We did in fact mention this pilot at the Captain's meeting on
Saturday but I think that the consensus was that we cannot examine
every single possible entrant and discuss ad nauseum whether or not
they are or are not a Novice/Intermediate/Pundit.

With the same approach, it could be argued that Russell should not
fly in the Pundit class as he is far MORE experienced than all the
other competitors and therefore it is unfair to the others taking
part.

The idea of the Inter Club League as I understand it is that is
meant to be FUN! We could argue about it this issue for days and
still not reach an agreement. The discussion at the meeting led to
an agreement that (as far as I remember) the class descriptions were
broadly appropriate.

For the individual in question, as she is only 18 there are years
ahead if she want to compete in the Inter Club League. Perhaps she
could use the current season in order to gain more experience and
become more "worthy" of the Intermediate class?

Just my tuppence worth!

Miriam


--- In East_Mids_ICL@..., "Russell Cheetham"
<russellcheetham@...> wrote:
>
> Paul
> She MIGHT be nearly as good as you at soaring but as she only went
solo
> recently, is otherwise highly inexperienced and has never had a
single
> season as a novice. Its just that she's probably not going to get
picked
> for now as an Intermediate and I feel that the novice Interclub
> experience is one that should not be denied her - that's all! - I
> therefore look at the rules in this situation to see how they
might have
> got it wrong IMHO
> Cheers
> Russell
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: East_Mids_ICL@...
> [mailto:East_Mids_ICL@...] On Behalf Of Paul Machacek
> Sent: 09 May 2007 21:16
> To: East_Mids_ICL@...
> Subject: Re: [East_Mids_ICL] 2007 Interclub rules / minutes from
> captain's meeting
>
>
>
> Russell,
>
> The same pilot did a very impressive solo 270K of a 300K task off
the
> back of the grid at the Bicester Regionals last year when Foxy and
I
> struggled to get round and back, even though we came first and
second
> respectively for the day. It was a difficult day, and definitely
(in
> hindsight) not the sort of day that you'd send such a "novice" on
their
> first 300K.
>
> So the question is, in terms of this pilots' overall experience
are they
> a novice? I'd say yes, but in terms of entering them fair & square
as a
> novice down at fun friendly interclub level, does the novice status
> still count? Not so sure about that one.
>
> I could be wrong, but I believe that part of the decision by the
CFI
> (who may have had other more personnel motives) was the lack of
landout
> options. Certainly there were a lot of rape fields obvious from my
brief
> flight on Saturday out of HB, and what I've seen driving around
> recently, but Bicester last year was before harvesting had really
gotten
> into full swing, so I'd argue that the situation wasn't hugely
> different.
>
> Anyway, if the intention is to give young/inexperienced pilots a
helping
> hand then I'd suggest that, in this case, this pilot's already
getting
> that more than most.
>
> Despite my comments, I'm extremely supportive of what this pilot is
> achieving and would like to encourage their current progress
hugely.
>
> Paul
>
> PS. I managed to make my point without using the word "ringer" ;-)
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Russell Cheetham <mailto:russellcheetham@...>
>
> To: East_Mids_ICL@...
> <mailto:East_Mids_ICL@...>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:13 PM
> Subject: RE: [East_Mids_ICL] 2007 Interclub rules / minutes
from
> captain's meeting
>
>
>
> Well - I didn't read the minutes which I now find attached
> below Colin's input - it would appear that you guys have not
changed the
> scoring in a way as per my input?? So please disregard my rantings
> completely!
>
> However, I would like to suggest one point - or request an
> exception.
>
> Husbos have a pilot who flies an ASW15, is very
inexperienced,
> went solo last year and is 18. She was not deemed sufficiently
> experienced to be allowed by her CFI to take part last weekend this
> early in the season. However, she entered with her dad as a shared
entry
> in her ASW15 in the Interservices Regional's in September. So she
is not
> a novice by the old rules or the new. How unfair is that to her as
she
> does in my view deserve the opportunity of taking part at a level
that
> her experience merits.
> I fail to see how entering an event with no performance
criteria
> should affect your situation re Interclub. I suppose the same
applies to
> Nationals too in that now there is no such thing as an
oversubscribed
> Nationals with some of them even being glorified Regionals
(Overseas and
> Club). When the rules were originally written, a Nationals entry
meant
> that you had arrived in Competition gliding as you would have had
to
> come in the top three or four at Regionals level to qualify.
> Perhaps you should consider removing the Competition element
> from the entry requirement for the various classes of Interclub
pilot?
> I certainly think that the particular young "Novice" pilot I
> refer should be permitted in novice at least for a while.
> Comments appreciated.
> Cheers
> Russell
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: East_Mids_ICL@...
> [mailto:East_Mids_ICL@...] On Behalf Of Russell
Cheetham
> Sent: 09 May 2007 17:05
> To: East_Mids_ICL@...
> Subject: RE: [East_Mids_ICL] 2007 Interclub rules / minutes
from
> captain's meeting
>
>
>
>
> Hi Guys and Gals
> I obviously was not at the meeting so cannot confirm what you
> decided to do re scoring. However, I would like to implore you not
to
> change the scoring as used in the official rules other than to
make it
> on a daily basis rather than a weekend basis so that there are
> theoretically twice as many points up for grab each weekend and
1000
> point daily scoring is not needed unless a penalty needs to be
applied
> to a pilots score.
> We once changed the scoring to max points for winner
> irrespective of the number of pilots taking part and it produced a
bad
> situation and is blatantly unfair as it just not right that for
example
> a novice in a group can get say five points more than a pilot who
fails
> to leave the site and land out. In my humble opinion, if one pilot
> manages 40km and the others are not able to leave the site whether
> because they cannot stay up or they are not brazened enough to
> inevitably land out, then the score for the winner is rightfully 2
> where the others all get 1 for turning up and taking a launch. No
launch
> then no points but a point if you launch then provide no trace.
> I admire the groups intent to improve the rules but worry
that
> we may be trying variations that we have done before and
regretted -
> unless I have completely misread Colin's posting???????
> Colin's comment about a system that does not devalue the
efforts
> of pilots if a particular club is unable to attend in that class is
> interesting - but surely if you get 6 points as the only
participant
> this is blatantly over valuing of efforts. Surely it is right to
get a
> point extra for every person you beat on a day?????
> Ok - I've jumped off my box now
> Regards to all
> Russell
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: East_Mids_ICL@...
> [mailto:East_Mids_ICL@...] On Behalf Of Colin Cownden
> Sent: 08 May 2007 18:31
> To: East_Mids_ICL@...
> Subject: RE: [East_Mids_ICL] 2007 Interclub rules / minutes
from
> captain's meeting
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree with the minutes below except the section on Scoring
> where it says:
>
> 'Scoring to be based on 3,2,1 rather than 6,5,4 (ie maximum
> points on a day is the number of pilots that compete, rather than
number
> of teams in league)'
>
>
>
> I thought that we simplified it even further and said in
effect
> - 1st = 5 pts, 2nd = 4pts, 3rd = 3pts and so on in each class
regardless
> of how many pilots competed.
>
> So for example if one club were unable to compete in a round
> that fact would not devalue the score for the other clubs.
>
>
>
> A pilot taking a competition launch would also still get a
> single point even if they could not achieve a scorable task.
>
>
>
> I suspect that this last point would affect our stance on the
> 'no .IGC trace no score' decision. - should we give them a single
point
> instead?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Colin Cownden
>
> Cambridge Gliding Centre
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: East_Mids_ICL@...
> [mailto:East_Mids_ICL@...] On Behalf Of Chris Davison
> Sent: 08 May 2007 10:30
> To: East_Mids_ICL@...
> Subject: [East_Mids_ICL] 2007 Interclub rules / minutes from
> captain's meeting
>
>
>
>
> Hi all....below is a summary of the things we discussed in
the
> Captain's meeting as Hus Bos..pls let me know ASAP if I have got
> anything wrong or missed anything?
>
>
>
> General aim is to make this a 'fun introduction to
competition
> flying', rather than a '2 day regionals'. The following items
were
> discussed:
>
>
> Use of 'Reserve Weekend':
>
> We have agreed that 5 weekends is the maximum number to run
> interclub weekends on. When we have more than 5 clubs wishing to
host a
> weekend then the following clubs will pencil in a reserve weekend,
only
> to be used if 3 or less scoring days have been completed by the
end of
> the third I/C weekend. The date of the reserve weekend is to be
agreed
> at the start of the season along with all the other weekends. (
Clubs /
> years were decided by drawing names from a hat at the Captain's
meeting)
>
>
> 2007 Dunstable
> 2008 Saltby
> 2009 Cranwell
> 2010 Gransden
> 2011 Four Counties
> 2012 Hus Bos
>
>
> Loggers:
>
> Encourage use of IGC loggers, but accept alternative traces,
> such as from winpilot or GPS logs, so long as the format can be
easily
> read by software such as Tasknav / Seeyou
>
> Scores on the day based on 'honest reporting' by pilot (start
> time, TP's etc), with .igc file e-mailed within 7 days. No .IGC
file =
> no score. Encourage pilots to post IGC files on the BGA Ladder.
>
> Discussed the idea of having a site dedcated to UK Interclubs
> that scores / dates / reports could be posted on.
>
>
> Launching
>
> If the weather is such that a gridded launch system is more
> suitable, then this is preferable, but consider use of non-gridded
> launching if weather is less predictable. This would encourage
flying
> even if the weather is not capable of sustaining 3 classes x 6
teams.
> It is still acceptable to cancel the task / scrub day so long as
not
> pilots have called start. "Y" needs to be made clear at
briefing and
> stuck to, but can bring down to 40km for Novices or 60Km/40% for
> Intermediates. Still to use a fix task, but ensure tasks are
small
> enough to allow for delayed lauch due to club traffic.
>
> Tugs should aim to drop gliders in lift / under clouds,
rather
> than using a strict drop zone as in Regionals.
>
>
>
> Definition of classes
>
> Pundits can fly in intermediate if flying club class glider
> under club class rules...ie no water.
>
> If someone has flown as P1 in rated comp then cannot be
novice.
>
> Pundit = 500k or any nationals other than juniors
>
>
> Task setting
>
> Novice tasks should be set with a 'novice flying a Libelle'
in
> mind...vs the extremes of Discus 2 or K6cr.
>
>
> Start Height
>
> A maximum start height should only be used for airspace
reasons.
>
>
>
> Briefing by 'pundit'
>
> Useful for Novices and Intermediates if a 5 min briefing 'my
> initial thoughts' on the task and weather is given by a
Pundit...plus a
> post task briefing in the evening or following days briefing.
>
>
> Wet weather sessions
>
> In the unlikely event of poor weather, it would be good for
each
> club to have a talk / discussion they could offer...again
targetting
> Novice / Intermediates
>
>
> Scoring
>
> Scoring to be based on 3,2,1 rather than 6,5,4 (ie maximum
> points on a day is the number of pilots that compete, rather than
number
> of teams in league)
>
> Any competition launch counts as scoring at least a point (vs
> having to make a valid start).
>
> Aim is to spread the flying across a large number of pilots,
so
> aim is for no more than 4 scoring flights per person per season,
but
> prepared to be flexible where clubs have an issue with available
pilots.
> Team Captains can lodge a complaint if they think this flexibility
is
> being abused.
>
>
> Original copy of 2003 rules below
>
>
>
>
> Chris Davison
> BPO Channel Expansion Manager
> Chris_Davison@... 634249 mx 273983
> Tel +44 (0)115 9454249 Mob +44 (0)7802 948474 Fax +44
> (0)115 9473959
> Our Mission : GROWTH - Achieve Profitable Revenue Growth For
IBM
> & Our Partners
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
> with number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/793 - Release
Date:
> 07/05/2007 14:55
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/793 - Release
Date:
> 07/05/2007 14:55
>