Marc Ramsey wrote:

I know you've been a critic, and I
know you were instrumental in the compromise that got the EW approved.
But, the fact that the EW was ultimately approved indicates that GFAC
and the IGC do not operate without some influence from the larger
soaring community.

I believe that IGC shall operate under complete influence of the larger
soaring community,
not only some influence. Marc, you are about to prove everything always
suspected about GFAC!

The compromise you are talking about was an official Swedish proposal to
the IGC meeting in 1997, which was deemed so severe that there had to be
a special pre-meeting in order to persuade me to think twice, which I
fortunately did not.


I am a computer geek. That's why I was appointed to GFAC. If you want
a political argument, try Ian or Bernald.

And I am a highly trained engineer in Structural Engineering. Although I
am an engineer, the worst thing I know is to let engineers solve all
problems. Because as an engineer, and I am one, you are trained to find
a "hardware" solution to all problems, even if it is a "software"
problem. And this often means a solution which is much to technical and
complicated. There is a German saying "Warum einfach machen wenn man es
so schön komplizieren kann". I think GFAC is using this as their motto.


But, within GFAC, it is necessary to balance the
interests of the pilots and manufacturers, at the same operating under
the restrictions implied by being a subcommittee of the IGC.


So GFAC is making rules/policies of their own? And what do GFAC think is
in the interest of pilots and manufacturers? Has that policy ever been
approved by the IGC? I thought GFAC was a committee whose work was
regulated by Terms-of Reference.

Now I rest my case.

Robert


Marc