Motorgliders (long)

Tom, Tom, Tom,
I don't know where to start with all that.

What do I tell my insurance company after picking a fantastic looking
field, landing, and hitting a single hidden obstacle that damages the
glider? What do I tell my fellow pilots as their insurance premiums
go up?

You tell them (insurance company & fellow pilots) the SAME thing the
non-motored pilot tels then. I screwed up! My proposal doesn't MAKE you land in
a field, land at an airport, start your engine if you wish, my proposal ONLY
makes the score fair and EQUAL for all contestants.

Let's all agree that a contestant may ask the CD to examine the trace
of another competitor due to a percieved 'unsafe' action. A panel of
judges will play back the trace and the pilot will justify any

I can't believe you think something like that would work. The people that run
our contests are busy folks, every night they must deal with a whole bunch of
problems. XX busted the start altitude, what's his penalty?, lets look at the
trace. XA started his engine, get his trace up here, NK & JJ haven't beed heard
from, it's 8:00 PM, Lets launch Minden Air. The computer called this a 1000
point day, won't be when,and if we ever find the guys that haven't reported in
yet. And so it goes, every night. And NOW you would like to hold a Mini Grand
Jury at each pilots meeting? Who's the Judge going to be? The CD, he doesn't
have that authority, That's why we have very specific RULES and the CD in in
charge of following them (To the letter)



JJ Sinclair

Some recent posts indicate that I was just taking *Cheep-Shots* at
motorgliders. There has been some intense debating and some attempts at humor,
But let me say, I fully support motorgliders in US competition. I voted to
allow MG's in 18 meter, Open and Sports classes (Regionals & Nationals) This
position was clearly stated in my letter to the rules committee, that started
this thread, some hundred posters back.

My proposed rules change would force both type of competitors to make the SAME
soaring decisions. Lets say, Eric (ASH-26) and JJ (ASH-25) are over the last
turn point, some 30 miles from home. We both have about 2500 feet and its 6:00
PM. If the day isn't dead, its dying fast. What do we do? We can land at the
turn point and get distance points + 25 bonus. We can start a glide and hope we
hit a bump out there, somewhere??? If we get lucky, we both make it home. No
difference, we both get speed points. If we don't get lucky, I must pick a
field and land, I have no choice. Eric may pick a field and land also. We will
both get distance points to our field, no difference. Eric has an option, he
can start his engine and fly home. My proposal deals with how do we fairly deal
with Eric's CHOICE to start his engine. The options a

1. Eric gets distance points to engine start ( present rule)

2. Eric gets distance points to the last turn point. I don't agree , because
there is no reason for Eric to NOT try this unsuccessful glide. Get a bump and
make it home, don't get a bump, and get scored at the last turn point anyway.
Why not give it a try?

3. Eric gets ZERO points for starting his engine. It was HIS decision to
attempt the glide, He had exactly the SAME DECISION that I had. He knew the
consequences of his intended act. In my humble opinion, My proposed rule change
makes BOTH of us EXACTLY the SAME, again.
:)
JJ Sinclair

Interesting that you have viewed these discussionas on RAS as fighting
amongst ourselves. I'm sure some of us have viewed it as a means of
trying to assure that those pilots voting in the SRA poll can have the
benefit of knowing both sides of the story. The motor glider pilots
wish to give the impression that the rule changes they would like are
quite reasonable and fair. On the other hand, some of the more
knowledgeable non-motorized pilots believe that granting further
concessions to motor gliders, through new rule changes, would unjustifiably
give the motor gliders an even bigger advantage in competiton.

It is crucial to recognize that there is a primal struggle going on
here. If the anti-MGs prevail we will leave (I certainly will). I
believe we have more than adequately answered the critics to any
impartially fair minded competitor. Now, there will be those that
totally reject the concept of allowing MGs in ANY contest. So be it.
If that group succeeds there will be a growing exodus of MG pilots
from competition soaring and, ultimately, from the SSA. This isn't a
threat; it is just natural for someone who is told that they are
unwelcome to leave and go where they are welcome. The key issue is
what does the majority of the SSA feel; not just a vocal minority on
RAS. Personally, I think the majority is inclusive, but I really don't
know.

Tom

(Soarin) wrote in message
Interesting that you have viewed these discussionas on RAS as fighting
amongst ourselves. I'm sure some of us have viewed it as a means of
trying to assure that those pilots voting in the SRA poll can have the
benefit of knowing both sides of the story. The motor glider pilots
wish to give the impression that the rule changes they would like are
quite reasonable and fair. On the other hand, some of the more
knowledgeable non-motorized pilots believe that granting further
concessions to motor gliders, through new rule changes, would unjustifiably
give the motor gliders an even bigger advantage in competiton.

"Motorglider pilots are selfish and deceptive. Non-motorglider pilots
are knowledgeable, and they know that motorglider pilots are selfish
and deceptive."

If this is "knowing both sides of the story", then "fighting amongst
ourselves" ought to be really entertaining.

- Rich Carr

It is crucial to recognize that there is a primal struggle going on
here. If the anti-MGs prevail we will leave (I certainly will). I
believe we have more than adequately answered the critics to any
impartially fair minded competitor. Now, there will be those that
totally reject the concept of allowing MGs in ANY contest. So be it.
If that group succeeds there will be a growing exodus of MG pilots
from competition soaring and, ultimately, from the SSA. This isn't a
threat; it is just natural for someone who is told that they are
unwelcome to leave and go where they are welcome. The key issue is
what does the majority of the SSA feel; not just a vocal minority on
RAS. Personally, I think the majority is inclusive, but I really don't
know.
Tom

Come on Tom stick with the facts. The overwhelming ammount of anti
motor glider postings have NOT been pushing to prohibit motor gliders
from being allowed in contests. What they have a problem with is the
concept that motor gliders not only want to fly in the same classes
with non motor gliders. But that the motor glider pilots also want
the rules to be changed to suite themselves.

Telling us that unless you get your way you will quit flying contestss
and eventually the SSA. Is alot like saying unless we let you play by
your rules you will take your bat and go home.

Soarin

'Motorglider pilots are selfish, deceptive and HOME
ON TIME FOR DINNER.'


At 15:36 08 October 2003, Rich Carr wrote:
(Soarin) wrote in message
Interesting that you have viewed these discussionas
on RAS as fighting
amongst ourselves. I'm sure some of us have viewed
it as a means of
trying to assure that those pilots voting in the SRA
poll can have the
benefit of knowing both sides of the story. The motor
glider pilots
wish to give the impression that the rule changes
they would like are
quite reasonable and fair. On the other hand, some
of the more
knowledgeable non-motorized pilots believe that granting
further
concessions to motor gliders, through new rule changes,
would unjustifiably
give the motor gliders an even bigger advantage in
competiton.

'Motorglider pilots are selfish and deceptive. Non-motorglider
pilots
are knowledgeable, and they know that motorglider pilots
are selfish
and deceptive.'

If this is 'knowing both sides of the story', then
'fighting amongst
ourselves' ought to be really entertaining.

- Rich Carr

in article ,
John Morgan at wrote on 2003/10/07 11:36:

...MGs are sailplanes too...despite the cost, complexity and weight
disadvantages of motorgliders.

The point is that competition between gliders using motors and gliders not
using motors makes no sense, except perhaps in the sense of an exhibition.
Why not work up a scale of handicaps which include the 182 and invite that
ubiquitous Cessna to join as well? Just think of the potential for swelling
the ranks of the _Soaring_ Society of America.


It is apparent that, most purchasers of new sailplanes feel the advantages are
compelling. And so the majority buy new ships with motors.

And the majority will probably not use them in competition, so what has that
to do with the topic at hand?


Soaring in the US is shrinking. We can take the path espoused by some, "keep
'em separate", or we can we can take the more logical approach, embrace
change and do what's needed to stay as one.

I suspect most sailplane pilots, motorized or not, couldn't care less about
the arcane rules of competition, nor whether MGs and non-MGs go head to
head. If you equate membership size with success, then your arguement can't
pssibly have anything to do with the structure of competitive sailplane
events.

If shrinking participation in soaring and the rise of the Motor Glider are
occurring simultaneously, how would you relate those facts WRT to possible
cause and effect?



Jack

In article ,
says...
Eric wrote

There aren't enough motorglider pilots interested in
contests to justify having a separate contest in each region.

There IS enough at Ephrata to have a regional MG class. Didn't you say you had
10? That's bigger than any other class in region 8, isn't it? :)

Typically, we've had 5 motorized sailplanes entered in various classes.
While 5 gliders is enough for a class, there is no Regional class for
"motorgliders". So, does Region 8 invent our own, non-sanctioned MG
class, or let these SSA members fly in the classes that are already
there in the SSA sanctioned contest put on by their region? In fact, we
have to let them fly in those classes, since they meet all the
requirements for them.

A separate MG class, however done, would likely cause a problem: the
Open class we normally run would have less than 5 entrants, and have to
be cancelled.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

In article ,
says...

My proposed rules change would force both type of competitors to make the SAME
soaring decisions. Lets say, Eric (ASH-26) and JJ (ASH-25) are over the last
turn point, some 30 miles from home. We both have about 2500 feet and its 6:00
If we don't get lucky, I must pick a
field and land, I have no choice. Eric may pick a field and land also. We will
both get distance points to our field, no difference. Eric has an option, he
can start his engine and fly home. My proposal deals with how do we fairly deal
with Eric's CHOICE to start his engine. The options a

1. Eric gets distance points to engine start ( present rule)

2. Eric gets distance points to the last turn point. I don't agree , because
there is no reason for Eric to NOT try this unsuccessful glide. Get a bump and
make it home, don't get a bump, and get scored at the last turn point anyway.
Why not give it a try?

3. Eric gets ZERO points for starting his engine. It was HIS decision to
attempt the glide, He had exactly the SAME DECISION that I had. He knew the
consequences of his intended act. In my humble opinion, My proposed rule change
makes BOTH of us EXACTLY the SAME, again.

JJ's post recognizes implicitly what we all know: the glider pilot that
is willing to land out has a competitive advantage over the pilot that
isn't willing to do that. He thinks it is unfair a motorized sailplane
can have this advantage without risking the inconvenience of landing. He
ignores the competitive disadvantages of having this option: a higher
wing loading in weak conditions (1.4 pounds extra for my glider), the
need to start the motor 500 feet higher than he would otherwise end a
"low save" attempt, and the extra 180 pounds (in the fuselage) to lug
out of a field if he lands (pilot's choice or failed engine start).

Let me suggest a fourth option:

4. Eric gets ZERO points for starting his engine, JJ gets ZERO points
for landing out. The pilots that landed at an airport (motorized or
motorless) get the usual points.

Besides making BOTH of us EXACTLY the SAME, again, this rule will appeal
to the many pilots that aren't willing to land out, suffering a
competitive disadvantage. This might actually increase participation in
our contests, as more pilots realize they don't have to take extra risks
just to have a chance of doing well in a contest.

In fact, this rule would continue what I believe is a trend to reduce
land outs in contests:

- about 30 years ago, we prohibited relights from a landing off the
contest airport

- about 15 years ago, we allowed aero retrieves from airports

- about 5 years ago, we began giving bonus points for landing at an
airport

My proposal is similar to substantially increasing the "airport bonus".
Potentially, it could increase contest safety as the "airport bonus" is
intended to; if it does, it will also reduce insurance claims, which
might reduce premiums.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA