32.881678,-111.854982,Francisco Grande, Casa Grande, Arizona,
USA

It has not always been pretty, but it at least has been a thorough
discussion and argument.

This is my first report on what went on:
http://ozreport.com/16.161#1

After that there was a sustained attempt to get a consensus among competition
pilots, finally coming down to the top five as determined by the interim ranking
found here:
http://www.ushpa.aero/competition/ntss1/index.php. That sincere attempt to
have the pilots speak and take their consensus to the competition committee, so
that it could follow what the hang gliding community wanted, failed when one
pilot out of the five refused to allow the Santa Cruz Flat Race to be counted
for the US National team.

I had a number of exchanges with that pilot after he made up his mind, and it
was more important to him that we follow a rule that was clearly the result of
an error than to support the meet organizer, whose concerns he dismissed. It was
clearly a mistake when the competition committee sanctioned the Santa Cruz Flats
Race as the US Nationals without realizing that its date conflicted with the
newly redone rules for selected the US National team. Mistakes happen, as we are
all human.

I asked him this:

If our rules happen to say that the only scores that count toward the US
National team were those scored when the pilot was flying a substantially red
glider, and it was the case that only one or two pilots knew about this rule
until after the competition season, would you say stick by the rules when
deciding on the team? Or would you say, hey, wait a minute there is an obvious
flaw in the rules?

I would suggest that the four months rule is also an obvious flaw, no matter now
clear it is. It is an obvious flaw because the Competition Committee sanctioned
the US Nationals without realizing that it wouldn’t count for the Worlds, if the
four month rule was to apply. It is on the same level of flaw as the red glider
rule.

Are you willing to stick to your position in this case?

He ignored my question.

So the decision of the competition committee stands, to stick by the existing
rules. But the other aspect of those rules is open to interpretation, so it is
not clear, at least to me, if the competition committee wants to stick strictly
to the rules or just ignore that part of the rules (thus putting their moral
position in jeopardy). Perhaps it is just too difficult to understand (unlike
the four month rule) so they can ignore it.

There are three interpretations.

1) 2010, 2011, 2012 (minus SCFR) count (as determined by the rule's author).

2) 2012 only counts (minus SCFR) (as determined by the person responsible for
doing the calculations).

3) 2011 and 2012 only count (minus SCFR) (as determined by the pilot who was
against the consensus, and clearly not supported by the rules).

The competition committee is aware of these interpretations.

So I am unclear who exactly the competition committee is choosing to be on the
US National team and what criteria they are using to make that determination and
whether they are following the rules strictly or not.

I had hoped that we hang glider pilots would be able to relieve them of that
responsibility, which they clearly do not want, but we were unable to agree as a
community.

It is my hope that out of this discussion all competition hang glider pilots
(even the one who refused to see it) realize what a precious resource we have in
our few meet organizers. Without them we wouldn't have a competition program.
Perhaps this is the lesson that they can learn and learn deeply.