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

We figured we'd be getting bouquets of flowers and boxes of
chocolates. Leaving aside the start, finish, scoring formulas, metric units, tiny turn radii, these rules impose completely different procedures. Quick, what are the IGC weight limits? Rules on modifications? Rules on use of fixed
and disposable ballast? How many of your pilots know how to fly these
rules? Doing this at a nationals without trying it at regionals would
be insane.

So, yes. If you want to completely change the concept of the class --
which IGC rules really is! -- that needs to be worked out at a
regionals, not at a nationals, that is already sanctioned. The
sanctioning process includes a check of things pilots expect like, is
there a scorer and a CD who knows the rules they race is going to fly
under! Sean has a theory that it's a 5 minute job with see you to use
a different set of rules. He needs to talk to John Good and Ken
Sorenson and find out about the months -- months -- it took to get
rules and procedures worked out for Uvalde.

I'm sorry for the irritated tone. But when we give you 95% of what you
wanted, in the form that we had all been working on steadily for 5
years, and then suddenly the demands change radically at the last
moment, ignoring all the previous work, ignoring all the
practicalities of what it takes to run a contest, well, you can
imagine it's a little irritating.
John Cochrane

Again this position is extreme and dramatic. When you stay within reality creating an FAI Club Class is the next logical step.

I think if most had to give a quick response on US rules you would get the same result as FAI. It would have to be looked up. Here is the big difference. FAI rules are almost HALF in length. Keep in mind complexity is being cut NOT added. Rules and procedures are not radically different, just a lot less.

Lets look at the three major differences between proposed RC Club Class and FAI.

1. FAI has a Racing Task(Assigned Speed Task)and Assigned Area Task (AAT). US has the MAT and AAT. Racing Task will be unlikely.
2.FAI has a narrower restricted handicap range than the US. Proposed US Club Class handicap range extends from a Ventus 1 to SGS 2-33.
3. Scoring formula / program is different.

FAI Club Class concepts HAVE BEEN proven in super-regionals. To state otherwise is FALSE. I flew in the 2011 Club Class super regional in Moriarty. The only real difference between this contest and FAI was US scoring. Short of scoring, major FAI components were successfully proven. Participation was grater than some National contests.

Enthusiasm hasn't diminished. US Club Class has done it's due diligence. The RC has proposed a Club Class version which completely ignores all previous work and changes concept of the class.

The RC said prove it in a regional. We did. Now it's time for the RC to follow through, take then next logical step and propose a US Club Class Nationals based on concepts established in the Regionals.

Sean Franke (HA)

Sean Franke consistently shows the most objective command of the world soaring rules landscape (99% FAI, 1% US). We all know the US rules. But many, MANY have deep misconceptions about the FAI rules. Many disturbingly so...

Sean
F2

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 3:43:22 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
We all know the US rules. But many, MANY have deep misconceptions about the FAI rules. Many disturbingly so...

Sean
F2

Sean,
I have flown 8 contests with IGC/FAI rules. I am disturbed that no one other than myself is concerned about light weight pilots flying with lead filled cockpits. How do you safely fasten the weight? How do you adjust the CG?
How do you support a rule that handicaps you if you don't fly at MTOW?
Rick Walters

On Saturday, December 1, 2012 4:47:27 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
The distortion, ignorance of facts and double standards are nearing exceptional levels.
I am concerned that the US rules committee functions more like a "think tank" than a committee of ALL fellow soaring pilots.

Sean,
Can I assume from your statements that you see nothing wrong with lightweight pilots flying with 80 pounds of lead in their cockpit to be at IGC MTOW and at equal wingloading with heavier pilots? Example: I fly a Discus b at 792# with a 1.08 IGC handicap. Sarah Arnold might fly a Discus A ( same 1.08 h/c) and would need well over 110# of lead to match my gross. How do you safely do this, and why? This IGC rule is absurd and I would not support it for a US Nationals.
Rick Walters

Well - no - 110lb of lead in the cockpit would be a little unwise. But
110l of water in the wings might do it. Of course then the ballast can
be dumped, which confers an advantage, and eventually you have angels
dancing on pinheads...

Have flown at a number of contests where there was a "target wing
loading" - works quite well in practice, and can be done quickly. Just
tow your main wheel over a scale each day on the way to the grid.

Of course - my kestrel full of water is waaay below the agreed target
wingloading but that is life.

Bruce


On 2012/12/02 2:48 PM, wrote:
Sean,
Can I assume from your statements that you see nothing wrong with lightweight pilots flying with 80 pounds of lead in their cockpit to be at IGC MTOW and at equal wingloading with heavier pilots? Example: I fly a Discus b at 792# with a 1.08 IGC handicap. Sarah Arnold might fly a Discus A ( same 1.08 h/c) and would need well over 110# of lead to match my gross. How do you safely do this, and why? This IGC rule is absurd and I would not support it for a US Nationals.
Rick Walters

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 6:02:49 AM UTC-8, BruceGreeff wrote:
Well - no - 110lb of lead in the cockpit would be a little unwise. But

110l of water in the wings might do it. Of course then the ballast can

be dumped, which confers an advantage, and eventually you have angels

dancing on pinheads...

Bruce,
The two Sean's are proposing using IGC rules, which do not allow for any water ballast, period. They use lead at CC WGC. Should be lots of fun a ridge day at Mifflin.
Rick W

On Dec 1, 1:26*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote:
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...s-association-...

Sean Franke

US Club Class Team Member

Sean(s),

I share BB's and UH's frustration with the level of nonsense in this thread.

Demanding that the organizer (KS) *run the 2013 Club Class by FAI rules after the event being sanctioned and resources committed is simply a non-starter.

Gutting the contest to hold the Club Class somewhere else is also a non-starter.

Rather than all the bluster and rabble rousing rhetoric, commit your efforts to where your mouths are. *Procure a waiver to run a regional club class contest under FAI rules by making the convincing case that it will not be less safe than one conducted under US Rules.

Hold the contest and demonstrate that it is popular (and take the financial risk).

I.e put up or shut up.

QT

John, this is quite arrogant of you. After all you are on RC to serve.

On Saturday, December 1, 2012 8:42:12 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:26*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote:

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...s-association-...



Sean Franke



US Club Class Team Member



Sean(s),



I share BB's and UH's frustration with the level of nonsense in this thread.



Demanding that the organizer (KS) *run the 2013 Club Class by FAI rules after the event being sanctioned and resources committed is simply a non-starter.



Gutting the contest to hold the Club Class somewhere else is also a non-starter.



Rather than all the bluster and rabble rousing rhetoric, commit your efforts to where your mouths are. *Procure a waiver to run a regional club class contest under FAI rules by making the convincing case that it will not be less safe than one conducted under US Rules.



Hold the contest and demonstrate that it is popular (and take the financial risk).



I.e put up or shut up.



QT



John, this is quite arrogant of you. After all you are on RC to serve.

Andrej,

Sorry if you see me as arrogant, but my stance on not jerking around already sanctioned contests and especially their organizers is firm.

As to whether we should adopt FAI rules for racing, there is a time honed process for this type of major change (and make no mistake, it is a majpor change). Regionals first followed by Nationals.

Still waiting for an organizer to step up with a request for sanction and waiver...

QT