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

Guy

Thanks for your clarity and sanity on this issue - and of course for
all your work on winscore - much appreciated..

Peter



On Thursday, 20 December 2012 08:21:25 UTC-8, wrote:
In contrast, Winscore was designed "from the ground up" as a scoring program specifically for US competition. It is supported "locally" and Guy Byars is obviously committed to keeping Winscore current.



Why change? Lets keep things "Made in the USA"!





Hey, leave me out of this one!



I agreed to upgrade Winscore for 2013 to score using the IGC/FAI rules in addition to the US-SSA rules. I have had requests for this in the past, and it is a good improvement to the program regardless of the current debate.



I plan to have any distance (radii SMTD... etc) specified in the IGC rules in km to be a user input. That way the program can be used by the purists, or those that want things specified in convenient statute miles.



Scoring software is not an issue in this debate.



Guy Byars

Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class.

If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...fb_connected=1

Sean
F2

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:35:57 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class.



If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below.



http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...fb_connected=1



Sean

F2

Sean .. Is there some sort of FAI VS SSA "Rules Comparison Table" anywhere that would give a rough overview of the differences?

thx
Curt - 95
Genesis 2

Good idea. I'll see if we can put something together.

In general, the USRC openly considers FAI rules to be dangerous and irresponsible and their US rules alternative (dictated to the US soaring community) as the solution to FAIs dangerous irresponsibility. In addition, the USRC believes that their rules are not only safer but superior in generating flourishing contest attendance (especially with new or casual contest pilots). In other words, US pilots would not fly FAI rule events as they are too "hard core.". US rules on the other hand, with there increased safety and "decreased likelihood" of land outs greatly improves attendance. No need for crews, less difficult tasks, etc.

We (probably 100 US and Candian pilots, almost 60 have signed) see FAI rules as real/true glider racing (Assigned tasks and Assigned Area tasks only). The rest of the world soaring community (VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET BASICALLY) happily uses FAI rules for every contest and has since the sport began. Statistically safety is approximately equal between the World standard FAI rules and the essentially obscure US rules. The US is in isolation from the rest of the world as we are almost a different sport (checkers vs. chess). The US rules are 2-3x longer than FAI rules for example.

I personally would like to see, for now, that US regionals retain the US rules and national championships should immediately adopt FAI rules as they qualify US pilots for the World Championship. I want there to be a choice in the USA. I wish to disarm the USRC of the ability to act as dictators to all US pilots (and contests) on what rules are best to use. I think there is significant misinformation about the FAI rules in the USA because of a bit if a publicity campaign against them for a reason I do not fully understand. I think there is clearly (sixty signatures from jr pilots to top US world level pilots) strong demand for FAI rules events within the US dispite this negative publicity campaign by the USRC. I feel the USRC is on a bit of a crusade to somehow pressure change the FAIs rules and uses the US contests as a test lab.

I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.

Sean

I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.

Sean

Dear Sean. This is an interesting project. Actually reading the IGC rules and explaining how the US would use them "without exception" might do us all some good.

I have been working on a similar project, and will have a comparison table to go with the fall poll, where pilots can voice their opinions.

You’re looking for “annex A” here

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

Here are some particular issues you might answer for us. You propose to use the IGC rules "without exception," yet those rules make no mention of national or regional contests. For example,

How many pilots does it take to make a valid contest? (US: 8 finishers with score more than 40% of the winner)

IGC 1.3.2 If any one class does not have at least ten participants from at least five (four for Continental Championships) NACs on the first Championship day, the contest shall take place but no Champion will be declared.

What do you plan to do about that?

What kind of organization do you need (we have CD, rules committee etc)

1.4.2 Facilities The Organisers shall provide:
a. All facilities necessary for the satisfactory operation of the Championships.
b. The travel and living expenses for Stewards and Jury Members, other than the Chief Steward and Jury President.

2.2.1 Stewards The IGC-Bureau shall nominate a Chief Steward, at least one year prior to the event, plus at least one other Steward, of nationalities different to that of the Organisers,

2.2.2
International Jury
a. A nominated Jury shall consist of the President of the Jury plus two Members. The President shall be appointed by the IGC. Both Members shall normally be appointed by the IGC,

If you plan to use IGC rules "without exception" have fun getting all these people over to the US and paying for them.

Who gets to go to the contest? For US nationals, there is a ranking list, preferential entry procedure, etc. IGC rules:


3.1 SELECTION OF TEAMS Each NAC shall select its own Team Captain, competitors, and assistants.

3.2 QUALIFICATIONS A competitor must be a citizen or resident of the country of the entering NAC and satisfy the conditions of the FAI Sporting Code, General Section 3.7 on citizenship and representation, and must;
a. Hold a gold badge, or, hold a silver badge and have competed in at least two National Championships;
b. Have flown at least 250 hours as a pilot in command, of which at least 100 hours must be in sailplanes;
c. Hold a currently valid FAI Sporting Licence.....

Those are the rules. Can't go unless you've been to two nationals!

3.4.3
Pilots
a. Each NAC may enter the number of pilots approved by the IGC and specified in the Local Procedures, but not more than two pilots (two crews in the 20 metre Multi-seat Class) in any class, or 3 pilots in any class at Junior and Women Championships....

For Continental Championships with a limited number of nations participating the IGC Bureau may approve a higher number of pilots per class.


That sounds like fun. No more seeding list, the NAC says who gets to go..

What about equipment, inspections etc?

4.1.2 Each competing sailplane …
b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the configuration in which it will be flown.

Well, here's another big change. No showing up at 9 am on the first contest day. We need scrutineering, 72 hours before the contest starts. Why? Well, Sean wants to play by IGC rules without exception. Oh, yes, we need a scrutineer too.

Oh, and another subject dear to your heart, artificial horizons.

… No instruments permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be used during the contest. If carried on board they must be reported to the Organisers during the acceptance check and preferably be made inoperative. The Organisers may specify instruments and procedures covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.

Flight logs and flight recorders?

All remarks made during the inspection must be complied with not later than 20:00 on the day before the first scheduled competition day. By that time Flight Logs (see 5.4) from all FRs in use must also have been delivered to Competition Office. Noncompliance will result in denied competition launches

5.4 CONTROL PROCEDURES Flights shall be controlled by GNSS Flight Recorders (FR).
a. All FRs approved by the IGC up to two months prior to the Opening Day shall be accepted. A valid calibration certificate must be provided for each FR.
The FAI SC Section 3 requires that Flight Recorders have been calibrated within the previous 24 months.

Aah, that's interesting. No more of this loosey-goosey US rules letting Ilec SN10s or other non-certified flight recorders play. You WILL have an IGC certified recorder WITH calibration trace or else. I'm sure that will be popular with your club class.

We could go on. This is all nuts of course. These rules are simply not written to handle a national championships.

OK, enough.

What all countries who "use IGC rules" do, in fact, is to merge some aspects of IGC rules -- scoring formulas, in particular -- with a bunch of national rules. NOBODY uses IGC rules by themselves, because, as reading the rules makes clear, it simply is completely unworkable. EVERY country has their own modifications, in particular to the list of the club class pilots.

I hope you read the rules and produce the table. Then it will be clear what you are really advocating is that somebody write a whole new rule book somehow combining the two.

Now that sounds like a fun project

John Cochrane

On 2/23/2013 5:38 PM, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Good idea. I'll see if we can put something together.

In general, the USRC openly considers FAI rules to be dangerous and irresponsible and their US rules alternative (dictated to the US soaring community) as the solution to FAIs dangerous irresponsibility. In addition, the USRC believes that their rules are not only safer but superior in generating flourishing contest attendance (especially with new or casual contest pilots). In other words, US pilots would not fly FAI rule events as they are too "hard core.". US rules on the other hand, with there increased safety and "decreased likelihood" of land outs greatly improves attendance. No need for crews, less difficult tasks, etc.

We (probably 100 US and Candian pilots, almost 60 have signed) see FAI rules as real/true glider racing (Assigned tasks and Assigned Area tasks only). The rest of the world soaring community (VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET BASICALLY) happily uses FAI rules for every contest and has since the sport began. Statistically safety is approximately equal between the World standard FAI rules and the essentially obscure US rules. The US is in isolation from the rest of the world as we are almost a different sport (checkers vs. chess). The US rules are 2-3x longer than FAI rules for example.

I personally would like to see, for now, that US regionals retain the US rules and national championships should immediately adopt FAI rules as they qualify US pilots for the World Championship. I want there to be a choice in the USA. I wish to disarm the USRC of the ability to act as dictators to all US pilots (and contests) on what rules are best to use. I think there is significant misinformation about the FAI rules in the USA because of a bit if a publicity campaign against them for a reason I do not fully understand. I think there is clearly (sixty signatures from jr pilots to top US world level pilots) strong demand for FAI rules events within the US dispite this negative publicity campaign by the USRC. I feel the USRC is on a bit of a crusade to somehow pressure change the FAIs rules and uses the US contests as a test lab.

I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.

Sean

I sure hope you actually read the rules before you put this little
comparison together. You might be surprised.

IMHO you are mostly wrong with your "facts", but I've only flown a
couple of contests under IGC rules. I see no reason to prefer IGC rules,
except maybe for the MAT task still in US rules. I understand some
people have an extreme aversion to that one.

Here's my comparison:

The IGC start rules have lots of flexibility, but none of the options
are as good as the US cylinder, when its properly used (max height below
cloudbase / top of lift).

The smaller turnpoint zones used by IGC are a step back to where US
rules were in the mixed camera / GPS days. Really changes little.
Substitutes traffic converging on a point for slightly less predictable
traffic. US rules introduce an extra tactical twist.

This is another place where other countries use some interesting
turnpoint shapes for ATs as an option to deal with tricky weather.

Finish rules are flexible for both, very similar. In practice WGCs tend
to be different, but not driven by the rules.

Tasking philosophy is not rules driven. Its based on the CD. Influenced
in WGC by the chief steward and by task advisers in the US. The ability
to fall back to a task B or C in flight as used in the US is a huge
improvement in my opinion. The language barrier at WGCs makes inflight
changes more of a problem.

The rules are not simpler for either. The US rules have the complexity
of starting where you actually leave the cylinder rather than the center
of the line or cylinder arc. This adds a little tactical twist with US
rules and makes the traffic converge at the one optimal point in IGC
rules. Thats a complexity for the scorer, not the pilot. Same with
turnpoints on Assigned Tasks.

The scoring formulas are also different. Primarily in how days are
devalued. On full valued speed tasks, IGC rules you loose 20 points per
percent slower than the winner. By US rules its 10 point per percent.
That alone doesn't matter except for tie breaking. Both systems devalue
for short tasks. By IGC rules further speed devaluation also starts with
the first landout or slow finisher. By US rules devaluation doesn't kick
in until 20% landout for AAT/MAT or 40% for AT. The devaluation of speed
differences is also far greater for IGC rules.

US rules also have a few "tie breakers". Like partial credit for amount
of time under the min for AAT/MAT. And for slow finishers. US rules
compress the point differences for very slow finishers. IGC rules, all
very slow finishers tie.

The devaluation rules change "the points stakes", so competitive risks
should be weighed differently, particularly when you can tell how the
day will likely turn out. Thats the sort of thing that doesn't show up
with more casual competitors that may not recognize the gains possible
from good tactics.

The devaluation formulas are another area where other countries differ
from IGC rules (England for example). There is no "correct" way to
combine scores from different days. Depends on whether you think every
day should count the same or whether "luck influenced" days should have
less effect on the outcome. IGC rules take the philosophy that at the
WGC level, any landout or very slow finisher among the very good pilots
indicates some extra degree of luck that should be reflected in the
scores. US rules take the approach that a few bozo's landing out should
not effect the day's results for the top pilots.

US rules have harsher airspace penalties for first offense. Both are
pretty much a "death penalty". US rules have an airport bonus for
landouts not in the IGC rules.

Teams play a bigger part in IGC rules. Not just pilot teams, but team
captains, ground support, tactical advice, met support, etc. IGC still
does not allow anything other than aircraft voice comm radio and FLARM /
trackers. No inflight weather displays, alternate comm, etc. Contact
with ATC only for landing permission, no contact with FSS allowed.

For handicaps, it seems most countries have their own system. For "club
class" eligible lists, it also appears most countries have their own.
And several of our peers (Australia and England for example) use the
same system as is planned for the Sports Nationals this year. Max
performance limit, but no minimum limit. They don't seem to care if the
equivalent of a 2-33 shows up. Maybe because they task for the upper end
of the range and aren't as concerned with land outs anyway.

Neither set of rules is that difficult to read, particularly if you skip
the administrivia which is the bulk of both. Not that the administrivia
is unimportant. It will have to be changed a lot to be used in a US
national or regional contest. But you will need to check every year as
both are moving targets.

-Dave Leonard
(not now or ever on the US rules committee)

At 00:38 24 February 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
Good idea. I'll see if we can put something together. =20

In general, the USRC openly considers FAI rules to be
dangerous and
irrespo=
nsible and their US rules alternative (dictated to the US soaring
community=
) as the solution to FAIs dangerous irresponsibility. In
addition, the
USR=
C believes that their rules are not only safer but superior in
generating
=
flourishing contest attendance (especially with new or casual
contest
pilot=
s). In other words, US pilots would not fly FAI rule events as
they are
to=
o "hard core.". US rules on the other hand, with there
increased safety
an=
d "decreased likelihood" of land outs greatly improves
attendance. No
need=
for crews, less difficult tasks, etc.

We (probably 100 US and Candian pilots, almost 60 have
signed) see FAI
rule=
s as real/true glider racing (Assigned tasks and Assigned Area
tasks
only).=
The rest of the world soaring community (VIRTUALLY EVERY
OTHER COUNTRY
ON=
THE PLANET BASICALLY) happily uses FAI rules for every
contest and has
sin=
ce the sport began. Statistically safety is approximately equal
between
th=
e World standard FAI rules and the essentially obscure US
rules. The US
is=
in isolation from the rest of the world as we are almost a
different
sport=
(checkers vs. chess). The US rules are 2-3x longer than FAI
rules for
exa=
mple.

I personally would like to see, for now, that US regionals retain
the US
ru=
les and national championships should immediately adopt FAI
rules as they
q=
ualify US pilots for the World Championship. I want there to be
a choice
i=
n the USA. I wish to disarm the USRC of the ability to act as
dictators
to=
all US pilots (and contests) on what rules are best to use. I
think
there=
is significant misinformation about the FAI rules in the USA
because of a
=
bit if a publicity campaign against them for a reason I do not
fully
unders=
tand. I think there is clearly (sixty signatures from jr pilots to
top US
=
world level pilots) strong demand for FAI rules events within
the US
dispit=
e this negative publicity campaign by the USRC. I feel the
USRC is on a
bi=
t of a crusade to somehow pressure change the FAIs rules and
uses the US
co=
ntests as a test lab.

I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.

Sean


Sean,

Since I am apparently part of this negative publicity campaign,
please answer how 80 pounds of lead in the cockpit is not an
issue with you? You have never responded to my comments on
the pitfalls of IGC CC rules. A skinny pilot in a Discus A has to
load up to MTOW that matches a heavy guy in a Discus B,
otherwise he is giving up a lot of performance. A heavy guy in
an ASW20 can not enter Club Class because he falls outside the
handicap range.

Our US sports class rules modify the handicap up and down to
allow for weight differences. Progressive, smart and safe. What
a concept.

For the record I have flown 8 IGC contests.

Former dictator,
Richard Walters 3R

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:35:57 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Nearly 60 signatures have been added to the petition for an FAI rues US Club Class. If you wish to add your signature, follow the link below. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...fb_connected=1 Sean F2

As part of preparing for the BOD meeting, and possible discussion of this topic,I did an analysis of the responses to the petition site. I used tha best data available to me, that is the SSA membership list, ranking list, and contest results. I did not go back more than 3 years. This was done 3 weeks ago and may be not completely current.
I found
56 responders
6 not SSA members
29 on the current ranking list and thus eligible to compete in US nationals
21 are known or believed to own or have ready availability of Club ships.
18 of those are IGC conforming.

As and update on current events, the US Club class was approved as part of the 2013 rules changes in Houston.
Currently the Mifflin contest has 14 entries in US Club of which 8 are on the IGC list. I'm hoping for 20 or more so we can continue to move toward Club becoming a class strong enough to be paired with classes other than Sports or, hopefully strong enough to stand on it's own.
UH

-Dave Leonard

(not now or ever on the US rules committee)

Be careful. If you keep writing thoughtful, sensible, well-informed things like this you won't stay off RC for long!

John Cochrane

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:47:58 PM UTC-8, wrote:


I'll work on the table and post it to a webpage.



Sean



Dear Sean. This is an interesting project. Actually reading the IGC rules and explaining how the US would use them "without exception" might do us all some good.



I have been working on a similar project, and will have a comparison table to go with the fall poll, where pilots can voice their opinions.



You’re looking for “annex A” here



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



Here are some particular issues you might answer for us. You propose to use the IGC rules "without exception," yet those rules make no mention of national or regional contests. For example,



How many pilots does it take to make a valid contest? (US: 8 finishers with score more than 40% of the winner)



IGC 1.3.2 If any one class does not have at least ten participants from at least five (four for Continental Championships) NACs on the first Championship day, the contest shall take place but no Champion will be declared.



What do you plan to do about that?



What kind of organization do you need (we have CD, rules committee etc)



1.4.2 Facilities The Organisers shall provide:

a. All facilities necessary for the satisfactory operation of the Championships.

b. The travel and living expenses for Stewards and Jury Members, other than the Chief Steward and Jury President.



2.2.1 Stewards The IGC-Bureau shall nominate a Chief Steward, at least one year prior to the event, plus at least one other Steward, of nationalities different to that of the Organisers,



2.2.2

International Jury

a. A nominated Jury shall consist of the President of the Jury plus two Members. The President shall be appointed by the IGC. Both Members shall normally be appointed by the IGC,



If you plan to use IGC rules "without exception" have fun getting all these people over to the US and paying for them.



Who gets to go to the contest? For US nationals, there is a ranking list, preferential entry procedure, etc. IGC rules:





3.1 SELECTION OF TEAMS Each NAC shall select its own Team Captain, competitors, and assistants.



3.2 QUALIFICATIONS A competitor must be a citizen or resident of the country of the entering NAC and satisfy the conditions of the FAI Sporting Code, General Section 3.7 on citizenship and representation, and must;

a. Hold a gold badge, or, hold a silver badge and have competed in at least two National Championships;

b. Have flown at least 250 hours as a pilot in command, of which at least 100 hours must be in sailplanes;

c. Hold a currently valid FAI Sporting Licence.....



Those are the rules. Can't go unless you've been to two nationals!



3.4.3

Pilots

a. Each NAC may enter the number of pilots approved by the IGC and specified in the Local Procedures, but not more than two pilots (two crews in the 20 metre Multi-seat Class) in any class, or 3 pilots in any class at Junior and Women Championships....



For Continental Championships with a limited number of nations participating the IGC Bureau may approve a higher number of pilots per class.





That sounds like fun. No more seeding list, the NAC says who gets to go..



What about equipment, inspections etc?



4.1.2 Each competing sailplane …

b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the configuration in which it will be flown.



Well, here's another big change. No showing up at 9 am on the first contest day. We need scrutineering, 72 hours before the contest starts. Why? Well, Sean wants to play by IGC rules without exception. Oh, yes, we need a scrutineer too.



Oh, and another subject dear to your heart, artificial horizons.



… No instruments permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be used during the contest. If carried on board they must be reported to the Organisers during the acceptance check and preferably be made inoperative. The Organisers may specify instruments and procedures covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.



Flight logs and flight recorders?



All remarks made during the inspection must be complied with not later than 20:00 on the day before the first scheduled competition day. By that time Flight Logs (see 5.4) from all FRs in use must also have been delivered to Competition Office. Noncompliance will result in denied competition launches



5.4 CONTROL PROCEDURES Flights shall be controlled by GNSS Flight Recorders (FR).

a. All FRs approved by the IGC up to two months prior to the Opening Day shall be accepted. A valid calibration certificate must be provided for each FR.

The FAI SC Section 3 requires that Flight Recorders have been calibrated within the previous 24 months.



Aah, that's interesting. No more of this loosey-goosey US rules letting Ilec SN10s or other non-certified flight recorders play. You WILL have an IGC certified recorder WITH calibration trace or else. I'm sure that will be popular with your club class.



We could go on. This is all nuts of course. These rules are simply not written to handle a national championships.



OK, enough.



What all countries who "use IGC rules" do, in fact, is to merge some aspects of IGC rules -- scoring formulas, in particular -- with a bunch of national rules. NOBODY uses IGC rules by themselves, because, as reading the rules makes clear, it simply is completely unworkable. EVERY country has their own modifications, in particular to the list of the club class pilots.



I hope you read the rules and produce the table. Then it will be clear what you are really advocating is that somebody write a whole new rule book somehow combining the two.



Now that sounds like a fun project



John Cochrane

John, you tout "without exception" several times. Nowhere in the petition text body does it state "without exception". Before the petition was made public I reviewed, edited and changed the text state "The purpose of this petition is to demonstrate the number of US pilots who want formation of the new US Club Class to adopt FAI (IGC) rules, handicaps and tasking philosophy". You are right in that EXACT adoption in nationals with IGC Stewards, Jury and so on is not relevant or practical. The "without exception" you keep bringing up again and again IS in the URL which was not editable before making public.


So this brings up a question. Have you actually read the petition or just the URL?

Your comments are noted and I welcome your help in creating a US Club Class based on IGC rules format.

Sean Franke, HA