On Jan 23, 3:11*pm, wrote:
You have apparently not read the rules changes submitted , and
approved ths morning. The addendum does permit *COTS loggers, with
some limitations, for backup in National as well as a variety of lower
cost options for use in Regionals.
The more rigorous requirement you allude to would only apply in a case
of trying to make the US Team.
The impression you leave is that the RC is not responsive to your
suggestions on this topic. In fact, a great deal of time has been
spent on this while trying to find a reasonable balance between cost
to individuals and fairness to all.
You got your way, though maybe not 100% and you're still bitching.
Our guiding principles put safety first, fairness close behind, and
how any change affects participation right at the top of our list.
If you think we need a new charter- feel free to propose it with
concrete examples of how you would propose to accomplish such a
charter.
Sent as an individual member of the RC.
UH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

UH,

I'm responding quickly because of the impression I gave you guys that
I'm bitching. I'm not. I did read the proposed rules a few weeks ago
when they were published and quickly re-read the section on flight
recorders a few minutes ago just to see if anything had changed (it
had not). I agreed with most of the changes, for whatever that's
worth.

But I admit I was disappointed in the section on COTS flight recorders
and I'm going to push back. It completes the stealth change in 2008
that essentially eliminated their routine use as a backup device at
the national level. I do recognize that P3 and I have been tasked with
coming up with a workable solution for regionals use, and we
appreciate the opportunity. It doesn't change the fact that the 2008
rules were a step away from 2007 and 2009 is still another step.

Prior to 2008, if a flight recorder met the functional requirements in
the Rules, it could be used as a backup. Period. We can argue about
what was intended but that's what the rules said and that's what I and
some others did using a cheap off-the-shelf Garmin unit. Last year the
RC changed the rules: the functional specs were kept but you created
three lists/classes of flight recorders and it was problematic whether
COTS were accepted as backups (I was graciously granted a waiver to
fly the October Region 4 contest with mine pending the RC's meeting).
This year the process is complete: there are two categories of flight
recorders, and COTS are tossed into the ingeniously titled
"substandard" category [I love that name: did you guys debate using
"schlock" or "junk" or "second class" as the descriptor or was this
your unanimous choice? g]. And the way I read the chart, COTS are
only for regional, not national use, and only by waiver (i.e., there's
no X in the Nationals column for COTS in Appendix B).

Another step backward, in my view, was the rule that says only one use
of a "substandard" backup device is allowed without a penalty. After
that, a modest 100 point penalty is imposed each day. Sarcasm
intended. Obviously no one, serious or not, will take a chance on that
one. So if your primary logger fails, you better hope to borrow
another primary logger immediately (like by the morning of the next
day). Oh, and if it's a CAI Model 20 with a dead battery, forget it.
Because although that unit met the functional requirements for a
backup device last year, it was specifically crossed off the list
because of the broken security seal. This year it's still allowed as a
backup, but you can only use a backup once before the penalty kicks
in. So the unit I borrowed in Cordele last May wouldn't have done me
any good because the security seal was dead on it at the time.

Sorry for the details. You see where I'm going? On the surface, "I got
what I wanted." But not really. Practically speaking, if I'm serious
(meaning I will only spend the $1500 to $2000 to fly a nationals--and
that's sleeping in the van every night--if I want to be scored every
day), I need a second RC-approved logger or guaranteed access to one
on short notice.

OK, I'm focused on the COTS issue. I have a long history of
"constructive" criticism of mandatory flight recorder use at
contests. But I did see a theme he a tendency to try to
eliminate "loopholes" (like the COTS use as a backup, which I and
another pilot first mentioned to another RC member a few years ago)
when there's no evidence that I'm aware of that such loopholes
necessarily need filling.

The start cylinder arc is another issue. I'm not going to worry about
it. But it does strike me as odd that we now have a rule the
application thereof won't be clear until well after we start. Say what
you want about the impact on points being small, but it invites
cynicism and rolling of eyes. Police officer pulling over a motorist:
"I know there was no posted speed limit, sir, but our computer
determined that based on the traffic density, weather, road condition,
and time of day that you were traveling in excess of 15 mph over the
imputed speed limit of 57.2 mph. That's a $100 fine and 2 points on
your license. Please drive carefully, sir."

I worry that the interaction of the ever-changing Rules and WinScore
(which combination actually represents the scoring system) is doomed
to small failures for the simple reason that the Rules themselves and
now WinScore have been patched and fixed so many times that it is
difficult to test them adequately. Using the first contest as the beta
test site isn't a real solution. Yes, I know we been tasked with
developing test data. But as the U.S. car companies discovered years
ago, you can't inspect quality in at the back end of the process. You
need to change the process. That means relatively simple rules and as
few changes as possible. The scoring issue I raised privately was
apparently in the system all year. It affected the daily winners and
order of final placings (though not the overall class winners) at
Region 4 in October.

I profoundly appreciate the job you guys do. The results are pretty
good. But I can tell you that no one flying that I have spoken with
understands the current Rules. Most pilots don't worry about it. They
look at the score sheet and take what's given to them. They might ask
a question if they get a penalty but that's it. The only reason we
tumbled onto the problem at Region 4 is that one exceptionally honest
pilot--Mike Higgins, who ought to get a sportsmanship award--allowed
during his winner's speech that he had busted the floor of the finish
cylinder and warned the scorer that he ought to check his calculations
again.

I've covered a lot of ground. I agree you have safety at the top of
your list. I believe you guys believe that you consider participation
with each proposed Rules change. But do you consider it the same way
as if you were required to justify each economic impact on a case-by-
case basis? For example, raising the deposit from $100 to $150 (the
"at risk" money) and pushing the full-refund date from 14 days to 30
days prior to the contest are significant changes this year. I'm sure
many contest organizers have problems with no-shows and appreciate
being able to plan for tow planes better. But this reminds me of the
tendency for some legislators to raise taxes higher and higher
assuming revenues will increase proportionately. In this case, some
contest organizers have taken a different tack: the astoundingly
successful Region 4N M-ASA regional, which didn't even exist five
years ago and now sucks pilots from perennial favorite New Castle,
doesn't enforce the late entry penalty. Want to fly? Come on down!
Different approaches. I worry that we haven't given the RC enough
latitude, or perhaps the right charge, to explicitly consider
participation on the same level as ensuring competition that fairly
determines the national champion and US team.

I don't have the magic answer. But I also don't think that raising the
questions I did is insulting or disloyal to the great group of
dedicated guys who serve on the RC.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA