Analyzing US Competition Flights

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
>

No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
overreacting.

The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
"cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
us well.

No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
“very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.

I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[Mike the Strike]

Chip:

I was one of those in earlier discussions who made the very strong point that it is very difficult to tell if folks have flown near clouds and you certainly can't do it from an igc file. Cloudbase is not known with any precision and can vary thousands of feet over a typical contest task area. I have on at least one occasion flown over cumulus clouds without violating any FARs and know of several occasions where other pilots have done so. Comparing flight traces of pilots with each other or a reasonable guess of cloudbase isn't going to tell you very much.

An entirely different question is the practice of staying in thermals until you reach cloudbase and then exiting through the wispies. It's hard to judge when to leave a strong thermal and this can happen to the best of us. I see it a lot of this in both pleasure flights and contests. I don't know how you would make an enforceable rule to control this, unless you are going to add cockpit cameras and dew-point sensors (quite doable, by the way!)..

Mike

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 8:21:02 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
> Chip:
>
> I was one of those in earlier discussions who made the very strong point that it is very difficult to tell if folks have flown near clouds and you certainly can't do it from an igc file. Cloudbase is not known with any precision and can vary thousands of feet over a typical contest task area. I have on at least one occasion flown over cumulus clouds without violating any FARs and know of several occasions where other pilots have done so. Comparing flight traces of pilots with each other or a reasonable guess of cloudbase isn't going to tell you very much.
>
> An entirely different question is the practice of staying in thermals until you reach cloudbase and then exiting through the wispies. It's hard to judge when to leave a strong thermal and this can happen to the best of us. I see it a lot of this in both pleasure flights and contests. I don't know how you would make an enforceable rule to control this, unless you are going to add cockpit cameras and dew-point sensors (quite doable, by the way!).
>
> Mike

There's a wonderful picture that pops up on the rotating SSA photo board taken during the prestart period at a Mifflin contest a few years back. The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer. Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...

[Mike[_37_]]

On Mar 9, 7:34*am, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Thursday, March 8, 2012 8:21:02 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
> > Chip:
>
> > I was one of those in earlier discussions who made the very strong point that it is very difficult to tell if folks have flown near clouds and you certainly can't do it from an igc file. *Cloudbase is not known with any precision and can vary thousands of feet over a typical contest task area. *I have on at least one occasion flown over cumulus clouds without violating any FARs and know of several occasions where other pilots have done so.. *Comparing flight traces of pilots with each other or a reasonable guess of cloudbase isn't going to tell you very much.
>
> > An entirely different question is the practice of staying in thermals until you reach cloudbase and then exiting through the wispies. *It's hard to judge when to leave a strong thermal and this can happen to the best of us. *I see it a lot of this in both pleasure flights and contests. *I don't know how you would make an enforceable rule to control this, unless you are going to add cockpit cameras and dew-point sensors (quite doable, by the way!).
>
> > Mike
>
> There's a wonderful picture that pops up on the rotating SSA photo board taken during the prestart period at a Mifflin contest a few years back. * The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer. * Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...

"engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer"

What a great line!

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:34:34 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> On Thursday, March 8, 2012 8:21:02 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
> > Chip:
> >
> > I was one of those in earlier discussions who made the very strong point that it is very difficult to tell if folks have flown near clouds and you certainly can't do it from an igc file. Cloudbase is not known with any precision and can vary thousands of feet over a typical contest task area. I have on at least one occasion flown over cumulus clouds without violating any FARs and know of several occasions where other pilots have done so. Comparing flight traces of pilots with each other or a reasonable guess of cloudbase isn't going to tell you very much.
> >
> > An entirely different question is the practice of staying in thermals until you reach cloudbase and then exiting through the wispies. It's hard to judge when to leave a strong thermal and this can happen to the best of us. I see it a lot of this in both pleasure flights and contests. I don't know how you would make an enforceable rule to control this, unless you are going to add cockpit cameras and dew-point sensors (quite doable, by the way!).
> >
> > Mike
>
> There's a wonderful picture that pops up on the rotating SSA photo board taken during the prestart period at a Mifflin contest a few years back. The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer. Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...

Found it: http://www.ssa.org/sport/PhotoGalleryDetail.asp?PhotoID=1186

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Mar 9, 9:50*am, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:34:34 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 8, 2012 8:21:02 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
> > > Chip:
>
> > > I was one of those in earlier discussions who made the very strong point that it is very difficult to tell if folks have flown near clouds and you certainly can't do it from an igc file. *Cloudbase is not known with any precision and can vary thousands of feet over a typical contest task area. *I have on at least one occasion flown over cumulus clouds without violating any FARs and know of several occasions where other pilots have done so. *Comparing flight traces of pilots with each other or a reasonable guess of cloudbase isn't going to tell you very much.
>
> > > An entirely different question is the practice of staying in thermals until you reach cloudbase and then exiting through the wispies. *It's hard to judge when to leave a strong thermal and this can happen to the best of us. *I see it a lot of this in both pleasure flights and contests. *I don't know how you would make an enforceable rule to control this, unless you are going to add cockpit cameras and dew-point sensors (quite doable, by the way!).
>
> > > Mike
>
> > There's a wonderful picture that pops up on the rotating SSA photo board taken during the prestart period at a Mifflin contest a few years back. * The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer. * Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...
>
> Found it: *http://www.ssa.org/sport/PhotoGalleryDetail.asp?PhotoID=1186

I knew there would be some Glickin' trouble maker involved.

T8

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

On Mar 9, 9:34*am, Papa3 > wrote:
>
> There's a wonderful picture that pops up on the rotating SSA photo board taken during the prestart period at a Mifflin contest a few years back. * The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer. * Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...

Cool photo!

I recall waiting in the pre-start wave at the Fairfield regional a few
years ago well above the convective clouds and looking down to see my
first circular rainbow! Of course, I had to share this experience on
the radio with my fellow competitors. I couldn't understand why they
weren't all happy for me.

It's true that some of my flight path would show up as climbing while
stationary over the ground but the wind was relatively weak and I was
doing S turns and even lazy circles to maintain position in the wave,
which would have no doubt confused any algorithyms designed to filter
out this kind of thing.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

I also got lucky in the mifflin wave pre start. Listening to the
anguished calls from fellow competitors as they relit and struggled to
stay up while I admired the view from 10,000' was just lovely. Then I
cursed the rules committee who put in this darn altitude-limited start
when I had to open the spoilers go back down again!

Seriously, if Sean does get the data mining program working I hope he
will share it with the rest of us. IMC flying is a non issue as many
have pointed out. But I can think of all sorts of great things to do
with traces if I could only get them in my computer easily. Hot spots,
statistical evaluation of glide probabilities, analysis of tactics,
"near miss" analysis, analysis of course deviations, how to make
transitions,... many winters could be spent productively.

John Cochrane

[Bill D]

On Mar 9, 9:08*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> I also got lucky in the mifflin wave pre start. Listening to the
> anguished calls from fellow competitors as they relit and struggled to
> stay up while I admired the view from 10,000' was just lovely. Then I
> cursed the rules committee who put in this darn altitude-limited start
> when I had to open the spoilers go back down again!
>
> Seriously, if Sean does get the data mining program working I hope he
> will share it with the rest of us. IMC flying is a non issue as many
> have pointed out. But I can think of all sorts of great things to do
> with traces if I could only get them in my computer easily. Hot spots,
> statistical evaluation of glide probabilities, analysis of tactics,
> "near miss" analysis, analysis of course deviations, how to make
> transitions,... many winters could be spent productively.
>
> John Cochrane

Hypothetically, data mining traces for a given contest day could yield
something like a "soarability index" which could reveal the relative
advantage of one handicapped glider over another given the average
thermal strength, height, distance between thermals etc... This index
might inform tilting the handicaps to level the playing field for the
day's weather.

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

On Mar 9, 11:08*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> But I can think of all sorts of great things to do
> with traces if I could only get them in my computer easily. Hot spots,
> statistical evaluation of glide probabilities, analysis of tactics,
> "near miss" analysis, analysis of course deviations, how to make
> transitions,... many winters could be spent productively.
>

I've used flight traces to analyze "near misses" on several occasions,
including for a safety talk using a multii-media projector that
elicited sharp intakes of breath from the assembled pilots when two
blips appeared to merge briefly. I also emailed my trace to another
pilot with a copy of his to explain why I'd gotten a little agitated
one day. And on more than one occasion I've replayed situations where
sailplanes appeared rather suddenly to see what I'd missed and how I
could have avoided being surprised. This doesn't tell you what a pilot
was looking at or whether the sun was reflecting off the canopy or if
it was hazy that day but it does help explain the events that led up
to one or more pilots briefly experiencing a rapid heart rate. And all
of this can help lead to greater awareness of how to avoid becoming a
statistic of a different sort.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[Sean Fidler]

Hi folks,

Been out of the US for a few days. Just read this thread today and finally have a minute to respond (after a couple Disaronno's with friends I must admit...)

First and foremost, I would like to apologize for being so animate about the rule related to AH. I think in several ways I was out of line and regret it significantly. While initially I felt very passionately about the safety aspects of allowing AH's I think I have learned why it makes sense to leave the rule as it has been. After many phone and email conversations with more experienced contest pilots, which I respect greatly, I have slowly been won over by the argument that cheating (and the potential results of multiple cheating pilots flying around in the clouds) is a more serious problem than the innocent (inadvertent IMC) safety concerns I initially argued. While I regret being so "bold" in my arguments I feel that it was valuable to rattle the rules committee in some ways. But overall I wish I would not have argued the point.

My only goal is to have fun and learn this game. Hopefully in time my over-zealousness will be forgiven. Regardless, I want to have fun and compete fairly. It is far more important to me to have a beer with friends and make new friends then to change any rule. Enough said...

In terms of our "contest altitude peak" research project, absolutely John Cochran it will be shared with the powers that be. My intention is not to humiliate people who may have "climbed higher than the rest." Me intention is to see if IGC files can be mined to show trends in tasks, contests and seasons. Can they be used to identify potential incidents. Perhaps in contests where cheating is suspected or protested? My only goal is to see if there is a more "concrete way" to identify cloud flying incidents.

I will share any results or software we create with the US rules committee with a hope of developing a simple tool which can reinforce any protests or suspicion and turn the heat on a potential offending pilot.

My initial hypothesis is: "can a pattern be identified." The value of that pattern I would leave to smarter people to intemperate. I can say the technology is not difficult to develop. I will be happy to donate or share it as needed with the SSA, FAI, etc.

I love the game of sailplane racing and truly don't wish to be the "bad guy.." I can be very passionate about things...for sure. Often to a fault. Yes I love electronic toys (XC Soar), etc. But at the end of the day I have come to realize the wisdom of the no AH rule after hearing of the many cheating incidents over the years. Shocking how much cheating has, allegedly, occured over time. I am, for the record, in support of the rules committee's decisions at present and in the future in regards to the existing rule..

This is hopefully a chapter I can put behind and move forward with a chuckle and a smile. I understand that may take time. I am happy to take any **** that might be deserved... But bottom line I just want to focus on learning how to race gliders.

Best,

Sean
F2

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

[cernauta]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:04:20 -0800 (PST), Sean Fidler
> wrote:


>Been out of the US for a few days. Just read this thread today and finally have a minute to respond (after a couple Disaronno's with friends I must admit...)

not very much related, but...
Disaronno's owner has been a keen glider pilot, and today is still an
active tmg pilot.
His business is extremely successful, and he regularly has an ad
published on the italian magazine voloavela

aldo cernezzi
www.voloavela.it

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:34:34 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> ...The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer.. Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...

Yep, it was nice hanging around up high before start that day, but those guys down low were a worry...

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Mar 11, 7:44*am, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:34:34 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> > ...The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer. * Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...
>
> Yep, it was nice hanging around up high before start that day, but those guys down low were a worry...
>
> See ya, Dave "YO electric"

I don't think you were there the year that the skydiving club dropped
a bunch of jumpers from 12K... over a 5/10 cumulus sky at 5 or 6000...
into the middle of a start gate which had not yet opened. We had > 30
gliders in the air, a fair number of which were in the gate. I heard
the radio call, was completely dumbfounded. I was under a Cu at the
time, in the gate, close to the airport. I hoped no one was crazy
enough to punch through a cloud... but they were crazy enough to jump
with tens of gliders in the local area, so who knew? IIRC that was
2010. Someone must have spoken with them. They didn't do it again.

T8

[[email protected]]

Looking at old contest data for the possibility of cloud flying is pretty meaningless. Old AH equipment was pretty obvious. However, we all can be busted for not maintaining proper VFR clearances. I really enjoy climbing up the face of a big cu and this has happened at various times waiting for a start. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time during a contest flight on course climbing in those marginal lift conditions. I think that virtually all of the “suspicious data” will be VFR clearance issues or wave conditions.

As a contest pilot, my much bigger concern is the availability of real time (or almost real time) weather information through the use of smart phones in the cockpit. To see and monitor the advancement of a weather front or cirrus deck over a task area is a MUCH larger issue than someone gaining a couple of thousand feet (probably slowly) in clouds. The person cheating with updated weather reports has a much better probability of making better course decisions than the person that doesn’t have that information and, therefore, will have faster times. Will back seaters can finally earn their way? :) ) I know that folk’s smart phones are a hot button, but in my opinion, we should have a bigger uproar over this issue than AH’s in the cockpit.

[Sean Fidler]

Although illegal for the moment, sooner or later the widely available, highly affordable technologies of the day will likely be allowed in contests. I know this might bother some, but so what. Its just a matter of time.

In terms of mobile based weather data, almost everyone has it in their pockets now nobody uses it unless a danger exists. Cost is negligible. 90% of pilots walking around the Sr's today have smart phones with data plans in their pockets. Weather is a perfect example of a technology that will likely be available to contest pilots eventually. There are some great free aviation mobile nav/weather apps for private pilots, etc. Radar, metars, surface charts, etc. What is the big deal?

Question: How many pilots (not in contests) bother to mess with mobile weather information on a fun flight, task or OLC flight? How many try to exploit this information to fly faster? How many are successful? Answer: very, very few... Reason: because most of the time accessing weather info via a smartphone makes zero difference to flight performance and is a complete waste of time (as it would be in a contest).

Does anyone have scenario's that they think would be a contest advantage for a contest pilot using mobile based weather? Please explain in detail.

AWOS is available via our radio's, so getting metars on the phone would be "neat" but also pretty pointless. AWOS is instant, metars can be almost an hour old. Flight service could be easily contacted in flight for detailed weather reports customized for our route of flight. By this means a clear picture of weather radar and atmospheric conditions, etc can be accessed today very easily in a contest (I reserve the right to claim innocence if that is somehow a rule and calling flight service in a contest is illegal). Now that I think of it...calling flight service will probably will be illegal shortly after this post arrives.

So why not just let pilots access mobile based weather if they chose via their mobile phones? Is it really that important to fight this off and call it illegal? Its just a basic technology we all possess.

Safety is one aspect that I would again argue for allowing weather to be accessed on the mobile phone. Radar: "Look there, thunderstorm is building near the next turn-point..." METAR: Towering cumulonimbus approaching, etc. Often the gliders are well out of radio contact with CD's, etc. If the pilots suspects a problem, it would be sensible to allow them to access the best information available.

The argument that people are unable or unwilling to learn how to use new technology is not one that I respond too. Give me a break. If you can send a text message you can use these apps. And the apps are not granular enough to be of any contest value other than safety and convenience. I just dont see any likely situation that will allow a pilot to "cheat" if everyone had it. But I look forward to other providing scenario's in which they think mobile weather in contests would be a game changer.

My two cents...

On Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:51:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Looking at old contest data for the possibility of cloud flying is pretty meaningless. Old AH equipment was pretty obvious. However, we all can be busted for not maintaining proper VFR clearances. I really enjoy climbing up the face of a big cu and this has happened at various times waiting for a start. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time during a contest flight on course climbing in those marginal lift conditions. I think that virtually all of the “suspicious data” will be VFR clearance issues or wave conditions..
>
> As a contest pilot, my much bigger concern is the availability of real time (or almost real time) weather information through the use of smart phones in the cockpit. To see and monitor the advancement of a weather front or cirrus deck over a task area is a MUCH larger issue than someone gaining a couple of thousand feet (probably slowly) in clouds. The person cheating with updated weather reports has a much better probability of making better course decisions than the person that doesn’t have that information and, therefore, will have faster times. Will back seaters can finally earn their way? :) ) I know that folk’s smart phones are a hot button, but in my opinion, we should have a bigger uproar over this issue than AH’s in the cockpit.

[Bill D]

I've been trying to stay out of this since I don't have a 'dog in the
fight'. However, I may be able to offer some useful observations.

I totally agree with Sean. Technology is unstoppable. Anything
imaginable will find it's way into cockpits - if pilots want it
there. One suspects some of the resistance to tech is that is it
seems easier to ban it than learn to use it correctly. Learn to live
with it.

Arguably, most technology has a safety benefit. Anyone seeking to ban
a particular technology should proceed carefully lest they be blamed
for an accident the technology might have prevented.

Anti-tech rule making is almost always counterproductive. In some
eyes, simply banning a technology makes it appear all the more
attractive. If pilots like a banned technology, they'll install it
anyway - and then compete in OLC instead of sanctioned contests. This
drives the contest attendance still lower than it is now.

A pragmatic approach to rule making is to just keep a level playing
field. If a technology is likely to offer a significant advantage but
only the very rich can afford it, then temporarily restrict its use
until it's cheap enough all contestants can afford it. That's more or
less how it worked with GPS.

Just my $.02

On Mar 12, 11:14*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Although illegal for the moment, sooner or later the widely available, highly affordable technologies of the day will likely be allowed in contests. *I know this might bother some, but so what. *Its just a matter of time.
>
> In terms of mobile based weather data, almost everyone has it in their pockets now nobody uses it unless a danger exists. *Cost is negligible. 90% of pilots walking around the Sr's today have smart phones with data plans in their pockets. *Weather is a perfect example of a technology that will likely be available to contest pilots eventually. *There are some great free aviation mobile nav/weather apps for private pilots, etc. *Radar, metars, surface charts, etc. *What is the big deal?
>
> Question: *How many pilots (not in contests) bother to mess with mobile weather information on a fun flight, task or OLC flight? *How many try to exploit this information to fly faster? *How many are successful? *Answer: very, very few... Reason: *because most of the time accessing weather info via a smartphone makes zero difference to flight performance and is a complete waste of time (as it would be in a contest).
>
> Does anyone have scenario's that they think would be a contest advantage for a contest pilot using mobile based weather? *Please explain in detail..
>
> AWOS is available via our radio's, so getting metars on the phone would be "neat" but also pretty pointless. *AWOS is instant, metars can be almost an hour old. *Flight service could be easily contacted in flight for detailed weather reports customized for our route of flight. By this means a clear picture of weather radar and atmospheric conditions, etc can be accessed today very easily in a contest (I reserve the right to claim innocence if that is somehow a rule and calling flight service in a contest is illegal). *Now that I think of it...calling flight service will probably will be illegal shortly after this post arrives.
>
> So why not just let pilots access mobile based weather if they chose via their mobile phones? *Is it really that important to fight this off and call it illegal? *Its just a basic technology we all possess.
>
> Safety is one aspect that I would again argue for allowing weather to be accessed on the mobile phone. *Radar: *"Look there, thunderstorm is building near the next turn-point..." *METAR: *Towering cumulonimbus approaching, etc. *Often the gliders are well out of radio contact with CD's, etc. *If the pilots suspects a problem, it would be sensible to allow them to access the best information available.
>
> The argument that people are unable or unwilling to learn how to use new technology is not one that I respond too. *Give me a break. *If you can send a text message you can use these apps. *And the apps are not granular enough to be of any contest value other than safety and convenience. *I just dont see any likely situation that will allow a pilot to "cheat" if everyone had it. *But I look forward to other providing scenario's in which they think mobile weather in contests would be a game changer.
>
> My two cents...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:51:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > Looking at old contest data for the possibility of cloud flying is pretty meaningless. Old AH equipment was pretty obvious. However, we all can be busted for not maintaining proper VFR clearances. I really enjoy climbing up the face of a big cu and this has happened at various times waiting for a start. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time during a contest flight on course climbing in those marginal lift conditions. I think that virtually all of the “suspicious data” will be VFR clearance issues or wave conditions.
>
> > As a contest pilot, my much bigger concern is the availability of real time (or almost real time) weather information through the use of smart phones in the cockpit. To see and monitor the advancement of a weather front or cirrus deck over a task area is a MUCH larger issue than someone gaining a couple of thousand feet (probably slowly) in clouds. The person cheating with updated weather reports has a much better probability of making better course decisions than the person that doesn’t have that information and, therefore, will have faster times. Will back seaters can finally earn their way? :) ) *I know that folk’s smart phones are a hot button, but in my opinion, we should have a bigger uproar over this issue than AH’s in the cockpit.

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

From experience, nearly every contest I've flown since 1968 has had
multiple points where knowledge of the weather elsewhere on the course
or upstream of it would have conferred a significant, in many cases
winning advantage. And this applies even to the formerly ubiquitous
assigned tasks, as well as to today's area tasks. In many of these
cases, simply seeing the cloud cover would have sufficed. In other
cases, a more detailed assessment of local forecasts and observations
would have been necessary. The argument that onboard weather is of
marginal value in competition doesn't hold up.

There is a downside to all of this. We already know we have a
potential safety problem with pilots spending too much time staring at
their little displays and not enough looking outside the cockpits
owing to the rapid proliferation of flight computers and GPS
navigation systems of increasing capability (read: complexity). How
much will onboard weather on a smart phone exacerbate this problem? I
don't think anyone can answer this analytically. It depends on the
application, the hardware platform (e.g., the UI and display),
response time, the information needed, the urgency of the need, and
the user, among other factors.

We're considering requiring a PowerFLARM in every cockpit to reduce
the odds of a midair collision which, to be cold, happens very seldom.
Yet some of the same folks who are loudest in their call for
PowerFLARM seem to take a rather more cavalier attitude towards
situational awareness when it comes to using a handheld PC or
smartphone to deliver detailed weather info. Sure, the availability of
better weather info could increase safety, but only to pilots who
choose to proceed instead of simply turning back or going around. It's
similar to the argument made about GPS years ago: knowing exactly
where you were should have allowed safer flying. Instead, what
happened was that most pilots used that precise location data to shave
their safety margin down on final glides. A few even flew right down
to the deck, almost oblivious to the fact that they were getting low
enough to choose a field.

OK, GPS doesn't break gliders; pilots break gliders. And onboard
weather won't make good pilots less safe...unless they focus on it to
the exclusion of keeping an outside view. Maybe that's why FLARM is
necessary, to allow us all to focus on our electronics, trusting FLARM
to warn us if we're getting close to someone.

I agree that trying to ban technology is difficult. But it's not
impossible, as nearly every sport has demonstrated (think golf,
Formula 1, America's Cup sailing, baseball, swimming, etc.). It all
comes down to what are our objectives and what rules do we all agree
to abide by. Most pilots are fundamentally honest. What causes some of
them to be tempted is when they think other competitors are doing it,
too. If we, as a group, decide not to allow onboard weather (or AH)
for the moment, we can make it stick by the simple expediant of clear
rules and Draconian penalties. We should make our views known (as the
above posters have done) and look to the Rules Committee for
leadership rather than letting technology drive our sport.

I work in a technology business. Technology is never a goal and never
inevitable. It is an optional means to an end. Clearly defining our
objectives allows us to more easily promulgate rules that allow the
appropriate use of technology in achieving them.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[Bill D]

On Mar 12, 3:19*pm, Chip Bearden > wrote:
> From experience, nearly every contest I've flown since 1968 has had
> multiple points where knowledge of the weather elsewhere on the course
> or upstream of it would have conferred a significant, in many cases
> winning advantage. And this applies even to the formerly ubiquitous
> assigned tasks, as well as to today's area tasks. In many of these
> cases, simply seeing the cloud cover would have sufficed. In other
> cases, a more detailed assessment of local forecasts and observations
> would have been necessary. The argument that onboard weather is of
> marginal value in competition doesn't hold up.
>
> There is a downside to all of this. We already know we have a
> potential safety problem with pilots spending too much time staring at
> their little displays and not enough looking outside the cockpits
> owing to the rapid proliferation of flight computers and GPS
> navigation systems of increasing capability (read: complexity). How
> much will onboard weather on a smart phone exacerbate this problem? I
> don't think anyone can answer this analytically. It depends on the
> application, the hardware platform (e.g., the UI and display),
> response time, the information needed, the urgency of the need, and
> the user, among other factors.
>
> We're considering requiring a PowerFLARM in every cockpit to reduce
> the odds of a midair collision which, to be cold, happens very seldom.
> Yet some of the same folks who are loudest in their call for
> PowerFLARM seem to take a rather more cavalier attitude towards
> situational awareness when it comes to using a handheld PC or
> smartphone to deliver detailed weather info. Sure, the availability of
> better weather info could increase safety, but only to pilots who
> choose to proceed instead of simply turning back or going around. It's
> similar to the argument made about GPS years ago: knowing exactly
> where you were should have allowed safer flying. Instead, what
> happened was that most pilots used that precise location data to shave
> their safety margin down on final glides. A few even flew right down
> to the deck, almost oblivious to the fact that they were getting low
> enough to choose a field.
>
> OK, GPS doesn't break gliders; pilots break gliders. And onboard
> weather won't make good pilots less safe...unless they focus on it to
> the exclusion of keeping an outside view. Maybe that's why FLARM is
> necessary, to allow us all to focus on our electronics, trusting FLARM
> to warn us if we're getting close to someone.
>
> I agree that trying to ban technology is difficult. But it's not
> impossible, as nearly every sport has demonstrated (think golf,
> Formula 1, America's Cup sailing, baseball, swimming, etc.). It all
> comes down to what are our objectives and what rules do we all agree
> to abide by. Most pilots are fundamentally honest. What causes some of
> them to be tempted is when they think other competitors are doing it,
> too. If we, as a group, decide not to allow onboard weather (or AH)
> for the moment, we can make it stick by the simple expediant of clear
> rules and Draconian penalties. We should make our views known (as the
> above posters have done) and look to the Rules Committee for
> leadership rather than letting technology drive our sport.
>
> I work in a technology business. Technology is never a goal and never
> inevitable. It is an optional means to an end. Clearly defining our
> objectives allows us to more easily promulgate rules that allow the
> appropriate use of technology in achieving them.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

Chip, I think the "heads down while fiddling with the gadgets" problem
(and I agree there is one) is due to a single cause and it's not the
presence of the gadgets. It's pilots stupidly trying to learn how to
use them while in flight.

If a pilot really knows how to use a gadget, the pilot will look at it
only when information is needed. It won't take more than a second or
two and it'll represent ~1% of the total flight time.

The right way to learn a gadget is on the ground using Condor as a GPS
stand in or while playing back a flight on SeeYou. I've seen a couple
of pilots sitting in their cockpits on the ground with a laptop
running SeeYou in animation mode feeding NMEA data to the glide
computer. Smart guys.

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Monday, March 12, 2012 2:45:55 PM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
> >
> I totally agree with Sean. Technology is unstoppable. Anything
> imaginable will find it's way into cockpits - if pilots want it
> there. One suspects some of the resistance to tech is that is it
> seems easier to ban it than learn to use it correctly. Learn to live
> with it.
>
Bill,

I respectfully disagree. If you take that tack (word chosen intentionally), then technological determinism prevails. As a "technologist" by trade, I'm extremely wary of letting technology drive "requirements"; I've seen too many clients seduced by the latest-and-greatest without fully understanding the implications. The first step in any discussion of competition is to decide what it is we want to measure, then seek to allow or limit technology as required to meet those broadly-stated goals.

I've been in soaring competition for "only" about 25 years, so I'm still a rookie by some standards. But, if you look at what it took to win when I first started in the sport, key skills included:

- Navigation (reading maps, dead reckoning, etc.)
- Final glide management (wiz wheels, rules-of-thumb)
- Situational awareness (as distinct from pure navigation - involved lots of pre-study of topo maps)
- Turnpoint photography
- Start gate flying (diving the gate)
- Stick and rudder (especially gaggling, efficient climbing)
- Group flying (leveraging the pack, finding a good working group)
- Reading the micro and macro weather picture
- Risk/reward management
- Lots of other stuff

So, over the years, especially with the introduction of GPS, the skill list shifted. The first 5 items on the list above are gone or largely so. Sure, many core skills remain relevant. And new rules and new task types (especially TATs) introduced some additional skill requirements. I think most people agree that, on balance, GPS has been a tremendous boon to the sport.. But, it also (in my opinion) compressed the remaining skill differential just a bit. For example, it was very possible to win (or lose) a competition in the early 1990s based on being a better (or worse) navigator or final glide calculator. On balance, the new technology of GPS has made it easier on guys/gals who weren't very good with that stuff.

So, if we think this through to its logical extreme, eliminating things like ability to read the weather based only on what's visible outside the canopy based on knowledge/experience means removing another item from the required skill bucket. In and of itself, it's not a big deal. But add thermal sensing or "hawk detectors" or any one of a number of other forseeable technological advances, and what are we left with? At some point, the race is reduced to who is willing to take the largest risks on an otherwise completely level playing field, I have to wonder whether we will have achieved what we want? Did all of these things we lobbied for in the name of "safety" actually have the opposite effect?

For good examples of managing technology in competition, we need only look at certain 1 design sailing classes for guidance. I campaigned for years in Lightnings, a wonderful little boat with a nice, tight definition of what is (and what isn't) allowed. For example, hulls are either wood or conventional glass over wood; no carbon fiber or honeycomb (even though either of these would be much "better". Similarly, sails are restricted from using many of the newest and "best" materials. And masts are positively archaic, what with being limited to aluminum or (gasp) wood.

So, in true Management Consulting fashion, I'd conclude that the first step is to lay out a strategy for what sailplane racing is supposed to be about at its essence. Once those principles are fully fleshed out, then the rules and regulations regarding technology follow. Not vice versa.

P3

[[email protected]]

Good post Chip.

Guys, sorry to not post clearly. I have no issues with technology being introduced into soaring competition. Quite the contrary, I was really glad to see the twin point and shoot cameras bite the dust. Flight computers are wonderful. The point is not about the increasing technology, but properly managing that technology so that the playing field is even for all. Some want instant changes. I'm glad the RC takes a managed approach and looks at all angles before they make a decision. I've seen way too much "shooting from the hip" and the typical outcome is not satisfactory. Let's let the RC run with the ball and give them the time to do it right.
Craig

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 3/12/2012 7:32 PM, Papa3 wrote:
> So, in true Management Consulting fashion, I'd conclude that the
> first step is to lay out a strategy for what sailplane racing is
> supposed to be about at its essence. Once those principles are fully
> fleshed out, then the rules and regulations regarding technology
> follow. Not vice versa.

Yes, I think so. When I was an SSA Director in the late '80s, I thought
contest rules should be selected to maximize the growth of the Society.
More or fewer classes? More or less technology? Longer/shorter tasks?
Whatever caused the most growth over the years was the right choice was
my thinking then.

I still think it's the best goal; admittedly, a difficult one to follow,
but worth reflecting on when the conversation starts to get lost in the
details.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Bill D]

On Mar 12, 8:32*pm, Papa3 > wrote:

> So, in true Management Consulting fashion, I'd conclude that the first step is to lay out a strategy for what sailplane racing is supposed to be about at its essence. *Once those principles are fully fleshed out, then the rules and regulations regarding technology follow. *Not vice versa.
>
> P3

Well, good luck with that.

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your preferences, there's
another glider competition system with no equipment limitations - OLC
- and pilots seem to like it.

I think a bigger problem for rule makers is convincing OLC pilots to
try sanctioned contests. If they have to remove their beloved gadgets
to participate, that makes it harder.

That's not to say sanctioned contest rules shouldn't restrict
technology - they should, but wisely and only to maintain a level
playing field.

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:32:32 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:

> Well, good luck with that.
>
> Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your preferences, there's
> another glider competition system with no equipment limitations - OLC
> - and pilots seem to like it.
>
> I think a bigger problem for rule makers is convincing OLC pilots to
> try sanctioned contests. If they have to remove their beloved gadgets
> to participate, that makes it harder.
>
> That's not to say sanctioned contest rules shouldn't restrict
> technology - they should, but wisely and only to maintain a level
> playing field.

Bill, you are mixing apples and oranges. OLC, while a contest, is not (and never has been, or ever will be) a RACE.

A contest can have very simple rules ("go as far as you can in a glider"). But if I show up in a Concordia, and you show up in a 1-26, we are not racing. A race, to be fair and interesting, has to have tight rules.

There is plenty of room for both in our sport, as the two activities are not mutually exclusive.

I do fail to see the problem with restrictive rules in racing. If you want to race, read and comply with the rules, then have fun. It's as simple as that. Really.

Kirk
66

[Bill D]

On Mar 13, 11:01*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:32:32 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
> > Well, good luck with that.
>
> > Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your preferences, there's
> > another glider competition system with no equipment limitations - OLC
> > - and pilots seem to like it.
>
> > I think a bigger problem for rule makers is convincing OLC pilots to
> > try sanctioned contests. *If they have to remove their beloved gadgets
> > to participate, that makes it harder.
>
> > That's not to say sanctioned contest rules shouldn't restrict
> > technology - they should, but wisely and only to maintain a level
> > playing field.
>
> Bill, you are mixing apples and oranges. *OLC, while a contest, is not (and never has been, or ever will be) a RACE.
>
> A contest can have very simple rules ("go as far as you can in a glider").. But if I show up in a Concordia, and you show up in a 1-26, we are not racing. A race, to be fair and interesting, has to have tight rules.
>
> There is plenty of room for both in our sport, as the two activities are not mutually exclusive.
>
> I do fail to see the problem with restrictive rules in racing. If you want to race, read and comply with the rules, then have fun. *It's as simple as that. Really.
>
> Kirk
> 66

I have a deep respect for the RC and the pilots who fly under their
rules. I will always remain a fan of sanctioned contests. I've made
my point more strongly than I intended so I exit this thread.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Mar 13, 10:01*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:32:32 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
> > Well, good luck with that.
>
> > Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your preferences, there's
> > another glider competition system with no equipment limitations - OLC
> > - and pilots seem to like it.
>
> > I think a bigger problem for rule makers is convincing OLC pilots to
> > try sanctioned contests. *If they have to remove their beloved gadgets
> > to participate, that makes it harder.
>
> > That's not to say sanctioned contest rules shouldn't restrict
> > technology - they should, but wisely and only to maintain a level
> > playing field.
>
> Bill, you are mixing apples and oranges. *OLC, while a contest, is not (and never has been, or ever will be) a RACE.
>
> A contest can have very simple rules ("go as far as you can in a glider").. But if I show up in a Concordia, and you show up in a 1-26, we are not racing. A race, to be fair and interesting, has to have tight rules.
>
> There is plenty of room for both in our sport, as the two activities are not mutually exclusive.
>
> I do fail to see the problem with restrictive rules in racing. If you want to race, read and comply with the rules, then have fun. *It's as simple as that. Really.
>
> Kirk
> 66

Kirk,

I would like to suggest that while OLC may not be a "sanctioned" race,
it is still a race: it is a race against the weather, the conditions,
the amount of daylight and most importantly, it is a race against your
fellow pilots flying together on that day. While true, OLC pilots will
never reach the same first name only notoriety that "racing" pilots
enjoy, to say we don't race isn't really accurate.

Regards,
Brad

[Sean Fidler]

I think the key element of this discussion is the fact that smartphone technology has saturated the cockpits of racing glider pilots (and indeed virtually all relevant glider pilots worldwide). It ABSOLUTELY has saturated the pockets of almost everyone. By the end of 2012, 65% of all mobile phones in the US will be smart (http://www.intomobile.com/2012/03/06/more-us-citizens-own-smartphones-than-dumbphones/). They were in almost ever glider I flew with in the 3 contest I competed in last year and nobody mentioned the rule or had the slightest idea of it. Nobody cared, including Uvalde. I honestly never even imagined this was a problem until roughly 1 month ago when I first began hearing of the supposed, "issue."

Smart phones are, in my opinion, a simple convenience with highly, highly questionable racing value. At this point it is arguably more irritating to ban or restrict (buy a cheap phone for land out purposes) than to simply allow them. It is unenforceable and provides no advantage. So what if pilots can download a Metar or see a non-real time radar image while in flight? This can be accomplished just as easily via calling flight service. What is the advantage of this capability? If it is an advantage and is not to be accessed, why not ban radios? Or at least ban communication with flight service? Hmmm?

In my view, none of the smart phone "available" weather data is real time and therefore is of any tactical advantage. It is equally available to all of us. It seems "far fetched" at minimum to conclude that smart phones are capable of delivering a performance advantage to a racing glider pilot in a racing task.

Is it really worth it to go to the significant lengths necessary to ensure that smart phones are not used in flight (checking cell phone bills, etc)? Below is some relevant language from the most recent "important reading: Other Devices with Artificial Horizon or T&B Features" rules update from the SSA website last month. Can you imagine the kind of protests and accusations that can result from this language? (http://ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Device%20Policy.pdf)

SSA Rules Commitee, Late Feb 2012
3. Cell Phones
Rule 6.11.3 anticipates the presence of cell phones and reflects the expected purpose of these
and similar devices (“smart” phones) as not being used in flight and turned off. The RC reaffirms
its’ position in this respect and recognizes that absolute enforcement of this is not possible,
certainly within the scope of what we expect volunteer officials to do.
If such a device is used for the purposes of a flight display as contemplated in (2) above, it is to
be set in a mode that disables communication with carrier networks (i.e. “airplane mode” or
equivalent). No other applications which could provide prohibited functionality are to be
available in flight.

***Pilots please note that substituting an inexpensive “retrieve phone” in the glider for a more
capable phone used in daily life can be expected to avoid any questions in this area.***

4. Monitoring and compliance
Entrants shall comply with the provisions of the rules and associated policies as a continuing
display of good sportsmanship.
Noncompliance with these rules may be the basis for a determination of ***unsportsmanlike
conduct***, the consequences of which are described within the body of the rules. It will be
permissible for any contest official (or competitor to request of a contest official) to inspect the
glider at any time, consistent with safety, for compliance with these rules.. A refusal to permit a
reasonable request (as determined by contest officials) will be deemed to be justification for
additional investigation.US Competition Rules Committee Policy on Equipment and Devices
other than Instruments Carried in Competition

Allegations by other pilots of violations will be taken seriously and may be anonymous (safety
box) and should be expected to trigger scrutiny of flight records. In the case of flagrant or
repeated allegations, the appropriate action will be decided by the competition committee.
It will be ***permissible for contest officials to request to view records of phone use and internet
access if there appears to be reason for further investigation***.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????
***It is hoped that, with knowledge and care by competitors, that good sportsmanship will be
displayed and the confidence that it is in place will ensure the health and safety of our sport.***
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????

I feel this policy is the wrong path forward (starting with next season at the latest). It has no point. Simply allow them. Then its fair for everyone, and still nobody will use them because it has no value. At least we don't have to go out and buy junk phones per recommendations and have our phone bills inspected (which by the way will provide zero value when it comes to data usage).

http://www.xmwxweather.com/aviation/
http://www.xmwxweather.com/aviation/hardware-solutions.php
http://www.xmwxweather.com/xmwx-data/

No smartphone is capable of receiving real time "XM Satellite like" radar accuracy." To be useful, and this is highly questionable, detailed aircraft location integral to the NEXRAD radar would be required such as XM Sat Weather provides. Most XM services are not real time. In fact the most up to date weather information available to pilots is airport AWOS (real time reports of temp, wind direction, pressure, sky condition, etc. So we ban smart phones which can intermittently receive out of date weather info but allow radio's which receive real time AWOS and direct communication with flight service for detailed weather updates?

How many people have bothered calling flight service in contests? Have you? Anyone? Please reply. Did it help you win a contest day? More power to you. I am just wondering. Mobile phone data would give you similar but arguable far less usable information on task.

I will ask again, can anyone provide a detailed scenario (be prepared to defend your scenario) where smart phones with data connectivity via mobile networks are going to provide a racing glider pilot a demonstrable advantage over pilots who do not have or use a smart phone? Anybody?

What is the point of this ban on using smart phones (separate from the feeble AH capability)?

Is it worth having new contest pilots being told to go to Walmart and buy another phone? I vote A VERY BIG, no.

It's a little silly really...I hope we can move thru this sooner than later..

Sean

[kirk.stant]

> Kirk,
>
> I would like to suggest that while OLC may not be a "sanctioned" race,
> it is still a race: it is a race against the weather, the conditions,
> the amount of daylight and most importantly, it is a race against your
> fellow pilots flying together on that day. While true, OLC pilots will
> never reach the same first name only notoriety that "racing" pilots
> enjoy, to say we don't race isn't really accurate.
>
> Regards,
> Brad

Sorry, Brad, I totally disagree. A "race" implies competition between people on the same task, whatever that task is. OLC doesn't have a "task"!

Definition of "Race":

Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

Verb: Compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.

OLC fits neither of these.

Why the need to mix the two? OLC is a valid form of competition, and is a lot of fun - it just isn't a race where individuals compete against each other on the same field of play. A race against fellow pilots? YGBSM! I'm in Illinois scratching around in 1 knot up to 2000', and you are running around in NM at 17999' under a cloud street? Yeah right. You get a better OLC score, that's great! But we didn't race!

I want my racing to have rules. If you don't like rules - then you probably won't like racing. I like to see how I do against other pilots on solving a problem we are all exposed to at the same time - not comparing the soaring weather where I live to the soaring weather where someone else lives.

Kirk
66

[Herbert kilian]

On Mar 13, 5:13*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > Kirk,
>
> > I would like to suggest that while OLC may not be a "sanctioned" race,
> > it is still a race: it is a race against the weather, the conditions,
> > the amount of daylight and most importantly, it is a race against your
> > fellow pilots flying together on that day. While true, OLC pilots will
> > never reach the same first name only notoriety that "racing" pilots
> > enjoy, to say we don't race isn't really accurate.
>
> > Regards,
> > Brad
>
> Sorry, Brad, I totally disagree. *A "race" implies competition between people on the same task, whatever that task is. OLC doesn't have a "task"!
>
> Definition of "Race":
>
> Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.
>
> Verb: Compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.
>
> OLC fits neither of these.
>
> Why the need to mix the two? *OLC is a valid form of competition, and is a lot of fun - it just isn't a race where individuals compete against each other on the same field of play. *A race against fellow pilots? YGBSM! I'm in Illinois scratching around in 1 knot up to 2000', and you are running around in NM at 17999' under a cloud street? *Yeah right. *You get a better OLC score, that's great! But we didn't race!
>
> I want my racing to have rules. *If you don't like rules - then you probably won't like racing. I like to see how I do against other pilots on solving a problem we are all exposed to at the same time - not comparing the soaring weather where I live to the soaring weather where someone else lives..
>
> Kirk
> 66

You are not getting it Kirk. Our kinder and gentler PC society won't
have their precious children divided into winners and losers. Look at
the bedrooms of all those Generation X<Y<Z babies with their
certificates of participation proudly displayed. Rules? Who needs
rules if we just all strive to get along and let those mimosas do what
it takes not to have another temper tantrum. Kirk, you and I are just
too damned old to understand that.
Herb, J7

[Brad[_2_]]

On Mar 13, 3:56*pm, Herbert kilian > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 5:13*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Kirk,
>
> > > I would like to suggest that while OLC may not be a "sanctioned" race,
> > > it is still a race: it is a race against the weather, the conditions,
> > > the amount of daylight and most importantly, it is a race against your
> > > fellow pilots flying together on that day. While true, OLC pilots will
> > > never reach the same first name only notoriety that "racing" pilots
> > > enjoy, to say we don't race isn't really accurate.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Brad
>
> > Sorry, Brad, I totally disagree. *A "race" implies competition between people on the same task, whatever that task is. OLC doesn't have a "task"!
>
> > Definition of "Race":
>
> > Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.
>
> > Verb: Compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.
>
> > OLC fits neither of these.
>
> > Why the need to mix the two? *OLC is a valid form of competition, and is a lot of fun - it just isn't a race where individuals compete against each other on the same field of play. *A race against fellow pilots? YGBSM! I'm in Illinois scratching around in 1 knot up to 2000', and you are running around in NM at 17999' under a cloud street? *Yeah right. *You get a better OLC score, that's great! But we didn't race!
>
> > I want my racing to have rules. *If you don't like rules - then you probably won't like racing. I like to see how I do against other pilots on solving a problem we are all exposed to at the same time - not comparing the soaring weather where I live to the soaring weather where someone else lives.
>
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> You are not getting it Kirk. *Our kinder and gentler PC society won't
> have their precious children divided into winners and losers. *Look at
> the bedrooms of all those Generation X<Y<Z babies with their
> certificates of participation proudly displayed. *Rules? Who needs
> rules if we just all strive to get along and let those mimosas do what
> it takes not to have another temper tantrum. *Kirk, you and I are just
> too damned old to understand that.
> Herb, J7

Hey Herb, I'm old enough to have grandkids and I sure as hell am not a
PC hack, so understand that racing is for those who wanna race, and
OLC is for those who wanna race.
You guys have hijacked the term "race" like the gays have hijacked the
word "gay".

Herb come on up to my neck of the woods and I'll kick your ass where I
fly.

Brad
(almost forgot to add respectfully)

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

Speaking of hijacking, you guys have hijacked this thread. Take it
outside. :)

For the record, though, while the OLC is a justifiably popular form of
competition, it's not racing in the classic head-to-head fashion.
Technically, sanctioned contests are not all head-to-head racing,
either, as whenever an area-type task is called. But at least we all
launch from the same location and mostly return there having flown in
the same geographical envelope and overall weather system. Such is not
the case with the OLC, as innovative and challenging as it is.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Mar 13, 7:32*pm, Chip Bearden > wrote:
> Speaking of hijacking, you guys have hijacked this thread. Take it
> outside. :)
>
> For the record, though, while the OLC is a justifiably popular form of
> competition, it's not racing in the classic head-to-head fashion.
> Technically, sanctioned contests are not all head-to-head racing,
> either, as whenever an area-type task is called. But at least we all
> launch from the same location and mostly return there having flown in
> the same geographical envelope and overall weather system. Such is not
> the case with the OLC, as innovative and challenging as it is.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

Chip,

If I may come back inside for a moment. I think you just hit the nail
on the head with this post. I do not claim that OLC is a competition/
race between everyone posting flights on a particular day. I am
suggesting that the OLC traces posted by the group of guys I fly with,
that take off, and hopefully land back at the same place, are "racing"
and in "competition" with each other.

Kirk is right; although I do not fly out of NM, where I do fly is in
the mountains and yes we do get high and yes we do go far, and no, to
claim that I beat someone flying in conditions lacking such veracity
would not be accurate. In the context of a group of guys flying from a
common location, I posit that racing can take place without it being
sanctioned or requiring entry fees and 2 weeks of vacation in order to
participate.

And Herb.............come out west, fly the peaks with us.

Brad

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

On Mar 13, 11:19*pm, Brad > wrote:
> If I may come back inside for a moment. I think you just hit the nail
> on the head with this post. I do not claim that OLC is a competition/
> race between everyone posting flights on a particular day. I am
> suggesting that the OLC traces posted by the group of guys I fly with,
> that take off, and hopefully land back at the same place, are "racing"
> and in "competition" with each other.
<SNIP>
> In the context of a group of guys flying from a
> common location, I posit that racing can take place without it being
> sanctioned or requiring entry fees and 2 weeks of vacation in order to
> participate.

Let's put this to bed so we can argue about smart phones. :)

Think of "classic" assigned-task racing as being at one end of the
competition continuum (all pilots flying the same task at the same
time). And think of the OLC at the other end (pilots flying wherever
they want at different times). The various forms of area tasks called
at today's sanctioned contests are close to but not precisely at the
same point as the assigned task because, while all pilots launch from
the same location and fly in the same task area, they do not
necessarily fly the same course. But that's still pretty close to
classic head-to-head racing.

I don't think anyone would disagree that a bunch of guys launching
from a common airport the same day who agree to fly the same informal
task (sometimes called ahead of time, more often after everyone
launches, and sometimes on a turnpoint-by-turnpoint basis by whomever
is out ahead) are racing.

Another variation, edging still further from the assigned task
endpoint, is the concept of the Governor's Cup season-long series here
in the NJ-PA-NY-DE area that was written up a while ago and promoted
by Erik Mann. Pilots launching from different points (mostly
gliderports) fly the same course (set around those points); you can
enter the course from any point and fly in either direction. A pilot's
best three days count towards the overall results. They don't all fly
from the same launch point nor do they all fly the same days or in the
same weather. But they do fly the same course...sort of: there are
optional turnpoints for good days and a south course and north course
to accommodate a couple of operations up in NY state. I think most, if
not all, of the competition pilots (myself included) who compete for
the Cup consider it to be a form of racing, although pilots who can
take off during the week to grab the best days tend to tilt things
slightly more towards the OLC model. On a good weekend day, it
resembles the "let's all fly a task today" pickup contest model except
we can all fly from our usual airports without having to trailer in.

All points on this continuum are valid forms of competition. The
closer you get to the classic assigned task model, however, the easier
it is to refer to it as head-to-head racing, where I (like Kirk and
many others) like to measure myself against other pilots over the same
ground under the same conditions. It doesn't mean one point on this
continuum is better than another, but they are all different.

You could also compare other attributes on this same continuum: % of
the soaring day used is much higher for the OLC, for example, and
probably also the % of completion (not having to land out). Average
speed is higher for the racing end of the continuum, all things being
equal. I'm not going to touch "fun factor" here because that's in the
eye of the beholder.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:09:47 PM UTC-5, Brad wrote:

> > > Definition of "Race":
> >
> > > Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.
> >
> > > Verb: Compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.


> Hey Herb, I'm old enough to have grandkids and I sure as hell am not a
> PC hack, so understand that racing is for those who wanna race, and
> OLC is for those who wanna race.
> You guys have hijacked the term "race" like the gays have hijacked the
> word "gay".
>
> Brad
> (almost forgot to add respectfully)

Not an English Major, obviously. Please read and attempt to comprehend the definition of a race, posted above for your edification.

It's actually you OLC guys who have hijacked the term "race"!

And now, back to your regular programming...

Kirk
66

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

Two points on this evolving thread:

Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
think about them.

Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
majority say they want to keep the ban.

It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
(For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)

When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
in club class.

That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
would be banned forever.

So, if you want it, just start making noise.

Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.

John Cochrane

[Mike the Strike]

Although I enjoy OLC more than traditional racing, I have to agree with Kirk on this one. I would also posit that the only "real" race is an assigned task where all competitors fly the same course round defined turnpoints. Once you permit pilot-assigned turnpoints (AAT and MAT), the race has essentially become OLC light.

As an ex sailboat racer, I believe that the best races also require all competitors to start simultaneously - Grand Prix style.

Mike

[noel.wade]

On Mar 14, 8:39*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> *Once you permit pilot-assigned turnpoints (AAT and MAT), the race has essentially become OLC light.
>

Mike - While I don't disagree with your attitude, I cringe at your
characterization of AAT tasks... In an AAT (or MAT), the pilots are
still launching within an hour of each other and flying in (generally)
the same airmass. By contrast, here's a typical OLC "task" [with my
tongue firmly planted in my cheek]:

OLC 2012, Day 74
-----
GRID TIME: *after sunrise*
LAUNCH TIME: *after grid*
START: *near an airfield of some sort, and don't take too long of a
tow*
TP1: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
TP2: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
TP3: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
TP4: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
TP5: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
FINISH: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
-----

:-)

--Noel
(who really likes the OLC, but doesn't consider a 500km flight in
Germany and a 500km flight in the US comparable achievements - even on
the same day)

[Cliff Hilty[_2_]]

At 13:09 14 March 2012, kirk.stant wrote:


>> > > Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc.,
to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.
> >
> > > Verb: Compete with another or others to see who is fastest at
covering a set course or achieving an objective.



>Not an English Major, obviously. Please read and attempt to comprehend
the
>definition of a race, posted above for your edification.
>
>It's actually you OLC guys who have hijacked the term "race"!
>
>And now, back to your regular programming...
>
>Kirk
>66
>
>

This is just a rehash of the same argument we had when the PST or POST was
used in racing. It really comes down to what you are measuring in a "Race".
In the AST we are measuring speed over distance and thermalling ability. In
a PST we add to that course choices, weather, and rules interpretation. I
had this argument with a National rated pilot and what we came up with is
that the same people won regardless of the task type. But some just don't
like racing in that way. Admittedly the easiest, while not being
necessarily the fairest would be to race a one class glider and do a AST,
no thinking just fly fast!

CH

[John Carlyle]

Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore..

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

[Sean Fidler]

John,

HARD DECK: I fully agree with the hard deck idea based on recent AH panic, fear, etc. A hard deck would be simple, safe, comprehensive, measurable, enforceable and absolute. It would ensure a fair parcel of air to work within for all pilots. I fully understand that nobody knows where the clouds really are at any given time, and that this level varies throughout the day and task area. But with a hard deck and no AH it is extremely unlikely that clouds will be entered in contests, resulting in any advantage, assuming the weather predictions are relatively accurate (simply error low on hard deck top, greater challenge). The AH rule alone, with today’s technology, certainly no longer prevents pilots truly motivated to cheat via cloud flying. This is FOR SURE! The hard deck keeps the cheater out of the clouds and can be measured and enforced.

It is interesting that some fight passionately to preventing AH technology in the cockpit (cloud flying) while seemingly being unconcerned about contest pilots regularly flying within 500 ft. of cloud base (no support for a hard deck). These acts are systemic clear violations of a FAA regulation broken by almost all contest pilots every time we fly with clouds. They seem to mainly want it “the way it has been” (No AH) and have no interest in other changes, no matter logic. If we want no cloud flying, shouldn’t we be using this FAA regulation as a buffer zone to ensure (by the legal 500 ft. limit) that clouds are not entered?

Can a contest pilot be protested for flying along at cloud base? They are breaking federal law and therefore the SSA contest rules (obey the FAA regulations, etc), are they not? Just wondering… Why is this common (and clearly illegal) act never protested but AH’s are hissed at like voodoo dolls?

A hard bottom and hard top would be a real solution to these problems. In Reno this was discussed by OSTIV in terms of finishing penalties but it appears to already be part of the US rules (< 300 ft (anywhere on course?) is now or soon will be a land-out). I say why not simply make this 500 ft. if the safety cushion we want to encourage is indeed critical? A 500 ft. estimate of cloud base can also be made creating a hard deck top and bottom. Problem solved. Or is this not a problem because (like the AH ban) it’s what has been going on for 20+ years?

Sean

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:02:51 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> Two points on this evolving thread:
>
> Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
> time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
> suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
> low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
> suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
> think about them.
>
> Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
> artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
> RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
> reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
> compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
> majority say they want to keep the ban.
>
> It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
> most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
> recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
> also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
> (For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
> around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
> haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)
>
> When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
> bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
> much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
> equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
> to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
> limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
> in club class.
>
> That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
> up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
> would be banned forever.
>
> So, if you want it, just start making noise.
>
> Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.
>
> John Cochrane

[Sean Fidler]

John,

MOBILE DATA: Opening weather data to higher cost classes (18/Open). I don’t think that distinction is needed. Mobile phone data is really not a cost issue. To me it is a question of "what is the nature of the information" and how can it REALLY be used in a race to gain advantage. Mobile is at best equal to and likely far less reliable than standard radio accessible weather data. I suppose mobile "may" give you hints into sun on the ground at long distances (how old is the image is the question) in some cases. But this a severly doubt.

I agree that XM "SAT BASED" Weather on a Garmin 496 (for example, or similar) is overboard (at this point) but only because it will require the purchase of a $500 - $3000 piece of hardware and subscription to a $40 - $100 monthly service to access.

Simple smart phone based weather data (metars, etc) are already integrated into popular flight computer software such as XC Soar. The reason this information is included in these apps because it is incredibly simple to leverage mobile networks and there basic data capabilities.

Yes, a gentleman’s rule/recommendation now exists on the SSA site warning pilots not to use data via smart phone or tablet based flight computers. I have to ask, why? What are we afraid will happen? Remember, anyone is free to access this "where is the sun on the ground over the horizon" info (which in my opinion does not exist) in my scenario.

If there is something to fear from mobile based weather information, then it should also be illegal to call listen to ASOS/AWOS or get an in-flight briefing.

In short, I think you have to either allow smart phone data or ban the radio ;-)! They are one in the same with regards to weather or, for example, illegal communication from crew, etc over hundreds of potential frequencies.

Sean


On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Mar 14, 5:41*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> John,
>
> HARD DECK:

Sorry for being obscure. The hard deck is a lower limit not an upper
limit. I'm not in favor of an upper limit. Cloud flying is just not a
problem, and wave, thermal wave, etc. are great fun when you can get
them. We need some sense that something is a problem, now, before
passing complex and draconian rules.

The concept is this: there is a set of lower altitude limits, quoted
in MSL, given out in SUA files. They are roughly 500 to 1000 feet
AGL, At Ionia, 1200' MSL might do over the whole task area, and could
just be announced without needing a file. In mountain sites, these are
set by looking at the valley floor. Mountains and ridges stick out.
Altitudes can be higher over undlandable terrain to discourage low
flight there.

When you hit the hard deck altitude, you're counted as landing out.
From there on in, the race is over -- land out, scratch your way back
up and fly home, it's up to you. Do the safe thing, but forget about
contest points, the race is over for you. And no more of these stall/
spin crashes from thermalling at 200 feet. (Those ARE a problem.)

The navy top gun school does this: If you fall below 10,000', you're
counted as crashing into the ground. But they're a bunch of wussies,
we real pilots keep racing down until we hit the dirt.

The last time the concept was discussed at an SRA meeting the vote was
I believe 39 to 1 against. But, hey, we used to think the rolling
finish one foot over the airport fence was a good idea too. Maybe some
sharp CD will ask for this by waiver and we can see how it works out
(hint hint)

John Cochrane

Really, Really, Really speaking for myself and not the RC this time!
(Last time I counted noses, my fellow RC members were pretty solidly
in the 39 and very tired of hearing about it.)

[Papa3[_2_]]

Sean,

I'm going to have to assume that you haven't flown much in competitions and/or you've never been much out of the midwest. Even a cursory review of log files from contests I've actually flown in shows huge variations in altitude (cloudbase and or top of lift) in a given day. Mifflin day 3 2010 is a geat example. Impossible to get above 4500 at the start with weak climbs and low clouds. Hard to get away from the start cylinder. 20 miles NW 5kts to 8,000 feet and riproaring conditions. Forecast was for moderate lift to 5,000. Now tell me exactly how/when the CD sets the ceiling and how throwing away 3,000 or more feet of usable climb (assuming the ceiling was based on the forecast) makes for better or fairer racing? Or, what if the forecast was for 5,000 and the actual cloudbase was 4,000?

Or, what about the last day of the Fairfield regional in 2010 (or was it 2009). 8/8ths high overcast with decent blue (no Cu) lift to 3500. Intrepid CD who spent too much time in the UK declares it a cracking good day and sends us out. Surprisingly, it works! Somewhere along the way the local utility fires up a supplementary gas fired generation plant and guys get a single climb to 6,000. We shouldn't have even been able to stay up according to the forecast, yet we got what many of us will remember as one of the most enjoyable days in a contest ever. Again, what's the ceiling that day?

It's just a bad idea. Period

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:41:15 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> John,
>
> HARD DECK: I fully agree with the hard deck idea based on recent AH panic, fear, etc. A hard deck would be simple, safe, comprehensive, measurable, enforceable and absolute. It would ensure a fair parcel of air to work within for all pilots. I fully understand that nobody knows where the clouds really are at any given time, and that this level varies throughout the day and task area. But with a hard deck and no AH it is extremely unlikely that clouds will be entered in contests, resulting in any advantage, assuming the weather predictions are relatively accurate (simply error low on hard deck top, greater challenge). The AH rule alone, with today’s technology, certainly no longer prevents pilots truly motivated to cheat via cloud flying. This is FOR SURE! The hard deck keeps the cheater out of the clouds and can be measured and enforced.
>
> It is interesting that some fight passionately to preventing AH technology in the cockpit (cloud flying) while seemingly being unconcerned about contest pilots regularly flying within 500 ft. of cloud base (no support for a hard deck). These acts are systemic clear violations of a FAA regulation broken by almost all contest pilots every time we fly with clouds. They seem to mainly want it “the way it has been” (No AH) and have no interest in other changes, no matter logic. If we want no cloud flying, shouldn’t we be using this FAA regulation as a buffer zone to ensure (by the legal 500 ft. limit) that clouds are not entered?
>
> Can a contest pilot be protested for flying along at cloud base? They are breaking federal law and therefore the SSA contest rules (obey the FAA regulations, etc), are they not? Just wondering… Why is this common (and clearly illegal) act never protested but AH’s are hissed at like voodoo dolls?
>
> A hard bottom and hard top would be a real solution to these problems. In Reno this was discussed by OSTIV in terms of finishing penalties but it appears to already be part of the US rules (< 300 ft (anywhere on course?) is now or soon will be a land-out). I say why not simply make this 500 ft. if the safety cushion we want to encourage is indeed critical? A 500 ft. estimate of cloud base can also be made creating a hard deck top and bottom. Problem solved. Or is this not a problem because (like the AH ban) it’s what has been going on for 20+ years?
>
> Sean
>
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:02:51 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Two points on this evolving thread:
> >
> > Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
> > time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
> > suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
> > low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
> > suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
> > think about them.
> >
> > Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
> > artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
> > RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
> > reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
> > compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
> > majority say they want to keep the ban.
> >
> > It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
> > most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
> > recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
> > also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
> > (For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
> > around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
> > haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)
> >
> > When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
> > bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
> > much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
> > equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
> > to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
> > limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
> > in club class.
> >
> > That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
> > up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
> > would be banned forever.
> >
> > So, if you want it, just start making noise.
> >
> > Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.
> >
> > John Cochrane

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:18:52 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> >
> The last time the concept was discussed at an SRA meeting the vote was
> I believe 39 to 1 against. But, hey, we used to think the rolling
> finish one foot over the airport fence was a good idea too. Maybe some
> sharp CD will ask for this by waiver and we can see how it works out
> (hint hint)
>
> John Cochrane
>

Make it 40:1 against. It's just another example of a highly complex solution to a non-problem.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

I don't see the fuss over cell phones. So far, my iphone doesn't work
over 1,500' or so, and below that I tend to be busy with other
things.
John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

> Make it 40:1 against. * *It's just another example of a highly complex solution to a non-problem.

It's a simple solution -- at x feet MSL, you've landed out. You need
to read the NTSB reports and look at some traces if you think that
landout damage, stall spin accidents, etc. are not a major problem,
and that low altitude thermaling is not part of it.

But I give up for now -- no point in starting a major kerfuffle that
isn't going anywhere.

John Cochrane

[Craig R.]

One point of clarification. Current adult penetration of smart phones to all cell phones in the USA is 46% ( http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-2012/Findings.aspx ). This is actual data as of March 1, 2012. That is not saturation by any person's definition.

However, total cell phone penetration in the USA is 82% of phones to bodies and is fairly stagnate. That works for me as saturation. No use in getting my 2 year old grandniece a phone quite yet....

The above information does indicate that smartphone ownership is moving up quickly. I'm going to bet that the next time the RC does a pole, it will probably get the necessary support to lift the ban. Until then, the rule is in place.
Craig

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 3/14/2012 12:34 PM, Cliff Hilty wrote:
> Admittedly the easiest, while not being
> necessarily the fairest would be to race a one class glider and do a AST,
> no thinking just fly fast!

I have to disagree with this. AST was all we had when I started flying,
and the people that beat me did a TON of thinking (or at least half a
ton - full ton generally not needed to beat me). A big feature of the
AST is everyone HAD to round the same turnpoints (and it was a point,
not an area). Also, back then, we got to choose our own launch time!

On a very good day, the race tended to be a "technical" one, with
thermal selection, effective thermalling , and lift area choices being
important. That was a great learning experience, being able to fly with
people like Moffat, Mozer, Striedieck, and many more, and try to emulate
their technical abilities.

On a difficult day, the best pilots knew when to shift gears, when to
backtrack, when to just hang out, when to stick with the gaggle, until
it was possible to get to and around the turnpoint. It was on those days
I learned the most about using soaring weather.

As we shifted to PST and later "open" tasks, it became harder to compare
the technical, weather, and strategic skills, and I gradually lost
interest as flying a contest increasingly became the same as
"opportunistic" (aka "recreational") soaring. Why go to the cost and
effort of a contest, when the flying was the same as what I did all the
time anyway?

One reason, of course, is it's fun to gather together in group for some
serious flying, even if the "race" aspect of it is much reduced, and
that's why I kept at for many years. Eventually, I decided contest
flying was interfering with my soaring, and I gave it up.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Sean Fidler]

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:40:21 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> I don't see the fuss over cell phones. So far, my iphone doesn't work
> over 1,500' or so, and below that I tend to be busy with other
> things.
> John Cochrane

OK, OK I will lay off the hard ceiling. I agree it is limiting and might leave pilots thousands of feet below usable lift at times. I agree that I have absolutely no experience outside of the Midwest other than Uvalde last summer...but cant wait to try my hand at the wild west soon! The hard floor I like. I think that is covered at current fairly well with the current rules. The 500 ft. violations argument is one that I (will now admit) think is useless, although I felt it should be mentioned.

I have heard of someone related to the RC working on a camera system to look for IMC situations via video playback. I think this is a fantastic idea for major contests where these issues are really important. I hope it is tested. Hard to beat video evidence!

As far as the hard ceiling contest test dummy...I think Ill pass on it for this year. We are just trying to perfect contest management at this point. If your really serious about it...send me an email on how you think should could be approached.

Cell phones, I fully agree, are fairly useless above and normal altitude...and this among other reasons will hopefully soften the general concern about them, data in particular. We should allow people to use them normally and have no worries about it. But as stated above, in general, its going to far.

Best,

Sean

[Dan Marotta]

Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
I flew without having to measure on a map. Call me lazy, but after 39 years
of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. It's also
fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.


"John Carlyle" > wrote in message
news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26...
Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

[Dan Marotta]

Errrr... "Hard Deck" refers to minimum altitude, not cloud clearance...


"Sean Fidler" > wrote in message
news:32846365.1740.1331764875489.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynll40...
John,

HARD DECK: I fully agree with the hard deck idea based on recent AH panic,
fear, etc. A hard deck would be simple, safe, comprehensive, measurable,
enforceable and absolute. It would ensure a fair parcel of air to work
within for all pilots. I fully understand that nobody knows where the
clouds really are at any given time, and that this level varies throughout
the day and task area. But with a hard deck and no AH it is extremely
unlikely that clouds will be entered in contests, resulting in any
advantage, assuming the weather predictions are relatively accurate (simply
error low on hard deck top, greater challenge). The AH rule alone, with
today’s technology, certainly no longer prevents pilots truly motivated to
cheat via cloud flying. This is FOR SURE! The hard deck keeps the cheater
out of the clouds and can be measured and enforced.

It is interesting that some fight passionately to preventing AH technology
in the cockpit (cloud flying) while seemingly being unconcerned about
contest pilots regularly flying within 500 ft. of cloud base (no support for
a hard deck). These acts are systemic clear violations of a FAA regulation
broken by almost all contest pilots every time we fly with clouds. They
seem to mainly want it “the way it has been” (No AH) and have no interest in
other changes, no matter logic. If we want no cloud flying, shouldn’t we be
using this FAA regulation as a buffer zone to ensure (by the legal 500 ft.
limit) that clouds are not entered?

Can a contest pilot be protested for flying along at cloud base? They are
breaking federal law and therefore the SSA contest rules (obey the FAA
regulations, etc), are they not? Just wondering… Why is this common (and
clearly illegal) act never protested but AH’s are hissed at like voodoo
dolls?

A hard bottom and hard top would be a real solution to these problems. In
Reno this was discussed by OSTIV in terms of finishing penalties but it
appears to already be part of the US rules (< 300 ft (anywhere on course?)
is now or soon will be a land-out). I say why not simply make this 500 ft.
if the safety cushion we want to encourage is indeed critical? A 500 ft.
estimate of cloud base can also be made creating a hard deck top and bottom.
Problem solved. Or is this not a problem because (like the AH ban) it’s
what has been going on for 20+ years?

Sean

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:02:51 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> Two points on this evolving thread:
>
> Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
> time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
> suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
> low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
> suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
> think about them.
>
> Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
> artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
> RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
> reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
> compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
> majority say they want to keep the ban.
>
> It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
> most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
> recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
> also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
> (For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
> around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
> haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)
>
> When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
> bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
> much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
> equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
> to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
> limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
> in club class.
>
> That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
> up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
> would be banned forever.
>
> So, if you want it, just start making noise.
>
> Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.
>
> John Cochrane

[noel.wade]

Eric -

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I *LIKE* that I am not limited
to a 1 mi AT circle. I don't like the idea that some guy can (semi-
randomly) go into that turnpoint and catch the only thermal of the day
that drifts through that small volume if airspace. With a bigger
cylinder, the law of averages gives me better odds of finding a
thermal that's as good as a thermal some other contestant may find in
the same area.

Of course, I've never experienced the "good old days" of racing with
picking my own start times. I've also never had a race without a
1000' finish height, or an open/pure-distance day with overnight
retrieves, or no radios or cell-phones when I land out. ;-P

Maybe I'm just a snot-nosed punk who missed the glory days of
sailplane racing (I _am_ jealous of those pics from the 70's showing
the huge grids), but I find the current system is still compelling and
VERY different from casual/OLC flying. I still have a course, I still
have time limits, and I am still trying to outsmart the weather, the
sun, and my fellow pilots.

--Noel


On Mar 14, 8:13*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> As we shifted to PST and later "open" tasks, it became harder to compare
> the technical, weather, and strategic skills, and I gradually lost
> interest as flying a contest increasingly became the same as
> "opportunistic" (aka "recreational") soaring. Why go to the cost and
> effort of a contest, when the flying was the same as what I did all the
> time anyway?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 3/15/2012 2:38 PM, noel.wade wrote:
> Eric -
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I*LIKE* that I am not limited
> to a 1 mi AT circle. I don't like the idea that some guy can (semi-
> randomly) go into that turnpoint and catch the only thermal of the day
> that drifts through that small volume if airspace. With a bigger
> cylinder, the law of averages gives me better odds of finding a
> thermal that's as good as a thermal some other contestant may find in
> the same area.
>
> Of course, I've never experienced the "good old days" of racing with
> picking my own start times. I've also never had a race without a
> 1000' finish height, or an open/pure-distance day with overnight
> retrieves, or no radios or cell-phones when I land out.;-P
>
> Maybe I'm just a snot-nosed punk who missed the glory days of
> sailplane racing (I_am_ jealous of those pics from the 70's showing
> the huge grids), but I find the current system is still compelling and
> VERY different from casual/OLC flying. I still have a course, I still
> have time limits, and I am still trying to outsmart the weather, the
> sun, and my fellow pilots.

Rules attract a constituency that likes them, so you've self-selected
yourself into the current situation, as I have self-selected myself out
of it!

But to the turnpoint size ... We were not limited to a 1 mile circle,
instead, we had to fly _over_ the turnpoint (usually a specific end of a
runway) and take a picture of the photo target (usually the other end of
the runway) with a camera that was mounted on the canopy rail.

The problem that eventually led to changes wasn't the luck of finding a
better situated thermal a mile or two away, but the possibility a
thunderstorm or cirrus would shut off the thermals for miles in all
directions near the turnpoint. When this happened, there would a lot of
landouts, as most (or no) pilots could get past that turnpoint.

The thermal "luck" you mention really wasn't much of a problem, and the
longer tasks we flew (compared to the last decade or more) averaged out
a lot of the luck inherent in a contest, and made sure the best rose to
the top of the list.

So, yes: different rules, different people, different times.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38:04 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
> Eric -
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I *LIKE* that I am not limited
> to a 1 mi AT circle. I don't like the idea that some guy can (semi-
> randomly) go into that turnpoint and catch the only thermal of the day
> that drifts through that small volume if airspace. With a bigger
> cylinder, the law of averages gives me better odds of finding a
> thermal that's as good as a thermal some other contestant may find in
> the same area.

Interesting. I see the same situation in EXACTLY the opposite way: With large area tasks, a guy can semi-randomly catch the only thermal of the day and coast to an easy win; with small turnpoints (and a 1 mile circle is pretty small at 90 knots!) everyone has to solve pretty much the same problems. I don't want the law of averages involved, I want pilot skills involved. Area tasks were developed (and rightly so) to allow tasks in iffy weather - not as a replacement for assigned tasks on good, predictable days. I think many CDs use area tasks because they are a lot easier to call (BTDT). They are a lot better than the detestable one-turnpoint 3 hour MAT! And they are useful when racing handicapped classes. Called intelligently (which is not a 2.5 hour task with two 30mile radius turnpoints 60 miles apart!) they are a lot of fun.

> Of course, I've never experienced the "good old days" of racing with
> picking my own start times. I've also never had a race without a
> 1000' finish height, or an open/pure-distance day with overnight
> retrieves, or no radios or cell-phones when I land out. ;-P

Ahh, the good old days of formation 50' line finishes over the hangars - at redline, dumping your ballast on the barbecue, pulling up into the line of gliders on downwind (at 500' or so...) to take your turn to land. Now that was FUN! When you got out of your ship you were pumped!

(please, no safety retorts, you guys have won that fight...)

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[John Carlyle]

So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy). Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.

But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.

-John

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
> look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
> I flew without having to measure on a map. Call me lazy, but after 39 years
> of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. It's also
> fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.
>
>
> "John Carlyle" > wrote in message
> news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26...
> Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
> to understand, but I just don’t get it.
>
> If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
> score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
> meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
> half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…
>
> At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
> long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
> forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
> them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…
>
> Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
> pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
> week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
> only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…
>
> Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
> seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
> think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
> have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
> lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.
>
> Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?
>
> -John

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 16, 2012 9:01:08 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
> So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy).. Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.
>
> But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.
>
> -John
>
> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
> > look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
> > I flew without having to measure on a map. Call me lazy, but after 39 years
> > of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. It's also
> > fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.
> >
> >
> > "John Carlyle" > wrote in message
> > news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26....
> > Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
> > to understand, but I just don’t get it.
> >
> > If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
> > score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
> > meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
> > half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…
> >
> > At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
> > long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
> > forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
> > them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…
> >
> > Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
> > pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
> > week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
> > only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…
> >
> > Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
> > seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
> > think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
> > have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
> > lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.
> >
> > Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?
> >
> > -John

It's pretty much self evident that OLC is fun for a lot of people. It is great for our sport because it gets people out flying cross country and gives them a challange that fits them.
One of the neat things about our sport is the wide variety of ways people can participate in a huge range of equipment. Few other sports do this in my view.
I get a bit crazy(UH crazy?) when I read a lot of stuff on RAS that seems to simply be dumping on what the other guy likes.
OLC is different than organized single competition. They each serve a substantial group of folks because of their different characters. You can't make them the same and shouldn't, nor should the success of either be some example of why the other has to change.
I have friends that do both. I have friends that do OLC and have no interest in organized contests, and others just the opposite.
RAS needs a more constructive topic than havein 2 factions dumping on each other.
Rant over
UH

[Bill D]

On Mar 16, 7:01*am, John Carlyle > wrote:
> So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy).. Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.
>
> But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.
>
> -John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
> > look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
> > I flew without having to measure on a map. *Call me lazy, but after 39 years
> > of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. *It's also
> > fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.
>
> > "John Carlyle" > wrote in message
> >news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26....
> > Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
> > to understand, but I just don’t get it.
>
> > If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
> > score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
> > meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
> > half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…
>
> > At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
> > long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
> > forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
> > them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…
>
> > Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
> > pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
> > week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
> > only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…
>
> > Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
> > seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
> > think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
> > have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
> > lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.
>
> > Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?
>
> > -John

The OLC is great! OLC is responsible for greatly increasing the
number of pilots who have tried cross country and that's a very good
thing. It's also given us a provable way to show the public what
gliders can really do which makes it a fantastic tool from recruiting
new glider pilots. Reiner Rose and his team are the great hero's of
21st Century soaring.

The OLC's very simple requirements for participation set the bar very
low for newbie cross country pilots while still recognizing the
accomplishments of top pilots. That's an accomplishment all by
itself. Pilots are voting with their feet. The OLC is very popular,
sanctioned events less so.

OLC has also separated hype from reality. I've noticed a few pilots
who once bragged loudly about their supposed accomplishments have gone
silent and some soaring sites once billed as "the worlds best place to
fly gliders" don't rank very high. If you've got it, flaunt it. If
you haven't, you can't upload it to the OLC. That qualifies as a
competition not only between pilots but between soaring sites and
clubs.

Is OLC a race? No. The only real race format is the Soaring Grand Prix
series.

[John Carlyle]

Two interesting replies to my question of why people think the OLC is fun.

The first response boils down to: OLc is fun because it is, and shut up! It’s quite passionate, but as a response it’s not very persuasive or informative.

The second responder says OLC is fun because it’s simple to do, people are doing it, the posted flights prove gliders can do something, and you can use the results to put down some snotty pilots and soaring sites. Somehow, none of these match my definition of “fun”.

Seriously, can anybody explain why they find OLC is fun? I’m not putting it down, I just don’t think that it’s any more “fun” than logging my flight time. I find the fun in the flight, not in an artificial, biased, “contest”.

-John

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Mar 16, 12:52*pm, John Carlyle > wrote:
> Two interesting replies to my question of why people think the OLC is fun..
>
> The first response boils down to: *OLc is fun because it is, and shut up! It’s quite passionate, but as a response it’s not very persuasive or informative.
>
> The second responder says OLC is fun because it’s simple to do, people are doing it, the posted flights prove gliders can do something, and you can use the results to put down some snotty pilots and soaring sites. Somehow, none of these match my definition of “fun”.
>
> Seriously, can anybody explain why they find OLC is fun? I’m not putting it down, I just don’t think that it’s any more “fun” than logging my flight time. I find the fun in the flight, not in an artificial, biased, “contest”.
>
> -John

I like OLC for "bragging rights" and friendly match flying with other
guys in my region in a light hearted way. It is fun to see what other
people are up to at sites around the world. The "contest" part I
don't take seriously. That's about location, ability to fly on the
six best days of the year and skill set in roughly equal measures. I
certainly aspire to all those things, but the skill set bit is the one
that earns real respect and that's only 1/3 of OLC.

T8

[BobW]

On 3/16/2012 8:26 AM, wrote:

<Major snip...>

> It's pretty much self evident that OLC is fun for a lot of people. It is
> great for our sport because it gets people out flying cross country and
> gives them a challenge that fits them. One of the neat things about our
> sport is the wide variety of ways people can participate in a huge range of
> equipment. Few other sports do this in my view. I get a bit crazy(UH
> crazy?) when I read a lot of stuff on RAS that seems to simply be dumping
> on what the other guy likes. OLC is different than organized single
> competition. They each serve a substantial group of folks because of their
> different characters. You can't make them the same and shouldn't, nor
> should the success of either be some example of why the other has to
> change. I have friends that do both. I have friends that do OLC and have no
> interest in organized contests, and others just the opposite. RAS needs a
> more constructive topic than having 2 factions dumping on each other. Rant
> over UH

UH - IMHO - raises a great point that (also IMHO) periodically benefits from
'group awareness.'

It's simply this: soaring worldwide has sufficient difficulties
attracting/hooking committed participants that any appearance of internecine
squabbling/denigration/warfare/whatever is sure to be perceived by some
current participants as off-putting to their commitment to the sport...and
hence not good.

Being able to agree to disagree is a good thing (IMHO). The trick is to do so
'civilly'...as individually defined. Therein lies the problem and paradox.

The 'problem' is a universal definition of 'civil' is fairly remote (dry
chuckle), though a dictionary seems (to me) to be a great place to start.

The paradox can be sensed in reflective reading of OLC/racing threads. Clearly
passionate fans of both exist (which passion alone, as Bill D. has noted, is
GREAT for OLC as measured by participation in something that didn't exist a
few short years ago, soaring, XC, daydreaming, etc.), and I'd suggest that
sometimes the passion FOR a particular point of view (whether OLC or racing is
unimportant to the larger point I'm trying to convey here) can (especially
through the relatively impersonal text-based medium of RAS) easily be misread
(even if never intended as such) as *denigration* OF THE OTHER.

I think UH (whom I have never met) has said it fairly well: "I have friends
that do both. I have friends that do OLC and have no interest in organized
contests, and others just the opposite."

He could well add there are others who have no interest in participating in
either, but: 1) who thoroughly enjoy flying XC for its own rewards; 2) who
thoroughly enjoy the fact OF OLC and its swelling participation, and encourage
any/all potentially interested folks to sample those waters; 3) who thoroughly
enjoy the fact OF formal competitions (even as they have evolved for better or
worse over the years), and encourage any/all potentially interested folks to
sample those waters too; 4) who thoroughly enjoy the fact there are so many
OTHER ways for folks to obtain personal satisfaction and growth from
participating in soaring (even if it doesn't include flight itself); 5) who etc...

1) through 5) above is me, for one.

It's been a long winter for some northern hemisphere denizens. Let's try to
keep in mind the persistence and universality inherent to RAS when we post?

End of preachment.

Bob W.

[John Carlyle]

Thanks, Evan, what you said was helpful.

It turns out that I’ve been missing information on OLC, due to the way I get to the site and a failure on my part to understand the complexities of the OLC menu. After getting your hint, I invested some time and got some listings that showed the results for my region, plus the results for other clubs in my region, in addition to my club, my club mates and the US overall, plus a lot more, besides.

I have to agree with Evan, these results are fun. Now I know...

-John

On Friday, March 16, 2012 2:00:51 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
> I like OLC for "bragging rights" and friendly match flying with other
> guys in my region in a light hearted way. It is fun to see what other
> people are up to at sites around the world. The "contest" part I
> don't take seriously. That's about location, ability to fly on the
> six best days of the year and skill set in roughly equal measures. I
> certainly aspire to all those things, but the skill set bit is the one
> that earns real respect and that's only 1/3 of OLC.
>
> T8

[Morgan[_2_]]

Hopefully you discover the inspirational and encouraging aspect of OLC. Nothing like looking at the flights for your region or nearby glider ops and seeing that someone turned a mediocre day into a 300k flight. For me, that's a source of encouragement and while I don't consider it a race or a contest for all of Evan's points, I do have fun checking out what is going on in the region so that sharing and learning aspect is really cool. It's also a great way to live vicariously through your friends with better work/life balance when they take a day off to fly during the week. You can review their flights that night and see what you missed or didn't as the case occasionally is.

Morgan

On Friday, March 16, 2012 1:16:13 PM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
> Thanks, Evan, what you said was helpful.
>
> It turns out that I’ve been missing information on OLC, due to the way I get to the site and a failure on my part to understand the complexities of the OLC menu. After getting your hint, I invested some time and got some listings that showed the results for my region, plus the results for other clubs in my region, in addition to my club, my club mates and the US overall, plus a lot more, besides.
>
> I have to agree with Evan, these results are fun. Now I know...
>
> -John
>
> On Friday, March 16, 2012 2:00:51 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
> > I like OLC for "bragging rights" and friendly match flying with other
> > guys in my region in a light hearted way. It is fun to see what other
> > people are up to at sites around the world. The "contest" part I
> > don't take seriously. That's about location, ability to fly on the
> > six best days of the year and skill set in roughly equal measures. I
> > certainly aspire to all those things, but the skill set bit is the one
> > that earns real respect and that's only 1/3 of OLC.
> >
> > T8

[Sean Fidler]

Great post. I appreciate OLC. I think OLC is outstanding within a region, state or club as a way to measure your season, month or week of flying vs. your friends. And the results, in terms of participation and satisfaction, speak volumes.

That said, the truth is that I would prefer to race assigned tasks & regatta starts with like gliders every time I fly. Isn't this what we all wish we could do? In a perfect world would we not all have the same great glider? Wait a minute, we do. They are called 18m & 15m class! Handicap "racing" (chuckle, chuckle) is something that we are forced into because the proliferation of glider design classes has outpaced the growth of the sport? Now we have too little participation in most classes...and are looking at combining what is left into block handicap classes.

Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.

Why not try regatta starts if the goal is fair, true racing? Safety? I think a set start would actually be safer than the random chaos of start whenever you like. Simply introduce a 2 mile entry corridor (twice as wide as the start line) where course must be held (along with a speed limit) up until the starting line is crossed. This would be far safer than our current chaos in my opinion. I could not imagine a "start whenever you like" program was an option in sailboat racing. Unthinkable because it could, literally, decide the race. No different in soaring.

With AAT’s, the increase in the amount of decisions is massive. The luck involved increases exponentially. The critical aspect of choosing the right points to turn is highly dependent by having the best flight computer (and knowing how to use it very well). Many complain about cost and technology? AAT's require full screen maps, lots of pondering and revision of strategy based on situational changes and lots of playing with the computer (heads down, safety) to recalculate our turn decisions. This says nothing of the many paths possible to reach that magical point within the Turn Area. A skill in itself, but not true racing. Not even close. Lots of luck involved. Dangerous. Expensive!

Question? Why do 18m and 15m (essentially one design classes) ever do AAT's? Why at worlds or nationals are AAT’s even considered? Even though these gliders are scored without handicap, the AAT seems to be the more common task. In Uvalde last year we did a number of AAT's in 18m, 15m and Open? Why? This makes no sense to me. The conditions were excellent literally every day. AAT's, per the definition as I understand it, should be an absolute last resort for the CD. Instead it seems by far the most common task and AT's are avoided.

AAT's are boring (speaking as a new contest pilot) and not real racing in my view. Sure in a handicap class you may need them, but handicap racing is not real racing in and of itself. AAT's (and handicap racing) are an effort to satisfy everyone. Trying to satisfy everyone is always a bad choice in my book, let alone impossible. The tendency to call mainly AAT's further dilutes the few opportunities left in the sport of soaring for "true racing." I see this AAT topic as a real problem to be looked at in the future..

Why not have combined tasks (as a compromise) with, for example, two AT turn-points and one AAT circle to level things out? (My apology if this exists; I have never seen it in action). At least this would reduce the variability of a pure AT while allowing the CD to vary the min/max distance of the task. A pure AAT with 3 large circles is just silly... Almost no point to this type of task in my view if true racing is the goal. It should be avoided like the plague. But the fact is that it is becoming the main task in our “racing” world.

I love racing tasks, will tolerate the occasional AAT and enjoy OLC when true racing is not an option (most of the time). I think both racing and OLC are great things. I do agree that OLC is an excellent way to measure flying site "productivity!" Other than that (from region to region) I agree that OLC is fundamentally useless. Even more useless than AAT's with open starts (pick your time). But in the case of OLC so what. Everyone understands that (or should). In racing, I think alot of people think that AAT's are better races than they really are.

I hope this is discussed in a friendly way in the future.

Sean


On Friday, March 16, 2012 10:38:18 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
> On Mar 16, 7:01*am, John Carlyle > wrote:
> > So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy). Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.
> >
> > But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.
> >
> > -John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > > Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
> > > look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
> > > I flew without having to measure on a map. *Call me lazy, but after 39 years
> > > of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. *It's also
> > > fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.
> >
> > > "John Carlyle" > wrote in message
> > >news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26....
> > > Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
> > > to understand, but I just don’t get it.
> >
> > > If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
> > > score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
> > > meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
> > > half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…
> >
> > > At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
> > > long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
> > > forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
> > > them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…
> >
> > > Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
> > > pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
> > > week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
> > > only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…
> >
> > > Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
> > > seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
> > > think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
> > > have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
> > > lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore..
> >
> > > Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?
> >
> > > -John
>
> The OLC is great! OLC is responsible for greatly increasing the
> number of pilots who have tried cross country and that's a very good
> thing. It's also given us a provable way to show the public what
> gliders can really do which makes it a fantastic tool from recruiting
> new glider pilots. Reiner Rose and his team are the great hero's of
> 21st Century soaring.
>
> The OLC's very simple requirements for participation set the bar very
> low for newbie cross country pilots while still recognizing the
> accomplishments of top pilots. That's an accomplishment all by
> itself. Pilots are voting with their feet. The OLC is very popular,
> sanctioned events less so.
>
> OLC has also separated hype from reality. I've noticed a few pilots
> who once bragged loudly about their supposed accomplishments have gone
> silent and some soaring sites once billed as "the worlds best place to
> fly gliders" don't rank very high. If you've got it, flaunt it. If
> you haven't, you can't upload it to the OLC. That qualifies as a
> competition not only between pilots but between soaring sites and
> clubs.
>
> Is OLC a race? No. The only real race format is the Soaring Grand Prix
> series.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, March 19, 2012 11:26:21 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Great post. I appreciate OLC. I think OLC is outstanding within a region, state or club as a way to measure your season, month or week of flying vs. your friends. And the results, in terms of participation and satisfaction, speak volumes.
>
> That said, the truth is that I would prefer to race assigned tasks & regatta starts with like gliders every time I fly. Isn't this what we all wish we could do? In a perfect world would we not all have the same great glider? Wait a minute, we do. They are called 18m & 15m class! Handicap "racing" (chuckle, chuckle) is something that we are forced into because the proliferation of glider design classes has outpaced the growth of the sport? Now we have too little participation in most classes...and are looking at combining what is left into block handicap classes.
>
> Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless.. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.
>
> Why not try regatta starts if the goal is fair, true racing? Safety? I think a set start would actually be safer than the random chaos of start whenever you like. Simply introduce a 2 mile entry corridor (twice as wide as the start line) where course must be held (along with a speed limit) up until the starting line is crossed. This would be far safer than our current chaos in my opinion. I could not imagine a "start whenever you like" program was an option in sailboat racing. Unthinkable because it could, literally, decide the race. No different in soaring.
>
> With AAT’s, the increase in the amount of decisions is massive. The luck involved increases exponentially. The critical aspect of choosing the right points to turn is highly dependent by having the best flight computer (and knowing how to use it very well). Many complain about cost and technology? AAT's require full screen maps, lots of pondering and revision of strategy based on situational changes and lots of playing with the computer (heads down, safety) to recalculate our turn decisions. This says nothing of the many paths possible to reach that magical point within the Turn Area. A skill in itself, but not true racing. Not even close. Lots of luck involved. Dangerous. Expensive!
>
> Question? Why do 18m and 15m (essentially one design classes) ever do AAT's? Why at worlds or nationals are AAT’s even considered? Even though these gliders are scored without handicap, the AAT seems to be the more common task. In Uvalde last year we did a number of AAT's in 18m, 15m and Open? Why? This makes no sense to me. The conditions were excellent literally every day. AAT's, per the definition as I understand it, should be an absolute last resort for the CD. Instead it seems by far the most common task and AT's are avoided.
>
> AAT's are boring (speaking as a new contest pilot) and not real racing in my view. Sure in a handicap class you may need them, but handicap racing is not real racing in and of itself. AAT's (and handicap racing) are an effort to satisfy everyone. Trying to satisfy everyone is always a bad choice in my book, let alone impossible. The tendency to call mainly AAT's further dilutes the few opportunities left in the sport of soaring for "true racing." I see this AAT topic as a real problem to be looked at in the future.
>
> Why not have combined tasks (as a compromise) with, for example, two AT turn-points and one AAT circle to level things out? (My apology if this exists; I have never seen it in action). At least this would reduce the variability of a pure AT while allowing the CD to vary the min/max distance of the task. A pure AAT with 3 large circles is just silly... Almost no point to this type of task in my view if true racing is the goal. It should be avoided like the plague. But the fact is that it is becoming the main task in our “racing” world.
>
> I love racing tasks, will tolerate the occasional AAT and enjoy OLC when true racing is not an option (most of the time). I think both racing and OLC are great things. I do agree that OLC is an excellent way to measure flying site "productivity!" Other than that (from region to region) I agree that OLC is fundamentally useless. Even more useless than AAT's with open starts (pick your time). But in the case of OLC so what. Everyone understands that (or should). In racing, I think alot of people think that AAT's are better races than they really are.
>
> I hope this is discussed in a friendly way in the future.
>
> Sean
>
>
> The type of task you describe above is available within the rules. It is an AAT with one or more turn points having an assigned radius of as little as 1 mile and then a larger last turn area for task length tuning. It's there, just not many CD's or advisors use it.
Another interesting task that has the benefit of keeping everyone on the same course, yet allowing the slower guys to come home while the fast guys go far, is the "long MAT". Properly done, this is set too long to complete by anybody so all say on the same course, yet, the slower(or lower performance gliders) still get to drop off and finish.
FWIW - In my view, the many variables in contest soaring are part of what make the sport interesting to many of us. Interesting that some folks seem to get lucky a lot in dealing with those variables. Frustrating to the rest of us.
UH

[Mike the Strike]

Indeed, the AST task is merely an AAT with all turnpoint radii set to 1 mile. No reason at all that you can't have several 1-mile turnpoints together with one or more with larger radii. I've flown in many contests and never seen this done, though.

Mike

[Kevin Christner]

> Question? *Why do 18m and 15m (essentially one design classes) ever do AAT's? *Why at worlds or nationals are AAT’s even considered? *Even though these gliders are scored without handicap, the AAT seems to be the more common task. *In Uvalde last year we did a number of AAT's in 18m, 15m and Open? *Why? *This makes no sense to *me. *The conditions were excellent literally every day. *AAT's, per the definition as I understand it, should be an absolute last resort for the CD. *Instead it seems by far the most common task and AT's are avoided.
>

I can think of a few reasons:

1) Safety: A bunch of gliders flying into 1mi circles tends to have a
higher mid-air collision risk than larger circles. Larger circles
also allow you to complete a task rather than having to fly into a
thunderstorm to hit the 1mi circle.
2) Competition: Having to choose the best energy lines, how far to fly
into the circles, ect. more thoroughly tests the skill of the
pilots.

Talk to the guys that have been around for a long time... We wouldn't
be doing TATs unless the great majority of pilots preferred it.

2C

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.
> >
>
> No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
> overreacting.
>
> The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
> intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
> the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
> have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
> "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
> reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
> ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
> unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
> incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
> and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
> terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
> feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
> in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
> accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
> us well.
>
> No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
> always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
> matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
> only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
> capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
> posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
> not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
> done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
> flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
> “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
> evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
> competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
> many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
> those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
> continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
> something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
> reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
> strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
> that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
> Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
> problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
> soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
> what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Monday, March 19, 2012 11:26:21 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:

>
> Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless.. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.
>

Since you're an accomplished sailboat racer, you also know that large regattas with multiple boats all aiming for the line when the gun goes off are "interesting" to say the least. I still have a scar where I caught a boom from another boat in the forearm. And that was only operating in two dimensions with closing speeds measured in 10s of knots.

We went away from a start line in gliding where people went through it in a (somewhat) orderly fashion for a reason. Imagine all 45 gliders at Mifflin aiming for a start at a specific instant in time with only 1 or 2 thermals feeding the optimal spot. It's bad enough today when you can go off to a quiet spot and wait for the wanna-be Battle of Britain types to go on their merry way or climb up through the top.

FWIW, I actually did a number of horse-race starts with the Bucks County Air Force and Wayward Drinkers Association from Van Sant back in the late 1980s. This was a small group affair with 4-5 guys operating on a gentleman's agreement to link up. The high guys had to hold divebrakes waiting for the others to get to the top of the thermal. Even then, with such a small group, trying to make it safe and fair with no real points on the line was surpisingly scary.

As far as racing with large groups, I think one of the reasons behind a lot of our current rules was to reduce gaggling. Having flown any number of tasks where the whole fleet was in one to two furballs on a weak day, I'm not sure how much I pine for those days. It's a lot more fun to fly "with" a small group or to pick up markers along the way. Fighting for a small chunk of airspace with 15 other gliders... not so much.

I think it's good to challenge convention, but do realize that a lot of hard-earned experience has lead us to where we are today.

[Sean Fidler]

Thanks for the replies and yes I admit my view may be a bit naive in terms of safety concerns and historical justifications.

The more variables and complexity included within an activity or task the harder it is to learn and master. In sailing we spend a great amount of effort mastering controllable variables within an AT type race course. Things such as: rig set up, mast and sail design, hull & bottom preparation, foil shape, sail trim settings, tacks, jybes, sets, starts, etc (controllable variables). By keeping the execution levels of these basic skills high we consistently reduce the negative impact of uncontrollable (and inevitable) variables vs our competitors. Things such as: large adverse windshifts, area's of stronger or weaker wind that cannot be predicted accurately, fouls from other competitors that push us back into the fleet churn, breakdowns, inevitable basic mistakes).

If suddenly the sailboat race course was defined by large GPS turn area cylinders, the sport would change dramatically. The importance of the basic skills would be reduced significantly and many boats (formerly non-competitive) would begin to score better based on randomly arriving at an area in the cylinder that happened to have stronger wind, less current or a favorable wind-shift and benefiting significantly from it.

AAT's are a great challenge due to the natural introduction of high probability for uncontrollable variables. Simple example: (Sports class) Faster gliders need to go farther, but what if the conditions in the far area of the turn area are poor vs the near area? And so on. On top of that there are simply far more potential solutions to the puzzle (and chances for error). I ooze frustration from trying to figure them out.

The pure AAT task makes learning and managing the decision making process extremely challenging. AAT's are by nature far more random. With AAT's, in my observation, often radical thinking is rewarded. With AAT's you can get lucky (or unlucky). This is great fun...but very difficult to learn or teach! End of my whining...

I think that AT tasking is a much better test of flying skill. AAT's offer higher degree of difficulty tests for weather skill & computer management while introducing higher chances of benefit from significant amounts of luck (uncontrollable variables).

I agree that safety can be an issue in regatta starts, but many of our contests could have 15 meter or 18 meter starts with less than 20 gliders (most with far less), which I (again perhaps naively) think could be handled safely and with awesome results!

The combined AT/AAT task (I will read up) sounds really interesting and I hope we see some of those this season. We just seem to do way to many AT's! I jokingly (not kidding) have referred to AAT's privately with my crew as OLC tasks. We fly them like we do OLC, with similar constraints. This was far before the recent wrangling ;-). Go wherever you want...fly fast, far, etc... Try to go for at least this amount of flying time, etc. In many ways I think the similarity is real. But remember I am also a good fan of OLC so I am fine with AAT's in that respect.

Best,

Sean

On Monday, March 19, 2012 10:36:03 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2012 11:26:21 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
>
> >
> > Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.
> >
>
> Since you're an accomplished sailboat racer, you also know that large regattas with multiple boats all aiming for the line when the gun goes off are "interesting" to say the least. I still have a scar where I caught a boom from another boat in the forearm. And that was only operating in two dimensions with closing speeds measured in 10s of knots.
>
> We went away from a start line in gliding where people went through it in a (somewhat) orderly fashion for a reason. Imagine all 45 gliders at Mifflin aiming for a start at a specific instant in time with only 1 or 2 thermals feeding the optimal spot. It's bad enough today when you can go off to a quiet spot and wait for the wanna-be Battle of Britain types to go on their merry way or climb up through the top.
>
> FWIW, I actually did a number of horse-race starts with the Bucks County Air Force and Wayward Drinkers Association from Van Sant back in the late 1980s. This was a small group affair with 4-5 guys operating on a gentleman's agreement to link up. The high guys had to hold divebrakes waiting for the others to get to the top of the thermal. Even then, with such a small group, trying to make it safe and fair with no real points on the line was surpisingly scary.
>
> As far as racing with large groups, I think one of the reasons behind a lot of our current rules was to reduce gaggling. Having flown any number of tasks where the whole fleet was in one to two furballs on a weak day, I'm not sure how much I pine for those days. It's a lot more fun to fly "with" a small group or to pick up markers along the way. Fighting for a small chunk of airspace with 15 other gliders... not so much.
>
> I think it's good to challenge convention, but do realize that a lot of hard-earned experience has lead us to where we are today.

[Sean Fidler]

Thanks for the replies and yes I admit my view may be a bit naive in terms of safety concerns and historical justifications.

The more variables and complexity included within an activity or task the harder it is to learn and master. In sailing we spend a great amount of effort mastering controllable variables within an AT type race course. Things such as: rig set up, mast and sail design, hull & bottom preparation, foil shape, sail trim settings, tacks, jybes, sets, starts, etc (controllable variables). By keeping the execution levels of these basic skills high we consistently reduce the negative impact of uncontrollable (and inevitable) variables vs our competitors. Things such as: large adverse windshifts, area's of stronger or weaker wind that cannot be predicted accurately, fouls from other competitors that push us back into the fleet churn.

The better one consistently executes on controllable variables (practice & preparation), the easier it is to recover from mistakes. Over the course of a competitive regatta, results are measurably more robust. Sailing is a bit more intense than gliding in terms of close proximity, tactics and rules. But the nature of controllable variables (and impact of uncontrollable variables) are very similar between the two sports.

If suddenly the classic sailboat race course could be occasionally (at the whim of the RaceC chair) defined by large GPS turn area cylinders, the sport would change dramatically. The importance of the basic skills would be reduced significantly and many boats (formerly non-competitive) would begin to score better based on randomly arriving at an area in the cylinder that happened to have stronger wind, less current or a favorable wind-shift and benefiting significantly from it. In someways I can see arguments for this being positive. But lets, for the moment, assume that pure racing is the goal.

AAT's are a great challenge due to the natural introduction of higher probability for uncontrollable variables. Simple example: (Sports class) Faster gliders need to go farther, but what if the conditions in the far area of the turn area are poor vs the near area? And so on. On top of that there are simply far more potential solutions to the puzzle (and chances for error). I ooze frustration from trying to figure them out.

The pure AAT task makes learning and managing the decision making process extremely challenging for all (especially new) pilots. AAT's are by nature far more random. With AAT's, in my observation, often radical thinking is rewarded. With AAT's you can get lucky (or unlucky). This is great fun...but very difficult to learn or teach! At the same time, generally based on the seniors, the best pilots won. But the results varied widely from day to day (one day first, next day 40th). In a way I think this lends to my argument.

I still feel strongly that AT tasking is a much better test of flying skill.. AT's are a better use of time. AAT's offer higher degree of difficulty for weather skill & computer management while introducing higher chances of benefit from significant amounts of luck (uncontrollable variables).

I agree that safety can be an issue in regatta starts, but many of our contests could have 15 meter or 18 meter starts with less than 20 gliders (most with far less), which I (again perhaps naively) think could be handled safely and with awesome results! Fun, close racing. Simple results! The benefit of knowing that a glider ahead or above is indeed ahead of you!

The combined AT/AAT task (I will read up) sounds really interesting and I hope we see some of those this season. I jokingly (not kidding) have referred to AAT's privately with my crew as OLC tasks (my crew is also a very good scorer). We fly them like we do OLC, with similar constraints. This was far before the recent wrangling ;-). In OLC we go wherever we want...fly fast, far, etc... AAT is pretty similar.

Best,

Sean

On Monday, March 19, 2012 7:48:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2012 11:26:21 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > Great post. I appreciate OLC. I think OLC is outstanding within a region, state or club as a way to measure your season, month or week of flying vs. your friends. And the results, in terms of participation and satisfaction, speak volumes.
> >
> > That said, the truth is that I would prefer to race assigned tasks & regatta starts with like gliders every time I fly. Isn't this what we all wish we could do? In a perfect world would we not all have the same great glider? Wait a minute, we do. They are called 18m & 15m class! Handicap "racing" (chuckle, chuckle) is something that we are forced into because the proliferation of glider design classes has outpaced the growth of the sport? Now we have too little participation in most classes...and are looking at combining what is left into block handicap classes.
> >
> > Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.
> >
> > Why not try regatta starts if the goal is fair, true racing? Safety? I think a set start would actually be safer than the random chaos of start whenever you like. Simply introduce a 2 mile entry corridor (twice as wide as the start line) where course must be held (along with a speed limit) up until the starting line is crossed. This would be far safer than our current chaos in my opinion. I could not imagine a "start whenever you like" program was an option in sailboat racing. Unthinkable because it could, literally, decide the race. No different in soaring.
> >
> > With AAT’s, the increase in the amount of decisions is massive. The luck involved increases exponentially. The critical aspect of choosing the right points to turn is highly dependent by having the best flight computer (and knowing how to use it very well). Many complain about cost and technology? AAT's require full screen maps, lots of pondering and revision of strategy based on situational changes and lots of playing with the computer (heads down, safety) to recalculate our turn decisions. This says nothing of the many paths possible to reach that magical point within the Turn Area. A skill in itself, but not true racing. Not even close. Lots of luck involved. Dangerous. Expensive!
> >
> > Question? Why do 18m and 15m (essentially one design classes) ever do AAT's? Why at worlds or nationals are AAT’s even considered? Even though these gliders are scored without handicap, the AAT seems to be the more common task. In Uvalde last year we did a number of AAT's in 18m, 15m and Open? Why? This makes no sense to me. The conditions were excellent literally every day. AAT's, per the definition as I understand it, should be an absolute last resort for the CD. Instead it seems by far the most common task and AT's are avoided.
> >
> > AAT's are boring (speaking as a new contest pilot) and not real racing in my view. Sure in a handicap class you may need them, but handicap racing is not real racing in and of itself. AAT's (and handicap racing) are an effort to satisfy everyone. Trying to satisfy everyone is always a bad choice in my book, let alone impossible. The tendency to call mainly AAT's further dilutes the few opportunities left in the sport of soaring for "true racing." I see this AAT topic as a real problem to be looked at in the future.
> >
> > Why not have combined tasks (as a compromise) with, for example, two AT turn-points and one AAT circle to level things out? (My apology if this exists; I have never seen it in action). At least this would reduce the variability of a pure AT while allowing the CD to vary the min/max distance of the task. A pure AAT with 3 large circles is just silly... Almost no point to this type of task in my view if true racing is the goal. It should be avoided like the plague. But the fact is that it is becoming the main task in our “racing” world.
> >
> > I love racing tasks, will tolerate the occasional AAT and enjoy OLC when true racing is not an option (most of the time). I think both racing and OLC are great things. I do agree that OLC is an excellent way to measure flying site "productivity!" Other than that (from region to region) I agree that OLC is fundamentally useless. Even more useless than AAT's with open starts (pick your time). But in the case of OLC so what. Everyone understands that (or should). In racing, I think alot of people think that AAT's are better races than they really are.
> >
> > I hope this is discussed in a friendly way in the future.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> > The type of task you describe above is available within the rules. It is an AAT with one or more turn points having an assigned radius of as little as 1 mile and then a larger last turn area for task length tuning. It's there, just not many CD's or advisors use it.
> Another interesting task that has the benefit of keeping everyone on the same course, yet allowing the slower guys to come home while the fast guys go far, is the "long MAT". Properly done, this is set too long to complete by anybody so all say on the same course, yet, the slower(or lower performance gliders) still get to drop off and finish.
> FWIW - In my view, the many variables in contest soaring are part of what make the sport interesting to many of us. Interesting that some folks seem to get lucky a lot in dealing with those variables. Frustrating to the rest of us.
> UH

[Berry[_2_]]

> >
> >
> > The type of task you describe above is available within the rules. It is an
> > AAT with one or more turn points having an assigned radius of as little as
> > 1 mile and then a larger last turn area for task length tuning. It's there,
> > just not many CD's or advisors use it.
> Another interesting task that has the benefit of keeping everyone on the same
> course, yet allowing the slower guys to come home while the fast guys go far,
> is the "long MAT". Properly done, this is set too long to complete by anybody
> so all say on the same course, yet, the slower(or lower performance gliders)
> still get to drop off and finish.
> FWIW - In my view, the many variables in contest soaring are part of what
> make the sport interesting to many of us. Interesting that some folks seem to
> get lucky a lot in dealing with those variables. Frustrating to the rest of
> us.
> UH

Gotta chime in to register my support for the long MAT. A skillfully
called long MAT is as close to ideal as I can imagine for Sports Class.
All youse CD types out there: Call more long MATS!

On luck: Luck is surely an issue in any glider race. Notice, though,
that the pilots who used to win Assigned Tasks back in the days of
cameras, paper charts, and whiz wheels, are still distressingly
consistent winners here in the age of the digital AAT.