Why did the King Mountain co-Nationals receive 300 points of NTSS validity when the meet could be fairly characterized as quite a bit less than fully valid?

I have asked Mike Hailey how USHPA officials reached the decision to determine that the King Mountain meet was 100% valid and award the winner 330 NTSS points, when the original calculation that was done by the volunteer who does these calculations for the USHPA awarded him 23 NTSS points.

The USHPA Competition Rulebook states:

6. 5. Scoring The approved USHPA scoring system is the GAP (and the later version of the GAP) system and the Race scoring program or any other scoring system approved by the CCC.

6. 6. Round Validity Round validity will be determined by the USHPA approved scoring system.

The King Mountain Rulebook states:

Daily Score = Flight Distance (handicapped)+ LZ Bonus

It is my understanding that the flight distance was not handicapped in the King Mountain co-Nationals and that there was no designated LZ bonus.

It is not clear if the USHPA Competition Committee approved these rules (or the rules as I believe them to actually be) or not, as required by the USHPA Competition Rulebook. It is also not clear that this scoring was actually going to be used at the King Mountain co-Nationals. Apparently at the first of the meet, there was a consideration of counting every day as worth a 1000 points, as though no matter how far the furthest pilot went, the day was completely valid. When it was pointed out that this would undermine their goal of having the pilot with the longest total miles win the meet, they went back to their standard practice of one point per mile.

If this was in fact the USHPA approved scoring and round validity system, then it is clear that the winner of the meet received 251 points. Total. The meet validity factor then calculated by the procedures detailed in the USHPA Competition Rulebook would be 251/3600 or 0.07. The winner would receive 330*0.07 = 23 NTSS points.

This is exactly the calculation that was made by the person who keeps the NTSS ranking up to date on the USHPA web site. He knows how the rules work.

Here is what the USHPA Competition Rulebook has to say about this procedure:

F. Minimum Meet Validity requirements

1. The only other factor affecting the NTSS points earned in for a given placing in a meet is the meet validity factor, which is a measure of whether or not the final placing in a meet can be expected to accurately reflect the relative ability of the pilots who competed. The minimum met validity assumes that the winner scored by the GAP or other CCC approved scoring system will accumulate at least 3,600 points in a valid hang gliding meet or 3,000 points in a valid paragliding meet.

2. VALIDITY PENALTY. If a meet does not meet the minimum validity requirements above, the NTSS points for each placing in the meet shall be reduced as follows:

• Divide the winner's points by 3,600 in a hang gliding meet or 3,000 in a paragliding meet to obtain the validity factor.

• Multiply this percentage by the NTSS points which would have been earned for each placing if computed without consideration of the minimum validity requirements.

• For example, if a meet winner scored only 2,950 points, then the validity factor would be 2,950/3,600 = 0.819.

Now is this fair to the pilots who flew at the King Mountain co-Nationals? I don't think so. But the question is, if it is not fair, why did it turn out not to be fair. Did the meet organizer not understand the USHPA Competition Rulebook? Did Mike Haley have to come up with an ad-hoc solution and a ad-hoc justification after the fact when he realized the error?

When I originally wrote this article, I had no idea what went down, who did it, and when.  None of the principals were talking to me. Dave Wheeler wouldn't tell me who told him to rank the meet in contradiction to the rules (which he knows quite well), only that it was someone above him. It certainly was not his fault.

Now, I have been forwarded an email that Mike Haley sent to the USHPA BOD which states that he "alone" made this decision and that it will be under review at the Fall BOD meeting. He didn't answer my question to him directly.

As there are no daily scores available to us for the competition, we can't use them to get some idea of the "actual validity" of the each day. The USHPA Competition Rulebook states:

Provisional Scores will be posted as soon as possible after a round. After examination of flight documentation, application of penalties, etc., Official Scores will be posted. Provisional and Official Scores will be so noted. Meet directors are encouraged to post the daily and final results in as timely a fashion as possible on the web.

Not only were daily scores not posted on the web during the meet, the daily scores have never been posted on the web.

So now we apparently have a situation where USHPA officials (Mike states that he operated along) are behind the scenes manipulating the results of a competition without providing directly to those of use who have asked a reasonable justification for their actions and in violations of their own rules (which, btw, they are apparently allowed to do with impunity). They have done this (violated their own rules) previously and seem to have no compunction against doing it whenever they feel the need to do so.

We also have a situation where a meet is declared 100% valid without providing a real test of that validity as all other meets are required to do. Was it really fully valid? Was a meet where the average flight was 16-20 km in rock and roll conditions equal in value to a meet where the average flight was 100 km?

Were all the other pilots who attended meets which adhered to the rules, to be disadvantaged because pilots who attended the King Mountain co-Nationals were given special consideration? Is there a conflict of interest here or just the appearance of one?

I would like a solution that is both fair to the pilots who flew at the King Mountain co-Nationals and fair to the competition pilots who did not fly at that meet, but flew at the other USHPA sanctioned competitions.

I believe that a fair solution can be reached, but that if it isn't seen as fair and above board by all, it will not be accepted, and this will tarnish the USHPA Competition Committee and the USHPA President.

I have volunteered (through my Regional Director and directly to Mike) to rescore the King Mountain competition for the purposes of meet validity and NTSS points only. This rescoring and the assumptions behind it would be made publicly available from day one. It would use the same GAP scoring system as all the other USHPA sanctioned meets so that the NTSS points would be fairly distributed.