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

I am disturbed that no one other than myself is concerned about light weight pilots flying with lead filled cockpits.

Probably because most pilots have the opposite problem .

I myself have the same problem as you have. When I had a club class
glider I created a seat pan mold and then used lead pellets with epoxy
to fill it. I also put belts through it and attached them to the seat
belt mount points. The extra weight was 55 lb. By the way I still have
it if anyone is interested. It is made for SZD-55-1. Yes it was a lot
of work but much less work than gaining 55 lb and much healthier .
Would I do it again? No, I make too many mistakes to blame them on
weight.

For the pilots at the top of the ladder they might have a different
view.

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:27:50 PM UTC-8, wrote:
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

Rick,

I appreciate your concern. Safety should ALWAYS be discussed openly.

I don't believe lead weight is inherently dangerous. When I was younger, shorter and a lot lighter, I used lead weight ballast responsibly. Nobody thought is was controversial. I'm not saying use of lead weight can't be applied irresponsibly. That same pilot can also be unsafe in any number of other areas as well, not just lead weight.

At the last Club Class WGC there were likely pilot(s) adding lead weight. However, it was a non-issue. I'm not aware of a pilot adding lead weight because it apparently wasn't controversial enough to make conversation.

I KNOW OF a US pilot adding lead weight flying Sports Class here in the US. Apparently the advantage of flying at max weight is more advantageous than handicap adjustment.

Unless the RC outlaws lead weight in US contests I suspect it will continue to happen just like it will in FAI rules.

Sean Franke (HA)

Rick,



I appreciate your concern. Safety should ALWAYS be discussed openly.



I don't believe lead weight is inherently dangerous. When I was younger, shorter and a lot lighter, I used lead weight ballast responsibly. Nobody thought is was controversial. I'm not saying use of lead weight can't be applied irresponsibly. That same pilot can also be unsafe in any number of other areas as well, not just lead weight.



At the last Club Class WGC there were likely pilot(s) adding lead weight. However, it was a non-issue. I'm not aware of a pilot adding lead weight because it apparently wasn't controversial enough to make conversation.



I KNOW OF a US pilot adding lead weight flying Sports Class here in the US. Apparently the advantage of flying at max weight is more advantageous than handicap adjustment.



Unless the RC outlaws lead weight in US contests I suspect it will continue to happen just like it will in FAI rules.



Sean Franke (HA)

Lead ballast is legal under US rules

6.8.3.2 Fixed ballast is permitted, but not more than an amount that brings the sailplane to its maximum handicap weight, as defined in the SSA Sailplane Handicap List.

However, the handicap adjustment goes in both directions -- light pilots get a better handicap. This was done to remove the incentive to pile up those bags of lead shot bouncing around many cockpits.

11.6.1.2.2 â€* If Competition Weight (Rule 6.12.3) is different from the specified Handicap Weight, the Handicap Factor shall be multiplied by the following:
1.0 - ((Competition Weight) - (Handicap Weight)) * 0.0002

This is one of those "complexities" in US rules that everyone complains about until we ask people for specific rules that should be dropped.

John Cochrane

Sean and John,

Yes, fixed ballast is allowed in US sports class rules. My concern is the Erik Nelson, Sarah Arnold, superfit lightweight pilots that will be at a disadvantage in the proposed CC unless they lead ballast up to MTOW. You can't add 100# under your seat without adding tail ballast. Most spar shelves are limited to 5kg. Few have an A&P do a proper installation. I know of weights slipping into control mechanisms. I remember Robbie Robertson. Weight behind your head is stupid.

I have flown an ASW24 at MTOW against a very light LS8 at the Sports nats. Our handicap weight adjustments work very well, both up and down. We flew with identical handicaps. They adjust the FAI CC rules for overweight, so it would not be any more work to adjust for underweight. No added complexity.
Rick Walters

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 4:53:45 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Rick,

I appreciate your concern. Safety should ALWAYS be discussed openly.

I don't believe lead weight is inherently dangerous. When I was younger, shorter and a lot lighter, I used lead weight ballast responsibly. Nobody thought is was controversial. I'm not saying use of lead weight can't be applied irresponsibly. That same pilot can also be unsafe in any number of other areas as well, not just lead weight.

At the last Club Class WGC there were likely pilot(s) adding lead weight. However, it was a non-issue. I'm not aware of a pilot adding lead weight because it apparently wasn't controversial enough to make conversation.


I KNOW OF a US pilot adding lead weight flying Sports Class here in the US. Apparently the advantage of flying at max weight is more advantageous than handicap adjustment.

Unless the RC outlaws lead weight in US contests I suspect it will continue to happen just like it will in FAI rules.

Sean Franke (HA)
Lead ballast is legal under US rules

6.8.3.2 Fixed ballast is permitted, but not more than an amount that brings the sailplane to its maximum handicap weight, as defined in the SSA Sailplane Handicap List.

However, the handicap adjustment goes in both directions -- light pilots get a better handicap. This was done to remove the incentive to pile up those bags of lead shot bouncing around many cockpits.

11.6.1.2.2 â€* If Competition Weight (Rule 6.12.3) is different from the specified Handicap Weight, the Handicap Factor shall be multiplied by the following:

1.0 - ((Competition Weight) - (Handicap Weight)) * 0.0002

This is one of those "complexities" in US rules that everyone complains about until we ask people for specific rules that should be dropped.
John Cochrane

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:53:11 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Sean and John,



Yes, fixed ballast is allowed in US sports class rules. My concern is the Erik Nelson, Sarah Arnold, superfit lightweight pilots that will be at a disadvantage in the proposed CC unless they lead ballast up to MTOW. You can't add 100# under your seat without adding tail ballast. Most spar shelves are limited to 5kg. Few have an A&P do a proper installation. I know of weights slipping into control mechanisms. I remember Robbie Robertson. Weight behind your head is stupid.



I have flown an ASW24 at MTOW against a very light LS8 at the Sports nats.. Our handicap weight adjustments work very well, both up and down. We flew with identical handicaps. They adjust the FAI CC rules for overweight, so it would not be any more work to adjust for underweight. No added complexity.

Rick Walters


Rick: I agree, and wasn't clear. The point of the US rule that changes handicap in both directions is precisely so pilots will not feel the need to use extra weight.

We talked about banning extra weight this year but decided not too much change at once. I completely agree that extra weights are a bad idea. We just need one crash with the bags of lead involved and you can imagine the fallout.

Adjusting the handicap for light weight is one little example where I humbly think US rules are a bit ahead of IGC rules, and an example why I still think it's wise for US contests to use US rules. Some of the "complexity" is beneficial.

John Cochrane