On 2/23/2013 5:38 PM, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Good idea. I'll see if we can put something together.

In general, the USRC openly considers FAI rules to be dangerous and irresponsible and their US rules alternative (dictated to the US soaring community) as the solution to FAIs dangerous irresponsibility. In addition, the USRC believes that their rules are not only safer but superior in generating flourishing contest attendance (especially with new or casual contest pilots). In other words, US pilots would not fly FAI rule events as they are too "hard core.". US rules on the other hand, with there increased safety and "decreased likelihood" of land outs greatly improves attendance. No need for crews, less difficult tasks, etc.

We (probably 100 US and Candian pilots, almost 60 have signed) see FAI rules as real/true glider racing (Assigned tasks and Assigned Area tasks only). The rest of the world soaring community (VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET BASICALLY) happily uses FAI rules for every contest and has since the sport began. Statistically safety is approximately equal between the World standard FAI rules and the essentially obscure US rules. The US is in isolation from the rest of the world as we are almost a different sport (checkers vs. chess). The US rules are 2-3x longer than FAI rules for example.

I personally would like to see, for now, that US regionals retain the US rules and national championships should immediately adopt FAI rules as they qualify US pilots for the World Championship. I want there to be a choice in the USA. I wish to disarm the USRC of the ability to act as dictators to all US pilots (and contests) on what rules are best to use. I think there is significant misinformation about the FAI rules in the USA because of a bit if a publicity campaign against them for a reason I do not fully understand. I think there is clearly (sixty signatures from jr pilots to top US world level pilots) strong demand for FAI rules events within the US dispite this negative publicity campaign by the USRC. I feel the USRC is on a bit of a crusade to somehow pressure change the FAIs rules and uses the US contests as a test lab.

I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.

Sean

I sure hope you actually read the rules before you put this little
comparison together. You might be surprised.

IMHO you are mostly wrong with your "facts", but I've only flown a
couple of contests under IGC rules. I see no reason to prefer IGC rules,
except maybe for the MAT task still in US rules. I understand some
people have an extreme aversion to that one.

Here's my comparison:

The IGC start rules have lots of flexibility, but none of the options
are as good as the US cylinder, when its properly used (max height below
cloudbase / top of lift).

The smaller turnpoint zones used by IGC are a step back to where US
rules were in the mixed camera / GPS days. Really changes little.
Substitutes traffic converging on a point for slightly less predictable
traffic. US rules introduce an extra tactical twist.

This is another place where other countries use some interesting
turnpoint shapes for ATs as an option to deal with tricky weather.

Finish rules are flexible for both, very similar. In practice WGCs tend
to be different, but not driven by the rules.

Tasking philosophy is not rules driven. Its based on the CD. Influenced
in WGC by the chief steward and by task advisers in the US. The ability
to fall back to a task B or C in flight as used in the US is a huge
improvement in my opinion. The language barrier at WGCs makes inflight
changes more of a problem.

The rules are not simpler for either. The US rules have the complexity
of starting where you actually leave the cylinder rather than the center
of the line or cylinder arc. This adds a little tactical twist with US
rules and makes the traffic converge at the one optimal point in IGC
rules. Thats a complexity for the scorer, not the pilot. Same with
turnpoints on Assigned Tasks.

The scoring formulas are also different. Primarily in how days are
devalued. On full valued speed tasks, IGC rules you loose 20 points per
percent slower than the winner. By US rules its 10 point per percent.
That alone doesn't matter except for tie breaking. Both systems devalue
for short tasks. By IGC rules further speed devaluation also starts with
the first landout or slow finisher. By US rules devaluation doesn't kick
in until 20% landout for AAT/MAT or 40% for AT. The devaluation of speed
differences is also far greater for IGC rules.

US rules also have a few "tie breakers". Like partial credit for amount
of time under the min for AAT/MAT. And for slow finishers. US rules
compress the point differences for very slow finishers. IGC rules, all
very slow finishers tie.

The devaluation rules change "the points stakes", so competitive risks
should be weighed differently, particularly when you can tell how the
day will likely turn out. Thats the sort of thing that doesn't show up
with more casual competitors that may not recognize the gains possible
from good tactics.

The devaluation formulas are another area where other countries differ
from IGC rules (England for example). There is no "correct" way to
combine scores from different days. Depends on whether you think every
day should count the same or whether "luck influenced" days should have
less effect on the outcome. IGC rules take the philosophy that at the
WGC level, any landout or very slow finisher among the very good pilots
indicates some extra degree of luck that should be reflected in the
scores. US rules take the approach that a few bozo's landing out should
not effect the day's results for the top pilots.

US rules have harsher airspace penalties for first offense. Both are
pretty much a "death penalty". US rules have an airport bonus for
landouts not in the IGC rules.

Teams play a bigger part in IGC rules. Not just pilot teams, but team
captains, ground support, tactical advice, met support, etc. IGC still
does not allow anything other than aircraft voice comm radio and FLARM /
trackers. No inflight weather displays, alternate comm, etc. Contact
with ATC only for landing permission, no contact with FSS allowed.

For handicaps, it seems most countries have their own system. For "club
class" eligible lists, it also appears most countries have their own.
And several of our peers (Australia and England for example) use the
same system as is planned for the Sports Nationals this year. Max
performance limit, but no minimum limit. They don't seem to care if the
equivalent of a 2-33 shows up. Maybe because they task for the upper end
of the range and aren't as concerned with land outs anyway.

Neither set of rules is that difficult to read, particularly if you skip
the administrivia which is the bulk of both. Not that the administrivia
is unimportant. It will have to be changed a lot to be used in a US
national or regional contest. But you will need to check every year as
both are moving targets.

-Dave Leonard
(not now or ever on the US rules committee)