USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted

On Dec 15, 6:55*pm, wrote:
On Dec 15, 4:46*pm, Andy wrote:

I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder
provision that was added for 2010. *What happened?

Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the
handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted
weights for setting handicaps?

9B

Handicap would be based on published handicap with no weight
adjustment. No extra work for the scorer.
UH

The 18 Meter Antares empty is 884 lbs. My ASG 29/18 Meter is 606.
Thats a fact and mine is most likely the lightest in the USA on its
emprty weight. Now, Dave and I were tied down by each other in
Waynesville, Ohio at the 2010 18 Meter Nationals. His 18 Meter Antares
has a wing area of 128.1 sq. feet. Mine is 113 sq. feet. Now, Dave
shared that without water his wing loading was over 9.2 lbs per sq.
ft. DRY.
OK, math time, 128.1 sq. feet times 9.2 gives a gross weight of 1178
lbs.
Now I can ballast to 1178 lbs ( heavest motorglider weight) which
gives me a wing loading of 10.429 lbs a sq. ft. (note...Dry I am 7.7
lbs sq ft/18 meter). A V2CX has 118 sq. ft. and they will be 9.98 lbs
sq ft. Dave Nadler could not be happy on this note, the V2cx guys and
girls might not be, BUT I am very happy and just wanted to express my
thanks for this wondeful Christmas present.

On Dec 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
Can someone please explain the intent of this:

"Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
of all gliders up to the
weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
provision that allows no ballast.
For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
“No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
ballast allowed."

Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?

Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?

thanks

Andy

This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
same thing.

Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
(And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
kidding)

The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
ballast rules.

Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.

Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
safety, fairness, etc. etc.

I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....

John Cochrane

No water rule is US new wheel invention.
If the airport is not safe(soft field ect.) , we should not fly or
wait.
If there is no water in the field we can bring our own water (Mifflin)
If somebody didn't put his glider in the morning together and fill it
with water(it was raining) , it is his problem.
If was raining after morning briefing we should have no tape day.
Same if somebody forgot to charge his battery.
Can we make no battery day ?Maybe was no power at the airport last
night.Some time ago I did check ride in Estrela and I got really
****ed (they had no airbrake rules),Can I use slip, NO was the
respond.Took me 3 trays to stop+/- 50ft from my waiting son.
Or maybe some of us are too old for all this hassle ?
OK, we have a team RC) ,,,, they have to produce,,,,, more and more
rules.
Water rule is aimed against Diana 2 and future Duckhawk fliers.
Who is afraid ?
Ryszard
Before last Grand Prix in Chile there was protest against Diana 2
fliers having bigger wing loading.Both Diana fliers had to reduce
water ballast, but it did not help.

On Dec 17, 12:31*am, RW wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote:





Can someone please explain the intent of this:

"Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
of all gliders up to the
weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
provision that allows no ballast.
For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
“No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
ballast allowed."

Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?

Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?

thanks

Andy

This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
same thing.

Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
(And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
kidding)

The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
ballast rules.

Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.

Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
safety, fairness, etc. etc.

I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....

John Cochrane

No water rule is US new wheel invention.
If the airport is not safe(soft field ect.) , we should not fly or
wait.
If there is no water in the field we can bring our own water (Mifflin)
If somebody didn't put his glider in the morning together and fill it
with water(it was raining) , it is his problem.
If was raining after morning briefing we should have no tape day.
Same if somebody forgot to charge his battery.
Can we make no battery day ?Maybe was no power at the airport last
night.Some time ago I did check ride in Estrela and I got really
****ed (they had no airbrake rules),Can I use slip, NO was the
respond.Took me 3 trays to stop+/- 50ft from my waiting son.
Or maybe some of us are too old for all this hassle ?
OK, we have a team RC) ,,,, they have to produce,,,,, more and more
rules.
Water rule is aimed against Diana 2 and future Duckhawk fliers.
Who is afraid ?
Ryszard
Before last Grand Prix in Chile there was protest against Diana 2
fliers having bigger wing loading.Both Diana fliers had to reduce
water ballast, * *but it did not help.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are conditions such as at Caesar Creek in 2010 where the field
was wet enough that towing fully loaded 18M gliders would be marginal
enough to seriously consider not flying, yet not so bad when towing
dry. 400 lb or so weight difference is significant in launch. In these
kinds of situatuions it makes sense for the CD to have this option
available so as to keep a good safety margin and not lose a day. The
contemplated weight adjustment
being looked at would add maybe 60 or 70 lb to "light" gliders to
bring them closer to motorized gliders for fairness. This would be at
tha option of the CD.
This is pretty much a nationals issue in my expectation. Most other
contests would not bother.
UH

On Dec 17, 8:42*am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:31*am, RW wrote:



On Dec 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote:

Can someone please explain the intent of this:

"Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
of all gliders up to the
weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
provision that allows no ballast.
For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
“No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
ballast allowed."

Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?

Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?

thanks

Andy

This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
same thing.

Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
(And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
kidding)

The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
ballast rules.

Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.

Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
safety, fairness, etc. etc.

I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....

John Cochrane

No water rule is US new wheel invention.
If the airport is not safe(soft field ect.) , we should not fly or
wait.
If there is no water in the field we can bring our own water (Mifflin)
If somebody didn't put his glider in the morning together and fill it
with water(it was raining) , it is his problem.
If was raining after morning briefing we should have no tape day.
Same if somebody forgot to charge his battery.
Can we make no battery day ?Maybe was no power at the airport last
night.Some time ago I did check ride in Estrela and I got really
****ed (they had no airbrake rules),Can I use slip, NO was the
respond.Took me 3 trays to stop+/- 50ft from my waiting son.
Or maybe some of us are too old for all this hassle ?
OK, we have a team RC) ,,,, they have to produce,,,,, more and more
rules.
Water rule is aimed against Diana 2 and future Duckhawk fliers.
Who is afraid ?
Ryszard
Before last Grand Prix in Chile there was protest against Diana 2
fliers having bigger wing loading.Both Diana fliers had to reduce
water ballast, * *but it did not help.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are conditions such as at Caesar Creek in 2010 where the field
was wet enough that towing fully loaded 18M gliders would be marginal
enough to seriously consider not flying, yet not so bad when towing
dry. 400 lb or so weight difference is significant in launch. In these
kinds of situatuions it makes sense for the CD to have this option
available so as to keep a good safety margin and not lose a day. The
contemplated weight adjustment
being looked at would add maybe 60 or 70 lb to "light" gliders to
bring them closer to motorized gliders for fairness. This would be at
tha option of the CD.
This is pretty much a nationals issue in my expectation. Most other
contests would not bother.
UH

In this specific situation old rule (CD could only propose no water(or
quits) and all pilots have to agree) would get same results.
Especially if we would let get everybody to same the weight(part of
newest rule) it is hard to imagine opposition.
PW5-ers do it every contest(they have option to bring their PW5 to the
heaviest PW5 glider)
Ryszard