A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 1st 18, 01:44 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

Suggestion: Before sounding off, read the extensive analysis of poll results re FAI rules that the RC posted in its minutes on the ssa website.

John Cochrane
  #12  
Old January 1st 18, 02:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 7:44:43 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Suggestion: Before sounding off, read...


Don't be silly John, this is RAS!
Happy 2018 all,
Best Regards, Dave
  #13  
Old January 1st 18, 02:15 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tony[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,965
Default SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

Note there is no option to select if you flew an FAI WGC or SGP in the poll year. I did not get to fly a nationals in 2017 and the regionals I attended was rained out.

Instead I flew the Orlando SGP, 13.5m WGC and crewed for Junior WGC. However the analysis of poll results would indicate that my vote is from someone who flew no contests this year.
  #14  
Old January 1st 18, 02:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tom Kelley #711
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
Suggestion: Before sounding off, read the extensive analysis of poll results re FAI rules that the RC posted in its minutes on the ssa website.

John Cochrane


Here's a copy and paste......and it's not all they discussed, just a part!

6. Change US competition to use FAI rules - Various communications and poll..
Discussion: Data suggests significant interest in seriously considering a move to FAI
rules. There is wide divergence between the most active quintile (top 20%) of pilots and
the second most active quintile (second 20%) of pilots. An anonymized tabulation
correlating responses with racing activity and performance was done. This yielded a
segmented view of responses across pilot cohorts that could be sorted by various pilot
participation and performance measures. Mostly the RC looked at results broken down
by overall contest and Nationals participation rates. This breakdown of responses also
allowed the RC to normalize poll results for the 4:1 variation in poll response rate across
pilot cohorts so as to estimate the likely views across the entire US racing pilot
community. It was noted that the top 3 contest participation quintiles of pilots had high
enough response rates to have reasonable confidence that they represented the views of
the cohort, while the bottom two quintiles had lower response rates that may not be fully
representative of the cohort. Lastly, these bottom two cohorts represent only 13% of all
US contest entries.
The strongest support for FAI rules is found among the top 20% most active pilots who
fly 49% of all contests and 61% of all Nationals. Strong opposition to FAI rules was
found among pilots who are the second most active contest flying cohort – but fly
2017 SSA Rules Committee Meeting Minutes
Reedsville PA - November 11, 2017
4
Regionals about 4 times as frequently as Nationals. This second group represents 23% of
all Nationals entries and 23% of all Regionals entries.
A summary of poll responses appears below (Note: “Favor FAI” includes respondents
who answered ‘yes’ to favoring a fast switch to FAI rules OR a gradual switch to FAI
rules (14 pilots answered ‘yes’ to both questions – this was interpreted as favoring a fast
switchover):
The RC discussed how much particular details and implications of FAI rules are broadly
or deeply understood since there were broadly unfavorable responses in the poll about
specific rule changes in the direction of the FAI approach. Questions were raised as to
whether unpopular changes in specific rules could have implications for participation.
a. Energy control at starts
b. Team flying
c. Tasking / landouts
d. Finishes
e. Penalties (e.g. FAI rules have less use of graduated penalties, greater use of contest
disqualification for multiple offenses).
f. Permissible for pilots to receive tactical support from ground crews
g. Elimination of the MAT
h. Scoring formulas and associated incentives. (Note that these may will be under
consideration for changes to FAI rules in 2018).
In addition, questions in the poll about specific rules changes that are part of the FAI
system generated lower support then the overall support for a move to FAI at the high
level (e.g. support for distance credit inside AT turnpoint cylinders, start out the top,
etc.). This led to discussion about how much US pilots may like the idea of FAI rules
but dislike many of the specific details. This led to a further discussion about the
potential to use local procedures to reduce the impact of some of the more significant
changes that FAI rules require that have less support among US pilots. For instance,
should a US shift to FAI rules mandate use of meters and kilometers and allow team
flying at all contests, or should there be adjustments to accommodate the desires of a broader group of US contest pilots?
Quintile
Rank by #
Contests
Flown**
Favor
FAI
Favor
Fast
Switch
to FAI
Total
Resp
Response
Rate (% all
PRL pilots)
%
Favor
FAI
%**
Fast
Switch
Avg
PRL
#
Cont/
Yr/
Pilot
%
Total
Nats/
Yr
%
Total
Cont/
Yr
1 40 24 59 64% 68% 41% 89 2.24 61% 49%
2 12 7 33 36% 36% 21% 84 1.05 23% 23%
3 17 6 30 33% 57% 20% 67 0.68 10% 15%
4 7 5 14 15% 50% 36% 76 0.33 5% 7%
5 10 2 13 16% 77% 15% 29 0.30 1% 6%
TOTAL
RESP 86 44 149 33% 58% 30% 69 0.92 100% 100%
2017 SSA Rules Committee Meeting Minutes
Reedsville PA - November 11, 2017
5
Some expressed the view that a change to FAI rules should be “all or nothing” as
diluting the rules to accommodate US pilot preferences (to not allow team flying or
ground crew assistance at contests, for instance) would negate the whole purpose of
moving to FAI rules which is to prepare pilots to fly at the WGC. It was noted that many
countries have elaborate local procedures and some countries don’t use FAI rules at all
(e.g. Canada, UK and Australia) so the “all or nothing” view varies around the world. It
was agreed that it will be critical to craft specific proposals (pure FAI, vs FAI rules that
accommodate some US practices vs current US rules) in order to obtain clear guidance
from the US racing pilot community on a rules transition. It was also agreed that all of
this will take significant effort which will need to begin quickly.
Actions:
• Create a description of each major area of FAI rules that is different from US rules,
without description of potential implications.
• Articulate two versions of each area of FAI rules – one without any local procedures,
one with local procedures to address some of the significant differences as much as
practical within the FAI framework (e.g. may not include adding back MAT task,
could include minimum finish height like was used at Uvalde).
• Recruit knowledgeable proponent(s) of FAI rules and proponent(s) of US rules to
opine on pros/cons of each approach.
• Craft specific proposal(s) for polling of pilot group.

Best. Tom #711.
  #15  
Old January 1st 18, 05:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 608
Default SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?


You need to integrate all the other feedback.

When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work.

This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly.

Andy Blackburn
9B
  #16  
Old January 1st 18, 03:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andrzej Kobus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 585
Default SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?


You need to integrate all the other feedback.

When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work.

This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly.

Andy Blackburn
9B


Andy, I get all of that, but why not have one contest with FAI rules to get some experience?
  #17  
Old January 1st 18, 03:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:00:14 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?


You need to integrate all the other feedback.

When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules.. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work.

This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly.

Andy Blackburn
9B


Andy, I get all of that, but why not have one contest with FAI rules to get some experience?


There was the PAGC. I'm not sure how you objectively collect, process and take action on the "experience."
  #18  
Old January 1st 18, 06:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 608
Default SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

It'sa worthy idea. It's been discussed and some initial conversations have been had. You need to have all the infrastructure in place. Some thoughts on what needs doing.

1) Local procedures drafted and agreed to. We don't really have all that clear an idea what pilots want in the gory details. Do you really want team flying and allowance for ground crew support (long range Flarm tracking with ground-based high-gain antennae is one common example)? I'd write local procedures against that, but a significant number of pilots might want to form teams or have some ground support. Others hate the idea. There are many tens of decisions like this to be made and choices will affect pilot participation one way or the other.
2) Scoring scripts written for SeeYou to support #1. There are a few people who are able and possibly willing to support this over some reasonable time frame.
3) Scorer who knows how to use SeeYou found and recruited.
4) Unique requirements of FAI rules supported or worked around in #1.
5) Stuff you didn't anticipate because so much is new.

It's not impossible, but it's new and unfamiliar and you need to get organizers to agree to take the risk and do the work.

Lastly, you might be well advised to not spring this on pilots who already signed up for contests and scheduled their vacations.

If there were organizer support and pilots already signed up for that same contest were nearly unanimously in favor of giving it a go, it might be possible to do it under waiver. Some informal outreach has not yielded results to my knowledge, but if organizers, pilots and other supporting volunteers got seriously motivated to do it, I for one would be favorably inclined on the request.

Andy Blackburn
9B


  #19  
Old January 1st 18, 06:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andrzej Kobus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 585
Default SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:27:45 AM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:00:14 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?

You need to integrate all the other feedback.

When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work.

This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly.

Andy Blackburn
9B


Andy, I get all of that, but why not have one contest with FAI rules to get some experience?


There was the PAGC. I'm not sure how you objectively collect, process and take action on the "experience."


A pilot poll could be designed to capture valuable data, alternatively a retrospective session with all pilots of such contest could be held. One could capture the level of satisfaction, safety aspects, what worked well and what did not.

In the end it is all about what majority of pilots want not what someone thinks they want. It is not my opinion and it is not RC opinion that matters it is the opinion of the majority of pilots and the best way to find out if we are going in the right direction is to test the rules in practice.

A super regional contest could be held to try this out.

  #20  
Old January 1st 18, 06:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andrzej Kobus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 585
Default SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:12:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
It'sa worthy idea. It's been discussed and some initial conversations have been had. You need to have all the infrastructure in place. Some thoughts on what needs doing.

1) Local procedures drafted and agreed to. We don't really have all that clear an idea what pilots want in the gory details. Do you really want team flying and allowance for ground crew support (long range Flarm tracking with ground-based high-gain antennae is one common example)? I'd write local procedures against that, but a significant number of pilots might want to form teams or have some ground support. Others hate the idea. There are many tens of decisions like this to be made and choices will affect pilot participation one way or the other.
2) Scoring scripts written for SeeYou to support #1. There are a few people who are able and possibly willing to support this over some reasonable time frame.
3) Scorer who knows how to use SeeYou found and recruited.
4) Unique requirements of FAI rules supported or worked around in #1.
5) Stuff you didn't anticipate because so much is new.

It's not impossible, but it's new and unfamiliar and you need to get organizers to agree to take the risk and do the work.

Lastly, you might be well advised to not spring this on pilots who already signed up for contests and scheduled their vacations.

If there were organizer support and pilots already signed up for that same contest were nearly unanimously in favor of giving it a go, it might be possible to do it under waiver. Some informal outreach has not yielded results to my knowledge, but if organizers, pilots and other supporting volunteers got seriously motivated to do it, I for one would be favorably inclined on the request.

Andy Blackburn
9B


Andy, this is a very open minded position. You are right about timing being an issue. Let's see if there is an interest for this year.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2018 Proposed US Competition Rules Changes [email protected] Soaring 0 December 30th 17 12:45 AM
See You 3.95 and U.S. Start/Finish rules [email protected] Soaring 2 March 27th 12 04:25 PM
UO penalty @ Hobbs For Example John Smith Soaring 4 June 12th 05 08:34 PM
TFR Penalty Magellan Piloting 9 September 5th 04 01:24 AM
Rules for 1000k with start/finish at midpoint. Andrew Warbrick Soaring 2 August 10th 04 05:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.