SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 5:43:42 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 2:37:53 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 4:21:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-7, 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?


Direct paste and copy.... it's up on the SSA site also.


10/19/2017 2017 SSA Pilot Opinion Poll Results

Do you favor a wholesale move to FAI rules?
Yes 29%
No 67%

5.1c Comments on a wholesale move to FAI rules: 42%

5.2 Do you favor a gradual adoption of FAI contest rules?
Yes 37%
No 59%

5.3 Do you favor retaining US contest rules as separate from FAI rules.
Yes 50%
No 43%


Best. Tom #711.

My interpretation of those numbers is that 2/3 of pilots want to (immediately or gradually) move to FAI rules (29% plus 37%)

Half want to have US rules be a separate entity (but not necessarily different) from FAI rules.

The RC has much finer grain analysis available.

QT,

If you do this 29% and 37% higher tech math "yes vote" which equals 66%,
then should you not add the other "no vote" parts of 67% and 59% which equal 126%?, which still gives us a greater "NO" vote?

Only 42% of those who cast the "whole sale" move responded on 5.2C.

Heck, I voted to make the AT TP smaller, as is used in the FAI rules, get rid of the cylinder and use a line with a MSH to start and a line to finish.

Of course, the CD should be able to make changes for what's "best" for that contest site.

Happy Snowflakes,

Best. Tom #711.

Uh, that would be a no on the math part. A "no" answer is only a no to the issue of fast or slow, not to FAI or not.

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

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?

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."

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.

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

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.

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

Andy Blackburn of the rules committee helping me on speed/distance points specifics:
We changed the ratio of speed to distance points a few years back, so the maximum penalty for a pilot who would otherwise score 1000 ought to be 400, not 600.

RWF - I should fuss with the rules formulas more often!

It seems with such harsh penalties one is better off landing out if they are confident of getting home but arriving low.