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

On Dec 1, 7:47*pm, "Sean F (F2)" wrote:
The distortion, ignorance of facts and double standards are nearing exceptional levels.

I am concerned that the US rules committee functions more like a "think tank" than a committee of ALL fellow soaring pilots.

1) It is an indisputable fact that the FAI Club Class is highly successful around the world IN EVERY SOARING COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE USA. *Safety, participation and enjoyments are all very high at Club events. *The USA has for many years chosen to disregard the world standards and run on its own with the entirely unique US Sports Class along with completely different rules for all other classes.

2) The ENTIRELY new class being recommended by the US Rules Committee for 2013 Nationals has virtually no similarity to the REST OF THE WORLD in any way other than stealing the Club Class name. *This is a fact. *Different rules, different handicap ranges, different tasking philosophy. *It would be FAR LESS RISKY to simply adopt the same class guidelines (FAI Club) as are currently used WORLDWIDE! *The US Rules committee has chosen, once again, to do something completely different than the rest of the world.

3) The Rules Committee has been asked for years to approve a US Club Class by US owners of FAI Club Class Gliders. *They asked for a US Class which follows the basic guidelines of FAI Club Class. *Many of these pilots who have been asking for the SSA to sanction a US Club Class are now very upset, as this is NOT what they asked for. *Not even close. *The rules committee seems to thumb its nose at these 30 (and growing) pilots. *Many more will not sign a public petition or simply will continue NOT TO FLY US CONTESTS. *Many of these pilots are or have been on the US World Team and seem to have some knowledge on the subject.

4) It seems as if this new class has more to do more with streamlining the new upper level of sports class (Discus 2 and up) by removing the bottom quarter of the handicap range (233, etc) than anything else, frankly. *This might be the part where I should say "am I getting warmer?"

5) I cannot stress this one enough: *You say WE are requesting "SOMETHING ENTIRELY NEW" for 2013 Nationals by arguing for much more adherence to the established FAI Club Rules. *You say this means taking financial risk, etc? *You tell us to ask for a waiver and do it at a regionals first. *You tell me to PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS??? *Ill get back to that later.

In fact, it is the US RULES COMMITTEE which has (somehow) come up with the idea to propose something entirely new (and completely out of alignment with the rest of the World in terms of Club Class) for US National Championship for 2013 with a class that has never been attempted anywhere in the WORLD, EVER!

6) *Running a US Club Class (FAI based) at SC Nationals next spring would be no more a challenge than introducing the entirely new class which you are proposing. *It would be simple. *No MATS. *50% AT, 50 AAT. *Established Club Class handicap Range. *Some slight modifications are fine, but that should be the basic model. *That would be the FAR LESS RISKY OPTION. *What planet are you from? *It is MUCH MORE RISKY to try something entirely new and completely foreign from the REST OF THE WORLD...

Sean

F2

If I remember correctly pilots called for Club Class in 2007 and in
2008. The rules committee told the pilots to organize a regional
contest and if all goes well and there is solid participation the
project will be taken to the next level. Well in 2009 the first Club
Class contest took place in Cordele. There were 17 pilots flying Club
Class tasks (including assigned tasks). Since the contest run along
side of the 15 m Nationals and some members of the rules committee
were on site there was a discussion about the future of Club Class.
Despite good pilot participation and calls for Club Class Nationals
the Rules Committee found many arguments against it effectively
killing the enthusiasm. In the past there were polls on this subject
in favor of creation of the Club Class but somehow arguments against
the class always won. Some pilots sold their club class gliders and
moved on since they had no hope of ever getting there.

So when I hear another call to create a regional Club Class contest I
say I heard that before, but no thx.

Overall the rules committee is doing a good job but in regards to Club
Class issue I think the RC failed to lead. How many years will this
issue be debated? As Sam Giltner said if you want a class you need
stability. Pilots need to know what gliders to buy. No one can plan
anything if the list of gliders constantly is being changed. It is not
true that the IGC list changes often.

Anyway since I am no longer having a Club Class glider I don't have a
personal interest in this topic (at least for now) but it pains me to
see how this problem is being approached. Please, look around at most
contests there are no young faces any longer. The young faces are
flying Club Class gliders and they are staying home. Another 10 years
and the competition scene will be dead. The economy is terrible there
is no upward mobility, gas is expensive, very few pilots will be able
to afford new gliders. It is time for new ideas. The contest
participation is collapsing at every contest you see mostly the same
group of pilots.

On Dec 1, 7:36*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:47*pm, "Sean F (F2)" wrote:

F2

If I remember correctly pilots called for Club Class in 2007 and in
2008. The rules committee told the pilots to organize a regional
contest and if all goes well and there is solid participation the
project will be taken to the next level. Well in 2009 the first Club
Class contest took place in Cordele. There were 17 pilots flying Club
Class tasks (including assigned tasks). Since the contest run along
side of the 15 m Nationals and some members of the rules committee
were on site there was a discussion about the future of Club Class.
Despite good pilot participation and calls for Club Class Nationals
the Rules Committee found many arguments against it effectively
killing the enthusiasm. In the past there were polls on this subject
in favor of creation of the Club Class but somehow arguments against
the class always won. Some pilots sold their club class gliders and
moved on since they had no hope of ever getting there.

So when I hear another call to create a regional Club Class contest I
say I heard that before, but no thx.

Overall the rules committee is doing a good job but in regards to Club
Class issue I think the RC failed to lead. How many years will this
issue be debated? As Sam Giltner said if you want a class you need
stability. Pilots need to know what gliders to buy. No one can plan
anything if the list of gliders constantly is being changed. It is not
true that the IGC list changes often.

Anyway since I am no longer having a Club Class glider I don't have a
personal interest in this topic (at least for now) but it pains me to
see how this problem is being approached. Please, look around at most
contests there are no young faces any longer. The young faces are
flying Club Class gliders and they are staying home. Another 10 years
and the competition scene will be dead. The economy is terrible there
is no upward mobility, gas is expensive, very few pilots will be able
to afford new gliders. It is time for new ideas. The contest
participation is collapsing at every contest you see mostly the same
group of pilots.

The creation of a club class at sports class nationals in 2013 is
exactly the culmination of the process you mention. Yes, we listened.
We said create club regionals. You did. It was a success. A modest
success -- we didn't see 30 coming out -- but it did prove the
concept has legs.

Club class regionals are now a permanent, non-waiver class that
organizers can choose anytime they want to, and pilots can ask
organizers to do. We kept our end of the deal. Why have they not
happened? They're in the rules, we did all we could. Now it's up to
you guys to keep going past the first burst of enthusiasm. We write
the rules, we don't run contests and we don't call pilots and persuade
them to show up.

In any case, now we have created a club nationals too, just as we said
we would. Given the dwindling enthusiasm shown for club regionals, the
still low participation of club gliders at sports nationals, and the
vexing problem of what to do with gliders like the sparrowhawk, which
do not fit IGC club class, we included the lower performance gliders.

One step at a time. We MUST ensure that the new class succeeds. If we
create a class at nationals and 7 pilots show up and everybody gets
sent home, that is the END of the class. If 17 pilots show up in the
first burst of enthusiasm and then 7 show up the next year, this is
the END of the class. We MUST make decisions based on data, not on
theories (if you use IGC rules 50 pilots will come out of the woodwork
and fly -- even though they're not on the seeding list) We will not
repeat the world class fiasco. Are you listening? We're on your side
here. This is our best attempt to create what you want, in a way that
will be durable and successful.

The use of SSA rules, and the US team upper limit for club class
(ventus 1) has been in these US club class experiments all along.

So, you guys got 95% of what you had been asking for: A separate class
at nationals, following on the same model that was tried and
demonstrated at regionals. All you had to do was suffer the indignity
of letting a sparrowhawk or 1-34 tag along (there are usually 1-2
such gliders at sports nationals).

We figured we'd be getting bouquets of flowers and boxes of
chocolates. But no: Suddenly you demand that we use IGC rules and a
different glider list, and send the sparrowhawhk home. Leaving aside
the start, finish, scoring formulas, metric units, tiny turn radii,
these rules impose completely different procedures. Quick, what are
the IGC weight limits? Rules on modifications? Rules on use of fixed
and disposable ballast? How many of your pilots know how to fly these
rules? Doing this at a nationals without trying it at regionals would
be insane.

So, yes. If you want to completely change the concept of the class --
which IGC rules really is! -- that needs to be worked out at a
regionals, not at a nationals, that is already sanctioned. The
sanctioning process includes a check of things pilots expect like, is
there a scorer and a CD who knows the rules they race is going to fly
under! Sean has a theory that it's a 5 minute job with see you to use
a different set of rules. He needs to talk to John Good and Ken
Sorenson and find out about the months -- months -- it took to get
rules and procedures worked out for Uvalde.

I'm sorry for the irritated tone. But when we give you 95% of what you
wanted, in the form that we had all been working on steadily for 5
years, and then suddenly the demands change radically at the last
moment, ignoring all the previous work, ignoring all the
practicalities of what it takes to run a contest, well, you can
imagine it's a little irritating.

John Cochrane










I'm interested by the number of posters such as yourself who have
(like me) sold their club gliders and moved up. Mayb

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:32:03 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:36*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

On Dec 1, 7:47*pm, "Sean F (F2)" wrote:



F2



If I remember correctly pilots called for Club Class in 2007 and in

2008. The rules committee told the pilots to organize a regional

contest and if all goes well and there is solid participation the

project will be taken to the next level. Well in 2009 the first Club

Class contest took place in Cordele. There were 17 pilots flying Club

Class tasks (including assigned tasks). Since the contest run along

side of the 15 m Nationals and some members of the rules committee

were on site there was a discussion about the future of Club Class.

Despite good pilot participation and calls for Club Class Nationals

the Rules Committee found many arguments against it effectively

killing the enthusiasm. In the past there were polls on this subject

in favor of creation of the Club Class but somehow arguments against

the class always won. Some pilots sold their club class gliders and

moved on since they had no hope of ever getting there.



So when I hear another call to create a regional Club Class contest I

say I heard that before, but no thx.



Overall the rules committee is doing a good job but in regards to Club

Class issue I think the RC failed to lead. How many years will this

issue be debated? As Sam Giltner said if you want a class you need

stability. Pilots need to know what gliders to buy. No one can plan

anything if the list of gliders constantly is being changed. It is not

true that the IGC list changes often.



Anyway since I am no longer having a Club Class glider I don't have a

personal interest in this topic (at least for now) but it pains me to

see how this problem is being approached. Please, look around at most

contests there are no young faces any longer. The young faces are

flying Club Class gliders and they are staying home. Another 10 years

and the competition scene will be dead. The economy is terrible there

is no upward mobility, gas is expensive, very few pilots will be able

to afford new gliders. It is time for new ideas. The contest

participation is collapsing at every contest you see mostly the same

group of pilots.



The creation of a club class at sports class nationals in 2013 is

exactly the culmination of the process you mention. Yes, we listened.

We said create club regionals. You did. It was a success. A modest

success -- we didn't see 30 coming out -- but it did prove the

concept has legs.



Club class regionals are now a permanent, non-waiver class that

organizers can choose anytime they want to, and pilots can ask

organizers to do. We kept our end of the deal. Why have they not

happened? They're in the rules, we did all we could. Now it's up to

you guys to keep going past the first burst of enthusiasm. We write

the rules, we don't run contests and we don't call pilots and persuade

them to show up.



In any case, now we have created a club nationals too, just as we said

we would. Given the dwindling enthusiasm shown for club regionals, the

still low participation of club gliders at sports nationals, and the

vexing problem of what to do with gliders like the sparrowhawk, which

do not fit IGC club class, we included the lower performance gliders.



One step at a time. We MUST ensure that the new class succeeds. If we

create a class at nationals and 7 pilots show up and everybody gets

sent home, that is the END of the class. If 17 pilots show up in the

first burst of enthusiasm and then 7 show up the next year, this is

the END of the class. We MUST make decisions based on data, not on

theories (if you use IGC rules 50 pilots will come out of the woodwork

and fly -- even though they're not on the seeding list) We will not

repeat the world class fiasco. Are you listening? We're on your side

here. This is our best attempt to create what you want, in a way that

will be durable and successful.



The use of SSA rules, and the US team upper limit for club class

(ventus 1) has been in these US club class experiments all along.



So, you guys got 95% of what you had been asking for: A separate class

at nationals, following on the same model that was tried and

demonstrated at regionals. All you had to do was suffer the indignity

of letting a sparrowhawk or 1-34 tag along (there are usually 1-2

such gliders at sports nationals).



We figured we'd be getting bouquets of flowers and boxes of

chocolates. But no: Suddenly you demand that we use IGC rules and a

different glider list, and send the sparrowhawhk home. Leaving aside

the start, finish, scoring formulas, metric units, tiny turn radii,

these rules impose completely different procedures. Quick, what are

the IGC weight limits? Rules on modifications? Rules on use of fixed

and disposable ballast? How many of your pilots know how to fly these

rules? Doing this at a nationals without trying it at regionals would

be insane.



So, yes. If you want to completely change the concept of the class --

which IGC rules really is! -- that needs to be worked out at a

regionals, not at a nationals, that is already sanctioned. The

sanctioning process includes a check of things pilots expect like, is

there a scorer and a CD who knows the rules they race is going to fly

under! Sean has a theory that it's a 5 minute job with see you to use

a different set of rules. He needs to talk to John Good and Ken

Sorenson and find out about the months -- months -- it took to get

rules and procedures worked out for Uvalde.



I'm sorry for the irritated tone. But when we give you 95% of what you

wanted, in the form that we had all been working on steadily for 5

years, and then suddenly the demands change radically at the last

moment, ignoring all the previous work, ignoring all the

practicalities of what it takes to run a contest, well, you can

imagine it's a little irritating.



John Cochrane





















ditto

We figured we'd be getting bouquets of flowers and boxes of
chocolates. Leaving aside the start, finish, scoring formulas, metric units, tiny turn radii, these rules impose completely different procedures. Quick, what are the IGC weight limits? Rules on modifications? Rules on use of fixed
and disposable ballast? How many of your pilots know how to fly these
rules? Doing this at a nationals without trying it at regionals would
be insane.

So, yes. If you want to completely change the concept of the class --
which IGC rules really is! -- that needs to be worked out at a
regionals, not at a nationals, that is already sanctioned. The
sanctioning process includes a check of things pilots expect like, is
there a scorer and a CD who knows the rules they race is going to fly
under! Sean has a theory that it's a 5 minute job with see you to use
a different set of rules. He needs to talk to John Good and Ken
Sorenson and find out about the months -- months -- it took to get
rules and procedures worked out for Uvalde.

I'm sorry for the irritated tone. But when we give you 95% of what you
wanted, in the form that we had all been working on steadily for 5
years, and then suddenly the demands change radically at the last
moment, ignoring all the previous work, ignoring all the
practicalities of what it takes to run a contest, well, you can
imagine it's a little irritating.
John Cochrane

Again this position is extreme and dramatic. When you stay within reality creating an FAI Club Class is the next logical step.

I think if most had to give a quick response on US rules you would get the same result as FAI. It would have to be looked up. Here is the big difference. FAI rules are almost HALF in length. Keep in mind complexity is being cut NOT added. Rules and procedures are not radically different, just a lot less.

Lets look at the three major differences between proposed RC Club Class and FAI.

1. FAI has a Racing Task(Assigned Speed Task)and Assigned Area Task (AAT). US has the MAT and AAT. Racing Task will be unlikely.
2.FAI has a narrower restricted handicap range than the US. Proposed US Club Class handicap range extends from a Ventus 1 to SGS 2-33.
3. Scoring formula / program is different.

FAI Club Class concepts HAVE BEEN proven in super-regionals. To state otherwise is FALSE. I flew in the 2011 Club Class super regional in Moriarty. The only real difference between this contest and FAI was US scoring. Short of scoring, major FAI components were successfully proven. Participation was grater than some National contests.

Enthusiasm hasn't diminished. US Club Class has done it's due diligence. The RC has proposed a Club Class version which completely ignores all previous work and changes concept of the class.

The RC said prove it in a regional. We did. Now it's time for the RC to follow through, take then next logical step and propose a US Club Class Nationals based on concepts established in the Regionals.

Sean Franke (HA)

On Saturday, December 1, 2012 4:47:27 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
The distortion, ignorance of facts and double standards are nearing exceptional levels.
I am concerned that the US rules committee functions more like a "think tank" than a committee of ALL fellow soaring pilots.

Sean,
Can I assume from your statements that you see nothing wrong with lightweight pilots flying with 80 pounds of lead in their cockpit to be at IGC MTOW and at equal wingloading with heavier pilots? Example: I fly a Discus b at 792# with a 1.08 IGC handicap. Sarah Arnold might fly a Discus A ( same 1.08 h/c) and would need well over 110# of lead to match my gross. How do you safely do this, and why? This IGC rule is absurd and I would not support it for a US Nationals.
Rick Walters

Well - no - 110lb of lead in the cockpit would be a little unwise. But
110l of water in the wings might do it. Of course then the ballast can
be dumped, which confers an advantage, and eventually you have angels
dancing on pinheads...

Have flown at a number of contests where there was a "target wing
loading" - works quite well in practice, and can be done quickly. Just
tow your main wheel over a scale each day on the way to the grid.

Of course - my kestrel full of water is waaay below the agreed target
wingloading but that is life.

Bruce


On 2012/12/02 2:48 PM, wrote:
Sean,
Can I assume from your statements that you see nothing wrong with lightweight pilots flying with 80 pounds of lead in their cockpit to be at IGC MTOW and at equal wingloading with heavier pilots? Example: I fly a Discus b at 792# with a 1.08 IGC handicap. Sarah Arnold might fly a Discus A ( same 1.08 h/c) and would need well over 110# of lead to match my gross. How do you safely do this, and why? This IGC rule is absurd and I would not support it for a US Nationals.
Rick Walters

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 6:02:49 AM UTC-8, BruceGreeff wrote:
Well - no - 110lb of lead in the cockpit would be a little unwise. But

110l of water in the wings might do it. Of course then the ballast can

be dumped, which confers an advantage, and eventually you have angels

dancing on pinheads...

Bruce,
The two Sean's are proposing using IGC rules, which do not allow for any water ballast, period. They use lead at CC WGC. Should be lots of fun a ridge day at Mifflin.
Rick W

On Dec 1, 1:26*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote:
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:
The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. *If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.

Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.

In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):

1. *Your position on the US seeding list.

2. *If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.

3. *If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.

4. *If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club * Class under FAI (IGC) rules.

5. *If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.

6. *If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.

7. *Any other comments welcome!

Link to petition:http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...s-association-...

Sean Franke

US Club Class Team Member

Sean(s),

I share BB's and UH's frustration with the level of nonsense in this thread.

Demanding that the organizer (KS) *run the 2013 Club Class by FAI rules after the event being sanctioned and resources committed is simply a non-starter.

Gutting the contest to hold the Club Class somewhere else is also a non-starter.

Rather than all the bluster and rabble rousing rhetoric, commit your efforts to where your mouths are. *Procure a waiver to run a regional club class contest under FAI rules by making the convincing case that it will not be less safe than one conducted under US Rules.

Hold the contest and demonstrate that it is popular (and take the financial risk).

I.e put up or shut up.

QT

John, this is quite arrogant of you. After all you are on RC to serve.

On Saturday, December 1, 2012 8:42:12 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:26*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote:

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:

The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. *If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.



Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.



In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):



1. *Your position on the US seeding list.



2. *If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.



3. *If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.



4. *If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club * Class under FAI (IGC) rules.



5. *If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.



6. *If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.



7. *Any other comments welcome!



Link to petition:http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...s-association-...



Sean Franke



US Club Class Team Member



Sean(s),



I share BB's and UH's frustration with the level of nonsense in this thread.



Demanding that the organizer (KS) *run the 2013 Club Class by FAI rules after the event being sanctioned and resources committed is simply a non-starter.



Gutting the contest to hold the Club Class somewhere else is also a non-starter.



Rather than all the bluster and rabble rousing rhetoric, commit your efforts to where your mouths are. *Procure a waiver to run a regional club class contest under FAI rules by making the convincing case that it will not be less safe than one conducted under US Rules.



Hold the contest and demonstrate that it is popular (and take the financial risk).



I.e put up or shut up.



QT



John, this is quite arrogant of you. After all you are on RC to serve.

Andrej,

Sorry if you see me as arrogant, but my stance on not jerking around already sanctioned contests and especially their organizers is firm.

As to whether we should adopt FAI rules for racing, there is a time honed process for this type of major change (and make no mistake, it is a majpor change). Regionals first followed by Nationals.

Still waiting for an organizer to step up with a request for sanction and waiver...

QT

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:


Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.


Been "enjoying" the witty banter back and forth on this one but staying out of the fray...until now.

It strikes me that this whole debate is taking us in a direction that, quite frankly, is pretty much irrelevant. Those of us who truly love sailplane racing and are committed to the sport should have one and only one primary objective, and that is growing the number of participants. Do we really believe that the specific rule set we fly under is a major factor in whether people do or don't show up for races? I sure don't.

While opinions are nice, some hard data is better. This past summer, I went to the effort to create a formal survey that tried to get to the bottom of participation in contests. The survey was aimed at the pilots in eastern Region II and Region I (those who fly in the Governor's Cup area that I've been watching over for the last 15 years) who own or co-own a glider (there are a few folks who might be able to wrangle a club ship for a competition, but selected group is easier to isolate). I managed to track down the owners of about 80% of the sailplanes registered in this area and got those owners to participate in the survey - no mean feat! With 65 responses, it covered about 75% of the available fleet in our area, ie. a very significant majority.

The numbers that matter:

- 68% (44) of the respondents routinely fly more than 50KM from home base (i.e. cross country)
- 51% (32) of the respondents routinely post flights to either the OLC or the Governor's Cup (our local version of the OLC with team and individual points)
- 52% (33) of the respondents have participated in one or more SSA Regional or National competitions in the last three years.

Take a minute to absorb this. Basically, a fairly significant number already compete in some form of SSA contest. There are a decent number (11 or 12) who fly XC but don't compete in anything. This is obviously the most attractive group to target.

I then asked those who hadn't competed in a regionals or nationals to rank the reasons for non-participation from 8 defined reasons plus a 9th "other" reason. The three LEAST important inhibitors we

- Panel and instruments not competitive (i.e. flight computer and other geewhiz gadgetry)
- Glider not competitive
- Rules complexity

So, the issues we are fighting over (rules and glider competitiveness) are among the two least important issues to the people we really need to reach , in particular those who fly XC but don't race. It's prety clear that if we switched to an FAI Rules set and a constrained list of ships, we wouldn't suddenly find 10 or 15 LS4s or Discus B's that would come out of the woodwork to join our nationals or super-regional Club Class contests. All we would be doing is to re-shuffle the existing participation and maybe lose a few folks in the process.

In case you were wondering, the top 3 reasons cited for not attending a regionals or nationals we

- Time
- Skills (not comfortable going XC in a racing format)
- Other (more when I get to it)

We'd all be much better served by focusing on how we could build excitement and interest in sailplane racing through a progressive training program, more local contests, and other efforts of that sort rather than bludgeoning the Rules Committe with a petition that is entirely one sided by definition..

I think I'll go sand wings or something...

Erik Mann P3
LS8-18 (formerly club class LS4)