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

Since I weigh only 125 lbs, and since I've seen my name in this thread
a few times I suppose I can add a few comments. I fly a Discus b in
sports/club class competition and have tried both with and without
ballast. For me the handicap adjustment is not worth it to fly at 720
lbs (6.3 lbs/sq ft). A super-light Discus truly does climb like a
1-26... I'll let you guys fill in how it glides. I realize that not
all club class gliders are so wing loading sensitive and for some it
might be more advantages to take the handicap adjustment.

I've never flown any glider in which I didn't have to add some type of
ballast, most of the time lead bags and sometimes the little lead bars
up by my feet. Since I am also shorter than the heavier pilots there
is plenty of room to safely stow the lead bags behind my seat pan and
it is secured in a responsible manner. I haven't been in soaring as
long as most of you, so maybe there are things that I just don't know,
but as an A & P, IA, and flight instructor I feel perfectly safe in my
current situation.

The biggest reason that I am thankful ballasting is not out-lawed in
WGC competition is because without it I could not fly a comparable
glider with my teammate. Without ballast team flying would be much
less effective or even impossible.

One last thing is I have to say is "WOW, did Guy Byars just say he'd
be happy to update Winscore with an option for FAI scoring?" Maybe
others missed it. That would be great, especially if there were a fun
regional planned under FAI rules...

Sarah Arnold

On Thursday, December 6, 2012 8:56:44 PM UTC-5, Chilhowee wrote:
One last thing is I have to say is "WOW, did Guy Byars just say he'd
be happy to update Winscore with an option for FAI scoring?" Maybe
others missed it. That would be great, especially if there were a fun
regional planned under FAI rules...


Yes, I did say that and I meant it. But be careful what you wish for...

If you are going to hold a contest and STRICTLY follow the FAI rules to the letter, then that necessitates tasking and scoring in kilometers. If you read the FAI rules, you will see that the tasking parameters (cylinder radii, minimum task distances... etc) are all specified in km. Simply changing the units display on the task sheet will give you odd things like a turnpoint cylinder of 0.310686 miles or a Min Task distance of 62.1371 miles.

So if you then decide to change the task parameters to convenient English units, then you are no longer using the FAI rules, but something you made up yourself... like the SSA does now.

The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots. These issues need to be decided by the various appointed comittees and organizers. I am willing to work with them to implement what they decide in Winscore for next season.

Guy Byars

Up to 41 petition signatures...

I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?

On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:49:52 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Up to 41 petition signatures...



I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?

Compelling your representatives to do what? The petition does not describe any concrete, actionable steps.

If you want some change to the structure of this year's already-scheduled sports class nationals at Mifflin, you need a clear, detailed, and explicit written statement of what you want and how it can be accomplished.

If you want to run a club class regional by FAI rules, put together a clear written plan conforming to the requirements for ssa sanction.

Send these to the contest committee chair, not a new petition. There's a lot of complaint about rules committee not listening, but you have to give us something concrete to work on.

If you want someone else to figure all this out... well, we did, and the current structure is the best we could come up with. Your turn.

John Cochrane

On Friday, December 7, 2012 11:59:50 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:49:52 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Up to 41 petition signatures...







I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?



Compelling your representatives to do what? The petition does not describe any concrete, actionable steps.



If you want some change to the structure of this year's already-scheduled sports class nationals at Mifflin, you need a clear, detailed, and explicit written statement of what you want and how it can be accomplished.



If you want to run a club class regional by FAI rules, put together a clear written plan conforming to the requirements for ssa sanction.



Send these to the contest committee chair, not a new petition. There's a lot of complaint about rules committee not listening, but you have to give us something concrete to work on.



If you want someone else to figure all this out... well, we did, and the current structure is the best we could come up with. Your turn.



John Cochrane

I think the petition title is clear "SSA adoption of FAI rules for 2013 US Club Class Nationals" The actionable step is make US Club Class FAI. In other words NOT another US Rules based class.

Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin. Club Class proponents are saying if you are going to change structure then this is what WE want. I think pilots who are actually going to fly the class should have a say. Don't you?

By the way, it's been said to prove the concept at a super-regional. At what super-regional has the RC version of Club Class been tested and proven?

I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?

The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.

Sean Franke (HA)

On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:27:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin.

[...]

I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?



The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.



Sean Franke (HA)

Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.

T8

On Friday, December 7, 2012 5:17:10 PM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:27:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:



Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin.



[...]



I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?







The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.







Sean Franke (HA)



Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.



T8

1. Tasking
2. Handicap range

Sean Franke (HA)

Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.



T8

Evan:

The CC we ran at Moriarty was defined as follows:

SSA Handicaps .935 - 1.05 (if my rememberance is correct), Plus Ventus (15m), LS6 (15m), ASW-20 (15m). And that was it!

This was done to capture many HP's at the higher end and to capture the 304CZ's at the lower end, plus ASW-20's that are allowed at worlds, AND adding V1's and LS6's per the request of members of the RC.

Importantly, it did not allow for the current crop of Std Class ships (D2, LS8, ASW-28. They still have their class. And it did not allow for any of the 1.05 and up ships either. The Sparrowhawks, Russias, Apis, have their own class coming too.

It is the RANGE expansion by the RC that is very much at odds with the historical practice of CC around the world - and at Moriarty.

I can hear the argument coming my way now: "but we do not tell anyone to go away in any other class..."

Well yes we do. Open ships can't race in 18m or 15m class, 18m and 15m can't race in Std Class. Defining a class is about defining it with boundaries so as to make the racing better. Otherwise we just end up with Sports Class that is bifurcated and one part of it is called Club Class.

EY

In article ,
"Sean F (F2)" wrote:

Up to 41 petition signatures...

I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what
percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public
debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?



I am a signer of the petition, own a club class glider (h301 Libelle),
and often fly club/sports contests, including a couple of nationals. I
should say as well, that I have no U.S. Team aspirations (I could maybe
admit to fleeting fantasies), so I do not have as much at stake as some
here. For me, it's just about fun.

Guy alluded to the "spirit" of the FAI rules. That, not the "letter" of
the FAI rules, is where we should go. Keeping a little pressure on the
racing committee towards this goal is good and the petition is an
excellent way to do that. However,there is a fine line between keeping
an issue in front of someone and beating them over the head with it.
Knowing, or at least acquainted, with most of the racing committee, I
think that in they are paying attention and do find the petition
compelling. I chafe at the slow and incremental pace of progress towards
an FAI type club class in the U.S., but at the same time, I can
understand the committee taking a conservative stance on change. The
status quo ain't great, but we could do much worse. "Unintended
Consequences" do occur.

Consider that the committee is at least heading in the right direction.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Friday, December 7, 2012 3:32:54 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
In article , "Sean F (F2)" wrote: Up to 41 petition signatures... I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives? I am a signer of the petition, own a club class glider (h301 Libelle), and often fly club/sports contests, including a couple of nationals. I should say as well, that I have no U.S. Team aspirations (I could maybe admit to fleeting fantasies), so I do not have as much at stake as some here. For me, it's just about fun. Guy alluded to the "spirit" of the FAI rules. That, not the "letter" of the FAI rules, is where we should go. Keeping a little pressure on the racing committee towards this goal is good and the petition is an excellent way to do that. However,there is a fine line between keeping an issue in front of someone and beating them over the head with it. Knowing, or at least acquainted, with most of the racing committee, I think that in they are paying attention and do find the petition compelling. I chafe at the slow and incremental pace of progress towards an FAI type club class in the U.S., but at the same time, I can understand the committee taking a conservative stance on change. The status quo ain't great, but we could do much worse. "Unintended Consequences" do occur. Consider that the committee is at least heading in the right direction. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

I've stayed away from the conversation for a while to see what develops and try to get a sense of the driving issue(s) in this "debate"- maybe not the best word.
Drivers- as well as I can tell from RAS comments and exchanges with some of the more passionate Club folks.
1- I think this is #1- We want to fly assigned tasks because it feels more like a race.
2- No MAT's
3- Same gliders as they race "in the rest of the world". "We can't let a 2-33 spoil our race".
4- Underlying- we want to practice for the world championship.
5- We think the other guys(those flying under the predominately Eurocentric rules) do it better.
6- It's "simpler", "safer", and "more fun". Who wouldn't want that?

I discussed with a couple serious Club guys some options the RC thinks could get us to a workable compromise.
Before describing those, the RC's major cornerstone points:'
1- Nobody goes home.
2- Closely compatible with US rules and procedures so pilots coming up from regionals don't have big changes and so Club can practically and safely be run concurrently with Sports(Modern Sports).

What we have discussed "off line":
1- AT is in for Club. That is in the plan.
2- MAT stays-Calm down guys! What we have asked is why a "long MAT" that is one that has all possible legs defined such that the fast guys/gliders will finish somewhat overtime, but the slower pilots/gliders can drop off and come home when time runs out. Effectively this is an AT but with a way to allow participation of slower pilots/gliders to not have to land out, while still fully challanging the top pilots.
When I proposed this compromise position, the conversation pretty well stopped.
It would be easy and workable to provide guidance in Club that does not use options like 1 turn MAT's (effectively the old POST).
3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play?
Task guidance that makes tasking set based upon the Club range with fair warning to that effect to others can work to allow these folks to come yet make the class predominately Club oriented. When long MAT is used for the AT's, everyone is accomodated.
4. The US RC emphasizes making the best contest experience for all, understanding that this may mean compromising preparation for the 30 or so that are US team players.
5. This is a subjective point where many folks will differ. In the US, we have made a number of innovations in areas like starts, finishes, airport bonus, safety finish, etc. thatwe strongly believe are better and safer than the other guys.
6. I've commented on this sub topic previously.

My sense is that a very few Club pilots are really hard over on this and that
many others much less so.
It would be good to hear from some new voices. We know where HA stands.
Still listening
UH