The US Team selection process in future years

"Just tell me what you want."

Scenario 1: The prime objective of U.S. competitive soaring is to win the World Championships. Ergo national championships--including the rules (e.g., regarding task types and team flying)--should encompass training, evaluation, and selection processes that surface pilots who can excel on the world stage. Venues should closely mirror those of upcoming world championships. Only those qualified few who are being groomed for and/or truly have a realistic chance of placing well should be chosen and funded. The inclusion of a self-funded "auxiliary corps" of pilots to fill out the allowable (by WGC organizers) Team slots should be based on whether their addition will enhance or detract from the Team's chances.

Scenario 2: The prime objectives of U.S. competitive soaring are (i) to select champions and (ii) to encourage participation by as many qualified pilots as possible through selection of task types and venues (higher completion ratios, venues with better weather, sites rotated for geographic equity, etc.) as well as social events. Selection of an expanded group of pilots to U.S. Teams with modest financial support would be as much to motivate/reward them and to generate PR and general enthusiasm for competition soaring as it would be an opportunity for the U.S. to excel on the world stage.

These are not 100% mutually exclusive but they do reflect different perspectives. Or perhaps points on a continuum. Thoughts?

Chip Bearden

I stopped racing entirely from 2001 until 2015 because of the
WGC team funding issues. My reasoning was, why bother racing
and qualifying if I'm just going to have to turn down a slot
anyway? I have raced the last 3 years again, mostly for fun,
and to see what the new generation is up to. Going forward
from here, I only see myself racing for the challenge and fun of
it without regards to team selection at all. Otherwise, it just
becomes too frustrating, and makes it not worth the effort at
all anymore..

RO

Thanks for coming back, Mike. It was a great pleasure and privilege to meet you and fly with you at Hobbs this past summer. Hope to fly with you again soon.

WB

On 11/6/2017 10:47 PM, Michael Opitz wrote:
At 18:21 06 November 2017, John Cochrane wrote:
The really interesting thing about this year's team selection is
not that one pilot wanted to go in 18 and was offered 15 instead.
The really screaming issue we saw this year is that pilot after
pilot declined the opportunity.. What is going on that so many of
our top pilots turn down the chance to go to WGC? Is there
anything we can do about that? Or is it just that the IGC itself
needs to reform the worlds game to make it more attractive? I'd
love to hear from those who turned down the chance as to why
they did so.
John Cochrane


The first US team which was selected by objective performance
was picked in 1984 for the 1985 Rieti Italy WGC. The members
we
Ray Gimmey - Open
Doug Jacobs -15m
John Seaborn -15m
Eric Mozer- Std
Mike Opitz-Std (myself)

The results were the best that Team USA has had in quite a while.
DJ won in 15m using "lone eagle" tactics. John Seaborn had a lot
of troubles and wound up at 33rd....
Ray wound up in 7th place in Open. Eric and I flew as a team
and finished 3rd and 5th.
So, we had mixed good results between "lone eagle" and team
tactics. This was before the other National teams really started to
aggressively train in team and pair flying tactics. All team member
expenses were covered by the SSA through member donations and
the raffle sale of a glider. (SSA membership = ~16K people)

The team for 1987 Benalla Australia, and results we
Ray Gimmey - Open -11
Doug Jacobs - 15m - 3
Eric Mozer - 15m - 15
Mike Opitz -Std - 2
John Byrd - Std -11
The other nations were now starting to aggressively train in team
flying. The French team finished right behind me in Std. Our
Open and 15m flew pretty much as "lone eagles".
John Byrd and I flew team. The only reason John did not finish
next to me was that we got split up on two critical days, and he
lost out each time that happened. Compared to recent results,
these results were not bad with 2 podium finishes. The SSA was
able to fully fund the team through the same fund raising as in
1985.

The team for 1989 Wiener Neustadt Austria and results we
Ray Gimmey - Open - 9
Ron Tabery - Open - 14
Doug Jacobs - 15m - 11
Karl Striedieck -15m - 17
Mike Opitz - Std - 18
John Byrd - STD - 16
John Byrd and I flew team, and the others were all "lone eagles".
The first 2 days were flown in very weak conditions into (newly
opened from the Soviet block) Hungary, which proved difficult
for all of us. The rest of the contest was in the Alps where local
knowledge became a big player. The French, German and British
teams had all been training very hard in team flying tactics by
then, and the results reflected that training. Again, the SSA was
able to fully fund all team member expenses through similar fund
raising activities.

You will notice that as the other Nations aggressively trained in
team flying over that 4 year period, the US team's performance
dropped, and kept falling for quite a while to follow.

I qualified for the US team again for 1995 Omarama New Zealand.
I was #5 out of 9 pilots. By that time, fund raising was starting
to go down, and the number of team members was up to 9 pilots
now - for a contest 1/2 the way around the world. The SSA
decided that they could only fully fund 4 team members, so #5-#9
were on their own to totally self fund. I had to decline my slot
as I could not afford the estimated ~$15,000 cost at that time.

I qualified for the US team again for 2001 Mafeking South Africa.
By then, funding was a real problem. There was the regular WGC
plus Club, World, 18m, Junior Class WGC's as well - including 5
team managers totaling 21 people plus crews who wanted
funding. I figured that it would now cost me ~$15,000 to self
fund what the SSA would not cover, so I declined again as I
could not afford it.

Now, I have qualified as an alternate for WGC 2018 Poland in Club
Class, and am declining that for financial reasons as well. Had
I been selected #1 or #2, I might have tried to see if someone
in Europe would be willing to swap gliders (and tow cars for equal
time periods) with me in order to reduce costs. The SSA funding
for Poland will only be for entry and tow fees. To stand by "just
in case" translates into ~$20.000 estimated out of pocket
expenses if called to go on short notice. US team members paid
between $20,000 and $30,000 out of pocket each for past WGC
contests in Lithuania and Finland.

For the Europeans, they can just hook their gliders onto their cars
and drive to the WGC's about 75% of the time. They don't have
to deal with ocean freight like we do almost continually. A lot of
them camp out in caravans at the contest to save expenses as
well. The Aussies, Kiwis, South Africans, and Canadians are in
much the same boat that we in the USA are, and it would be
interesting to see how they handle the funding and logistics
issues.

On top of all of that, the USA is a big country, and it is hard to get
team members together to train in team flying over those huge
distances. Most European nations are only geographically as large
as one of our 50 States, so it is easier for them to practice
together.

Lots of problems and issues. I don't have the answers either. We
are dealing with a world wide decline in interest in our sport. At
our home airfield in upstate NY, we are struggling to find new
members to replace the older group which is now aging out of
the sport.... As membership declines, WGC team funding does as
well. We may need to eliminate some FAI classes or somehow
reduce the numbers of folks that have a shot at getting a piece
of the funding pie. If one is good enough to be selected every
two years, one had better be rich if they plan to go to every
WGC. Right now, it appears that pilots who presently get to
go - compete in one or two WGC's and then say "been there,
done that, got the T-shirt, and I can't afford to keep doing
this..."

RO

Great stuff - thanks for researching and writing this up!!! Clearly (to me,
anyway), the goal of "selecting for winning" encompasses lots beyond "mere
pilot selection."

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com