US Competition Pilot Poll and Election

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 9:55:48 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 1:18:07 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 5:30:10 AM UTC+13, Tango Eight wrote:
Sean:

Adopting FAI rules might be the final nail for the sport in the US. Club doesn't replace Sports, so you lose participation there. There's no way to combine standards with 15m under FAI rules, so now the standard class is completely dead and gone for good. Guys with old ships racing in the handicapped "combined FAI class" (can't we just call it 15m, pretty please?) will be less inclined to race with 27s and V2s and come to think of it, ASW-20Bs and Cs, Ventus As and Bs and LS-6s don't fit *anywhere* in the FAI rules scheme of things, so those guys are either racing at parity with 27s (aggravating!) or just SOL.

What this means is that your average regional race will now consist of 18m, a much smaller 15m class and a Club Class that might be 2/3 the size of the Sports class is replaces.

You need to get your head out of your 18m cockpit and think about the less well heeled trying to participate in the other classes. You need us. Without us, your races either get a lot more expensive and a lot less interesting socially or people just give up altogether.

It's pretty distressing seeing only 20 guys at a race that used to regularly host twice that number (New Castle). Incidentally, 8 of the 13 gliders racing in 15m were either standards or old 15m ships. I'm really pleased that BRSS was willing to work their tails off to host only 20 of us. Is it reasonable to expect that they'll do it for 12?

I'd like to take the opportunity here to thank the RC for creating the std + 15m combined class, because the racing in that class has been a great deal of fun.

I may be mistaken here, but I feel as if you're talking about what classes events are held for, while Sean is talking about questions such as task types and scoring formulas. And they are totally independent things!

Sure, if you want to enter the Worlds then you'll have to choose some current FAI class to enter in.

And learn the FAI contest rules instead of the US contest rules, and how to best makes use of them to your advantage.

One is about what piece of plastic you sit in. The other is about what is inside your head.

Even if you adopt FAI tasking and scoring, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent you from running a contest with whatever class entry rules you want to. Have a 1-26 class if there are a lot of them near you. Have a PW5+AC4+Ka6 class if that's what people have. Or make an event for gliders with a BGA handicap (sorry -- is there a US equivalent?) between 88 (LS1, DG100) and 96 (Cirrus 18.8, Janus A/B, DG300, Speed Astir, DG1000 18, PIK 20, LS4) if you've got a lot of people with gliders like that. Or whatever.

Who stops you? No one.

Running an event with some wacky special class or classes that fits your available entrants is pretty much a zero marginal cost thing to do.

And you can use FAI tasking and scoring for it. Which puts a lower cognitive load on pilots, who only have to learn one set of rules, and removes the need to maintain and debate local tasking and scoring rules.

(and of course IGC handicaps instead of BGA ones if you want .. I just wanted to emphasise that you don't have to go IGC for everything)

Or have I misrepresented Sean?

Hi Bruce,

Those are interesting points, thanks.

I don't understand the motivation here myself. The idea that switching to FAI rules saves work for anyone is obviously mistaken. None of this stuff happens by itself, it all takes work. The US RC does it's work very publicly compared to the IGC, so there's this (mistaken) impression that it's a bigger deal. It isn't. Ask our IGC rep about that.

Probably, the motivation has more to do with tasking. I have a couple of things to say about that (directed at this topic, not to Bruce).

There is huge tasking variety available under both rule sets and to the extent that anyone wants to *task* more like a European contest, that is already fairly achievable under US rules (scoring philosophy is different, but the same winners will win with high probability).

My view: AT's suck. You can have it one way, or the other (at the regional level): you can task something honestly challenging for the winners and land out 1/3 of the fleet (or more with one good t-storm), or you can assign something that gets almost everyone around and live with the fact that there's going to be about 15 points separating the top three places. The only places AT's don't suck are a) racing venues with uniformly excellent weather and uniformly excellent pilots, b) nationals venues where the not so excellent pilots are fully aware of what they have signed up for and likewise prepared mentally and otherwise to deal with a contest that is really hard as opposed to really fun and c) in internet bulletin board lala land where armchair tough guys can blow all their hot air in whatever degree of anonymity they choose.

You can design an AAT to keep the fleet closer together by using many turns with small radii rather than a few big open circles. But that has a truly odious downside. You end up with short task legs and you don't really go anywhere. The only thing less like XC soaring would be doing laps around a 50K triangle. That might be "racing", but it isn't anything I care about enough to hitch up the trailer and drive 13 hours to do. So when I get input, it's for longer legs... and to the extent that one needs to accommodate uncertainty in weather or variability in pilot & sailplane performance that means larger circles.

Sean had his giggle with the GP this Summer. I hear it was a good time. Well done. Short tasks over flat land in questionable weather at a venue famous for questionable weather isn't something *I* am going to drive halfway across the country to do, but if it lights someone else's candle, that's fine, I support that, I *applaud* that. But on the flip side, I'm going to get my back up when someone tries to dictate to others that "they need to task more ATs" in places that are famous for difficult terrain with big error bars on weather (the places I *will* drive halfway across the country to fly). That approach (challenging ATs), much used in the pre-GPS past, used to break a lot of gliders and broken gliders are absolutely no fun at all.

non-anonymously yours,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan,

Let's forget for a moment about tasking philosophy. I think, the main point that Sean brings, and I am interested in, is why we can't have a question in pilots' opinion poll that simply asks if pilots want IGC rules or our current rules. It is not difficult to include such a question in the opinion poll and have a vote. Why argue about it? It is that simple.

Andrzej

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

Evan,

Let's forget for a moment about tasking philosophy. I think, the main point that Sean brings, and I am interested in, is why we can't have a question in pilots' opinion poll that simply asks if pilots want IGC rules or our current rules. It is not difficult to include such a question in the opinion poll and have a vote. Why argue about it? It is that simple.

Andrzej

I'm not opposed to this. But there someone has to publish a lot of background info so that well informed choices can be made. Sean, bless his heart, isn't dong a very good job of that right now (because with him what isn't personal is some dark conspiracy), so maybe *you* can give it a try.

"What is the compelling case to support a switch to FAI contest rules in the US?"

I'm all ears. If the case is truly compelling and my previously stated concerns are in fact non-issues, then I'll even vote for it.

best,
Evan

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:16:44 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

Evan,

Let's forget for a moment about tasking philosophy. I think, the main point that Sean brings, and I am interested in, is why we can't have a question in pilots' opinion poll that simply asks if pilots want IGC rules or our current rules. It is not difficult to include such a question in the opinion poll and have a vote. Why argue about it? It is that simple.

Andrzej

I'm not opposed to this. But there someone has to publish a lot of background info so that well informed choices can be made. Sean, bless his heart, isn't dong a very good job of that right now (because with him what isn't personal is some dark conspiracy), so maybe *you* can give it a try.

"What is the compelling case to support a switch to FAI contest rules in the US?"

I'm all ears. If the case is truly compelling and my previously stated concerns are in fact non-issues, then I'll even vote for it.

best,
Evan

Yes, Evan, I am also in agreement. Would like to see a side by side comparison of the FAI rules to ours including the scoring system used with examples. Questions asking others to supply the answers don't produce reasonable results. Doing a RAS search on "FAI" bring's back several years of discussions. Past members of the RC keep trying to explain to no avail.

Sean, along with those that wish the change to FAI rules, can easily get a email list from the SSA for all the current entrants. Put it all together with full disclosure, showing the differences, financial gains or losses, new/saved costs and who will do all this work, time required, scoring program used, etc., would be welcome as this keeps going on year after year on RAS..

I, for one, would like to see a well thought out plan showing what this change would bring. It should be done by those wishing this change. If it would foster and promote our sport, I also would vote for it.

Our IGC rep, on a side note, has paid ALL his expenses for the IGC meetings he has ever attended. He has freely given his time. He gets a standing ovation at the Seniors for all the time he has given us. Been a crew for Dick Butler, etc. Just a overall great guy. Also, a friendly comment by a "World Class Pilot" in Nephi is much different than a complaint which again has never been documented as said.

We are a small group, and as has been stated, some do travel great distances, change is require, as the internet makes us look larger than we really are. Costs have become prohibited for many. But what we need are well, thought out plans which show that change would be of benefit and then allow the entrants to make their choice.

Sean, in Hobbs, back a year or so ago did tell he feels he's not liked on the forums. Sean's a good guy with different ideas that's all. I don't think anyone feels the way he thinks they do as his ideas are always welcome.

I do wish he does put together a well thought out comparison model package for all of us to see and then give our vote to.

Best. Tom #711.

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 7:16:44 PM UTC+2, Tango Eight wrote:

I'm not opposed to this. But there someone has to publish a lot of background info so that well informed choices can be made. Sean, bless his heart, isn't dong a very good job of that right now (because with him what isn't personal is some dark conspiracy), so maybe *you* can give it a try.


That is an important point. If we are going to ask people to voice an opinion on something with all kinds complexities and non-obvious implications, we will need to adequately specify the question(s) or the answers will be the proverbial "garbage in - garbage out". That's not a trivial task. The RC agonizes over how to ask questions for issues that are on people's minds in a way that avoids uninformed feedback as much as possible. Sometimes we succeed at it.

Having just gone through the task of figuring out how to poll on a far, far simpler set of questions on US rules complexity this year and having tried, personally, to start a side-by-side "FAI to US" rules comparison about a year ago I have come to the conclusion that just asking a hypothetical question (at minimum for anyone who hasn't flown both FAI and US rules) "Adopt FAI rules in the US - Y/N?" in a poll would do more harm than good. It would be used as a bludgeon by the proponents of the response with more votes and attacked as a "clearly biased" or "inadequate" question by proponents of the response with fewer votes, so hip-shooting a poll question is, IMHO, a terrible idea. It'll take some further work to figure out what question(s) might be useful and constructive - starting with a clear description of the "proposal" and at least some factual analysis of the most important differences and their implications - like this year's "rules complexity" questions, with considerably more explanation of issues and implications. Then we might get a somewhat more informed read.

Or we can just have a food fight about it.

I fully expect this topic to come up at the November RC meeting.

9B

I suggested to RC that the preamble to "US VS FAI rules" should include a quiz to see if pilots opining actually had any idea what was in said rules. They wisely refused the idea, but its outcome is interesting to speculate about.

John Cochrane BB

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 2:29:40 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 7:16:44 PM UTC+2, Tango Eight wrote:

I'm not opposed to this. But there someone has to publish a lot of background info so that well informed choices can be made. Sean, bless his heart, isn't dong a very good job of that right now (because with him what isn't personal is some dark conspiracy), so maybe *you* can give it a try.


That is an important point. If we are going to ask people to voice an opinion on something with all kinds complexities and non-obvious implications, we will need to adequately specify the question(s) or the answers will be the proverbial "garbage in - garbage out". That's not a trivial task. The RC agonizes over how to ask questions for issues that are on people's minds in a way that avoids uninformed feedback as much as possible. Sometimes we succeed at it.

Having just gone through the task of figuring out how to poll on a far, far simpler set of questions on US rules complexity this year and having tried, personally, to start a side-by-side "FAI to US" rules comparison about a year ago I have come to the conclusion that just asking a hypothetical question (at minimum for anyone who hasn't flown both FAI and US rules) "Adopt FAI rules in the US - Y/N?" in a poll would do more harm than good. It would be used as a bludgeon by the proponents of the response with more votes and attacked as a "clearly biased" or "inadequate" question by proponents of the response with fewer votes, so hip-shooting a poll question is, IMHO, a terrible idea. It'll take some further work to figure out what question(s) might be useful and constructive - starting with a clear description of the "proposal" and at least some factual analysis of the most important differences and their implications - like this year's "rules complexity" questions, with considerably more explanation of issues and implications. Then we might get a somewhat more informed read.

Or we can just have a food fight about it.

I fully expect this topic to come up at the November RC meeting.

9B

============================================

(...the following has been pecked out quickly on my cell, as usual. My apology for any spelling errors...)

Wow. I see the RAS crazies are out again, foaming at the mouth, as usual. Amusing as always, but a distraction from the very simple questions that I asked and nobody is answering. Especially the US RC and the alumni.

Again...

QUESTION 1a)
WHAT MEASURED VALUE JUSTIFIES THE CONTINUED MAINTAINCE OF OUR (UNIQUE, ISOLATIONIST) US SOARING COMPETITION RULES?

There should be tons, because the US rules are "so great" and the FAI rules are "evil," right?

List them here for me ...

QUESTION 1b)
WHAT MEASURED VALUE DOES OUR RUNNING US CONTESTS UNDER THE US SOARING COMPETITION RULES PROVIDE THE USA AS A SOARING COUNTRY?

Relevant measures of value might be:
- Increased growth to the sport of competition soaring measured in the USA as compared to other countries who dare to use those "evil" FAI rules?
- High pilot satisfaction measured with US contests and stable, growing or planned higher participation in the future.
- More US contest participation measured vs. those other countries who use those "evil" FAI rules.
- contests that are considerably more enjoyable and easier to run when measured against FAI.
- More satisfying and comprehensive tasks measured by pilots who have flown both FAI and US rules.
- Easier to use scoring software vs FAI....?
- More stable rules? Not having to endure constant changes and constant arguments each year about (for example) ridiculous anti-technology policy.
- Having people who can easily score US rules with a brief tutorial? If we cannot do this, it's a broken sport and needs to be fixed in a hurry.
- Increased contest pilot skills when measured against pilots who fly FAI contest rules?
- Improved International competition (WGC) results? If, per the line of crap fed to us by"....," US rules and tasking philosophy (cough, cough) is so great, and we fly more, higher quality, weather guessing tasks, etc, in the USA as a result, shouldn't are US pilots be killing it at the WGC vs. FAI pilots who are limited to only TAT and AT? pause........ Exactly.
- More excitement and passion about flying contests and competing in contests? Especially from youth.
- Lots of Jr. pilots flocking into the sport, our contests, and our clubs wanting to compete in contests with our cool, superior rules?

QUESTION 2) WHAT IS THE MEASURED COST TO THE US SOARING COMMUNITY FOR CHOOSING TO MAINTAIN OUR OWN (UNIQUE, ISOLATIONIST) US SOARING COMPETITION RULES AND NOT BE PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION COMMUNITY?

Relevant costs:
- The cost of having to focus the time and energy of 4 RC committee members, an SSA representative to focus on this topic each year vs. perhaps other SSA volunteer functions of greater value.
- The cost maintaining Winscore
- The cost of the constant arguments over our own rules which have proven to be highly unstable and change continuously.
- US pilots having to settle for our own isolated US pilot ranking list which nobody else on earth could really give two craps about. Vs. the FAI ranking list which includes pilots from all countries (community, rivalry, belonging...) although US contests are rarely added to the list so the rankings are not relevant. http://igcrankings.fai.org
- I could go on and on and on....
- Etc, etc.

QUESTION 3) WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN MEASURED COST/VALUE BETWEEN CONTINUING TO MAINTAIN THE (UNIQUE/ISOLATIONIST) US RULES ANNUALLY AND SIMPLY USING THE FAI RULES WHICH ARE FULLY SUPPORTED, READY TO GO AND HAPPILY, SAFELY AND SUCCESSFULLY USED BY LITERALLY ALL (-- YES, ALL!) OTHER SOARING NATIONS?

The USA could change to FAI in 30 seconds flat. This is not delicate. This is a religion for you folks. I could run an FAI contest easily, right now, starting tomorrow in Ionia and so could anyone else. Give me a break! This is not complicated. It's a matter of religion vs. economy of scale and being part of the international community.

Sean your boldness is impressive.

But the truth is hardly anybody wants to stand up to the old crusty political figures in Soaring. That's why many won't publicly agree with you, they'd rather use an alias or remain silent.

The silent majority HAS voted in these polls, with their actions as they have one by one quit the sport.

Here is the reality. The legacy that the SSA leadership will leave behind is years of poor attendance with a steady demise. They can stand up at every convention and talk about how they will do this or that, but the truth is, they are failing. It is CRYSTAL clear, that the leadership is perfectly OK with the slow and steady demise in soaring. Actions speak louder than words.

This is the legacy they leave behind. They will blame it on all kinds of excuses, excuses and more excuses. Then they will point on one very small example has improved, but not talk about the entire sport dwindling.

Then the demise of the sport and the poor performance in the world championships is their legacy. They will be remembered by all of us for what they did not accomplish.

On 10/13/2016 5:08 PM, wrote:
Sean your boldness is impressive. *** In your own mind, but your creativity is top notch! ***

But the truth is hardly anybody wants to stand up to the old crusty political figures in Soaring. That's why many won't publicly agree with you, they'd rather use an alias or remain silent. *** Unlike you, Wilbur, who always uses your real name! ***

The silent majority HAS voted in these polls, with their actions as they have one by one quit the sport. *** Or maybe the new folks are too tied up with their electronics or put off by the safety nazis. ***

Here is the reality. The legacy that the SSA leadership will leave behind is years of poor attendance with a steady demise. They can stand up at every convention and talk about how they will do this or that, but the truth is, they are failing. It is CRYSTAL clear, that the leadership is perfectly OK with the slow and steady demise in soaring. Actions speak louder than words.

This is the legacy they leave behind. They will blame it on all kinds of excuses, excuses and more excuses. Then they will point on one very small example has improved, but not talk about the entire sport dwindling.

Then the demise of the sport and the poor performance in the world championships is their legacy. They will be remembered by all of us for what they did not accomplish.

*** I have the answer - Hillary for contest committee chairman! She'll
run the contest committee like she did the State Department! ***

Now I think I'll go back to drinking. My name is below. No nom de guerre.

--
Dan, 5J

These "old crusty political figures" volunteer their time and energy. Many write articles to share their knowledge with the flock. I think it is bit too harsh to call the RC anything other than guys volunteering their time for a thankless job.


On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 4:08:34 PM UTC-7, wrote:
...
But the truth is hardly anybody wants to stand up to the old crusty political figures in Soaring. That's why many won't publicly agree with you, they'd rather use an alias or remain silent.

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 8:54:51 AM UTC+13, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
These "old crusty political figures" volunteer their time and energy. Many write articles to share their knowledge with the flock. I think it is bit too harsh to call the RC anything other than guys volunteering their time for a thankless job.

If they didn't have to run and maintain a redundant set of rules then maybe they could volunteer their time for another better-thanked job?

Or crack open a cold one, of course.