Train Wreck

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.........

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 9:43:09 PM UTC-4, Josh Fletcher wrote:
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.........




--
Josh Fletcher

I have to admit I'm curious as to what you have read here would make you decide to no longer be an SSA member.
A committee of SSA members, elected by SSA members, took on the task of revisiting how we select our teams going to the WGC. In doing so they went to great lengths to understand how other countries select their teams, including face to face interviews with several. Additionally they gathered insights from many current and former team members.
Out of that, a new process grew.
They followed that process and did not interject themselves into it.
One individual has chosen to make claims of "cronyism" and maybe some other malfeasance because he did not get selected to the team he wanted to be on..
This thread is a result of his being called out for his ways of communicating his unhappiness.
Maybe it would be possible for you to explain why you give up on the whole organization over this.
Respectfully
UH

I dislike most hobby organizations but I have to give the SSA credit they do a great job. Especially considering their resources. There is a lot of little things they have gotten done with the FAA over the years that add up.. Only thing I have a beef with is the group insurance membership extortion bit but all orgs that can get away with it do that.
All the racing stuff is run by the racing junkies for the racing junkies and doesn't affect the rest of us. Unless we choose to pay attention for gossip or laughs.

Thanks Hank, a good summation of what led me to make the original post.

I also agree with John Cochrane's post basically saying there is reasoning to having the new system. Those reasons are listed in the document describing it.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Upda...20v1.2.3. pdf

Read the whole document. Below is the just the preamble.

"US Team Committee discussions concerning the current US Team pilot selection process have raised a number of issues, including the following:

• An uncharacteristically bad National contest result (e.g. due to illness) may cause a highly qualified pilot to miss the US Team.

• Pilot skills and how they match conditions expected at WGC contest sites should be considered (e.g. a pilot with predominately flatland skills should not necessarily be selected for a contest that will emphasize mountain flying).

• Pilot personality and the way it fits with the full team can be an important factor.

For a pilot who has competed in past FAI Category 1 contests, performance in those events should be considered.

- Because success at Category 1 contests typically requires some experience in competition at that level, a pilot’s age and likely commitment to future US Team participation should be considered.

- The proliferation of IGC classes raises the possibility that a pilot who has achieved excellent results in one class might be a strong US Team member in another.

The fundamental point is that the goal of every US Team should be to obtain the best results possible at any World Gliding Championships (WGC), and the current team (old) selection process does not appear to be consistently achieving that goal. Accordingly, the US Team Committee is proposing significant changes to the process by which US Team pilots are selected."


For those of you who have been following the bitterness and now belligerence on 7T's website along with this thread, I must restate that I think this whole push to fly SP's or exclusively AT's at our contests is about following the herd around the course. This favors some people's skill set, real racing as it is termed, but I have my doubts it best determines who is the best glider pilot. Admittedly though, it is good prep for the WGC.

I can adapt to the new age of FLARM markers where you can see the location of all the contestants pre-start and the longitudinal axis of the glider and the course line are coincident. In fact, preceding this year's 15m nat'l (3 AT's) we had a US Team camp where we talked about the best way to compete doing it. (Thanks to those volunteers who hosted us). AT's are fun to some extent but let's continue to have some balance in tasking, please. (I need to change my FLARM tag to zzz.)

I still welcome the chance to spread out the field in a TAT or a MAT and there are still TAT's called at the WGC's. There will be more in the future.

And for God' sake let's go flying at our Nationals when the cloud bases are lowish or conditions are less than ideal. This way we can have meaningful results at our Nationals that translate to WGC.

Serious stuff...For laughs I have included this snapshot of Day 1 at the 2014 15m National at Montegue, a place where I had never flown before. A most beautiful flight (not top scoring by any means). A most enjoyable contest! Thanks to those volunteers who put it on! I'll remember it always.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10W...ZVw3dha60JySPN


XC

https://youtu.be/9rro7I1AO10

On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 10:20:39 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
https://youtu.be/9rro7I1AO10

You just can't quit the name calling, can you.... One look at the title, naw, I've got better things to do.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

The train wreck continues at www.seanfidler.com.

This is what I said in the original post:

"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."

It was just my personal opinion after seeing his predictable scoresheet tumbles when a MAT or TAT was called. Even more predictable was the later outcry on RAS that these tasks were horrible...

I think I ranked him 3rd or 4th out of 9 possible in 15m. Must have touched a nerve.


XC

#internetbullyingnotjustforteenagegirlsanymore
#stillstampingfeetovergettingpickedlastforkickball
#whyaretherenospacesbetweenthesewords
#matsandtatsarefunforsomenotforothers
#ifyouthinkthesearerealyourenuttierthan7T

You guys may be mistaking behind-the-keyboard crazy Sean for the pilot. Sean loves the idea of racing assigned tasks and grand prix, and rather pointedly says so. I haven't seen any particular lack of originality and willingness to strike out on the own in the air. If anything, the opposite, Sean goes where others fear to tread. Just because he doesn't think contests should call tats (which WGC also do, increasingly) does not mean he's any worse at flying them. Not every opinion in this sport is self-interested

John Cochrane

I watched Sean's youtube video.

Professionally presented and analyzed, and proves his point with data.

I fail to see any evidence of a "train wreck" there....and he DID win the entire contest.

If I may add, Sean's performance at Benella was impressive (at one point he was in second place overall and had a day win as I recall?), and he was receiving accolades right here on ras the whole time while doing it.