A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 22nd 12, 02:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Evan Ludeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 485
Default FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:14:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.



Constructively,




Evan Ludeman / T8




I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.



It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.



Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?



Sean Franke


If that's all you can find to nitpick, then I guess the rest of the message found its mark?

The way I see it, *if* we ran American Sports next to FAI CC at Mifflin (which we won't), we'd more or less double the admin load. That's a solvable problem (maybe a second scorer / assistant CD, whatever). But the point is, our normal process is to try out the bright ideas at the regional level and develop a base of experience that can be shared when it's time to run a Nationals.

Personally, I'm curious to see how shutting out the "killer bees" (that would be ASW-20Bs, Ventus Bs, LS-6Bs) and their kin is going to help participation. The best evidence available so far suggests that it could reduce participation by about 25% (I'm looking at R9 the last couple years). Again, the better environment to sort this out is at the regional level.

Good luck.

T8, out.
Ads
  #22  
Old November 23rd 12, 03:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean F (F2)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 573
Default FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

Thanks Tim!
  #23  
Old November 26th 12, 11:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean F (F2)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 573
Default FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

The Rules Committee are a wonderful group of very bright and friendly people who want nothing more than the best for our sport. We all have great respect for them personally and as pilots. I commend them for the efforts, passion and idea's! Rules can be a challenge, especially when they are changed. Our US rules are also used in part as a mechanism to govern other essential and important area's of the sport such as safety, fun factors and turning decline into growth. There are compromises that must be made. Sailplane "racing" remains the key focus of the racing rules. I too have sat on many boards both professionally and in sport. Open, fluid communication and friendly debate is the path to win/win outcomes. Reaching out aggressively and listening to as many people (customers and competitors) as possible has always been the key (for me) in getting thru heated debates or challenges.

With that, there are (already) 25 signatures on the US Club Class FAI petition requesting that the new US Club Class adopt more FAI "like" rules. This petition has only been open for 6 days. The 25 signers include a number of top pilots within the former "US sports class" who ACTUALLY OWN CLUB CLASS SHIPS. The signers include several past US World Team pilots. They also include the two top US "Club Class" pilots who will be representing the USA in a month at the World Championships in Argentina. It appears, at minimum, that a significant number of very important pilots (ranging from highly experienced to less, young and old...) appear to want a US Club Class which is fairly different than what has been proposed by the US RC. That is odd. What is even more odd is that nobody appears to have reached out to them.

Shouldn't the US pilots who own club level gliders - who have chosen to fly club gliders in sports class - who own them today and flown them proudly for many years - who are very happy with club gliders and not interested (or perhaps able or interested in affording) in pursuing ownership of more expensive 15/18/Open gliders - and who want (a bit) more of an (FAI) "racing" experience - be heard regarding the rules of a new class of Club Class gliders in the USA? Are they being heard? Were they even asked? If not, why not?

How was a decision to create a new US "Club Class" arrived at if this many key pilots appear to want FAI "like" tasking and gliders? My understanding is that none of the petition signers were asked or contacted by the rules committee and asked for input. The poll sent out by the US rules committee did not ask this question directly or present it as an option. Is the "polling strategy" utilized by the SSA rules committee asking the right questions? Is it, perhaps, too ambiguous or open to interpretation?

It appears that the interests of those who own and fly club level gliders may NOT been heard. This Club Class FAI petition and the people who have signed it are asking, nicely but LOUDLY, for a US Club Class which is much, much "closer" to the established Club Class flown everywhere else on the planet. Initially, that appears NOT to be an option which is on the table. Why not?

My understanding is that the rules committee will be making a final recommendation to the SSA Board of Directors in February (23rd). Perhaps the signers of this petition (especially owners of actual club class gliders) should also make recommendations to the SSA Board? Ultimately, I would love to see an outcome here that makes this important US Club group thrilled and excited vs. feeling ignored. And ignored is the feeling right now unfortunately. I hope a meaningful dialogue begins before this winter meeting occurs..

In the end it is all about the Club Class glider owners! The Sports Class can and should remain unchanged (minus the club ships interested in the FAI like rules). Any club glider that does not want to fly in the US Club Class with more FAI like rules (for whatever reason) remains in sports!

WIN - WIN!!!!!, nobody is left behind, EVERYBODY HAS A GREAT CHOICE!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2
  #24  
Old November 27th 12, 03:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

I'm for a seperate club class nationals. I would love to compete in one.

Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??
  #25  
Old November 27th 12, 04:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:35:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
I'm for a seperate club class nationals. I would love to compete in one.



Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??


Scott, Sarah Arnold and Sean Franke are the two highest ranking US Club Class pilots and will be flying in Argentina. They qualified by flying gliders listed on the US CC list. No one was barred from the team.
Richard Walters
US Team Committee Chair
  #26  
Old November 27th 12, 04:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

On Nov 27, 8:35*am, wrote:
I'm for a seperate club class nationals. *I would love to compete in one.

There will be a separate club class nationals, at Mifflin. See you
there.

The question is the definition of "club class" and the rules to be
followed.

Class: 1) the current IGC list for Argentina 2) the US team "club
class" list that has been in force for many years, which extends the
handicap range very slightly and allows many gliders not on the IGC
list 3) #2 plus all lower performing gliders, so the latter are not
shut out of US national competition.

If you're voting for #1, do you own such a glider, and are you on the
seeding list? Have you looked at the numbers of such gliders showing
up to previous sports class nationals to gauge if sufficient gliders
will show up?

If you're voting for #1 or #2, what is your plan for lower performance
gliders? (No, Sean, 1-26 + Nimbus 4 does not work with the middle cut
out. We need a realistic plan backed by numbers.)

Rules: Are you joining Sean in the idea that Mifflin should use IGC
rules (plus local procedures yet to be written), despite nobody in the
US having tried to run a national contest under said rules (except the
team that ran Uvalde, and I can guarantee they're not coming to CD
Mifflin), all but 1 or 2 pilots who have been to WGC never having
flown under said rules and no evidence that anyone has read them?

If the issue is club class in general, and the general plan for the
future, despite the wildly misleading tone of Sean's post, it's there
for the asking. We've been running club class regionals for several
years, to try to build interest in the class. Sean, where have you
been? (At regionals, the issue of lower performance being shut out is
a bit less pressing, as there is more competition from nearby
regionals.)

If anyone wants to run one under IGC rules, he's welcome. If IGC rules
work, and attract pilots at regionals, and everyone having tried it
thinks it's more fun, they move to nationals. That's the standard
procedure. Not, jump off a cliff and see if the parachute opens.

If the issue is club class in general, this year's plan for Mifflin
sports nationals is designed as a sensible next step, which preserves
the knowledge gained in regional competition and keeps the sports
class alive.

Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??


Not sure what you mean by this. The club class team for 2013 Argentina
won fair and square and have the highest ranking according to the US
team selection formula. If you mean, why are other pilots who you
think are better not going, (such as the actual winners of previous
sports class contests) it's simple: Because the US team and SSA paid a
lot of attention to similar requests from club class advocates and
restricted team selection to those who entered sports class in club
class gliders. (Yes, they do listen. Maybe too much, according to your
comment.)

John Cochrane
  #27  
Old November 27th 12, 05:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

RE IGC rules and scoring for CC

Some things to consider when contemplating using IGC rules for the new Club Class Nationals.

1. Start line procedure - speed control, safety.
2. Finish line- straight in rolling finishes? Good practice for WGC, but is this what we want to do? Does the airport support such finishes?
3. PRL ( pilot ranking list)- pilots flying in CC nats using IGC scores will find they score about 15% less than they did under US rules. This will impact PRL seeding, and possibly the ability to enter oversubscribed contests ( Perry and Seniors.) Small point, but something to be aware of.

Regards
Richard Walters
US Team Committee Chair
  #28  
Old November 27th 12, 09:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition


1. Start line procedure - speed control, safety.

2. Finish line- straight in rolling finishes? Good practice for WGC, but is this what we want to do? Does the airport support such finishes?



1. A start line AND start ring are both options under IGC rules. IF the CD CHOOSES a start line then I envision two start areas. Multiple start zones have already been done in the US. Sports Class will use a standard start cylinder. Club Class IGC MAY use a line start which would be nearby but not overlapping. Separating half the fleet may be safer as well. The CD can still limit start height in IGC.

2. A finish line AND finish ring are both options under IGC rules. I would expect if an IGC Club Class is coupled with a US based rules class then they would have the SAME finish ring and finish altitude. When/where applicable a European style finish could be used.

If anyone wants to run one under IGC rules, he's welcome. If IGC rules

work, and attract pilots at regionals, and everyone having tried it
thinks it's more fun, they move to nationals. That's the standard
procedure. Not, jump off a cliff and see if the parachute opens

The petition has 7 (and growing) current or former US Team Members who prefer IGC rules for the Club Class. These are pilots who have tried both sides. The fun, ease and simpleness of IGC WILL attract more pilots.

Let's be realistic. We can be confident if the parachute has been tried, works and tested internationally then it will work here as well.

Sean Franke
  #29  
Old November 27th 12, 11:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Evan Ludeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 485
Default FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:28:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
The fun, ease and simpleness of IGC WILL attract more pilots.


Specifics, please. I haven't studied the IGC rules, and neither have most American pilots. What are the essential differences that are going to make this class a winner?

So far, I think I've got:

1. No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low performance gliders when task setting.

2. No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs.

3. No speed or altitude limits prior to the start.

4. Much more emphasis on ATs.

5. Score everything according to FAI rules.

What did I miss?

-Evan Ludeman / T8
  #30  
Old November 28th 12, 12:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition



So far, I think I've got:

1. *No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low performance gliders when task setting.

2. *No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs.


Actually, under IGC rules, each contest gets to make its own list,
depending on the gliders available. So "use IGC rules" and "further
restrict the US club class list to the list used in Argentina" are
separate requests.


3. *No speed or altitude limits prior to the start.


Actually, you can put in speed limits and altitude limits.

What you can't do is the US 2 minute under altitude limits, the US
start out the top, the US credit for distance rules or our cylinders
It has to be a line.

So, with altitude limits you get VNE dives to the line. Sometimes out
of the clouds. People have given up on speed limits, because you can't
tell in the cockpit what the speed will read out on see you later. At
Uvalde after days of harangue they gave up and used unlmited altitude,
which meant half the field started in wave on a few days. At Szeged
most of the gaggle circled around in the cloud before the unlimited
altitude start. Fun stuff. Advocates have a point, if you want to go
do this stuff at the worlds, practicing at home will help a lot.


4. *Much more emphasis on ATs.


A rule mandating the fraction of AT and TAT. Uvalde sent them off in
to thunderstorms on ATs because they didn't want to use up the
mandated fraction of TAT which they might need on even worse days to
come. An interesting unintended conseqence of putting in a mandated
fraction of task types.


5. *Score everything according to FAI rules.


Which feature a much more aggressive transition from speed to distance
points than US rules. If nobody makes it home, it's 1000 distance
points. Under FAI rules you make almost no points if you're the only
finisher, as it's all become distance points. You get clobbered if
you're the only landout. This is one of the big reasons that FAI rules
lead to long start gate roulette, leaving when it's hopeless, then
mass gaggles to a huge landout.

The tactical implications of the FAI scoring formula are subtle and
deep. There are several analyses of the required strategies floating
around the US team. If we go there, be prepared to play a very
different tactical game.

Advocates have a point: if you want to learn to play this game it
takes years of practice. The question for US pilots: do the 99% of you
who are not going to the worlds really want to invest a lot to
learning to play these games? You're going to be landing out a lot
more often btw.


John Cochrane
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Club Class Nationals 5 ugly Soaring 37 September 24th 10 03:27 AM
US 15 Meters Nationals and Region V South Club Class [email protected] Soaring 0 March 12th 09 04:59 PM
Establishing Club Class/Too Many Nationals/Not Enough Competitors Tim[_2_] Soaring 14 October 2nd 08 03:34 PM
AUS Club Class Nationals Overall Results Mal Soaring 0 January 27th 06 10:55 AM
UK Open Class and Club Class Nationals - Lasham Steve Dutton Soaring 0 August 6th 03 10:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.