"The Future of rules and classes." This one is published (in German)
in this month's Segelfliegen. If you don't speak German (like me),
here's the English version

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/future_rules_and_classes.pdf
or, more generally
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#misc

Ok, this is the last one for a while.
John Cochrane

On 05/12/2011 3:18 PM, John Cochrane wrote:
> "The Future of rules and classes." This one is published (in German)
> in this month's Segelfliegen. If you don't speak German (like me),
> here's the English version
>
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/future_rules_and_classes.pdf
> or, more generally
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#misc
>
> Ok, this is the last one for a while.
> John Cochrane



--- Quote ---

The US uses a start cylinder with a top well below cloudbase. The
cylinder removes the concentration of
traffic at the most favorable, upwind edge of the line. Pilots must
spend two minutes below the top of
the cylinder before starting. This is more practical than enforcing a
speed limit. While anything can be
improved, this geometry gives much less incentive for unsafe flying

--- End Quote ---

Hi John,

As usual a well written article with interesting points.

From personal experience I do not like the height and time restriction.
I understand the reasoning behind the rule but I feel that it promotes
unsafe flying by making the pilot spend too much time with his head
down. Instead of looking out we are watching the altimeter and watch in
order to get a valid start.

Thanks for writing the articles, great food for thought.

Luke Szczepaniak

> --- End Quote ---
>
> Hi John,
>
> As usual a well written article with interesting points.
>
> *From personal experience I do not like the height and time restriction..
> * I understand the reasoning behind the rule but I feel that it promotes
> unsafe flying by making the pilot spend too much time with his head
> down. *Instead of looking out we are watching the altimeter and watch in
> order to get a valid start.
>
> Thanks for writing the articles, great food for thought.
>
> Luke Szczepaniak

Yes, it has its limits. But wait until you try circling in the clouds
with 50 other gliders, all gaming an unlimited-altitude gate, or
dodging the guys diving out of the clouds at VNE to nick a gate with
limited altitude but no time or speed limit. Can you think of a better
way? That's a serious invitation.
John Cochrane

On 05/13/2011 10:00 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
>> --- End Quote ---
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> As usual a well written article with interesting points.
>>
>> From personal experience I do not like the height and time restriction.
>> I understand the reasoning behind the rule but I feel that it promotes
>> unsafe flying by making the pilot spend too much time with his head
>> down. Instead of looking out we are watching the altimeter and watch in
>> order to get a valid start.
>>
>> Thanks for writing the articles, great food for thought.
>>
>> Luke Szczepaniak
>
> Yes, it has its limits. But wait until you try circling in the clouds
> with 50 other gliders, all gaming an unlimited-altitude gate, or
> dodging the guys diving out of the clouds at VNE to nick a gate with
> limited altitude but no time or speed limit. Can you think of a better
> way? That's a serious invitation.
> John Cochrane

I obviously don't have the experience you do, the largest contest I have
been in before the implementation of the new rules had about 60 gliders.
The previous situation was much safer as there was a visual reference
outside of the cockpit. It is much easier to stay "clear of cloud"
rather than trying to stay below "5000 feet" on the altimeter let alone
trying to guess what the Flight Recorder is doing. I rather be at cloud
base knowing that the guys up there with me are looking out as opposed
to being 1000 feet below the cloud with all of us looking at our
altimeters and watches.

The current rules haven't resolved the problem they simply shifted it
down below cloud base. They have compressed the gaggles to a reduced
volume of air, and added to pilot workload by unnecessarily complicating
the start gate management.

Luke Szczepaniak

On Thu, 12 May 2011 12:18:29 -0700 (PDT), John Cochrane
> wrote:

>"The Future of rules and classes." This one is published (in German)
>in this month's Segelfliegen. If you don't speak German (like me),
>here's the English version


I agree with you. There are differences between the US and EU
situations, and even inside Europe many instances are different in
some countries or groups of countries. Some parts of your analysis may
be a little US-biased.


There are a few points I'd like to discuss in your very interesting
paper:

the World Class - I am pretty sure there has been a marketing study,
on behalf of the IGC by an US University. The conclusion predicted a
market in the thousands of gliders of the (then) proposed World Class.
That must have been a major issue in the approval of the Class by the
IGC delegates.
I have the impression that the current decision (the 13,5m Class) is
already taken, and going to get only minor adjustments so your
comments may have no chance to be seriously examined.
The idea is probably something like "the World Class is dead, some
gliders are there, we have received some proposals, there are also
some new light gliders without a niche for competition.. let's give it
a try".

the Finish height - I am a strong believer in the need to separate the
competitive stress of the final glide, from the survival stress of the
actual landing. Nevertheless, when we tried it, we got a few very bad
remarks. Indifferent was instead the word for the majority (something
like, "it works but we don't need it").
There seems to be room for mistakes and new accidents:
a) the pilot on a marginal final glide to the "hi-finish" will watch
the altimeter, pull progressively back on the stick, then stall/spin
on the finish line (happened),
b) the pilot comes in fast, then pulls-up to the finish alt. creating
danger for the followers (happened),
c) the pilot makes it to the airfield with no speed points, then
complaining for weeks about him "completing" the task under "natural"
rules but failing to comply with the "arbitrary" rule (happened).
d) the pilot's attention is moved mainly to the altimeter in the last
few seconds (happens to me).

aldo cernezzi
(competition pilot)
www.voloavela.it

not a competition pilot, yet.

what would the problems be with defining a start and finish similar to
that used for FAI badges and records? perhaps not a 1 km sector but
maybe just use an unlimited altitude cylinder. whenever you leave the
cylinder last is your start, and whenever you re-enter the cylinder is
your finish, but you must finish within 1000 m vertically of the
start.

On Fri, 13 May 2011 10:53:06 -0400, Luke > wrote:

> I rather be at cloud
>base knowing that the guys up there with me are looking out as opposed
>to being 1000 feet below the cloud with all of us looking at our
>altimeters and watches.

You'll not only be looking at altimeters - you'll be looking at
airspeed indicators, too.

The procedure in question was first used in the Luesse WGC. The German
15m class team members described the situation like this:

15 gliders at maximum altitude in the same circle, trying to gain as
much energy (read: speed) as possible. One of the most dangerous
situations they ever experienced - day after day.

Cheers
Andreas

>
> The procedure in question was first used in the Luesse WGC. The German
> 15m class team members described the situation like this:
>
> 15 gliders at maximum altitude in the same circle, trying to gain as
> much energy (read: speed) as possible. One of the most dangerous
> situations they ever experienced - day after day.
>
> Cheers
> Andreas

Interesting. My experience at Szeged (and otherwise with unlimited
altitude gates) is exactly the same -- except it's in clouds!

If the top of the start area is properly set, it's easy to climb up to
it. Therefore, you do not need to spend any time at all in such a
monster gaggle. Stay a few hundred meters below the top, then climb up
when it's time to go. In the US you are allowed to start out the top
of the cylinder, which makes it even easier. There is just no need to
spend lots of time in such a dangerous situation.

It sounds to me like your pilots had not evolved the right strategy to
deal with an altitude limited gate. That's understandable. US pilots
were doing the same thing for a while after the limited altitude start
was implemented. By and large we've all learned it's not necessary.

John Cochrane

On May 12, 2:18*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> "The Future of rules and classes." This one is published (in German)
> in this month's Segelfliegen. If you don't speak German (like me),
> here's the English version
>
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/future_...
> or, more generallyhttp://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#misc
>
> Ok, this is the last one for a while.
> John Cochrane

As usual, John, a great article.

Just one minor nitpick - Top Gun is Navy, not Air Force (AF has the
Weapons School, and Red Flag). And the hard deck (it was 10,000' when
I flew in F-4s, it's 8000' now for F-15s, I think, due to their better
dive recovery capabilities) is in use throughout the Air Force and
Navy, and probably all other airforces when practicing air-to-air
combat. As you say, it's the simulated ground, so if you punch
through it during a fight - you lose. Of course, if you can sucker
the guy chasing you below it, he loses!

I still think we need to work on some aspects of our starts and
finishes. The altitude limit means that on a good day, we have
several gliders running around at high speed/high G winding up to pop
up through the top when the gate opens or the 2 minutes are up. It
shouldn't happen ("why the rush") but it still does. Not sure how to
fix this.

And the finishes still require too much clock-watching. I do not want
to be staring at my altimeter on final glide - I want to be looking
out the window! We are getting better with the graduated penalty if
below the finish height - ideally it should be a finish window that is
points-neutral within a reasonable altitude spread (if lower, then
subtract points - or add time - equal to the time that would have been
spent in the last thermal to get the height needed, for example).

Cheers,

Kirk
66

On May 13, 10:13*am, Tony > wrote:
> not a competition pilot, yet.
>
> what would the problems be with defining a start and finish similar to
> that used for FAI badges and records? *perhaps not a 1 km sector but
> maybe just use an unlimited altitude cylinder. *whenever you leave the
> cylinder last is your start, and whenever you re-enter the cylinder is
> your finish, but you must finish within 1000 m vertically of the
> start.

Tony, imagine a weak day, with a few good thermals, and 40 gliders
launching. First glider launches, finds a good thermal, starts slowly
climbing. An hour later, the last glider launches and starts looking
for lift - down at 2000' agl. 15 minutes later, the gate opens, and
the first glider, having worked his way up to 6000', starts. Last
Guy, meanwhile, is still struggling at 2500'. An hour later, he
finally starts... The idea of the altitude limit is to give everyone
an equal chance to get up after launch and get setup to start.
Otherwise, grid position can win the day!

Kirk
66

On May 13, 8:53*am, Luke > wrote:
> On 05/13/2011 10:00 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> --- End Quote ---
>
> >> Hi John,
>
> >> As usual a well written article with interesting points.
>
> >> * From personal experience I do not like the height and time restriction.
> >> * *I understand the reasoning behind the rule but I feel that it promotes
> >> unsafe flying by making the pilot spend too much time with his head
> >> down. *Instead of looking out we are watching the altimeter and watch in
> >> order to get a valid start.
>
> >> Thanks for writing the articles, great food for thought.
>
> >> Luke Szczepaniak
>
> > Yes, it has its limits. But wait until you try circling in the clouds
> > with 50 other gliders, all gaming an unlimited-altitude gate, or
> > dodging the guys diving out of the clouds at VNE to nick a gate with
> > limited altitude but no time or speed limit. Can you think of a better
> > way? That's a serious invitation.
> > John Cochrane
>
> I obviously don't have the experience you do, the largest contest I have
> been in before the implementation of the new rules had about 60 gliders.
> * The previous situation was much safer as there was a visual reference
> outside of the cockpit. It is much easier to stay "clear of cloud"
> rather than trying to stay below "5000 feet" on the altimeter let alone
> trying to guess what the Flight Recorder is doing. *I rather be at cloud
> base knowing that the guys up there with me are looking out as opposed
> to being 1000 feet below the cloud with all of us looking at our
> altimeters and watches.
>
<snip>
> Luke Szczepaniak- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am not convinced that that" Altimeter and Watchs" statement pans out
in actual practice.

The only reason you would even consider doing this is because you left
the cylinder and then came back to it. Normally only a small
percentage of pilots are going to be doing this.
And even then it is unlikely you are cruising around the cylinder 50
to 100 feet below the top waiting for your 2 minutes to expire.

It is much more likely that you are well below the top of the cylinder
looking for a great thermal (Also looking for other gliders) to climb
out the top of the cylinder as quickly as possible and get high after
leaving the cylinder.
If the thermal weakens after leaving you will head on course to find
the next thermal.

While I like unlimited hieght cylinders, the logic of the limited
height cylinder makes more sense to me. The limted hieght cylinder is
much more preferable because once you climb out the top you are
committed to getting on course quickly. Unlike an unlimited hieght
cylinder where everyone is climbing at perhaps only 25ft/min to get
maximum hieght for the start, that pretty much ensures a tight gaggle
of gliders for much longer period than the two minutes required in the
limited start hieght. Then add the limited visibilty due to being near
the cloud base to make a bad situation even worse. The unlimited
hieght cylinder also puts the last guys to launch at a disadvantage on
weaker days because they may not have the time to get the last 1000
feet of altitude at very slow climb rates.

Brian
HP16T

<snip>
>*We are getting better with the graduated penalty if
> below the finish height - ideally it should be a finish window that is
> points-neutral within a reasonable altitude spread (if lower, then
> subtract points - or add time - equal to the time that would have been
> spent in the last thermal to get the height needed, for example).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk
> 66

The points neutral window is an interesting idea. Probably requires a
bit more number crunching than I am up to but the idea of adding a
few points for coming in higher i.e. reverse low finish penalty might
have have some merit. The idea being that finishing anywhere within
say a 1000 ft altitude window should give you about the same points
would like you say be ideal.

My concern is that what we would like to be a simple solution starts
becoming complex.
The strength of the last thermal would probably have an effect on if
you should finish High or Low in the window for best points.
The scoring software could come up with the points adjustment based on
the actual last thermal, but then it becomes very difficult to
determine how to write the rule for it and how to determining how you
actually scored becomes even more complex. We already complain that it
is hard to determine our speeds as it is.
It would probably work, but like the adding 15minutes to the time on
course rule we tried, we probably wouldn't like it much.

Brian
HP16T