The USHPA Executive Committee (the folks that actually run the USHPA) has voted to implement an alternative to the current formula for valuing the worth of competitions and an alternative to the original proposal from the Competition Workgroup that was presented at the Fall 2008 USHPA BOD meeting. This new valuation formula is to be applied to 2009 competitions. I provide the proposal passed by the EC below, interspersed with my comments, questions and clarifications.

Description of the 2009 validity system:

At the Fall, 2008 USHPA board meeting, the board of directors approved a draft plan for restructuring USHPA’s competition system.

It is not possible to approve a draft plan, only a final plan. There has been much discussion about what the BOD actually passed at their fall BOD meeting. The EC has argued that the BOD approved its decision to change the 2009 valuation formula. Others have argued that the BOD only approved continued work by the Competition Workgroup on their proposal.

Pursuant to the board’s directive, the Competition Work Group carried forth to the next step in the process, to obtain feedback on the draft from member pilots. Some valued feedback was received from the current crop of competition on the portion of the draft plan relating to meet validity.

The USHPA Competition Rulebook states that the Competition Committee is supposed to obtain this input first not as feedback but as input. But I sound like a broken record. I have been informed by EC members that the EC and the BOD are free to break and make any rule that they like at any time.

For reference, meet validity is a calculated number indicating the maximum number of points a meet could be worth, based upon attendance.

I would word this slightly differently to make it more intelligible: The a priori maximum value of a meet is determined by the quality and quantity of pilots who attend the meet.

This potential maximum is then devalued should the meet itself not have a sufficient number flying days with tasks of sufficient difficulty (typically, 3-4 task days are required in order to achieve the full potential validity). Combining (1) the potential maximum meet validity with (2) any devaluation due to insufficient flying results, and with (3) each pilot’s individual score within that competition, results in the final meet score for each pilot.

I assume that they mean by (3) the ratio of a pilot's score relative to the winner's score. I assume that they keep the meet validity value (2) that is currently determined by the points accumulated by the winner. If they have any changes in how the formula is applied (as per the USHPA Competition Rulebook), they have not detailed them.

On an ongoing basis, the best meet scores for each pilot over the preceding 2 years are used in determining each pilot’s national ranking. The highest ranged pilots represent the US in world championships, which occur every two years. Of the above three variables, the draft changes to the competition system contemplated adjusting only the first one.

I assume that they mean the current system of using the pilots' top four results, two top from the previous year and limited to two foreign meets. So apparently none of this will change at least for now. There are much bigger changes in the offing.

Of course, there is no word here about how they are going in incorporate 2008 results (using 600 points as the max) with 2009 results (using 1000 points as the max). I'll have questions about this and other issues below.

Toward the end of last year, the Competition Work Group opened a comment period with the membership on the proposed changes to the competition system. Much of the feedback centered around the validity system.

This small portion of the validity formula or all the other issues not referred to here? The EC is implementing this formula now for the 2009 meets. That has made it a hot issue. The Work Group has received quite a few critiques of the formula and the Work Group has changed their formula.

The main source of controversy is the conflict between quality (emphasize "ranked" pilots in determining value of the meet) and quantity (emphasize warm bodies coming to the meet). The Work Group and the EC want to use the NTSS formula to "encourage" pilots to attend competitions. Many competition pilots and others want the NTSS to choose the best pilots both for ranking and for the World Team.

I have done a preliminary analysis of the previously proposed change in the valuation formula compared with the current (well current in 2008) NTSS formula and found that the difference was small. So my conclusion was that the changes really don't change anything, so the reasons for the changes didn't matter either. But, I didn't do a complete analysis of the past two years of meets.

I personally favor doing many things to encourage more pilots to attend competitions. I believe that it should be a major focus of the organization (following instruction) as I believe that it could be a major force in encouraging growth of the sport. But I also feel that fiddling with the NTSS ranking formula is a very weak way of encouraging attendance at meets.

The vast majority of the feedback received came from current competition pilots and not the larger, potential community of pilots USHPA intends to attract (back) into competition, as directed by USHPA’s strategic plan. This is understandable, since potential competition pilots are not stakeholders in the current system, by definition.

There were so few competition pilots to actually comment that you've got to wonder just how much feedback they got from the competition hang glider pilots.

The Work Group apparently has all the comments and they are going to respond in some way to them. They said that they will redact the commenters' names. They can keep mine on my comments. I wonder how/when/where they are going to make these comments and responses available.

The feedback on the validity system was varied and without a clear consensus.

Just exactly what portion of the Competition Work Group Proposal are we talking about here? There were many comments that were not particularly about the valuation formula. Are these comments going to be addressed also?

However, one particularly well-considered counterproposal from a paragliding competition pilot and experienced meet-scorer adjusted some of the variables in the draft validity system, and the result seemed to offer potential improvements. This counterproposal also represented a lesser degree of change away from the validity system USHPA has been using, and the Competition Work Group therefore believes this adjusted approach will be perceived as more attractive than the original draft presented to the board last Fall to any pilots uncomfortable with changes away from the system presently in use.

Having considered all of the feedback received, the Competition Work Group voted to recommend the amended version of the draft new validity system to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee, in turn voted to ratify the Competition Work Group’s recommendation.

And what exactly does that mean? Does it go into effect now. Retroactively to the first of the year? Does it still have to be approved by the BOD? How does this relate to the overall proposal?

The new draft of the validity system still allots 1% validity for each pilot that shows up at a meet for the first 70 pilots. This validity from attendance is capped at 70%, so 70% potential meet validity is possible to achieve if none of the attending pilots held any then-current USHPA ranking, although in practice this most extreme case can be expected not to occur. Additional validity is provided by the then-current USHPA national ranking of the attending pilots (whom also bring 1% each for being an attendee) according to the following table.

Additional Validity Brought per Pilot:

Did the Workgroup apply the above values to the competitions in the US over the last two years and what was the result of that analysis? I would love to see the comparison between hang glider meets and paraglider meets.

The implications of the revised draft of the validity system are similar to those of the original draft. (a) The overall validity of USHPA competitions increases, addressing the problem of quality competitive events receiving less than full validity.

As I recall (tongue in cheek) it is the relative validity that counts not the absolute amount. You can up the amount available to each meet so that they are all worth 1000 points if you like.

(b) Meet organizers contributing to the pilot community by organizing well-attended events are rewarded with higher validity, which in turn induces higher ranked pilots to attend, which in turn augments the success of the organizers’ efforts.

If all meets are maximum validity or close to it, yes this works out, which I support. But let's see the real numbers from the analysis.

(c) Top pilots in search of a spot on the US team have incentive to attend events once considered secondary, creating an environment where aspiring pilots can learn from those more skilled.

I'm all in favor of this, if it is true.

(d) The validity system is more inclusive, factoring in the skills and value of attending pilots who happen not to have a national ranking. (e) Pilot skill remains the dominant variable in determining meet validity. (f) The best US pilots will continue to represent the US in world events.

As I wrote earlier in the Oz Report, my analysis of one competition showed that there was little to no difference between the existing validity determination system and the proposed one. So if it makes a difference for the better great, but why don't you show us this?

Their worksheet.

My questions:

Will the BOD have to ratify this new proposal at its Spring BOD meeting before it takes effect? It seems like this is the case.

Will the Competition Committee have to discuss the EC action and "rule" on it before it goes to the whole BOD?

Will it apply to meets that have already been run in 2009? Will it apply to foreign meets (if not, how to you value them)?

How will it be combined with the 2008 results (600 point meets Vs. 1000 point meets)?

If it is meant to encourage pilots to come to the 2009 meets how will keeping it "secret" until the end of April achieve this goal for the meets that start then?

Assuming that it is in conflict with the current USHPA Competition Rulebook, how will these conflicts be resolved? That is will the rules have to be adjudicated after the meets have been run?