cloud-flying rule. If you are
caught cheating by flying in a cloud you will get punished. Simple and
easy. Yes, that rule can't be properly enforced but the current rule
is by now also unenforceable.

Diito!
Finally, some sound common sense on this topic.

On 3/1/2012 7:27 AM, Tobias Bieniek wrote:
Since that is certainly the
wrong thing to do I would suggest to remove the stupid no-cloud-flying-
instruments rule and just use the no-cloud-flying rule. If you are
caught cheating by flying in a cloud you will get punished. Simple and
easy. Yes, that rule can't be properly enforced but the current rule
is by now also unenforceable.

*Instead of all the over-complex technology arguments it would be
much simpler for the competition director to state a maximum flying
altitude for the day based on forecast cloud-base altitudes. *This could be
say 500' below the lowest expected cloud-base on task. *The obvious
objection that this would prevent pilots from fully exploiting conditions
is no more valid that banning cloud flying in the first place - it is
simply one more constraint to add to the many that competition pilots
expect.

As the guy who forecasts weather, including cloud-base height, at
quite a few contests in the US west, I am afraid the idea of a "
declared contest cloud-base" (akin to contest sunset) is not really
workable. We experience wide variability of cloud base, depending on
may factors, including time-of-day and location. I have flown under
clouds on one side of a mountain and over them on the other! I am
also unwilling to restrict altitude for pilots flying in mountainous
terrain, where an extra 500 feet can make the difference between
clearing a ridge and whacking into it.

I do fly at least part of most contest tasks as an observer and to
validate my forecasts. It is in this role that I have observed what
you might call "unsportsmanlike" flying. So far, I haven't reported
any infractions to the CD, but a few observations have found their way
into my morning weather briefings.

Maybe it's time to have a few referees flying with the competitors?

Mike