Dear Fellow Sailplane Racers

Good Day fellow sailplane racers,

Unfortunately this is not the email saying I have found a coed
volleyball team that will be traveling around to different glider
contests to help run wings. Nor is this an email to say I found a new
sponsor for soaring contest. I am trying to gain support for my
election in the Rules Committee, so if you have already voted for me
then you can hit delete and get back to work, if you voted for someone
else you still have time you can change your vote.

By voting for me the only thing I can promise that I will do
is....lower the average age. But enough with the things I promise to
do, I hope that I can influence the committee and look at things
slightly differently. I feel that with my experience in flying in 2
World Junior Championships, 1 Australian contest (I hope you enjoyed
the article from last month), 7 US Nationals and 2 Regional contests. I
have a very well rounded view on contests. I have won a few days and I
have been the only pilot to not make it home on others.

I feel the sports class should look at selecting pilots to fly club
class world championships. I feel that the open class could not
sacrifice loosing its Nimbus 3 pilots by allowing a weight change. If
there are only 4 pilots that are willing to travel their large winged
beasts then let them race and get sanctioned, that way there are no
rushed struggles trying to get more pilots volunteering at the last
minute. We will continue to struggle at the world level if we do not
task our pilots on a similar field.

I am concerned that the rules committee will continue to waste time
with legislation intended to compensate for a pilot's lack of
judgment. I know it's not a spectator sport, but there is a crew
down there, waiting and watching, and the finish line is symbolic to
their hard work and devotion to the sport. A pilot is not judged by the
altitude of his finish or the lack there of, but rather by his ability
to make safe judgments in all r=E9gimes of flight. Making rules that
force us to stare in the cockpit and cross-check: altimeter, GPS,
flight computer, altimeter... for some imaginary boarder in the sky,
cannot be considered safer.

If nothing else I will be a new face to point the blame at when you
complain about the rules.

http://206.168.3.4/survey/surveys.php

Best Regards
Garret Willat
927

OK, I'll bite. Maybe it's a good idea to have a better airing of
views involving the RC election.

I don't think you can "legislate safety" either, in that nothing
we do will eliminate all accidents. But I sure do think that rules can
contribute to a safe or dangerous flying environment. I think that
rules should be thoughtfully structured so that pilots don't have to
choose between safety and points as much as is possible.

The proposition "you can't legislate safety" is ludicrous. Does
anyone honestly think that seat belt laws, speed limits, crash-safety
standards and so forth have had NO effect on the car accident rate? Of
course they have. Do you think we should get rid of the rule mandating
a parachute, get rid of the 2 minutes before start (a "safety
legislation to avoid 130 mph in the start gate), get rid of the 50 foot
minimum for gate finishes, get rid of the ban on blind-flying
instruments, the 25 point airport bonus, etc., etc., all rules that
"compensate for pilots' lack of judgment"? Of course not. We
quite wisely "legislated safety" in all these areas and it helped.

Any rule has effects on fun, costs, practically, fairness, and safety.
They all need to be considered together. We can't abdicate
responsibility and just hide behind a slogan. And we cannot ignore that
safety is an important issue. Masak, Carpetyan, Bowman... We lose one
every other year or so. Is this inevitable? Do we just throw up our
hands, blame their "judgment" and go on as usual? Is this really a
"waste of time?" Or is carefully thinking through the safety
implications of our rules about the most important thing we can do?

The pros and cons of both sides of the finish line vs. gate have been
argued at length, and I don't think this is the place to start it up
again. We have a long winter ahead! Both have safety pros and cons, as
well as other pros and cons.

Where do I stand? As an individual pilot, I prefer the cylinder for
reasons made pretty clear in my articles and posts over the years. (My
current favorite is a cylinder followed by an optional "show
finish" for fun and spectators.)

As a potential RC member though, I don't think one should campaign
with a dead-set opinion on issues like this - as well as the other
issues facing us like the nature of sports class.

I think the RC job is to represent pilot's opinions, analyze the
issues in more depth than most pilots have the time for, and conduct a
thoughtful discussion, listening carefully. If I think X is right but
90% of pilots think X is wrong, my job is to convince them, and listen
carefully and perhaps be convinced myself, not try to get elected and
then ram it down their throats. That's the attitude I will bring to the
RC, and I hope it is the attitude that prevails no matter who is
elected.

John Cochrane
BB

OK I'll "bite back" BB.

I would prefer the statement to be "you cannot legislate good judgement".
There is a huge difference between rules and laws that protect life by
protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes and those that make
an attempt to force people into making the "correct" choice.

Casey Lenox
Phoenix
KC

Kilo Charlie wrote:
OK I'll "bite back" BB.

I would prefer the statement to be "you cannot legislate good judgement".
There is a huge difference between rules and laws that protect life by
protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes and those that make
an attempt to force people into making the "correct" choice.

OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how does it apply to
contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping at traffic
lights and driving on the right side of the rule, which seem to be
safety related.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

At 05:48 03 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Kilo Charlie wrote:
OK I'll 'bite back' BB.

I would prefer the statement to be 'you cannot legislate
good judgement'.
There is a huge difference between rules and laws
that protect life by
protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes
and those that make
an attempt to force people into making the 'correct'
choice.

OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how
does it apply to
contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping
at traffic
lights and driving on the right side of the rule, which
seem to be
safety related.


To push the auto analogy, I think KC is referring to
rules like 'you have to stop your car to answer your
cell phone', or 'motorists over 65 must take a road
driving test twice per year', or 'the interstate speed
limit should be set at 35 miles per hour'. I'm not
sure about the last one, but the first two have been
passed or proposed in many states in the interest of
safety. And I bet some on this forum would agree that
one or the more of them is actually worth the inconvenience
it would cost.

It's all a matter of where you draw the line - KC and
many others draw the line at trying to use rulemaking
compensate for judgement - a bit of a semantic line
drawing in itself.

9B

Andy Blackburn wrote:
At 05:48 03 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Kilo Charlie wrote:

OK I'll 'bite back' BB.

I would prefer the statement to be 'you cannot legislate
good judgement'.
There is a huge difference between rules and laws
that protect life by
protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes
and those that make
an attempt to force people into making the 'correct'
choice.

OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how
does it apply to
contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping
at traffic
lights and driving on the right side of the rule, which
seem to be
safety related.



To push the auto analogy, I think KC is referring to
rules like 'you have to stop your car to answer your
cell phone', or 'motorists over 65 must take a road
driving test twice per year', or 'the interstate speed
limit should be set at 35 miles per hour'. I'm not
sure about the last one, but the first two have been
passed or proposed in many states in the interest of
safety. And I bet some on this forum would agree that
one or the more of them is actually worth the inconvenience
it would cost.

It's all a matter of where you draw the line - KC and
many others draw the line at trying to use rulemaking
compensate for judgement - a bit of a semantic line
drawing in itself.

I'm still curious about what the "huge difference" is. Why isn't wearing
a parachute a "judgment"? KC seems to make the judgment that rules that
try to legislate "judgment" are inherently bad and shouldn't even be
discussed. I think either type rule should discussed so their value
(will it work? what will it cost?) can be determined, especially since
we'll differ on where to draw the line.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I agree, KC and 9B. I hate it when traffic laws are made on the
assumption that I'm not capable of making my own judgements. The cell
phone analogy is a good one.

~ted/2NO

At 15:42 03 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
I'm still curious about what the 'huge difference'
is. Why isn't wearing
a parachute a 'judgment'? KC seems to make the judgment
that rules that
try to legislate 'judgment' are inherently bad and
shouldn't even be
discussed. I think either type rule should discussed
so their value
(will it work? what will it cost?) can be determined,
especially since
we'll differ on where to draw the line.

I think as a matter of philosophy the gap is quite
large, as a matter of pure utlitarianism there will
always be room for debate.

The philosophical point, I think, is that there are
rules that protect us from systemic versus individual
risk factors. Systemic risks stem from the nature of
the system or environment and aren't significantly
controllable by any one individual. Turning in the
same direction in a thermal or passing to the inside
and turning away from the ridge are examples of rules
that address these types of risks. Individual risk
factors such as how slow to fly in a thermal and how
steep to bank are the domain of individual judgements.
To the extent that we put rules against these individual
risks the silliest, most paternalistic of them simply
get ignored much of the time, or perhaps at the margin
drive people from the sport.

I know some perfer the mechanistic, utilitarian calculation:
# lives saved x value of a life - total cost of the
rule. If you set the parameters right you can make
an argument for most any kind of restriction - without
regard to whether you are trying to save people from
risks beyond their control, or simply from themselves.

Hope that helps,

9B

This discussion is going in precisely the direction I was hoping to
stop. It's like the supreme court where we go on and on about Big
Constitutional Issues of "privacy" and "federalism" rather than talk
about what we really know is at stake.

KC, Garret: you guys like the finish line. Good. As the RC considers
the issue, let's have a good discussion over the pros and cons,
including safety pros and cons, of finish lines and finish gates. The
main point of my post is that the RC and RC candidates should be having
and listening to such discussions, rather than go to a political system
where people campaign on promises to vote one way or another on
specific issues.

But phrasing this as a discussion over the grand philosophical issue
of "should rules encourage/legislate/consider safety" is just silly.
The rules do it all the time, and they should, while taking into
consideration cost, convenience, complexity, fun and all the other
things that matter as well.

Two of the finish line advocates' main complaints are that a circle
requires some looking at the GPS, and they have trouble transitioning
out of a 1 mile ciurcle into a well-sequenced landing pattern, a
transition they find easier from a line. These are important arguments
that need careful thought. But they are safety arguments, and people
sound mighty silly making them while at the same time saying rules
shouldn't "legislate safety" at all!

John Cochrane
BB

I guess the flying season is coming to a close.

I agree we can't legislate good judgment. But situations where a pilot
must choose between points and safety are, in my experience, much less
common than many would have us think. And good judgment prevails in
most cases even where these do arise (e.g., when the task would require
flying directly through a thunderstorm). Just like anxieties over
technology taking over the cockpit, fears that safe pilots will lose
out to dangerous ones who are willing to take unusual risks in order to
win don't seem well founded. KS and DJ will beat most of us no matter
what equipment is allowed, no matter what the rules are, and no matter
how recklessly the other pilots fly.

That said, rules that encourage safe flying are often welcomed even
when they come at the price of a little liberty (e.g., left turns in
the start cylinder). What concerns many is a possible trend towards
"dumbing down" contest flying by eliminating certain skills that place
a premium on experience and good judgment. One example is the finish
gate vs. finish cylinder debate. The arguments I've heard so far aren't
compelling on either side. But I will admit that I also enjoy the
mastery, sense of achievement, and--yes--thrill of a high-speed pass at
the conclusion of a good flight.

It's the same satisfaction I had after a flight through unlandable
terrain at the New Castle Regionals two weeks ago. CD Doug Jacobs
called a task into an area most of us hadn't encountered--except to
avoid--before. With a big circle around the turn, no one had to take
chances so long as they got high, kept an "out", and exercised good
judgment. Picking our way carefully through the forested valleys, we
discovered the area around the TP itself was quite benign. Sometimes
things just look dangerous from the outside. If one is attempting them
without proper skills or good judgment, they often are. Yet mastering
them is one of life's pleasures.

I don't agree that it's wrong to campaign on the basis of "if elected,
I will..." There are few one-issue elections and this isn't one of
them. But if a candidate has an established position and wants to use
it to garner votes, why not? If it's not important to most pilots, it
won't matter. If it really is critical, why not vote for the guy who
tells you exactly where he stands?

I will observe that the current committee slot is only one of five.
Based on my experience on various boards (including the SSA's), it's
desirable to have a mix of opinions rather than a bunch of people who
think alike. One dissenter can't sway the voting unless his arguments
are so persuasive and compelling that the other four members see the
wisdom of his position. And that would be a good thing.

Chip Bearden