![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules? You need to integrate all the other feedback. When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work. This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly. Andy Blackburn 9B |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote: Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules? You need to integrate all the other feedback. When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work. This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly. Andy Blackburn 9B Andy, I get all of that, but why not have one contest with FAI rules to get some experience? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:00:14 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote: On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote: Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules? You need to integrate all the other feedback. When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules.. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work. This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly. Andy Blackburn 9B Andy, I get all of that, but why not have one contest with FAI rules to get some experience? There was the PAGC. I'm not sure how you objectively collect, process and take action on the "experience." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:27:45 AM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:00:14 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote: On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote: On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote: Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules? You need to integrate all the other feedback. When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work. This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly. Andy Blackburn 9B Andy, I get all of that, but why not have one contest with FAI rules to get some experience? There was the PAGC. I'm not sure how you objectively collect, process and take action on the "experience." A pilot poll could be designed to capture valuable data, alternatively a retrospective session with all pilots of such contest could be held. One could capture the level of satisfaction, safety aspects, what worked well and what did not. In the end it is all about what majority of pilots want not what someone thinks they want. It is not my opinion and it is not RC opinion that matters it is the opinion of the majority of pilots and the best way to find out if we are going in the right direction is to test the rules in practice. A super regional contest could be held to try this out. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Andy, you ought to know it is never the opinion of the majority of pilots that counts. I have seen it for years being the opinion of the committees that always matters and the rest of us just end up having to live with whatever they decide. It happens in soaring and it happens in every race or club association.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It'sa worthy idea. It's been discussed and some initial conversations have been had. You need to have all the infrastructure in place. Some thoughts on what needs doing.
1) Local procedures drafted and agreed to. We don't really have all that clear an idea what pilots want in the gory details. Do you really want team flying and allowance for ground crew support (long range Flarm tracking with ground-based high-gain antennae is one common example)? I'd write local procedures against that, but a significant number of pilots might want to form teams or have some ground support. Others hate the idea. There are many tens of decisions like this to be made and choices will affect pilot participation one way or the other. 2) Scoring scripts written for SeeYou to support #1. There are a few people who are able and possibly willing to support this over some reasonable time frame. 3) Scorer who knows how to use SeeYou found and recruited. 4) Unique requirements of FAI rules supported or worked around in #1. 5) Stuff you didn't anticipate because so much is new. It's not impossible, but it's new and unfamiliar and you need to get organizers to agree to take the risk and do the work. Lastly, you might be well advised to not spring this on pilots who already signed up for contests and scheduled their vacations. If there were organizer support and pilots already signed up for that same contest were nearly unanimously in favor of giving it a go, it might be possible to do it under waiver. Some informal outreach has not yielded results to my knowledge, but if organizers, pilots and other supporting volunteers got seriously motivated to do it, I for one would be favorably inclined on the request. Andy Blackburn 9B |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:12:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
It'sa worthy idea. It's been discussed and some initial conversations have been had. You need to have all the infrastructure in place. Some thoughts on what needs doing. 1) Local procedures drafted and agreed to. We don't really have all that clear an idea what pilots want in the gory details. Do you really want team flying and allowance for ground crew support (long range Flarm tracking with ground-based high-gain antennae is one common example)? I'd write local procedures against that, but a significant number of pilots might want to form teams or have some ground support. Others hate the idea. There are many tens of decisions like this to be made and choices will affect pilot participation one way or the other. 2) Scoring scripts written for SeeYou to support #1. There are a few people who are able and possibly willing to support this over some reasonable time frame. 3) Scorer who knows how to use SeeYou found and recruited. 4) Unique requirements of FAI rules supported or worked around in #1. 5) Stuff you didn't anticipate because so much is new. It's not impossible, but it's new and unfamiliar and you need to get organizers to agree to take the risk and do the work. Lastly, you might be well advised to not spring this on pilots who already signed up for contests and scheduled their vacations. If there were organizer support and pilots already signed up for that same contest were nearly unanimously in favor of giving it a go, it might be possible to do it under waiver. Some informal outreach has not yielded results to my knowledge, but if organizers, pilots and other supporting volunteers got seriously motivated to do it, I for one would be favorably inclined on the request. Andy Blackburn 9B Andy, this is a very open minded position. You are right about timing being an issue. Let's see if there is an interest for this year. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, 1 January 2018 10:12:48 UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
It'sa worthy idea. It's been discussed and some initial conversations have been had. You need to have all the infrastructure in place. Some thoughts on what needs doing. 1) Local procedures drafted and agreed to. We don't really have all that clear an idea what pilots want in the gory details. Do you really want team flying and allowance for ground crew support (long range Flarm tracking with ground-based high-gain antennae is one common example)? I'd write local procedures against that, but a significant number of pilots might want to form teams or have some ground support. Others hate the idea. There are many tens of decisions like this to be made and choices will affect pilot participation one way or the other. 2) Scoring scripts written for SeeYou to support #1. There are a few people who are able and possibly willing to support this over some reasonable time frame. 3) Scorer who knows how to use SeeYou found and recruited. 4) Unique requirements of FAI rules supported or worked around in #1. 5) Stuff you didn't anticipate because so much is new. It's not impossible, but it's new and unfamiliar and you need to get organizers to agree to take the risk and do the work. Lastly, you might be well advised to not spring this on pilots who already signed up for contests and scheduled their vacations. If there were organizer support and pilots already signed up for that same contest were nearly unanimously in favor of giving it a go, it might be possible to do it under waiver. Some informal outreach has not yielded results to my knowledge, but if organizers, pilots and other supporting volunteers got seriously motivated to do it, I for one would be favorably inclined on the request. Andy Blackburn 9B For #2 why not get a hold of the Scripts used at the 2012 Worlds held in Uvalde? They worked fine there, I was one of the scorers. QT may have them |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:04:25 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
For #2 why not get a hold of the Scripts used at the 2012 Worlds held in Uvalde? They worked fine there, I was one of the scorers. QT may have them It occurred to me. I don't know what's in it. WGC flying is a bit different from Regional flying - teams, ground crews, FAI marshals. Those aren't script items, but I don't know it there's anything in the scripts you'd want to alter for non-WGC flying and less experienced pilots. It would need a look - assuming that an organizer wanted to raise their had to host. I wager they'd need help getting everything done. Andy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2018 Proposed US Competition Rules Changes | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | December 29th 17 11:45 PM |
See You 3.95 and U.S. Start/Finish rules | [email protected] | Soaring | 2 | March 27th 12 04:25 PM |
UO penalty @ Hobbs | For Example John Smith | Soaring | 4 | June 12th 05 08:34 PM |
TFR Penalty | Magellan | Piloting | 9 | September 5th 04 01:24 AM |
Rules for 1000k with start/finish at midpoint. | Andrew Warbrick | Soaring | 2 | August 10th 04 05:04 AM |