Um, where to begin.

Bob,

We have 5 folks (John Good who can, as I understand it, veto the US RC's voting (not sure if he is elected or "appointed") and the then 4 RC members) who spend significant time maintaining the US rules each year. Of course all of us pilots must put up with elections, voting, leading opinion poll questions, etc. Then, of course, there is the SSA BOD who can veto John Good (I believe). All of these folks (volunteers of course), as well of ALL the pilots (not volunteers, many who would prefer to be part of the international community - FAI) must endure the endless US rules circus year after year. The value of all this is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. Many of us (and growing) don't like the US rules, the constant grind of debate and changes that occurs each year. It's exhausting, unnecessary, isolationist and in may ways wasteful of valueable volunteer resources. See anti technology efforts like banning smart phones, banning apps or banning Flarm normal operation.

In regards the running FAI events (yes, I could losisticaly tomorrow, no problem and so could anyone else) I am not "free" to run FAI events as I wish (and I don't wish to do this outside of the SSA). Sure, there are work around me for this but for now let's play by those rules. I intend to continue arguing for the SSA to consider adopting FAI rules and systems (and dump its own failed custom rules circus). But even if I wished to run my own FAI events, as it stands now, the SSA will attempt to block and interfere with my doing so. That is the recent history. The SGP event has a slight modification in its governing authority language which allowed me to "get around" the SSA (thank goodness). I'm certain they would have interfered if they had the ability to do so. I understand they tried but can't be certain.. They did make things VERY difficult for the FAI at the 2012 WGC Ulvalde. This caused great controversy. Essentially the SSA demanded US type rule changes be used at the WGC in lieu of the FAI rules. Obviously they did not appreciate those demands. Similar behavior occurred at the PAGC Chilhowee with Club Class handicap (SSA demanded the US handicaps be used) and US finish procedures (among other procedures), causing great unrest with the poor FAI referee appointed to ensure the event was run to the standards of FAI. The SSA's interference in the PAGC event was so significant that the event was nearly cancelled as I understand it. Ultimately the Club Class designation was removed from the PAGC event and the event designation for that class was changed to an FAI handicap event (their version of Sports class). Amazing.

You see the SSA is, currently, the named "National Aeroclub" for the United States and this allows them to stick their nose into any sanctioned FAI event run in the USA. Unless they "sign off," the event will not be recognized by the FAI. Talk about a conflict of interest! And, clearly, they are quite willing to stick their nose in deep wherever they can. They basically refuse to allow FAI events to occur "unmolested" by US rule "philosophy?." I intend to change this.

Now that we have that clarified Bob, your response completely missed (I'm sure this is a simple mistake on your part) addressing my key question about the value US rules provide. I hope you return to address that question. I'll repeat it below...

Bob, what "measured value" justifies the SSA maintaining its own unique, custom soaring competition rule system?

Please cite the many areas of measured value that are a result of US rules vs. using FAI (like the rest of the world does, happily, successfully and safely).

Safety?
Participation?
Growth?
Enthusiasm?
Simplicity?
Cost?
Resources?

I look forward to your response.