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

On Friday, December 14, 2012 3:07:25 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
50 people signing a petition counter your viewpoint is not reality? I think the problem with the current leadership is worse than I imagined.

Well wishers are great. But what makes a competition go are (qualified) pilots with sailplanes. Of 47 signatories, about half are qualified (you need to have been scored in a regional). Of the rest, who is actually even thinking about attending? We don't know: you have not asked. Your assessment of this petition's numbers is -- in my view -- wishful thinking.

I've run the numbers on past contests and referred to them here. That's "reality based" to me. It's a little marginal. The RC sees the same trends I do, sensibly has put in place a procedure that covers all likely scenarios. You guys stamp your feet, disparage the folks that question your (obviously) wishful thinking, claim that you "smell fear" (I loved that one) and wear out your caps lock keys in response. Oooooookaaaaaaay.

Many of us agree with you that the low performance end of sports class causes issues w.r.t. tasking and scoring. One possible solution here is to put your efforts into recruiting *more* low performance guys. Get a dozen of the below FAI CC performance guys to show up and we can run three classes, with the low performance guys in a class of their own. I think just about everyone would be happy with that. I'll bet we could even get some RC action on that one.

Btw... since you are such a fan... why didn't you take the opportunity to run a club class at Ionia? Seems odd. Ah well.

One more constructive suggestion: next time you get the idea to tell someone else how their contest should be run, consider speaking with them (i.e. the organizer / sponsor / CM) privately first and see if you can get them interested in your idea. Karl, btw, has asked the RC for variances on Nationals rules for Mifflin before. He didn't get approved in the case I am thinking of, but the point is that there are plenty of people in this sport who do think creatively about how to build participation and they... aren't... your... adversaries.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:04:02 PM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Friday, December 14, 2012 3:07:25 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:

50 people signing a petition counter your viewpoint is not reality? I think the problem with the current leadership is worse than I imagined.



Well wishers are great. But what makes a competition go are (qualified) pilots with sailplanes. Of 47 signatories, about half are qualified (you need to have been scored in a regional). Of the rest, who is actually even thinking about attending? We don't know: you have not asked. Your assessment of this petition's numbers is -- in my view -- wishful thinking.



I've run the numbers on past contests and referred to them here. That's "reality based" to me. It's a little marginal. The RC sees the same trends I do, sensibly has put in place a procedure that covers all likely scenarios. You guys stamp your feet, disparage the folks that question your (obviously) wishful thinking, claim that you "smell fear" (I loved that one) and wear out your caps lock keys in response. Oooooookaaaaaaay.



Many of us agree with you that the low performance end of sports class causes issues w.r.t. tasking and scoring. One possible solution here is to put your efforts into recruiting *more* low performance guys. Get a dozen of the below FAI CC performance guys to show up and we can run three classes, with the low performance guys in a class of their own. I think just about everyone would be happy with that. I'll bet we could even get some RC action on that one.



Btw... since you are such a fan... why didn't you take the opportunity to run a club class at Ionia? Seems odd. Ah well.



One more constructive suggestion: next time you get the idea to tell someone else how their contest should be run, consider speaking with them (i.e. the organizer / sponsor / CM) privately first and see if you can get them interested in your idea. Karl, btw, has asked the RC for variances on Nationals rules for Mifflin before. He didn't get approved in the case I am thinking of, but the point is that there are plenty of people in this sport who do think creatively about how to build participation and they... aren't.... your... adversaries.



Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan, the major frustration is an apparent hypocrisy coming from the RC.

Club Class pilots were told to "prove your concept in a Regional". We did several times. I think listening to the same broken record gets old after a while. If the RC said, OK your due diligence is noted let's take this to the Nationals, there would be no issues.

Instead the RC created their own version of "Club Class" which besides the name resembles nothing close to a genuine Club Class. Certainly nothing close to what many worked hard for at several super-regionals.

If concepts need to be proven first at a Super-Regional then show me which regional the RC tested their "Club Class" version?

Yes, we have a valid reason to "stamp feet". We are calling "foul". The only "disparaged folks" are those who have worked hard over the past few years to create a genuine Club Class.

Sean Franke (HA)

Sean (HA)

See my comments to your statements: Rick Walters (3R)

Kirk, great comments. Interesting thought about opening up handicap range at Regional contests to encourage participation.
Keep in mind for the first time ASW20 B and C's are excluded from current WGC. Maybe because the ASW20 is expected to be a formidable glider given soaring conditions in Argentina. Some say (others don't) that B and C's are better performing than ASW20 A. This is likely the reason for current exclusion because of WGC locaton.

I don't believe this is the first time ASW20B&C have been excluded from a CC WGC. There were no ASW20A,B,or C flown in the 2008 CC WGC or the 2010 CC WGC. I think this (Argentina) is the first time an ASW20A has ever been allowed. B&C models are higher performing due to their increased weight,and blown turbulators. They would handicap out at 1.09 so they could not be flown with winglets or overweight because that would put them over the max 1.09 handicap allowed by IGC.
3R



For US Club Class purposes ALL 15 meter ASW20's (A,B and C) should be included.

So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R



For some reason the RC is against an FAI CHOICE. We have a significant voice from those who ACTUALLY will fly Club Class saying WE WANT US FAI CLUB CLASS. Why won't the RC support us, the customer? So far only the RC and a few who have no intention of flying Club Class are opposed.

You say only a few who have no intention of flying the CC are opposed. I flew the 2008 Sports nats in a CC approved ASW24 and won. And yes, I am opposed to a strict adoption of the IGC CC rules. 3R



Sean Franke (HA)

I don't believe this is the first time ASW20B&C have been excluded from a CC WGC. There were no ASW20A,B,or C flown in the 2008 CC WGC or the 2010 CC WGC. I think this (Argentina) is the first time an ASW20A has ever been allowed. B&C models are higher performing due to their increased weight,and blown turbulators. They would handicap out at 1.09 so they could not be flown with winglets or overweight because that would put them over the max 1.09 handicap allowed by IGC.

I happened to be at the 2010 CC WGC. You're right, there were no ASW 20 flying. However, they were allowed. In the handicap list there was NO distinction between ASW 20 A,B or C. I have the list if you would like a copy. ASW 20 (15m) was 1.08. ASW 20 WL (15m) was 1.09.

So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R

I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."


You say only a few who have no intention of flying the CC are opposed. I flew the 2008 Sports nats in a CC approved ASW24 and won. And yes, I am opposed to a strict adoption of the IGC CC rules. 3R

What version of the IGC CC Rules would you not be opposed to adopting?

Sean Franke (HA)

Join the petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...out-exception/

Sean (HA)

I happened to be at the 2010 CC WGC. You're right, there were no ASW 20 flying. However, they were allowed. In the handicap list there was NO distinction between ASW 20 A,B or C. I have the list if you would like a copy. ASW 20 (15m) was 1.08. ASW 20 WL (15m) was 1.09.

I have a copy of the 2008, 2010, and 2012 IGC CC handicap lists. I researched this back to the first CC WGC in 2001. The first time an ASW20 was raced was at the 2011 EGC, where one participated. Argentina will see the first ASW20's in a WGC. A slightly heavy pilot in an ASW20 with winglets can not fly in your IGC CC national contest. Why would you want to leave this large fleet out?


So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R

I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."

Doesn't sound like strict IGC rules adoption to me, which is what several of you have been demanding. 3R

You say only a few who have no intention of flying the CC are opposed. I flew the 2008 Sports nats in a CC approved ASW24 and won. And yes, I am opposed to a strict adoption of the IGC CC rules. 3R

What version of the IGC CC Rules would you not be opposed to adopting?

What version are you suggesting? I have heard "adopt IGC rules", period! I am only aware of one version of IGC rules. Everyone knows my issues with the IGC rules since I have stated them several times on this forum: 1. Lead weight up to MTOW is ridiculous (several pilots will need 100 pounds of lead to get to MTOW, (Erik and Sarah to name two.) 2. Straight in landing finishes. 3. Allowed glider list is too small. Why limit participation? 3R



Sean Franke (HA)



Join the petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...out-exception/

On Sunday, 16 December 2012 09:57:51 UTC-6, wrote:
Sean (HA)



I happened to be at the 2010 CC WGC. You're right, there were no ASW 20 flying. However, they were allowed. In the handicap list there was NO distinction between ASW 20 A,B or C. I have the list if you would like a copy.. ASW 20 (15m) was 1.08. ASW 20 WL (15m) was 1.09.



I have a copy of the 2008, 2010, and 2012 IGC CC handicap lists. I researched this back to the first CC WGC in 2001. The first time an ASW20 was raced was at the 2011 EGC, where one participated. Argentina will see the first ASW20's in a WGC. A slightly heavy pilot in an ASW20 with winglets can not fly in your IGC CC national contest. Why would you want to leave this large fleet out?





So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R



I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."



Doesn't sound like strict IGC rules adoption to me, which is what several of you have been demanding. 3R



You say only a few who have no intention of flying the CC are opposed.. I flew the 2008 Sports nats in a CC approved ASW24 and won. And yes, I am opposed to a strict adoption of the IGC CC rules. 3R



What version of the IGC CC Rules would you not be opposed to adopting?



What version are you suggesting? I have heard "adopt IGC rules", period! I am only aware of one version of IGC rules. Everyone knows my issues with the IGC rules since I have stated them several times on this forum: 1. Lead weight up to MTOW is ridiculous (several pilots will need 100 pounds of lead to get to MTOW, (Erik and Sarah to name two.) 2. Straight in landing finishes. 3. Allowed glider list is too small. Why limit participation? 3R







Sean Franke (HA)
I have really enjoyed reading this post. Just a quick note on the participation of ASW 20s. The first time I encountered on was a the WGC 2008 in Rieti when a 20 was entered by a South African pilot. If I recall correctly at that time we had to do some work to determine the reference weight and it flew with a handicap of 1.09.






Join the petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...out-exception/

So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R

I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."


This is just hilarious. The petition says IGC rules. Period. Metric
units. IGC club class list. 0.5 kilometer turnpoints with no credit
for distance inside (makes it real fun when a gaggle approaches, all
trying to get exactly one fix in the circle), Start line, no starts
out the top, unlimited altitude or limited altitude with no time limit
-- VNE dives out of the clouds. Mandated AT/TAT percentage forcing
assigned tasks into thunderstorms (Uvalde). IGC speed/distance points
with major strategic implications. Team flying. Ground to pilot
communication allowed; better have a team captain to tell you what's
going on. IGC speed/distance formulas. Occasions when it's better to
land in the field next to the airport than finish. And so on.

Ok, at least there is some coherence and clarity to the proposal. But
now, you want to have the "spirit" of FAI rules. For a National
contest at Miffin. In May.

So who is gong to figure out the "spirit"? Just what rules are we
going to be flying under? You want someone to cut and paste together
two rule books, while consulting you for spiritual advice along the
way? Now there's a practical proposal

John Cochrane

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:45:26 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:


So you are proposing not following IGC rules? 3R



I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."





This is just hilarious. The petition says IGC rules. Period. Metric

units. IGC club class list. 0.5 kilometer turnpoints with no credit

for distance inside (makes it real fun when a gaggle approaches, all

trying to get exactly one fix in the circle), Start line, no starts

out the top, unlimited altitude or limited altitude with no time limit

-- VNE dives out of the clouds. Mandated AT/TAT percentage forcing

assigned tasks into thunderstorms (Uvalde). IGC speed/distance points

with major strategic implications. Team flying. Ground to pilot

communication allowed; better have a team captain to tell you what's

going on. IGC speed/distance formulas. Occasions when it's better to

land in the field next to the airport than finish. And so on.



Ok, at least there is some coherence and clarity to the proposal. But

now, you want to have the "spirit" of FAI rules. For a National

contest at Miffin. In May.



So who is gong to figure out the "spirit"? Just what rules are we

going to be flying under? You want someone to cut and paste together

two rule books, while consulting you for spiritual advice along the

way? Now there's a practical proposal



John Cochrane

There is nothing hilarious about the RC ignoring hard work from several Club Class super regionals and making a SGS 1-26 a "Club Class" glider.

What we expected was continuation of proven Club Class regional success to the National level. That didn't happen, not even close.

The petition states "The purpose of this petition is to demonstrate the number of US pilots who want formation of the new US Club Class to adopt FAI (IGC) rules, handicaps and tasking philosophy." Philosophy is the key word.

When you read comments from the petition, some desire exact adoption while other prefer a variation. All want an alternative to US Rules format.

No need to readdress the drama rhetoric regarding IGC rules. I've already posted a response.

Sean Franke (HA)

Join the petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...out-exception/

What we expected was continuation of proven Club Class regional success to the National level. *That didn't happen, not even close.


And this is exactly what you got. The club class regionals were run
under US rules, with US tasking guidelines, and US club class list.
Exactly this concept was moved to nationals.The one difference at
Mifflin will be (horrors) we will allow the 2 or so lower performance
gliders that typically show up to sports to play in club class. For
obvious reasons, which we've gone over endlessly.

Compare what you're asking: a different list of gliders, and a totally
different set of rules. This was not tried at the regional level, not
even close.

We are bringing the concept from regionals to nationals. It's you who
are asking for something totally different and untried.

At the risk of sounding a little ****y, may I suggest that you try
flying an entire national contest, once, under US rules, and then see
if it really is not providing you with enough challenge?

John Cochrane

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:31:13 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
What we expected was continuation of proven Club Class regional success to the National level. *That didn't happen, not even close.





And this is exactly what you got. The club class regionals were run

under US rules, with US tasking guidelines, and US club class list.

Exactly this concept was moved to nationals.The one difference at

Mifflin will be (horrors) we will allow the 2 or so lower performance

gliders that typically show up to sports to play in club class. For

obvious reasons, which we've gone over endlessly.



Compare what you're asking: a different list of gliders, and a totally

different set of rules. This was not tried at the regional level, not

even close.



We are bringing the concept from regionals to nationals. It's you who

are asking for something totally different and untried.



At the risk of sounding a little ****y, may I suggest that you try

flying an entire national contest, once, under US rules, and then see

if it really is not providing you with enough challenge?



John Cochrane

No, it's not exactly. Not even close.

There were two guiding IGC philosophies at previous Club Class super regionals.

1. Narrow handicap range. Yes, it was based on established US Club Class gliders. BTW, this range is close to IGC. The RC is adding Discus 2, LS8 and SGS 1-26, 2-22.... Explain how this is exact? There will be no limit to the number of lower performance gliders. Traditional Club Class tasking can't be accomplished.

2. Tasking based on AT and AAT only. NO MAT. Club Class super regionals were run to mirror IGC tasking philosophy. Is the RC going to allow MAT in their version of "Club Class"? YES. How is that exact?

So again, we expected continuation of proven Club Class regional success (and guiding philosophies) to the National level. Super regionals accomplished a shift towards IGC format.

Sean Franke (HA)