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

[hotel...@gmail.com]

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/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/

Sean Franke
US Club Class Team Member

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:
> The U.S. is moving towards recognizing the Club Class in 2013.

Can I fly my whale ? Its not on the IGC handicap list ;-(

[Sean F (F2)]

For those of you who may wish to remain anonymous but still wish to sign this petition, you basically have 2 options.

1) you can choose to show your name, city and state is all that is displayed (your address and other info remains private and is only used to validate the signature by the petition target (SSA Rules Committee) if needed.

2) you can check a box to remain anonymous. Your City, State appears but your name does not. The name will be visible to the petition targets if the petition signatures are requested for validation.

The petition targets (US RC) may try and disqualify some of our signatures based on little or no contest experience, little or no SSA contest participation, glider currently owned, etc. Perhaps a statement on your enthusiasm for a true racing class vs. SSA rules (all existing US classes). Please consider adding some basic information on your background, contest history and the glider you own, fly etc so that we can show the US RC that YOU ARE worth considering.

Here is some additional petition signature information that you may find useful:

LINK TO FAQ -> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petitionfaqs.html

Who will see my signature information?

There are several ways your signature information may be shared:

Public Petition Signature pages. Certain fields will be displayed on the publicly displayed signature page for all to see. Your email address, street address and telephone number are never displayed on this page. You are always given the option to check a box to hide your name, and replace it with the word "anonymous." You are also required to preview your signature before you submit it, to prevent mistakes.

Petition Author / Target. At the close of the petition, we provide all of the signature information to the petition author with the exception of your email address, street address and telephone number. These fields of information will only be shared with the petition author and target on a case by case basis to verify the validity of your signature.

Your Privacy is Important: PetitionSite.com and Care2.com believe in protecting personal privacy on line. To this end, we are a member of the independent watchdog group, Truste.org. Please see our full privacy statement on Care2.com.

Sincerely,

Sean Fidler
F2
Lak17a
7T
ASG-29

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:

[Evan Ludeman]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:

Did it ever occur to you guys to ask for an RC waiver to do what you want at a super regional level?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[John Cochrane]

>
> Did it ever occur to you guys to ask for an RC waiver to do what you want at a super regional level?
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

It occurred to the RC to suggest that option to them.

Here's how we introduce new classes and rules changes: Try it by
waiver at regionals. See if its popular with pilots, and work out the
many (in this case) operational details. If successful, they become a
regular part of regionals rules. If successful, they move to
nationals.

Here's what we tend not to do: Sign petitions to get the SSA board to
overturn the RC, announce in February that a contest in May will have
a quite different list of acceptable gliders, meaning that many pilots
planning to attend will be sent home, fly under rules that almost none
of the participating pilots have read or flown under, requiring the
writing of complex local procedures, no available CDs with any
experience in said rules, new scoring program to be mastered, new
weighing and handicap procedures to be mastered, everything in metric
units, procedures for mixing this contest with another one to be
worked out, etc. etc. etc.

A few super-regionals by waiver would be an excellent way to try this
concept, gauge how popular it really is, and begin to develop the
experience with a totally different way of doing things that this
proposal requires.

John Cochrane

[herbk...@gmail.com]

What's up Sean, another day, another petition?
I thought you were busy working out the details for a Grand Prix event, you know rules and such and of course the hold-harmless releases for the organizer. Good luck with all these initiatives.

[Sean F (F2)]

Ha ha. The goal with the petition is simply to see determine how many US club pilots desire more of a FAI tasking philosophy than is currently part of the US Club Class guidelines. There are some big concerns about including the very low performance gliders in with the US Club class (233, 135, etc). Partly because the new US Club class will be the US Team qualification path for the Club Class World Championship. Partly because a segment of pilots would like to see the US make at least one effort to keep the US Club Class as close to the world standard as possible.

My hope is the petition justifies further consideration of slight changes or clarifications to the tasking guidelines for our US Club Class. I also agree that it is important to retain many of the safety and attendance minded elements of US Soarings rules. Overall the SSA and the RC are doing an excellent job on all fronts protecting attendance and working to grow the sport within the USA. In some ways the US is leading in terms of rules philosophy.

I have grown to appreciate the basic principles of the US rules vs. FAI in certain ways. I get it. That said I think there is room to define US Club Class tasking which would go along way towards improving the racing quality of the new US Club Class while maintaining US safety principles.

So, in other words, petition is intended measure the level of enthusiasm within the potential US Club Class pilot (club glider owner) "population" AND perhaps encourage the RC to considering some slight changes (perhaps just clarifications) to the current US Club Class tasking guidelines.

The petition is NOT intended to be a protest or complaint. It is a litmus test really. If only a few sign it, then its meaningless. If many sign it, you guys can use it to judge the importance of that information and what to do with it.

I hope it all works out and newly excited pilots remain this energized! This new US Club Class has tremendous potential.

Sincerely,

Sean

P.S. - I plan to do a small, informal GP even in Ionia next summer. I am not going to do any remote support of a GP event in a western local. Probably going to be around 10 gliders over 3-5 days in July. It will be SSA wavered and sanctioned if I do it. More later.

[karls.ea...@gmail.com]

If a better showing at world gliding comps is the reason for the lobbying for a change of the US sport/club class rules, one has to wonder why those leading the charge have not addressed the matter of team selection rules.

One rule prohibits pilots like Doug Jacobs and John Cochrane, to name just two, who, having flown in a FAI WGC, are barred from representing the US.

The latest dumbing down of the US Club team rules is the restriction in gliders that can be flown. Is there any doubt that DJ, this year's Sport class winner, would be our best choice? He is ineligible both because he's flown (and won) a WGC and his ship is a percent or two out of the handicap range (read: he has to fly that much faster to win).

The Sports class handicap system the US uses selects the best pilot regardless of all the whining from the crowd that would like to see the winner selected from a vastly reduced field ala the mercifully euthanized PW-5 fiasco.

As to the petition being brandished about, my reaction is to request all who appreciate the excellent rule making process the US competition soaring community enjoys contact their regional directors and ask them to give it all the consideration it deserves; i.e, send it to the circular file.

Karl Striedieck

[Mike C]

I see no reason why a former FAI team member can not fly and represent the USA in the Worlds, if he or she qualifies in a Club Class Nationals. I do see the reason why handicapping should be kept tight and within comparable limits set by the IGC.

Mike

[acm...@gmail.com]

USA Club Class WGC pilots are no longer restricted. Anyone can qualify, even former world champs. This was announced about two years ago.

Rick Walters
USTC

[karls.ea...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry for the obsolete reference. This is what the current US Team website says:

1.5 The Sport Class Nationals are used to select pilots for the Club Class WGC. Pilots who have been a contestant in a previous WGC contest (except club class, World Class, Junior and Feminine events)are not eligible for selection to the US WGC Club Class team.

However, it doesn't alter the point that the petition should be ignored and those concerned with the best interests of the entire US soaring competition community should work within its rule making process. Run for a seat on the committee (no candidate this year), convey your opinions to the RC, suggest questions for the pilot poll, speak out at RC sessions at contests, etc.

And the point remains that the cream-of-the-crop candidates who would make the best showing for the US are effectively out of the running because their gliders have been excluded, and the practical and financial aspects of finding and flying a second glider are realistically reserved for the idle rich.

Furthermore, it is fantasy to believe some minor tweaks of the rules (start line shape, assigned tasks for instance) will produce faster pilots at WGC's. 99% of the game is on course and consists of two elements: obtaining the highest average lift and least average sink.

Karl Striedieck

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:33:33 PM UTC-5, acm...@gmail.com wrote:
> USA Club Class WGC pilots are no longer restricted. Anyone can qualify, even former world champs. This was announced about two years ago. Rick Walters USTC On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:50:56 PM UTC-8, ka...@uplink.net wrote: > If a better showing at world gliding comps is the reason for the lobbying for a change of the US sport/club class rules, one has to wonder why those leading the charge have not addressed the matter of team selection rules. > > > > One rule prohibits pilots like Doug Jacobs and John Cochrane, to name just two, who, having flown in a FAI WGC, are barred from representing the US. > > > > The latest dumbing down of the US Club team rules is the restriction in gliders that can be flown. Is there any doubt that DJ, this year's Sport class winner, would be our best choice? He is ineligible both because he's flown (and won) a WGC and his ship is a percent or two out of the handicap range (read: he has to fly that much faster to win). > > > > The Sports class handicap system the US uses selects the best pilot regardless of all the whining from the crowd that would like to see the winner selected from a vastly reduced field ala the mercifully euthanized PW-5 fiasco. > > > > As to the petition being brandished about, my reaction is to request all who appreciate the excellent rule making process the US competition soaring community enjoys contact their regional directors and ask them to give it all the consideration it deserves; i.e, send it to the circular file. > > > > Karl Striedieck

US team web site needs an update to show the latest version reflecting this change.
KS lack of current info is understandable.
UH

[hotel...@gmail.com]

> Sorry for the obsolete reference. This is what the current US Team website says:
> 1.5 The Sport Class Nationals are used to select pilots for the Club Class WGC. Pilots who have been a contestant in a previous WGC contest (except club class, World Class, Junior and Feminine events)are not eligible for selection to the US WGC Club Class team.
> However, it doesn't alter the point that the petition should be ignored and those concerned with the best interests of the entire US soaring competition community should work within its rule making process. Run for a seat on the committee (no candidate this year), convey your opinions to the RC, suggest questions for the pilot poll, speak out at RC sessions at contests, etc.
> And the point remains that the cream-of-the-crop candidates who would make the best showing for the US are effectively out of the running because their gliders have been excluded, and the practical and financial aspects of finding and flying a second glider are realistically reserved for the idle rich.

> Karl Striedieck

This petition offers valid feedback. In fact, I don't recall a pilots poll in the past inquiring on this exact topic. I'm interested in finding out if there are enough pilots who want a choice. Throwing out feedback because they may be concerned about results is irresponsible. The RC is proposing a new US racing class. Let's not assume this new class should be set up like other US classes. Taking a different approach may help grow the sport after many years of decline.

This is not about team selection or WGC preparation. Although is does bring up promising possibilities.

I have heard before that guys with $100,000+ gliders are at a disadvantage because they cant afford a $15,000 club class glider. Club Class gliders are not difficult to borrow. If this is a problem then please contact me. I'll help. I suppose if someone was really serious about flying Club Class and being on the US Team they could SELL their $100,000 glider. Then go Club Class.

Sean Franke

[Sean F (F2)]

I was not aware of that limitation on Worlds Qualification. That is, if what you are saying is true, a really bad rule. I agree 100% that the "best" pilots should be sent to the World Championships. That results in dynasty (same pilot every year ala Kawa), but that is what being a "Champion" is all about. Clearly Doug is an outstanding pilot. No debate there...

That said, definitively stating that DJ or KS or HA or R are the "best" under our US Sports Class rule system (assuming the goal is sending the best pilot to the Club Class World Championships) is a very, very interesting discussion. Until a couple weeks ago, US Sports Class rules included the entire range of all sailplanes built to date (126 - ASW 25+) under a handicap system which does not take into account the average speed of that particular task day. In my view this a massive, glaring flaw that will almost certainly favor certain gliders on certain days (or at certain contest locations). Furthermore, If less than 12 gliders participate in the new "Club" class at the 2013 Sports/Club? Nationals, we will still default back to these same US Sports Class rules.

In sailing, for example, performance handicaps are driven by a defined variable called "average wind strength."

http://offshore.ussailing.org/Portsmouth_Yardstick.htm

The reason for this method is that on strong wind days certain sailboat designs have greatly improved performance relative to other boats (ability to plane downwind, etc). On light air days the opposite, etc, etc. Before this factor was accounted for in the handicapping, all competitors basically knew who was going to win based on the weather forecast. Participation slowly dropped as confidence in the handicap fell off in locations that were predominantly windy (east coast) or light air (great lakes). In response, a wind speed variable was built into the handicap system to ensure fairer scoring in each individual race. The handicap changes slightly for each boat thru the wind range.

The same problem exists in sailplane racing but still only one handicap applies regardless of the day having an average speed of 35 mph or 90 mph! Depending on the contest location, gliders of certain performance ranges will have significant advantages over many others. If you have a Libelle, you are looking for certain conditions. If you have an ASW-27, your hoping for another condition. The good news is that soaring has a far more objective variable to utilize for handicap tuning, average task speed of the top pilots!

In my opinion, trying to handicap a 126 vs. an ASW-25 with one handicap is next to impossible. The gliders are flying thru massively different area's and conditions on each racing day. Mix in MAT tasking, no AT's and you have something that is highly subjective, susceptible to luck and vastly different from the FAI rules of the World Championship. It is just to broad to fairly manage the dynamics of racing a very low performance glider vs. a very high performance glider. So, splitting into narrower handicap ranges is a great improvement! Having average speed dependent variable handicapping would be another...

Back to the best pilot. At the 2012 Sports Class Nationals (Parowan, UT) DJ flew a glider well above the FAI Club Class handicap range (Ventus 2cx-15) in a location which produced very high average speeds. In a location like Parowan, a high performance glider spends considerable time within its ideal polar range relative to older "FAI club level" gliders (running speeds of 100 mph+). DJ won the 2012 Sports Class Nationals by 105 points over 2nd (ASW-20), and 142 over 3rd (Duo Discus). An impressive feat although it all came down to the final flying day. Regardless, daily winning speeds were incredibly fast for nearly the entire week:

Day 1: 61 mph - Day 2: 91 mph - Day 3: 92 mph - Day 4: 85 mph - Day 5: 85 mph - Day 6: 85 mph - Day 7: 88 mph

If we are talking about who is the "best" US pilot to fly in the Club Class World Championships I fear that there is still tremendous room for debate. That is the problem.

The closer we get to the rules of the Club Class World Championship (or any other World Championship), the better prepared the pilot we send as the US representative will be. And the more satisfied the other pilots will be that the best pilot has been selected.

[John Dezzutti]

A big thank you to the members of the rules committe for their hard work to
manage the playground and provide me with a place to play our game. I for
one appreciate all that you do and what you endure on our behalf!

[Tim Taylor]

Sean,

I think you bring up good points. I think part of the concern is valid for all classes, not just Sports. The new rules will help to split out the club class gliders into their own group for tasking. I was on the task committee at Parown and we always focused on the PW5 to set the task. Would have been nice to be able to set speed tasks for the narrower club class range.

I flew a Standard Jantar 2 in 2010 and paid the price on windy days with big holes. As we saw this year the smart pilots brought higher performance ships to get club class team points. Current system requires multiple ships if you are a serious club class pilot for the conditions expected. A strong 15m for west and a good Standard class ship on the east coast.

I think we need rules forcing more speed tasks in all nationals. TAT are interesting, but AST's teach a set of skills the top pilots need as well of international flying.

TT

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:08:48 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I was not aware of that limitation on Worlds Qualification. That is, if what you are saying is true, a really bad rule. I agree 100% that the "best" pilots should be sent to the World Championships. That results in dynasty (same pilot every year ala Kawa), but that is what being a "Champion" is all about. Clearly Doug is an outstanding pilot. No debate there... That said, definitively stating that DJ or KS or HA or R are the "best" under our US Sports Class rule system (assuming the goal is sending the best pilot to the Club Class World Championships) is a very, very interesting discussion.

There was a limitation for a number of years that kept many previous US Team members from being on the Club class team. That, and the limitation of gliders that could be used in team selection, was intended to give the "little guys" one class where they could get a leg up and get world championship experience.
The hope was to jump start the team from the bottom up. If someone thinks they have a chance( even if it is and illusion, given the other good pilots in the class), maybe they will give it a try.
This exercise in social engineering did not succeed, and was eliminated. Personally I was dissapointed that only a couple people, RW being one, took the opportunity presented.
A little background FWIW
UH

[Evan Ludeman]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:14:48 AM UTC-5, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:

> This petition offers valid feedback.

I think a lot of us are thinking "No, it just stirs the pot".

> The RC is proposing a new US racing class.

Not really. They are extending what's been tried and proven at the regional level to a Nationals.

> This is not about team selection or WGC preparation.

I call BS. Exhibit "A" for the prosecution is your use of the word "Nationals" in your "petition".

If I wanted to sell a (nearly) pure IGC rules CC in the US, this is what I would do:

1. Study the rules until I had 'em cold. Determine what, if anything, absolutely had to be adjusted for US use. Determine what, if anything, might be *desirably* adjusted for US use, without compromising the essential character of the race I was trying to create.

2. Figure out how to support the CD and scorer.

3. Find a site and a sponsor, sell them. Find a CD and scorer, sell them.

4. With all that in hand, or at least well on the way, sell the RC on granting me a waiver for a *regional or super regional* contest. Be ready for the inevitable discussion of rules, safety implications and so forth. Concentrate really, really hard on what is *most* important and try earnestly to capture that in the inevitable compromise. Be prepared to negotiate everything else as needed to make it work.

Because you give evidence of having done almost none of the foregoing, people aren't taking you seriously. Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.

Constructively,

Evan Ludeman / T8

[hotel...@gmail.com]

Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.
>
> Constructively,
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.

It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.

Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?

Sean Franke

[Evan Ludeman]

If that's all you can find to nitpick, then I guess the rest of the message found its mark?

The way I see it, *if* we ran American Sports next to FAI CC at Mifflin (which we won't), we'd more or less double the admin load. That's a solvable problem (maybe a second scorer / assistant CD, whatever). But the point is, our normal process is to try out the bright ideas at the regional level and develop a base of experience that can be shared when it's time to run a Nationals.

Personally, I'm curious to see how shutting out the "killer bees" (that would be ASW-20Bs, Ventus Bs, LS-6Bs) and their kin is going to help participation. The best evidence available so far suggests that it could reduce participation by about 25% (I'm looking at R9 the last couple years). Again, the better environment to sort this out is at the regional level.

Good luck.

T8, out.

[Sean F (F2)]

Thanks Tim!

[Sean F (F2)]

The Rules Committee are a wonderful group of very bright and friendly people who want nothing more than the best for our sport. We all have great respect for them personally and as pilots. I commend them for the efforts, passion and idea's! Rules can be a challenge, especially when they are changed. Our US rules are also used in part as a mechanism to govern other essential and important area's of the sport such as safety, fun factors and turning decline into growth. There are compromises that must be made. Sailplane "racing" remains the key focus of the racing rules. I too have sat on many boards both professionally and in sport. Open, fluid communication and friendly debate is the path to win/win outcomes. Reaching out aggressively and listening to as many people (customers and competitors) as possible has always been the key (for me) in getting thru heated debates or challenges.

With that, there are (already) 25 signatures on the US Club Class FAI petition requesting that the new US Club Class adopt more FAI "like" rules. This petition has only been open for 6 days. The 25 signers include a number of top pilots within the former "US sports class" who ACTUALLY OWN CLUB CLASS SHIPS. The signers include several past US World Team pilots. They also include the two top US "Club Class" pilots who will be representing the USA in a month at the World Championships in Argentina. It appears, at minimum, that a significant number of very important pilots (ranging from highly experienced to less, young and old...) appear to want a US Club Class which is fairly different than what has been proposed by the US RC. That is odd. What is even more odd is that nobody appears to have reached out to them.

Shouldn't the US pilots who own club level gliders - who have chosen to fly club gliders in sports class - who own them today and flown them proudly for many years - who are very happy with club gliders and not interested (or perhaps able or interested in affording) in pursuing ownership of more expensive 15/18/Open gliders - and who want (a bit) more of an (FAI) "racing" experience - be heard regarding the rules of a new class of Club Class gliders in the USA? Are they being heard? Were they even asked? If not, why not?

How was a decision to create a new US "Club Class" arrived at if this many key pilots appear to want FAI "like" tasking and gliders? My understanding is that none of the petition signers were asked or contacted by the rules committee and asked for input. The poll sent out by the US rules committee did not ask this question directly or present it as an option. Is the "polling strategy" utilized by the SSA rules committee asking the right questions? Is it, perhaps, too ambiguous or open to interpretation?

It appears that the interests of those who own and fly club level gliders may NOT been heard. This Club Class FAI petition and the people who have signed it are asking, nicely but LOUDLY, for a US Club Class which is much, much "closer" to the established Club Class flown everywhere else on the planet. Initially, that appears NOT to be an option which is on the table. Why not?

My understanding is that the rules committee will be making a final recommendation to the SSA Board of Directors in February (23rd). Perhaps the signers of this petition (especially owners of actual club class gliders) should also make recommendations to the SSA Board? Ultimately, I would love to see an outcome here that makes this important US Club group thrilled and excited vs. feeling ignored. And ignored is the feeling right now unfortunately. I hope a meaningful dialogue begins before this winter meeting occurs.

In the end it is all about the Club Class glider owners! The Sports Class can and should remain unchanged (minus the club ships interested in the FAI like rules). Any club glider that does not want to fly in the US Club Class with more FAI like rules (for whatever reason) remains in sports!

WIN - WIN!!!!!, nobody is left behind, EVERYBODY HAS A GREAT CHOICE!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

[scottandre...@gmail.com]

I'm for a seperate club class nationals. I would love to compete in one.

Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??

[acm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:35:58 AM UTC-8, scottandre...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm for a seperate club class nationals. I would love to compete in one.
>
>
>
> Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??

Scott, Sarah Arnold and Sean Franke are the two highest ranking US Club Class pilots and will be flying in Argentina. They qualified by flying gliders listed on the US CC list. No one was barred from the team.
Richard Walters
US Team Committee Chair

[John Cochrane]

On Nov 27, 8:35 am, scottandrewalexan...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm for a seperate club class nationals.  I would love to compete in one.
>

There will be a separate club class nationals, at Mifflin. See you
there.

The question is the definition of "club class" and the rules to be
followed.

Class: 1) the current IGC list for Argentina 2) the US team "club
class" list that has been in force for many years, which extends the
handicap range very slightly and allows many gliders not on the IGC
list 3) #2 plus all lower performing gliders, so the latter are not
shut out of US national competition.

If you're voting for #1, do you own such a glider, and are you on the
seeding list? Have you looked at the numbers of such gliders showing
up to previous sports class nationals to gauge if sufficient gliders
will show up?

If you're voting for #1 or #2, what is your plan for lower performance
gliders? (No, Sean, 1-26 + Nimbus 4 does not work with the middle cut
out. We need a realistic plan backed by numbers.)

Rules: Are you joining Sean in the idea that Mifflin should use IGC
rules (plus local procedures yet to be written), despite nobody in the
US having tried to run a national contest under said rules (except the
team that ran Uvalde, and I can guarantee they're not coming to CD
Mifflin), all but 1 or 2 pilots who have been to WGC never having
flown under said rules and no evidence that anyone has read them?

If the issue is club class in general, and the general plan for the
future, despite the wildly misleading tone of Sean's post, it's there
for the asking. We've been running club class regionals for several
years, to try to build interest in the class. Sean, where have you
been? (At regionals, the issue of lower performance being shut out is
a bit less pressing, as there is more competition from nearby
regionals.)

If anyone wants to run one under IGC rules, he's welcome. If IGC rules
work, and attract pilots at regionals, and everyone having tried it
thinks it's more fun, they move to nationals. That's the standard
procedure. Not, jump off a cliff and see if the parachute opens.

If the issue is club class in general, this year's plan for Mifflin
sports nationals is designed as a sensible next step, which preserves
the knowledge gained in regional competition and keeps the sports
class alive.

> Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??

Not sure what you mean by this. The club class team for 2013 Argentina
won fair and square and have the highest ranking according to the US
team selection formula. If you mean, why are other pilots who you
think are better not going, (such as the actual winners of previous
sports class contests) it's simple: Because the US team and SSA paid a
lot of attention to similar requests from club class advocates and
restricted team selection to those who entered sports class in club
class gliders. (Yes, they do listen. Maybe too much, according to your
comment.)

John Cochrane

[acm...@gmail.com]

RE IGC rules and scoring for CC

Some things to consider when contemplating using IGC rules for the new Club Class Nationals.

1. Start line procedure - speed control, safety.
2. Finish line- straight in rolling finishes? Good practice for WGC, but is this what we want to do? Does the airport support such finishes?
3. PRL ( pilot ranking list)- pilots flying in CC nats using IGC scores will find they score about 15% less than they did under US rules. This will impact PRL seeding, and possibly the ability to enter oversubscribed contests ( Perry and Seniors.) Small point, but something to be aware of.

Regards

[hotel...@gmail.com]

> 1. Start line procedure - speed control, safety.
>
> 2. Finish line- straight in rolling finishes? Good practice for WGC, but is this what we want to do? Does the airport support such finishes?

1. A start line AND start ring are both options under IGC rules. IF the CD CHOOSES a start line then I envision two start areas. Multiple start zones have already been done in the US. Sports Class will use a standard start cylinder. Club Class IGC MAY use a line start which would be nearby but not overlapping. Separating half the fleet may be safer as well. The CD can still limit start height in IGC.

2. A finish line AND finish ring are both options under IGC rules. I would expect if an IGC Club Class is coupled with a US based rules class then they would have the SAME finish ring and finish altitude. When/where applicable a European style finish could be used.

>If anyone wants to run one under IGC rules, he's welcome. If IGC rules
work, and attract pilots at regionals, and everyone having tried it
thinks it's more fun, they move to nationals. That's the standard
procedure. Not, jump off a cliff and see if the parachute opens

The petition has 7 (and growing) current or former US Team Members who prefer IGC rules for the Club Class. These are pilots who have tried both sides. The fun, ease and simpleness of IGC WILL attract more pilots.

Let's be realistic. We can be confident if the parachute has been tried, works and tested internationally then it will work here as well.

Sean Franke

[Evan Ludeman]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:28:47 PM UTC-5, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:
> The fun, ease and simpleness of IGC WILL attract more pilots.

Specifics, please. I haven't studied the IGC rules, and neither have most American pilots. What are the essential differences that are going to make this class a winner?

So far, I think I've got:

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

2. No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs.

3. No speed or altitude limits prior to the start.

4. Much more emphasis on ATs.

5. Score everything according to FAI rules.

What did I miss?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[John Cochrane]

>
> So far, I think I've got:
>
> 1.  No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low performance gliders when task setting.
>
> 2.  No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs.

Actually, under IGC rules, each contest gets to make its own list,
depending on the gliders available. So "use IGC rules" and "further
restrict the US club class list to the list used in Argentina" are
separate requests.

>
> 3.  No speed or altitude limits prior to the start.

Actually, you can put in speed limits and altitude limits.

What you can't do is the US 2 minute under altitude limits, the US
start out the top, the US credit for distance rules or our cylinders
It has to be a line.

So, with altitude limits you get VNE dives to the line. Sometimes out
of the clouds. People have given up on speed limits, because you can't
tell in the cockpit what the speed will read out on see you later. At
Uvalde after days of harangue they gave up and used unlmited altitude,
which meant half the field started in wave on a few days. At Szeged
most of the gaggle circled around in the cloud before the unlimited
altitude start. Fun stuff. Advocates have a point, if you want to go
do this stuff at the worlds, practicing at home will help a lot.

>
> 4.  Much more emphasis on ATs.

A rule mandating the fraction of AT and TAT. Uvalde sent them off in
to thunderstorms on ATs because they didn't want to use up the
mandated fraction of TAT which they might need on even worse days to
come. An interesting unintended conseqence of putting in a mandated
fraction of task types.

>
> 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.


John Cochrane

[hotel...@gmail.com]

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

[hotel...@gmail.com]

> So, with altitude limits you get VNE dives to the line. Sometimes out

> of the clouds. Fun stuff. Advocates have a point, if you want to go

> do this stuff at the worlds, practicing at home will help a lot.

8.7 LIST OF APPROVED PENALTIES, page 34
Cloud flying: 100pts first offense, day disqual - second offense, Disqualification - max penalty.

> 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.

> 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.

> John Cochrane

Keep in mind we are not proposing changing existing US Classes. We are hoping to create a new racing class and positive experience NOT available in the US. It is ONE class. Give US pilots a choice. Seeing how the petition is developing, it's clear a strong voice is growing.

I think the picture painted above about IGC rules is a bit DRAMATIC. I certainly didn't experience that in Prievidza 2010 WGC. I think safety and successful tasking varies according to contest management. That is no different in the US.

>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?

Interesting comment. Besides a refreshing alternative do you think this new class could serve as training for US Team pilots?

Sean Franke

[Richard Walters]

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

[hotel...@gmail.com]

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

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 07:42:32 UTC-7, hotel...@gmail.com 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/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-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

[hotel...@gmail.com]

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

Sean Franke

[Sean F (F2)]

Great conversation developing here!

[Richard Walters]

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, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:

[Richard Walters]

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

[Richard Walters]

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, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:

[Richard Walters]

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, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:

[Richard Walters]

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, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:

[Richard Walters]

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, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:

[hotel...@gmail.com]

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

Sean Franke

[Ron Gleason]

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

[hotel...@gmail.com]

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

Sean Franke

[Evan Ludeman]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:25:04 AM UTC-5, hotel...@gmail.com 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

[Evan Ludeman]

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

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

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)

[John Cochrane]

> 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

[Scott Alexander]

> > Can somebody explain why on earth our highest ranking pilots are barred from competition in the 2013 Argentina WGC??
>

> Not sure what you mean by this......
> John Cochrane

I understand the rules which prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to
compete in WGC 2013 in Argentina. My question to all reading this
forum is why we're these rules created? What's the reason for this
rule to prohibit a pilot like Doug Jacobs to compete in a club class
world championship? Just curious of the history behind how this came
about.

[John Godfrey (QT)]

This

This restriction was dropped per the announcement on the SSA website Sept 2010 and ratified by the SSA BOD Jan 2011.
QT

[acm...@gmail.com]

Scott,

Please read Hank's earlier post. He explains why the CC selection was limited in the past. The experiment is over and now anyone can qualify. DJ has not moved up to a CC aircraft, so he can not qualify.

Richard Walters

[Ron Gleason]

Other than the 1-26 class I not sure how the SSA RC has allowed anything other than Winscore in the past. I see no problems using SeeYou Competition, like any scoring program you need experience with it. There are a number of 'administrative' steps that become manual with SeeYou.

[John Cochrane]

>
> Other than the 1-26 class I not sure how the SSA RC has allowed anything other than Winscore in the past.  I see no problems using SeeYou Competition, like any scoring program you need experience with it.  There are a number of 'administrative' steps that become manual with SeeYou.

There is no rules-required official scoring program. Use a slide rule
if you want to. 1-26ers use their own program.

John Cochrane

[Ron Gleason]

T

Thanks John, need to find and dust off that slide ruler!

[Sean F (F2)]

The SeeYou scoring module very easy to use with FAI rules. SeeYou was highly successfully when used by the American scorers during the 2012 World Championship in Uvalde this [ast summer. They all had minimal previous experience with it. I am sure other scorer's could pick it up just as easily.

SeeYou is good software, well supported by Naviteer and used by many major contests worldwide. Utilizing this software for the 2013 US FAI Club Class Nationals would be plug and play simple. My wife is excellent with both SeeYou and WinScore. She would be happy to help score (or fully score) for the contests I attend in 2013. I am also willing to train via GoToMeeting anytime...

Sean
F2

[Sean F (F2)]

Here is a link to the manual for SeeYou Competition: http://download.naviter.com/docs/cucompetition.pdf

It is a quick, simple read...

[Ron Gleason]

F2 wrote - They all had minimal previous experience with it

this is an untrue statement, some of us, including me, have much experience with SeeYou Competition. Make sure you have your facts correct.

Will be watching to see how this unfolds, good luck. I support the SSA competition committee approach, I fly a ASW20 BL 8-)

[Sean F (F2)]

Ron,

Thanks for clarifying. I was not aware of previous US Scorer experience with SeeYou Competition. This is very useful.

May I ask you to expound on this "MUCH" experience with See You Competition and US Scorers? Please be specific and list what competitions you (or others) have scored using SeeYou Comp. I would be shocked if you cite competitions in the USA. Or did you (or others) go overseas (any other gliding country in the World that does not use US rules)?

Could you further expound on what your previous experience was like in terms of initial learning curve, ease of use, etc.

How would you rate your experience using SeeYou Competition at the 2012 Uvalde World Championships (with this MUCH previous experience)?

Was SeeYou Comp reasonably easy to use? Was it unusable?

How does it compare to Winscore? What were your impressions on the FAI rules vs. US Rules? I understand you are biased to the US rules (per your comment). Nonetheless, your insigt is most welcomed.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2/7T

[Ron Gleason]

Sean, I am not fighting you on this issue, rather I am very interested how a contest would be validated by the SSA competition committee if WINSCORE was not used. If SeeYou competition is used 'out of the box' and *no* specialized script was used than it should be simple. If a specialized script is written and used then that would be, in my opinion, a different ball for the SSA competition committee and the competitors. I would also like to see SeeYou used for scoring of SSA sanctioned competitions but I am not sure that SeeYou can be customized enough via it's scripting to support all of the current SSA competition rules.

Regarding specifics of others all I can accurately report on is that the 2011 contests in Uvalde, pre-Worlds, was scored using SeeYou by Leo Buckley.

My experience with SeeYou Comp comes from HG competitions, same circus different clowns. No accurate way to describe MUCH, like asking how long will it take to Solo a glider? It depends.

Which is easier or better to score with? Again, it is like asking which is a better glider; ASW-27B or Ventus-2BX? It depends on many factors.

Both programs work well and if the person(s) driving them is PC literate and process oriented it helps greatly.

Areas of comparison(s):

Administration and setup - The advantage goes to WINSCORE as it is integrated with the SSA contest registration facilities and the only manual efforts you need are to reflect changes. Furthermore WINSCORE understands multiple classes within a single competition, 15M, 18M etc, and easily handles it.

Handling of flight logs - equivalent. SeeYou allows for automatic scanning of directories thus allowing for auto detection of new logs. If you want to allow flight submission via email then SeeYou can provide full automation of flight log detection, scoring and electronic production and publishing of scores. One major difference between the two programs is how a log is tied to a competitor; SeeYou uses the 3 character flight logger identifier (not serial number) and WINSCORE uses the contest id. How many pilots know their flight logger id? Of their backup logger(s)? There are ways to manually associate logs and pilot the first time within SeeYou. Not hard to do but is a procedural difference for the pilots.

Handling exceptions - Slight advantage to WINSCORE. Both problems flag or warn of errors found like start height, finish height, airspace and the scorer has to go validate the error and assign the penalty. While both programs identify WINSCORE recommends the value of the penalty. With SeeYou you either look up the penalty in the FAI rulebook and use the value or compute the value based on the formula provided.

Airspace and WP files - Both use files from the worldwide turnpoint website.

Task definition - Slight advantage to SeeYou. This is a very subjective one but many of us use SeeYou for defining tasks in our individual flying so we are familiar with.

Task sheets - very similar. SeeYou uses a format that many pilots are familiar with. If custom task sheets are used, as most SSA contest that I have been use, then WINSCORE is easier to cut and paste into a WORD document to start the creation process.

Scoresheets - very similar. The differences are formatting and procedural. WINSCORE is integrated with the SSA web site, SeeYou is integrated with www.soaringspot.com. The SeeYou results can easily be added to the SSA website but it would be a manual process instead of an automated one.

Archived flight logs - WINSCORE allows putting all IGC files in one zipped file and uploading to the SSA web site for easy down loads by competitors or racing fans. SeeYou uploads the IGC to www.soaringspot.com along with the scores *but* each IGC file must be downloaded individually.

Again either program will do the job, experience with them allows for smoother organization and scoring.

Regarding FAI versus US Rules. From a scoring perspective there is no difference, a scorer just needs to understand them and be prepared to apply them. There is no emotion involved when scoring. All of the differences, factual and emotional, that have been discussed between the rules have to do with pilot or safety issues. I have minimal, less than 10, SSA sanctioned competition experiences from a pilot perspective, more then 50 from my HG days including 3 world championships.

I am biased to the proposed US club class rules so that my ASW-20BL would be included 8-)

[K]

On Friday, November 30, 2012 11:39:25 AM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> Again, it is like asking which is a better glider; ASW-27B or Ventus-2BX?

No Brainer here. The 27.

[hotel...@gmail.com]

Ron, I'm curious. Would you rather fly your 20 b in Club Class or Sports class if both are held same time/place?
Sean Franke

[Ron Gleason]

On Friday, 30 November 2012 13:57:36 UTC-7, hotel...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ron, I'm curious. Would you rather fly your 20 b in Club Class or Sports class if both are held same time/place?
>
> Sean Franke

Club Class if contest is held in the west (strong conditions)
Sports Class if contest held in eastern 2/3rds of the country

I am using Parowan as an example, with stronger conditions, specifically wind, the long wings and heavy ships, DUO's and motor gliders and 18m, have the advantage. The performance spread is just too high when trying to determine good tasks.

[Sean F (F2)]

Ron,

To be honest, I was fairly open to a slight opening of the Club range as well. But as others point out, once you open that can of worms it will never end. The cleanest solution is to stick with the Club range. The compromise would be to task to the FAI Club handicap Range, but allow others to compete.

I hope that a narrow enough range is agreed upon that ensures a 50/50 split of AAT and AT. The key is reasonably challenging AT's for the top guys shooting for Worlds. We are talking about a National Championship here!

Thanks!

Sean

[Ron Gleason]

Sean I hear what you are saying but you have to find the balance to ensure enough participation while also maintaining a competitive landscape for all folks flying in the competition. I know that I am not going to be in contention to win a National Championship or participate at the world so if decide to fly a competition I view myself as a subsidizer. To justify the investment it takes to fly a competition I have to believe I will get something in return.

[Sean F (F2)]

Ron,

Sorry if this is already understood, but I want to clarify just in case. As this "US Club Class" conversation currently stands, the only 2013 event which MAY have a "US Club Class" would be the US Sports Class Nationals. US Sports Class will still exist "as is" for all regional events unless an organizer decides to apply for a waiver, etc. I am not aware of any contests planning on seeking a waiver yet, although I am considering it for Ionia. So, we are all looking at competing in "traditional" US rules based Sports Class for all 2013 US regional contests. Nothing changes there.

And, the 2013 Sports Class Nationals will only have a "US Club Class" IF 12+ gliders freely register for US Club Class AND are within the handicap range allowed (whatever it ends up being).

Personally, I do think pilots should have the option to stay in Sports class or choose to fly club (if flying a glider within the FAI Club Class handicap range, whatever that ends up being). This would offer all pilots with "Club" level ships the best of both worlds, free will options to choose either racing format and no chance for anybody to be "left behind." The question comes down to at what point do we over-extend the handicap range. Why not at least start with the established range (or very close to it)? In other words, Is this A) US "Club" Class or just B) US Sports Class low.

Sean

[John Cochrane]

No waiver is needed to run a club class regionals using whatever
handicap range you want. All that's needed is interested pilots and
contest organizer. Go for it.

5.7 ‡ † Competition Classes
5.7.1 ‡ † The gliders eligible to compete are described in Rule 6.12.
5.7.2 ‡ † A competition can include more than one handicapped class
5.7.2.1 ‡ † Entries to a competition class can be restricted based on
criteria specified by the contest organizers on the application
for sanction form. Possible criteria include (but are not limited to)
maximum wingspan or a handicap range (or a combination).
5.7.2.2 ‡ † The handicap ranges of competition classes may overlap.
5.7.2.3 ‡ † Competition classes can be labeled, promoted and tasked to
appeal to pilots by skill level rather than or in addition to
limitation on gliders.

The level of factually wrong assertions in this series of posts,
petition, and email campaign is not advancing the discussion

> And, the 2013 Sports Class Nationals will only have a "US Club Class" IF 12+ gliders freely register for US Club Class AND are within the handicap range allowed (whatever it ends up being).

And if you can't get 12 gliders to show up, the solution is to
further restrict the handicap range?

John Cochrane

[John Godfrey (QT)]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, hotel...@gmail.com 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/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/
>
>
>
> Sean Franke
>
> US Club Class Team Member

Sean(s),

I share BB's and UH's frustration with the level of nonsense in this thread.

Demanding that the organizer (KS) run the 2013 Club Class by FAI rules after the event being sanctioned and resources committed is simply a non-starter.

Gutting the contest to hold the Club Class somewhere else is also a non-starter.

Rather than all the bluster and rabble rousing rhetoric, commit your efforts to where your mouths are. Procure a waiver to run a regional club class contest under FAI rules by making the convincing case that it will not be less safe than one conducted under US Rules.

Hold the contest and demonstrate that it is popular (and take the financial risk).

I.e put up or shut up.

QT

[Sean F (F2)]

The distortion, ignorance of facts and double standards are nearing exceptional levels.

I am concerned that the US rules committee functions more like a "think tank" than a committee of ALL fellow soaring pilots.

1) It is an indisputable fact that the FAI Club Class is highly successful around the world IN EVERY SOARING COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE USA. Safety, participation and enjoyments are all very high at Club events. The USA has for many years chosen to disregard the world standards and run on its own with the entirely unique US Sports Class along with completely different rules for all other classes.

2) The ENTIRELY new class being recommended by the US Rules Committee for 2013 Nationals has virtually no similarity to the REST OF THE WORLD in any way other than stealing the Club Class name. This is a fact. Different rules, different handicap ranges, different tasking philosophy. It would be FAR LESS RISKY to simply adopt the same class guidelines (FAI Club) as are currently used WORLDWIDE! The US Rules committee has chosen, once again, to do something completely different than the rest of the world.

3) The Rules Committee has been asked for years to approve a US Club Class by US owners of FAI Club Class Gliders. They asked for a US Class which follows the basic guidelines of FAI Club Class. Many of these pilots who have been asking for the SSA to sanction a US Club Class are now very upset, as this is NOT what they asked for. Not even close. The rules committee seems to thumb its nose at these 30 (and growing) pilots. Many more will not sign a public petition or simply will continue NOT TO FLY US CONTESTS. Many of these pilots are or have been on the US World Team and seem to have some knowledge on the subject.

4) It seems as if this new class has more to do more with streamlining the new upper level of sports class (Discus 2 and up) by removing the bottom quarter of the handicap range (233, etc) than anything else, frankly. This might be the part where I should say "am I getting warmer?"

5) I cannot stress this one enough: You say WE are requesting "SOMETHING ENTIRELY NEW" for 2013 Nationals by arguing for much more adherence to the established FAI Club Rules. You say this means taking financial risk, etc? You tell us to ask for a waiver and do it at a regionals first. You tell me to PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS??? Ill get back to that later.

In fact, it is the US RULES COMMITTEE which has (somehow) come up with the idea to propose something entirely new (and completely out of alignment with the rest of the World in terms of Club Class) for US National Championship for 2013 with a class that has never been attempted anywhere in the WORLD, EVER!

6) Running a US Club Class (FAI based) at SC Nationals next spring would be no more a challenge than introducing the entirely new class which you are proposing. It would be simple. No MATS. 50% AT, 50 AAT. Established Club Class handicap Range. Some slight modifications are fine, but that should be the basic model. That would be the FAR LESS RISKY OPTION. What planet are you from? It is MUCH MORE RISKY to try something entirely new and completely foreign from the REST OF THE WORLD...

Sean

F2

[Andrzej Kobus]

If I remember correctly pilots called for Club Class in 2007 and in
2008. The rules committee told the pilots to organize a regional
contest and if all goes well and there is solid participation the
project will be taken to the next level. Well in 2009 the first Club
Class contest took place in Cordele. There were 17 pilots flying Club
Class tasks (including assigned tasks). Since the contest run along
side of the 15 m Nationals and some members of the rules committee
were on site there was a discussion about the future of Club Class.
Despite good pilot participation and calls for Club Class Nationals
the Rules Committee found many arguments against it effectively
killing the enthusiasm. In the past there were polls on this subject
in favor of creation of the Club Class but somehow arguments against
the class always won. Some pilots sold their club class gliders and
moved on since they had no hope of ever getting there.

So when I hear another call to create a regional Club Class contest I
say I heard that before, but no thx.

Overall the rules committee is doing a good job but in regards to Club
Class issue I think the RC failed to lead. How many years will this
issue be debated? As Sam Giltner said if you want a class you need
stability. Pilots need to know what gliders to buy. No one can plan
anything if the list of gliders constantly is being changed. It is not
true that the IGC list changes often.

Anyway since I am no longer having a Club Class glider I don't have a
personal interest in this topic (at least for now) but it pains me to
see how this problem is being approached. Please, look around at most
contests there are no young faces any longer. The young faces are
flying Club Class gliders and they are staying home. Another 10 years
and the competition scene will be dead. The economy is terrible there
is no upward mobility, gas is expensive, very few pilots will be able
to afford new gliders. It is time for new ideas. The contest
participation is collapsing at every contest you see mostly the same
group of pilots.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Dec 1, 1:26 pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" <quebec.ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:42:32 AM UTC-5, hotel...@gmail.com 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/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-...

>
> > Sean Franke
>
> > US Club Class Team Member
>
> Sean(s),
>
> I share BB's and UH's frustration with the level of nonsense in this thread.
>
> Demanding that the organizer (KS)  run the 2013 Club Class by FAI rules after the event being sanctioned and resources committed is simply a non-starter.
>
> Gutting the contest to hold the Club Class somewhere else is also a non-starter.
>
> Rather than all the bluster and rabble rousing rhetoric, commit your efforts to where your mouths are.  Procure a waiver to run a regional club class contest under FAI rules by making the convincing case that it will not be less safe than one conducted under US Rules.
>
> Hold the contest and demonstrate that it is popular (and take the financial risk).
>
> I.e put up or shut up.
>
> QT

John, this is quite arrogant of you. After all you are on RC to serve.

[John Godfrey (QT)]

Andrej,

Sorry if you see me as arrogant, but my stance on not jerking around already sanctioned contests and especially their organizers is firm.

As to whether we should adopt FAI rules for racing, there is a time honed process for this type of major change (and make no mistake, it is a majpor change). Regionals first followed by Nationals.

Still waiting for an organizer to step up with a request for sanction and waiver...

QT

[acm...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 1, 2012 4:47:27 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> The distortion, ignorance of facts and double standards are nearing exceptional levels.
> I am concerned that the US rules committee functions more like a "think tank" than a committee of ALL fellow soaring pilots.

Sean,
Can I assume from your statements that you see nothing wrong with lightweight pilots flying with 80 pounds of lead in their cockpit to be at IGC MTOW and at equal wingloading with heavier pilots? Example: I fly a Discus b at 792# with a 1.08 IGC handicap. Sarah Arnold might fly a Discus A ( same 1.08 h/c) and would need well over 110# of lead to match my gross. How do you safely do this, and why? This IGC rule is absurd and I would not support it for a US Nationals.
Rick Walters

[BruceGreeff]

Well - no - 110lb of lead in the cockpit would be a little unwise. But
110l of water in the wings might do it. Of course then the ballast can
be dumped, which confers an advantage, and eventually you have angels
dancing on pinheads...

Have flown at a number of contests where there was a "target wing
loading" - works quite well in practice, and can be done quickly. Just
tow your main wheel over a scale each day on the way to the grid.

Of course - my kestrel full of water is waaay below the agreed target
wingloading but that is life.

Bruce

On 2012/12/02 2:48 PM, acm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sean,
> Can I assume from your statements that you see nothing wrong with lightweight pilots flying with 80 pounds of lead in their cockpit to be at IGC MTOW and at equal wingloading with heavier pilots? Example: I fly a Discus b at 792# with a 1.08 IGC handicap. Sarah Arnold might fly a Discus A ( same 1.08 h/c) and would need well over 110# of lead to match my gross. How do you safely do this, and why? This IGC rule is absurd and I would not support it for a US Nationals.
> Rick Walters

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[acm...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 6:02:49 AM UTC-8, BruceGreeff wrote:
> Well - no - 110lb of lead in the cockpit would be a little unwise. But
>
> 110l of water in the wings might do it. Of course then the ballast can
>
> be dumped, which confers an advantage, and eventually you have angels
>
> dancing on pinheads...

Bruce,
The two Sean's are proposing using IGC rules, which do not allow for any water ballast, period. They use lead at CC WGC. Should be lots of fun a ridge day at Mifflin.
Rick W

[John Cochrane]

The creation of a club class at sports class nationals in 2013 is
exactly the culmination of the process you mention. Yes, we listened.
We said create club regionals. You did. It was a success. A modest
success -- we didn't see 30 coming out -- but it did prove the
concept has legs.

Club class regionals are now a permanent, non-waiver class that
organizers can choose anytime they want to, and pilots can ask
organizers to do. We kept our end of the deal. Why have they not
happened? They're in the rules, we did all we could. Now it's up to
you guys to keep going past the first burst of enthusiasm. We write
the rules, we don't run contests and we don't call pilots and persuade
them to show up.

In any case, now we have created a club nationals too, just as we said
we would. Given the dwindling enthusiasm shown for club regionals, the
still low participation of club gliders at sports nationals, and the
vexing problem of what to do with gliders like the sparrowhawk, which
do not fit IGC club class, we included the lower performance gliders.

One step at a time. We MUST ensure that the new class succeeds. If we
create a class at nationals and 7 pilots show up and everybody gets
sent home, that is the END of the class. If 17 pilots show up in the
first burst of enthusiasm and then 7 show up the next year, this is
the END of the class. We MUST make decisions based on data, not on
theories (if you use IGC rules 50 pilots will come out of the woodwork
and fly -- even though they're not on the seeding list) We will not
repeat the world class fiasco. Are you listening? We're on your side
here. This is our best attempt to create what you want, in a way that
will be durable and successful.

The use of SSA rules, and the US team upper limit for club class
(ventus 1) has been in these US club class experiments all along.

So, you guys got 95% of what you had been asking for: A separate class
at nationals, following on the same model that was tried and
demonstrated at regionals. All you had to do was suffer the indignity
of letting a sparrowhawk or 1-34 tag along (there are usually 1-2
such gliders at sports nationals).

We figured we'd be getting bouquets of flowers and boxes of
chocolates. But no: Suddenly you demand that we use IGC rules and a
different glider list, and send the sparrowhawhk home. Leaving aside
the start, finish, scoring formulas, metric units, tiny turn radii,
these rules impose completely different procedures. Quick, what are
the IGC weight limits? Rules on modifications? Rules on use of fixed
and disposable ballast? How many of your pilots know how to fly these
rules? Doing this at a nationals without trying it at regionals would
be insane.

So, yes. If you want to completely change the concept of the class --
which IGC rules really is! -- that needs to be worked out at a
regionals, not at a nationals, that is already sanctioned. The
sanctioning process includes a check of things pilots expect like, is
there a scorer and a CD who knows the rules they race is going to fly
under! Sean has a theory that it's a 5 minute job with see you to use
a different set of rules. He needs to talk to John Good and Ken
Sorenson and find out about the months -- months -- it took to get
rules and procedures worked out for Uvalde.

I'm sorry for the irritated tone. But when we give you 95% of what you
wanted, in the form that we had all been working on steadily for 5
years, and then suddenly the demands change radically at the last
moment, ignoring all the previous work, ignoring all the
practicalities of what it takes to run a contest, well, you can
imagine it's a little irritating.

John Cochrane










I'm interested by the number of posters such as yourself who have
(like me) sold their club gliders and moved up. Mayb

[John Godfrey (QT)]

ditto

[Sean F (F2)]

On a bus trip today. Will reply in more detail tomorrow.

Dont forget that 33 people have signed this FAI Club Class (US) petition. And they are not 33 slackers. Many of them are very accomplished pilots WHO OWN AND FLY Club Range gliders and have been asking for this class for years.

Sean

Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/821/637/us-club-class-association-petition-for-the-ssa-to-adopt-fai-club-class-rules-without-exception/?fb_connected=1

[Sean F (F2)]

And you guys (RC) are much closer to getting roses and tremendous praise then you think...

:-)

I want nothing more then to be the first sender of flowers.

[gby...@cinci.rr.com]

> I am very interested how a contest would be validated by the SSA competition committee if WINSCORE was not used.

If the SSA rules comittee approves a club class using FAI rules in the US, then Winscore will be upgraded to score that class by FAI rules.

Guy Byars

[hotel...@gmail.com]

SeeYou is popular scoring program. Will Winsocore need to be upgraded if SeeYou us uesd?

Sean Franke (HA)

[gby...@cinci.rr.com]

Maybe it is the numerious typos, but your message makes no sense.

Let me repeat, if the SSA Rules comittee approves approves IGC rules for a class in the US, then I will upgrade Winscore to score that class by those rules.

The scorer/organizers at that contest are free to use whichever program they like.

Guy Byars

[hotel...@gmail.com]

Yes, many typos. Thanks

Sean Franke (HA)

[hotel...@gmail.com]

> We figured we'd be getting bouquets of flowers and boxes of

> chocolates. Leaving aside the start, finish, scoring formulas, metric units, > tiny turn radii, these rules impose completely different procedures. Quick, > what are the IGC weight limits? Rules on modifications? Rules on use of fixed

> and disposable ballast? How many of your pilots know how to fly these
> rules? Doing this at a nationals without trying it at regionals would
> be insane.
>
> So, yes. If you want to completely change the concept of the class --
> which IGC rules really is! -- that needs to be worked out at a
> regionals, not at a nationals, that is already sanctioned. The
> sanctioning process includes a check of things pilots expect like, is
> there a scorer and a CD who knows the rules they race is going to fly
> under! Sean has a theory that it's a 5 minute job with see you to use
> a different set of rules. He needs to talk to John Good and Ken
> Sorenson and find out about the months -- months -- it took to get
> rules and procedures worked out for Uvalde.
>
> I'm sorry for the irritated tone. But when we give you 95% of what you
> wanted, in the form that we had all been working on steadily for 5
> years, and then suddenly the demands change radically at the last
> moment, ignoring all the previous work, ignoring all the
> practicalities of what it takes to run a contest, well, you can
> imagine it's a little irritating.
> > John Cochrane

Again this position is extreme and dramatic. When you stay within reality creating an FAI Club Class is the next logical step.

I think if most had to give a quick response on US rules you would get the same result as FAI. It would have to be looked up. Here is the big difference. FAI rules are almost HALF in length. Keep in mind complexity is being cut NOT added. Rules and procedures are not radically different, just a lot less.

Lets look at the three major differences between proposed RC Club Class and FAI.

1. FAI has a Racing Task(Assigned Speed Task)and Assigned Area Task (AAT). US has the MAT and AAT. Racing Task will be unlikely.
2.FAI has a narrower restricted handicap range than the US. Proposed US Club Class handicap range extends from a Ventus 1 to SGS 2-33.
3. Scoring formula / program is different.

FAI Club Class concepts HAVE BEEN proven in super-regionals. To state otherwise is FALSE. I flew in the 2011 Club Class super regional in Moriarty. The only real difference between this contest and FAI was US scoring. Short of scoring, major FAI components were successfully proven. Participation was grater than some National contests.

Enthusiasm hasn't diminished. US Club Class has done it's due diligence. The RC has proposed a Club Class version which completely ignores all previous work and changes concept of the class.

The RC said prove it in a regional. We did. Now it's time for the RC to follow through, take then next logical step and propose a US Club Class Nationals based on concepts established in the Regionals.

Sean Franke (HA)

[Sean F (F2)]

Sean Franke consistently shows the most objective command of the world soaring rules landscape (99% FAI, 1% US). We all know the US rules. But many, MANY have deep misconceptions about the FAI rules. Many disturbingly so...

Sean
F2

[Sean F (F2)]

35 now. Discount them as needed. But in general, the soaring crowd is not interested in public debate. The fact that 35 have signed (minus whatever number you wish) is very compelling to most... Not the RC however. They are relying on their poll.

Sean

[acm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 3:43:22 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> We all know the US rules. But many, MANY have deep misconceptions about the FAI rules. Many disturbingly so...

> Sean
> F2

Sean,
I have flown 8 contests with IGC/FAI rules. I am disturbed that no one other than myself is concerned about light weight pilots flying with lead filled cockpits. How do you safely fasten the weight? How do you adjust the CG?
How do you support a rule that handicaps you if you don't fly at MTOW?
Rick Walters

[Andrzej Kobus]

>I am disturbed that no one other than myself is concerned about light weight pilots flying with lead filled cockpits.

Probably because most pilots have the opposite problem :).

I myself have the same problem as you have. When I had a club class
glider I created a seat pan mold and then used lead pellets with epoxy
to fill it. I also put belts through it and attached them to the seat
belt mount points. The extra weight was 55 lb. By the way I still have
it if anyone is interested. It is made for SZD-55-1. Yes it was a lot
of work but much less work than gaining 55 lb and much healthier :).
Would I do it again? No, I make too many mistakes to blame them on
weight. :)

For the pilots at the top of the ladder they might have a different
view.

[hotel...@gmail.com]

Rick,

I appreciate your concern. Safety should ALWAYS be discussed openly.

I don't believe lead weight is inherently dangerous. When I was younger, shorter and a lot lighter, I used lead weight ballast responsibly. Nobody thought is was controversial. I'm not saying use of lead weight can't be applied irresponsibly. That same pilot can also be unsafe in any number of other areas as well, not just lead weight.

At the last Club Class WGC there were likely pilot(s) adding lead weight. However, it was a non-issue. I'm not aware of a pilot adding lead weight because it apparently wasn't controversial enough to make conversation.

I KNOW OF a US pilot adding lead weight flying Sports Class here in the US. Apparently the advantage of flying at max weight is more advantageous than handicap adjustment.

Unless the RC outlaws lead weight in US contests I suspect it will continue to happen just like it will in FAI rules.

Sean Franke (HA)

[cochra...@gmail.com]

> Rick,
>
>
>
> I appreciate your concern. Safety should ALWAYS be discussed openly.
>
>
>
> I don't believe lead weight is inherently dangerous. When I was younger, shorter and a lot lighter, I used lead weight ballast responsibly. Nobody thought is was controversial. I'm not saying use of lead weight can't be applied irresponsibly. That same pilot can also be unsafe in any number of other areas as well, not just lead weight.
>
>
>
> At the last Club Class WGC there were likely pilot(s) adding lead weight. However, it was a non-issue. I'm not aware of a pilot adding lead weight because it apparently wasn't controversial enough to make conversation.
>
>
>
> I KNOW OF a US pilot adding lead weight flying Sports Class here in the US. Apparently the advantage of flying at max weight is more advantageous than handicap adjustment.
>
>
>
> Unless the RC outlaws lead weight in US contests I suspect it will continue to happen just like it will in FAI rules.
>
>
>
> Sean Franke (HA)

Lead ballast is legal under US rules

6.8.3.2 Fixed ballast is permitted, but not more than an amount that brings the sailplane to its maximum handicap weight, as defined in the SSA Sailplane Handicap List.

However, the handicap adjustment goes in both directions -- light pilots get a better handicap. This was done to remove the incentive to pile up those bags of lead shot bouncing around many cockpits.

11.6.1.2.2 † If Competition Weight (Rule 6.12.3) is different from the specified Handicap Weight, the Handicap Factor shall be multiplied by the following:
1.0 - ((Competition Weight) - (Handicap Weight)) * 0.0002

This is one of those "complexities" in US rules that everyone complains about until we ask people for specific rules that should be dropped.

John Cochrane

[acm...@gmail.com]

Sean and John,

Yes, fixed ballast is allowed in US sports class rules. My concern is the Erik Nelson, Sarah Arnold, superfit lightweight pilots that will be at a disadvantage in the proposed CC unless they lead ballast up to MTOW. You can't add 100# under your seat without adding tail ballast. Most spar shelves are limited to 5kg. Few have an A&P do a proper installation. I know of weights slipping into control mechanisms. I remember Robbie Robertson. Weight behind your head is stupid.

I have flown an ASW24 at MTOW against a very light LS8 at the Sports nats. Our handicap weight adjustments work very well, both up and down. We flew with identical handicaps. They adjust the FAI CC rules for overweight, so it would not be any more work to adjust for underweight. No added complexity.
Rick Walters

[cochra...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:53:11 PM UTC-6, acm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sean and John,
>
>
>
> Yes, fixed ballast is allowed in US sports class rules. My concern is the Erik Nelson, Sarah Arnold, superfit lightweight pilots that will be at a disadvantage in the proposed CC unless they lead ballast up to MTOW. You can't add 100# under your seat without adding tail ballast. Most spar shelves are limited to 5kg. Few have an A&P do a proper installation. I know of weights slipping into control mechanisms. I remember Robbie Robertson. Weight behind your head is stupid.
>
>
>
> I have flown an ASW24 at MTOW against a very light LS8 at the Sports nats. Our handicap weight adjustments work very well, both up and down. We flew with identical handicaps. They adjust the FAI CC rules for overweight, so it would not be any more work to adjust for underweight. No added complexity.
>
> Rick Walters
>

Rick: I agree, and wasn't clear. The point of the US rule that changes handicap in both directions is precisely so pilots will not feel the need to use extra weight.

We talked about banning extra weight this year but decided not too much change at once. I completely agree that extra weights are a bad idea. We just need one crash with the bags of lead involved and you can imagine the fallout.

Adjusting the handicap for light weight is one little example where I humbly think US rules are a bit ahead of IGC rules, and an example why I still think it's wise for US contests to use US rules. Some of the "complexity" is beneficial.

John Cochrane

[gby...@cinci.rr.com]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 6:20:16 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> There is no rules-required official scoring program. Use a slide rule
>
> if you want to. 1-26ers use their own program.

There is no rules-required scoring program for US regional contests. National contests mandate Winscore. Other program will be considered for national contests only after successfuly scoring a regional contest.

[Sean F (F2)]

We will have some very interesting scoring news in the days to come.

Nearing 40 signatures with 38 just today.

Sean

F2

[Chilhowee]

Since I weigh only 125 lbs, and since I've seen my name in this thread
a few times I suppose I can add a few comments. I fly a Discus b in
sports/club class competition and have tried both with and without
ballast. For me the handicap adjustment is not worth it to fly at 720
lbs (6.3 lbs/sq ft). A super-light Discus truly does climb like a
1-26... I'll let you guys fill in how it glides. I realize that not
all club class gliders are so wing loading sensitive and for some it
might be more advantages to take the handicap adjustment.

I've never flown any glider in which I didn't have to add some type of
ballast, most of the time lead bags and sometimes the little lead bars
up by my feet. Since I am also shorter than the heavier pilots there
is plenty of room to safely stow the lead bags behind my seat pan and
it is secured in a responsible manner. I haven't been in soaring as
long as most of you, so maybe there are things that I just don't know,
but as an A & P, IA, and flight instructor I feel perfectly safe in my
current situation.

The biggest reason that I am thankful ballasting is not out-lawed in
WGC competition is because without it I could not fly a comparable
glider with my teammate. Without ballast team flying would be much
less effective or even impossible.

One last thing is I have to say is "WOW, did Guy Byars just say he'd
be happy to update Winscore with an option for FAI scoring?" Maybe
others missed it. That would be great, especially if there were a fun
regional planned under FAI rules...

Sarah Arnold

[gby...@cinci.rr.com]

On Thursday, December 6, 2012 8:56:44 PM UTC-5, Chilhowee wrote:
> One last thing is I have to say is "WOW, did Guy Byars just say he'd
> be happy to update Winscore with an option for FAI scoring?" Maybe
> others missed it. That would be great, especially if there were a fun
> regional planned under FAI rules...
>

Yes, I did say that and I meant it. But be careful what you wish for...

If you are going to hold a contest and STRICTLY follow the FAI rules to the letter, then that necessitates tasking and scoring in kilometers. If you read the FAI rules, you will see that the tasking parameters (cylinder radii, minimum task distances... etc) are all specified in km. Simply changing the units display on the task sheet will give you odd things like a turnpoint cylinder of 0.310686 miles or a Min Task distance of 62.1371 miles.

So if you then decide to change the task parameters to convenient English units, then you are no longer using the FAI rules, but something you made up yourself... like the SSA does now.

The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots. These issues need to be decided by the various appointed comittees and organizers. I am willing to work with them to implement what they decide in Winscore for next season.

Guy Byars