Train Wreck

This thread shows the true colors of the SSA. Look at all you children fighting when you could be supportive instead.

The SSA keeps shrinking year after year! Is anyone surprised?

If the SSA was a business, the controlling shareholders would have everyone fired in management. Starting from the top down.

Seth Higgs

It's so sad to read this thread.

I do not agree with posters who suggest that there is anything fundamentally wrong at SSA or with the volunteers that are serving the membership. Yet in their efforts, one wrong decision has been taken. It needs to be reversed.

We need to return to objective standards for selection to the US team. The notion that a committee can predict international performance better than actual performance can predict performance, is flawed at the onset. The team committee should never have usurped authority to override the longstanding objective standards. I find it especially inappropriate when considering that the members of the committee are themselves all vying for positions on the various teams.

If the goal were drama and suspense, this would be the ideal way to achieve that. Just like on the TV show Survivor -- you empower the competitors to vote each other off the island. Anger, resentment and name calling are the predictable results. And so unnecessary.

Even if you are on the team committee and you really really believe that you are smarter than the actual contest results, I would urge you to reconsider whether the goodness that you can instill by overriding the objective standards is actually worth the damage that is done to the organization as a whole and the damage done to the credibility of the selections. I urge that we get the politics back out of US team selection?

Hoping we don't have to read a thread like this again next year...

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 9:28:14 AM UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
It's so sad to read this thread.

I do not agree with posters who suggest that there is anything fundamentally wrong at SSA or with the volunteers that are serving the membership. Yet in their efforts, one wrong decision has been taken. It needs to be reversed.

We need to return to objective standards for selection to the US team. The notion that a committee can predict international performance better than actual performance can predict performance, is flawed at the onset. The team committee should never have usurped authority to override the longstanding objective standards. I find it especially inappropriate when considering that the members of the committee are themselves all vying for positions on the various teams.

If the goal were drama and suspense, this would be the ideal way to achieve that. Just like on the TV show Survivor -- you empower the competitors to vote each other off the island. Anger, resentment and name calling are the predictable results. And so unnecessary.

Even if you are on the team committee and you really really believe that you are smarter than the actual contest results, I would urge you to reconsider whether the goodness that you can instill by overriding the objective standards is actually worth the damage that is done to the organization as a whole and the damage done to the credibility of the selections. I urge that we get the politics back out of US team selection?

Hoping we don't have to read a thread like this again next year...

Steve,

Thank you for the best reply in this thread. As you said this could have been predicted before we even embarked on this path.

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

We learned nothing from the experiences of the 70's that led to the current system that was hard numbers.

In 2013, I had a conversation with Rick Walters at the SSA headquarters during the 15M Nationals. He was worried about any change to the system that would allow voting to select the team. I miss his wisdom more each year.

Tim

The whole reason the US team committee undertook the huge effort is exactly experience with the "objective" system. We were sending, time after time, people to the worlds who you could tell had no chance, either for skill, seriousness, preparation, willingness to adapt to the WGC environment, or psychological stability.

(Sean is actually pretty good on this scale -- he goes nuts behind the keyboard but you don't see him pulling the kind of self-inflicted disasters that bedevil so many others on US teams.)

The modal pilot went to the worlds once, and treated it as a subsidized gliding vacation. We prized "fair" and "objective" above "successful." We could go back to that... and to the predictable results. The US team committee, bless them, wants to win on occasion, not just be "objective" about who gets selected.

So, what do you think is more important: The US winning, or the feelings of people who feel they should have been selected? Experience has proven you can't have both.

Let's give it a try. Let the US team committee pick, and if pilot a or b is unhappy about the result, tough. Let them form good teams, of people who will work as teams. Give them a few cycles, and let's see if they can produce results.

John Cochrane

John,

I think you need to take a big step back and separate the goals/objectives from the execution. My suspicion is that many (most?) US competition pilots agree with the objective to send the most qualified team possible. If that requires some amount of subjective input over and above the numerical rankings, so be it.

What you're hearing is a lot of legitimate pushback on the implementation of the new approach. A couple of the fundamentals of organizational change initiatives are communication and transparency. This whole initiative scores a D- on both.

Here's what I sent to Team Committee back in early June and cc'ed to my Regional Director. Note that I got an extensive response from my Director. Crickets from the Team Committee (see a trend here?)

The rancor you are seeing today was 100% predictable (and predicted).

June 4, 2017

Hey Jim,

I was somewhat surprised to see that there is a new WGC Team Selection process; I don't recall much (if any) publicity or debate about this.

While I can see where the desire to "do something different" comes from, I'm not sure that a process that concludes with an opaque selection by a secret committee makes sense. In fact, that's what we USED to do up until about 1985, when the current ranking system came into play. The ranking system came about exactly because the membership was sick of back-room deals that depended more on relationships than pilot skill.

Rather than just complaining, here are my specific recommendations:

1. Ranking "boosters". If we want to give a nod to pilots who have already competed in the WGC, I think that makes sense. But other Category 1 events such as Pan American Events, European Gliding Championships, or Pre-worlds are just a way for the really rich/retired to buy their way on the team. Tighten up the verbiage to include only true WGCs.

2. Committee Selections. If we're going to make the Committee the ultimate selectors, then I would expect (demand) that the process be 100% transparent. Specifically: The votes of the Committee members must be public. The Committee members must document their rationale for selection using a standard form which is made available to the membership.

Feel free to pass this along to the Excomm or whoever it is that made this decision.

Note: I went back and read the minutes from the Spring 2016 BOD meeting. It appears that this was tabled on Saturday and supposed to be discussed on Sunday. But the minutes from Sunday don't reflect this. Seems suspicious.

Erik Mann (P3)
30 years of racing in the USA

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 12:58:43 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
The whole reason the US team committee undertook the huge effort is exactly experience with the "objective" system. We were sending, time after time, people to the worlds who you could tell had no chance, either for skill, seriousness, preparation, willingness to adapt to the WGC environment, or psychological stability.

(Sean is actually pretty good on this scale -- he goes nuts behind the keyboard but you don't see him pulling the kind of self-inflicted disasters that bedevil so many others on US teams.)

The modal pilot went to the worlds once, and treated it as a subsidized gliding vacation. We prized "fair" and "objective" above "successful." We could go back to that... and to the predictable results. The US team committee, bless them, wants to win on occasion, not just be "objective" about who gets selected.

So, what do you think is more important: The US winning, or the feelings of people who feel they should have been selected? Experience has proven you can't have both.

Let's give it a try. Let the US team committee pick, and if pilot a or b is unhappy about the result, tough. Let them form good teams, of people who will work as teams. Give them a few cycles, and let's see if they can produce results.

John Cochrane

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 10:29:14 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
John,

I think you need to take a big step back and separate the goals/objectives from the execution. My suspicion is that many (most?) US competition pilots agree with the objective to send the most qualified team possible. If that requires some amount of subjective input over and above the numerical rankings, so be it.

What you're hearing is a lot of legitimate pushback on the implementation of the new approach. A couple of the fundamentals of organizational change initiatives are communication and transparency. This whole initiative scores a D- on both.

Here's what I sent to Team Committee back in early June and cc'ed to my Regional Director. Note that I got an extensive response from my Director. Crickets from the Team Committee (see a trend here?)

The rancor you are seeing today was 100% predictable (and predicted).

June 4, 2017

Hey Jim,

I was somewhat surprised to see that there is a new WGC Team Selection process; I don't recall much (if any) publicity or debate about this.

While I can see where the desire to "do something different" comes from, I'm not sure that a process that concludes with an opaque selection by a secret committee makes sense. In fact, that's what we USED to do up until about 1985, when the current ranking system came into play. The ranking system came about exactly because the membership was sick of back-room deals that depended more on relationships than pilot skill.

Rather than just complaining, here are my specific recommendations:

1. Ranking "boosters". If we want to give a nod to pilots who have already competed in the WGC, I think that makes sense. But other Category 1 events such as Pan American Events, European Gliding Championships, or Pre-worlds are just a way for the really rich/retired to buy their way on the team. Tighten up the verbiage to include only true WGCs.

2. Committee Selections. If we're going to make the Committee the ultimate selectors, then I would expect (demand) that the process be 100% transparent. Specifically: The votes of the Committee members must be public. The Committee members must document their rationale for selection using a standard form which is made available to the membership.

Feel free to pass this along to the Excomm or whoever it is that made this decision.

Note: I went back and read the minutes from the Spring 2016 BOD meeting. It appears that this was tabled on Saturday and supposed to be discussed on Sunday. But the minutes from Sunday don't reflect this. Seems suspicious.

Erik Mann (P3)
30 years of racing in the USA

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 12:58:43 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
The whole reason the US team committee undertook the huge effort is exactly experience with the "objective" system. We were sending, time after time, people to the worlds who you could tell had no chance, either for skill, seriousness, preparation, willingness to adapt to the WGC environment, or psychological stability.

(Sean is actually pretty good on this scale -- he goes nuts behind the keyboard but you don't see him pulling the kind of self-inflicted disasters that bedevil so many others on US teams.)

The modal pilot went to the worlds once, and treated it as a subsidized gliding vacation. We prized "fair" and "objective" above "successful." We could go back to that... and to the predictable results. The US team committee, bless them, wants to win on occasion, not just be "objective" about who gets selected.

So, what do you think is more important: The US winning, or the feelings of people who feel they should have been selected? Experience has proven you can't have both.

Let's give it a try. Let the US team committee pick, and if pilot a or b is unhappy about the result, tough. Let them form good teams, of people who will work as teams. Give them a few cycles, and let's see if they can produce results.

John Cochrane

"Specifically: The votes of the Committee members must be public." I am a bystanding gawker to this spectacle. Like watching a gruesome traffic accident that you just can't take your eyes off of. I agree with the quote, and wonder how votes might have changed, had the voters known that their votes would be made public? If the answer is they would have changed, this is just as disturbing, as it further reflects the reality that biases and appearances matter more than objectivity. If they would not have changed, why not make it public in the name of transparency?

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 2:10:10 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 10:29:14 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
John,

I think you need to take a big step back and separate the goals/objectives from the execution. My suspicion is that many (most?) US competition pilots agree with the objective to send the most qualified team possible. If that requires some amount of subjective input over and above the numerical rankings, so be it.

What you're hearing is a lot of legitimate pushback on the implementation of the new approach. A couple of the fundamentals of organizational change initiatives are communication and transparency. This whole initiative scores a D- on both.

Here's what I sent to Team Committee back in early June and cc'ed to my Regional Director. Note that I got an extensive response from my Director.. Crickets from the Team Committee (see a trend here?)

The rancor you are seeing today was 100% predictable (and predicted).

June 4, 2017

Hey Jim,

I was somewhat surprised to see that there is a new WGC Team Selection process; I don't recall much (if any) publicity or debate about this.

While I can see where the desire to "do something different" comes from, I'm not sure that a process that concludes with an opaque selection by a secret committee makes sense. In fact, that's what we USED to do up until about 1985, when the current ranking system came into play. The ranking system came about exactly because the membership was sick of back-room deals that depended more on relationships than pilot skill.

Rather than just complaining, here are my specific recommendations:

1. Ranking "boosters". If we want to give a nod to pilots who have already competed in the WGC, I think that makes sense. But other Category 1 events such as Pan American Events, European Gliding Championships, or Pre-worlds are just a way for the really rich/retired to buy their way on the team. Tighten up the verbiage to include only true WGCs.

2. Committee Selections. If we're going to make the Committee the ultimate selectors, then I would expect (demand) that the process be 100% transparent. Specifically: The votes of the Committee members must be public.. The Committee members must document their rationale for selection using a standard form which is made available to the membership.

Feel free to pass this along to the Excomm or whoever it is that made this decision.

Note: I went back and read the minutes from the Spring 2016 BOD meeting.. It appears that this was tabled on Saturday and supposed to be discussed on Sunday. But the minutes from Sunday don't reflect this. Seems suspicious.

Erik Mann (P3)
30 years of racing in the USA

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 12:58:43 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
The whole reason the US team committee undertook the huge effort is exactly experience with the "objective" system. We were sending, time after time, people to the worlds who you could tell had no chance, either for skill, seriousness, preparation, willingness to adapt to the WGC environment, or psychological stability.

(Sean is actually pretty good on this scale -- he goes nuts behind the keyboard but you don't see him pulling the kind of self-inflicted disasters that bedevil so many others on US teams.)

The modal pilot went to the worlds once, and treated it as a subsidized gliding vacation. We prized "fair" and "objective" above "successful." We could go back to that... and to the predictable results. The US team committee, bless them, wants to win on occasion, not just be "objective" about who gets selected.

So, what do you think is more important: The US winning, or the feelings of people who feel they should have been selected? Experience has proven you can't have both.

Let's give it a try. Let the US team committee pick, and if pilot a or b is unhappy about the result, tough. Let them form good teams, of people who will work as teams. Give them a few cycles, and let's see if they can produce results.

John Cochrane

"Specifically: The votes of the Committee members must be public." I am a bystanding gawker to this spectacle. Like watching a gruesome traffic accident that you just can't take your eyes off of. I agree with the quote, and wonder how votes might have changed, had the voters known that their votes would be made public? If the answer is they would have changed, this is just as disturbing, as it further reflects the reality that biases and appearances matter more than objectivity. If they would not have changed, why not make it public in the name of transparency?

The more I hear, the happier I become, that I stopped paying my dues. Oh, happy day

Joined SSA when I was 16, 29 years ago...... I will have no more of it... Good job SSA!

And the numbers continue to plummet.........

With all due respect Robert, the SSA is more than just racing and that is why I support the SSA. I care that young people and new pilots get evolved in a sport I love. If not enough pilots show up for weekend flying then soon there will not be tow planes. Happy for any failures, real or perceived is not only self centered but just negative useless energy. I am sure you currently benefit from the data plate exemption, and many other efforts of the SSA.

As for RC action's all are volunteers, and I believe their collective interest is to take the best course of action for racing in America as drawn from their many years of experience. Is everyone happy all the time, no. Do they get it wrong sometimes, history always tells. Still if you want to make a difference, you have to at least participate instead of standing on sidelines throwing wet sponges into what you perceive as hell.

Jonathan


On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-7, Robert Fidler wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 2:10:10 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 10:29:14 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
John,

I think you need to take a big step back and separate the goals/objectives from the execution. My suspicion is that many (most?) US competition pilots agree with the objective to send the most qualified team possible. If that requires some amount of subjective input over and above the numerical rankings, so be it.

What you're hearing is a lot of legitimate pushback on the implementation of the new approach. A couple of the fundamentals of organizational change initiatives are communication and transparency. This whole initiative scores a D- on both.

Here's what I sent to Team Committee back in early June and cc'ed to my Regional Director. Note that I got an extensive response from my Director. Crickets from the Team Committee (see a trend here?)

The rancor you are seeing today was 100% predictable (and predicted).

June 4, 2017

Hey Jim,

I was somewhat surprised to see that there is a new WGC Team Selection process; I don't recall much (if any) publicity or debate about this.

While I can see where the desire to "do something different" comes from, I'm not sure that a process that concludes with an opaque selection by a secret committee makes sense. In fact, that's what we USED to do up until about 1985, when the current ranking system came into play. The ranking system came about exactly because the membership was sick of back-room deals that depended more on relationships than pilot skill.

Rather than just complaining, here are my specific recommendations:

1. Ranking "boosters". If we want to give a nod to pilots who have already competed in the WGC, I think that makes sense. But other Category 1 events such as Pan American Events, European Gliding Championships, or Pre-worlds are just a way for the really rich/retired to buy their way on the team. Tighten up the verbiage to include only true WGCs.

2. Committee Selections. If we're going to make the Committee the ultimate selectors, then I would expect (demand) that the process be 100% transparent. Specifically: The votes of the Committee members must be public. The Committee members must document their rationale for selection using a standard form which is made available to the membership.

Feel free to pass this along to the Excomm or whoever it is that made this decision.

Note: I went back and read the minutes from the Spring 2016 BOD meeting. It appears that this was tabled on Saturday and supposed to be discussed on Sunday. But the minutes from Sunday don't reflect this. Seems suspicious.

Erik Mann (P3)
30 years of racing in the USA

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 12:58:43 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
The whole reason the US team committee undertook the huge effort is exactly experience with the "objective" system. We were sending, time after time, people to the worlds who you could tell had no chance, either for skill, seriousness, preparation, willingness to adapt to the WGC environment, or psychological stability.

(Sean is actually pretty good on this scale -- he goes nuts behind the keyboard but you don't see him pulling the kind of self-inflicted disasters that bedevil so many others on US teams.)

The modal pilot went to the worlds once, and treated it as a subsidized gliding vacation. We prized "fair" and "objective" above "successful." We could go back to that... and to the predictable results. The US team committee, bless them, wants to win on occasion, not just be "objective" about who gets selected.

So, what do you think is more important: The US winning, or the feelings of people who feel they should have been selected? Experience has proven you can't have both.

Let's give it a try. Let the US team committee pick, and if pilot a or b is unhappy about the result, tough. Let them form good teams, of people who will work as teams. Give them a few cycles, and let's see if they can produce results.

John Cochrane

"Specifically: The votes of the Committee members must be public." I am a bystanding gawker to this spectacle. Like watching a gruesome traffic accident that you just can't take your eyes off of. I agree with the quote, and wonder how votes might have changed, had the voters known that their votes would be made public? If the answer is they would have changed, this is just as disturbing, as it further reflects the reality that biases and appearances matter more than objectivity. If they would not have changed, why not make it public in the name of transparency?

The more I hear, the happier I become, that I stopped paying my dues. Oh, happy day

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 7:58:43 PM UTC+3, John Cochrane wrote:
The modal pilot went to the worlds once, and treated it as a subsidized gliding vacation. We prized "fair" and "objective" above "successful." We could go back to that... and to the predictable results. The US team committee, bless them, wants to win on occasion, not just be "objective" about who gets selected.

I officiated at the worlds once. I was ... surprised ... at how unprepared some of the pilots were.

- one guy broke up his glider in flight on a practice day, parts raining out of a cloud past other pilots.
- one guy scratched lower and lower and lower over a perfectly good ranch airfield, and then cartwheeled and broke his glider.
- one guy started the first task, scored 0.0 km for the day, and withdrew from the contest, saying he wasn't prepared to fly in mountains. (He didn't know the contest would be in NZ?)
- one guy persistently got warnings for things such as landing downwind, against other landing traffic.