I have always referred to the Appendices and Guides to draft NORs and SIs. The use of standardised language where possible is of considerable value to both race officials and competitors.

I have both used and been to events where the Simplified Sailing Instructions are used. In the series that have used them my experience has been that in each case the amount of information that then still needs to be included in the local sailing instructions negates any benefit of having the simplified sailing instructions and result in two separate SI documents that must be referred to. IMHO it is “simpler” for all parties to issue a singular full set of SIs for each venue in the series but for the organisers to ensure the commonality of clauses, formatting etc to the extent possible.

1) yes, always. I am amazed at the lack of their use and it often shows. 
2,3 & 4) no

#1 - Absolutely - and I advocated for their retention in the rule book (and am annoyed that they are now hard to find for the average RO who really needs them).  It's unconscionable that as RO educators, we have to provide these to our students (who are the ones who really need them) because they don't know they exist.
#2 - No.
#3 - No.
#4 - Considering the last update was 2014? No. There's no "Risk Statement" at all.

I am all about reducing the size of both the NoR and the SIs.  For major events (up to and including a Continental Championship), I can get an NoR to 1/2 a page (admittedly, it's 9 pt type).  I can get the SIs (including the course diagrams) to 4 pages (2 sheets of paper) in 11 pt type.  Appendix KG and LG provide the backbone, including the proper changed rules for commonly used procedures (like a finishing window).

#1 - Absolutely. I agree with Matt completely.
#2 - Yes. Most of our area racing is similar in format with changes in venue or theme or OA but the same classes with the same courses.
#3 - Yes. 
#4 - No. I didn't know it existed until now. Finding things on US Sailing website is a challenge to me. That guide is from 2014. I wouldn't have used it if I had known of it.

I use the guides weekly, but I have never used the simple si. I use rya materials and have never seen the us ones. I do keep trying to source the race management though. 

I use the guides weekly, but I have never used the simple si. I use rya materials and have never seen the us ones. I do keep trying to source the race management manual though. 

1.Yes and I agree that they should be in the RRS, rather than being "somewhere" on the WS site.
2. No
3. No
4. No

1-yes
2-yes
3-yes, but not as intended
4-not really, but others may well find them useful, and I’m glad they’re there

The KG & LG guides are usually more comprehensive than I need, but are a huge improvement over the habit of using last year’s documents, which tends to perpetuate and amplify a series of mistakes over time, and often eventually creates documents that contain outdated rules references, bad dates, poorly restated rules, and other ticking time bombs for protest committees. Their presence in electronic format makes it easier to use them (and promote their use by OAs) instead of those old docs.

I haven’t used the Appendix S Standard Sailing Instructions on their own or been to an event where they are used as described, but they’re my preferred resource as a template. They’re refreshingly brief and to the point and easily tailored to suit specific events, and there are very few events for which they don’t provide perfectly adequate instructions. I’m glad they’re available online, and think they should be more prominently offered as alternative to the LG guide and template.

I think the downside to using Appendix S as intended is the number of people who aren’t inclined to open a rule book, many of whom don’t have one handy even if they were inclined to open it. That may change over time with the prevalence of the RRS app, and I support the idea, but I’m not convinced we’re there yet, so I haven’t used them so far.

1.Yes and I agree that they should be in the RRS, rather than being "somewhere" on the WS site. At least add a link so you don't have to Google it, or sure just say Google it. 😎
2. Yes
3. No
4. No

1. Yes, and I agree with previous comments about the desirability of having them in the rule book itself, not effectively hidden within the World Sailing "Where's Waldo" web site.
2. No
3. No
4. No

1. Yes - and I think online is better than printed because it allows updates in best practice in NoR and SIs to be communicated during a four-year cycle, rather than waiting for the next printed update.
2, 3 & 4 No.

Yes.  Since 2021, we have rewritten about 8 sets of NOR/SI for Club season series, Annual Regatta, and championship regattas.

The rules change gave us the opportunity to rigourously review our NOR/SI and delete numerous out of date requirements, poor wordings, and repetitions.  We moved from roughly 5 pages per NOR/SI to about 2 pages each.

I have also found that, for annual club events, where the design and location of the event doesn't change, it is possible to produce a Combined NOR/SI, running to about 4 pages.  For these events there is no advantage in being able to produce SI at a date later than the NOR, and this achieves a 'single document' for competitors. 

2.  Have you ever used Appendix S, Standard Sailing Instructions?

Yes, but we have found that once you put the Supplementary SI (SSI) into an accessible tabular format, and include local requirements, like courses different from the dinghy courses in the SSI, (and switch off some of the things that should never have been hard wired into Appendix S, like orange flags up, and hard wired change to Protest time limit), the SSI were no shorter than our full set of SI.

3.  Have you ever been to an event where Appendix S was used?

I've run a couple, without anything interesting.

4.  Have you ever used the US Sailing Guide to Writing Simple Sailing Instructions, posted on the Rules page of ussailing.org?

No.

John Mooney
said Created: Today 11:16

While serious, experienced racers always read the NOR/SI for every event carefully, the other 90% of competitors don't diligently read the NOR/SI, except for starting times and courses.  In the same way, Joe Sixpack can get around the race course with nothing more than his hazy knowledge of port/starboard and windward/leeward, and something about 'overtaking boat', for 90% of the time.

Generally speaking, at the club racing level, people only need to read the RRS/NOR/SI when something unusual happens, and then, a more or less careful reading after the event, where the compeititor can focus on particular circumstances and rules does the job.

Given that there's a considerable amount of verbiage that 'just has to be there somewhere' (via Appendix J etc), but doesn't have to be regularly referred to, while as race officials we would like competitors to pay more attention to the rules, and we naturally support measures to improve rules awareness and observance, I don't think that abbreviated NOR/SI are all that helpful.  As several posters have observed, shortened documents produce their own problems.

1 - yes
2 - no
3 - no
4 -no

1. YES
2. No, but I only use the course diagrams.
3. No
4. No

yes & yes, no, no, no.
8 years now, and I still see SI's stating "boats that start more than ___ minutes after signal..."
It was nice to have the guides in the RRS, but I suppose they are more flexible and update-able elsewhere.

What's the problem with that?

I know the problem with "boats that finish after ..."

Logic. "Boats that do not start..." never refers to them as starters.

Sorry,  still not getting it.

What depends on "starters"?

DNS without a hearing.
If you "started" (late), how, logically, can you "did not start?"
Same as OCS. We do not say "pre-mature starter" or "started early."
If you were not in the "window," as the writers mulled the change, you never did start.

I agree that as a matter of elegance the "does not start within ..." wording is preferable.

I'm not troubled by the illogicality.

The "shall be scored DNS" is a command as to allocation of points.  Strictly construed, it says nothing about whether the boat did or did not start.  The implied illogicality doesn't invalidate the provision.

#1 Yes, #2-#4 No,

Hi Rob,

Did you do an analysis or summary pulling these responses together? 

Did you get what you were after?