Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic (was: US 2008 CompetitionFacts)

I am not a competition pilot and probably have no right to enter this
discussion. I opted out of competition years ago after reading a letter
in Soaring from Paul Bickle. He observed that if one wants to compete
seriously one must realize that the glider is expendable. For me, that
would mean treating my relatively meager resources foolishly (my glider
and my neck).

Of course one can fly hors de concourse and have some fun, but is that
really competing, or just getting in the way? The following paragraph is
a quote from below.

"Its still a pretty dangerous sport. Stay down [in] the middle and the
risk is reasonable. But the edges are sharp and the temptation to play
close to the edges is real."





At 21:28 23 January 2009, ZL wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 23, 1:46 pm, toad wrote:
I think that the decline in contest flying has NOTHING to do with the
racing rules ! And no tinkering or restraint from tinkering will
change that decline.

It is simply mirroring the decline of soaring in general.

Todd Smith
3S

You may be right, although my impression is that neither soaring in
general nor the SSA membership specifically has suffered a 14%+
decline in the past four years.



Here's some slightly different stats over previous years. The US
Competition Pilot Ranking list. Including some way back, pre-GPS, early
sports class years I found in my files. It gives the total number of
pilots that scored in an SSA sanctioned over the previous 3 years.
Smooths out some of the outlying good and bad years.

1990 - 620
1992 - 630
1995 - 550
2001 - 501
2002 - 551
2003 - 619*
2004 - 636
2005 - 636
2006 - 590
2007 - 592
2008 - 594

* The online list shows 900, hand removing obvious duplicates gives 619

Looks to me like the 20 year trend is remarkably flat. Bigger percentage

of SSA members today, but maybe not a different percentage of total
active glider pilots.

I'm sure the stats could be cooked to support any position you like. But

the sport has changed a lot since 1990. Went from suicide dive start
gate to GPS start circle. Turnpoint cameras to 1 mile GPS turn anywhere
turnpoints. From sports class scratch distance tasks, mostly assigned
tasks with a few PSTs to almost all min time TAT, rare MAT and AT. From
don't ask don't tell airspace limits to GPS checked 1000 pt penalties
for almost busting airspace limits. From carefully prepared then wadded
up in the cockpit sectionals, whiz wheel glide computers and damned
compasses to computer moving map glide computers. From no lower limit
finish gates to finish cylinders, safety finishes, and the rare 50 ft
min finish lines. The participants have changed with time, but
participation numbers have not.

I don't have the stats, but from my personal view, numbers of safety
incidents have also changed very little. Its still a pretty dangerous
sport. Stay down the middle and the risk is reasonable. But the edges
are sharp and the temptation to play close to the edges is real.

I still enjoy contests. Maybe the trade offs behind all the changes are
worth it. They all, or most of them, made sense at the time. Maybe my
memory of how it was 25 years ago is flawed as I started young. But I
feel some of the essence has been lost in the quest.

-Dave
ZL

snip

Of course one can fly hors de concourse and have some fun, but is that
really competing, or just getting in the way? *

snip

I think this is where a lot of pilot miss it on contest flying. They
think that contest flying = competing. Of course there a a few that do
really compete but I bet at most regional contests 90% of the pilots
are there for the concentrated week of flying (it is easier to take a
week off of work and fly), availability of tows and crew, (There are
always enough people to retrieve you if you land out), the social
aspect, (spending lot of time around other glider pilots), and the
once every 5 years that conservative flying and luck align to let you
win a day.

With so many MAT and TAT tasks being called most of the time it really
is a lot like just going out and flying on a regular Saturday
afternoon and going where you want to. Maybe we should start calling
the a regional fly-in instead of a contest.

Brian
HP16T

On Jan 23, 4:28*pm, ZL wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 23, 1:46 pm, toad wrote:
I think that the decline in contest flying has NOTHING to do with the
racing rules ! *And no tinkering or restraint from tinkering will
change that decline.

It is simply mirroring the decline of soaring in general.

Todd Smith
3S

You may be right, although my impression is that neither soaring in
general nor the SSA membership specifically has suffered a 14%+
decline in the past four years.

snip

Here's some slightly different stats over previous years. The US
Competition Pilot Ranking list. Including some way back, pre-GPS, early
sports class years I found in my files. It gives the total number of
pilots that scored in an SSA sanctioned over the previous 3 years.
Smooths out some of the outlying good and bad years.

1990 - *620
1992 - *630
1995 - *550
2001 - *501
2002 - *551
2003 - *619*
2004 - *636
2005 - *636
2006 - *590
2007 - *592
2008 - *594

* The online list shows 900, hand removing obvious duplicates gives 619

Looks to me like the 20 year trend is remarkably flat. Bigger percentage
of SSA members today, but maybe not a different percentage of total
active glider pilots.

-Dave
ZL

In addition to the above, we have to also admit that non-sanctioned
local contests which didn't even exist on a large scale 15 years ago
are a legitimate form of racing which is growing. As ZA points out
in another post, the Chicago area racing scene is alive and well.
Same with the Governor's Cup in the PA/NY/NJ and the GTA races. I
did a quick back-of-the-envelope look at these three racing series
alone and came up with well over 50 pilots who do compete - just not
in SSA Sanctioned events. So, if I use even the conservative
number of 50 and add that to the numbers from the last 10 years or so
(when most of these series got going), you would conclude that, if
anything, there's been a slight increase in racing participation since
the early 1990s. Given the overall decline in the number of SSA
members, one could see reason for taking an optimistic view.

None of this suggests we can afford to be complacent, but I think "the
reports of racing's death are greatly exaggerated. "

P3

On Jan 23, 10:51*am, Chip Bearden wrote:
On Jan 21, 4:32 pm, P1 wrote:

In 2008 there we

354 pilots who flew at least one contest day at a sanctioned
contest. (In 2004 there were 408).

As usual, we're happily engaged in an AT vs. TAT brawl and completely
missing what, to me, is the most jarring statistic: U.S. contest
participation is down almost 14% in the past four years (.3.5%
compound rate). Now before we start arguing about whether this is a
statistically valid comparison [e.g., I don't know whether 2008 was
depressed because of the economy or 2004 was artificially high (THAT'S
depressing, at only 400 pilots) or what], I think we can all stipulate
that contest participation is not growing by leaps and bounds.

Money is certainly a factor. Again, I won't jump into the Sports vs.
Club vs. Std/15M/18M Class wars but it's more expensive, lots, to buy
a new glider. I bought my last one in 1992 and it will probably be my
last one. But I'm still flying and it's still competitive and the cost
of a contest hasn't gone out of sight, at least compared with a week
in DisneyWorld, so what's the problem?

There are probably many reasons. But the one I'm focusing on here is
the philosophical bent, so to speak, of the Rules Committee. Now this
is not a rant against these guys. I know and respect them all and, in
fact, we've had a lot of discussions about a couple of suggestions I
and others had last year and they've been willing to work with me on
it. But I still sense that when push comes to shove, their #1 and
maybe only priority is to insure the highest level of competition
through the legislative rules process. The impact this last time, in
my opinion, was (1) rules that were even more complex than before
(e.g., the new start cylinder "trust us, you can't tell where the arc
is before you start but it won't matter anyway") and (2) equipment
requirements that are more rigorous and expensive (i.e., the absolute
requirement, now, for two IGC-approved flight recorders rather than
one plus a cheap commercial off-the-shelf backup, as I have been
using ).

I can argue both sides. Rules are important (I've had a hand in
drafting several myself over the years). And I'm not in favor of using
the honor system even at a regionals, much less a nationals. I've seen
too many instances of wishful thinking if not downright cheating. But
I sense that our guys have become so caught up in the process of
making the Rules work exquisitely and precisely that they've lost
sight of what's happening. It's more difficult every year--even for
me, and I've been flying Nationals since 1976--to stay up with the
Rules; I'm thinking seriously of bringing my own copy of WinScore to
each contest this year and entering the logs every day because it's
the only way to see if any scoring errors occur (and there are LOTS of
opportunities for that), and that presumes the software is 100%
reliable.

And it's not; it's more difficult each year for WinScore to keep pace.
There's evidence that there may have been at least one bug in WinScore
in 2008 that affected the results on multiple days, and rules in this
area have changed yet again. I work in the IT/software industry and
seeing so many changes going into a small-market application that
cannot possibly be tested thoroughly each time makes me certain that
this is not the first time this has happened.

It looks like I'll have to fork over $1000 this spring for another IGC-
approved flight recorder. Fairly soon I expect I'll have to pay up for
more software or a ClearNav to depict the likely start cylinder
configuration. Etc.

The ship is sinking. The 18M Class is booming...for that tiny handful
of pilots who can afford to pay well into six figures for a new glider
or motorglider. Overall, however, contest flying is shrinking. Let's
shift our focus away from making it 100% certain that no one can cheat
no matter how much time and money they're willing to spend and
designing "perfect" Rules and think about how to make competitive
soaring just a little more accessible and affordable for those several
hundred pilots in this country who already fly the contests and the
several hundred more who, if they showed up, would evidence a 50%
growth rate!!!

My apologies to the Rules Committee. They've been very receptive to my
suggestions and requests over the years and especially the past two
years. Perhaps it's not their fault. Maybe what we need is a new
charter for them.

Constructively submitted,
Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

You have apparently not read the rules changes submitted , and
approved ths morning. The addendum does permit COTS loggers, with
some limitations, for backup in National as well as a variety of lower
cost options for use in Regionals.
The more rigorous requirement you allude to would only apply in a case
of trying to make the US Team.
The impression you leave is that the RC is not responsive to your
suggestions on this topic. In fact, a great deal of time has been
spent on this while trying to find a reasonable balance between cost
to individuals and fairness to all.
You got your way, though maybe not 100% and you're still bitching.
Our guiding principles put safety first, fairness close behind, and
how any change affects participation right at the top of our list.
If you think we need a new charter- feel free to propose it with
concrete examples of how you would propose to accomplish such a
charter.
Sent as an individual member of the RC.
UH

On Jan 23, 3:11*pm, wrote:
You have apparently not read the rules changes submitted , and
approved ths morning. The addendum does permit *COTS loggers, with
some limitations, for backup in National as well as a variety of lower
cost options for use in Regionals.
The more rigorous requirement you allude to would only apply in a case
of trying to make the US Team.
The impression you leave is that the RC is not responsive to your
suggestions on this topic. In fact, a great deal of time has been
spent on this while trying to find a reasonable balance between cost
to individuals and fairness to all.
You got your way, though maybe not 100% and you're still bitching.
Our guiding principles put safety first, fairness close behind, and
how any change affects participation right at the top of our list.
If you think we need a new charter- feel free to propose it with
concrete examples of how you would propose to accomplish such a
charter.
Sent as an individual member of the RC.
UH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

UH,

I'm responding quickly because of the impression I gave you guys that
I'm bitching. I'm not. I did read the proposed rules a few weeks ago
when they were published and quickly re-read the section on flight
recorders a few minutes ago just to see if anything had changed (it
had not). I agreed with most of the changes, for whatever that's
worth.

But I admit I was disappointed in the section on COTS flight recorders
and I'm going to push back. It completes the stealth change in 2008
that essentially eliminated their routine use as a backup device at
the national level. I do recognize that P3 and I have been tasked with
coming up with a workable solution for regionals use, and we
appreciate the opportunity. It doesn't change the fact that the 2008
rules were a step away from 2007 and 2009 is still another step.

Prior to 2008, if a flight recorder met the functional requirements in
the Rules, it could be used as a backup. Period. We can argue about
what was intended but that's what the rules said and that's what I and
some others did using a cheap off-the-shelf Garmin unit. Last year the
RC changed the rules: the functional specs were kept but you created
three lists/classes of flight recorders and it was problematic whether
COTS were accepted as backups (I was graciously granted a waiver to
fly the October Region 4 contest with mine pending the RC's meeting).
This year the process is complete: there are two categories of flight
recorders, and COTS are tossed into the ingeniously titled
"substandard" category [I love that name: did you guys debate using
"schlock" or "junk" or "second class" as the descriptor or was this
your unanimous choice? g]. And the way I read the chart, COTS are
only for regional, not national use, and only by waiver (i.e., there's
no X in the Nationals column for COTS in Appendix B).

Another step backward, in my view, was the rule that says only one use
of a "substandard" backup device is allowed without a penalty. After
that, a modest 100 point penalty is imposed each day. Sarcasm
intended. Obviously no one, serious or not, will take a chance on that
one. So if your primary logger fails, you better hope to borrow
another primary logger immediately (like by the morning of the next
day). Oh, and if it's a CAI Model 20 with a dead battery, forget it.
Because although that unit met the functional requirements for a
backup device last year, it was specifically crossed off the list
because of the broken security seal. This year it's still allowed as a
backup, but you can only use a backup once before the penalty kicks
in. So the unit I borrowed in Cordele last May wouldn't have done me
any good because the security seal was dead on it at the time.

Sorry for the details. You see where I'm going? On the surface, "I got
what I wanted." But not really. Practically speaking, if I'm serious
(meaning I will only spend the $1500 to $2000 to fly a nationals--and
that's sleeping in the van every night--if I want to be scored every
day), I need a second RC-approved logger or guaranteed access to one
on short notice.

OK, I'm focused on the COTS issue. I have a long history of
"constructive" criticism of mandatory flight recorder use at
contests. But I did see a theme he a tendency to try to
eliminate "loopholes" (like the COTS use as a backup, which I and
another pilot first mentioned to another RC member a few years ago)
when there's no evidence that I'm aware of that such loopholes
necessarily need filling.

The start cylinder arc is another issue. I'm not going to worry about
it. But it does strike me as odd that we now have a rule the
application thereof won't be clear until well after we start. Say what
you want about the impact on points being small, but it invites
cynicism and rolling of eyes. Police officer pulling over a motorist:
"I know there was no posted speed limit, sir, but our computer
determined that based on the traffic density, weather, road condition,
and time of day that you were traveling in excess of 15 mph over the
imputed speed limit of 57.2 mph. That's a $100 fine and 2 points on
your license. Please drive carefully, sir."

I worry that the interaction of the ever-changing Rules and WinScore
(which combination actually represents the scoring system) is doomed
to small failures for the simple reason that the Rules themselves and
now WinScore have been patched and fixed so many times that it is
difficult to test them adequately. Using the first contest as the beta
test site isn't a real solution. Yes, I know we been tasked with
developing test data. But as the U.S. car companies discovered years
ago, you can't inspect quality in at the back end of the process. You
need to change the process. That means relatively simple rules and as
few changes as possible. The scoring issue I raised privately was
apparently in the system all year. It affected the daily winners and
order of final placings (though not the overall class winners) at
Region 4 in October.

I profoundly appreciate the job you guys do. The results are pretty
good. But I can tell you that no one flying that I have spoken with
understands the current Rules. Most pilots don't worry about it. They
look at the score sheet and take what's given to them. They might ask
a question if they get a penalty but that's it. The only reason we
tumbled onto the problem at Region 4 is that one exceptionally honest
pilot--Mike Higgins, who ought to get a sportsmanship award--allowed
during his winner's speech that he had busted the floor of the finish
cylinder and warned the scorer that he ought to check his calculations
again.

I've covered a lot of ground. I agree you have safety at the top of
your list. I believe you guys believe that you consider participation
with each proposed Rules change. But do you consider it the same way
as if you were required to justify each economic impact on a case-by-
case basis? For example, raising the deposit from $100 to $150 (the
"at risk" money) and pushing the full-refund date from 14 days to 30
days prior to the contest are significant changes this year. I'm sure
many contest organizers have problems with no-shows and appreciate
being able to plan for tow planes better. But this reminds me of the
tendency for some legislators to raise taxes higher and higher
assuming revenues will increase proportionately. In this case, some
contest organizers have taken a different tack: the astoundingly
successful Region 4N M-ASA regional, which didn't even exist five
years ago and now sucks pilots from perennial favorite New Castle,
doesn't enforce the late entry penalty. Want to fly? Come on down!
Different approaches. I worry that we haven't given the RC enough
latitude, or perhaps the right charge, to explicitly consider
participation on the same level as ensuring competition that fairly
determines the national champion and US team.

I don't have the magic answer. But I also don't think that raising the
questions I did is insulting or disloyal to the great group of
dedicated guys who serve on the RC.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

First let me say "I have never flown in a contest, but my friends have."

A few years ago one of these friend took his well maintained Schreder
sailplane to the Sport Class National contest. He is a skilled pilot and
placed in the middle of the pack. At the time his EW Model D and Garmin
were acceptable. For him to compete in the future he will be required to
invest between 10 and 20 percent the value of his glider and trailer.

What information is provided by the "approved" flight recorders that cannot
be derived from a EW Model D?

It appears that this type of rule's only purpose is to keep people with big
buck gliders from being embarrassed by a kid flying an affordable 40 year
old bird.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder




wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 3:11 pm, wrote:
....Snip...

Prior to 2008, if a flight recorder met the functional requirements in
the Rules, it could be used as a backup. Period. We can argue about
what was intended but that's what the rules said and that's what I and
some others did using a cheap off-the-shelf Garmin unit. Last year the
RC changed the rules: the functional specs were kept but you created
three lists/classes of flight recorders and it was problematic whether
COTS were accepted as backups (I was graciously granted a waiver to
fly the October Region 4 contest with mine pending the RC's meeting).
This year the process is complete: there are two categories of flight
recorders, and COTS are tossed into the ingeniously titled
"substandard" category [I love that name: did you guys debate using
"schlock" or "junk" or "second class" as the descriptor or was this
your unanimous choice? g]. And the way I read the chart, COTS are
only for regional, not national use, and only by waiver (i.e., there's
no X in the Nationals column for COTS in Appendix B).

.... Snip ...

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

But the EW D is still an approved IGC recorder up to Diamonds, and National
Comps in most parts of the World (provided it is attached to an appropraite
Garmin so that the record shows it was set to WGS84).

Does the USA have different rules to IGC?

At 16:25 24 January 2009, Wayne Paul wrote:
First let me say "I have never flown in a contest, but my friends
have."

A few years ago one of these friend took his well maintained Schreder
sailplane to the Sport Class National contest. He is a skilled pilot and

placed in the middle of the pack. At the time his EW Model D and Garmin

were acceptable. For him to compete in the future he will be required to

invest between 10 and 20 percent the value of his glider and trailer.

What information is provided by the "approved" flight recorders that
cannot
be derived from a EW Model D?

It appears that this type of rule's only purpose is to keep people with
big
buck gliders from being embarrassed by a kid flying an affordable 40 year

old bird.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

On Jan 24, 1:15*pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
But the EW D is still an approved IGC recorder up to Diamonds, and National
Comps in most parts of the World (provided it is attached to an appropraite
Garmin so that the record shows it was set to WGS84).

Does the USA have different rules to IGC?

At 16:25 24 January 2009, Wayne Paul wrote:



First let me say "I have never flown in a contest, but my friends
have."

A few years ago one of these friend took his well maintained Schreder
sailplane to the Sport Class National contest. *He is a skilled pilot and
placed in the middle of the pack. *At the time his EW Model D and Garmin
were acceptable. *For him to compete in the future he will be required to
invest between 10 and 20 percent the value of his glider and trailer.

What information is provided by the "approved" flight recorders that
cannot
be derived from a EW Model D?

It appears that this type of rule's only purpose is to keep people with
big
buck gliders from being embarrassed by a kid flying an affordable 40 year
old bird.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He can us it today- we mirror the IGC list.
UH

"Peter Purdie" wrote in message
...
But the EW D is still an approved IGC recorder up to Diamonds, and
National
Comps in most parts of the World (provided it is attached to an
appropraite
Garmin so that the record shows it was set to WGS84).

Does the USA have different rules to IGC?


Peter,

In Appendix B of the 2009 USA rules proposal the EW Model D is allowed at
the Regional competitions; however, is excluded for National level
competitions.

For all,

I woke up on the "wrong side of the bed" this morning and found this
restriction to handicapped Sport Class meets especially irritating.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F'
http://www.soaridaho.com/