USA and FAI rules

On Jan 16, 10:03*am, John Cochrane wrote:
On Jan 15, 8:45*pm, rlovinggood wrote: Mr. Ray Galloway (P1) asked for me to post the following note:

There has been much discussion over the differences between the FAI rules and the US rules.

*This is partly due to the fact that the US is the only country that
does not follow FAI rules.

This is simply not true. The vast majority of countries, in fact, use
their own rules. Look em' up; it's not hard, just look up the national
soaring association (equivalent of ssa.org) and then find their
contest rules. Canada, UK, Australia are all in English so you can see
them. You will find nice long rules just like ours. You will not find
"for competition rules see IGC annex A" period, full stop.

It is true that many countries bend their rules towards the IGC
standard, for example in scoring formulas, turnpoint definitions,
start and finish definitions, etc. It is also true that almost all
countries modify these and other rules and procedures, as well as
filling in the vast blank space in FAI rules covered under "local
procedures." Contrariwise, it is also true that many features of US
rules are similar to FAI rules. We do, after all, fly assigned and
area tasks, defined in pretty much the same way. But it is simply not
true that they 'follow FAI rules" and we do not.



At the 1985 WGC the US team was among the top contenders. In 2010 WGC, the last year that figures are available, we were 23 out of 24. In 25 years we have gone from near the top to next to last.

There is one indisputable fact---they are wining and we are losing. Maybe we should consider joining the rest of the world.

The Rules Committee faces a really tough problem. Shall we design
contests whose number one goal is to train pilots to do well at world
gliding championships -- even if that means that we see fewer pilots
participating, fewer contests being run, smaller turnouts at the
contests we do run, organizers losing money? Or should we design
contests whose number one goals are safety, fun, and widespread
participation; getting people involved in contest soaring?

Put aside the question of which set of rules will attract more people
-- the camp that says "use FAI rules and more will come" has an
argument, but needs to prove its case by running regionals under FAI
rules and seeing if US pilots do indeed prefer that format. And we can
end up either way on that question.

But answer for us Ray and Ray's deeper question: which should be the
GOAL: producing a better world team, or participation:

Should we turn all our contests into "team training camps" to prepare
people for the.hard decisions they will face in contests like
Argentina? To wit,
-gaggle and start tactics,
-team/pair flying,
-extensive ground support,
-deep knowledge of world rules quirks, like when you should
intentionally land out 100 meter short of the finish line or when you
should abandon the chance of getting home and just go for distance in
the cylinders,
-day after day of landing out on long assigned tasks, meaning full
time crew is mandatory,
-or (as in Uvlade) dealing with tasks that force you to fly into
thunderstorms,
-eventually (as in europe) buying and learning the art of motor
management
-tactics for unlimited altitude starts (thermal wave at Uvalde,
gaggling in clouds elsewhere); tactics for limited altitude no time
limit starts (VNE dives)
-final glides to a line 3 km short of the airport; landing in fields
0-3 km of the airport

etc. etc.

This is not a rant. These are just some of the features of contests
run under FAI rules that require long study and practice to master.
And US pilots are not that great at many of these aspects, and moving
all our contests to mirror WGC conditions would undoubtedly produce a
small number of pilots who were much better at flying in WGC
contests.

So far, the RC has felt that running contests these ways would attract
fewer people, be less fun, moderately less safe, and much less well
attended. Again, we can and will have that argument later.

For now, which should be our number one goal? A great team, even if
that means smaller and more expensive contests? Or participation, fun,
and development, even if that means a somewhat less successful world
team?

This is not an easy question

I hope we can split the difference a bit with more team training camps
(open to all pilots) run under FAI rules, and I would love for one of
the FAI rules fanatics to put in the effort to run a continental
championship under FAI rules. I would love for one of them to run
regionals under FAI rules to put the "build it and they will come"
theory to the test.

John Cochrane

Thanks for any help.

You're welcome! Now, help us with this tough issue.

The quote below is from 2008 SRA Pilot Opinion Poll Results. The
commentary attached to the question and written by RC has only one
purpose influence results of the poll. I hope the next poll you guys
produce on the subject of the club class and the IGC rules will not
contain any commentaries like in the question below. Everyone please
read the commentary and think for a moment. We want an honest debate
and an honest questions not like what is in the example below. A poll
question should be simple and should not be suggestive and for sure
should not have any commentary in it.

Question:
Several pilots have suggested that the US introduce a club class for
both regional and
national competition. Only gliders on the current US team club class
selection list could
enter a club class contest. (You can see the US team club class list
here. The WGC club
class list is too unstable and excludes too many gliders in widespread
US use.)
Like allmajor changes, this would be implemented gradually. We would
start with a few
demonstration contests by waiver, it would then become available for
regionals and
super-regionals, then for nationals, and then the US team would use
this class for WGC
selection. Each step depends on sufficient interest and positive pilot
opinion.
Note: This is a big question, with many more pros and cons than we can
list here. It is
on the poll more to stimulate discussion and encourage pilot feedback
than to reach
any final decisions.

Pro: We should establish in the US a class that more closely mirrors
the club class at
WGC contests. A class focused on handicapped racing of older gliders,
not trying also
to be a newcomer class and accommodate a large handicap range, could
have a higher
level of competition. With this class, the US could develop a larger
base of wellprepared
club gliders and top pilots, and we could better prepare our club
class pilots
to compete at the world level. Though "con" worries about eventual
effects on sports
class, little harm can come from trying the concept at a regional or
super-regional
level.

Con: The problem in US contest soaring is too many classes and too
little participation.
Adding another class, defined by who it excludes, goes the wrong way.
Most nationals
already have to co-locate two contests to remain viable. At 2008
Sports Nationals, only
11 of the 30 entries qualified for team points, though the glider
limitation was in place.
A 19-entry sports class and an 11-entry club class are not viable.
Most regionals
cannot fill both classes. If we kill sports class, many pilots have
nowhere to go.
The glider limitation for world team points is already in place. What
does excluding the
other gliders achieve? Sports class nationals are already a “racing”
class, not a
“beginner” class. A desire to have more “racing” at a regional level
can be
accommodated by more aggressive tasking.
A US club class will be a small, mediocre, “specialist” class. Most
national-level US
contest pilots (72 of 88 entries in 2008 standard,15,18) fly recent-
vintage ineligible
gliders. These pilots will fly sports, and be part of the US club
team, but the vast
majority are not going to borrow or buy an old glider to fly club
class when they have a
much better glider sitting in the garage. The sports class has been
around a long time,
giving just as much incentive to develop a pilot and glider base, but
this has not
happened in sufficient numbers. Most serious contest pilots move on to
better gliders.
The world class was founded on a similar “build it and they will come”
promise, which
did not pan out.