Dear Fellow Sailplane Racers

Good Day fellow sailplane racers,

Unfortunately this is not the email saying I have found a coed
volleyball team that will be traveling around to different glider
contests to help run wings. Nor is this an email to say I found a new
sponsor for soaring contest. I am trying to gain support for my
election in the Rules Committee, so if you have already voted for me
then you can hit delete and get back to work, if you voted for someone
else you still have time you can change your vote.

By voting for me the only thing I can promise that I will do
is....lower the average age. But enough with the things I promise to
do, I hope that I can influence the committee and look at things
slightly differently. I feel that with my experience in flying in 2
World Junior Championships, 1 Australian contest (I hope you enjoyed
the article from last month), 7 US Nationals and 2 Regional contests. I
have a very well rounded view on contests. I have won a few days and I
have been the only pilot to not make it home on others.

I feel the sports class should look at selecting pilots to fly club
class world championships. I feel that the open class could not
sacrifice loosing its Nimbus 3 pilots by allowing a weight change. If
there are only 4 pilots that are willing to travel their large winged
beasts then let them race and get sanctioned, that way there are no
rushed struggles trying to get more pilots volunteering at the last
minute. We will continue to struggle at the world level if we do not
task our pilots on a similar field.

I am concerned that the rules committee will continue to waste time
with legislation intended to compensate for a pilot's lack of
judgment. I know it's not a spectator sport, but there is a crew
down there, waiting and watching, and the finish line is symbolic to
their hard work and devotion to the sport. A pilot is not judged by the
altitude of his finish or the lack there of, but rather by his ability
to make safe judgments in all r=E9gimes of flight. Making rules that
force us to stare in the cockpit and cross-check: altimeter, GPS,
flight computer, altimeter... for some imaginary boarder in the sky,
cannot be considered safer.

If nothing else I will be a new face to point the blame at when you
complain about the rules.

http://206.168.3.4/survey/surveys.php

Best Regards
Garret Willat
927

OK, I'll bite. Maybe it's a good idea to have a better airing of
views involving the RC election.

I don't think you can "legislate safety" either, in that nothing
we do will eliminate all accidents. But I sure do think that rules can
contribute to a safe or dangerous flying environment. I think that
rules should be thoughtfully structured so that pilots don't have to
choose between safety and points as much as is possible.

The proposition "you can't legislate safety" is ludicrous. Does
anyone honestly think that seat belt laws, speed limits, crash-safety
standards and so forth have had NO effect on the car accident rate? Of
course they have. Do you think we should get rid of the rule mandating
a parachute, get rid of the 2 minutes before start (a "safety
legislation to avoid 130 mph in the start gate), get rid of the 50 foot
minimum for gate finishes, get rid of the ban on blind-flying
instruments, the 25 point airport bonus, etc., etc., all rules that
"compensate for pilots' lack of judgment"? Of course not. We
quite wisely "legislated safety" in all these areas and it helped.

Any rule has effects on fun, costs, practically, fairness, and safety.
They all need to be considered together. We can't abdicate
responsibility and just hide behind a slogan. And we cannot ignore that
safety is an important issue. Masak, Carpetyan, Bowman... We lose one
every other year or so. Is this inevitable? Do we just throw up our
hands, blame their "judgment" and go on as usual? Is this really a
"waste of time?" Or is carefully thinking through the safety
implications of our rules about the most important thing we can do?

The pros and cons of both sides of the finish line vs. gate have been
argued at length, and I don't think this is the place to start it up
again. We have a long winter ahead! Both have safety pros and cons, as
well as other pros and cons.

Where do I stand? As an individual pilot, I prefer the cylinder for
reasons made pretty clear in my articles and posts over the years. (My
current favorite is a cylinder followed by an optional "show
finish" for fun and spectators.)

As a potential RC member though, I don't think one should campaign
with a dead-set opinion on issues like this - as well as the other
issues facing us like the nature of sports class.

I think the RC job is to represent pilot's opinions, analyze the
issues in more depth than most pilots have the time for, and conduct a
thoughtful discussion, listening carefully. If I think X is right but
90% of pilots think X is wrong, my job is to convince them, and listen
carefully and perhaps be convinced myself, not try to get elected and
then ram it down their throats. That's the attitude I will bring to the
RC, and I hope it is the attitude that prevails no matter who is
elected.

John Cochrane
BB

OK I'll "bite back" BB.

I would prefer the statement to be "you cannot legislate good judgement".
There is a huge difference between rules and laws that protect life by
protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes and those that make
an attempt to force people into making the "correct" choice.

Casey Lenox
Phoenix
KC

Kilo Charlie wrote:
OK I'll "bite back" BB.

I would prefer the statement to be "you cannot legislate good judgement".
There is a huge difference between rules and laws that protect life by
protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes and those that make
an attempt to force people into making the "correct" choice.

OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how does it apply to
contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping at traffic
lights and driving on the right side of the rule, which seem to be
safety related.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Kilo Charlie wrote:
OK I'll "bite back" BB.

I would prefer the statement to be "you cannot legislate good judgement".
There is a huge difference between rules and laws that protect life by
protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes and those that
make an attempt to force people into making the "correct" choice.

OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how does it apply to
contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping at traffic lights
and driving on the right side of the rule, which seem to be safety
related.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Interesting response Eric. My statement had no underlying meaning as you
appear to imply. I am pretty certain having spent a fair amount of time
talking to John at a contest in Uvalde several years ago that he and I would
agree on more than we disagree. One thing for sure is that I agree with his
point that I don't wish this to degenerate into another arguement over
finish lines.

Re the specific complaint....BB used some examples that included things that
help protect our pink little bodies from the elements of destruction....my
point was that they are very different from pure rules whose only purpose
are to prevent you from doing something stupid and provide no benefit in and
of themselves beyond that.

I'd be the first to say that there are PLENTY of traffic laws (since that
seems to be the theme here) that attempt to force people into making the
correct judgements......speed limits, DUI laws, etc. If everyone would
always have good judgement we wouldn't need them......that's your point
right?

Where we disagree is that the traffic rules are a poor analogy. Basically
everyone drives. It is required to be employed or to get to school, buy
food, etc. Nobody is forcing not even a single pilot into racing. It is
not necessary to get a job or to obtain food and I'm still looking for the
girls that think its cool.

All that I am asking and I think that John is asking is that we present both
sides and be reasonable about evaluating each proposal. This format is a
poor one for having these discussions. I would like to think given the
chance to sit down together that we would find common ground much faster
than appears from following these threads.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

"And we cannot ignore that
safety is an important issue. Masak, Carpetyan, Bowman... We lose one
every other year or so. "

Is there any rule issue that would have had any concievable impact on
the three fatal accidents you reference? I know that's not the point
you were trying to make, but I am curious.

wrote:
"And we cannot ignore that
safety is an important issue. Masak, Carpetyan, Bowman... We lose one
every other year or so. "

Is there any rule issue that would have had any concievable impact on
the three fatal accidents you reference? I know that's not the point
you were trying to make, but I am curious.

Let's look at a few events that have prompted rules or procedures to
avoid another occurrance.
Note that we don't easily keep score of accidents that did not happen
as a result of safety related rule changes. It is hard to measure the
absence of something like this.

1)Masak(and Mcquigg before him who we luckily did not lose)- Prompting
attention to currently proposed ELT rule.
2)Carpetyan- We don't know what happened to Gene.
3)Bowman-Out of this loss came the procedure for critical assembly
check.
4)Pilot Unnamed(he knows who he is) Low finish with wingtip toughing
the ground leading to "50 foot rule".
5)Open Class Pilot Unnamed- Landed in blinding rainstorm using GPS
because he "had to get a finish". This led to the safety finish that
permits CD to put temporary large finish cylinder in place so pilot can
get a safe finish and leave the area.
6)Countless pilots making redline plus starts(writer included) This, in
part led to current low energy cylinder start.

There are many more like this as you would imagine.
UH

At 05:48 03 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Kilo Charlie wrote:
OK I'll 'bite back' BB.

I would prefer the statement to be 'you cannot legislate
good judgement'.
There is a huge difference between rules and laws
that protect life by
protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes
and those that make
an attempt to force people into making the 'correct'
choice.

OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how
does it apply to
contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping
at traffic
lights and driving on the right side of the rule, which
seem to be
safety related.


To push the auto analogy, I think KC is referring to
rules like 'you have to stop your car to answer your
cell phone', or 'motorists over 65 must take a road
driving test twice per year', or 'the interstate speed
limit should be set at 35 miles per hour'. I'm not
sure about the last one, but the first two have been
passed or proposed in many states in the interest of
safety. And I bet some on this forum would agree that
one or the more of them is actually worth the inconvenience
it would cost.

It's all a matter of where you draw the line - KC and
many others draw the line at trying to use rulemaking
compensate for judgement - a bit of a semantic line
drawing in itself.

9B

Andy Blackburn wrote:
At 05:48 03 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Kilo Charlie wrote:

OK I'll 'bite back' BB.

I would prefer the statement to be 'you cannot legislate
good judgement'.
There is a huge difference between rules and laws
that protect life by
protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes
and those that make
an attempt to force people into making the 'correct'
choice.

OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how
does it apply to
contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping
at traffic
lights and driving on the right side of the rule, which
seem to be
safety related.



To push the auto analogy, I think KC is referring to
rules like 'you have to stop your car to answer your
cell phone', or 'motorists over 65 must take a road
driving test twice per year', or 'the interstate speed
limit should be set at 35 miles per hour'. I'm not
sure about the last one, but the first two have been
passed or proposed in many states in the interest of
safety. And I bet some on this forum would agree that
one or the more of them is actually worth the inconvenience
it would cost.

It's all a matter of where you draw the line - KC and
many others draw the line at trying to use rulemaking
compensate for judgement - a bit of a semantic line
drawing in itself.

I'm still curious about what the "huge difference" is. Why isn't wearing
a parachute a "judgment"? KC seems to make the judgment that rules that
try to legislate "judgment" are inherently bad and shouldn't even be
discussed. I think either type rule should discussed so their value
(will it work? what will it cost?) can be determined, especially since
we'll differ on where to draw the line.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I agree, KC and 9B. I hate it when traffic laws are made on the
assumption that I'm not capable of making my own judgements. The cell
phone analogy is a good one.

~ted/2NO