Train Wreck

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

I posted before I read Steve's and Tim's recent contributions. Hear, hear.
Santayana's words had occurred to me, too.
And to me as well, as noted previously not a contest pilot but merely an
interested observer.

At least in soaring, I can't charge it off to most of our crowd being too
young to have lived through the mistakes of the past.
Given the acrimony directly expressed and inferrable from this thread-to-date,
it's good to know senses of humor can still find expression.

And writing as one NOT too young to have lived through the mistakes of the
past, it's also good to (apparently) learn - from the posts of Steve K., Tim
T. and Chip B. (none of whom I know, but two of whom I could pick from a
lineup) - that something previously only guessed at seems to be the actual
case at present, i.e. (re-)introducing personal preferences into U.S. Team
pilot selection. Neo-geezers like me well remember the brouhaha from the
mid-/late-70s in "Soaring" mag accompanying the leaving off of George Moffat
from the U.S. Team when he was at the time (if memory accurately serves) the
existing (two-time) U.S. World Champion. So far as I could then tell, the only
positive aspect I could see flowing from that whole unfortunate - apparently
(from an organizational perspective) self-created - situation, was Mr.
Moffat's grace under the circumstances (Moffat being another individual I
could pick from a lineup). Kids can you spell, f - o - o - t - s - h - o - t?

Assuming that I am accurately assessing the general aspects of the US Team
selection process that have led to the present situation, I find myself in
slack-jawed disbelief that the present situation - ill-grace being "merely" an
incidental accompaniment - was not entirely predictable - and therefore
avoidable - at the time the decision to "revisit the past" in a selection
sense was taken...reGARDless of how that decision was undertaken/implemented.
Understand I intend here to express no opinion on the *quality* of that
decision - noting again, I have no dog in the fight - but rather/"merely" upon
its *nature"...and its predictable results. Sheesh...

Respectfully,
Bob W.

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

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

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?

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

With all due respect Robert, the SSA is more than just racing and that is why I support the SSA. I care that young people and new pilots get evolved in a sport I love. If not enough pilots show up for weekend flying then soon there will not be tow planes. Happy for any failures, real or perceived is not only self centered but just negative useless energy. I am sure you currently benefit from the data plate exemption, and many other efforts of the SSA.

As for RC action's all are volunteers, and I believe their collective interest is to take the best course of action for racing in America as drawn from their many years of experience. Is everyone happy all the time, no. Do they get it wrong sometimes, history always tells. Still if you want to make a difference, you have to at least participate instead of standing on sidelines throwing wet sponges into what you perceive as hell.

Jonathan


On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-7, Robert Fidler wrote:
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

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 7:58:43 PM UTC+3, John Cochrane wrote:
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.

I officiated at the worlds once. I was ... surprised ... at how unprepared some of the pilots were.

- one guy broke up his glider in flight on a practice day, parts raining out of a cloud past other pilots.
- one guy scratched lower and lower and lower over a perfectly good ranch airfield, and then cartwheeled and broke his glider.
- one guy started the first task, scored 0.0 km for the day, and withdrew from the contest, saying he wasn't prepared to fly in mountains. (He didn't know the contest would be in NZ?)
- one guy persistently got warnings for things such as landing downwind, against other landing traffic.

These are my personal insights and not necessarily the same as the collective US Team Committee.

As much as this message chain is an excellent alternative to the now defunct “House of Cards� TV show I’m afraid that the US team selection reality is rather more pedestrian.

Last night I reviewed what I hope will be the last draft of the US Team scores and voting summary with details of the accepted and declined team slots.. So hopefully it will be publicly available very shortly.

I’m afraid it will be a great disappointment to you conspiracy theory types, as the SSA “old boys� have had virtually no input, other than ensuring that the previously approved selection rules have been implemented and checking for any foolishness in the voting. I’m still unsure how I became an old boy with less than 10 months on the committee!

Let me share a few process factoids to help allay some of your concerns:
• No committee member was present for the review of any class that they had team score points in and they had not already declined that potential team slot
o In my case once the 18m slot was offered to me and I accepted it, I immediately took myself out of consideration for the 15m team
• I don’t remember any case where the team committee decision deviated from the pilot voting recommendations
• One of the long-term committee members had to be encouraged to vote in the classes that they flew because they were initially wary of having too much influence
o A committee member not voting would have been an abnormal distortion of that pilot’s valuable insight for their small class
• The committee members, other than the Survey Monkey designer, only had access to the voting summaries, hence no specific details of who voted for who
• Each committee member had access to all the voting comments
• Each selected team pilot was given a couple of weeks to consider the acceptance of a team slot and encouraged to respond within a week to keep the cycle-time as short as possible

Historically I’ve been very wary of a voting based team pilot selection process, largely based on my experiences from the early 80s in the UK. I was very impressed by the thoughtfulness of the pilot voting and comments shared during this process, so much so, that I feel the resulting teams will be better than the previous numerical selection method. The voting correlated very well with the voter comments and there was no evidence of systematic gaming of the voting process with every voter being amazingly prompt.

I’m frustrated that this total process has taken a couple of months longer than perhaps it could have, largely because the US Team Committee tried to be careful at each stage and anticipate potential problems like having only 2 committee members not recused for the 18m discussions, which required us to invite the SSA chairman to break a potential stalemate.

One of my few disappointments has been the number of well qualified pilots who had to decline for various reasons.

During the process we have had many great suggestions for future improvements which will be considered over the winter.

Bob Fletcher, 90

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.........

Somewhat cropped for the sake of discussion...
The whole reason the US team committee undertook the huge effort is exactly
experience with the "objective" system... snip...
...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.

Written with all due respect...

Accepting "winning" as the vslid/highest U.S. Team Selection Committee goal, I
seriously question several hidden assumptions apparently underlying the above
logic.

Acknowledging the stated logical arguments supporting each selection approach,
I'm unconvinced they point solely to a compelling conclusion for "need for
selection methodology change." Stated another way, the "selection choice
dichotomy" may well be a false forced choice while the fundamental problem(s?)
lie elsewhere.

I suspect the reasoning "simply" illustrates symptoms of "somethings else." I
don't pretend to have compelling arguments for proposed/possible solutions,
but suggest that if "fair and objective" selection has consistently yielded
"unprepared pilots" (a debatable proposition, in my view) then "the problem"
could lie elsewhere...e.g.: (gasp!) task calling menu/proportions;
meteorological (the U.S. is large enough to have hugely differing "standard
soaring conditions" compared to [say] middle/western Europe [arguably home for
a high proportion of recent international soaring champions]); the sheer size
of the U.S. may generate/contain inherent issues affecting "team flight" not
affecting many (most?) other countries sending "competitive teams" to
international competitions (e.g. cost/logistics associated with
dispersion-induced "team practice/cohesiveness" etc.).

When I try to apply today's present selection logic to the U.S.'
post-WW-II-based participation in international soaring competitions and its
slate of international champions, selection method doesn't jump out at me as
dominant. What seems more dominant is - arguably - individual brilliance.
MacCready in his day readily admitted he was far from "the best at"
thermalling...but he came up with a way of compensating through
logically-based (and subsequently methodologically proven) "lift
discrimination." Moffat? If anything, he continued in the "MacCready logical
vein" but with (as I infer) "considerably honed" mechanical and psychological
skills. Jacobs? Insufficient info available to me to hazard a guess.
Ironically, Moffat might be considered to have *lost* further chances to make
the U.S. team when we once before switched from "purely results-based
selection" to "other factors actively considered" selection inclusion.

Somewhat tangentially, I suspect "a Sebastian Kawa" can arguably be thought of
as a pilot fitting into the "winner through brilliance alone" category as well.

In any event, in the 35-or-so years between MacCready and Jacobs, LOTS of
other things in and permeating the sport changed massively, two obvious ones
being ship technology (wood/metal=composites) and knowledge/skills
dispersion/ permeating throughout competitive soaring pilots worldwide.
Additionally, cockpit instrumentation (technology) and again, (gasp) contest
task-calling philosophy/methodology are part of the picture. (For younger
readers, Moffat famously was a part of the forces moving toward higher
proportion of assigned task calls.)

"Obvious conclusions" to "fixing" the U.S.' now-long-standing "failure" to
generate a world champion certainly aren't obvious to me, though I do suspect
the pilot selection methodology change perceived to underlay this thread's
"train wreck" won't prove to be a panacea in the "eventual results" sense of
things. As always, time will have its measure...

What think others?

Respectfully,
Bob - generally interested in these sorts of things - W.

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