US Competition Pilot Poll and Election

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 1:18:07 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 5:30:10 AM UTC+13, Tango Eight wrote:
Sean:

Adopting FAI rules might be the final nail for the sport in the US. Club doesn't replace Sports, so you lose participation there. There's no way to combine standards with 15m under FAI rules, so now the standard class is completely dead and gone for good. Guys with old ships racing in the handicapped "combined FAI class" (can't we just call it 15m, pretty please?) will be less inclined to race with 27s and V2s and come to think of it, ASW-20Bs and Cs, Ventus As and Bs and LS-6s don't fit *anywhere* in the FAI rules scheme of things, so those guys are either racing at parity with 27s (aggravating!) or just SOL.

What this means is that your average regional race will now consist of 18m, a much smaller 15m class and a Club Class that might be 2/3 the size of the Sports class is replaces.

You need to get your head out of your 18m cockpit and think about the less well heeled trying to participate in the other classes. You need us. Without us, your races either get a lot more expensive and a lot less interesting socially or people just give up altogether.

It's pretty distressing seeing only 20 guys at a race that used to regularly host twice that number (New Castle). Incidentally, 8 of the 13 gliders racing in 15m were either standards or old 15m ships. I'm really pleased that BRSS was willing to work their tails off to host only 20 of us. Is it reasonable to expect that they'll do it for 12?

I'd like to take the opportunity here to thank the RC for creating the std + 15m combined class, because the racing in that class has been a great deal of fun.

I may be mistaken here, but I feel as if you're talking about what classes events are held for, while Sean is talking about questions such as task types and scoring formulas. And they are totally independent things!

Sure, if you want to enter the Worlds then you'll have to choose some current FAI class to enter in.

And learn the FAI contest rules instead of the US contest rules, and how to best makes use of them to your advantage.

One is about what piece of plastic you sit in. The other is about what is inside your head.

Even if you adopt FAI tasking and scoring, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent you from running a contest with whatever class entry rules you want to. Have a 1-26 class if there are a lot of them near you. Have a PW5+AC4+Ka6 class if that's what people have. Or make an event for gliders with a BGA handicap (sorry -- is there a US equivalent?) between 88 (LS1, DG100) and 96 (Cirrus 18.8, Janus A/B, DG300, Speed Astir, DG1000 18, PIK 20, LS4) if you've got a lot of people with gliders like that. Or whatever.

Who stops you? No one.

Running an event with some wacky special class or classes that fits your available entrants is pretty much a zero marginal cost thing to do.

And you can use FAI tasking and scoring for it. Which puts a lower cognitive load on pilots, who only have to learn one set of rules, and removes the need to maintain and debate local tasking and scoring rules.

(and of course IGC handicaps instead of BGA ones if you want .. I just wanted to emphasise that you don't have to go IGC for everything)

Or have I misrepresented Sean?

Hi Bruce,

Those are interesting points, thanks.

I don't understand the motivation here myself. The idea that switching to FAI rules saves work for anyone is obviously mistaken. None of this stuff happens by itself, it all takes work. The US RC does it's work very publicly compared to the IGC, so there's this (mistaken) impression that it's a bigger deal. It isn't. Ask our IGC rep about that.

Probably, the motivation has more to do with tasking. I have a couple of things to say about that (directed at this topic, not to Bruce).

There is huge tasking variety available under both rule sets and to the extent that anyone wants to *task* more like a European contest, that is already fairly achievable under US rules (scoring philosophy is different, but the same winners will win with high probability).

My view: AT's suck. You can have it one way, or the other (at the regional level): you can task something honestly challenging for the winners and land out 1/3 of the fleet (or more with one good t-storm), or you can assign something that gets almost everyone around and live with the fact that there's going to be about 15 points separating the top three places. The only places AT's don't suck are a) racing venues with uniformly excellent weather and uniformly excellent pilots, b) nationals venues where the not so excellent pilots are fully aware of what they have signed up for and likewise prepared mentally and otherwise to deal with a contest that is really hard as opposed to really fun and c) in internet bulletin board lala land where armchair tough guys can blow all their hot air in whatever degree of anonymity they choose.

You can design an AAT to keep the fleet closer together by using many turns with small radii rather than a few big open circles. But that has a truly odious downside. You end up with short task legs and you don't really go anywhere. The only thing less like XC soaring would be doing laps around a 50K triangle. That might be "racing", but it isn't anything I care about enough to hitch up the trailer and drive 13 hours to do. So when I get input, it's for longer legs... and to the extent that one needs to accommodate uncertainty in weather or variability in pilot & sailplane performance that means larger circles.

Sean had his giggle with the GP this Summer. I hear it was a good time. Well done. Short tasks over flat land in questionable weather at a venue famous for questionable weather isn't something *I* am going to drive halfway across the country to do, but if it lights someone else's candle, that's fine, I support that, I *applaud* that. But on the flip side, I'm going to get my back up when someone tries to dictate to others that "they need to task more ATs" in places that are famous for difficult terrain with big error bars on weather (the places I *will* drive halfway across the country to fly). That approach (challenging ATs), much used in the pre-GPS past, used to break a lot of gliders and broken gliders are absolutely no fun at all.

non-anonymously yours,
Evan Ludeman / T8

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 9:55:48 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 1:18:07 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 5:30:10 AM UTC+13, Tango Eight wrote:
Sean:

Adopting FAI rules might be the final nail for the sport in the US. Club doesn't replace Sports, so you lose participation there. There's no way to combine standards with 15m under FAI rules, so now the standard class is completely dead and gone for good. Guys with old ships racing in the handicapped "combined FAI class" (can't we just call it 15m, pretty please?) will be less inclined to race with 27s and V2s and come to think of it, ASW-20Bs and Cs, Ventus As and Bs and LS-6s don't fit *anywhere* in the FAI rules scheme of things, so those guys are either racing at parity with 27s (aggravating!) or just SOL.

What this means is that your average regional race will now consist of 18m, a much smaller 15m class and a Club Class that might be 2/3 the size of the Sports class is replaces.

You need to get your head out of your 18m cockpit and think about the less well heeled trying to participate in the other classes. You need us. Without us, your races either get a lot more expensive and a lot less interesting socially or people just give up altogether.

It's pretty distressing seeing only 20 guys at a race that used to regularly host twice that number (New Castle). Incidentally, 8 of the 13 gliders racing in 15m were either standards or old 15m ships. I'm really pleased that BRSS was willing to work their tails off to host only 20 of us. Is it reasonable to expect that they'll do it for 12?

I'd like to take the opportunity here to thank the RC for creating the std + 15m combined class, because the racing in that class has been a great deal of fun.

I may be mistaken here, but I feel as if you're talking about what classes events are held for, while Sean is talking about questions such as task types and scoring formulas. And they are totally independent things!

Sure, if you want to enter the Worlds then you'll have to choose some current FAI class to enter in.

And learn the FAI contest rules instead of the US contest rules, and how to best makes use of them to your advantage.

One is about what piece of plastic you sit in. The other is about what is inside your head.

Even if you adopt FAI tasking and scoring, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent you from running a contest with whatever class entry rules you want to. Have a 1-26 class if there are a lot of them near you. Have a PW5+AC4+Ka6 class if that's what people have. Or make an event for gliders with a BGA handicap (sorry -- is there a US equivalent?) between 88 (LS1, DG100) and 96 (Cirrus 18.8, Janus A/B, DG300, Speed Astir, DG1000 18, PIK 20, LS4) if you've got a lot of people with gliders like that. Or whatever.

Who stops you? No one.

Running an event with some wacky special class or classes that fits your available entrants is pretty much a zero marginal cost thing to do.

And you can use FAI tasking and scoring for it. Which puts a lower cognitive load on pilots, who only have to learn one set of rules, and removes the need to maintain and debate local tasking and scoring rules.

(and of course IGC handicaps instead of BGA ones if you want .. I just wanted to emphasise that you don't have to go IGC for everything)

Or have I misrepresented Sean?

Hi Bruce,

Those are interesting points, thanks.

I don't understand the motivation here myself. The idea that switching to FAI rules saves work for anyone is obviously mistaken. None of this stuff happens by itself, it all takes work. The US RC does it's work very publicly compared to the IGC, so there's this (mistaken) impression that it's a bigger deal. It isn't. Ask our IGC rep about that.

Probably, the motivation has more to do with tasking. I have a couple of things to say about that (directed at this topic, not to Bruce).

There is huge tasking variety available under both rule sets and to the extent that anyone wants to *task* more like a European contest, that is already fairly achievable under US rules (scoring philosophy is different, but the same winners will win with high probability).

My view: AT's suck. You can have it one way, or the other (at the regional level): you can task something honestly challenging for the winners and land out 1/3 of the fleet (or more with one good t-storm), or you can assign something that gets almost everyone around and live with the fact that there's going to be about 15 points separating the top three places. The only places AT's don't suck are a) racing venues with uniformly excellent weather and uniformly excellent pilots, b) nationals venues where the not so excellent pilots are fully aware of what they have signed up for and likewise prepared mentally and otherwise to deal with a contest that is really hard as opposed to really fun and c) in internet bulletin board lala land where armchair tough guys can blow all their hot air in whatever degree of anonymity they choose.

You can design an AAT to keep the fleet closer together by using many turns with small radii rather than a few big open circles. But that has a truly odious downside. You end up with short task legs and you don't really go anywhere. The only thing less like XC soaring would be doing laps around a 50K triangle. That might be "racing", but it isn't anything I care about enough to hitch up the trailer and drive 13 hours to do. So when I get input, it's for longer legs... and to the extent that one needs to accommodate uncertainty in weather or variability in pilot & sailplane performance that means larger circles.

Sean had his giggle with the GP this Summer. I hear it was a good time. Well done. Short tasks over flat land in questionable weather at a venue famous for questionable weather isn't something *I* am going to drive halfway across the country to do, but if it lights someone else's candle, that's fine, I support that, I *applaud* that. But on the flip side, I'm going to get my back up when someone tries to dictate to others that "they need to task more ATs" in places that are famous for difficult terrain with big error bars on weather (the places I *will* drive halfway across the country to fly). That approach (challenging ATs), much used in the pre-GPS past, used to break a lot of gliders and broken gliders are absolutely no fun at all.

non-anonymously yours,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan,

Let's forget for a moment about tasking philosophy. I think, the main point that Sean brings, and I am interested in, is why we can't have a question in pilots' opinion poll that simply asks if pilots want IGC rules or our current rules. It is not difficult to include such a question in the opinion poll and have a vote. Why argue about it? It is that simple.

Andrzej

Bruce,

That sounds right.

I again go back to my fundamental question... What "true measurable value" does maintaining our own unique US rules provide us vs. the cost of being separatists from the international gliding community (in so many ways)?

Or, asked another way, what is the positive value of being part of the established and stable FAI community, short and long term, for ALL of our US (and Canadian) contest (and future contest) pilots? This should be a simple, immediate answer, should it not?

What is the cost to us all (the US contest community at current and those hopefully entering it in the near future) in time/energy/aggravation from this annual US cycle required to maintain our own unique gliding competition rules?

1) read the biased opinion poll
2) respond to it.
3) debate it
4) wait for it to the "scored," (wink, wink)
5) read the always enjoyable "interpretation" of our opinion poll responses (again, wink, wink)?
6) endure and learn significant rule changes each year.

What of all the angst created by of that process of doing it all on our own while isolating ourselves from the rest of the world?

Then, of course, there is the annual requirement to update our scoring software code, troubleshooting it's bugs every spring, etc.

I ask these questions here on RAS beyond the reach and control of certain "SSA leaders" who would prefer to control this narrative entirely. If our leaders were not biased and emotionally neutral on this topic, they would balance this discussion annually with FAI as a baseline or fallback. Does it make sense to continue forward with US rules or is it time to go back to FAI. Here is the value justification... But they never do that. FAI is instead "out of the question." Why?

They apparently have a real score to settle with the FAI. A grudge. It's not my grudge or yours, it's theirs. At the same time, they also have a real love for US rules and the process. They enjoy it. It's actually important stuff to them. They would miss it. They try to tightly control the US rules discussion (and the politics surrounding it such as election nominations). They criticize FAI endlessly yet consider the US rules to be almost divine. IMO they are working hard in the background to leverage FAI at our expense citing the glory of their experimental rules rather than arguing from within the FAI for changes. Does anyone else see this?

IMO, we are being used a little like lab rats at US contests (US contest competitors) and are being held hostage within the US rules. We are an ongoing experiment.

I contend that our US rules provide us little (to negative) value in terms of safety, participation, youth interest, contest enjoyment and international community inclusion and comradeship. I would love to debate some real data on the value these options. How is it that all other nations us FAI rules and are just fine? They are equally safe, have equal or higher participation, more juniors, better social environments, etc.

I think that it is time to strongly consider a move to FAI in the USA. Why not next season?

In regards to recent Nephi comments (which are plain wrong IMO), here is a comment from another threaded discussion in which a "top international pilot" (who might have dominated his class in Nephi) made a comment regarding the US switching to FAI. This is an opinion which is shared by almost all top international pilots as I understand it.

"I personally think its a great idea to use the FAI rules, as I have explained and recommended at Nephi.... good luck with the process."

Our IGC rep is heavily biased IMO.

There is huge tasking variety available under both rule sets and to
the ext=
ent that anyone wants to *task* more like a European contest, that
is alrea=
dy fairly achievable under US rules (scoring philosophy is different,
but t=
he same winners will win with high probability).

My view: AT's suck. You can have it one way, or the other (at the
regional=
level): you can task something honestly challenging for the winners
and la=
nd out 1/3 of the fleet (or more with one good t-storm), or you can
assign =
something that gets almost everyone around and live with the fact
that ther=
e's going to be about 15 points separating the top three places.

Evan,

I was asked to run for a slot on the USA rules committee (and lost)
back in the 1990's. I favored going to the FAI scoring format, but
ran up against a lot of resistance from the "middle of the pack"
pilots that wanted to be those 15 points from the leader. The last I
knew, the FAI scoring was not linear, and the daily winner was
normally separated from the pack pretty quickly by the equation.

The problem was that in the USA, one needs those "middle of the
pack" pilots to show up in order to make a one class contest
financially viable. Otherwise, without those guys, you would have
only the maybe 5-10 really competitive pilots show up. (unless the
contest is at a place with tremendous conditions like Minden or
Nephi)

Maybe those "middle of the pack" pilots wanted to hold out the hope
that the leader could fall in a hole (mess up somehow), and they
could then have a chance to win the contest. The further that they
are separated from the lead on a daily basis (FAI scoring rules),
makes this hope sort of fade away. I don't know, but there was a
lot of resistance to this non-linear scoring on good days. Anyway,
they voted to keep what we had...

Another problem is that the SSA membership in the USA has been
in decline, and we have gone from 3 racing classes (STD, 15m &
Open) to 6 racing classes with the inclusion of 18m, Sports & Club
classes. Now they want to add a 20m two seat class? It is
inevitable that contests will have to have multiple classes in order to
make financial sense for the organizers.

To your point of driving 13 hours, I say stop and think a little. For
the pilots wanting a team slot, it means P7 leaving great conditions
out west, and driving 4 DAYS EACH WAY to fly at Elmira in
conditions that are nowhere near as good as if he had stayed at
home. 13 hours of driving is nothing at all if one is serious about
wanting a team slot in the USA. Think 6-8 days on the road for a
nationals in 2 out of 3 years. For the 3rd year where the contest is
somewhat close, then think 6-21 hours to drive, and then that's a
relief.

RO

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

Evan,

Let's forget for a moment about tasking philosophy. I think, the main point that Sean brings, and I am interested in, is why we can't have a question in pilots' opinion poll that simply asks if pilots want IGC rules or our current rules. It is not difficult to include such a question in the opinion poll and have a vote. Why argue about it? It is that simple.

Andrzej

I'm not opposed to this. But there someone has to publish a lot of background info so that well informed choices can be made. Sean, bless his heart, isn't dong a very good job of that right now (because with him what isn't personal is some dark conspiracy), so maybe *you* can give it a try.

"What is the compelling case to support a switch to FAI contest rules in the US?"

I'm all ears. If the case is truly compelling and my previously stated concerns are in fact non-issues, then I'll even vote for it.

best,
Evan

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 1:06:33 PM UTC-4, Sean wrote:
Our IGC rep is heavily biased IMO.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:16:44 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

Evan,

Let's forget for a moment about tasking philosophy. I think, the main point that Sean brings, and I am interested in, is why we can't have a question in pilots' opinion poll that simply asks if pilots want IGC rules or our current rules. It is not difficult to include such a question in the opinion poll and have a vote. Why argue about it? It is that simple.

Andrzej

I'm not opposed to this. But there someone has to publish a lot of background info so that well informed choices can be made. Sean, bless his heart, isn't dong a very good job of that right now (because with him what isn't personal is some dark conspiracy), so maybe *you* can give it a try.

"What is the compelling case to support a switch to FAI contest rules in the US?"

I'm all ears. If the case is truly compelling and my previously stated concerns are in fact non-issues, then I'll even vote for it.

best,
Evan

Yes, Evan, I am also in agreement. Would like to see a side by side comparison of the FAI rules to ours including the scoring system used with examples. Questions asking others to supply the answers don't produce reasonable results. Doing a RAS search on "FAI" bring's back several years of discussions. Past members of the RC keep trying to explain to no avail.

Sean, along with those that wish the change to FAI rules, can easily get a email list from the SSA for all the current entrants. Put it all together with full disclosure, showing the differences, financial gains or losses, new/saved costs and who will do all this work, time required, scoring program used, etc., would be welcome as this keeps going on year after year on RAS..

I, for one, would like to see a well thought out plan showing what this change would bring. It should be done by those wishing this change. If it would foster and promote our sport, I also would vote for it.

Our IGC rep, on a side note, has paid ALL his expenses for the IGC meetings he has ever attended. He has freely given his time. He gets a standing ovation at the Seniors for all the time he has given us. Been a crew for Dick Butler, etc. Just a overall great guy. Also, a friendly comment by a "World Class Pilot" in Nephi is much different than a complaint which again has never been documented as said.

We are a small group, and as has been stated, some do travel great distances, change is require, as the internet makes us look larger than we really are. Costs have become prohibited for many. But what we need are well, thought out plans which show that change would be of benefit and then allow the entrants to make their choice.

Sean, in Hobbs, back a year or so ago did tell he feels he's not liked on the forums. Sean's a good guy with different ideas that's all. I don't think anyone feels the way he thinks they do as his ideas are always welcome.

I do wish he does put together a well thought out comparison model package for all of us to see and then give our vote to.

Best. Tom #711.

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 1:15:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Opitz wrote:
There is huge tasking variety available under both rule sets and to
the ext=
ent that anyone wants to *task* more like a European contest, that
is alrea=
dy fairly achievable under US rules (scoring philosophy is different,
but t=
he same winners will win with high probability).

My view: AT's suck. You can have it one way, or the other (at the
regional=
level): you can task something honestly challenging for the winners
and la=
nd out 1/3 of the fleet (or more with one good t-storm), or you can
assign =
something that gets almost everyone around and live with the fact
that ther=
e's going to be about 15 points separating the top three places.

Evan,

I was asked to run for a slot on the USA rules committee (and lost)
back in the 1990's. I favored going to the FAI scoring format, but
ran up against a lot of resistance from the "middle of the pack"
pilots that wanted to be those 15 points from the leader. The last I
knew, the FAI scoring was not linear, and the daily winner was
normally separated from the pack pretty quickly by the equation.

The problem was that in the USA, one needs those "middle of the
pack" pilots to show up in order to make a one class contest
financially viable. Otherwise, without those guys, you would have
only the maybe 5-10 really competitive pilots show up. (unless the
contest is at a place with tremendous conditions like Minden or
Nephi)

Maybe those "middle of the pack" pilots wanted to hold out the hope
that the leader could fall in a hole (mess up somehow), and they
could then have a chance to win the contest. The further that they
are separated from the lead on a daily basis (FAI scoring rules),
makes this hope sort of fade away. I don't know, but there was a
lot of resistance to this non-linear scoring on good days. Anyway,
they voted to keep what we had...

Another problem is that the SSA membership in the USA has been
in decline, and we have gone from 3 racing classes (STD, 15m &
Open) to 6 racing classes with the inclusion of 18m, Sports & Club
classes. Now they want to add a 20m two seat class? It is
inevitable that contests will have to have multiple classes in order to
make financial sense for the organizers.

To your point of driving 13 hours, I say stop and think a little. For
the pilots wanting a team slot, it means P7 leaving great conditions
out west, and driving 4 DAYS EACH WAY to fly at Elmira in
conditions that are nowhere near as good as if he had stayed at
home. 13 hours of driving is nothing at all if one is serious about
wanting a team slot in the USA. Think 6-8 days on the road for a
nationals in 2 out of 3 years. For the 3rd year where the contest is
somewhat close, then think 6-21 hours to drive, and then that's a
relief.

RO

Hi Mike,

About to leave for Mt Wash wave camp, will have very limited internet next few days, don't have time to respond to all your good points.

I've tried (3x) national comps, one of which required 70 hours of driving (Hobbs, from NH). I feel the pain, but mostly what I feel is that the resources required are so daunting that only the very independent and well heeled can afford to play in a serious way. It's way beyond my "ability to pay", and not just in dollar terms!

Anyhow, I think an apples/apples comparison of US Nats scored our way and scored per FAI rules will not show a change in top tier rank order, which is really what counts. The non-linearity that puts the leader way ahead works just as well the other way when he steps in a hole. Or at least that's what I recall when I kicked this around last time with others (a few years ago).

I do know one thing about FAI rules contests that I absolutely detest: it's SeeYou's presentation of scores. To get results from three classes at one contest (daily + overall) takes *SIX* web pages and me keeping notes, vs one page for any US contest. They could learn a few tricks from us, too.

Best,
Evan Ludeman / T8