View Single Post
  #13  
Old October 7th 17, 01:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default US Competition Pilot Poll

Why maintain control over our own rules? Exhibit A would be the recent changes to the FAI handicaps discussed on another thread. That isn't a proposal, that's the rule, right now. It might be amusing to Moshe, but it's just plain idiotic to anyone with experience in handicapped comps.

There's an effort under way to rationalize the scoring of FAI comps. I think everyone agrees the current system is not a rational one. The only opposition to change comes from teams who have become proficient at exploiting the weirdness in the current system. If this passes, then my main objection to the FAI rules goes away. As far as starts, turnpoints, finishes, there are things they do better, things we do better. I would like to see our rules converge, using the best of both.

Tracking isn't rules related. Creative individuals out there doing creative stuff and I hope we see more.

Scoring results... belly laugh time: it's Soaring Spot that completely sucks. In a comp with 3 classes, the daily and cumulative results are spread over 6 pages -- a maddeningly low information density. Our results page (singular) is far superior.

Bias...? As though you have none? Another belly laugh.

In summary, most of us aren't too fussed with the rules because the rules are pretty well tuned right now. We know that -- by and large -- the same guys are going to win. The same other guys are going to invent the same excuses for not participating. There are things that could be done to change this... almost all for the worse. We could screw up the handicaps, we could insist that we call 30% ATs (which would have turned the recent R4S contest, for instance, from near idyllic into a landout nightmare), we could do away with useful things that occasionally prove exceptionally useful like the safety finish.

I think you are poking a hornets' nest to no purpose.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8


On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 2:02:30 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
90,

I see three systemic and troubling issues with the SSA US rules system (opinion poll, RC, etc.). We have discussed these offline, and you made some strong points. Nonetheless, the current system is quite flawed (biased) if you are not part of the SSA good old boys, anti-FAI, groupthink. You made another great point that this bias is natural and difficult to purge (and bias systems do not want to be exterminated). That is the heart of the issue.

MY PRIMARY CONCERN with US rules remains that doing so when the international soaring community already manages the FAI rules, is exceptionally inefficient. US rules are a HUGE waste of time when you consider a rule system is already available and is already used by the vast majority of the soaring world, right now, today. Don't we have better things to focus on?

What is the value of US Rules? What do we gain by recreating and maintaining our own custom "wheels" for everything? Do we have higher contest participation? Greater safety? Higher growth? More Youth? No. No, we do not. Think about that for a moment. Despite no tangible value, we still spend the resources to manage: The US rules definitions, US Rules scoring software, US rules handicaps, SSA contest management systems (registration, etc.), SSA scoring display websites (SSA.org, SUCKS!), SSA contest reporting, SSA contest tracking, etc. Also, having our own obscure US rule system isolates our contest pilots, and our youth from the FAI raking system, contest reporting community, social media, etc.

1) The US Rules Committee has been staffed exclusively by people who genuinely believe that US rules are a better path and the FAI rules are bad. Without this general viewpoint, their election to the US RC is highly unlikely, to this day. That is a biased system.

2) The US Rules opinion poll is written by these same US rules "fans" who make it to the committee. They are inherently biased. US rules ARE DOGMA to them. Now that some pressure is on them (return to FAI makes sense to many US pilots), they are paying lip service to the FAI idea (offering a slow change option, whatever that means). I believe they are also trying to buy time to (they hope) effect change in other areas (FAI scoring, etc.). Most of the Good Old Boys do not want FAI rules. They still, in general, actively dislike the FAI and strongly prefer the power the US rules system provides them (killing technology, etc.). They even go so far as to write their own point/counterpoint addendums to many of the most controversial questions in their own poll. And as you might expect, those point/counterpoint descriptions are WAY OFF THE MARK in describing the argument for FAI rules, for no out the top start, for no extra TAT distance accumulation in ASSIGNED(?) task turns, etc. I'll point this out in a blog post I am writing, as promised. I have saved screenshots of all opinion polls that I have experienced. The examples are PLENTIFUL.

3) The same gang then "analyzes" the results and makes policy.

I will continue to advocate for a better system for determining our rules direction.

Sean
7T

At a minimum, the counterpoints in the questions should be written (or linked externally) to a real argument by those who believe passionately in them. Not paraphrased by those who don't want them.



On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:57:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:49:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Hello US competition pilots.
Our annual poll about topics related to competition and associated rules is now open at http://www.adamsfive.com/a5soaring/survey/surveys.php.
It is open to all pilots on the ranking list.
Feedback from the poll and associated comments, as well as messages via e-mail to committee members, are the basis for our annual deliberations.
Please participate and mention to your contest buddies.
The poll is open until October 18th.
For the RC
UH


Sean,
Thanks for advocating that we consider FAI rules. I was pleased to see the topic in the poll.

If the Rules Committee is anything like the US Team Committee someone volunteers to produce the text and the committee comments on it and that's it. You get the natural bias of the individuals involved - this is normal.

Perhaps the best way to influence this is to submit suggested poll questions to the committee during summer. I remember being polled for questions at the Uvalde rules meeting. My topics got included but I did not provide suggested question text, so some kind fellow wrote the question without my involvement. Overall it appears to be working.

Each question has a comment box where you could suggest what the question should have been and your response. It's hard to please everyone but the comment box really helps.

UH and Diane rescued me and my trailer from the side of a dark and rainy NJ highway on the way to Uvalde after a van fuel line failure. God bless them. This is not the behavior that I associate with some master rules plot..

Let's try to find a positive way to encourage reasoned dialogue.

Cheers,
Bob Fletcher 90