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
|
|||
|
|||
To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the Rules Committee.
Are you guys getting the message that we're tired of the constant rule
changes? Listen...admittedly you guys are brilliant minds, leaders in your professions (which are also related tecnically to this rules/mathematical interpretation of soaring-thing), and you're donating your time and doing what you think is best to improve soaring contests. Thank You! But..... Perhaps this constant tweaking and re-creating is de-emphasizing the flying aspects too much. Analagous to the days of pre-GPS where a good map reader could best another (superior flying) pilot simply because he never got lost....now one can best another pilot simply (no....it's complicated) because he interprets and uses these (complex) rules better. I don't do my own taxes, nor take out my own gall-bladder.....but defer these jobs to professionals who are better qualified than I. Charlie Spratt once told me "These guys STUDY the rules and USE them to their advantage". I'm thinking of hiring a "soaring contest analyst advisor" who I can hand my flight trace over to upon landing and then be advised by them to drop a day, claim whatever various bonuses I may have qualified for, or to just give up and go home because I have no statistical chance of winning.... (another sore spot--- come on you big guns, poor sportsmanship to just leave when you can't win.....what if the rest of us, your usual cannon-fodder, did this all the time when you're kicking our asses? You'd be left all alone in your sand box.) Back to the rules.... Example....flying at a past Newcastle contest one year there was a tough day when only one pilot (a local guy flying a 1-35) got around the course. A gaggle of his fellow-class competitors counted the number of gliders on the ground while rounding the second (airport) turnpoint, clandestinely conferred, and realized there wouldn't be a valid contest day if they just landed.....and they did. The finisher got ZERO credit/points/recognition for his effort. Your rules sometimes reward the wrong pilots. Granted this is a simplified example and it was probably safer to have landed with everyone else, but it makes a point. Henry (Romeo) said it well.....it's a tough sport, but that's what makes it worth doing. May the adventuresome, supremely-skilled and undaunted pilots amongst us prevail (safely, of course). Kill all the (soaring) lawyers. (also Shakespearean, R). Less TATs, less penalization for landouts, less rules, less rule changes.....PLEEEEEASE. While at it, let's align the USA contests more with the world championship competitions so we can get practiced for them and fare better in those results. J4 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the RulesCommittee.
On Jan 24, 8:39*am, "John Bojack" wrote:
Are you guys getting the message that we're tired of the constant rule changes? Listen...admittedly you guys are brilliant minds, leaders in your professions (which are also related tecnically to this rules/mathematical interpretation of soaring-thing), *and you're donating your time and doing what you think is best to improve soaring contests. * Thank You! But..... Perhaps this constant tweaking and re-creating is de-emphasizing the flying aspects too much. * *Analagous to the days of pre-GPS where a good map reader could best another (superior flying) pilot simply because he never got lost....now one can best another pilot simply (no....it's complicated) because he interprets and uses these (complex) rules better. * * *I don't do my own taxes, nor take out my own gall-bladder.....but defer these jobs to professionals who are better qualified than I. * Charlie Spratt once told me "These guys STUDY the rules and USE them to their advantage". * I'm thinking of hiring a "soaring contest analyst advisor" who I can hand my flight trace over to upon landing and then be advised by them to drop a day, claim whatever various bonuses I may have qualified for, or to just give up and go home because I have no statistical chance of winning.... (another sore spot--- come on you big guns, poor sportsmanship to just leave when you can't win.....what if the rest of us, your usual cannon-fodder, did this all the time when you're kicking our asses? *You'd be left all alone in your sand box.) Back to the rules.... Example....flying at a past Newcastle contest one year there was a tough day when only one pilot (a local guy flying a 1-35) got around the course. * A gaggle of his fellow-class competitors counted the number of gliders on the ground while rounding the second (airport) turnpoint, clandestinely conferred, and realized there wouldn't be a valid contest day if they just landed.....and they did. * *The finisher got ZERO credit/points/recognition for his effort. * * Your rules sometimes reward the wrong pilots. *Granted this is a simplified example and it was probably safer to have landed with everyone else, but it makes a point. Henry (Romeo) *said it well.....it's a tough sport, but that's what makes it worth doing. * May the adventuresome, supremely-skilled and undaunted pilots amongst us prevail (safely, of course). *Kill all the (soaring) lawyers.. (also Shakespearean, R). Less TATs, *less penalization for landouts, *less rules, *less rule changes.....PLEEEEEASE. * While at it, let's align the USA contests more with the world championship competitions so we can get practiced for them and fare better in those results. J4 It's interesting that the example you provide is a scenario that doesn't happen now because the RC revised day devaluation in a way that eliminates day killing by guys who choose not to go on course. Should we have stopped improving the rules and skipped this change? As we all learn, and the sport evolves, the rules do change, but these are not massive. It takes the same skill sets to win today as it did 5 yr ago and the same skill sets to compete at the world level. Re WGC rules; They use a combination of common rules and some "local" rules which we don't. They also have stewards on site to interpret and apply them. Pilots have ground folks to provide tactical advise as to how to take advantage of subtleties in scoring such as when you get a higher score if you land out than if you finish. Our scoring formulas have evolved to be closer to WGC in terms of distance vs speed. This has reduced the "penalization" for landouts. Task selection is according to the guide to the rules, supposed to be a mix of task types. It is up to the CD's and task advisors to apply this correctly. At one time we considered a hard rule to enforce this, but abandoned it due to the high likelyhood that contest days would be lost due to failure to comply with the hard mix specified. We get about 50-60 suggestions for changes from pilots and organizers each year. Each is considered. Some are good ideas which we try to use to make the sport better for all of us. Most go in the scrap bin. We consider changes carefully. Sometimes we miss the mark. But we do not tyhink that we should just stop trying to make the sport better. There will always be a few vocal critics that won't agree with our actions. This forum provides a great place for them to vent. Just because they are loud or angry however, doesn't make them right. Our basic philosophy is and will remain that out rules are very good, though complex just below the surface, and that they should evolve through small change. Thanks for your comments- we do take them seriously. UH |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the RulesCommittee.
On Jan 24, 7:17*am, wrote:
On Jan 24, 8:39*am, "John Bojack" wrote: Are you guys getting the message that we're tired of the constant rule changes? Listen...admittedly you guys are brilliant minds, leaders in your professions (which are also related tecnically to this rules/mathematical interpretation of soaring-thing), *and you're donating your time and doing what you think is best to improve soaring contests. * Thank You! But..... Perhaps this constant tweaking and re-creating is de-emphasizing the flying aspects too much. * *Analagous to the days of pre-GPS where a good map reader could best another (superior flying) pilot simply because he never got lost....now one can best another pilot simply (no....it's complicated) because he interprets and uses these (complex) rules better. * * *I don't do my own taxes, nor take out my own gall-bladder.....but defer these jobs to professionals who are better qualified than I. * Charlie Spratt once told me "These guys STUDY the rules and USE them to their advantage". * I'm thinking of hiring a "soaring contest analyst advisor" who I can hand my flight trace over to upon landing and then be advised by them to drop a day, claim whatever various bonuses I may have qualified for, or to just give up and go home because I have no statistical chance of winning.... (another sore spot--- come on you big guns, poor sportsmanship to just leave when you can't win.....what if the rest of us, your usual cannon-fodder, did this all the time when you're kicking our asses? *You'd be left all alone in your sand box.) Back to the rules.... Example....flying at a past Newcastle contest one year there was a tough day when only one pilot (a local guy flying a 1-35) got around the course. * A gaggle of his fellow-class competitors counted the number of gliders on the ground while rounding the second (airport) turnpoint, clandestinely conferred, and realized there wouldn't be a valid contest day if they just landed.....and they did. * *The finisher got ZERO credit/points/recognition for his effort. * * Your rules sometimes reward the wrong pilots. *Granted this is a simplified example and it was probably safer to have landed with everyone else, but it makes a point. Henry (Romeo) *said it well.....it's a tough sport, but that's what makes it worth doing. * May the adventuresome, supremely-skilled and undaunted pilots amongst us prevail (safely, of course). *Kill all the (soaring) lawyers. (also Shakespearean, R). Less TATs, *less penalization for landouts, *less rules, *less rule changes.....PLEEEEEASE. * While at it, let's align the USA contests more with the world championship competitions so we can get practiced for them and fare better in those results. J4 It's interesting that the example you provide is a scenario that doesn't happen now because the RC revised day devaluation in a way that eliminates day killing by guys who choose not to go on course. Should we have stopped improving the rules and skipped this change? As we all learn, and the sport evolves, the rules do change, but these are not massive. It takes the same skill sets to win today as it did 5 yr ago and the same skill sets to compete at the world level. Re WGC rules; They use a combination of common rules and some "local" rules which we don't. They also have stewards on site to interpret and apply them. Pilots have ground folks to provide tactical advise as to how to take advantage of subtleties in scoring such as when you get a higher score if you land out than if you finish. Our scoring formulas have evolved to be closer to WGC in terms of distance vs speed. This has reduced the "penalization" for landouts. Task selection is according to the guide to the rules, supposed to be a mix of task types. It is up to the CD's and task advisors to apply this correctly. At one time we considered a hard rule to enforce this, but abandoned it due to the high likelyhood that contest days would be lost due to failure to comply with the hard mix specified. We get about 50-60 suggestions for changes from pilots and organizers each year. Each is considered. Some are good ideas which we try to use to make the sport better for all of us. Most go in the scrap bin. We consider changes carefully. Sometimes we miss the mark. But we do not tyhink that we should just stop trying to make the sport better. There will always be a few vocal critics that won't agree with our actions. This forum provides a great place for them to vent. Just because they are loud or angry however, doesn't make them right. Our basic philosophy is and will remain that out rules are very good, though complex just below the surface, and that they should evolve through small change. Thanks for your comments- we do take them seriously. UH Warren Buffet famously says he won't invest in any company whose business he doesn't understand. It seems there are pilots who won't fly in contests whose rules they don't understand. Simplicity is beauty. Bill Daniels (Who remembers contest rules from 1960) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the Rules Committee.
"bildan" wrote in message ... On Jan 24, 7:17 am, wrote: On Jan 24, 8:39 am, "John Bojack" wrote: Warren Buffet famously says he won't invest in any company whose business he doesn't understand. It seems there are pilots who won't fly in contests whose rules they don't understand. Simplicity is beauty. Bill Daniels (Who remembers contest rules from 1960) I used to enjoy soaring contests, from the ground. Watching the gliders come home, distant gray plumes of no longer needed water, then the whistling sound as they'd come blazing through the gate to the cheers of those gathered. All gone in the name of safety. How do you promote something the public can't even see? Some have tried making it a "video game" to watch on TV - - that's good too, but hollow without the visceral experience of the old finish gate. bumper zz Minden QV & MKIII (the best cheapest toys for you glider) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the Rules Committee.
In article ,
"John Bojack" wrote: Are you guys getting the message that we're tired of the constant rule changes? Listen...admittedly you guys are brilliant minds, leaders in your professions (which are also related tecnically to this rules/mathematical interpretation of soaring-thing), and you're donating your time and doing what you think is best to improve soaring contests. Thank You! But..... Perhaps this constant tweaking and re-creating is de-emphasizing the flying aspects too much. Analagous to the days of pre-GPS where a good map reader could best another (superior flying) pilot simply because he never got lost....now one can best another pilot simply (no....it's complicated) because he interprets and uses these (complex) rules better. I don't do my own taxes, nor take out my own gall-bladder.....but defer these jobs to professionals who are better qualified than I. Charlie Spratt once told me "These guys STUDY the rules and USE them to their advantage". I'm thinking of hiring a "soaring contest analyst advisor" who I can hand my flight trace over to upon landing and then be advised by them to drop a day, claim whatever various bonuses I may have qualified for, or to just give up and go home because I have no statistical chance of winning.... (another sore spot--- come on you big guns, poor sportsmanship to just leave when you can't win.....what if the rest of us, your usual cannon-fodder, did this all the time when you're kicking our asses? You'd be left all alone in your sand box.) Back to the rules.... Example....flying at a past Newcastle contest one year there was a tough day when only one pilot (a local guy flying a 1-35) got around the course. A gaggle of his fellow-class competitors counted the number of gliders on the ground while rounding the second (airport) turnpoint, clandestinely conferred, and realized there wouldn't be a valid contest day if they just landed.....and they did. The finisher got ZERO credit/points/recognition for his effort. Your rules sometimes reward the wrong pilots. Granted this is a simplified example and it was probably safer to have landed with everyone else, but it makes a point. Henry (Romeo) said it well.....it's a tough sport, but that's what makes it worth doing. May the adventuresome, supremely-skilled and undaunted pilots amongst us prevail (safely, of course). Kill all the (soaring) lawyers. (also Shakespearean, R). Less TATs, less penalization for landouts, less rules, less rule changes.....PLEEEEEASE. While at it, let's align the USA contests more with the world championship competitions so we can get practiced for them and fare better in those results. J4 Well said J4! WB |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the Rules Committee.
There is a process for changing rules and changes are not based on some whim
of a rules committee member. One of the steps in this process includes an annual competition pilots poll and it is rare to never that a significant change is adopted where the pilots voted against it. The bottom line is that most pilots want these changes. As for bringing back "the good old days"- no thanks. Cameras and film developing, daredevil starts, AT's with their mass landouts and thunderstorm probing are not for me ( anymore). As to the increased fees mentioned by Chip, factor in inflation and there has been no increase. It is easy to fire off a post about putting "fun" back in competition or making the rules simpler. But without a suggestion about how to achieve these goals the writer is engaged in idle, cabin fever chatter. This will evaporate in April. For those pilots who think the rules are too complicated (and have read them, which probably eliminates the majority) what specific rule would you suggest eliminating/simplifying? Another aspect of rules writing that can make them seem complicated and be a turn off to the rulees is the amount of verbiage used. The SSA contest rules could probably be dehydrated down to half the current content, but the cost would be an increase in interpretation required in the field. On the other hand, there are rules that could use even more specificity. In the end it is guess at what seems practical. One item that has been incorporated into nationals this year (regionals last year) is the "start anywhere" rule change favored by a majority on the pilot poll. In an effort to simplify it "anywhere" has been defined as the front half of the cylinder. Still, this adds a new (and interesting) dimension to the task which some may find unwelcome. As pointed out earlier, the aspect of whether competition is growing or shrinking depends on how the stats are arranged. However, attendance at contests has not shrunk to the same degree as SSA membership in the last 25 years as it has gone from 18,000 to 12,000. By this measure contest flying is a shining example of success. It will be interesting to note any impact of the current economic blowout on contest attendance. Karl Striedieck "bildan" wrote in message ... On Jan 24, 7:17 am, wrote: On Jan 24, 8:39 am, "John Bojack" wrote: Are you guys getting the message that we're tired of the constant rule changes? Listen...admittedly you guys are brilliant minds, leaders in your professions (which are also related tecnically to this rules/mathematical interpretation of soaring-thing), and you're donating your time and doing what you think is best to improve soaring contests. Thank You! But..... Perhaps this constant tweaking and re-creating is de-emphasizing the flying aspects too much. Analagous to the days of pre-GPS where a good map reader could best another (superior flying) pilot simply because he never got lost....now one can best another pilot simply (no....it's complicated) because he interprets and uses these (complex) rules better. I don't do my own taxes, nor take out my own gall-bladder.....but defer these jobs to professionals who are better qualified than I. Charlie Spratt once told me "These guys STUDY the rules and USE them to their advantage". I'm thinking of hiring a "soaring contest analyst advisor" who I can hand my flight trace over to upon landing and then be advised by them to drop a day, claim whatever various bonuses I may have qualified for, or to just give up and go home because I have no statistical chance of winning.... (another sore spot--- come on you big guns, poor sportsmanship to just leave when you can't win.....what if the rest of us, your usual cannon-fodder, did this all the time when you're kicking our asses? You'd be left all alone in your sand box.) Back to the rules.... Example....flying at a past Newcastle contest one year there was a tough day when only one pilot (a local guy flying a 1-35) got around the course. A gaggle of his fellow-class competitors counted the number of gliders on the ground while rounding the second (airport) turnpoint, clandestinely conferred, and realized there wouldn't be a valid contest day if they just landed.....and they did. The finisher got ZERO credit/points/recognition for his effort. Your rules sometimes reward the wrong pilots. Granted this is a simplified example and it was probably safer to have landed with everyone else, but it makes a point. Henry (Romeo) said it well.....it's a tough sport, but that's what makes it worth doing. May the adventuresome, supremely-skilled and undaunted pilots amongst us prevail (safely, of course). Kill all the (soaring) lawyers. (also Shakespearean, R). Less TATs, less penalization for landouts, less rules, less rule changes.....PLEEEEEASE. While at it, let's align the USA contests more with the world championship competitions so we can get practiced for them and fare better in those results. J4 It's interesting that the example you provide is a scenario that doesn't happen now because the RC revised day devaluation in a way that eliminates day killing by guys who choose not to go on course. Should we have stopped improving the rules and skipped this change? As we all learn, and the sport evolves, the rules do change, but these are not massive. It takes the same skill sets to win today as it did 5 yr ago and the same skill sets to compete at the world level. Re WGC rules; They use a combination of common rules and some "local" rules which we don't. They also have stewards on site to interpret and apply them. Pilots have ground folks to provide tactical advise as to how to take advantage of subtleties in scoring such as when you get a higher score if you land out than if you finish. Our scoring formulas have evolved to be closer to WGC in terms of distance vs speed. This has reduced the "penalization" for landouts. Task selection is according to the guide to the rules, supposed to be a mix of task types. It is up to the CD's and task advisors to apply this correctly. At one time we considered a hard rule to enforce this, but abandoned it due to the high likelyhood that contest days would be lost due to failure to comply with the hard mix specified. We get about 50-60 suggestions for changes from pilots and organizers each year. Each is considered. Some are good ideas which we try to use to make the sport better for all of us. Most go in the scrap bin. We consider changes carefully. Sometimes we miss the mark. But we do not tyhink that we should just stop trying to make the sport better. There will always be a few vocal critics that won't agree with our actions. This forum provides a great place for them to vent. Just because they are loud or angry however, doesn't make them right. Our basic philosophy is and will remain that out rules are very good, though complex just below the surface, and that they should evolve through small change. Thanks for your comments- we do take them seriously. UH Warren Buffet famously says he won't invest in any company whose business he doesn't understand. It seems there are pilots who won't fly in contests whose rules they don't understand. Simplicity is beauty. Bill Daniels (Who remembers contest rules from 1960) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the RulesCommittee.
On Jan 24, 9:28*am, Berry wrote:
In article , *"John Bojack" wrote: Are you guys getting the message that we're tired of the constant rule changes? Listen...admittedly you guys are brilliant minds, leaders in your professions (which are also related tecnically to this rules/mathematical interpretation of soaring-thing), *and you're donating your time and doing what you think is best to improve soaring contests. * Thank You! But..... Perhaps this constant tweaking and re-creating is de-emphasizing the flying aspects too much. * *Analagous to the days of pre-GPS where a good map reader could best another (superior flying) pilot simply because he never got lost....now one can best another pilot simply (no....it's complicated) because he interprets and uses these (complex) rules better. * * *I don't do my own taxes, nor take out my own gall-bladder.....but defer these jobs to professionals who are better qualified than I. * Charlie Spratt once told me "These guys STUDY the rules and USE them to their advantage". * I'm thinking of hiring a "soaring contest analyst advisor" who I can hand my flight trace over to upon landing and then be advised by them to drop a day, claim whatever various bonuses I may have qualified for, or to just give up and go home because I have no statistical chance of winning.... (another sore spot--- come on you big guns, poor sportsmanship to just leave when you can't win.....what if the rest of us, your usual cannon-fodder, did this all the time when you're kicking our asses? *You'd be left all alone in your sand box.) Back to the rules.... Example....flying at a past Newcastle contest one year there was a tough day when only one pilot (a local guy flying a 1-35) got around the course. * A gaggle of his fellow-class competitors counted the number of gliders on the ground while rounding the second (airport) turnpoint, clandestinely conferred, and realized there wouldn't be a valid contest day if they just landed.....and they did. * *The finisher got ZERO credit/points/recognition for his effort. * * Your rules sometimes reward the wrong pilots. *Granted this is a simplified example and it was probably safer to have landed with everyone else, but it makes a point. Henry (Romeo) *said it well.....it's a tough sport, but that's what makes it worth doing. * May the adventuresome, supremely-skilled and undaunted pilots amongst us prevail (safely, of course). *Kill all the (soaring) lawyers. (also Shakespearean, R). Less TATs, *less penalization for landouts, *less rules, *less rule changes.....PLEEEEEASE. * While at it, let's align the USA contests more with the world championship competitions so we can get practiced for them and fare better in those results. J4 Well said J4! WB Hmmmm... I think it's important to separate out disagreement about any particular rule versus whether the rules should be "frozen" in some state. I for one LIKE the idea that the rules evolve - not because I think it confers some advantage to students of the rules, but because it improves the sport over time. I, too, remember the days of Instamatic cameras, visually sighted start and finish gates (with and without speed or height limits) and getting hopelessly lost in haze so dense you could barely make out the ground directly beneath you. I still miss the "worm burner" finishes, but you can have the rest - and a lot of people think you can take the worm burners too (JJ? ;-)) Obviously, technology like GPS has made a huge difference. Few would argue that the associated rule changes to support GPS are bad, and we are now seeing introduction of new technologies like SPOT and FLARM that could change things for the better in unforseen ways if we have the vision to take advantage of them. But, put aside for the moment the big technological shifts. You only need to go back a few years to find things like changes in the finish rules that took a few years to evolve, but have lead to rules that are simpler, fairer, safer and easier to manage in the cockpit. Given the issues of safety and fairness it seems prudent to evolve the rules slowly over time - with due consideration for unnecessary "churn" in rulemaking. I haven't seen the net benefit of a few recent changes and proposals, but I see the value in letting the process play out. These aren't massive changes that require wholesale re-thinking of racing strategy, but we also all know soaring has always had a significant mental element. It's what so many people like about racing - it makes you think really hard. I find a few things new to think about every year - even without changes in the rules. Yes, by studying the few changes in rules every year you might be able to figure out something to save you a couple of minutes on course - maybe, sometimes. I'd observe that the RC is trying hard to take those sorts of thing out of the rules - balanced against considerations about complexity. That said, things can go overboard which is why speaking up is important. I just think we should all think carefully about exactly what it is we are asking for before we ask them to close the patent office. 9B |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the RulesCommittee.
On Jan 24, 11:04*am, "Karl Striedieck" wrote:
One item that has been incorporated into nationals this year (regionals last year) is the "start anywhere" rule change favored by a majority on the pilot poll. In an effort to simplify it "anywhere" has been defined as the front half of the cylinder. Still, this adds a new (and interesting) dimension to the task which some may find unwelcome. My understading of the rules process is that before a rule is implemented at Nationals it is first tried out at Regionals for a year. The start anywhere rule was tried in 2008 at Regionals, but the rule that was evaluated is not the rule that is proposed to be applied at Regionals and Nationals for 2009. My understanding is that the start anywhwere rule that was evaluated at Regionals was modified, not to simplify it (which it certainly does not), but to discourage starts from the back, even though there appears to be no evidence from 2008 Regionals that there is a problem. If the rule is to be changed from the one that was evaluated doesn't the rules process require a further year of evaluation at Regional level before it is applied at Nationals? Andy |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the RulesCommittee.
On Jan 24, 11:04*am, "Karl Striedieck" wrote:
There is a process for changing rules and changes are not based on some whim of a rules committee member. One of the steps in this process includes an annual competition pilots poll and it is rare to never that a significant change is adopted where the pilots voted against it. The bottom line is that most pilots want these changes. KS, "Most pilots" is made up of gray haired (me included) pilots that vote to make rule changes to fit their age. The rules are thus biased towards old timers that can't see so well anymore, don't have the quick minds anymore, don't have the staminal that we did when we were young, don't have the competitive drive to push for hours anymore, etc. I don't have the perfect answer but I'm not racing simplying because the fun of racing isn't there anymore. I can blame the rules or my lack of spunk that I had 30 years ago to go diving through a limbo gate and worm burner finishes. I remember seeing you making it a point of finishing at the same time as another pilot and being even lower! Why did you do this? Simple, it was fun for you and all of us. We eliminated because we got older (and not that much smarter), simple. That was fun and exciting when we were all younger. So now the rules have evolved to support the old folks. No wonder the lack of participation and the so called safer rules are being discussed. It's time to step aside and somehow get the excitment back for the younger pilots AND put the spectator back in the sport. The thrill for the younger pilots (like we were a long time ago) will stimulate the cycle from the bottom up. OF |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
To John Cochrane, Uncle Hank....and all the guys on the RulesCommittee.
On Jan 24, 1:04*pm, "Karl Striedieck" wrote:
It is easy to fire off a post about putting "fun" back in competition or making the rules simpler. But without a suggestion about how to achieve these goals the writer is engaged in idle, cabin fever chatter. This will evaporate in April. For those pilots who think the rules are too complicated (and have read them, which probably eliminates the majority) what specific rule would you suggest eliminating/simplifying? Another aspect of rules writing that can make them seem complicated and be a turn off to the rulees is the amount of verbiage used. The SSA contest rules could probably be dehydrated down to half the current content, but the cost would be an increase in interpretation required in the field. On the other hand, there are rules that could use even more specificity. In the end it is guess at what seems practical. One item that has been incorporated into nationals this year (regionals last year) is the "start anywhere" rule change favored by a majority on the pilot poll. In an effort to simplify it "anywhere" has been defined as the front half of the cylinder. Still, this adds a new (and interesting) dimension to the task which some may find unwelcome. Karl Striedieck Karl, We can debate whether it's the rules themselves, the verbiage used, or something else, but we have to admit that certain aspects of the rules are more-or-less inscrutable to someone who has not actually flown in a contest. In fact, I'd bet that there are a handfull of rules that fall into this category even for veterans. Just on example: 11.6.3.2 ‡ For finishers whose TOC is less than MINTIME: STOC = MINTIME - (MINTIME - TOC) * UTFACTOR For a Turn-area task: UTFACTOR = 0.1 + 6 * ((DIST / MAXTATDIST) - 0.85) (but not less than 0.1, nor greater than 1.0) otherwise, UTFACTOR = 0.1 Several of the scoring formulas, if left to stand on their own, are almost impossible to understand without real examples in front of you. As a sometime scorer, I understand them, but ask even the slightly above average racing pilot...the vision of a dog looking at thunder leaps to mind. Other examples that impact strategy include: - From the existing start cylinder rule, the interpretation of what happens if you start out the top but nick the cylinder again on the way out on course. How many pilots know how to check their score to see if they have been penalized incorrectly. I haven't yet got my hands around the new rule. - The strategy around finishes when comparing the possibility of performing a rolling finish vs. trying to climb up to bottom of the finish cylinder. - Safety finishes. Now, in some cases, the appendix to the rules helps (to a greater or lesser extent). BUT, even here, there's room for improvement; many of the explanations assume that the reader already has the basic context, when in fact that's often exactly what's missing (I think the academics call this cognitive dissonance). One obvious problem is the fact that the SRA Guide to Competition is 5 years or more old and thus completely outdated. Fixing this would be one huge step; I'd volunteer to add content except that I'm not sure I exactly understand some of the rules :-) Seriously though, the primary updates that impact the "fun factor" revolve around start strategy and finish strategy with maybe one or two other minor points, so this isn't as daunting as it sounds. Another potential step would be to require that the Appendix itself be a part of the rules change process (such that the wording of the Appendix is part of the rule). We can/should require a "plain English" interpretation of any rule that impacts scoring/strategy. Certainly, the impact of any action that a pilot can control needs to be pointed out. Finally, the frequency of rules changes really is an issue. It's not just the burden on pilots to read the rules (it's a toss-up between doing that and getting started on my taxes). No, the real issue is that we are layering more and more complexity on both the scoring software and the in-flight navigation software upon which we have become 100% reliant. Anyone who has scored a contest lately or who has looked under the covers of Winscore will tell you that it is amazing that we actually get accurate scores out at all (which is, in fact, not always the case). Not because Guy hasn't done yeoman work (he has), but because there are so many IF/THEN/ELSE clauses that have to be updated every time something changes. IMO, we could easily move to alternate year rules updates with the proviso to allow an "emergency modification for safety" under tightly controlled situations (e.g. the rule created a glaring safety issue which was demonstrated in the prior season). So, to summarize, three things we could do to make the rules less opaque: 1. Change them less frequently. 2. Require the appendix to provide plain English interpretations of all formulas. 3. Update the SRA Guide to the Rules. Respectfully, P3 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Article about John Cochrane | Greg Arnold[_2_] | Soaring | 12 | December 30th 08 09:45 PM |
Our own BB (John Cochrane) on NPR | DRN | Soaring | 5 | October 3rd 08 09:42 PM |
SSA Rules Poll and Rules Committee Election | Ken Sorenson | Soaring | 2 | October 6th 06 03:27 PM |
US Rules Committee Election and Rules Poll | Ken Sorenson | Soaring | 1 | September 27th 05 10:52 PM |
FLASH! U.S.A. Rules Committee to Address Rules Complexity? | SoarPoint | Soaring | 1 | February 3rd 04 02:36 AM |