USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted

On Dec 14, 9:03*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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the quick reply John. The "ballast to the same weight"
concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules
with a combined Std and 15M contest. While most modern Std gliders
may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have
similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std
and 15M wing areas.

Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their
unballasted wing loading at contest entry. Each pilot could then
calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to
reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. It would only
take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B
spreadsheet to get that data.

If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M
class, the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is
adjusted by the ratio of typical Std and typical 15m wing areas.

ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 9.2 (area in square metres) so
adjustment factor 1.14?

Andy

On Dec 14, 8:44*am, Andy wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:03*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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the quick reply John. *The "ballast to the same weight"
concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules
with a combined Std and 15M contest. *While most modern Std gliders
may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have
similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std
and 15M wing areas.

Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their
unballasted wing loading at contest entry. *Each pilot could then
calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to
reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. *It would only
take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B
spreadsheet to get that data.

If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M
class, *the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is
adjusted by the ratio of *typical Std and typical 15m wing areas.

ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 *9.2 (area in square metres) so
adjustment factor 1.14?

Andy

Conversely if you are flying a 15m ship in an 18m contest you could be
at an advantage. Should the 15m ships have an adjustment factor as
well?

2C

On Dec 14, 7:41*pm, Kevin Christner wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:44*am, Andy wrote:





On Dec 14, 9:03*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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the quick reply John. *The "ballast to the same weight"
concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules
with a combined Std and 15M contest. *While most modern Std gliders
may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have
similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std
and 15M wing areas.

Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their
unballasted wing loading at contest entry. *Each pilot could then
calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to
reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. *It would only
take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B
spreadsheet to get that data.

If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M
class, *the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is
adjusted by the ratio of *typical Std and typical 15m wing areas.

ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 *9.2 (area in square metres) so
adjustment factor 1.14?

Andy

Conversely if you are flying a 15m ship in an 18m contest you could be
at an advantage. *Should the 15m ships have an adjustment factor as
well?

2C- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or go to to the contemplated combined handicap class and don't worry
about it.
UH

On Dec 14, 8:44*am, Andy wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:03*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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the quick reply John. *The "ballast to the same weight"
concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules
with a combined Std and 15M contest. *While most modern Std gliders
may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have
similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std
and 15M wing areas.

Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their
unballasted wing loading at contest entry. *Each pilot could then
calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to
reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. *It would only
take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B
spreadsheet to get that data.

If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M
class, *the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is
adjusted by the ratio of *typical Std and typical 15m wing areas.

ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 *9.2 (area in square metres) so
adjustment factor 1.14?

Andy

How about allowing more ballast for older generation glass ships up
until their handicap under Sports Class rules is equalized? This would
turn handicapping on it's head - use ballast to equalize performance
rather than adjusting scores after the fact. Of course that would make
for one heavy Libelle.

I'm kidding.

This does show the challenge the RC faces in responding to the calls
for simple rules versus the calls for fairness. No water contests do
confer some advantage on heavy motorgliders with heavy pilots. The RC
proposal seems like a decent attempt at closing most of that gap. I'm
not sure that equalizing wing loading is an improvement since gliders
all have inherently different wing loading ranges by design. Plus
older gliders with really large wing areas could get pretty heavy -
which might undermine the original intent behind restricting takeoff
weight at certain airfields.

9B

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

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

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 15, 10:44*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:
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.

Going to be great fun watching you 18m guys sort this one out.
Popcorn, anyone?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Dec 15, 11:16*pm, T8 wrote:
On Dec 15, 10:44*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:





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.

Going to be great fun watching you 18m guys sort this one out.
Popcorn, anyone?

-Evan Ludeman / T8- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pop alot of corn Evan. Here's a good story.
Last year at the 2010 Seniors, John Good, our CD, showed up with new
scales. We were weighed on different days, outside and with different
conditions, needless to say. Our handicaps were adjusted down to the
10 thousands. Hey, you do want fair to be fair, right to be right, and
no advantage to any of us old folks.
Remember, next time you read the rules, find the rules pertaining to
the Seniors.
Now, put some more butter on that corn, cause heres your Christmas
story. On the second day, I put the weight of 16 pounds in my tail,
plus I put water in my tail tank to move my CG way back where me
likes it, as I am now told I am going to be weighted and no changes
after the weighing. This changed my weight from the declared 840 pds.
to 866 pds. My ASG 29 was in 15 Meter config. Ok, now they adjusted my
handicap on the first day to this new weight, which I tried to
explain, but to no avail.
Ok, whatever, but thats NOT all the Christmas story. Please, read on.
DB flew his ASG 29 in the 15 Meter config. They weighed him in the
wind, he and his glider weighed 861 pds. Ok, whats 5 pds between ships
you say. Nothing at all. BUT wait, DB has a body weight of 175 pds
and yep, my body weight is 242 pds. and yet our total weights were
within 5 pounds. Oh, my you say, what the........za zoom ..........His
handicap was adjusted to what mine was. Is something wrong here? Are
we trying to be to perfect in a non perfect world?

Andy, 9B, you can't even get to 1178 lbs, as you, my friend, have an
ASW 27 which has a max. weight of 1102 lbs.............. Check the
wing on the ASH 31, its 128 sq. ft. and look at the ASH 26E, its 125
sq. ft. Look at their weights as they are motorgliders.

As I do think this new rule will never be used, I brought this up to
show the lengths we go to, at some contests, to adjust wing loadings
and yet the outcome isn't always justified or wanted. Just old school
thinking I guess, never meant any harm or foul yet are we trying to be
to "perfect".

Hank and the guys really work hard to try and make it fair and equal
to all. With the years they have put in, its better now than it has
ever been.

Many thanks to them all.

On Dec 15, 7:44*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:
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.

Hmmmm...not sure the intent of the rule is to have a bunch of ships
ballasted to near MGTOW.

9B