FLASH! U.S.A. Rules Committee to Address Rules Complexity?

The U.S.A. Rules Committee are rumoured to be polishing off the
details of a multi-prong program to address the much-ballyhooed topic
of Rules simplification. Recent sentiment amongst pilots indicates
that the Rules for U.S. comps--as codified in a proliferating document
that has spun off multiple versions, a Guide, and an Appendix in
recent efforts to make it intelligible--are increasingly
ill-understood by all but the most devoted Rules mavens.

Even staunch defenders of the Committee's work on "simplification"
concede that most pilots are less familiar with the Rules than they
are with their spouses' birth dates and anniversaries - a sad
indictment, indeed.

One reason given for this deplorable state of affairs is the rapidly
changing nature of today's comps, which involve tasking, verification,
and scoring techniques that did not exist even a decade ago. Also
doubtless contributing to the disarray are annual changes to the Rules
which, like the U.S. Congress's annual experiments in social
re-engineering through the U.S. tax code, endeavor to close loopholes,
encourage certain behaviours, and tweak existing conventions in a
never-ending (and vain) quest for perfection.

The result: analysis of scores reveals that the level of Rules-related
penalties is at an all-time high!

Complained one aging top gun: "I just fly what I think is the task,
stop over at the pub that night, and pray that in the morning the
scoring computer won't have kicked me in the teeth," he said. "Most of
us in this game for a while feel fortunate not to get dinged more than
once every few contests. The average chap at his first comps don't
have a snowball's chance in hell of making it through without
collecting more penalties than points."

"That is a joke," he added, "I think there's a rule about not getting
a negative score, but I'm not even sure about that."

Beset by complaints from nearly all quarters, the Rules Committee
convened an emergency session recently and hammered out their
triple-pronged solution to the problem, which they expect to present
at the upcoming SSA convention later this week. The major points:

1. All pilots must qualify for entry to sanctioned U.S. events by
passing an initial written licensing exam focusing on the Rules.
Thereafter, licensed comps pilots shall be required to attend
Continuing Rules Adjustment Modules (CRAM sessions) for a minimum of
twelve credit hours annually to ensure currency on the myriad Rules
updates.

2. To provide assistance whilst in flight, pilots will be required to
install a PDA-based version of the Rules with full, hyperlinked
indexing and cross referencing. Under consideration is a requirement
for a heads-up display to discourage what is acknowledged to be a
dangerous trend toward focusing on GPS-based flight and navigation
computing systems.

With an eye to the future, the Committee are also evaluating another
PDA-based software product that combines complete, comprehensively
indexed documentation of the U.S. Rules with an expert-systems-based,
artificial intelligence, voice-interactive application that will
provide the pilot with context-sensitive Rules advisories. For
example:

"Warning: It is now 1700 hours and you've been below 2,000 feet QFE
for the past 20 miles. It's a Modified Assigned Task, old boy--suggest
you pack it in and head for the finish."

And:

"You exited the start cylinder through the side but you busted the
ceiling only 90 seconds ago; best scamper back for another start or
you'll take a penalty to bed with you tonight instead of that hottie
working the retrieve desk."

3. Perhaps the most controversial action under consideration by the
Committee is to award actual comps points on non-flying days based on
pilots' scores on random Rules Examinations. The rationale for this
startling departure is that knowledge of the Rules should have a
favorable impact on scores both indirectly (through better flying
performances) and directly (by earning points on written exams).


Responding to an inquiry from an old-school pundit, a senior
Committeeman offered, "I see nothing wrong with the direction we are
taking. Every comps pilot today has a GPS data logger, a flight
computer, a handheld computer, and a laptop PC to download/upload. We
no longer use film cameras and most of us have not carried a chart in
years. If one isn't computer literate, one cannot fly in comps these
days. So why shouldn't we require competitors to be Rules literate?"

Commented a grizzled Rules Committeeman: "The Rules ain't too complex.
Pilots is just too lazy--they don't wanna read the damned things. Alls
they wanna do is show up and fly. Well, the days of hangin' the wings
on your Ka-6, grabbin' a sandwich and an old sectional, and takin'
your roll time afore headin' downwind for free distance and landin'
after dark for 1,000 points is long gone. If pilots ain't smart enough
to study up the Rules on their own, then by golly we'll force 'em to."

Finally, a somewhat more eloquent if no less controversial opinion
from a prominent Committeeman, a lawyer by profession: "Most of us
spend 25 to 50 hours every season in practice flights before our first
comps. I see no reason why the average pilot shouldn't devote an equal
amount of time each year to studying the Rules."

SoarPoint
)

I find most of your comments on this subject to be rather lax, and a vain
attempt to be amusing. Unfortunately, you have not taken the time to really
get to know most of the guys on the rules committee. If you did, you would
know that some of them hate new technology as bad as you do, and if they
could go back to cameras and the photo board, you would hear the words
"Stand by, Mark" at every contest this year. But those days are over, grow
up and get used to it. Remember the old proverb.....I would rather hear a
fat lady fart, than a grown man BAWL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"SoarPoint" wrote in message
om...
The U.S.A. Rules Committee are rumoured to be polishing off the
details of a multi-prong program to address the much-ballyhooed topic
of Rules simplification. Recent sentiment amongst pilots indicates
that the Rules for U.S. comps--as codified in a proliferating document
that has spun off multiple versions, a Guide, and an Appendix in
recent efforts to make it intelligible--are increasingly
ill-understood by all but the most devoted Rules mavens.

Even staunch defenders of the Committee's work on "simplification"
concede that most pilots are less familiar with the Rules than they
are with their spouses' birth dates and anniversaries - a sad
indictment, indeed.

One reason given for this deplorable state of affairs is the rapidly
changing nature of today's comps, which involve tasking, verification,
and scoring techniques that did not exist even a decade ago. Also
doubtless contributing to the disarray are annual changes to the Rules
which, like the U.S. Congress's annual experiments in social
re-engineering through the U.S. tax code, endeavor to close loopholes,
encourage certain behaviours, and tweak existing conventions in a
never-ending (and vain) quest for perfection.

The result: analysis of scores reveals that the level of Rules-related
penalties is at an all-time high!

Complained one aging top gun: "I just fly what I think is the task,
stop over at the pub that night, and pray that in the morning the
scoring computer won't have kicked me in the teeth," he said. "Most of
us in this game for a while feel fortunate not to get dinged more than
once every few contests. The average chap at his first comps don't
have a snowball's chance in hell of making it through without
collecting more penalties than points."

"That is a joke," he added, "I think there's a rule about not getting
a negative score, but I'm not even sure about that."

Beset by complaints from nearly all quarters, the Rules Committee
convened an emergency session recently and hammered out their
triple-pronged solution to the problem, which they expect to present
at the upcoming SSA convention later this week. The major points:

1. All pilots must qualify for entry to sanctioned U.S. events by
passing an initial written licensing exam focusing on the Rules.
Thereafter, licensed comps pilots shall be required to attend
Continuing Rules Adjustment Modules (CRAM sessions) for a minimum of
twelve credit hours annually to ensure currency on the myriad Rules
updates.

2. To provide assistance whilst in flight, pilots will be required to
install a PDA-based version of the Rules with full, hyperlinked
indexing and cross referencing. Under consideration is a requirement
for a heads-up display to discourage what is acknowledged to be a
dangerous trend toward focusing on GPS-based flight and navigation
computing systems.

With an eye to the future, the Committee are also evaluating another
PDA-based software product that combines complete, comprehensively
indexed documentation of the U.S. Rules with an expert-systems-based,
artificial intelligence, voice-interactive application that will
provide the pilot with context-sensitive Rules advisories. For
example:

"Warning: It is now 1700 hours and you've been below 2,000 feet QFE
for the past 20 miles. It's a Modified Assigned Task, old boy--suggest
you pack it in and head for the finish."

And:

"You exited the start cylinder through the side but you busted the
ceiling only 90 seconds ago; best scamper back for another start or
you'll take a penalty to bed with you tonight instead of that hottie
working the retrieve desk."

3. Perhaps the most controversial action under consideration by the
Committee is to award actual comps points on non-flying days based on
pilots' scores on random Rules Examinations. The rationale for this
startling departure is that knowledge of the Rules should have a
favorable impact on scores both indirectly (through better flying
performances) and directly (by earning points on written exams).


Responding to an inquiry from an old-school pundit, a senior
Committeeman offered, "I see nothing wrong with the direction we are
taking. Every comps pilot today has a GPS data logger, a flight
computer, a handheld computer, and a laptop PC to download/upload. We
no longer use film cameras and most of us have not carried a chart in
years. If one isn't computer literate, one cannot fly in comps these
days. So why shouldn't we require competitors to be Rules literate?"

Commented a grizzled Rules Committeeman: "The Rules ain't too complex.
Pilots is just too lazy--they don't wanna read the damned things. Alls
they wanna do is show up and fly. Well, the days of hangin' the wings
on your Ka-6, grabbin' a sandwich and an old sectional, and takin'
your roll time afore headin' downwind for free distance and landin'
after dark for 1,000 points is long gone. If pilots ain't smart enough
to study up the Rules on their own, then by golly we'll force 'em to."

Finally, a somewhat more eloquent if no less controversial opinion
from a prominent Committeeman, a lawyer by profession: "Most of us
spend 25 to 50 hours every season in practice flights before our first
comps. I see no reason why the average pilot shouldn't devote an equal
amount of time each year to studying the Rules."

SoarPoint
)