Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

I feel strongly ELT contest requirement will lead to the removal of glider
ELT exception. The exemption loss will cost us $2,000+ with transition to
406 MHz units.

It will be hard for the SSA to argue that ELTs are not essential for all
gliders when the SSA states they are essential for contest rescue efforts.

Why would anyone accept the argument that the whereabouts of a downed
contest pilot is more important then the whereabouts of a casual weekend
pilot.

Wayne


"Brian" wrote in message
oups.com...
So let me think through the logic here for a minute.

1. We would like to promote contests and ideally get as many if not all
sailplanes and pilots participating. This has many good benefits by
promoting soaring, public image, and pilot profecency.

2. We want to require ELT's in (nearly) all gliders participating in
contests due to the additional safety they provide.

Does not 1+2 equal we would like nearly all gliders to have ELT's?

If this is such a saftey issue, Why don't we offer credit to all
gliders entered into an SSA Sanctioned Contest (reduced entry fee) for
a few years. Basically I am thinking that we offer a maximum of a $200
credit per glider entered spread out over a few years. In this way a
contestant can basically get their money back for installing an ELT.
Sure this would reduce the already limited income to the SSA but as has
been quoted here before "what is the price of safety?" especially when
someone else is paying for it.

Brian





wrote:
Would someone please tell me - without rancor and name calling - how
the rule requiring ELT's for all SSA events in 2006 came to be. If I
read the 2004 poll correctly, 58% of the respondents did not want
ELT's
required at all and only about 22% wanted them by 2006. If the polls
are not going to have a bearing in the rules then why do them?

Tom
Idaho
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
http://sailplane-racing.org/

Ken Kochanski
SRA Secretary

Another incentive might be to charge lost pilots a finder's fee equal
to the effort required to find them. Tow plane hours, search crews,
office staff spending the night on site by the phone, CAP, local polie,
etc. Demonstrating a willingness to invest in your own search and
rescue by purchasing and installing an ELT would exempt you from these
charges.

If, however, we're looking for a handout, can I have my parachute
subsidized as well?

I guess I'm jaded. The other day I was considering the cost/value of a
suit at Nordstrom. It suddenly occurred to me that I don't bat an eye
when purchasing glider equiptment at three times the price. $1K for a
406 MHz ELT is peanuts in competitive gliding. Of course, no one is
asking you to purchase a reliable ELT... just an apporved on. If you're
whining about $300 then you're whining just for the sake of hearing
your own voice.

I've flown for almost three decades WITHOUT an ELT (regardless of
price) because I know that the economically-priced 121.5 units had
serious flaws. But the new 406 units have demonstrated themselves worth
the money, and with a GPS interface might even provide for resuce. We
have an obligation to those who come looking for us to reduce their
exposure to mishap by providing the best possible tracking available at
reasonable cost.

That some pilots don't care what becomes of their bones is their
business. That they don't care about those who'll come looking for them
is unacceptable. Such pilots have no place in organized comptetition. I
think that's the message.

In article . com,
writes:

$1K for a
406 MHz ELT is peanuts in competitive gliding. Of course, no one is
asking you to purchase a reliable ELT... just an apporved on. If you're
whining about $300 then you're whining just for the sake of hearing
your own voice.


This statment jumped out at me.
Steve

Perhaps you don't bat an eye for $1K peice of Glider Equipment.

I however won't even walk in to Nordstrom. I have yet to spend more
$400 for a peice of glider equipment other than the inital cost of the
glider. 7 Years ago I flew my 1st contest in a Glider I paid $6500 for
with a $200 used Parachute and a $35 35mm Camera.

Today I am flying a $11,000 glider with 15 year old Flight Computer,
$150 GPS and a $400 flight Recorder. My $800 parachute came with the
glider, otherwise I would still be using the $200 one.

I really don't have an issue putting a $300 ELT into my glider ,I do
think it is a worthwhile peice of equipment. I have been looking at
them for some time even before the proposed rule, I would also like a
better Radio, and a Transponder and a 406 ELT. So what is my priority.
as of 2006 it is the ELT per the rules. Probably the $300 dollar one. I
guess you can put up with my scratchy radio calls for another year and
I can continue to see and avoid 737's while they never see me.


Brian

Brian,

You are my hero for posting this...but I must ask, why
do you have a radio at all?

Aha! I bet it came with the glider, right?

I too am a pilot on a budget. Apparently there are just
the two of us on this newsgroup...

In article .com,
Brian wrote:
Perhaps you don't bat an eye for $1K peice of Glider Equipment.

I however won't even walk in to Nordstrom. I have yet to spend more
$400 for a peice of glider equipment other than the inital cost of the
glider. 7 Years ago I flew my 1st contest in a Glider I paid $6500 for
with a $200 used Parachute and a $35 35mm Camera.

Today I am flying a $11,000 glider with 15 year old Flight Computer,
$150 GPS and a $400 flight Recorder. My $800 parachute came with the
glider, otherwise I would still be using the $200 one.

I really don't have an issue putting a $300 ELT into my glider ,I do
think it is a worthwhile peice of equipment. I have been looking at
them for some time even before the proposed rule, I would also like a
better Radio, and a Transponder and a 406 ELT. So what is my priority.
as of 2006 it is the ELT per the rules. Probably the $300 dollar one. I
guess you can put up with my scratchy radio calls for another year and
I can continue to see and avoid 737's while they never see me.


Brian



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Ken,

the site looks great and I appreciate the way you presented the rules
changes. thanks!

OC

gracias'

KK


wrote:
Ken,

the site looks great and I appreciate the way you presented the rules
changes. thanks!

OC

I looked over the 2004 opinion poll again because I remembered that there
was a fairly strong mandate to change our Scoring formulas.

quote:
8.0 WGC-style Scoring

8.1 Should SSA contests adopt the scoring and devaluation formulas used
at the World Gliding Championships?
Yes 104 61%
No 54 32%


Twice as many people agreed as disagreed, so why was no action taken on
this?

I personally feel that we should move in the direction of the WGC scoring
formulas. Possibly adopt the WGC formulas 100%, or possibly a blend of our
current system and the WGC system.

I think adopting it will help us select and breed pilots so the US be more
competitive in the world championships.

As a negative side effect of the WGC system there seems to be such a
stronger bias toward speed that middle of the score sheet pilots such as
myself used to scoring 750-900 points per day would likely be discouraged by
scoring much lower [300-600points?]. This could cause frustration and
pilots more likely to drop out of competition flying. However I'm in favor
of moving toward the WGC formulas at least partially.

Chris

comcast webnews wrote:

I personally feel that we should move in the direction of the WGC
scoring
formulas. Possibly adopt the WGC formulas 100%, or possibly a blend
of our
current system and the WGC system.

I wonder how many pilots in favor of moving to WGC scoring formulas
have actually read them? (Actually, how many poll respondents have
actually read the US scoring formulas?!)

The idea sounds nice, "let's score the way the worlds are, so our guys
get used to that and do better." But when you actually look at the mess
in the world scoring formulas, you realize "why should we screw up
every contest in the US just because the world rules are screwed up?"

Two small examples, second-hand from the last worlds.

1) Start gate with limited height but not limited speed or the US
two-minute rule. Back to dive-bombing. Do you really want that?

2) MAT style task is distance in a set time. It allows the strategy of
timing-out low, way downwind, then trying to scratch back to the
airport to see if you can get the bonus for finishing at home. Do you
really want to do this at US contests?

And of course, world and European devaluation rules give a huge benefit
to gaggling. I hear there was a day in an Australian worlds where
pilots simply refused to go out on course since nobody wanted to be
first. Again, do we really want that?

Are US contests places for US pilots to have fun, compete, learn to do
better in a safe environment, or are they just a training camp for the
top 5 or so who want to go to the worlds? The poll question on "goals"
suggested a lot more pilots in favor of the former, not the latter.

If you move to WGC scoring, what do you do when you see obvious safety
or procedural problems? Here, you call up UH or the current rules
committee chairman, and it gets fixed. If you're committed to WGC
scoring, fixing the simplest problem has to wait for the IGC to move on
it. This is like having the UN in charge of parking regulations.
John Cochrane (BB)

A quick (and not exhaustive) search on Google turned up the WGC rules for
1999. I could not find rules for anything later, though I am sure they
exist. Would someone please direct me to the site for the most current
rules?
Thanks
--
Hartley Falbaum
ASW27B "KF" USA

"BB" wrote in message
oups.com...

comcast webnews wrote:

I personally feel that we should move in the direction of the WGC
scoring
formulas. Possibly adopt the WGC formulas 100%, or possibly a blend
of our
current system and the WGC system.

I wonder how many pilots in favor of moving to WGC scoring formulas
have actually read them? (Actually, how many poll respondents have
actually read the US scoring formulas?!)

The idea sounds nice, "let's score the way the worlds are, so our guys
get used to that and do better." But when you actually look at the mess
in the world scoring formulas, you realize "why should we screw up
every contest in the US just because the world rules are screwed up?"

Two small examples, second-hand from the last worlds.

1) Start gate with limited height but not limited speed or the US
two-minute rule. Back to dive-bombing. Do you really want that?

2) MAT style task is distance in a set time. It allows the strategy of
timing-out low, way downwind, then trying to scratch back to the
airport to see if you can get the bonus for finishing at home. Do you
really want to do this at US contests?

And of course, world and European devaluation rules give a huge benefit
to gaggling. I hear there was a day in an Australian worlds where
pilots simply refused to go out on course since nobody wanted to be
first. Again, do we really want that?

Are US contests places for US pilots to have fun, compete, learn to do
better in a safe environment, or are they just a training camp for the
top 5 or so who want to go to the worlds? The poll question on "goals"
suggested a lot more pilots in favor of the former, not the latter.

If you move to WGC scoring, what do you do when you see obvious safety
or procedural problems? Here, you call up UH or the current rules
committee chairman, and it gets fixed. If you're committed to WGC
scoring, fixing the simplest problem has to wait for the IGC to move on
it. This is like having the UN in charge of parking regulations.
John Cochrane (BB)