Train Wreck

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 2:01:22 PM UTC-4, Kevin Christner wrote:
Dear John,

I agree we should have a discussion about this. One important issue is whether a pilot meets the requirements of the US Team Code of Conduct. I post some relevant sections below:

13.1.3 Courtesy. Courteous accessibility to visiting SSA members, sponsors, dignitaries and the Press.
13.1.4 Respect. Respect for the host organization, the facility, the rules of the airfield and the organization.
13.1.5 Treatment. Fair, considerate, courteous treatment of Team Management, Team Volunteers, and members of the public.
13.2.1 Highest Level. To maintain at all times a high standard of sportsmanship and fair play
13.2.6 Respect. Maintain an attitude of respect and politeness towards competitors both in the air and on the ground.
13.3 To Specifically Refrain From. To refrain from any behavior which might reflect unfavorably on the United States of America, the sport, the Team, its management, or which might bring any other pilot, official or the Team into disrepute

Since you voted for Sean highly, can you please certify that he has met all of these requirements?

On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 7:07:22 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
It's good to have a discussion of this new selection system on RAS, and it has to include specific cases, hard as that may be.

FWIW, I voted Sean highly in both classes, with a warning -- very talented and young (by our standards) pilot, but tends to be a bit unstable especially behind a keyboard. A true champion has emotional equanimity.

A lot of us would be happy to have to leave our wingtip extensions home and get to fly a WGC!

John Cochrane

Sounds like "Social Justice" arguments, much like the nonsense from Washington DC. "A lot of us would be happy to have to leave our wingtip extensions home and get to fly a WGC!" sounds like this position is a gift from the selection committee, much like a poor child receiving a broken toy on Christmas from a pious "Santa Claus". The position is not a gift bestowed from upon on high above by the moral superior character judgers, it is a position someone earned on the sacrifice and merits of their recent past achievements. John Cochrane should stick to what he does best: mathematical equations. And if mathematical equations speak the truth, then so should the selection process.

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 7:51:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 2:01:22 PM UTC-4, Kevin Christner wrote:
Dear John,

I agree we should have a discussion about this. One important issue is whether a pilot meets the requirements of the US Team Code of Conduct. I post some relevant sections below:

13.1.3 Courtesy. Courteous accessibility to visiting SSA members, sponsors, dignitaries and the Press.
13.1.4 Respect. Respect for the host organization, the facility, the rules of the airfield and the organization.
13.1.5 Treatment. Fair, considerate, courteous treatment of Team Management, Team Volunteers, and members of the public.
13.2.1 Highest Level. To maintain at all times a high standard of sportsmanship and fair play
13.2.6 Respect. Maintain an attitude of respect and politeness towards competitors both in the air and on the ground.
13.3 To Specifically Refrain From. To refrain from any behavior which might reflect unfavorably on the United States of America, the sport, the Team, its management, or which might bring any other pilot, official or the Team into disrepute

Since you voted for Sean highly, can you please certify that he has met all of these requirements?

On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 7:07:22 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
It's good to have a discussion of this new selection system on RAS, and it has to include specific cases, hard as that may be.

FWIW, I voted Sean highly in both classes, with a warning -- very talented and young (by our standards) pilot, but tends to be a bit unstable especially behind a keyboard. A true champion has emotional equanimity.

A lot of us would be happy to have to leave our wingtip extensions home and get to fly a WGC!

John Cochrane

Sounds like "Social Justice" arguments, much like the nonsense from Washington DC. "A lot of us would be happy to have to leave our wingtip extensions home and get to fly a WGC!" sounds like this position is a gift from the selection committee, much like a poor child receiving a broken toy on Christmas from a pious "Santa Claus". The position is not a gift bestowed from upon on high above by the moral superior character judgers, it is a position someone earned on the sacrifice and merits of their recent past achievements. John Cochrane should stick to what he does best: mathematical equations. And if mathematical equations speak the truth, then so should the selection process.

Since there are some with opinions posting here, is anyone willing to speculate on S.F's potential for ever being considered for future teams?
I am interested in how the selection/culture works, or might work.
I am completely unfamiliar with both competition soaring and S.F.
And certainly have neither approval or condemnation on his response.

Respectfully,
Scott

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 6:10:10 PM UTC-7, Retting wrote:
Two idiots now. Great.

Three.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-4, XC wrote:
Dang! Got drawn in again!

I’m ashamed to admit I have been following Sean Fidler’s “why didn’t I get chosen� rants on Facebook. It is hard to look away from a train wreck I guess. I am embarrassed for him. I've never seen someone take a decision so badly. So much misinformation and so little space to refute it!

For those who haven’t heard SF wasn’t chosen to represent the US in the 18m at the 2018 WGC in the Czech Republic. He was chosen to go Poland in the 15m class. Hardly an insult but his insecurities got the better of him, he ungraciously declined the 15m class and ever since the world has not been right.

Let me first say I do not represent the selection committee in any way. They have been working hard at this and deserve our thanks not attacks.

The selection process is different this year. This has been known to all the candidates for some time now. First, a pilot qualifies for consideration by getting a ranking of 90% or better by averaging various comps.

In phase two, the pilot’s fellow competitors who scored at least 85% of the winners score in a US Nationals in the last three years rank order the candidates based on who they think would represent the US best at the WGC. Listed below are the pilots who voted in the 18m class.

Fletcher, Robert W.
Leonard, David
Fidler, Sean
Ittner, Gary N.
Nelson, Erik
Clark, Robin
Alexander, Peter T.
Nichols, Steve
Sorenson, Kenneth G.
Indrebo, Rick
Nadler, David R.
Zimmerman, Sam R., III
Murray, John
Arnold, Sarah Kelly
Gawthrop, Bill
Linnekin, Dennis
Gimmey, Ray
Tyler, Allison H., Jr.
Roberts, Sheridan
Mockler, David R.
Cochrane, John H.
Lee, Jim
Welles, Gillette 'Tim'
Deane, Peter
Martin, David V.
Coggins, David L.
Keene, Mark
Franke, Sean

This is a pretty sharp group. In fact it would be hard to assemble such a good group of decision makers any other way. There was well over 90% participation rate I’m told and more details will follow from official sources. What was put forth was their decision.

After the vote the committee can make adjustments to field a good team. For example they may pair up two people who work well together or select someone with experience applicable to the WGC site. I am told that this was not implemented in any of the classes this year.

I can only guess at why others didn’t rank him well in the 18m class. I ranked him low in the 15m because he doesn't do well in a TAT or a MAT task. If he doesn’t have markers around him he tends not to do so well. MAT task aside, there are still quite a few TAT tasks at the WGC and pilot needs to be able to perform if they find themselves separated from the lead gaggle. On top of all that he doesn't work well with others and is an internet troll. Sorry, but we all know it to be true.

So all this talk about deficiencies in the US rules, MAT tasks being bad, flying primarily racing tasks, "true racing tasks", etc. is smoke and mirrors for one thing, wanting to make sailplane racing about following others around the course in gaggles and not making decisions on one's own, hanging back and leap frogging over the guys in front. The pilot who makes a bold decision is really taking a risk.

IGC racing is what it is. Yes, there is a lot of gaggle flying required but in the end we still need to send brilliant pilots who process a full set of soaring skills.

Sean Fidler didn't make the cut (in 18m) and is having a tough time dealing with the fact.

Sean Murphy

This is better than watching the Jerry Springer show.

A soaring friend of mine call me yesterday and asked me if I had been following the drama on Rec Aviation. The answer was no, because I really do not care about SSA drama. Here is my opinion. I do not pay dues to the SSA because I do not think the organization is a group I want to be a part of for a lot of reasons. I am not going to list those reasons on this forum or any other forum for all to see.
I still own and fly my glider(F1)and still enormously enjoy flying a glider.. I made a statement to Sean Fidler, a long time ago, the SSA has been run by a very small and select group (the good old boys) soaring pilots for a very long time. If you want to pick a fight with them, you will not win that battle.
So, to all soaring pilots, if you want to compete on a US National Soaring Team, you best not **** off the boys.

Bob Fidler

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

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 7:31:45 AM UTC-4, wrote:
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.

Lost in Sean Fidler's somewhat embarrassing behavior is that he has case. At the meeting in Cordele last summer where new changes to the team selection process were hotly debated, I noted that we had abandoned a preferential voting system in the past: at least one highly ranked pilot allegedly manipulated it to his advantage by persuading his buddies to downscore a certain leading pilot to keep him off the team. I warned that even the appearance of backroom dealings or lack of transparency in the new voting system would likely push us to return to the purely quantitative process we had until recently (and that was thought not to accomplish the objective of selecting the best teams).

The clumsy, poorly handled way the new system was introduced this spring had me shaking my head. How could some of our smart pilots be so tone deaf? Now, barely weeks after the first votes, I'm still shaking my head.

This isn't a tempest in a teapot to the small number who fly competitively. Selection to the U.S. Team is a Very Big Deal to those at the top of the competitive pyramid. I'll repeat what I said in Cordele: even the APPEARANCE of conflicts of interest or backroom deals is unacceptable.

Have we learned nothing?

Chip Bearden

I posted before I read Steve's and Tim's recent contributions. Hear, hear. Santayana's words had occurred to me, too.

At least in soaring, I can't charge it off to most of our crowd being too young to have lived through the mistakes of the past.

Chip Bearden