2002 Opinion Poll - Answers

November 9, 2002

 

Answers to short responsive questions.

3.3d: Other number of contestants:

20, and up to discretion of CD not a mandatory multi at 20 entrants in a class.... this is site flexibility. 30 40+ where the soaring is very consistent (ie. Uvalde) >20 depends on contest site Let CD the decide Nationals can be run in conjunction with regionals or other classes. Separate cylinders should be allowed at CDs discretion. the arc start we used at Musbach is fairer USE SHOULD BE UP TO CONTEST DIRECTOR AND ADVISORS IN ANY GIVEN CONTEST AND/OR CONTEST DAY

Answers to long responsive questions.

12.0: Other Issues Are there any other issues that you would like the SSA Rules Committee to address, or any questions that you would like to see included on future SRA polls?

Start Gate Procedures I am very interested in the continued evolution of the US GPS Start System. I agree that the current cylinder start is a huge improvement over the old visual start. However, it has failed to yield improvement in the two areas which have concerned me the most; Pre-Start Gaggling and On-course Gaggling. Pre-start gaggles: In the good old days, as start time approached, pilots could usually loiter at high altitude under a nearby Cu, avoiding traffic, while safely monitoring the starts. When it was time to go, the pilot would descend and join the metered traffic going into the Start Gate. Now, as start time approaches, pilots are forced to descend into the higher traffic environment of the start cylinder and search for lift near the optimum start point. Invariably, this results in a large number of ships congregating in one thermal near the edge of the cylinder. To further complicate matters, each pilot wishes to maximize energy prior to starting. As a result, the Gaggle slowly gets packed into a tighter and tighter altitude band as the top ships approx max altitude and the lower ships continue to climb. All too often, 15 to 30 ships will be packed in a very small amount of airspace, with pilots heavily distracted checking altitude, position, and time while simultaneously jockeying spoilers and speed. This situation really needs to be corrected. On-course gaggles: In the good old days, on-course gaggles were less of a problem than they are today. That is attributable to the fact that Charlie would meter pilots at no less than 10 second intervals. In practice, this resulted in some spreading of the fleet. Big Gaggles typically would not develop until the first turn, or somewhere on the second leg. Today, the entire fleet can (and sometimes does!) start at essentially the same moment. There is no spreading of the fleet; Super Gaggles appear immediately. Hobbs 02 was a good example of how poorly the current gate works in weak weather conditions. The resultant pre-start and on-course gaggling can be quite hazardous. What to do? The objective of a Start Gate system should include Safety, and Fairness, as primary objectives. I believe our system is Fair but, there is room for improvement in terms of safety (particularly in weak conditions). There are several possible ways to reduce the pre-start and on-course gaggling. I subscribe to a modified John Cochrane theory of an altitude check, combined with an unlimited altitude start cylinder of a size not less than 5 sm Radius. The idea is that all pilots would have to log points within a large cylinder, call it a Pre-start Cylinder , all pilots would then be allowed to climb and conduct an unlimited altitude start. This is but one possible option, Im sure there are others, Lets continue with Regional level experiments. Thanks!  * Cochranes idea for minimum FINISH ENERGY and higher minimum ALTITUDE for safer finishes. * Larger turnpoint cylinders BEFORE we have a mid-air with guys heads-down-and-locked on GPS at turnpoints. * Eliminate assigned tasks under thunderstorms (Hannes).  1) Eliminate cylinder finish. Use minimum finish height if thought to be necessary instead. If scoring program can judge start altitude, then it can judge finish altitude with same accuracy. 2) Require score sheet to be published if any pilots attempt the task (get a scorable distance). 1. Limit term for SRA rules committee to two years with only one re-election. Longer terms allow a single member too much influence of a personal philosophy. 2. Task requiring more than one day to score should be done away with. Longer scoring detracts from the race and frequently results in false winners. 3. All task having a minimum time limit should be done away with. 4. TAT task should have max radius of 20 miles with 5 miles being more preferable. 5. Multiple start cylinders favor one side more than the other due to winds or existence of thermal..........or no thermals.  1. Simplify the scoring formula. 2. Make the term for rules committee 2 years with one term re-election only. We need to try new approaches with new people. I feel that most of the pilots on the current rules committee are viewed as good old boys and swayed to much by KS. This may not be the case but it is the way it appears. 3. TAT is a good idea as compared to the POST. If we except TAT as a national task we should then drop the POST entirely. a. On days of good soaring weather the radius of the turn for the TAT should be no more than 5n miles. This gives pilots plenty of space to go in different directions yet stay in the same general area. b. On days in doubt(where the post is used most often now) the CD has the option to extend the radius to 20N miles. Again, this gives the pilots a great deal of latitude to dodge bad weather but remain in the same general area. If 20n miles is not enough then we dont need to be in the air. Luck is a large factor on the POST task. The TAT with limitations removes a great deal of the luck factor but still spreads the pilots out. 4. I flew two contest this past summer where the CD apoligised the day after calling a task that landed most of the gliders out. He admitted that he was over anxious and made the wrong call. If he had listened to advisors maby this would not have happened. The responsibility for task calling should not be one persons decision. The advisors should have a larger part in task calling. Advisors should not aways be the same people. Different people will bring forth different ideas. We are stuck in the same routine with the same people as advisors and CDs. I am not saying that the present advisors and CDs arnt doing a good job but feel that the job could possibly be done better. If we are looking for change, and it seems we are, involve more people in the decision making process. The entry list should be used to pick advisors. If you were an advisor the last contest then someone gets a turn.  1. Team flying (if the rest of the world does it, why not us?) 2. No PST except for Sports class; use TAT or MAT for bad weather options only, maximum ASTs if possible.  10.1 should be considered a rotation in favor of better weather as example ecwcw and repeat. 4.1 I really preferr the allow system with US Pilots having prority over Foriegn pilots and then foreign pilots with current SSA membership and ranking to obtain entry according to normal preferential entry guidelines and Reserve 5 positions for foreign pilots with no SSA ranking, one per country by date of application.  A thousand foot finish gate wont solve anything, because you set your final glide to 200 feet and at the last second pull up hard, then negative to enter the side. there is no way you could word the rules anyway to not allow that, because thats what we do when you put a 1mile cylinder at 300 feet. If your dumb enough to get yourself dehydrated and spin in on an old contest finish, then you shouldnt be at a national.  Although it sounds a bit contrived, I think its time that we revisit the Mission of Regional and National contests. Specifically, what skills are we trying to judge and what high-level goals are we looking to promote. In the future, we need to look back at these whenever we contemplate rules changes. For example, over the last 20 years, many skills have been eliminated due to technological improvements: Navigation, glide computations, and turnpoint photos leap to mind. Now, Im not suggesting that any of the changes that eliminated this is bad per se, but whats next. Thermalling ability seems to be next on the hit list, as idiot boxes are getting close to being able to center for the pilot. In the past, weve focused on cheating (or the inability to prevent cheating) as a reason to give in to certain technologies. However, I think that the commercial market will drive the development such that if a device (e.g. Themi) is proscribed in the rules, the only people who will develop such technology will be individuals. Frankly, if an individual is dead-set on doing this, I dont think that it matters in the grand scheme of things. Anyway, Themi is just a case in point to illustrate the bigger picture.  As a first time contest pilot, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to fly the Region 2 Sports Class. Though I would have flown another contest if this learning format had not been available, I doubt I would have learned as much or had such a rewarding experience. It might be worthwhile to compare the number of unranked pilots entered in the Region 2 Sports with the sum entered in other regional contests nationwide - does the number of new pilots justify a contest of this type on an annual basis? Should the location adhere to a scheduled rotation as with the nationals? As my first year as a CD, there were a bit of teething pains. More guidance for CDs, perhaps a written guide, would be helpful making a first experience a positive one. Other than that, racing needs more participants. Racing camps should be encouraged, along with good entry level contests like the Ceasar Creek and Air Sailing contests. Thanks for your volunteer work, Chad Moore. Attempt to simplify formulas for scoring points. All classes, all contests CDs should be willing to use all the various tasks available and if necessary a guideline should be included in the CDs guide . This would avoid repetition of the 2002 15m AST only contest at Tonopah.  Comments on question 5.0 (Wing Numbers) 1) This question was presented in a highly biased manner reflecting the prejudices of the pollster. Quoting Charlie Spratts specious comment from the Tonopah SRA meeting was highly inappropriate. Charlie is NOT a pilot and has NO direct hands-on experience with collison avoidance in a contest. From ten feet, two-foot high numbers as specified in rule 6.2 are simply not required for identification -- the N number and TAIL contest number are sufficient. Moreover, faced with another glider suddenly appearing ten feet above, most pilots are going to be much to busy aviating to worry much about communicating; maybe later -- behind the woodshed. Finally, the question was not presented with the option that some might prefer, which is retention of tail numbers (that most pilots I have discussed this with rely on for ID of nearby gliders) and doing away with the wing number requirement, which are nothing more than leeching aids now that ID from the ground is not required. 2) This rule, as written, is NOT currently enforced. I have flown in Nationals in which there have been gliders with no wing numbers and no penalties issued. Dont make rules that you are not going to enforce!! 3) The most important benefit of doing away with wing numbers (not tail numbers) was not even presented. That benefit is a further deterent to leeching. Retaining tail numbers, easily readable in gaggles, and doing away with large wing numbers, easily readable at a distance, will have a significant impact on the current leeching practices that we have all observed, and which have been developed to a fine art by some (who will obviously strongly object to the elimination of the wing number requirement). We have seen major revisions to our rules to deter leeching, including major rule revision and introduction of new task options such as PST. Lets continue in this direction by doing away with the leech bait painted under our wings! Comments on vestigial rules: Many of our rules are remnants of bygone days when we used cameras for flight documentation. Lets clean them up. 1) The most glaring case of a rule that needs to be modified (for enhanced safety) is Rule 10.5.3, which specifies that the turnpoint radius for an AST must be 0.25 miles. This should be increased to at least 1.00 mi. Simply scoring ASTs the same way as TATs (point of furthest progress within the circle) would eliminate the objection that everyone would simply turn at the same point at the closest edge of the circle, no matter what the size. For that matter, Karl Striedeck may well be right in saying that it might be time to altogether eliminate the AST in favor of the TAT! 2) Another camera-related rule that should be modified is Rule 10.3.2.3.1, which specifies that a maximum of 11 turnpoints can be claimed. This rule actually dates back to the old cheap Kodak cameras, which had a 12 picture cartridge, allowing for the start-board picture plus 11 turnpoints. The rule was introduced to prevent contestants using 35mm cameras from having an advantage, is, of course, unnecessary in todays GPS contest. Moreover, it can severely limit a contestants options on thunderstorm days with a long, overcalled PST. 3) Rule 10.4.2 specifies that turnpoint coordinates shall be accurate to 200 feet or better ... This rule dates back to the camera era when turnpoints were identifiable objects on the ground, and has NO meaning now that turnpoints a simply spatial coordinates. 4) Rule 10.6.2.10 directs that roll-times be recorded. Back in the start gate era this was necessary to ensure that all contestants would have a time on course even if they did not get a valid start. It saved the bacon of many well known competotors, except for a few benighted contests in which the CD unilaterally and arbitrarily gave zero points to those contestants not photographing a control point in order to get a valid start, eg. 1994 15m Nationals in Montana. Well, its not required now -- the GPS record will speak for itself --, so lets get rid of it. Comments on rules governing tasking: 1) MAT: It is not clear from the wording of 10.3.2.2 whether or not the CD may specify manditory final turnpoint, as in a PST. For example, 10.3.2.2.2 says that after completing the sequence of designated turnpoints, additional turnpoints may be flown subject to the rules of PST. But the rules of PST specifically allow the CD to declare a mandatory last turn (see 10.3.2.3.2). This should be clarified in the rules for a MAT. 2) This next season we will have four, count them, four different types of tasks -- AST, MAT, PST, and TAT. It is entirely feasible to simplify our rules, and have only two tasks that satisfy all of the tasking objectives covered by those four. Both the PST and MAT objectives can be satisfied by a simple rewriting of the MAT rule 10.3.2.2.1 to permit the CD to specify any number of designated turnpoints to be completed in sequence, including ZERO. Of course, the possibility for a last mandatory turn (as discussed above) would have to allowed. Furthermore, both the AST and TAT objectives can be accomodated using only the TAT. When the CD wants to call an AST, he/she simply calls a TAT with 1.00 mile radius for all turns. Finally, when discussing aircraft design, Ed Heinemann is reputed to have said, simplicate and add lightness. At least part of this axiom also pertains to our racing rules.  Could we have our scoring system as close as posible to Worlds contests scoring system?Derating scores because many stunt pilots landed out makes their risky flying pay off(they dont lose much when the winner gets only 300 points and they get 100 points for landing out.When they go to Worlds they usually cover end of the list. Lets use SEE YOU scoring. Creating tasks that clearly put an aircraft at risk because of 1. the CD or sponsor hasnt verified usefulness of away airports 2. the terrain is predominately inhospitable 3. the conditions for completing the task are worse than marginal, and 4. the CD has little or no experience as a contest pilot should be avoided ALL the time. hence the vote for tasks that are either close in, or cover landable fields. There is no sane reason for putting a $100,000 glider at risk for the sake of distance on a real marginal day over unlandable terrain. Its simply stupid. Do the distance over a course that saves equipment and on days that there exists a reasonable chance fewer than 10% will land out.  Dont make rules to prevent leeching. We all frown on true leeches, but it is a great way to learn. For instance: Elminating contest letters would hurt the sport by making competition flying less interesting and by making it more difficult to develop good pilots. If we cant see who the masters are, how can we learn from them? (True leeches follow to improve their standing on a given day and wont lead out of a thermal.)  Establish procedures assuring that reasonable minimum times are set for TAT tasks. There should be no need for extensive & precise cockpit calculations (especially those performed by yet another expensive nav device) in otder to avoid a MT penalty - if it is avoidable at all. No minimum at all would be better than one that is too long. evaluation of US Sports Class Handicaps. Explicit training program for CDs to get more bench strength For Safety reasons, I feel that a minimum finish altitude should be required. However, I do not agree with John Cochran that if one does not finish at or above the minimum, ie rolling finishes etc, that they should be scored as a land-out on the airport. We should try a graduated penalty point assessment. As an example, if 300 feet were the minimum, 25 point penalty to 200 ft, 50 point penalty to 100 ft and 100 pt penalty for a rolling finish. Furthermore, the rolling finish must be through a finish line and the time stops when the glider stops. No more landing on the end of Lubbock and cutting the distance by a mile!. By adding the requirement that the glider be moving through the finish line, this would add more energy to the finish and reduce the possibilities that one would end up short. To penalize a pilot who has just flown 300 miles and barely made it home with a 400 point land-out penalty, is unreasonable (per Chochran). And lets face it, sometimes on a final glide, S____ happens! Also, compute the points to the tenth or hundredth. Several days this year we had two pilots with the same daily score but one clearly had a better time. The integer rounding came from the days when time was not as accurate as it is now with GPS. With the nationals getting so close, we need a tiebreaker. GPS should only be used to verify turnpoints, start and finishes, and distance achieved. Airspace violations are for the FAA to enforce and issue violations if it sees the need to do so. Contest officals should not use GPS to punish or enforce airspace violations. If overweight pentalies are given then at least one other witness should see the scales, and the glider should be required to turn 180 degrees, so a average can be taken. Weight scales should not be allowed to bake in the hot sun before weighing as this can cause electronic equipment to exceed the manufacturers operating tempertures which could cause false weights to be given. Finish lines should be used so people can enjoy our sport and see what everybody enjoys, the thrill of high speed finishes. To do high speed finishes set up a new progam in which pilots are instructed and then signed off for. Use the start line in the same way..make it only 3000 ft. high and allow the start altitude to be no greater than 500 ft for 1 minute above the start of 3000 ft. this will limit speeds, can be checked by the GPS and people on the ground can see the starts. The old ways got us here to race, now stop being so old that it ruins spectator enjoyment. All sports bring danger, but along with that comes adventure and desire to race and better oneself. Thats what racing is all about....in all sports. Get rid of all contest numbers on the wings and tail. Small numbers, say 1 inch, can be put on each side of the cockpit for ground identifing.  Great job putting this survey online! Next time allow members to pay their dues online using a credit card as well.  How to deal with pilots who are ranked, but are no longer really national caliber in their flying. Eliminate PST in sports class, use grouped speed tasks ie 30:1 , 38:1, 44+:1. I agree with John Cochranes article that low finishes are a contributing factor in periodic fatalities. I think the rules should be modified in some fashion to eliminate the low finish. Either by use of a cylinder or by a minimum finish height that allows a normal pattern without counting on high speed to gain altitude. The rolling finish should also be retained, but with a penalty that is so significant as to discourage its use except as a safety measure. Mike Shakman I am very dissappointed that you did not include my suggestion to add a last TP to a TAT to this poll. It would greatly improve the TAT and deserves to be voted on.  I believe that the TAT will eventually be great. But 1. I object to frequent rules changes just for the sake of rules changes. 2. The TAT definitely favors people having computers set up to ease the time-to-finish calculation and increases head down time if people are using these computers. 3. The TAT also reduces transparancy as to whether the scoring is really correct at the end of the day. I saw a lot of scoring errors when we converted to automatic scoring based on GPS. In those cases the pilots were usually able to recognize that there was a problem, and the scorer had a chance of fixing it manually. I dont think that we have enough milage on the TAT and the automatic scoring programs it REQUIRES yet. I fly an ASW-15 in regional contests. I have noticed that the days that I win, or place highly, are the days when much of the field lands out. I suppose this is because I fly conservatively, which may not be the idea for a race. However, the days that I do well on are typically devalued a lot. My two winning days are among my two lowest scores. Im new to contests, and Im still happy when I get around the course. I guess if the others were not pushing for speed that they too would have made it around and I probably would not have done as well any way. I like the idea of multiple start cylinders for nationals which have 40+ contestants. I felt it worked very well in 01 @Uvalde. When multiple cylinders are in use, I would like to see the assignment to a group remixed after 4-5 days of racing; just to mix things up. I also, think we need to be very careful before using multiple cylinders at a site like Minden. I worry that a specific cylinder could have an advantage over the other cylinder(s) in use. I like the TAT.They provide a way for the slower pilots to do the task and let the faster pilots fly faster with less leaching. Some pilots at some contests try to get the contest director to not call TAT tasks. Any move to eliminate TAT tasks should be opposed by the contest rules committee. I support a finish cylinder centered on the airport with a minimum altitude allowing a potential show finish, but always enough to make a safe pattern. As described by John Cochrane in the October Soaring. I plan to fly Return to Kitty Hawk - I hope that will keep me on the seeding list as thats all the vacation time I have. Multiple, but small and close together start cylinders are a good idea IMO. Pilots will probably be forced to look for lift outside the cylinder thus spreading the pre-start gaggle and reducing the luck factor of one cylinder vs another. I think John Cochranes plan for a 2 mile out /800-1000 ft finish is excellent, and we can still do the fly-by at the airport safely. With the current flight computers/gps systems it should be easy to do and score. As John points out, the last minute unplanned landout is dangerous as can be and for what--400 points max? I would like the Rules Committee to adjust the task rules to combine AST and TAT into a single set of task rules, and combine MAT and PST into a single set of task rules. I would like to argue strongly against the notion of close-in tasks with multipe laps, or any increased emphasis on shorter/cloer-to-home tasks. This is how we START glider pilots on the long road to cross country-flying, by setting up little triangles within glide range of the home field! To get home once from 80 miles out after being down to 1,000 ft agl is a reward that more than compensates for a several long retrieves. To have to choose paths over long flights, based on weather and terrain, is a complex and rewarding skill. Its why most of us continue to fly gliders. There are enough options already for dealing with weak days - any more and we begin to confuse weak days with weak pilots. QV  I would like to see the Rules Committee establish a set of goals/objectives for our sport. It seems to me that this poll is in response to questions/problems that come up and then a change to the rules is driven by the responses. The problem with this approach is that we all havent agreed on what the objectives of competition should be. While its good that the poll provides for some democracy in the rules creation process, Id rather see a poll conducted that asked less rules related questions, and instead asked pilots what they would like to see for the future of our sport and what competition should really measure. For example; What should be the primary objectives of the Rules Committee for the future? (rank order the following selection) A. Promote Safety B. Increase Participation from the general membership C. Promote Sportmanship and prevent cheating D. Provide a means of US Team selection E. Create a competitive US Team (i.e., provide training opportunities) F. Increase youth participation G. Increase crew and spectator involvement H. Add your own In your opinion, what are the true measures of a good soaring pilot? Rank order the following selection. A. Speed only (set task). B. Speed only (PST task). C. Distance only (PST task, free distance??). D. A balance of Speed and Distance (PST, TAT with distance factored in somehow). E. Navigation skills (has GPS completely eliminated this?). F. Safety. G. Weather knowledge. H. How much money they have to spend. I. Sportmanship (can they win without cloud flying?)  If SRA is a required organization for USA contests why isnt it funded by contest entry fees, rather than voluntary subscriptions? Andy (GY) Improved guidelines and procedural recommendations for first-time competition managers and CDs Issue clarification on CManagers option to deny a pilot any entry based on perceived Lack of proficiency or competence. If a pilot has flown 6 sanctioned events in the past ten years, and states that weve never turned left off tow... in the initial safety briefing, there is reason to believe he can create other safety related problems. And he did. Lets address this before someone gets killed. Issue clarification for tasking in CB weather. MAT or TAT was not used in TPH this year, when it was clearly a more flexible option on at least one day. My view is that the National contests are for the entrants - that week - primarily, and not primarily for Team selection. If CDs continue to disappoint entrants with assigned tasks into rain and lightning, we will see lesser participation, which hurts all of racing. That day, ~30 guys came home, and cranky. The same names that end up on the Team will race into virga and lightening. But the majority of pilots preferred a less risky flight that day. That was and is the reality of the consumer market of contest entrants..... John Cochrane, in the October issue of Soaring, wrote an excellent article on safer finishes. I think that his ideas should be added to the SRA poll to see if the majority of contest pilots would be interested in using his concepts; ie: higher finish height, finishing below the gate gets only distance points. Safety is always talked about, but it would be informative to see how we all vote. Nine classes is too many. Dont do anything that would make it worse. On TAT tasks limit the size of the circles to 10 miles. Then eliminate the minimum time factor for TAT. On better than predicted weather days a long minimum times are a problem.  Open Class - Increase the weight limit to the JAR maximum 810kg. With the increase of self launch two place open class ships, the 650kg limits these ships in competition. In order to complete they have to perform the following, fly single (defeats the concept of two place), find a very light second pilot/passenger or remove the engine (time consumming and numerous R/Rs lead to unavoidable damage to both engine and ship). Other issues: 1- evaluate and come up with standards for determining handicapps that are more consistant with performance. It appears that this information is in the minds of some people, rather than in a documented process that anyone should be able to apply to his or her glider. 2- in sports class competition, break the class into two handicapped classes such as under 36 to 1 and over 36 to 1. This may entice more older gliders into flying contests, and hence more contestants. 3- make it mandatory that the winners of a contest receive professional awards provided by the SSA from the competitoin budget. Ive been to a couple of contests that when the final glider lands on the last day, everyone goes home. This sport needs more rewards and recognition to improve visability. Oh god, did I imply marketing?? 3- publish this surveys findings.  Raise the minimum altitide of the finish cylinder from 500 to 800 or 1000.  Raise the weight limmit for open class. Re: Contest Numbers These should not be eliminated based solely on safety. Not only are they useful for radio calls but let you know who is in the thermal with you. Re: Tasks I like the new TAT task. However, it is being called too much. Perhaps this is due to the novelty of it. In 3 regional contests this year with 11 contest days, I flew 2 AST, 4 MAT, 5 TAT. (One AST was a minimum distance call to get a day in; the original call was a TAT.) The usual justification is that the TAT and MAT are assigned tasks --- the CD assigns turns. However, we know this is not true. They are both Timed Tasks. While I agree that certain tasks are more suitable in certain conditions, I think that the rules committee should give consideration to the frequency with which each type is called. While I am not sure that it should be an even split between timed tasks and fixed distance tasks it perhaps should not be as low as one-third for each type, AST, MAT, TAT. should all contestants be requred to have a third class medical?  Some handicaps in Sports are irrational. Allowing long wings to fly sports without rational handicaps tarnishes that competition.  Tasks for 15m Nationals this year were extremely inconsistent...we can do much better than this...and we know how! Why werent some type of pilot option tasks called? The assigned tasks were too short, too long, and flew the pilots into bad weather when excellent weather was available in other quadrants.  The arc start is a good idea. The cylinder start has only a single most advantageous point. Multiple arcs are better than multiple cylinders The disadvantages of multiple cylinder (or arc) starts was obvious at Tonopah. I know a couple Open Class pilots who are tired of flying every other year at Uvalde and skipped it this year Safety is a real consideration for the Standard Class when discussing the 9 lb limit. My LS-8 full of water is a bear to fly on tow at speeds below 80 mph. The higher tow speeds required by Std machines full of water can be a real burden on the contest to find qualified towplanes Longer Nats tasks. I flew a WGC for the first time this year and the tasks were much longer than we fly at a Nats. TAT addresses this somewhat. Smaller Nats fields (number of pilots) to accomplish the above. Right now *anyone* can fly a Nats by simply appearing on the seeding list. We can fly longer tasks with smaller fields. Large fields raise safety issues and cause us to write conpensating rules such as multiple start locations to address what are essentially non-competition aspects. We should de-sanction the World Class unless they can start meeting the same minumum number of competitors as the other classes on an annual basis. Why do we have a Nats for a class in which there are no Regionals (at least that I know of)? In Open there are Regionals. The World Class is a failed experiment, we should treat it the same as the 1-26 Class.  The current scoring system does not adequately consider the problem of atmospheric pressure changes or cicuitry drift when entering a finish cylinder having a specific finish altitude. This is especially true when the finish altitude recorded by the data logger pressure transducer is the only data used without penalty and is not readily displayed to the pilot on final glide. The obvious solution is to incorporate a finish altitude offset in the same manner as the start offset is now established. By Dave Elliss own admission, the altitude function in the data logger was never designed for such use. Further, it is not uncommon to experience a pressure change equivelent to 100 to 200 ft. over the length of many tasks. This combined with cicuitry drift makes this a signifigant problem. It is suggested that if a finish offset is not provided as a standard function of the scoring program then one may be calculated by the scorer, when necessary, using either pressure data or GPS data without penalty. The object should be to evaluate the pilots performance not the black box if other data are available. Carrying two data loggers will not solve the problem. Respectfully, Lorry Charchian The current Sports Class is an anomaly, specifically appealing to entry-level pilots, but in fact used by all those who do not have gliders competitive in the other classes. All classes should be handicapped as well as representing absolute scores, so these pilots flying older gliders can compete where they belong, rather than having to fly in the Sports Class. The Standard and 15 meter classes are now often set identical tasks and should be recombined. The entire class system needs to be reconsidered and reconstucted.  The multiplace question should also ask if the respondant has access to a multiplace glider, The Official SSA contest number process needs to be reviewed. The present policy is to retain a contest number until one year AFTER the pilot has died. (How morbid!) There are a limited number of available combinations. They need to be recycled. If a contest number is not flown in an SSA sanctioned contes within the preceeding three years it should be automatically forfeited and added back into the pool of available contest numbers. This is not about an ego legacy, it is about active contest pilots - contest numbers are not relevant for anyone elas! The rule for finishing too low with a cylinder finish should be clarified. The low finish penalty should be gradual much like the penalty for starting high from a circle start. Example: from zero at nominal height to 2 minutes at ground level. With the circle finish within about 2 or 3 miles of the home airport center, and a reasonable finish height ie above 400 ft is specified there is no need for a rolling finish. Any finish that gets to the airport will have gone through the finish gate/circle and will already have encountered sufficient penalty if he was low. There was an issue at Tonopah (15M Nats) regarding use of pilot option speed tasks that caused Karl to file a protest. I agree with the final ruling. But the Rules Committee should review the situation to see if some further guidance to the CD is in order. This was my first year in competition - Region 2 Sports Class. I thought the rules were very fair and were fun to fly by. I did enjoy the TAT very much. Use a l000 ft agl minimun finish altitude at the finish cylinder for all contests! Use John Cocherons idea of a 500-1,000 GPS finish altitude. Anything else is distance only. Use of a Finish Cylinder, with a Minimun Safe Finish Altitude, in the range of 1,000 to 500 ft AGL. Include a graduated penalty for finishes at altitudes that are below the designated minimum finish altitude.  Waver for overweight gliders, such as my ash25m for regional contest as long as they all selflaunch We have introduced a large number of positive changes in the rules and the way in which contests are conducted. At this point in time I think that we should be introduce only minimal and minor changes for the next year. We need to accliminated ourselves to the new rules for now and evaluate them before making any other significant changes. We should adopt John Cochranes finish gate rules as outlined in Soaring magazine this month. Where finish circles are used I believe that mandated finish altitudes should be no higher than necessary to make a safe pattern and landing. Would like to see survey questions regarding altitude check finishes as described in the October Soaring magazine. Your wording / or choices for the Foreign Pilot Entry into US Nationals is poor. We are talking about a US NATIONALS and if the contest is full, preference should be given to US Pilots -- PERIOD! I like our Canadian friends too, so I propose that IF the pilot is a Canadian Citizen AND on the SSA Ranking List (SSA paid member) they be allowed to use any of the current 5 reserved foreign pilot slots (up to 5 qualified canadians @ our nat contests). ALL other spots go to US PILOTS FIRST. IF there are addl open spots then (and only then) allow other foreign pilots to enter (on a 1 per country basis if space is limited and as many as want to enter is space is available). To Summarize: 1.) 1st Priority US Pilots-- IT IS OUR NATIONALS...USED TO SELECT OUR WORLD TEAM! Please dont think that the 60th place US Finisher does not matter -- he may be spending BIG DOLLARS and VALUABLE vacation time to learn in the hope of someday making it to the top of the score sheet. HE IS THE FUTURE OF THE SSA! He is the person in his club that other SSA members look up to! He is one of our leaders...helping to grow soaring in the US. A European taking Mr. 60ths spot) is coming here to fly a nationals only for his personal enjoyment...the SSA and its membership gain nothing. The SSA is OUR association and it is our NATIONALS! 2.) 2nd Priority - Canadians who are SSA MEMBERS and on Pilot Seating List (5 foreign pilot slots reserved for up to 5 of them to use first) 3.) LAST Priority - Foreign Pilots (including Canadians who are NOT SSA memebers) Only allow them in ONLY IF SPACE IS AVAILABLE. My 92.0 ranking is high enough now to guarentee me a slot...but a few years ago it was not. Back then, if you would have let a German, French, Australian, etc fly and told me I could not compete in MY HOME countries NATIONALS I WOULD BE PISTED! Canadians who are SSA MEMBERS should be given some special consideration and allowing 5 reserved slots should accomodate the current number of Candian Contest Pilots currently participating. All others should be sapce available only. Thank you for your consideration of my viewpoint