FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, wrote:
The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.



Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.



In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):

1. Your position on the US seeding list.

2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.

3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.

4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.

5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.

6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.

7. Any other comments welcome!



Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...out-exception/



Sean Franke

US Club Class Team Member

Sorry for the obsolete reference. This is what the current US Team website says:

1.5 The Sport Class Nationals are used to select pilots for the Club Class WGC. Pilots who have been a contestant in a previous WGC contest (except club class, World Class, Junior and Feminine events)are not eligible for selection to the US WGC Club Class team.

However, it doesn't alter the point that the petition should be ignored and those concerned with the best interests of the entire US soaring competition community should work within its rule making process. Run for a seat on the committee (no candidate this year), convey your opinions to the RC, suggest questions for the pilot poll, speak out at RC sessions at contests, etc.

And the point remains that the cream-of-the-crop candidates who would make the best showing for the US are effectively out of the running because their gliders have been excluded, and the practical and financial aspects of finding and flying a second glider are realistically reserved for the idle rich.

Furthermore, it is fantasy to believe some minor tweaks of the rules (start line shape, assigned tasks for instance) will produce faster pilots at WGC's. 99% of the game is on course and consists of two elements: obtaining the highest average lift and least average sink.

Karl Striedieck

Sorry for the obsolete reference. This is what the current US Team website says:
1.5 The Sport Class Nationals are used to select pilots for the Club Class WGC. Pilots who have been a contestant in a previous WGC contest (except club class, World Class, Junior and Feminine events)are not eligible for selection to the US WGC Club Class team.
However, it doesn't alter the point that the petition should be ignored and those concerned with the best interests of the entire US soaring competition community should work within its rule making process. Run for a seat on the committee (no candidate this year), convey your opinions to the RC, suggest questions for the pilot poll, speak out at RC sessions at contests, etc.
And the point remains that the cream-of-the-crop candidates who would make the best showing for the US are effectively out of the running because their gliders have been excluded, and the practical and financial aspects of finding and flying a second glider are realistically reserved for the idle rich.

Karl Striedieck

This petition offers valid feedback. In fact, I don't recall a pilots poll in the past inquiring on this exact topic. I'm interested in finding out if there are enough pilots who want a choice. Throwing out feedback because they may be concerned about results is irresponsible. The RC is proposing a new US racing class. Let's not assume this new class should be set up like other US classes. Taking a different approach may help grow the sport after many years of decline.

This is not about team selection or WGC preparation. Although is does bring up promising possibilities.

I have heard before that guys with $100,000+ gliders are at a disadvantage because they cant afford a $15,000 club class glider. Club Class gliders are not difficult to borrow. If this is a problem then please contact me. I'll help. I suppose if someone was really serious about flying Club Class and being on the US Team they could SELL their $100,000 glider. Then go Club Class.

Sean Franke

A big thank you to the members of the rules committe for their hard work to
manage the playground and provide me with a place to play our game. I for
one appreciate all that you do and what you endure on our behalf!

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:14:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:

This petition offers valid feedback.

I think a lot of us are thinking "No, it just stirs the pot".

The RC is proposing a new US racing class.

Not really. They are extending what's been tried and proven at the regional level to a Nationals.


This is not about team selection or WGC preparation.

I call BS. Exhibit "A" for the prosecution is your use of the word "Nationals" in your "petition".

If I wanted to sell a (nearly) pure IGC rules CC in the US, this is what I would do:

1. Study the rules until I had 'em cold. Determine what, if anything, absolutely had to be adjusted for US use. Determine what, if anything, might be *desirably* adjusted for US use, without compromising the essential character of the race I was trying to create.

2. Figure out how to support the CD and scorer.

3. Find a site and a sponsor, sell them. Find a CD and scorer, sell them.

4. With all that in hand, or at least well on the way, sell the RC on granting me a waiver for a *regional or super regional* contest. Be ready for the inevitable discussion of rules, safety implications and so forth. Concentrate really, really hard on what is *most* important and try earnestly to capture that in the inevitable compromise. Be prepared to negotiate everything else as needed to make it work.

Because you give evidence of having done almost none of the foregoing, people aren't taking you seriously. Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.

Constructively,

Evan Ludeman / T8

Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.

Constructively,

Evan Ludeman / T8

I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.

It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.

Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?

Sean Franke

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:14:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.



Constructively,



Evan Ludeman / T8



I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.



It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.



Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?



Sean Franke

If that's all you can find to nitpick, then I guess the rest of the message found it's mark?

The way I see it, *if* we ran American Sports next to FAI CC at Mifflin (which we won't), we'd more or less double the admin load. That's a solvable problem (maybe a second scorer / assistant CD, whatever). But the point is, our normal process is to try out the bright ideas at the regional level and develop a base of experience that can be shared when it's time to run a Nationals.

Personally, I'm real curious to see how shutting out the "killer bees" (that would be ASW-20Bs, Ventus Bs, LS-6Bs) and their kin is going to help participation. The best evidence available so far suggests that it could reduce participation by about 25% (I'm looking at R9 the last couple years). Again, the better environment to sort this out is at the regional level.

Good luck.

T8, out.

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:14:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.



Constructively,



Evan Ludeman / T8



I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.



It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.



Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?



Sean Franke

If that's all you can find to nitpick, then I guess the rest of the message found its mark?

The way I see it, *if* we ran American Sports next to FAI CC at Mifflin (which we won't), we'd more or less double the admin load. That's a solvable problem (maybe a second scorer / assistant CD, whatever). But the point is, our normal process is to try out the bright ideas at the regional level and develop a base of experience that can be shared when it's time to run a Nationals.

Personally, I'm curious to see how shutting out the "killer bees" (that would be ASW-20Bs, Ventus Bs, LS-6Bs) and their kin is going to help participation. The best evidence available so far suggests that it could reduce participation by about 25% (I'm looking at R9 the last couple years). Again, the better environment to sort this out is at the regional level.

Good luck.

T8, out.