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

Up to 41 petition signatures...

I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?

On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:49:52 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Up to 41 petition signatures...



I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?

Compelling your representatives to do what? The petition does not describe any concrete, actionable steps.

If you want some change to the structure of this year's already-scheduled sports class nationals at Mifflin, you need a clear, detailed, and explicit written statement of what you want and how it can be accomplished.

If you want to run a club class regional by FAI rules, put together a clear written plan conforming to the requirements for ssa sanction.

Send these to the contest committee chair, not a new petition. There's a lot of complaint about rules committee not listening, but you have to give us something concrete to work on.

If you want someone else to figure all this out... well, we did, and the current structure is the best we could come up with. Your turn.

John Cochrane

In article ,
"Sean F (F2)" wrote:

Up to 41 petition signatures...

I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what
percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public
debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?



I am a signer of the petition, own a club class glider (h301 Libelle),
and often fly club/sports contests, including a couple of nationals. I
should say as well, that I have no U.S. Team aspirations (I could maybe
admit to fleeting fantasies), so I do not have as much at stake as some
here. For me, it's just about fun.

Guy alluded to the "spirit" of the FAI rules. That, not the "letter" of
the FAI rules, is where we should go. Keeping a little pressure on the
racing committee towards this goal is good and the petition is an
excellent way to do that. However,there is a fine line between keeping
an issue in front of someone and beating them over the head with it.
Knowing, or at least acquainted, with most of the racing committee, I
think that in they are paying attention and do find the petition
compelling. I chafe at the slow and incremental pace of progress towards
an FAI type club class in the U.S., but at the same time, I can
understand the committee taking a conservative stance on change. The
status quo ain't great, but we could do much worse. "Unintended
Consequences" do occur.

Consider that the committee is at least heading in the right direction.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Friday, December 7, 2012 3:32:54 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
In article , "Sean F (F2)" wrote: Up to 41 petition signatures... I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives? I am a signer of the petition, own a club class glider (h301 Libelle), and often fly club/sports contests, including a couple of nationals. I should say as well, that I have no U.S. Team aspirations (I could maybe admit to fleeting fantasies), so I do not have as much at stake as some here. For me, it's just about fun. Guy alluded to the "spirit" of the FAI rules. That, not the "letter" of the FAI rules, is where we should go. Keeping a little pressure on the racing committee towards this goal is good and the petition is an excellent way to do that. However,there is a fine line between keeping an issue in front of someone and beating them over the head with it. Knowing, or at least acquainted, with most of the racing committee, I think that in they are paying attention and do find the petition compelling. I chafe at the slow and incremental pace of progress towards an FAI type club class in the U.S., but at the same time, I can understand the committee taking a conservative stance on change. The status quo ain't great, but we could do much worse. "Unintended Consequences" do occur. Consider that the committee is at least heading in the right direction. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

I've stayed away from the conversation for a while to see what develops and try to get a sense of the driving issue(s) in this "debate"- maybe not the best word.
Drivers- as well as I can tell from RAS comments and exchanges with some of the more passionate Club folks.
1- I think this is #1- We want to fly assigned tasks because it feels more like a race.
2- No MAT's
3- Same gliders as they race "in the rest of the world". "We can't let a 2-33 spoil our race".
4- Underlying- we want to practice for the world championship.
5- We think the other guys(those flying under the predominately Eurocentric rules) do it better.
6- It's "simpler", "safer", and "more fun". Who wouldn't want that?

I discussed with a couple serious Club guys some options the RC thinks could get us to a workable compromise.
Before describing those, the RC's major cornerstone points:'
1- Nobody goes home.
2- Closely compatible with US rules and procedures so pilots coming up from regionals don't have big changes and so Club can practically and safely be run concurrently with Sports(Modern Sports).

What we have discussed "off line":
1- AT is in for Club. That is in the plan.
2- MAT stays-Calm down guys! What we have asked is why a "long MAT" that is one that has all possible legs defined such that the fast guys/gliders will finish somewhat overtime, but the slower pilots/gliders can drop off and come home when time runs out. Effectively this is an AT but with a way to allow participation of slower pilots/gliders to not have to land out, while still fully challanging the top pilots.
When I proposed this compromise position, the conversation pretty well stopped.
It would be easy and workable to provide guidance in Club that does not use options like 1 turn MAT's (effectively the old POST).
3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play?
Task guidance that makes tasking set based upon the Club range with fair warning to that effect to others can work to allow these folks to come yet make the class predominately Club oriented. When long MAT is used for the AT's, everyone is accomodated.
4. The US RC emphasizes making the best contest experience for all, understanding that this may mean compromising preparation for the 30 or so that are US team players.
5. This is a subjective point where many folks will differ. In the US, we have made a number of innovations in areas like starts, finishes, airport bonus, safety finish, etc. thatwe strongly believe are better and safer than the other guys.
6. I've commented on this sub topic previously.

My sense is that a very few Club pilots are really hard over on this and that
many others much less so.
It would be good to hear from some new voices. We know where HA stands.
Still listening
UH

Im sorry, I think you were assuming that I was talking about the RC when I said the word "representatives." I was talking SSA BOD. My apology.

The RC simply makes rule recommendations to the SSA BOD. The upcoming SSA winter BOD meeting which will contain the US Club Class "BOD approval vote" will late February, 2013. The SSA BOD ultimately must provide approval on the rules recommendation presented "traditionally" but the RC for the new US Club Class to be officially sanctioned. If the RC is remains unmoved by the petition, I suspect the SSA BOD might be. I am not sure why all proposed US classes require the US RC to be involved (126 for example). More on that later.

Again, I think the RC does a great, great job and means well. They have all been on the job for some time. They are very passionate about their highly custom, unique soaring rules system. The US Rules are, for example, twice as long as FAI rules. The members of the US RC are all good people for sure. But it is important to remember that they have created an entirely new soaring rules system "utopia!" They therefore have separated all US pilots from the rest of the soaring world which uses FAI. Canadians are also, in part, sucked into this as well in some cases. Nonetheless, the US RC takes great pride in this although they may not see it as I have just explained it. I have no major issue with US rules personally. They are fine, but for many in the US we would like to HAVE THE CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!! We would like, in at least one US class, to be in alignment with the REST OF THE WORLD in the soaring rules. It also happens that the FAI rules are the rules used for ALL World Championship events. We are therefore completely isolated at current by the actions of the US RC in terms of soaring competition. The RC clearly fights with passion to maintain this bubble. They wield GREAT power over the bubble. We as US pilots have been fairly passive until now on challenging the complete isolation from the rest of the soaring world.

So, yes, this is a bit of a rebellion against the "ruling" class. But its not as bad as that may seem on the surface.

It is worth stating again, clearly, that we are NOT trying to alter any of the existing US classes in any way with this petition. We simply wish for our US Club Class (which we had requesting for years) to actually be the FAI Club Class which WAS REQUESTED since day one! The whole point of requesting this class (from the beginning to now) was to be in alignment with the FAI Club Class.

Consider that It was entirely UNNECESSARY for the US RC to assume that when the US Club Class owners and pilots requested a SSA sanctioned US "Club Class" that they also wanted the RC to cobble up US rules modifications to go along with it! In fact, all that needed to happen here with this request for a SSA sanctioned US Club Class sanction was to SIMPLY APPROVE IT and let it happen. No modification of the FAI rules was necessary or requested. No time was needed. Sports Class should carry on as is!

I am also concerned that the US RC does not utilize the right tools in regards to getting the opinions of ALL members. It seems a very dark, closed process this annual poll. It raises serious concerns about objectivity and transparency. Why must this be so closely guarded and private? Why can this process not be public, open and transparent? A simple, public Y/N poll is far more effective on key topics. Polls are subject to interpretation and are all about the "design" of the questions. People rarely use polls to generate "pure" data. They want to see certain answers! That is the point of a poll. They power of the poll is being able to set ONLY THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANT ANSWERED! In the case of the SSA poll, only a few (or 2 choices are often provided on broad topics. More later...

Our petition, on the other hand, is a highly transparent effort to PROVE (to all (SSA, BOD, WORLD), not just the US RC) the strong desire which exists with many US Pilots for a US Club Class which is in tight alignment with the rest of the world's soaring rules. These pilots are (in most cases) publicly, proudly, confidently stating their opinions on a ver specific, well defined topic. They want "just one" US Nationals to follow the world FAI standard as opposed to the US RC vision. This cannot be that bad! You would think, in some cases, that we are proposing the RC drink pure snake venom.. What are they so afraid of? There must be more to this thing which I do not yet fully understand...

Now, in terms of the recent statement challenging Sean Franke and I to make a plan for the RC since they have already submitted theirs. That is an interesting request. I thought the essence of our petition spelled that out fairly clearly.

That said, it is odd to me that the RC has not taken the opportunity to propose ANY compromise to its original proposal based on the 41 signature strong petition, this thread, the many behind the scenes email conversations, etc. Despite the passionate RC arguments against FAI, it is clear to us that we can easily run an FAI Club Class for Nationals next year and even use the exact same software, Winscore. So in terms of our proposal, here is what we want: FAI rules Club Class within the Sports Class Nationals next year, in Mifflin (or perhaps at a separate site). It is that simple. It only become "complicated" when the RC changed the Club Class to the point that it is unrecognizable to the world standard FAI Club Class!

Again: The long standing (albeit unique) US SSA Sports class remains EXACTLY THE SAME in our proposal. Keep that AS IS!!! FAI Club Ship owners who "choose" to fly in the new US FAI Club Class are welcomed to do so (these ARE the pilots who requested a US FAI Club Class in the first place!). Clearly there are a great deal of pilots who are excited about that opportunity presenting itself (especially since this new class with qualify US pilots for the Club Class World Championships). Nobody is left behind. If a pilots within the FAI Club Range chooses, they can REMAIN in US SSA Sports Class and fly MAT's and AAT's! Everyone is HAPPY! What is the problem with this again? Seriously? What am I missing?

In conclusion, it is fairly amazing to me peck this out on my iPhone on my flight home this evening, that the group of US pilots who have basically been requesting a popular FAI soaring class be sanctioned for the US are no being told (by the RC) to "go away" BECAUSE they simply want a class to be in alignment with what the rest of the world uses! Is it just me or is that simple fact stunning. We need to be more fluid as an organization (SSA). We are not voting on debt ceilings here. This is not that difficult. There is great upside allowing a single FAI class in the US. There is almost ZERO downside.

Yet many are deeply disappointed and are being offered only one option. Take it or leave it. Not very diplomatic.

Sean
F2

On Friday, December 7, 2012 11:59:50 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:49:52 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Up to 41 petition signatures...







I wonder, at what point does the number of people signing the petition (what percentage do you think wont sign because they are worried about public debate, etc) become compelling to our representatives?



Compelling your representatives to do what? The petition does not describe any concrete, actionable steps.



If you want some change to the structure of this year's already-scheduled sports class nationals at Mifflin, you need a clear, detailed, and explicit written statement of what you want and how it can be accomplished.



If you want to run a club class regional by FAI rules, put together a clear written plan conforming to the requirements for ssa sanction.



Send these to the contest committee chair, not a new petition. There's a lot of complaint about rules committee not listening, but you have to give us something concrete to work on.



If you want someone else to figure all this out... well, we did, and the current structure is the best we could come up with. Your turn.



John Cochrane

I think the petition title is clear "SSA adoption of FAI rules for 2013 US Club Class Nationals" The actionable step is make US Club Class FAI. In other words NOT another US Rules based class.

Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin. Club Class proponents are saying if you are going to change structure then this is what WE want. I think pilots who are actually going to fly the class should have a say. Don't you?

By the way, it's been said to prove the concept at a super-regional. At what super-regional has the RC version of Club Class been tested and proven?

I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?

The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.

Sean Franke (HA)

On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:27:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin.

[...]

I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?



The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.



Sean Franke (HA)

Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.

T8

3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play?

UH

A SGS 2-33 is possible but SGS 1-26 is more likely. However, let's use the 2009 Sports Class Nationals as and example. There was an ASW-28 and ASK-14. Both are considered Club Class gliders under the RC proposal. How is a CD going to set a reasonable AT with such a disparity in performance?

Sean Franke (HA)

On Friday, December 7, 2012 5:17:10 PM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:27:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:



Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin.



[...]



I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?







The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.







Sean Franke (HA)



Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.



T8

1. Tasking
2. Handicap range

Sean Franke (HA)

Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.



T8

Evan:

The CC we ran at Moriarty was defined as follows:

SSA Handicaps .935 - 1.05 (if my rememberance is correct), Plus Ventus (15m), LS6 (15m), ASW-20 (15m). And that was it!

This was done to capture many HP's at the higher end and to capture the 304CZ's at the lower end, plus ASW-20's that are allowed at worlds, AND adding V1's and LS6's per the request of members of the RC.

Importantly, it did not allow for the current crop of Std Class ships (D2, LS8, ASW-28. They still have their class. And it did not allow for any of the 1.05 and up ships either. The Sparrowhawks, Russias, Apis, have their own class coming too.

It is the RANGE expansion by the RC that is very much at odds with the historical practice of CC around the world - and at Moriarty.

I can hear the argument coming my way now: "but we do not tell anyone to go away in any other class..."

Well yes we do. Open ships can't race in 18m or 15m class, 18m and 15m can't race in Std Class. Defining a class is about defining it with boundaries so as to make the racing better. Otherwise we just end up with Sports Class that is bifurcated and one part of it is called Club Class.

EY