The International Gliding Commission (IGC) Sporting Committee, under the guidance of Chairman Ross Macintyre, recently issued several documents in which the Committee offers a position on simplifying the Sporting Code for gliding, which specifies rules and requirements for records and badges. The Committee has responded to both internal critiques and to comments from the worldwide soaring community by issuing several revisions and clarifications during the past three months. We’ve included text from Ross’ introduction to the process and to the IGC discussion paper issued in this post, but to view the original documents and to keep abreast of further changes, click the appropriate links below.
Links to Sporting Code Discussion Papers
Discussion Paper to Simplify the Sporting Code – 11 March 2013 (included in this post – see below)
Simplifying the Sporting Code for gliding: Part 1 (v4), Minimum Courses – 3 June 2013 (included in this post – see below)
Simplifying the Sporting Code for gliding: Part 2 Single OZ – 10 May 2013
Draft Chapters 1 and 2 – 14 June 2013
Draft SC3 Definitions – Courses and Obversation Zones – 30 June 2013
The Committee has asked for comments on the proposed changes. We encourage our readers to review the documents on the IGC website and respond to the Committee at the email address provided at the end of this first paper. We also invite readers to post comments here on the Café.
_______________________
“… rules should be kept as simple as possible whilst achieving the overall aim of consistency and fairness.”
George Lee, Mar/Apr 2013, “Gliding International” interview
_______________________
At the 2013 IGC Plenary Meeting in Papendal the Sporting Code Committee put forward a discussion paper suggesting that it was time to make a radical revision of the Sporting Code for Gliding. This was accepted and the Committee has now begun the work to achieve this.
The Committee will publish a series of several papers each dealing with a segment of the Code, to avoid confusion. The papers are not, and should not be taken, as official proposals. It is intended that a number of Year 1 proposals should come from the responses to these papers. Your assistance will be gratefully received by the Subcommittee: igc-sporting-code@fai.org
The discussion paper has been given wide circulation on the igc-discuss e-group, to international claims officers, and to the major gliding magazines.
In order to have feedback in an organized way, the committee will first offer a position on specific aspects of Code simplification. Part 1 here covers current record or badge tasks, proposing the fewest courses, to be achieved in the most simple way possible, using the least evidence necessary. On the following page is Sporting Code text that illustrates the most important portions of these changes (highlighted in blue), along with some other relevant notes. This is not the committee’s final position – it is the basis from which to evolve a better Code.
An effective simplification does not just mean that certain things are being cut from the Code, it means rethinking gliding as a sport (as recently expressed in igc-discuss). The IGC paper asks, “Imagine that gliding is a new sport that uses GPS data for most of the flight evidence – what rules would be necessary but sufficient enough to fully express the achievement potential of the sport?”
If you think a change or addition is needed to the Code that the committee is offering, you are asked to carefully consider the effect it has on the conduct of a badge or record flight. Your challenge is to explain your position fully, and offer alternate Code text if you can. Remember, in most cases, how the record pilot will plan a task will be different from how it is done now – that alone is insufficient reason to reject the changes offered.
1. What tasks would cover all distance performances in their broadest sense? This would suggest asking and answering these questions:
- How far away can you fly? “Straight distance”
- How far away can you fly and get back? “Out and Return distance”
- What task allows the maximum distance possible? “3TP distance”
More than one TP is necessary. Two TPs (a triangle) is the minimum, at least one more is needed to allow the much greater distance possible over a full day of flying, and more than three is unnecessary to achieve that.
2. Would you limit how the TPs are selected? Is it really necessary to say where you plan to go (declared TPs) or just claim later where you went (“free” TPs). Would any distance or speed achievement necessarily require using a declared waypoint? If so, why?
3. How would you define a speed performance? Clearly, how far you go is relevant – should turn point use differ from the distance requirement? If so, why?
Your well-considered comments will assist in the creation of a much-improved Code. All comments will be considered, although not always replied to directly. Please respond to igc-sporting-code@fai.org.
Ross Macintyre, for the IGC Sporting Code committee
Note that the Committee cannot respond to all suggestions, but will guarantee they will be considered. Suggestions should be by email to > igc-sporting-code@fai.org <
_______________________
Editors’ Note: The original proposal was released in March, 2013. In version 4 of the Proposed Sporting Code, released on June 2, 2013, several substantive changes were made to the original proposal in response to comments received by the committee — so well-articulated suggestions backed up by convincing rationale can make a difference.
The discussion paper, released by the Sporting Code committee in March, 2013 and reproduced below, lays out the reasons for proposing major changes to the Code and the Committee’s overall objectives.
_______________________
On Simplifying the Content of the Sporting Code
The Sporting Code Committee regularly receives questions from ordinary pilots, OOs, and even national Claims Officers on how to interpret some aspect of task selection for badges and records, how to resolve start/finish problems, how to find a viable claim from failures in declarations or flight decisions, etc. They ask why the Code should be so difficult to understand, and often complain that the many Code requirements discourage badge flight activity. Even experienced record pilots have problems.
Preamble In 1999, the Sporting Code committee undertook a major overhaul of the language of the Code by reorganizing the text layout and simplifying the sentence structure and wording. However, there was no mandate to simplify its content, which is what we now propose. The Code contains many fossils – procedures that have been superseded in practice by time or advances in technology but have been retained because their continued need has not been questioned.
Imagine that gliding was a brand new sport today, and the IGC had the job of writing the procedures for the conduct of records and badges; it would not make it as complex as it now is.
The problem with the current Code is that, over time, each new method used to gather flight evidence introduced another layer of procedures. Also, with each new means of collecting more precise evidence, new tasks have been added to make use of this new-found ability. However, the older means of evidence gathering has rarely been deleted, so the Code more and more resembles an onion, and its complexity grows.
Simplification examples It is easy to state that the area of the Code most in need of simplification, since it has the most options and accompanying restrictions and presents the most problems to pilots, is that relating to the start and finish of a task and navigating its turn points.
- Flight evidence was originally collected using one’s eyes and a wristwatch. A start gate to visually mark the crossing of a start line was used for decades before cameras replaced it (except in contests). Yet, when this means of recording position evidence was superseded by photography, the start line remained. It could be eliminated.
- New closed courses were invented for badges and records to make use of the additional task freedom allowed by the camera as OOs no longer had to be in place at the turnpoint. The sector OZ was introduced then as a sufficient means of establishing the rounding of a TP using photo-interpretation. When flight recorders were introduced for position evidence, a new cylinder OZ was defined to accommodate this technology. But when camera use was deleted from the Code (the only text reduction since 1999), the sector OZ remained. It could be eliminated.
- Relatively cheap FRs and PRs provide accurate height and less error-prone heightdata or calculation. When will the time be appropriate to retire the mechanical barographand the paper trace? (The Claims Officers of three of the largest NACs have indicated that the use of a paper trace has almost vanished.)
So, is habit a legitimate reason to retain old evidence collection methods in the Code?
Consider modern record courses. Sailplane performance now make flights possible that outstrip a pilot’s ability to make reasonable assumptions about the meteo conditions over the entire extent and duration of the flight. The three free distance closed course tasks were introduced for this reason. So new records are added, but old record types whose definitions had been constrained by past limitations of evidence-gathering have not been examined as to their continued utility or retired on the basis of obsolescence such as the duration record.
• Is there still a compelling reason for record and badge tasks to require TP declarations (excepting perhaps the Diamond Goal)? In what other sport is an athlete required to state in advance how the record is to be exceeded, and that it must be completed by that increment to be accepted?
• Considerable comment is being expressed in the gliding community on the neverending increase in glider competition classes and the problems it is causing for the sport.
Conclusion
A difficult-to-understand Code is a disincentive to the growth of our sport. It has become unnecessarily complex and needs to be trimmed of its fossil regulations. Judging from the problems sent to the committee, the Code is often found to be unnecessarily difficult as a result of this complexity, causes flight and evidence problems. OOs and Claims Officers state that the Code in its present form can be detrimental to the progress of beginning cross-country and badge pilots – a group that, for the betterment of the sport, must not be discouraged.
The intent of the committee is to redraft the Sporting Code on the following basis:
that the Code only retain the minimum set of rules/procedures necessary to establish a soaring performance, and that alternate means be eliminated unless there is a positive reason to keep them.
that certain record types be retired in order to shorten the list to those that most effectively span the range of distance and speed performances that the IGC recognises.
Immediate comment and suggestions from delegates and other knowledgeable pilots is invited. Based on a consensus of input received, the committee will prepare one or more draft changes to the Code, and present them as Year 1 Proposal(s) for IGC approval.
Ross Macintyre for the IGC Sporting Code committee
_______________________
[Revisions as of June 2, 2013] The minimum set of courses available for tasks
This paper is the committee’s most recent modification to the offer of a new set of courses that would cover current record or badge task achievement levels in the most simple way possible.
Version 4 of this Sporting Code text arises from continuing comment that has been received and from committee consultation (paragraph references are to a new Code, not the current one).
1. The earlier paper offered the case in which all record courses would be free. The main change here is to have all speed records remain declared rather than free. This would clearly differentiate distance and speed records.
2. Comment and committee consultation concluded that eliminating the 1000m allowed loss of height for early badge pilots would be problematic for them, so it would be retained for all badges to keep the rule simple.
3. A closer examination of a range of possible task geometries for the proposed Area 3TP (to replace the triangle) showed that it would not always fulfill the objective of having a course type that would generally be flown in thermal rather than wave or ridge conditions. As this type of course is necessary to demonstrate the full range of soaring skills, the current triangle course should be retained.
4. Note that the 10 km TP separation requirement is not included in the new 3TP course definition. Note also that as a consequence of the set of distance courses being free, the Distance-to-Goal record would be gone. Would replacing it with a Speed-to-Goal record be an option – say for 300 and 500 km?
We thank responders for the thoughtful comments that the committee is receiving. As you can see, suggestions are actively considered.
_______________________
[ORIGINAL] PROPOSED SPORTING CODE TEXT RELATED TO A MINIMUM SET OF COURSES
1.4 SOARING PERFORMANCE TYPES and REQUIREMENTS
The following paragraphs define all the SOARING PERFORMANCES that may be flown for records or badges. Table 1 at the end of this [section] presents the information in spreadsheet form.
1.4.1 General
a. A SOARING PERFORMANCE may be claimed from any flight that meets the requirements of proof for that performance.
b. A DECLARATION and electronic flight data are required as specified in 4.2.
c. WAY POINTS are fixes selected from the recorded position data except where being declared is required.
1.4.3 Flight courses (replaces the current 1.4.3 to 1.4.9)
There are three COURSES for record and badge use, based on the number of TURN POINTS available. Depending on the type of task being attempted, further restrictions will apply – see 3.1.6 for records and 2.1 for badges.
a. STRAIGHT DISTANCE — A COURSE having one LEG.
b. OUT AND RETURN DISTANCE — A CLOSED COURSE having one TURN POINT.
c. DISTANCE USING UP TO THREE TURN POINTS — A COURSE via at least one and no more than three TURN POINTS. The TURN POINTS must be at least 10 kilometres apart, and each may be claimed only once.
2.1.3 Diamonds
a. DIAMOND DISTANCE — a distance flight of at least 500 kilometres.
b. DIAMOND GOAL — a goal flight of at least 300 kilometres over an out-and-return or a 2 or 3 turn point closed course. The way points must be declared and flown in sequence.
c. DIAMOND HEIGHT — a gain of height of at least 5000 metres.
Some Points to Consider
- No other course tests distance performance or a cross-country soaring skill that is not demonstrated by any of the three proposed.
- Declared TPs are a holdover from camera evidence and should be required only for tasks where there is need, for example the Diamond Goal flight, which is a test primarily for accurate planning and execution rather than distance. If you think that it is necessary for any type of record to require a declared waypoint, explain why.
- Speed records using TP fixes would not differ substantially in planning or execution from those having declared TPs.
- New speed record requirements may different enough to start anew, although with starter values also to respect past performance.
- The 100 km speed record may be retired with 3TP course tasks. A 3TP course in wave (having four shorter legs) could be limited by Vne rather than by pilot skill.
A separate proposal from the reduced course list above is to eliminate the 1000m loss of height allowed before a height penalty is imposed. It is a complicating factor that would not be invented today if the rules were being written afresh, and is introduced here as affecting the conduct of new record tasks, An allowed LoH is a holdover from the early days of low performance gliders flying downwind for distance. LoH is also less a factor in current record flying in wave. However, in the interest of keeping the difficulty of completing Silver/Goldbadge flights to a minimum, a LoH allowance could remain for these.
LOSS OF HEIGHT — 1.3.4 The START ALTITUDE minus the FINISH ALTITUDE. If positive, the penalty in 4.4.3 applies.
OFFICIAL DISTANCE — 1.3.9 The sum of the LEGS, with any OZ CORRECTION and LOSS OF HEIGHT penalty deducted.
4.4.3 Loss of height penalty
Except for Silver/Gold badge flights, [ included if (d) rather than (c) ] A loss of height penalty is incurred when the finish height is less than the start height.
a. For distance flights, this penalty is subtracted from the official distance. Its value is the loss of height multiplied by “X”, where X equals 100 for Open class General and Feminine records, 30 for ultralight, 13.5m class records and Silver distance, 50 for all other records and for Diamond and Gold badges.
b. For speed flights, the penalty shall be determined as for distance flights, and be added to the official distance in the calculation of speed.
c. For the Silver/Gold 5 hour duration flight, a time penalty shall be 2 minutes per 100m loss of height and fraction thereof. Either (c) or (d) – delete one:
d. For Silver or Gold badge flights, a LoH of up to 1% of the official distance to a maximum of 1000m is allowed between the start and finish points provided that the landing is the finish point.
- A range of LoH penalties should be used that vary with the type of flight or class of glider flown (the sample values given are for discussion only). Note that the current LoH penalty factor of 100 takes no account of the ultralight or 13.5m classes that did not exist when that multiplier value was imposed in 1983.
- A penalty will need to be allowed for speed records if there is no LoH margin.
- New distance records could extend from the current historical set, recognizing that there may be a starter value needed to offset the gliding distance previously available from 1000 metres agl.
