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

Let's not forget what I consider the most unfair IGC CC rule of
all- no actual weight based handicapping. So if I fly a Discus b at
825 pounds and BB flies a Discus a at 700 pounds, we fly with
the same handicap. I would have a one pound PSF wing loading
advantage, which would be helpful anywhere but the maybe the
UK.
Big, heavy guys take note. I weigh 100 kg. BB considerably
less.

Richard Walters

At 23:13 27 November 2012, wrote:
I encourage you to review the rules. IGC is LESS
complex,simpler and
easier to understand. IGC rules are 15,091 words long
compared to 25,804
(US rules).

http://www.fai.org/igc-documents

Go to Sporting Code Section 3 Annex A

1. No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low
performance
gliders when task setting.
YES

2. No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs.
No LS-6 or Venti. ASW-20B&Cs HAVE BEEN allowed. They are
specifically
excluded in Argentina at the next WGC.

3. No speed or altitude limits prior to the start.
Altitude limits are up to CD discretion, similar to US Rules.

4. Much more emphasis on ATs.
YES. There are ONLY Racing Tasks (AT) and Assigned Area
Tasks. 50/50
seems to be the philosophy.

5. Score everything according to FAI rules.
YES. See scoring calculations on page 31 & 32 of FAI SC3a
rules.

Sean Franke

Let's not forget what I consider the most unfair IGC CC rule of
all- no actual weight based handicapping. So if I fly a Discus b at
825 pounds and BB flies a Discus a at 700 pounds, we fly with
the same handicap. I would have a one pound PSF wing loading
advantage, which would be helpful anywhere but the maybe the
UK.
Big, heavy guys take note. I weigh 100 kg. BB considerably
less.

Richard Walters

At 23:13 27 November 2012, wrote:
I encourage you to review the rules. IGC is LESS
complex,simpler and
easier to understand. IGC rules are 15,091 words long
compared to 25,804
(US rules).

http://www.fai.org/igc-documents

Go to Sporting Code Section 3 Annex A

1. No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low
performance
gliders when task setting.
YES

2. No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs.
No LS-6 or Venti. ASW-20B&Cs HAVE BEEN allowed. They are
specifically
excluded in Argentina at the next WGC.

3. No speed or altitude limits prior to the start.
Altitude limits are up to CD discretion, similar to US Rules.

4. Much more emphasis on ATs.
YES. There are ONLY Racing Tasks (AT) and Assigned Area
Tasks. 50/50
seems to be the philosophy.

5. Score everything according to FAI rules.
YES. See scoring calculations on page 31 & 32 of FAI SC3a
rules.

Sean Franke

Sean,

My understanding is that pilots that fly under the "normal" weight
for their glider type, do not get a handicap reduction. So instead
they fly with lead bars to get to the normal weight. Or they fly
light ( real light in the case of Sarah Arnold) and give up an
unfair advantage.

Are you proposing allowing lead ballast?

Richard Walters

At 00:13 28 November 2012, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:54:51 PM UTC-8, Richard
Walters wrote:
Let's not forget what I consider the most unfair IGC CC rule
of

all- no actual weight based handicapping. So if I fly a Discus
b at

825 pounds and BB flies a Discus a at 700 pounds, we fly
with

the same handicap. I would have a one pound PSF wing
loading

advantage, which would be helpful anywhere but the maybe
the

UK.

Big, heavy guys take note. I weigh 100 kg. BB considerably

less.



Richard Walters




The reference weight for Discus a & b is 367 kg. Every 10 kg
incurs a
handicap increase of 0,005. Yes, there can be a wing loading
difference
but it's accounted for in the handicap.

Copied from current handicap list:

"The handicap is based on the performance at the New IGC
Reference Mass.
If a glider is flown at a mass not exceeding this reference
mass it can be
considered as operated within legal mass limits.
Where a glider is flown at a higher mass by necessity, the pilot
will have
to provide documentation to prove that his glider is
still operated within legal mass limits and the handicap will be
increased
by 0,005 for each 10 kg or part thereof that the glider
exceeds the reference mass. However the wing loading may in
no case exceed
38 kg/m2. In addition the handicap may in no
case exceed 1,09."

Sean Franke

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:59:56 PM UTC-8, Richard Walters wrote:
Sean,



My understanding is that pilots that fly under the "normal" weight

for their glider type, do not get a handicap reduction. So instead

they fly with lead bars to get to the normal weight. Or they fly

light ( real light in the case of Sarah Arnold) and give up an

unfair advantage.



Are you proposing allowing lead ballast?



Richard Walters



At 00:13 28 November 2012, wrote:

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:54:51 PM UTC-8, Richard

Walters wrote:

Let's not forget what I consider the most unfair IGC CC rule

of



all- no actual weight based handicapping. So if I fly a Discus

b at



825 pounds and BB flies a Discus a at 700 pounds, we fly

with



the same handicap. I would have a one pound PSF wing

loading



advantage, which would be helpful anywhere but the maybe

the



UK.



Big, heavy guys take note. I weigh 100 kg. BB considerably



less.







Richard Walters









The reference weight for Discus a & b is 367 kg. Every 10 kg

incurs a

handicap increase of 0,005. Yes, there can be a wing loading

difference

but it's accounted for in the handicap.



Copied from current handicap list:



"The handicap is based on the performance at the New IGC

Reference Mass.

If a glider is flown at a mass not exceeding this reference

mass it can be

considered as operated within legal mass limits.

Where a glider is flown at a higher mass by necessity, the pilot

will have

to provide documentation to prove that his glider is

still operated within legal mass limits and the handicap will be

increased

by 0,005 for each 10 kg or part thereof that the glider

exceeds the reference mass. However the wing loading may in

no case exceed

38 kg/m2. In addition the handicap may in no

case exceed 1,09."



Sean Franke





You're right, there is no handicap adjustment for "under weight" gliders. I'm proposing mirroring IGC rules, handicaps and tasking philosophy.

Sean Franke

On Tuesday, 27 November 2012 17:38:13 UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:31:05 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 07:42:32 UTC-7, wrote:



The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.















Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.















In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):







1. Your position on the US seeding list.







2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.







3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.







4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.







5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.







6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.







7. Any other comments welcome!















Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...out-exception/















Sean Franke







US Club Class Team Member







Sean, how are you proposing to score these contests? Are you going to use SeeYou?







Ron Gleason



SeeYou is popular and works well. I propose using SeeYou unless a better solution is brought up.



Sean Franke

Hate to dive deep into details since this is a theoretical discussion but will the SSA have to approve the SeeYou scoring script you will use? Or will you use 'default' SeeYou Competition scoring parameters? Do you have people and/or resources identified that are able to use SeeYou for scoring?

Sorry but devil is in the detail(s).

Ron Gleason

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:17:54 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 November 2012 17:38:13 UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:31:05 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:



On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 07:42:32 UTC-7, wrote:







The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013. A poll has been created to validate interest in establishing FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy in this new class. If approved the U.S. Club Class would be the ONLY U.S. racing class under FAI (IGC) racing rules.































Please sign the petition IF YOU are interested in supporting or flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules / tasking philosophy.































In the optional personal comment section please enter (if applicable):















1. Your position on the US seeding list.















2. If you have access to or own a Club Class glider, what type.















3. If you are familiar with IGC rules and prefer those rules over US rules.















4. If you would financially or otherwise support development of the US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.















5. If you don't currently fly US contests but would start flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.















6. If you currently fly US contests (Standard, Open, 15m, 18m or Sports) and are interested in flying US Club Class under FAI (IGC) rules.















7. Any other comments welcome!































Link to petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...out-exception/































Sean Franke















US Club Class Team Member















Sean, how are you proposing to score these contests? Are you going to use SeeYou?















Ron Gleason







SeeYou is popular and works well. I propose using SeeYou unless a better solution is brought up.







Sean Franke



Hate to dive deep into details since this is a theoretical discussion but will the SSA have to approve the SeeYou scoring script you will use? Or will you use 'default' SeeYou Competition scoring parameters? Do you have people and/or resources identified that are able to use SeeYou for scoring?



Sorry but devil is in the detail(s).



Ron Gleason

Do you see any reason the SSA won't approve? Unseen problems?

Sean Franke

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:25:04 AM UTC-5, wrote:


Do you see any reason the SSA won't approve? Unseen problems?


It's just another issue for a would be organizer to address.

It looks to me as though the 'welcome' mat is out, but until an organizer steps up with a proposal, there's really nothing to approve.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:08:34 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

5. *Score everything according to FAI rules.



Which feature a much more aggressive transition from speed to distance

points than US rules. If nobody makes it home, it's 1000 distance

points. Under FAI rules you make almost no points if you're the only

finisher, as it's all become distance points. You get clobbered if

you're the only landout. This is one of the big reasons that FAI rules

lead to long start gate roulette, leaving when it's hopeless, then

mass gaggles to a huge landout.



The tactical implications of the FAI scoring formula are subtle and

deep. There are several analyses of the required strategies floating

around the US team. If we go there, be prepared to play a very

different tactical game.



Advocates have a point: if you want to learn to play this game it

takes years of practice. The question for US pilots: do the 99% of you

who are not going to the worlds really want to invest a lot to

learning to play these games? You're going to be landing out a lot

more often btw.


Points to ponder. Anyone else who has flown FAI rules want to weigh in?

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:22:44 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
Points to ponder. Anyone else who has flown FAI rules want to weigh in? Evan Ludeman / T8

One guy's experience.
Club WGC- Gawler 2001. 8 contest days. I was one of about 3 who finished at the contest site all days. About 20% had to use remote finish provided as loacl accomodation for weather at the site. Estimate of total completions is about 90%.

Club WGC- Musbach 2001. 9 contest days. 2 days had 100% land outs. Other 7 days had about 80% finishes.

Tasking was(and still is) designed such that you either go fast or you land out.
Scoring is more forgiving for land outs than in US where we task for minimal land outs, admittedly by commonly flying shorter tasks.
But- sometimes it pays not to finish because of the way the scoring system is set up. It really helps to have someone on the ground tell you whether to finish or land across the street.

FWIW, I would contest, based upon my personal experience, claims made that the IGC experience is either simpler, or safer. As to fun- I had the time of my life.
UH
US Club Class Team 2001(7th)/2002(15th)

As to fun- I had the time of my life.
UH
US Club Class Team 2001(7th)/2002(15th)

UH: Yes, going to WGC is the experience of a pilot's lifetime. But
would you have had any less fun if it had been conducted under US
rules?

Back to the point, though. We don't need to argue this stuff in the
abstract! Put on some IGC rule super-regionals. Please! There has been
so much talk about this, let's do it! Let pilots, organizers, and
scorers try it, figure out how it works, learn the tactics, and see
if they like it.

But that we have to ask these questions does somewhat suggest that
plopping IGC rules on a national contest next spring might be a tad
ambitious.

John Cochrane