WGC Uvalde: US Team... What Happened????

[[email protected]]

To everyone with an interest:

Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened?

Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place.

Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.

We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care?

Al Batross

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, September 17, 2012 1:11:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> To everyone with an interest: Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened? Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place. Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas. We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care? Al Batross

the other pilots were faster. there is very little home field advantage in soaring in my observation. fast pilots are fast, no matter the location, weather, etc. it seems to me that we sent the fastest pilots in the US to the contest and they weren't as fast as the fastest pilots from other countries.

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:33:04 AM UTC-7, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:

> Let's face it gentlemen: The sport in is decline, in the US in
>
> particular. You need to breed testosterone fueled young blood glider
>
> pilots. How do you expect a geriatric population of pilots who discuss
>
> how to hoist each other out of cockpits with mini cranes to kick ass
>
> against the likes of the Supermenschen of the 4th Reich - where every
>
> village has a glider club with cheap winch launches and hot gliders (no
>
> Schweizer museum relics!)?

Except your racist answer doesn't exactly explain the French, British, Polish, and South African pilots, among others, who were also at the top. Although I tend to agree about the museum relics...

Kirk

[[email protected]]

Given all the circumstances I think it is fair to say that our team were underdogs going into this competition. But I still think that we can take pride in how they represented our country. Dick Butler, in particular, completed Concordia, won two Contest Days and placed 7th in the Open Class. That is quite an achievement!

There have been many GREAT glider pilots that never won a world title. That does not diminish their skills or their achievements and certainly I don't respect or admire them any less for not having won at the World level. The level of competition and the difficulty of the competition itself serves as a reminder of just how special our own World Champions have been. It makes me appreciate the accomplishments of the late Paul Macready Jr., the late A.J. Smith, George Moffat (twice) and Doug Jacobs all the more.

I was happy for Dick Butler's success and think that we should celebrate the event by congratulating all of our USA Team Members for their efforts in representing the rest of us.

[gkemp]

I thought that their percentage of the winning scores were pretty good, I haven't done it but maybe someone could look at how many points per minute were scored, overall, and then how many minutes they were actually out of first place. If this were done I think we probably did pretty well. These are very good pilots and a mistake that loses a few minutes is really significant.

[akiley]

I'm with the glass half full crowd. So what if we didn't beat the pants off the rest of the world. It's a big place. We should be celebrating our amazing pilots, and ALSO all the other amazing pilots of the world. We hosted a great event and it had to be very exciting to be a part of. ... Aaron

P.S. lets get captions on all the photos in SoaringCafe. I'ld like to match faces with names.

[Sean F (F2)]

First, the US Soaring Team is highly unlikely to be competitive (or likely within 2500 pts) at a World Championship until the SSA starts (and continue's for some time) competing under the same set of competition rules. In this case, FAI. The SSA apparently believe's that it's rules are better rules than FAI as alot of energy is spent on them. With that, in my opinion, US pilots will never be properly trained or prepared for top level competition. Far from it. FAI and US rules differ significantly. The only country in the world that uses different rules is the USA.

The SSA is fairly powerless to do anything about these recent World Championship performances. They are happy sending a US Team and having fun. Which is fine. But clearly, the US as a country, is not competitive in the 15/18/Open classes. Not even close to being close. Even with a super-glider in Open.

It's not about the gliders, its about training and preparation as a team from the bottom up. I have been through this on the US Sailing Team. With that experience, in my view, the US Soaring Team is not really a team at all.. The only time the pilots were really together was at the Worlds for maybe a week prior. Its completely individual based unlike the teams of the podium pilots. It is not a team.

We need to develop younger pilots, earlier. We need to develop a true team and leverage it. We need the pilots flying together and committed. We need to play the same game (FAI). That is just not going to happen with the current group.

Our current US Soaring Team qualification system under our US rules, then sending pilots to fly a World Championship under FAI is a bit like qualifying for a poker tournament by playing checkers. Add to that how little time is spent practicing together vs. the other teams.

The club class has shown great interest in being allowed (sanctioned) by the SSA and flying under FAI rules. The SSA committee's will not allow it. They do not want to divide up the numbers of their flagship sports class. Oddly, the US Club Class team has been the most competitive US team lately.

I for one would like to fly FAI rules, at least for some contests. I may be buying a club class glider and hosting a none SSA, club class, FAI rule contest next year in MI. I hope others do the same. Especially if your goal is to be competitive at a World Championship some day.

PS...Look at what Canada has accomplished. Its about flying together all the time...even though they might not fly FAI. What are your expectations for Canada at the next Worlds vs. the US? I would say Canada has serious podium potential. I would say the US will not improve.

I would love to see the US do better. But I see little or nothing changing in the next two years OR NOW WHEN IT MATTERS.

F2


On Monday, September 17, 2012 2:11:31 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> To everyone with an interest:
>
>
>
> Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened?
>
>
>
> Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place.
>
>
>
> Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.
>
>
>
> We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care?
>
>
>
> Al Batross

[[email protected]]

On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:11:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> To everyone with an interest: Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened? Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place. Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas. We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care? Al Batross

There are plenty of excellent sailplane pilots but very few who can pay out the 100,000 it takes to buy a sailplane that will compete in competion flying. It is a rich mans game, the rest of fly the best we can in the sailplanes we can afford and can only wonder if given the chance what we could do..

[BruceGreeff]

The other teams - including the South Africans fly together, train
together, work as a team. Know each other's strengths, know the FAI
rules backwards and know how to exploit them etc.

On your own it is much harder - Look at Mark Holliday - he was alone in
15m and probably placed a lot lower than if his partner had been able to
make the contest.

The majority of our clubs are training with stuff Methuselah would have
regarded as "quaint". The competitive pilots (in many countries like
Holland, UK, Germany, France, etc) get competitive equipment, at their
own expense and learn how to use it to maximum effect. Relatively
straight forward strategy.

The German model does make things better, because their club structure
and social leanings encourage an investment led ecosystem. That way
there is new shiny stuff to train on etc. Of course they then ship the
stuff to South Africa to fly at places like Gariep and Bloemfontein -
because you can't buy weather.

On 2012/09/18 11:55 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:33:04 AM UTC-7, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
>
>> Let's face it gentlemen: The sport in is decline, in the US in
>>
>> particular. You need to breed testosterone fueled young blood glider
>>
>> pilots. How do you expect a geriatric population of pilots who discuss
>>
>> how to hoist each other out of cockpits with mini cranes to kick ass
>>
>> against the likes of the Supermenschen of the 4th Reich - where every
>>
>> village has a glider club with cheap winch launches and hot gliders (no
>>
>> Schweizer museum relics!)?
>
> Except your racist answer doesn't exactly explain the French, British, Polish, and South African pilots, among others, who were also at the top. Although I tend to agree about the museum relics...
>
> Kirk
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[Duster]

I'm with Mr. Kemp in thinking the US pilots gave a very good
performance. I followed most all of them every contest day using the
SeeYou logs posted at days end (The use of Spot was basically useless
in this regard.). When you "force" the pilots to start at the same
"virtual" time, you can get a feel for the different strategies. The
overall winners flew more efficiently, maximised their energy, seemed
to wander less (shorter air travel per task distance) and, maybe too
obviously, were the most consistent.from one day to the next. Amazing
that that speeds in many cases were so close for the top 10-15
finishers. Of added interest were the sub-plots; e.g. Dick Butler
flying his new ship winning some great days; and John Seaborn missing
a start, only upon completing the task did he learn of his zero-point
day, then subsequently flew some of his best days to move up. Just to
mention a few positives.

Why haven't we had top finishers for many years? I have no clue.
Maybe it is the amount of training, ship performance, US v FAI rules.
Unless the relative paucity of youth participation in soaring is
remedied, not much else is going to matter in a few years.

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

The US team suffers a significant disadvantage in that US Nationals rules
forbid team flying and have done so for many years; and the country is so
large that, unlike most European countries, it isn't practical for the team
to get together on weekends to practice team flying (not as good as
practicing in comps with real opposition anyway).

At 04:12 19 September 2012, Duster wrote:
>I'm with Mr. Kemp in thinking the US pilots gave a very good
>performance. I followed most all of them every contest day using the
>SeeYou logs posted at days end (The use of Spot was basically useless
>in this regard.). When you "force" the pilots to start at the same
>"virtual" time, you can get a feel for the different strategies. The
>overall winners flew more efficiently, maximised their energy, seemed
>to wander less (shorter air travel per task distance) and, maybe too
>obviously, were the most consistent.from one day to the next. Amazing
>that that speeds in many cases were so close for the top 10-15
>finishers. Of added interest were the sub-plots; e.g. Dick Butler
>flying his new ship winning some great days; and John Seaborn missing
>a start, only upon completing the task did he learn of his zero-point
>day, then subsequently flew some of his best days to move up. Just to
>mention a few positives.
>
>Why haven't we had top finishers for many years? I have no clue.
>Maybe it is the amount of training, ship performance, US v FAI rules.
>Unless the relative paucity of youth participation in soaring is
>remedied, not much else is going to matter in a few years.
>

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Sep 18, 12:26*pm, "Sean F (F2)" > wrote:
> First, the US Soaring Team is highly unlikely to be competitive (or likely within 2500 pts) at a World Championship until the SSA starts (and continue's for some time) competing under the same set of competition rules. *In this case, FAI. *The SSA apparently believe's that it's rules are better rules than FAI as alot of energy is spent on them. *With that, in my opinion, US pilots will never be properly trained or prepared for top level competition. *Far from it. *FAI and US rules differ significantly. *The only country in the world that uses different rules is the USA.
>
> The SSA is fairly powerless to do anything about these recent World Championship performances. *They are happy sending a US Team and having fun. *Which is fine. *But clearly, the US as a country, is not competitive in the 15/18/Open classes. *Not even close to being close. *Even with a super-glider in Open.
>
> It's not about the gliders, its about training and preparation as a team from the bottom up. *I have been through this on the US Sailing Team. *With that experience, in my view, the US Soaring Team is not really a team at all. *The only time the pilots were really together was at the Worlds for maybe a week prior. *Its completely individual based unlike the teams of the podium pilots. *It is not a team.
>
> We need to develop younger pilots, earlier. *We need to develop a true team and leverage it. *We need the pilots flying together and committed. *We need to play the same game (FAI). *That is just not going to happen with the current group.
>
> Our current US Soaring Team qualification system under our US rules, then sending pilots to fly a World Championship under FAI is a bit like qualifying for a poker tournament by playing checkers. *Add to that how little time is spent practicing together vs. the other teams.
>
> The club class has shown great interest in being allowed (sanctioned) by the SSA and flying under FAI rules. The SSA committee's will not allow it. *They do not want to divide up the numbers of their flagship sports class.. *Oddly, the US Club Class team has been the most competitive US team lately.
>
> I for one would like to fly FAI rules, at least for some contests. *I may be buying a club class glider and hosting a none SSA, club class, FAI rule contest next year in MI. *I hope others do the same. *Especially if your goal is to be competitive at a World Championship some day.
>
> PS...Look at what Canada has accomplished. *Its about flying together all the time...even though they might not fly FAI. *What are your expectations for Canada at the next Worlds vs. the US? *I would say Canada has serious podium potential. *I would say the US will not improve.
>
> I would love to see the US do better. *But I see little or nothing changing in the next two years OR NOW WHEN IT MATTERS.
>
> F2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 17, 2012 2:11:31 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > To everyone with an interest:
>
> > Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened?
>
> > Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place.
>
> > Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.
>
> > We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care?
>
> > Al Batross

The issue of using IGC rules comes up quite often, so perhaps one
(unofficial) rules committee voice should explain.

The IGC rules require far more assigned tasks than we typically use in
the US. The distance/speed points formula leads to much more gaggling
and leeching. For both reasons, the landout rate is much higher, as is
the chance of flying into rain, thunder, etc. The midair risk is also
much higher. (We had one effectively assigned task with big gaggles at
Mifflin this year, and I don't think anyone was anxious to repeat the
process)

These are the primary reasons we don't use IGC rules in the US -- or
at least the primary reason I don't advocate doing so. Yes, doing so
would better train the team. (From my one experience at worlds,
dealing with the very tactical start, leeching, gaggle strategies and
communication with team captains required under IGC rules are a far
bigger issue for US pilots than team flying. Maybe I just had a great
team mate.)

Alas, most of our nationals are on the edge of viability as it is.
Rules have to be run for the bottom 99%, not just to train the team.
If the only people who show up are team members, contests die.

Really, would you show up to a nationals if the game required hours of
start gate roulette, flying around every day in one big gaggle,
landing out (especially new pilots) several times in a contest,
requiring that you bring a crew (most of us don't these days) or buy a
glider with a motor? Would you come if we eschewed turn area and MAT
tasks, so you routinely were flying into doomed turnpoints in the rain
even though weather is great somewhere else? If the landout damage and
midairs were even more frequent?

The US rules committee has safety, and then participation as our first
two goals. Training the team comes later.

Still, the idea is worth exploring. We'll have poll questions up soon,
and a big one concerns radio usage. The main argument against radio
usage so far has been that it too would discourage participation, but
maybe that's wrong. With poll support, we can open up radio usage to
regionals this year and nationals in the future.

The US team camp contest idea has been around a long time, was a great
success last year and is worth pursuing. Such a contest can (by
waiver) use as much of the IGC rules as it likes. If lots of people
go, then we can demonstrate that our participation fears are
misplaced, and IGC rules can be used more broadly.

There's been lots of talk of staging a "continental" championships,
under IGC rules. It just takes a contest manager and site willing to
do it and a deep pocket willing to bankroll it. Go for it! There
really is no "they" who "oughtta" do these things. There is "us."

The RC is however pretty allergic to theoretical "build it and they
will come" arguments (see, PW5). One good thing about US rules (unlike
IGC!) is that we rely on experimentation at regionals to see if bright
ideas work in practice before making big changes at nationals. OTOH,
there is great flexibility for regionals and super regionals to try
anything vaguely sensible. So, if you want to see IGC rules, stage a
regional by IGC rules and demonstrate it can work and will attract
lots of pilots.

Disclaimer: personal opinion, not speaking for RC here.

John Cochrane

PS, The Canadians use a modified version of US rules and winscore.
(The main difference is the finish height, which I suspect they will
raise next year.) So, alas, we will just have to chalk up their
success to some pretty awesome piloting.

[Dave Leonard]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:39:56 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Sep 18, 12:26*pm, "Sean F (F2)" > wrote: > First, the US Soaring Team is highly unlikely to be competitive (or likely within 2500 pts) at a World Championship until the SSA starts (and continue's for some time) competing under the same set of competition rules. *In this case, FAI. *The SSA apparently believe's that it's rules are better rules than FAI as alot of energy is spent on them. *With that, in my opinion, US pilots will never be properly trained or prepared for top level competition. *Far from it. *FAI and US rules differ significantly. *The only country in the world that uses different rules is the USA. > > The SSA is fairly powerless to do anything about these recent World Championship performances. *They are happy sending a US Team and having fun. *Which is fine.. *But clearly, the US as a country, is not competitive in the 15/18/Open classes. *Not even close to being close. *Even with a super-glider in Open. > > It's not about the gliders, its about training and preparation as a team from the bottom up. *I have been through this on the US Sailing Team. *With that experience, in my view, the US Soaring Team is not really a team at all. *The only time the pilots were really together was at the Worlds for maybe a week prior. *Its completely individual based unlike the teams of the podium pilots. *It is not a team. > > We need to develop younger pilots, earlier. *We need to develop a true team and leverage it. *We need the pilots flying together and committed. *We need to play the same game (FAI). *That is just not going to happen with the current group. > > Our current US Soaring Team qualification system under our US rules, then sending pilots to fly a World Championship under FAI is a bit like qualifying for a poker tournament by playing checkers. *Add to that how little time is spent practicing together vs. the other teams. > > The club class has shown great interest in being allowed (sanctioned) by the SSA and flying under FAI rules. The SSA committee's will not allow it. *They do not want to divide up the numbers of their flagship sports class. *Oddly, the US Club Class team has been the most competitive US team lately. > > I for one would like to fly FAI rules, at least for some contests. *I may be buying a club class glider and hosting a none SSA, club class, FAI rule contest next year in MI. *I hope others do the same. *Especially if your goal is to be competitive at a World Championship some day. > > PS...Look at what Canada has accomplished. *Its about flying together all the time....even though they might not fly FAI. *What are your expectations for Canada at the next Worlds vs. the US? *I would say Canada has serious podium potential. *I would say the US will not improve. > > I would love to see the US do better. *But I see little or nothing changing in the next two years OR NOW WHEN IT MATTERS. > > F2 > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 17, 2012 2:11:31 PM UTC-4, wrote: > > To everyone with an interest: > > > Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened? > > > Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place. > > > Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas. > > > We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care? > > > Al Batross The issue of using IGC rules comes up quite often, so perhaps one (unofficial) rules committee voice should explain. The IGC rules require far more assigned tasks than we typically use in the US. The distance/speed points formula leads to much more gaggling and leeching. For both reasons, the landout rate is much higher, as is the chance of flying into rain, thunder, etc. The midair risk is also much higher. (We had one effectively assigned task with big gaggles at Mifflin this year, and I don't think anyone was anxious to repeat the process) These are the primary reasons we don't use IGC rules in the US -- or at least the primary reason I don't advocate doing so. Yes, doing so would better train the team. (From my one experience at worlds, dealing with the very tactical start, leeching, gaggle strategies and communication with team captains required under IGC rules are a far bigger issue for US pilots than team flying. Maybe I just had a great team mate.) Alas, most of our nationals are on the edge of viability as it is. Rules have to be run for the bottom 99%, not just to train the team. If the only people who show up are team members, contests die. Really, would you show up to a nationals if the game required hours of start gate roulette, flying around every day in one big gaggle, landing out (especially new pilots) several times in a contest, requiring that you bring a crew (most of us don't these days) or buy a glider with a motor? Would you come if we eschewed turn area and MAT tasks, so you routinely were flying into doomed turnpoints in the rain even though weather is great somewhere else? If the landout damage and midairs were even more frequent? The US rules committee has safety, and then participation as our first two goals. Training the team comes later. Still, the idea is worth exploring. We'll have poll questions up soon, and a big one concerns radio usage. The main argument against radio usage so far has been that it too would discourage participation, but maybe that's wrong. With poll support, we can open up radio usage to regionals this year and nationals in the future. The US team camp contest idea has been around a long time, was a great success last year and is worth pursuing. Such a contest can (by waiver) use as much of the IGC rules as it likes. If lots of people go, then we can demonstrate that our participation fears are misplaced, and IGC rules can be used more broadly.. There's been lots of talk of staging a "continental" championships, under IGC rules. It just takes a contest manager and site willing to do it and a deep pocket willing to bankroll it. Go for it! There really is no "they" who "oughtta" do these things. There is "us." The RC is however pretty allergic to theoretical "build it and they will come" arguments (see, PW5). One good thing about US rules (unlike IGC!) is that we rely on experimentation at regionals to see if bright ideas work in practice before making big changes at nationals. OTOH, there is great flexibility for regionals and super regionals to try anything vaguely sensible. So, if you want to see IGC rules, stage a regional by IGC rules and demonstrate it can work and will attract lots of pilots. Disclaimer: personal opinion, not speaking for RC here. John Cochrane PS, The Canadians use a modified version of US rules and winscore. (The main difference is the finish height, which I suspect they will raise next year.) So, alas, we will just have to chalk up their success to some pretty awesome piloting.

H



On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:39:56 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Sep 18, 12:26*pm, "Sean F (F2)" > wrote: > First, the US Soaring Team is highly unlikely to be competitive (or likely within 2500 pts) at a World Championship until the SSA starts (and continue's for some time) competing under the same set of competition rules. *In this case, FAI. *The SSA apparently believe's that it's rules are better rules than FAI as alot of energy is spent on them. *With that, in my opinion, US pilots will never be properly trained or prepared for top level competition. *Far from it. *FAI and US rules differ significantly. *The only country in the world that uses different rules is the USA. > > The SSA is fairly powerless to do anything about these recent World Championship performances. *They are happy sending a US Team and having fun. *Which is fine.. *But clearly, the US as a country, is not competitive in the 15/18/Open classes. *Not even close to being close. *Even with a super-glider in Open. > > It's not about the gliders, its about training and preparation as a team from the bottom up. *I have been through this on the US Sailing Team. *With that experience, in my view, the US Soaring Team is not really a team at all. *The only time the pilots were really together was at the Worlds for maybe a week prior. *Its completely individual based unlike the teams of the podium pilots. *It is not a team. > > We need to develop younger pilots, earlier. *We need to develop a true team and leverage it. *We need the pilots flying together and committed. *We need to play the same game (FAI). *That is just not going to happen with the current group. > > Our current US Soaring Team qualification system under our US rules, then sending pilots to fly a World Championship under FAI is a bit like qualifying for a poker tournament by playing checkers. *Add to that how little time is spent practicing together vs. the other teams. > > The club class has shown great interest in being allowed (sanctioned) by the SSA and flying under FAI rules. The SSA committee's will not allow it. *They do not want to divide up the numbers of their flagship sports class. *Oddly, the US Club Class team has been the most competitive US team lately. > > I for one would like to fly FAI rules, at least for some contests. *I may be buying a club class glider and hosting a none SSA, club class, FAI rule contest next year in MI. *I hope others do the same. *Especially if your goal is to be competitive at a World Championship some day. > > PS...Look at what Canada has accomplished. *Its about flying together all the time....even though they might not fly FAI. *What are your expectations for Canada at the next Worlds vs. the US? *I would say Canada has serious podium potential. *I would say the US will not improve. > > I would love to see the US do better. *But I see little or nothing changing in the next two years OR NOW WHEN IT MATTERS. > > F2 > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 17, 2012 2:11:31 PM UTC-4, wrote: > > To everyone with an interest: > > > Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened? > > > Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place. > > > Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas. > > > We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care? > > > Al Batross The issue of using IGC rules comes up quite often, so perhaps one (unofficial) rules committee voice should explain. The IGC rules require far more assigned tasks than we typically use in the US. The distance/speed points formula leads to much more gaggling and leeching. For both reasons, the landout rate is much higher, as is the chance of flying into rain, thunder, etc. The midair risk is also much higher. (We had one effectively assigned task with big gaggles at Mifflin this year, and I don't think anyone was anxious to repeat the process) These are the primary reasons we don't use IGC rules in the US -- or at least the primary reason I don't advocate doing so. Yes, doing so would better train the team. (From my one experience at worlds, dealing with the very tactical start, leeching, gaggle strategies and communication with team captains required under IGC rules are a far bigger issue for US pilots than team flying. Maybe I just had a great team mate.) Alas, most of our nationals are on the edge of viability as it is. Rules have to be run for the bottom 99%, not just to train the team. If the only people who show up are team members, contests die. Really, would you show up to a nationals if the game required hours of start gate roulette, flying around every day in one big gaggle, landing out (especially new pilots) several times in a contest, requiring that you bring a crew (most of us don't these days) or buy a glider with a motor? Would you come if we eschewed turn area and MAT tasks, so you routinely were flying into doomed turnpoints in the rain even though weather is great somewhere else? If the landout damage and midairs were even more frequent? The US rules committee has safety, and then participation as our first two goals. Training the team comes later. Still, the idea is worth exploring. We'll have poll questions up soon, and a big one concerns radio usage. The main argument against radio usage so far has been that it too would discourage participation, but maybe that's wrong. With poll support, we can open up radio usage to regionals this year and nationals in the future. The US team camp contest idea has been around a long time, was a great success last year and is worth pursuing. Such a contest can (by waiver) use as much of the IGC rules as it likes. If lots of people go, then we can demonstrate that our participation fears are misplaced, and IGC rules can be used more broadly.. There's been lots of talk of staging a "continental" championships, under IGC rules. It just takes a contest manager and site willing to do it and a deep pocket willing to bankroll it. Go for it! There really is no "they" who "oughtta" do these things. There is "us." The RC is however pretty allergic to theoretical "build it and they will come" arguments (see, PW5). One good thing about US rules (unlike IGC!) is that we rely on experimentation at regionals to see if bright ideas work in practice before making big changes at nationals. OTOH, there is great flexibility for regionals and super regionals to try anything vaguely sensible. So, if you want to see IGC rules, stage a regional by IGC rules and demonstrate it can work and will attract lots of pilots. Disclaimer: personal opinion, not speaking for RC here. John Cochrane PS, The Canadians use a modified version of US rules and winscore. (The main difference is the finish height, which I suspect they will raise next year.) So, alas, we will just have to chalk up their success to some pretty awesome piloting.

Here's some more fodder for the discussion. I set up a blog to post some of my flight experiences and some post flight analyses as a rookie at the Uvalde WGC. I only have the first 6 days up so far. I plan to put up the second half soon.

http://leonardzl.dyndns.org/uvalde

Dave Leonard

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Here's some more fodder for the discussion. I set up a blog to post
some of my flight experiences and some post flight analyses as a
rookie at the Uvalde WGC. I only have the first 6 days up so far. I
plan to put up the second half soon.

http://leonardzl.dyndns.org/uvalde

Dave Leonard

Dave: These are fantastic! Just the sort of in-depth analysis all of
us wannabees are looking for from Uvalde. Thanks for posting them! I
look forward to seeing the remaining days.
John Cochrane

[Sean F (F2)]

The US team has talented pilots no different than other countries. Our 2012 Worlds team consists great people and great pilots. But their (our) potential is not even close to fully realized for World competition because we play checkers (US rules) and the rest of the world plays poker (FAI).

I have had some more thoughts when thinking about why we in the US are so isolated and, at the same time and unsurprisingly, so far behind the rest of the world in World Level Competition. I don't see any major safety statistical differences that justify the US rules as safer. So let's take safety off the board for a moment and discuss objective changes that glare out.

1) Do to our SSA insistence for a totally different set of US competition rules, we isolate US contest pilots from having any opportunity to race with outsiders in the US. We have therefore become a very closed group. Instead of attracting other top pilots to come fly in the US (many amazing soaring sites), we do the opposite and actually repel foreign pilots. Flying in the US for top level foreign pilots is a waste of time. Why, different rules but that is not all.

In addition, foreign pilots are only allowed to fly in major US contests as guests. Look at 2012 15 meter nationals for example. Kinda weird really. Duck-hawk, duck-hawk...blah blah blah. Great glider but the guy who actually won this event was almost ignored. That's bugs me. I'm sure it bothered some others. In general is this the way to welcome foreign pilots? Don't we won't more pilots, foreign and domestic?

In my opinion, if we worked to better welcome foreign pilots to US events and scored everyone attending major US contest equally, we might just begin to attract some more top pilots to practice with. To learn from. We should simply pick the top American (2nd in this case) as the US champion, but honor all the pilots. No big deal, no problem. We can then gauge ourselves more often, etc. We should really be bending over backwards to have the opportunity to fly against top international pilots. Instead we close it off (treat them as alien contestants). This makes no sense to me.

2) The US pilots only race area tasks (almost exclusively) with massive circles (20, 30 miles). Foreign racing pilots, countries, fly, primarily, assigned tasks under FAI. Assigned tasks are the main task at 15/18/Open world championships and FAI. In my opinion (and that opinion is shared by most if not all of the international pilots I know now) large circles are major obstacles to becoming competitive in international competition. No need for any strategy in large radius area tasks. It's more like flying for OLC points then racing. Just follow clouds and if you are lucky enough, you win. Foreign pilots simply don't like our tasking. Especially the top ones.. It stunts our talented pilots growth. It repels other international talent. It's boring.

I know a number of foreign pilots now who, if the US ran the same rules and tasking, would have come to the US to train early this summer. But, they didn't because it was of little value to them (checkers).

If I recall correctly, no US nationals had a single assigned task this year (2012). For certain, the vast majority of US tasks were large area task.. With that (checkers vs. poker) how can a US pilot (15/18/Open) possibly expect success in the European game? You know, that other sport...FAI? Those rules they use internationally and at Worlds? Area tasks with huge circles 20-30 miles again is no different than OLC. Hell, cylinders of that size would*cover 1/5th of some European countries!

If we don't fly task similar to what our Worlds pilots will fly at the World Championship, team flying practice will not help them. In addition, US team selection is strongly influenced by large area task results. Then, after qualification and training under US rules, they are asked to suddenly metamorphosis into FAI champions for a few weeks during the World Championship? Then they don't do well, at all, even at their home venue of Uvalde we are shocked? They had no chance. It was actually their first time (most of them) experiencing an entirely different sport. FAI soaring rules racing! I wish it was possible to have it all. Noir own "safer rules" and world champions. But the fact is that this sport is really hard and the big boys are really, really good! They, along with the rest of the world, fly FAI. It is nearly impossible for our pilots overcome the disadvantage they endure via disregarding FAI entirely in favor of our own, special SSA rules.

It all revolves around our philosophy on rules here in the USA. They may be great for "some"...but we are never going to be competitive at a World championship unless a pilot is extraordinary and lucky squared. I contend that we should never have expect to be competitive in Uvalde. Good results were upside at best.

Everything we do here in the USA is wrong if World Championships (or even being remotely competitive) is our goal. Period. And as some have mentioned, it SIMPLY IS NOT AN SSA GOAL.

I contend we scrap our SSA rules and adopt FAI next year. At some level. Give pilots the choice. We can save the vast time spent on recreating the sport for ourselves via our special rules committee and focus on more important items. Again, safety is not measurably different in the US and Europe.. Why do we have an entirely different set of rules again?

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:48:02 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:11:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>> To everyone with an interest: Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened? Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place. Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas. We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care? Al Batross
>
> There are plenty of excellent sailplane pilots but very few who can pay out the 100,000 it takes to buy a sailplane that will compete in competion flying. It is a rich mans game, the rest of fly the best we can in the sailplanes we can afford and can only wonder if given the chance what we could do.

Yeah, that's the problem is you live in a 3rd world country like the
US or, say, Somalia.

There is absolutely no chance to compete with those highly
industrialized, extremely rich countries like, say, South Africa or
Poland whose population has so much money to spare that their
ten-thousands of glider pilots can easily afford the latest racing
machines from Poppenhausen or Kirchheim/Teck. People, who know gliders
with an L/D of less than 40 only from history books.


Cheers
Andreas

[[email protected]]

Come on Sean,
You completely miss many of the great points that John made about how important it is to keep contests fun. They are not all about selection for the world's!!! You didn't acknowledge his arguments about how the US rules help to make contests more appealing to barely enough contestants to have contests at all. Were any of these ideas valid?

I also agree that if USA contests started becoming consistent land-out fests that you would see participation drop. Fine, so we aren't grooming winners for the world's but we are at least still racing. You are arguing for changing the way we try to swim here and in reality we are just trying to stay afloat!

In my mind the biggest difference is that due to the USA being so large, it takes these kinds of rules changes to attract enough glider pilots to attend any particular contest. How many of the Europeans drive 1000,2000, even 3000km to attend a contest? You see that all the time here in the USA. Again, were any of John's points valid?

Thanks Dave for working on the flight analysis. Can't wait to start reviewing! :)

Bruno - B4

[mike]

On Sep 19, 8:28*pm, wrote:
> Come on Sean,
> You completely miss many of the great points that John made about how important it is to keep contests fun. *They are not all about selection for the world's!!! *You didn't acknowledge his arguments about how the US rules help to make contests more appealing to barely enough contestants to have contests at all. *Were any of these ideas valid?
>
> I also agree that if USA contests started becoming consistent land-out fests that you would see participation drop. *Fine, so we aren't grooming winners for the world's but we are at least still racing. *You are arguing for changing the way we try to swim here and in reality we are just trying to stay afloat!
>
> In my mind the biggest difference is that due to the USA being so large, it takes these kinds of rules changes to attract enough glider pilots to attend any particular contest. *How many of the Europeans drive 1000,2000, even 3000km to attend a contest? You see that all the time here in the USA. *Again, were any of John's points valid?
>
> Thanks Dave for working on the flight analysis. *Can't wait to start reviewing! :)
>
> Bruno - B4

Right on Sean!

[mike]

On Sep 19, 3:45*pm, "Sean F (F2)" > wrote:
> The US team has talented pilots no different than other countries. *Our 2012 Worlds team consists great people and great pilots. *But their (our) potential is not even close to fully realized for World competition because we play checkers (US rules) and the rest of the world plays poker (FAI).
>
> I have had some more thoughts when thinking about why we in the US are so isolated and, at the same time and unsurprisingly, so far behind the rest of the world in World Level Competition. *I don't see any major safety statistical differences that justify the US rules as safer. *So let's take safety off the board for a moment and discuss objective changes that glare out.
>
> 1) *Do to our SSA insistence for a totally different set of US competition rules, we isolate US contest pilots from having any opportunity to race with outsiders in the US. *We have therefore become a very closed group. *Instead of attracting other top pilots to come fly in the US (many amazing soaring sites), we do the opposite and actually repel foreign pilots. *Flying in the US for top level foreign pilots is a waste of time. *Why, different rules but that is not all.
>
> In addition, foreign pilots are only allowed to fly in major US contests as guests. *Look at 2012 15 meter nationals for example. *Kinda weird really. *Duck-hawk, duck-hawk...blah blah blah. *Great glider but the guy who actually won this event was almost ignored. *That's bugs me. *I'm sure it bothered some others. *In general is this the way to welcome foreign pilots? *Don't we won't more pilots, foreign and domestic?
>
> In my opinion, if we worked to better welcome foreign pilots to US events and scored everyone attending major US contest equally, we might just begin to attract some more top pilots to practice with. * To learn from. *We should simply pick the top American (2nd in this case) as the US champion, but honor all the pilots. *No big deal, no problem. *We can then gauge ourselves more often, etc. *We should really be bending over backwards to have the opportunity to fly against top international pilots. *Instead we close it off (treat them as alien contestants). *This makes no sense to me.
>
> 2) The US pilots only race area tasks (almost exclusively) with massive circles (20, 30 miles). *Foreign racing pilots, countries, fly, primarily, assigned tasks under FAI. * Assigned tasks are the main task at 15/18/Open world championships and FAI. *In my opinion (and that opinion is shared by most if not all of the international pilots I know now) large circles are major obstacles to becoming competitive in international competition. *No need for any strategy in large radius area tasks. *It's more like flying for OLC points then racing. *Just follow clouds and if you are lucky enough, you win. *Foreign pilots simply don't like our tasking. *Especially the top ones. *It stunts our talented pilots growth. *It repels other international talent. *It's boring.
>
> I know a number of foreign pilots now who, if the US ran the same rules and tasking, would have come to the US to train early this summer. *But, they didn't because it was of little value to them (checkers).
>
> If I recall correctly, no US nationals had a single assigned task this year (2012). *For certain, the vast majority of US tasks were large area task.. *With that (checkers vs. poker) how can a US pilot (15/18/Open) possibly expect success in the European game? *You know, that other sport...FAI? *Those rules they use internationally and at Worlds? *Area tasks with huge circles 20-30 miles again is no different than OLC. *Hell, cylinders of that size would*cover 1/5th of some European countries!
>
> If we don't fly task similar to what our Worlds pilots will fly at the World Championship, team flying practice will not help them. *In addition, US team selection is strongly influenced by large area task results. *Then, after qualification and training under US rules, they are asked to suddenly metamorphosis into FAI champions for a few weeks during the World Championship? *Then they don't do well, at all, even at their home venue of Uvalde we are shocked? *They had no chance. *It was actually their first time (most of them) experiencing an entirely different sport. *FAI soaring rules racing! I wish it was possible to have it all. Noir own "safer rules" and world champions. *But the fact is that this sport is really hard and the big boys are really, really good! *They, along with the rest of the world, fly FAI. *It is nearly impossible for our pilots overcome the disadvantage they endure via disregarding FAI entirely in favor of our own, special SSA rules.
>
> It all revolves around our philosophy on rules here in the USA. *They may be great for "some"...but we are never going to be competitive at a World championship unless a pilot is extraordinary and lucky squared. *I contend that we should never have expect to be competitive in Uvalde. *Good results were upside at best.
>
> Everything we do here in the USA is wrong if World Championships (or even being remotely competitive) is our goal. *Period. *And as some have mentioned, it SIMPLY IS NOT AN SSA GOAL.
>
> I contend we scrap our SSA rules and adopt FAI next year. *At some level. *Give pilots the choice. *We can save the vast time spent on recreating the sport for ourselves via our special rules committee and focus on more important items. *Again, safety is not measurably different in the US and Europe. *Why do we have an entirely different set of rules again?



Save the current SSA rules for Sports Class where they belong. Fly
with the rest of the world in the FAI classes, even if you have to
handicap them to attract participation. Everyone gets a choice and a
chance that way.

[kirk.stant]

As I remember it, the Area Task was developed to cope with marginal weather conditions that would not allow a safe assigned task to be called. If it was used that way - on special occasions, with usually only one area instead of a series of big areas - it would be a useful addition to the CD's bag of tricks. But recently it has become the task of choice because it is so easy to call, and takes the pressure off the CD.

On days with a good, uniform forecast, there is only one reason for an area task: you are calling a task for mixed classes and want to give all a chance to complete in the time assigned. Again, that should be done with as few areas as possible.

Just calling a blanket task with 3 30-mile areas is a total cop out by the CD.

I agree with Mike - Sports class is the place for our "friendly" rules. FAI classes should use FAI rules.

Kirk
66

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 20:28:19 UTC-6, wrote:
> Come on Sean,
>
> You completely miss many of the great points that John made about how important it is to keep contests fun. They are not all about selection for the world's!!! You didn't acknowledge his arguments about how the US rules help to make contests more appealing to barely enough contestants to have contests at all. Were any of these ideas valid?
>
>
>
> I also agree that if USA contests started becoming consistent land-out fests that you would see participation drop. Fine, so we aren't grooming winners for the world's but we are at least still racing. You are arguing for changing the way we try to swim here and in reality we are just trying to stay afloat!
>
>
>
> In my mind the biggest difference is that due to the USA being so large, it takes these kinds of rules changes to attract enough glider pilots to attend any particular contest. How many of the Europeans drive 1000,2000, even 3000km to attend a contest? You see that all the time here in the USA. Again, were any of John's points valid?
>
>
>
> Thanks Dave for working on the flight analysis. Can't wait to start reviewing! :)
>
>
>
> Bruno - B4

From the 2012 Rulebooks

USA FAI Competition-Class Competition Rulebook.

1.0 GENERAL
1.1 The purpose of a National FAI Class Soaring Championship is to determine a National FAI Class Champion and to measure the performance of all entrants. Performance in Nationals will be used to provide a basis for pilots to qualify for entry into future soaring Championships and to select pilots for the U.S. Team in International Competition.

U.S. National Sport-Class Competition Rules
February 27, 2012
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 â€* The purpose of a National Sport Class Soaring Championship is to determine a National Sport Class Champion and to measure the performance of all entrants. Performance in Nationals will be used to provide a basis for pilots to qualify for entry into future soaring Championships and to select pilots for the U.S. Team in International Club Class Competition. Handicapping will be applied to minimize score differences due to performance differences between sailplanes.

U.S. Regional FAI-Class Competition Rules
February 27, 2012
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 â€* The purpose of a Regional FAI Soaring Championship is to determine a Regional Champion and to measure the performance of all
entrants within each class. Performance in Regionals will be used to provide a basis for pilots to qualify for entry into future soaring
Championships.

U.S. Regional Sport-Class Competition Rules
February 27, 2012
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 â€* The purpose of a Regional Sport Class Soaring Championship is to determine a Regional Sport Class Champion, to measure the
performance of all entrants, and to provide an entry level for pilots new to competitive sailplane racing to learn the skills and procedures
used in competition. Performance in Regionals will be used to provide a basis for pilots to qualify for entry into future soaring
Championships. Handicapping will be applied to minimize score differences due to performance differences between sailplanes.

I agree with many points made by folks but lets not forget that the secondary Objective, as defined by the rules committee, of Nationals competitions is to select members for the world team.

I fully understand the complex nature of holding, organizing and delivering contests but lets keep in mind that they must fulfill the objective(s) set forth by the SSA and FAI. If the objective continues for Nationals continues to be to select a world team then the CD's and CM's must deliver on that. The challenge is of course that if you have a checkbook, time off, soaring/contest experience you can participate. There is no more hierarchy to qualify.

Yes John makes excellent points, they must be tempered with the stated objectives of the rules committee.

Ron Gleason

[RW[_2_]]

Agree with Sean.
And have big problem with Johns thinking.
It is no fun to fly MAT with one or no TP !
It is no fun to fly TAT with huge circles.
It is not safe to be forced to land at the airport ,
after good finish.
It is no fun to fly without the water.(like would be no fun to fly without ruder)
It is no fun if task is changed 3 times (including after first launch)
It is no fun if task was called in the air by one of competitors.
Those some of our " Better rules" John.
Ryszard Krolikowski

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 9/19/2012 7:39 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
> The US rules committee has safety, and then participation as our first
> two goals. Training the team comes later.

When I was an SSA Director in the late '80s, the Directors voted on the
contest rules, and those were my criteria. Putting it another way, I
believed contests should serve the sport by drawing in and retaining
members, even if it meant so-so performance by the team at World
contests. Not every Director felt that way, of course.

I'm pleased to see someone of John's experience and stature advocating
the same thing. And I agree - if improving the team's performance gets
more participation (contests and the sport) - Go For It!

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

[Sean F (F2)]

Bruno (nice to hear from you),

I hear the points John made clearly. I understand the vision. I simply don't accept them as fact.

Where is this data supporting claims of “mass land outs” if a contest is run under FAI rules vs. US Rules? Where is the data that shows higher levels of appeal for US rule contests vs. FAI? To who? What choice do “they” have? Safety doesn’t appear to improve under US rules although I respect that in many ways that is the intent.

Bottom line: the whole "World" seems to be doing as well as the US in attendance and safety, and better in many cases in World Championship or FAI contest performance.

Yet, the US insists on going down a completely different contest rules program. I am starting to wonder how this different path ever began frankly. It’s a bummer. Here we are with clear change resistance issues even though the conversation (me) is simply suggesting that we do the same as the rest of the world and flying FAI. A suggestion that we adopt for the US what appears to be the "gold standard" around the world. It appears we are saying the rest of the world is "wrong" and we are "right."

I honestly don't think this change effort would be a big of a deal (the way we swim, drowning, etc). Although I fear many who are “emotionally invested” in the US rules would cry doom and gloom if a real debate about adopting FAI rules was started. Changing to FAI would be fairly simple IMO. It would aslo have some clear benefits.

The rest of the world flies FAI rules. They appear to be pretty darn healthy when compared to US attendance. Pilots all over the world appear to be very happy with FAI soaring competition.
I think we somehow assume alot about the effectiveness of the US rules on attendance. And clearly we as a country provide no weight to the Worlds competitiveness issue.

I don’t mean to be calling someone’s baby ugly here. But I will say that we are hindering baby's potential. Baby's growth. Baby is behind. I think being the only country in the world that supports a completely different set of rules than the rest of the world is a mistake. I think being the only country in the world to support its own A-Z sports class and blocks Club class is a big mistake. 15/18/Standard are the classes with attendance issues. Club level ships are a very dense area of US contest participation. They complain about being forced to compete level with ASG29 and Arcus. Giving them their own class would, IMO, improve their enthusiasm and attendance.

We should allow Club class (FAI) and then call Sports the high end ships until we figure out the new classes. This is my recommendation.

I hate having another different point of view here, but I do. I believe it is good thing to have these conversations and let others weigh in.

F2

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:28:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Come on Sean,
>
> You completely miss many of the great points that John made about how important it is to keep contests fun. They are not all about selection for the world's!!! You didn't acknowledge his arguments about how the US rules help to make contests more appealing to barely enough contestants to have contests at all. Were any of these ideas valid?
>
>
>
> I also agree that if USA contests started becoming consistent land-out fests that you would see participation drop. Fine, so we aren't grooming winners for the world's but we are at least still racing. You are arguing for changing the way we try to swim here and in reality we are just trying to stay afloat!
>
>
>
> In my mind the biggest difference is that due to the USA being so large, it takes these kinds of rules changes to attract enough glider pilots to attend any particular contest. How many of the Europeans drive 1000,2000, even 3000km to attend a contest? You see that all the time here in the USA. Again, were any of John's points valid?
>
>
>
> Thanks Dave for working on the flight analysis. Can't wait to start reviewing! :)
>
>
>
> Bruno - B4

[[email protected]]

Having participated several times in US Nationals and Regionals, as well as in Polish Nationals, and the recent WGC, I thought it may be helpful to add my observations.

I don't think that the lack of FAI rules in the U.S. is the root cause of the problem. I don't see any data that confirms this claim. There were many pilots from other countries at the WGC that did not win but they fly by FAI rules at home. Certainly, I didn't feel significant differences competing in the U.S. and in Poland.

I believe that the decline in participation in Nationals is the real problem. Simply, the Nationals are becoming less and less competitive, and without major changes it will only get worse. What can be done? The only choice is to start using handicaps. Most other countries do. If there were no handicaps in Polish Nationals, most of the pilots would not even come, because they can't afford to buy the best gliders. Consider this, in the latest 18m Polish Nationals, a pilot on a Diana 2 won, ASG-29 was second, LS8-18 was third, and LS8a fourth. There were 15 ASG-29s and Ventuses 2 in that contest.. The point is that pilots that come to the contest want to feel they have a chance to win. And I don't think that a flat 2% handicap will solve the problem. There are some drawbacks of the handicaps, but they do allow to compete.

Another observation is about the use of a radio. It may be my personal opinion, but it seems that flying at a contest where radio contact is allowed is more fun. Pilots tend to form informal teams, even if they are not on the top of the scoresheet. Also, it's a great learning opportunity being able to listen how more experienced pilots make tactical decisions (if you are able to scan their frequency).

Wiktor Kozlik

[Ventus_a]

Come on Sean,
You completely miss many of the great points that John made about how important it is to keep contests fun. They are not all about selection for the world's!!! You didn't acknowledge his arguments about how the US rules help to make contests more appealing to barely enough contestants to have contests at all. Were any of these ideas valid?

I also agree that if USA contests started becoming consistent land-out fests that you would see participation drop. Fine, so we aren't grooming winners for the world's but we are at least still racing. You are arguing for changing the way we try to swim here and in reality we are just trying to stay afloat!

In my mind the biggest difference is that due to the USA being so large, it takes these kinds of rules changes to attract enough glider pilots to attend any particular contest. How many of the Europeans drive 1000,2000, even 3000km to attend a contest? You see that all the time here in the USA. Again, were any of John's points valid?

Thanks Dave for working on the flight analysis. Can't wait to start reviewing! :)

Bruno - B4

Good points Bruno

As an outsider looking in it's gotta be said that lots of racing gliders makes you good at racing gliders. The Europeans get a lot more oppourtunities to race against other top pilots than do most Americans. In the UK you have to qualify for their nationals by doing well in regional contests.

The best New Zealand pilots of recent years are the ones who have been or are currently living overseas and competing regularly at the highest level.

I can't see that FAI vs SSA rules are at the heart of the problem

Colin

ps: I'd be interested to know more about the South African contest scene and how some of their pilots feel in this regard

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Sep 19, 11:01*pm, RW > wrote:
> Agree with Sean.
> And have big problem with Johns thinking.
> It is no fun to fly MAT with one or no TP !
> It is no fun to fly TAT with huge circles.
> It is not safe to be forced to land at the airport ,
> after good finish.
> It is no fun to fly without the water.(like would be no fun to fly without ruder)
> It is no fun if task is changed 3 times (including after first launch)
> It is no fun if task was called in the air by one of competitors.
> Those some of *our " Better rules" John.
> Ryszard Krolikowski

None of these are rules. They are CD / task adviser decisions, I
happen to agree on most -- I hate one turn MATs, huge circles and no
water as well. The rules allow long mats, assigned tasks, many small
circles, and water ballast. Tell your CD and task advisers. We can't
ban these things, as there are occasions in which on turn MATs, huge
circles and dry are appropriate. But not nearly as often as they are
called.
I support the ability to change tasks in the air, especially to a
preprinted B task. I'd rather leave the start gaggle go off and do a
it of programming than lose a day, or head off into a thunderstorm
just because we said so. Dave Leonard's report from Uvalde makes it
clear that not beling able to change tasks in the air was the cause of
at least one flight right into a terrible quadrant.
John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

>
> I hear the points John made clearly. *I understand the vision. *I simply don't accept them as fact.
>
> Where is this data supporting claims of “mass land outs” if a contest is run under FAI rules vs. US Rules? *Where is the data that shows higher levels of appeal for US rule contests vs. FAI? *To who? *What choice do “they” have? Safety doesn’t appear to improve under US rules although I respect that in many ways that is the intent.
>
> Bottom line: *the whole "World" seems to be doing as well as the US in attendance and safety, and better in many cases in World Championship or FAI contest performance.
>
> Yet, the US insists on going down a completely different contest rules program. *I am starting to wonder how this different path ever began frankly. *It’s a bummer. *Here we are with clear change resistance issues even though the conversation (me) is simply suggesting that we do the same as the rest of the world and flying FAI. *A suggestion that we adopt for the US what appears to be the "gold standard" around the world. *It appears we are saying the rest of the world is "wrong" and we are "right."
>
> I honestly don't think this change effort would be a big of a deal (the way we swim, drowning, etc). *Although I fear many who are “emotionally invested” in the US rules would cry doom and gloom if a real debate about adopting FAI rules was started. *Changing to FAI would be fairly simple IMO. *It would aslo have some clear benefits.
>
> The rest of the world flies FAI rules. *They appear to be pretty darn healthy when compared to US attendance. *Pilots all over the world appear to be very happy with FAI soaring competition.
> I think we somehow assume alot about the effectiveness of the US rules on attendance. *And clearly we as a country provide no weight to the Worlds competitiveness issue.
>
> I don’t mean to be calling someone’s baby ugly here. *But I will say that we are hindering baby's potential. *Baby's growth. *Baby is behind. *I think being the only country in the world that supports a completely different set of rules than the rest of the world is a mistake. *I think being the only country in the world to support its own A-Z sports class and blocks Club class is a big mistake. *15/18/Standard are the classes with attendance issues. *Club level ships are a very dense area of US contest participation. *They complain about being forced to compete level with ASG29 and Arcus. *Giving them their own class would, IMO, improve their enthusiasm and attendance.
>
> We should allow Club class (FAI) and then call Sports the high end ships until we figure out the new classes. *This is my recommendation.
>
> I hate having another different point of view here, but I do. *I believe it is good thing to have these conversations and let others weigh in.
>

Put in a bid for Ionia super-regional to be flown under IGC rules with
club class. If 50 pilots show up, your case will be made. Heck, put in
a bid to run a continental championship under IGC rules. Ditto.

John Cochrane

[RW[_2_]]

> None of these are rules. They are CD / task adviser decisions,

Our rules allow for all I mentioned.
None of this by IGC rules!
Try to explain to Andreas how we allow total task change in the prestart
gaggle, when we have to program new task from scratch, flying 200ft apart.
Try to make sense when you explain how we fly at(like at Fairfield) contest task with no TPs.
Our rules allow it, IGC dont !
Tell him how you promote safety with our rules setting MAT with few TPs and letting 60 gliders doing laps 100kts heads on just under 50km street for minimum 3 lapses.
Our rules allow it, IGC dont!
Ryszard Krolikowski

[Sean F (F2)]

Will do. But are damn weather. I might not even show up. :-). Probably will need to be late July/August.

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

I guess if you want to have one of your pilots be World Champion (or at
least stand somewhere on the podium) and are disappointed that with home
advantage it wasn't achieved, you can either shrug you shoulders and say
'all the other pilots were even better', or look for some structural reason
why.

The argument, 'we have a small glider pilot population density, and are
geographically isolated', doesn't stack up when you see how pilots from
South Africa and New Zealand perform.

Regularly flying with a different set of rules is (IMHO) a much more
plausible reason. A Worlds is a learning environment - but not if you
expect to win.

Encouraging a proper Club Class (limited handicap range) is one step
towards getting a wider range of pilots interested in a serious top-level
comp., at affordable cost (if any form of soaring can be categorised as
affordable). And educate your CDs into task setting that causes pilots to
develop the kind of tactical thinking that wins FAI rules competitions.
The US MAT is a cop-out. In UK we manage to use FAI rules in weather that
is just as demanding, without mass landouts except on the days when no sane
pilot would rig if it weren't for the fact some sadistic CD has called
'launch the grid' (I confess, it has been me in the past, but I have also
been a victim)..

And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

Peter:

All over Europe, I hear this opinion. "unsafe!"" "heavens, they'll
run in to each other programming pdas" And so, off in to the
thunderstorm we go, just because that's the task someone picked at 9
am

You and the rest of the gliding world discussing rules would do a lot
better if we were all to listen to experience rather than just
theorizing.

The US has been changing task in the air for over 25 years -- since
long before flight computers. It's done carefully and methodically --
we're not stupid you know. Usually there is a task B, so all that is
done is "now that we see where the storm is on the radar loop, we're
changing to task B" Very rarely a whole task will be entered. We give
at least 10 minutes and more often 15 for task entry time, pushing
back the start. We brief pilots over and over again how to do this.
Wait a few minutes -- don't all do it at once. Leave the start gaggle.
Look around. Then reprogram. We do a roll call on the radio, does
everyone have the task and has had a chance to reprogram. Only then do
we go.

Now, off theory and on to experience. Not once in 25 years has there
been an accident, incident, or even a near miss caused by
reprogramming computers in response to a task change. NOT ONCE. So
much for theory. We've had crashes in every other imaginable way, and
a few creative ones besides.

This is helped by the US start procedure, which the rest of the world
also hooted down at Uvalde based on theory, ignoring 25 years of
experience. We limit altitude at the start, and require you stay 2
minutes under the start height. "Heavens, they'll just look at the
altimeter and run in to each other" screams theory. No, 25 years of
experience says NOT ONE incident of the sort. What we save are the
gaggling in the starts, big start gaggles going off into the clouds
together, VNE dives through limited-altitude starts that don't have
time limits, and sticking with the gaggle for half an hour to gain
the last 50 feet that everyone else seems to love. (With a limited
altitude start, you can go away, reprogram, and know you'll easily get
back to start altitude in a short time; you don't have to stick with
the gaggle like glue.)

No not perfect. But we haven't stuck with this for 25 years because
we're insane.

Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her.

John Cochrane

[Mike C]

On Sep 20, 10:07*am, John Cochrane > wrote:
> > And changing tasks in the air is insanity.
>
> Peter:
>
> *All over Europe, I hear this opinion. "unsafe!"" "heavens, they'll
> run in to each other programming pdas" And so, off in to the
> thunderstorm we go, just because that's the task someone picked at 9
> am
>
> You and the rest of the gliding world discussing rules would do a lot
> better if we were all to listen to experience rather than just
> theorizing.
>
> The US has been changing task in the air for over 25 years -- since
> long before flight computers. It's done carefully and methodically --
> we're not stupid you know. Usually there is a task B, so all that is
> done is "now that we see where the storm is on the radar loop, we're
> changing to task B" Very rarely a whole task will be entered. We give
> at least 10 minutes and more often 15 for task entry time, pushing
> back the start. We brief pilots over and over again how to do this.
> Wait a few minutes -- don't all do it at once. Leave the start gaggle.
> Look around. Then reprogram. We do a roll call on the radio, does
> everyone have the task and has had a chance to reprogram. Only then do
> we go.
>
> Now, off theory and on to experience. Not once in 25 years has there
> been an accident, incident, or even a near miss caused by
> reprogramming computers in response to a task change. NOT ONCE. So
> much for theory. We've had crashes in every other imaginable way, and
> a few creative ones besides.
>
> This is helped by the US start procedure, which the rest of the world
> also hooted down at Uvalde based on theory, ignoring 25 years of
> experience. We limit altitude at the start, and require you stay 2
> minutes under the start height. "Heavens, they'll just look at the
> altimeter and run in to each other" screams theory. No, 25 years of
> experience says NOT ONE incident of the sort. What we save are the
> gaggling in the starts, big start gaggles going off into the clouds
> together, VNE dives through limited-altitude starts that don't have
> time limits, *and sticking with the gaggle for half an hour to gain
> the last 50 feet that everyone else seems to love. (With a limited
> altitude start, you can go away, reprogram, and know you'll easily get
> back to start altitude in a short time; you don't have to stick with
> the gaggle like glue.)
>
> No not perfect. But we haven't stuck with this for 25 years because
> we're insane.
>
> Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
> to her.
>
> John Cochrane


"Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her."

IF there is no bias involved. When we dig our heals in, and apply
blinders, not so good.

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

Hi John

I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start
originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.

And I remain unconvinced that a CD that sets a task at 9 a.m and then
doesn't decide to change it until everyone is launched has his eye on the
ball.

In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the
variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10
minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.

As a CD I have the option of briefing a completely changed task 20 mins
before first launch.

What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't
be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?

I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and
are prepared to adopt good ideas.

Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live.

Peter

t 19:57 20 September 2012, Mike C wrote:
>On Sep 20, 10:07=A0am, John Cochrane wrote:
>> > And changing tasks in the air is insanity.
>>
>> Peter:
>>
>> =A0All over Europe, I hear this opinion. "unsafe!"" "heavens, they'll
>> run in to each other programming pdas" And so, off in to the
>> thunderstorm we go, just because that's the task someone picked at 9
>> am
>>
>> You and the rest of the gliding world discussing rules would do a lot
>> better if we were all to listen to experience rather than just
>> theorizing.
>>
>> The US has been changing task in the air for over 25 years -- since
>> long before flight computers. It's done carefully and methodically --
>> we're not stupid you know. Usually there is a task B, so all that is
>> done is "now that we see where the storm is on the radar loop, we're
>> changing to task B" Very rarely a whole task will be entered. We give
>> at least 10 minutes and more often 15 for task entry time, pushing
>> back the start. We brief pilots over and over again how to do this.
>> Wait a few minutes -- don't all do it at once. Leave the start gaggle.
>> Look around. Then reprogram. We do a roll call on the radio, does
>> everyone have the task and has had a chance to reprogram. Only then do
>> we go.
>>
>> Now, off theory and on to experience. Not once in 25 years has there
>> been an accident, incident, or even a near miss caused by
>> reprogramming computers in response to a task change. NOT ONCE. So
>> much for theory. We've had crashes in every other imaginable way, and
>> a few creative ones besides.
>>
>> This is helped by the US start procedure, which the rest of the world
>> also hooted down at Uvalde based on theory, ignoring 25 years of
>> experience. We limit altitude at the start, and require you stay 2
>> minutes under the start height. "Heavens, they'll just look at the
>> altimeter and run in to each other" screams theory. No, 25 years of
>> experience says NOT ONE incident of the sort. What we save are the
>> gaggling in the starts, big start gaggles going off into the clouds
>> together, VNE dives through limited-altitude starts that don't have
>> time limits, =A0and sticking with the gaggle for half an hour to gain
>> the last 50 feet that everyone else seems to love. (With a limited
>> altitude start, you can go away, reprogram, and know you'll easily get
>> back to start altitude in a short time; you don't have to stick with
>> the gaggle like glue.)
>>
>> No not perfect. But we haven't stuck with this for 25 years because
>> we're insane.
>>
>> Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
>> to her.
>>
>> John Cochrane
>
>
>"Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
> to her."
>
>IF there is no bias involved. When we dig our heals in, and apply
>blinders, not so good.
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 03:37 20 September 2012, kirk.stant wrote:
>As I remember it, the Area Task was developed to cope with marginal
>weather=
> conditions that would not allow a safe assigned task to be called. If
it
>=
>was used that way - on special occasions, with usually only one area
>instea=
>d of a series of big areas - it would be a useful addition to the CD's
bag
>=
>of tricks. But recently it has become the task of choice because it is
so
>=
>easy to call, and takes the pressure off the CD.

Actually not true. An assigned area task AAT is much more difficult to set
than a normal TP racing task. What an AAT does is give the pilots the
opportunity to take advantage of better soaring conditions over a wider
area than would otherwise be the case. As a CD the easy option to set is a
TP racing task (with or without big sectors) AATs require serious thought
to set properly.
>
>On days with a good, uniform forecast, there is only one reason for an
>area=
> task: you are calling a task for mixed classes and want to give all a
>chan=
>ce to complete in the time assigned. Again, that should be done with as
>fe=
>w areas as possible.
>
>Just calling a blanket task with 3 30-mile areas is a total cop out by
the
>=
>CD.
>
Again not true, look at the days for which there were AATs in the worlds
and how they worked for those who properly understood them.

As for changing a task in the air, absolute madness, what towering
interllect thought that one up?

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> Hi John
>
> I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start
> originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.

Good! Now let's persuade the IGC, which banned this for Uvalde. Huge
gaggles in the clouds at Szeged was idiotic.

>In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the
>variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10
>minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.

This is also by far the most common situation in the US. Task changes
in the air are avoided if at all possible. They are a last ditch tool
for a CD to remedy a looming disaster, but CDs are strongly advised
against it if at all possible. Still, it's nice to avoid the
disaster...

Our contests try to launch everyone in 1 hour, and wait 15 minutes
before gate open. We also require 15 minutes between task change and
launch. So, the decision to open the task is at least 1:30 after the
last chance to change the task on the ground. Often, weather
ucertainty means that the start is delayed further. So it's easy to
have two hours pass. The weather can change a lot in two hours!

> What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't
> be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?

It happens rarely. Once to me when I was leading the contest on the
last day. Fortunately I heard the task change, rocked my wings in
response to radio call and it was passed on. If you can't hear either,
then you can't hear when the start gate is opened. I don't know of a
case of that happening yet. But it is the pilot's responsibility to
have a radio. If the roll call goes through, and the pilot can't be
raised on multiple tries, tough for him. We're not going to send the
whole fleet into the storm because of that.

>
> I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and
> are prepared to adopt good ideas.
>
> Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live.

I'll take you up on that!

[Sean F (F2)]

Other half? That's generous. :-) The US does not represent half of the soaring World last I looked. Try the other 98% of the world that uses IGC rules (AND CLASSES). IGC/FAI is completely dominant. Only the US utilizes different rules. The US communicates, indirectly but clearly, that the rest of the world is wrong, dangerous, start gate roulette, will have poor attendance, lots of land outs, etc. IMO we have alot of roulette in US contests. Its not as noticeable because our contests are fairly small in comparison the very large, weaker conditioned European events.

The crowded start problem at the recent World Championship (just as with the low finishing glider that hit the truck) is an anomaly that should be addressed within IGC/FAI rules. The US does not need separate rules. If we must make changes, the US could modify the FAI/IGC rules slightly. Nothing is perfect, but is IGC/FAI so bad that we fight it off like a flaming beast in the night and hide in our castle? What are we (SSA) so afraid of again?

Why cant we all just get along, have fun and play the same game? It's so confusing for any US pilot who aspires to be a World level pilot. Its a massive hurdle. I think it is really frustrating to have no choice. I think each contest manager should have, at minimum, the choice to run FAI. I don't like having this issue decided for me by the SSA as a young american pilot with some lofty goals.

We are sitting in a bubble in the US! We have no disorders, just big phobia of germs. :-)

Allow me to kid a bit without everyone flaming out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_Boy_(film)



On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:07:06 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Hi John
>
> >
>
> > I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start
>
> > originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.
>
>
>
> Good! Now let's persuade the IGC, which banned this for Uvalde. Huge
>
> gaggles in the clouds at Szeged was idiotic.
>
>
>
> >In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the
>
> >variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10
>
> >minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.
>
>
>
> This is also by far the most common situation in the US. Task changes
>
> in the air are avoided if at all possible. They are a last ditch tool
>
> for a CD to remedy a looming disaster, but CDs are strongly advised
>
> against it if at all possible. Still, it's nice to avoid the
>
> disaster...
>
>
>
> Our contests try to launch everyone in 1 hour, and wait 15 minutes
>
> before gate open. We also require 15 minutes between task change and
>
> launch. So, the decision to open the task is at least 1:30 after the
>
> last chance to change the task on the ground. Often, weather
>
> ucertainty means that the start is delayed further. So it's easy to
>
> have two hours pass. The weather can change a lot in two hours!
>
>
>
> > What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't
>
> > be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?
>
>
>
> It happens rarely. Once to me when I was leading the contest on the
>
> last day. Fortunately I heard the task change, rocked my wings in
>
> response to radio call and it was passed on. If you can't hear either,
>
> then you can't hear when the start gate is opened. I don't know of a
>
> case of that happening yet. But it is the pilot's responsibility to
>
> have a radio. If the roll call goes through, and the pilot can't be
>
> raised on multiple tries, tough for him. We're not going to send the
>
> whole fleet into the storm because of that.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and
>
> > are prepared to adopt good ideas.
>
> >
>
> > Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live..
>
>
>
> I'll take you up on that!

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sep 20, 7:07*pm, John Cochrane > wrote:
> > Hi John
>
> > I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start
> > originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.
>
> Good! Now let's persuade the IGC, which banned this for Uvalde. Huge
> gaggles in the clouds at Szeged was idiotic.
>
> >In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the
> >variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10
> >minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.
>
> This is also by far the most common situation in the US. Task changes
> in the air are avoided if at all possible. They are a last ditch tool
> for a CD to remedy a looming disaster, but CDs are strongly advised
> against it if at all possible. Still, it's nice to avoid the
> disaster...
>
> Our contests try to launch everyone in 1 hour, and wait 15 minutes
> before gate open. We also require 15 minutes between task change and
> launch. So, the decision to open the task is at least 1:30 after the
> last chance to change the task on the ground. Often, weather
> ucertainty means that the start is delayed further. So it's easy to
> have two hours pass. The weather can change a lot in two hours!
>
> > What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't
> > be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?
>
> It happens rarely. Once to me when I was leading the contest on the
> last day. Fortunately I heard the task change, rocked my wings in
> response to radio call and it was passed on. If you can't hear either,
> then you can't hear when the start gate is opened. I don't know of a
> case of that happening yet. But it is the pilot's responsibility to
> have a radio. If the roll call goes through, and the pilot can't be
> raised on multiple tries, tough for him. We're not going to send the
> whole fleet into the storm because of that.
>
>
>
> > I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and
> > are prepared to adopt good ideas.
>
> > Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live..
>
> I'll take you up on that!

John, actually I participated in a contest were 2 days in a row new
tasks were given in the air and not because of thunderstorms. This
rule just enables a not so smart CD to be really stupid just because
he is also lazy. Luckily 90% of contests do not have tasks set while
pilots are in the air, but when I see one done again that might be a
reason for me to quick contest flying.

If you ask me if I want to stay alive or lose a day I would say I want
to stay alive! This rule has no place in our competitions. We can
program many tasks into our computers. Have 5 dump tasks but do not
force people to put heads into the instruments in such high glider
density area as start cylinder.

John, your safety approach is not consistent. On one side you say we
need minimum finish height because we can't trust pilots not to put
themselves in dangerous situations but on the other hand you give a CD
a way to put all pilots in a dangerous situation.

[[email protected]]

>
> As for changing a task in the air, absolute madness, what towering
>
> interllect thought that one up?

Charlie Spratt did it all the time and his task calls were top-notch.

[howdy]

> John, your safety approach is not consistent. On one side you say we
>
> need minimum finish height because we can't trust pilots not to put
>
> themselves in dangerous situations but on the other hand you give a CD
>
> a way to put all pilots in a dangerous situation.


Now you did it!! You had to bring up the finish height debacle!! Here we go.

[[email protected]]

Thanks to everyone who wrote back with their thoughts.

It just seems to me that if there are "hot" pilots here in the U.S. of A., then they should be relatively "hot" when they are sent to worlds. Especially a worlds at home. But increasingly, US competition pilots are seen to be older, well-off racers that are selected by a system from which they benefit (i.e. a trip to the worlds).

Maybe we have become creatures of our own, idiosynchratic racing rules. I do not know for sure but clearly pilots with international racing aspirations are being let down by something in our system of competition and team selection.

If our contest scene, and particularly our Nationals, are not designed to select national team members but rather to promote fun and safety, then maybe it is time we held separate "selection contests" from which we can start to select appropriately motivated pilots who declare that they are here to race, race hard, and try to represent the US tot he best of their and our community's abilities.

One thing I have not heard here but only "whispers" outside of this forum were poor US Team organization, management, budget issues, etc. When one of the few posts to come out of the official Team blog loudly and triumphantly touts the effectiveness of team flying on nearly the last day of the contest - then clearly someone or many someone's missed the boat from day 1.

Al Batross

[Frank Whiteley]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 7:56:00 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who wrote back with their thoughts.
>
>
>
> It just seems to me that if there are "hot" pilots here in the U.S. of A., then they should be relatively "hot" when they are sent to worlds. Especially a worlds at home. But increasingly, US competition pilots are seen to be older, well-off racers that are selected by a system from which they benefit (i.e. a trip to the worlds).
>
>
>
> Maybe we have become creatures of our own, idiosynchratic racing rules. I do not know for sure but clearly pilots with international racing aspirations are being let down by something in our system of competition and team selection.
>
>
>
> If our contest scene, and particularly our Nationals, are not designed to select national team members but rather to promote fun and safety, then maybe it is time we held separate "selection contests" from which we can start to select appropriately motivated pilots who declare that they are here to race, race hard, and try to represent the US tot he best of their and our community's abilities.
>
>
>
> One thing I have not heard here but only "whispers" outside of this forum were poor US Team organization, management, budget issues, etc. When one of the few posts to come out of the official Team blog loudly and triumphantly touts the effectiveness of team flying on nearly the last day of the contest - then clearly someone or many someone's missed the boat from day 1.
>
>
>
> Al Batross

Dear Troll,

George Lee won three consecutive World Open Class titles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of that time, he had not owned a glider outright. At one of the UK Open Class Nationals I helped score, I believe five of the gliders were owned by one individual who made them available to accomplished pilots. Others were two-seater super ships, with the owners in the back seat in some cases, learning from some of the best. There is another model, patronage, which opens many doors and sometimes yields stellar results.

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

> Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.<

All...first please join me in saluting John Cochrane and Dave Leonard for taking the high road in responding to the OP's insulting remarks.

COW PILES Al! Unless you have ascended to team member level, what gives you the privilege to make these assessments?

Reality has been ignored. Least to forget is the privilege to make the US WGC Team is open to any and all qualified US citizens and the Team recognizes the best of those who accepted the call. And I submit, any rule structure will have absolutely no bearing on the team selection outcome. You can change whatever you like, but except perhaps for an instance of bad luck, the better pilot will always be at the top of the team selection list.

Also absent from this discussion is the substantial difference in how the US embraces soaring as opposed to other countries. There is little to no heritage or passion for soaring here in the US. More or less here in the US, soaring ingredients are the sole responsibility of each individual pilot. Certainly not so outside the US.

Study the where and how of today's world champions. Odds are their homeland holds a passion for soaring like the US has for baseball, Canada has for ice hockey, Britain has for soccer, Norway has for XC skiing, the French for wine, Germans have for Mercedes-Benz, Italians have for Ferrari,and Russians have for warm hats and Vodka. There, if a youngster has soaring interest, more than likely there is a large, organized, and well funded club within a short distance willing to nurture that passion by providing education and experience in top drawer equipment at reasonable expense. Such support is not found in the US.

Harris Hill has always set the example for a US youth program and have nurtured many excellent pilots. But to produce world champions, the US will need a competition soaring training program similar to the support given to the US downhill skiing team. So IMHO, it boils down to how much money you are willing to donate to accommodate those lucky few who are blessed with a combination of skill and determination. I'm sure the SSA would appreciate your contributions to make it so.

[Oscar[_2_]]

Hi all, i have been following this debate with interest, and some valid arguments have been made, but also some unfair comments. I dont want to get involved with the SSA rules debate, neither the internal politics, so I will just make some observations, as seen from the outside.
The US pilots can compete with the best of the world on any given day, as they have proven on some days. To finish in the top third of any class, is no small feat, as the winning margins are extremely small. Its not about winning every day, its about minimizing mistakes or less than perfect decisions during the whole contest. Winning by not losing, as George Moffat said. This is where the weak point of flying alone comes in. Even if we as pilots compete as individuals, it still helps to discuss situations and decisions with a team mate. Nine times out of ten the thought processes will be the same, but the tenth time your own decision might be flawed as seen through a team mates eyes, and discussing the decision in the air makes this obvious, thereby minimizing weaker decisions. What follows is an overall better decision making process through the contest, giving better overall results.
There is no home ground advantage when flying over flat terrain. The worlds top competing piolots fly extremely well in all conditions. Some homeground advantage can be had over mountainous terrain.
To be one of the best, you need to fly the most competitive equipment. But you dont need to own it. Gliders can be rented or loaned. There are many pilots that want to see youngsters do well, and will make their gliders avialable. But these pilots want to see commitment, and sometimes that lacks in our younger generation
Oscar Goudriaan
SA

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> Here's some more fodder for the discussion. I set up a blog to post
> some of my flight experiences and some post flight analyses as a
> rookie at the Uvalde WGC. I only have the first 6 days up so far. I
> plan to put up the second half soon.
>
> http://leonardzl.dyndns.org/uvalde
>

OK, so let's stop fighting about rules and get back to the topic. What
are “lessons learned” for aspiring US pilots from Uvalde?

Dave put up his experience in his great blog, so I thought I’d play
amateur coach. Dave, I hope you don’t mind. The point here is, lessons
learned, not criticize the pilots. Dave’s blog makes it clear how
tough this contest really was. Don’t think from his blog or my
comments that doing better is easy. (I screwed up far worse at
Szeged!)

In fact, one of the things I see going wrong in US team flying is that
the lessons learned in one WGC don’t get collectively digested and
passed on to the next one, so take the post in that spirit.

(Context: I got to fly with the US team at the Uvalde pre-worlds. We
learned a lot about team flying, and how hard it is to accomplish well
at Uvalde. Less obvious at the pre-worlds, but the important lesson
we learned earlier is that staying with your team member costs a
little bit when things are going well. But it pays off when things are
tough, when you need that one hard climb. Which happens, even at
Uvalde. The hardest thing for the 2010 US team was to really digest
that it’s worth swallowing the small losses in order to stick together
to avoid disasters. )

Some selections from Dave's blog with comment:

Day 7
John and I launched around 1:40
We found in the training week that joining pre-start was pretty easy
with FLARM. Well, at least joining horizontally. Getting to the same
height at the same place and time when we wanted to go was another
story
We did not get joined up before the start, but when our planned start
time came, about 3:00 we both started. I was about 3 minutes behind
and a couple miles south.

Comment: It may sound easy, but getting together at the start is
remarkably hard, even if you launch one right after the other. When Al
Tyler and I were flying at Szeged, we found that the only technique
that worked was for the first pilot, and then the pilot with larger
energy, to zero in on the second one like WWII fighters, and then just
sit there. If you don’t like what he’s doing talk about it, but do not
leave high cover ever. Even so, we started together less than half
the time. That’s very hard to do, especially in weak weather when the
stress of getting to the right place and height (stupid unlimited
altitude starts) is so high. The rest of Dave’s blog shows several
disasters that might well have been avoided had they been able to
start together. This is a skill, it’s a hard skill to master, and a
good case for those who say we should practice team flying in the US

Comment 2: You read a lot in Dave’s blog about the usefulness of Flarm
for team flying. We will have a big debate in the US over the next
year or so whether to allow flarm unrestricted or to impose some sort
of stealth mode. Question 1, is it really useful, seems answered.
Question 2, do you want to fly contests this way (and gain skill in
using flarm for team flying) is the open one.

Day 6
An interesting twist today was that there was wave above the clouds in
the start area. Several pilots, including John got up 1500-2000 ft
above cloudbase for the start. I missed the wave and started at about
6900 ft.

Comment: Apart at the start again.

John found a good 9 kt climb a few miles into the gloom, all the way
up. Several others were with him. I came in about the time he was
topping out and found 3 kts. The Netherlands team (1R and K1) joined
me on the first short leg. We came in under John together and all
missed the climb.

Comment: As we all have experienced, once you’re a few thousand feet
low, it’s often frustrating to try to catch someone.

I was alone, looking at 200 miles left to go in the blue at 5 pm.
Tempting to just glide back to Uvalde. But soon after I found other
gliders, and some lift and decided to give it a try.. I had gotten to
the near the top of the gaggle and left in front.… Reviewing the
flight logs showed we were headed straight towards a thermal marked by
34 about 1500 ft below us. I did not see him, and just missed the edge
of his thermal. The rest of the gaggle stopped for a nice climb.

Comment: Ouch! I landed out twice at Szeged from just this mistake.
When you work your way to the top of a gaggle at the worlds, you feel
pretty good. And in US contests, the big boys lead out. NO. Under
worlds rules, you stick with the gaggle in this situation – unless you
can clearly see the lift ahead, or the next gaggle you can hopschotch
to. This is a very hard lesson for US pilots. Really, in my view,
the start time, gaggling, and marker strategies in world contest are
the hurdle, and harder to master than team flying. (If you can stick
with a gaggle, you can stick with a team mate)

Comment 2: One place that team flying helps enormously is just having
two eyeballs looking for gaggles, markers, birds, etc. Had they been
together would one of them have seen the marker?

Lessons learned: … don’t pass up 6 kts a mile away from someone
reportedly climbing at 9 kts but 3000 ft above you under a dark sky
like this one.

Comment: Yup.

Day 5
John and I planned to leave early, believing the weather forecast, and
hoping the pack would not and they would get caught. John got up and
left, right behind the British team at 1330. I was not able to get in
position and ended up starting about 6 minutes behind him, right with
M6, the current contest leader and a pretty big minnow pack.

The day winner started 15 minutes later than I did, and flew right at
minimum time. Bracketing the best part of the day and staying out of
trouble.

Comment: Apart at the start again. Leaving early turned out not to be
so crucial and worth leaving apart.

Day 4

John started with the pack about 12 minutes before me. Well, he
thought he started. A little flight computer misconfiguration led him
to believe the line extended farther north than it really did. We
never joined up out on course, but he did provide info on conditions
ahead. Missing the startline cost him dearly. His speed would have
been virtually identical to mine, had the start line been a little
longer.

Comment: Apart at the start again. Two eyeballs might have caught this
one. Lots of little losses are not worth this big disaster.

Day 3

We over did the waiting for others to go out first. At least I did. I
was out of position when John started, but found a climb and followed
about 2 minutes behind. I saw a bunch of gliders coming back toward
me right after starting and figured they would be right behind. But
they were 18 meter gliders. I was the last 15 meter starter.

So what went wrong other than the obvious low spot? Started too late
and flew all alone most of the day

Comment: Apart at the start.

Day 2
John and I started together at 2:45.

Comment: In 7 days this is the only report of starting together.

We stuck pretty close for the first two legs. We were in the middle of
a pretty fast pack. I decided to deviate a little to the right of
course to a marked climb. It was OK, and not a huge deviation, but it
separated us. John continued on with the Germans following him. I
rejoined in trail a couple miles back and above. The Germans (M6 and
EI) deviated a tad left of John’s course and found a strong thermal a
mile behind him, Just south of Uvalde. I saw them, but decided it was
too big a deviation. It was about 2 km, 90 degrees. I was at their
altitude, about 4300 ft. Right where a good climb was needed to go
into the hills high. But I kept going, thinking there would be another
just as good ahead.

10 minutes later they are going by 1500 ft above as I’m trying to
center a rowdy little thermal north of Uvalde at the edge of the
hills. I got it centered a few turns later and got up. John had gone
lower a few miles northeast of me, but found a good climb. We rejoined
10 miles further north (thanks again to flarm) and worked our way up
towards Rock Springs.

Comment: Digest this one for all the lessons learned. “I decided to
deviate… but it separated us.” OK, sometimes you have to split up, but
the benefit of the deviation had better be really worth the cost of
having split up. Evidently not so here, as “we rejoined 10 miles
further north” means neither pilot was right about the decision to
split up. Were I coach, I’d say “did you guys talk about the
decision?”
Sometimes one will stop for a climb and the other go on, and “rejoined
in trail a couple miles back and above” is this situation. So, back in
the saddle. Next the Germans and John go different ways, but Dave
seems to be following neither.
If you haven’t been to Uvalde, you need a good climb going in to the
hills—and it’s often just where it’s hard. I have blown countless
contest days getting low going in to the hills. OK, 2 km at 90 degrees
is hard. But following the Germans in the first place might not have
meant any loss. In the gaggle game of WGC AST soaring, you don’t
voluntarily give up markers if you don’t have to.

I got a little off line and dropped a little below him going into the
Rock Springs area…. But the pack I had been with was now12-15 miles
ahead of me.

Comment. OK, coach has to ask, why were you not with this pack?

The sky towards Uvalde was bluing out. Time to downshift a little and
try to stay high. I deviated a bit north of course. Most of the pack
in front of me deviated a bit south of course. But I could not see
them at the time as they were still 10 miles ahead….

Looking at the logs, there was more team flying at the top of the
scoresheet than Day 1. A lot more of the pairs started together and
stayed together. The fastest pilots started near the back (right with
John and I), stayed out of trouble, connected early with the strong
lift north of Rock Springs, and found a good climb on the last leg
late in the day to finish.

The big air typical at Uvalde makes keeping a pair together tricky.
The good line is typically too narrow to fly in parallel looking for
the best air. The guy that hits it right gets a huge advantage very
quickly. Both in cruise and in hitting a core to climb in. The
preferred strategy appears to be flying in trail with the higher pilot
leading. That works as long as it doesn’t push the lower pilot low
enough that he is out of the good air. It seemed that below 3-4000 ft
AGL, the good lift lines disappeared and and the sink increased. So a
500 ft separation rapidly turned into 1500 ft and real trouble for the
low pilot. Maybe thats just a personal problem, but it shows up in a
lot of flight logs. And some very proficient teams (Itallians for
instnce) had real problems staying together.

It really looks like the big payoff is being with a good sized group
at the critical parts of the flight and using them to avoid the
traps.

Comment: Everyone read those wise words again.

Day 1:

John and I had joined a big gaggle near the start line. He was near
the top, in a pretty good position. I was a few hundred feet lower and
could not climb further. I shifted a little further north of the line
to try to climb. That cloud was marginally better, but still only
about 1 kt. John lost track of the fact I was lower and had moved
further out of position and called ready to start. I started to
follow, although 600 ft lower. I found 2-3 kts about 1 mile south of
the line, which I worked for a few turns and restarted. Another 100 ft
lower and 4 minutes behind, but I never saw him again on course.

Stopping for the weak thermal just past the start line and restarting
was not a good call. It go me further behind the pack and my teammate.


Well done Dave! Write up the next few days!

In the trace analysis, I'd be especially curious to see how much the
leaders are using gaggles/markers, and how they manage to stay high
and out of trouble.

John Cochrane

[Oscar[_2_]]

Hi Colin
We also have very little exposure to high level contests, and going to Europe to compete is expensive. In my opinion, there are more competition opportunities in the US than we have in SA, as we only have two regional (three since last year) and our one multi-class nationals. And we have the same 25 or so guys going to all of these to race.
I wouldnt knock your team pilots, as they can hold their own, but not being used to flying as a team, definitely puts them at a disadvantage. Team flying is not something that you can just switch on, it takes years to learn to do, and there are a multitude of aspects that need to be adressed, both in flying, but also in knowing your partner.
Regards
Oscar Goudriaan

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 18:17 23 September 2012, Oscar wrote:
>Hi Colin
>We also have very little exposure to high level contests, and going to
>Euro=
>pe to compete is expensive. In my opinion, there are more competition
>oppor=
>tunities in the US than we have in SA, as we only have two regional
(three
>=
>since last year) and our one multi-class nationals. And we have the same
>25=
> or so guys going to all of these to race.=20
>I wouldnt knock your team pilots, as they can hold their own, but not
>being=
> used to flying as a team, definitely puts them at a disadvantage. Team
>fly=
>ing is not something that you can just switch on, it takes years to learn
>t=
>o do, and there are a multitude of aspects that need to be adressed, both
>i=
>n flying, but also in knowing your partner.=20
>Regards
>Oscar Goudriaan

I cannot argue with what you say Oscar but individual skill plays a large
part. Just look at what Pete Harvey achieved without a team partner and in
a glider he had not seen before arriving in Uvalde. But for the landout on
the first day he would have been very much closer to the top.

[Tony[_5_]]

> But for the landout on
> the first day he would have been very much closer to the top.

Nothing against Pete, who flew a great race, but that statement applies to about half of the Open Class.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 2:17:16 PM UTC-4, Oscar wrote:
> Hi Colin
>
> We also have very little exposure to high level contests, and going to Europe to compete is expensive. In my opinion, there are more competition opportunities in the US than we have in SA, as we only have two regional (three since last year) and our one multi-class nationals. And we have the same 25 or so guys going to all of these to race.
>
> I wouldnt knock your team pilots, as they can hold their own, but not being used to flying as a team, definitely puts them at a disadvantage. Team flying is not something that you can just switch on, it takes years to learn to do, and there are a multitude of aspects that need to be adressed, both in flying, but also in knowing your partner.
>
> Regards
>
> Oscar Goudriaan

A.J. Smith and Dick Schreder practice flew together for years. I can't imagine A.J. team flying, and probably not Dick either, but they each apparently learned a great deal from each other about fast x-c flying. Luckily for them, they lived less than an hour apart.
-Jack Wyman

[[email protected]]

George Lee was an RAF Fighter Pilot and flew an ASW-17 twice and a pre production Nimbus 3 owned by the RAFGSA.

[Sean F (F2)]

Let me make this simple.

Team flying + US "Soaring TEAM?" = Individuals who instinctively fly for themselves in LARGE TURN AREA TASKS.

If that was a math problem it would be 1 + 1 = 0 or false. It does not compute.

It really is this simple. And the powers that be in the SSA have their heels dug in tight and are waiting to crush any resistance immediately, why are we still wasting our time here talking about it?

Bottom line is that the SSA organization does not care in the slightest about World Championship results or the US Soaring Individuals (Team). If they did, they would get out of the way. They only care about their participation in US events. That is the only focus. So while that narrative is in play, nothing much is going to change. If you are disappointed, its all about adjusting your expectations :-).

The US soaring team has GREAT pilots. But they are playing checkers. The WORLD plays chess. If they are given a home environment in which they can practice and improve at Chess (FAI), they will slowly (perhaps rapidly) become more competitive at a World level AND we may see some more foreign pilots coming to join us at US contests.

But, its going to be checkers until enough resistance is applied to that rope...

>
>
> Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place.
>
>
>
> Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.
>
>
>
> We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care?
>
>
>
> Al Batross

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 14:55 24 September 2012, wrote:
>George Lee was an RAF Fighter Pilot and flew an ASW-17 twice and a pre
>production Nimbus 3 owned by the RAFGSA.

Prior to the ASW17 he had a RAFGSA Kestrel 19, which many years later I
owned
>

[[email protected]]

While I do take offense at being given the moniker of "troll" in this discussion, I would like to thank all the posters and especially ZL, BB, OG, and F2 for their excellent responses and interest in this topic. THeir thoughts and honesty are refreshing and useful.

It just seemed to me that the worlds ended and then there was "wind whistling through the trees". Really? In light of what happened? This seemed to be the only place where an open discussion on this topic might plausibly take place for all (or at least those that peruse this forum) to see and learn from. If that is being a Troll, then I stand accused!

For competitive American pilots who want to pursue the racing aspect of our sport to its highest level, we need to discuss these things and have these discussions be open for all (experienced and aspiring) racing pilots to make use of.

And as far as the money issue goes, it is THE most important issue in our racing sport. To do well one needs to make a substantial commitment of time and resources. This is without doubt and cannot be changed. Our US Team members do this on a never-ending two year cycle and should be applauded for their efforts to represent us. But could we do better, given the tremendous amount of time and resources (i.e. DB and the Concordia) expended? That was all this thread was meant to do.

I, for one, would be more inclined to give more to the US Team if I knew the money was being well spent and the effort was aimed at producing podium finishes for both individuals AND team points. That is, after all, the goal of competition, isn't it?

Al Batross

[[email protected]]

w

On Monday, September 17, 2012 2:11:31 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> To everyone with an interest:
>
>
>
> Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened?
>
>
>
> Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place.
>
>
>
> Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.
>
>
>
> We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care?
>
>
>
> Al Batross

who said we did poorly? a 70- year old man won two days in a home-made glider.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:48:02 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:11:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > To everyone with an interest: Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened? Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place. Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas. We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care? Al Batross
>
>
>
> There are plenty of excellent sailplane pilots but very few who can pay out the 100,000 it takes to buy a sailplane that will compete in competion flying. It is a rich mans game, the rest of fly the best we can in the sailplanes we can afford and can only wonder if given the chance what we could do.

i don't believe that. if you have a dream, you have to make it happen. i have limited means, but i work a second job so that i can fly more. you do not need to shell out 100,000 or even 70,000 to have a shot at the worlds.

[Ventus_a]

;824796']Hi Colin
We also have very little exposure to high level contests, and going to Europe to compete is expensive. In my opinion, there are more competition opportunities in the US than we have in SA, as we only have two regional (three since last year) and our one multi-class nationals. And we have the same 25 or so guys going to all of these to race.
I wouldnt knock your team pilots, as they can hold their own, but not being used to flying as a team, definitely puts them at a disadvantage. Team flying is not something that you can just switch on, it takes years to learn to do, and there are a multitude of aspects that need to be adressed, both in flying, but also in knowing your partner.
Regards
Oscar Goudriaan

Hi Oscar

I'm in New Zealand

Thanks for the feed back. I was thinking of Ben Flewett and Dane Dickinson who have been competing overseas on a regular basis, Ben being resident in the UK. Whenever he comes back to NZ he just seems to have that edge that makes the difference, same with Dane.

I haven't forgotten John Coutts either but I'm not au fait with how much flying or competing he is doing of recent times in SA.

I could be wrong but the impression I have is that although you don't have so many competition oppourtunities as the Europeans your top pilots race each other very hard. How much does your (collective) WGC experience help/push you all in that regard?

Regards to Mark Holliday too, it was a pleasure meeting you both at Omarama in 07

:-) Colin

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:15:04 PM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Sep 20, 7:07*pm, John Cochrane > wrote: > > Hi John > > > I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start > > originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now. > > Good! Now let's persuade the IGC, which banned this for Uvalde. Huge > gaggles in the clouds at Szeged was idiotic. > > >In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the > >variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10 > >minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task. > > This is also by far the most common situation in the US. Task changes > in the air are avoided if at all possible. They are a last ditch tool > for a CD to remedy a looming disaster, but CDs are strongly advised > against it if at all possible. Still, it's nice to avoid the > disaster... > > Our contests try to launch everyone in 1 hour, and wait 15 minutes > before gate open. We also require 15 minutes between task change and > launch. So, the decision to open the task is at least 1:30 after the > last chance to change the task on the ground. Often, weather > ucertainty means that the start is delayed further. So it's easy to > have two hours pass. The weather can change a lot in two hours! > > > What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't > > be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day? > > It happens rarely. Once to me when I was leading the contest on the > last day. Fortunately I heard the task change, rocked my wings in > response to radio call and it was passed on. If you can't hear either, > then you can't hear when the start gate is opened. I don't know of a > case of that happening yet. But it is the pilot's responsibility to > have a radio. If the roll call goes through, and the pilot can't be > raised on multiple tries, tough for him. We're not going to send the > whole fleet into the storm because of that. > > > > > I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and > > are prepared to adopt good ideas. > > > Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live. > > I'll take you up on that! John, actually I participated in a contest were 2 days in a row new tasks were given in the air and not because of thunderstorms. This rule just enables a not so smart CD to be really stupid just because he is also lazy. Luckily 90% of contests do not have tasks set while pilots are in the air, but when I see one done again that might be a reason for me to quick contest flying. If you ask me if I want to stay alive or lose a day I would say I want to stay alive! This rule has no place in our competitions. We can program many tasks into our computers. Have 5 dump tasks but do not force people to put heads into the instruments in such high glider density area as start cylinder. John, your safety approach is not consistent. On one side you say we need minimum finish height because we can't trust pilots not to put themselves in dangerous situations but on the other hand you give a CD a way to put all pilots in a dangerous situation.

It is becoming very common to have alternate tasks available and published in advance so they can be pre programmed by the pilots. These were available in many of the contests I flew this year.
The characterization of CD's as stupid and lazy does not match with what I observe.
Maybe some of the rock ******* ought to step up and wear the CD hat, it might be enlightening. It's easy to be an arm chair expert on RAS, but tougher in the real world. I speak from the experience of someone who has, in the last 2 years, been a CD and has acted as task advisor to the CD 4 times.
That said, the quality of weather information, and the experience and knowledge to interpret that information, is a big variable.
The good CD's recognize this and use their advisors to make prudent changes that make a fairer and safer race and one that is more rewarding to the pilots.
I lived through the period when these changes were not available and recall several flights, carefully planned by experienced CD's and weathermen, that sent the entire fleet off doomed to a land out in thunderstorms, sometime visible before the task even opened.
We've moved beyond this and we are better for it.
I've read of days where the Brits landed the fleet, rebriefed, and then went again. I'm pretty sure that is very rare.
I am convinced that, properly administered, the system we use in the US is a net positive on safety and is better than that commonly used in other places.
F2 will likely use this as an example of digging my heels in. I'll disagree in advance and simply ask the critics to take time to understand our reasoning.
UH

[Frank Whiteley]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 10:38:04 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> While I do take offense at being given the moniker of "troll" in this discussion, I would like to thank all the posters and especially ZL, BB, OG, and F2 for their excellent responses and interest in this topic. THeir thoughts and honesty are refreshing and useful.
>
>
>
> It just seemed to me that the worlds ended and then there was "wind whistling through the trees". Really? In light of what happened? This seemed to be the only place where an open discussion on this topic might plausibly take place for all (or at least those that peruse this forum) to see and learn from. If that is being a Troll, then I stand accused!
>
>
>
> For competitive American pilots who want to pursue the racing aspect of our sport to its highest level, we need to discuss these things and have these discussions be open for all (experienced and aspiring) racing pilots to make use of.
>
>
>
> And as far as the money issue goes, it is THE most important issue in our racing sport. To do well one needs to make a substantial commitment of time and resources. This is without doubt and cannot be changed. Our US Team members do this on a never-ending two year cycle and should be applauded for their efforts to represent us. But could we do better, given the tremendous amount of time and resources (i.e. DB and the Concordia) expended? That was all this thread was meant to do.
>
>
>
> I, for one, would be more inclined to give more to the US Team if I knew the money was being well spent and the effort was aimed at producing podium finishes for both individuals AND team points. That is, after all, the goal of competition, isn't it?
>
>
>
> Al Batross

Well, since you post under a nom de plume rather than a real name, the troll moniker fits. Well fed thread BTW. Yet, you fail to comment on the substance of my post, which others have suggested is part of the problem. I do know some US pilots, if they had the means or the support, may well have replaced some of the US team for this event, but they can't afford to compete in those classes on their own. However, I'm acquainted with several of the US team members and find them to be quite competent and worthy of selection. That said, a fellow SSA member reminded me that George Moffatt did have access to gliders through the support of another. As I trained originally in the UK, I was pleased to have 32 glider makes in my logbook within the first four years, two of which I owned shares in. That type of exposure is a bit harder to acquire in the US. As a scorer in the 93 and 94 UK Opens and later a US regional CD, I objected to the US photo TP approach, US windicapping, and the emerging beer can TP's. My experience was that we in the US were flying to different standard in our competitions to the effect it was a lesser standard. I understand the emergence of the current US rules, but I appreciate the vocal club class proponents wanting something other than Sports Class rules as a discriminator.

Frank Whiteley

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sep 24, 9:03*pm, wrote:
> It is becoming very common to have alternate tasks available and published in advance so they can be pre programmed by the pilots. These were available in many of the contests I flew this year.
> The characterization of CD's as stupid and lazy does not match with what I observe.
> Maybe some of the rock ******* ought to step up and wear the CD hat, it might be enlightening. It's easy to be an arm chair expert on RAS, but tougher in the real world. I speak from the experience of someone who has, in the last 2 years, been a CD and has acted as task advisor to the CD 4 times.

Hank, I did not say all CDs are stupid, so please no generalizations.
I said "This rule just enables a not so smart CD to be really stupid
just because he is also lazy." I saw tasks being changed in the air
just because it looked better in a different direction. Is this a
valid reason? No, and it does not reflect intended use of the rule.
This is stupid to me. There was nothing to be gained from that, except
a potential problem. I can give you a detail account but not on RAS.

There is no reason for tasks to be changed in the air. Give 10 dump
tasks the first day of the contest (use some from previous years) so
everyone can put them in safely. I hear the argument of thunderstorms
but the truth is in my experience that is not why the tasks were
changed. They were simply changed to fly in somewhat better air e.g
visible Cu in one direction and blue in the other.

I also said 90% of contests do not have tasks set in the air.

Also since we are on the topic of CDs and tasks. What kind of a task
is a task with one mandatory turn point? I would rather stay at home
and fly OLC rather than spend a considerable amount of time and money
to go to a contest just so I can fly another version of an OLC task.

Maybe instead of the word "stupid" I should have used a word
irresponsible, it would probably fit better.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 11:35:09 PM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Monday, September 24, 2012 10:38:04 AM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> > While I do take offense at being given the moniker of "troll" in this discussion, I would like to thank all the posters and especially ZL, BB, OG, and F2 for their excellent responses and interest in this topic. THeir thoughts and honesty are refreshing and useful.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It just seemed to me that the worlds ended and then there was "wind whistling through the trees". Really? In light of what happened? This seemed to be the only place where an open discussion on this topic might plausibly take place for all (or at least those that peruse this forum) to see and learn from. If that is being a Troll, then I stand accused!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For competitive American pilots who want to pursue the racing aspect of our sport to its highest level, we need to discuss these things and have these discussions be open for all (experienced and aspiring) racing pilots to make use of.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And as far as the money issue goes, it is THE most important issue in our racing sport. To do well one needs to make a substantial commitment of time and resources. This is without doubt and cannot be changed. Our US Team members do this on a never-ending two year cycle and should be applauded for their efforts to represent us. But could we do better, given the tremendous amount of time and resources (i.e. DB and the Concordia) expended? That was all this thread was meant to do.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I, for one, would be more inclined to give more to the US Team if I knew the money was being well spent and the effort was aimed at producing podium finishes for both individuals AND team points. That is, after all, the goal of competition, isn't it?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Al Batross
>
>
>
> Well, since you post under a nom de plume rather than a real name, the troll moniker fits. Well fed thread BTW. Yet, you fail to comment on the substance of my post, which others have suggested is part of the problem. I do know some US pilots, if they had the means or the support, may well have replaced some of the US team for this event, but they can't afford to compete in those classes on their own. However, I'm acquainted with several of the US team members and find them to be quite competent and worthy of selection. That said, a fellow SSA member reminded me that George Moffatt did have access to gliders through the support of another. As I trained originally in the UK, I was pleased to have 32 glider makes in my logbook within the first four years, two of which I owned shares in. That type of exposure is a bit harder to acquire in the US. As a scorer in the 93 and 94 UK Opens and later a US regional CD, I objected to the US photo TP approach, US windicapping, and the emerging beer can TP's. My experience was that we in the US were flying to different standard in our competitions to the effect it was a lesser standard. I understand the emergence of the current US rules, but I appreciate the vocal club class proponents wanting something other than Sports Class rules as a discriminator.
>
>
>
> Frank Whiteley

I will add that there is some patronage and much generosity in US soaring. I recall one US soaring family that attempted to provide gliders for our US junior team development, but that offer did not complete.

Frank