USA and FAI rules [Archive]

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 16th 13, 03:03 PM

On Jan 15, 8:45*pm, rlovinggood > wrote:
> Mr. Ray Galloway (P1) asked for me to post the following note:
>
> There has been much discussion over the differences between the FAI rules and the US rules.
This is partly due to the fact that the US is the only country that
does not follow FAI rules.

This is simply not true. The vast majority of countries, in fact, use
their own rules. Look em' up; it's not hard, just look up the national
soaring association (equivalent of ssa.org) and then find their
contest rules. Canada, UK, Australia are all in English so you can see
them. You will find nice long rules just like ours. You will not find
"for competition rules see IGC annex A" period, full stop.

It is true that many countries bend their rules towards the IGC
standard, for example in scoring formulas, turnpoint definitions,
start and finish definitions, etc. It is also true that almost all
countries modify these and other rules and procedures, as well as
filling in the vast blank space in FAI rules covered under "local
procedures." Contrariwise, it is also true that many features of US
rules are similar to FAI rules. We do, after all, fly assigned and
area tasks, defined in pretty much the same way. But it is simply not
true that they 'follow FAI rules" and we do not.
>
> At the 1985 WGC the US team was among the top contenders. In 2010 WGC, the last year that figures are available, we were 23 out of 24. In 25 years we have gone from near the top to next to last.
>
> There is one indisputable fact---they are wining and we are losing. Maybe we should consider joining the rest of the world.
>

The Rules Committee faces a really tough problem. Shall we design
contests whose number one goal is to train pilots to do well at world
gliding championships -- even if that means that we see fewer pilots
participating, fewer contests being run, smaller turnouts at the
contests we do run, organizers losing money? Or should we design
contests whose number one goals are safety, fun, and widespread
participation; getting people involved in contest soaring?

Put aside the question of which set of rules will attract more people
-- the camp that says "use FAI rules and more will come" has an
argument, but needs to prove its case by running regionals under FAI
rules and seeing if US pilots do indeed prefer that format. And we can
end up either way on that question.

But answer for us Ray and Ray's deeper question: which should be the
GOAL: producing a better world team, or participation:

Should we turn all our contests into "team training camps" to prepare
people for the.hard decisions they will face in contests like
Argentina? To wit,
-gaggle and start tactics,
-team/pair flying,
-extensive ground support,
-deep knowledge of world rules quirks, like when you should
intentionally land out 100 meter short of the finish line or when you
should abandon the chance of getting home and just go for distance in
the cylinders,
-day after day of landing out on long assigned tasks, meaning full
time crew is mandatory,
-or (as in Uvlade) dealing with tasks that force you to fly into
thunderstorms,
-eventually (as in europe) buying and learning the art of motor
management
-tactics for unlimited altitude starts (thermal wave at Uvalde,
gaggling in clouds elsewhere); tactics for limited altitude no time
limit starts (VNE dives)
-final glides to a line 3 km short of the airport; landing in fields
0-3 km of the airport

etc. etc.

This is not a rant. These are just some of the features of contests
run under FAI rules that require long study and practice to master.
And US pilots are not that great at many of these aspects, and moving
all our contests to mirror WGC conditions would undoubtedly produce a
small number of pilots who were much better at flying in WGC
contests.

So far, the RC has felt that running contests these ways would attract
fewer people, be less fun, moderately less safe, and much less well
attended. Again, we can and will have that argument later.

For now, which should be our number one goal? A great team, even if
that means smaller and more expensive contests? Or participation, fun,
and development, even if that means a somewhat less successful world
team?

This is not an easy question

I hope we can split the difference a bit with more team training camps
(open to all pilots) run under FAI rules, and I would love for one of
the FAI rules fanatics to put in the effort to run a continental
championship under FAI rules. I would love for one of them to run
regionals under FAI rules to put the "build it and they will come"
theory to the test.

John Cochrane

> Thanks for any help.

You're welcome! Now, help us with this tough issue.

Sean F (F2)

January 16th 13, 08:11 PM

John,

You do have a tough job as a leader within the US RC at times. I respect that. Despite your considerable and noble effort, there is a large problem with the way US soaring rules are managed within the SSA at present. I would also guess that you do this job because you love it and are passionate about it. You probably have some goals you are looking to achieve. That said...

1) The US Rules Committee's "all or nothing & take it or leave it" methodology is flawed. Rules in the US need NOT be one way or the other. The US could easily have at least one national contest each year which utilizes IGC rules. Especially when a "choice" to participate in Sports or Club is offered.

REVIEW: MY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2013 SPORTS/CLUB NATIONALS: US Sports Class remains as is. US IGC Club range gliders can choose to fly in either Sports or US IGC Club Nationals. The winner of the "US IGC Club Class Nationals" goes to World Championships (Also IGC btw...)! If <12 gliders sign up for US IGC Club Class Nationals, all gliders are dumped into Sports Class Nationals as has been standard within the US for years and no IGC US Club Class happens...

2) The assumption (and numerous statements as such) that IGC rules EQUALS less attendance is plain wrong. It is just not that simple. Yet you post this statement (IGC = low attendance and low pilot happiness) again and again and again... It's as if all other countries flying IGC rules contests are running Kamikaze missions! These statements are pure propaganda and irresponsible.

3) Yes, some US pilots agree with the assumptions about US contest participation going up (or a slowing of the decent) if every effort is made to ensure everyone returns home each day. What is not touted in US circles is the fact that soaring countries around the world regularly run wonderful, successful, enjoyable and fun IGC rule contests. IGC rules are not evil. But if you get your news form the US RC you would think these pilots were all facing certain death and miserable. This is unfair to newer US pilots and over time has given ICC a bad (yet uneducated) reputation in the US. I personally don't mind US Rules contests. That said I have not had the chance to race IGC yet. I have an open mind. I have left the Kool Aid on the table as have many others...

4) I and many others within the USA would like the choice to fly IGC rules in the US and not have to travel to Germany, Poland or France to do it. We are tired of being held hostage by the SSA. IGC rules have not been allowed in the SSA for many years. The time has come to allow it as a choice. MATs and AAT's are just not attractive to pilots who want glider racing.

5) Clearly, many (50+) in the US (see my US IGC Club Class petition...) do not agree with the US Rules "all or nothing" attitude (IGC or US). Talk about being LEFT BEHIND! For many US Pilots (and Canadian), a true IGC rules racing class in North America is intensely appealing. Yet the US RC seems to consistently attack people who argue for a choice to offer IGC rules as if we are arch enemies! Look at the reports from Argentina hammering the IGC rules at every opportunity for example. It's amazing really.

A golden opportunity still exists to be responsive to a very large group of US pilots who have ASKED FOR IGC RULES Club Class Nationals for many years! Please refrain from attacks on them for questioning why the RC instead come up with a completely yet another completely new US class that is ENTIRELY NEW and FAR AWAY from the IGC Club Class they had requested!

My proposed solution solves many issues. My solution leaves NOBODY behind. And most importantly my solution gives all US Club Class pilots the CHOICE to fly their preference without any concerns.

Sean
F2

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:03:25 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:45*pm, rlovinggood > wrote:
>
> > Mr. Ray Galloway (P1) asked for me to post the following note:
>
> >
>
> > There has been much discussion over the differences between the FAI rules and the US rules.
>
> This is partly due to the fact that the US is the only country that
>
> does not follow FAI rules.
>
>
>
> This is simply not true. The vast majority of countries, in fact, use
>
> their own rules. Look em' up; it's not hard, just look up the national
>
> soaring association (equivalent of ssa.org) and then find their
>
> contest rules. Canada, UK, Australia are all in English so you can see
>
> them. You will find nice long rules just like ours. You will not find
>
> "for competition rules see IGC annex A" period, full stop.
>
>
>
> It is true that many countries bend their rules towards the IGC
>
> standard, for example in scoring formulas, turnpoint definitions,
>
> start and finish definitions, etc. It is also true that almost all
>
> countries modify these and other rules and procedures, as well as
>
> filling in the vast blank space in FAI rules covered under "local
>
> procedures." Contrariwise, it is also true that many features of US
>
> rules are similar to FAI rules. We do, after all, fly assigned and
>
> area tasks, defined in pretty much the same way. But it is simply not
>
> true that they 'follow FAI rules" and we do not.
>
> >
>
> > At the 1985 WGC the US team was among the top contenders. In 2010 WGC, the last year that figures are available, we were 23 out of 24. In 25 years we have gone from near the top to next to last.
>
> >
>
> > There is one indisputable fact---they are wining and we are losing. Maybe we should consider joining the rest of the world.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The Rules Committee faces a really tough problem. Shall we design
>
> contests whose number one goal is to train pilots to do well at world
>
> gliding championships -- even if that means that we see fewer pilots
>
> participating, fewer contests being run, smaller turnouts at the
>
> contests we do run, organizers losing money? Or should we design
>
> contests whose number one goals are safety, fun, and widespread
>
> participation; getting people involved in contest soaring?
>
>
>
> Put aside the question of which set of rules will attract more people
>
> -- the camp that says "use FAI rules and more will come" has an
>
> argument, but needs to prove its case by running regionals under FAI
>
> rules and seeing if US pilots do indeed prefer that format. And we can
>
> end up either way on that question.
>
>
>
> But answer for us Ray and Ray's deeper question: which should be the
>
> GOAL: producing a better world team, or participation:
>
>
>
> Should we turn all our contests into "team training camps" to prepare
>
> people for the.hard decisions they will face in contests like
>
> Argentina? To wit,
>
> -gaggle and start tactics,
>
> -team/pair flying,
>
> -extensive ground support,
>
> -deep knowledge of world rules quirks, like when you should
>
> intentionally land out 100 meter short of the finish line or when you
>
> should abandon the chance of getting home and just go for distance in
>
> the cylinders,
>
> -day after day of landing out on long assigned tasks, meaning full
>
> time crew is mandatory,
>
> -or (as in Uvlade) dealing with tasks that force you to fly into
>
> thunderstorms,
>
> -eventually (as in europe) buying and learning the art of motor
>
> management
>
> -tactics for unlimited altitude starts (thermal wave at Uvalde,
>
> gaggling in clouds elsewhere); tactics for limited altitude no time
>
> limit starts (VNE dives)
>
> -final glides to a line 3 km short of the airport; landing in fields
>
> 0-3 km of the airport
>
>
>
> etc. etc.
>
>
>
> This is not a rant. These are just some of the features of contests
>
> run under FAI rules that require long study and practice to master.
>
> And US pilots are not that great at many of these aspects, and moving
>
> all our contests to mirror WGC conditions would undoubtedly produce a
>
> small number of pilots who were much better at flying in WGC
>
> contests.
>
>
>
> So far, the RC has felt that running contests these ways would attract
>
> fewer people, be less fun, moderately less safe, and much less well
>
> attended. Again, we can and will have that argument later.
>
>
>
> For now, which should be our number one goal? A great team, even if
>
> that means smaller and more expensive contests? Or participation, fun,
>
> and development, even if that means a somewhat less successful world
>
> team?
>
>
>
> This is not an easy question
>
>
>
> I hope we can split the difference a bit with more team training camps
>
> (open to all pilots) run under FAI rules, and I would love for one of
>
> the FAI rules fanatics to put in the effort to run a continental
>
> championship under FAI rules. I would love for one of them to run
>
> regionals under FAI rules to put the "build it and they will come"
>
> theory to the test.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane
>
>
>
> > Thanks for any help.
>
>
>
> You're welcome! Now, help us with this tough issue.

Andrzej Kobus

January 17th 13, 01:12 AM

On Jan 16, 10:03*am, John Cochrane > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:45*pm, rlovinggood > wrote:> Mr. Ray Galloway (P1) asked for me to post the following note:
>
> > There has been much discussion over the differences between the FAI rules and the US rules.
>
> *This is partly due to the fact that the US is the only country that
> does not follow FAI rules.
>
> This is simply not true. The vast majority of countries, in fact, use
> their own rules. Look em' up; it's not hard, just look up the national
> soaring association (equivalent of ssa.org) and then find their
> contest rules. Canada, UK, Australia are all in English so you can see
> them. You will find nice long rules just like ours. You will not find
> "for competition rules see IGC annex A" period, full stop.
>
> It is true that many countries bend their rules towards the IGC
> standard, for example in scoring formulas, turnpoint definitions,
> start and finish definitions, etc. It is also true that almost all
> countries modify these and other rules and procedures, as well as
> filling in the vast blank space in FAI rules covered under "local
> procedures." Contrariwise, it is also true that many features of US
> rules are similar to FAI rules. We do, after all, fly assigned and
> area tasks, defined in pretty much the same way. But it is simply not
> true that they 'follow FAI rules" and we do not.
>
>
>
> > At the 1985 WGC the US team was among the top contenders. In 2010 WGC, the last year that figures are available, we were 23 out of 24. In 25 years we have gone from near the top to next to last.
>
> > There is one indisputable fact---they are wining and we are losing. Maybe we should consider joining the rest of the world.
>
> The Rules Committee faces a really tough problem. Shall we design
> contests whose number one goal is to train pilots to do well at world
> gliding championships -- even if that means that we see fewer pilots
> participating, fewer contests being run, smaller turnouts at the
> contests we do run, organizers losing money? Or should we design
> contests whose number one goals are safety, fun, and widespread
> participation; getting people involved in contest soaring?
>
> Put aside the question of which set of rules will attract more people
> -- the camp that says "use FAI rules and more will come" has an
> argument, but needs to prove its case by running regionals under FAI
> rules and seeing if US pilots do indeed prefer that format. And we can
> end up either way on that question.
>
> But answer for us Ray and Ray's deeper question: which should be the
> GOAL: producing a better world team, or participation:
>
> Should we turn all our contests into "team training camps" to prepare
> people for the.hard decisions they will face in contests like
> Argentina? To wit,
> -gaggle and start tactics,
> -team/pair flying,
> -extensive ground support,
> -deep knowledge of world rules quirks, like when you should
> intentionally land out 100 meter short of the finish line or when you
> should abandon the chance of getting home and just go for distance in
> the cylinders,
> -day after day of landing out on long assigned tasks, meaning full
> time crew is mandatory,
> -or (as in Uvlade) dealing with tasks that force you to fly into
> thunderstorms,
> -eventually (as in europe) buying and learning the art of motor
> management
> -tactics for unlimited altitude starts (thermal wave at Uvalde,
> gaggling in clouds elsewhere); tactics for limited altitude no time
> limit starts (VNE dives)
> -final glides to a line 3 km short of the airport; landing in fields
> 0-3 km of the airport
>
> etc. etc.
>
> This is not a rant. These are just some of the features of contests
> run under FAI rules that require long study and practice to master.
> And US pilots are not that great at many of these aspects, and moving
> all our contests to mirror WGC conditions would undoubtedly produce a
> small number of pilots who were much better at flying in WGC
> contests.
>
> So far, the RC has felt that running contests these ways would attract
> fewer people, be less fun, moderately less safe, and much less well
> attended. Again, we can and will have that argument later.
>
> For now, which should be our number one goal? A great team, even if
> that means smaller and more expensive contests? Or participation, fun,
> and development, even if that means a somewhat less successful world
> team?
>
> This is not an easy question
>
> I hope we can split the difference a bit with more team training camps
> (open to all pilots) run under FAI rules, and I would love for one of
> the FAI rules fanatics to put in the effort to run a continental
> championship under FAI rules. I would love for one of them to run
> regionals under FAI rules to put the "build it and they will come"
> theory to the test.
>
> John Cochrane
>
> > Thanks for any help.
>
> You're welcome! Now, help us with this tough issue.

The quote below is from 2008 SRA Pilot Opinion Poll Results. The
commentary attached to the question and written by RC has only one
purpose influence results of the poll. I hope the next poll you guys
produce on the subject of the club class and the IGC rules will not
contain any commentaries like in the question below. Everyone please
read the commentary and think for a moment. We want an honest debate
and an honest questions not like what is in the example below. A poll
question should be simple and should not be suggestive and for sure
should not have any commentary in it.

Question:
Several pilots have suggested that the US introduce a club class for
both regional and
national competition. Only gliders on the current US team club class
selection list could
enter a club class contest. (You can see the US team club class list
here. The WGC club
class list is too unstable and excludes too many gliders in widespread
US use.)
Like allmajor changes, this would be implemented gradually. We would
start with a few
demonstration contests by waiver, it would then become available for
regionals and
super-regionals, then for nationals, and then the US team would use
this class for WGC
selection. Each step depends on sufficient interest and positive pilot
opinion.
Note: This is a big question, with many more pros and cons than we can
list here. It is
on the poll more to stimulate discussion and encourage pilot feedback
than to reach
any final decisions.

Pro: We should establish in the US a class that more closely mirrors
the club class at
WGC contests. A class focused on handicapped racing of older gliders,
not trying also
to be a newcomer class and accommodate a large handicap range, could
have a higher
level of competition. With this class, the US could develop a larger
base of wellprepared
club gliders and top pilots, and we could better prepare our club
class pilots
to compete at the world level. Though "con" worries about eventual
effects on sports
class, little harm can come from trying the concept at a regional or
super-regional
level.

Con: The problem in US contest soaring is too many classes and too
little participation.
Adding another class, defined by who it excludes, goes the wrong way.
Most nationals
already have to co-locate two contests to remain viable. At 2008
Sports Nationals, only
11 of the 30 entries qualified for team points, though the glider
limitation was in place.
A 19-entry sports class and an 11-entry club class are not viable.
Most regionals
cannot fill both classes. If we kill sports class, many pilots have
nowhere to go.
The glider limitation for world team points is already in place. What
does excluding the
other gliders achieve? Sports class nationals are already a “racing”
class, not a
“beginner” class. A desire to have more “racing” at a regional level
can be
accommodated by more aggressive tasking.
A US club class will be a small, mediocre, “specialist” class. Most
national-level US
contest pilots (72 of 88 entries in 2008 standard,15,18) fly recent-
vintage ineligible
gliders. These pilots will fly sports, and be part of the US club
team, but the vast
majority are not going to borrow or buy an old glider to fly club
class when they have a
much better glider sitting in the garage. The sports class has been
around a long time,
giving just as much incentive to develop a pilot and glider base, but
this has not
happened in sufficient numbers. Most serious contest pilots move on to
better gliders.
The world class was founded on a similar “build it and they will come”
promise, which
did not pan out.

[email protected]

January 17th 13, 02:33 AM

> MATs and AAT's are just not attractive to pilots who want glider racing.
>Sean F (F2)

Your comment above is incorrect. There have been 6 race days in the Argentina CC WGC so far and four have been AAT. AAT are very popular at IGC contests.

Richard Walters

who's me?

January 17th 13, 03:39 AM

Respectfully I have known P1 since he weighed 172 lbs. and had dark hair and probably the only one to have kiss the top of his bald head ( Cordele Nantionals). His concerns regarding the rules we fly under have been a nagging thorn in his side and will most likely carry them to his grave.
I was in his camp until a light bulb went off at a SRC meeting in Perry a few years ago when a Committee member revealed some of the FAI rules that I found hard to accept, mainly in the scoring area. At this meeting was a former US Team member and he informed me that not flying under FAI rules did not really affect his flying at the Worlds. I now believe that the rules the US competes under are far better than FAI in allowing me to enjoy what all of the deserving have created.
I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.
Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.
R

Sean F (F2)

January 17th 13, 05:55 AM

Forgot word "as." ...as attractive...

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

January 17th 13, 01:00 PM

This discussion should be more about tasking than rules.

My $0.02: more ATs, please, especially in good wx. No 30 mile radius AATs unless it's some kind of ridge or wave day and the course line is bloody obvious to all. No "rat maze" long MATs with 11 legs all less than 30 miles, zizagging across the home airport. Creatively called long MAT with longer legs, covering more terrain is okay.

And: bring back the low finish at the airport in venues where it makes sense.

We can do all that under US rules or FAI rules, it makes no difference to me.

T8

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

January 17th 13, 01:06 PM

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:00:17 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> This discussion should be more about tasking than rules.
>
>
>
> My $0.02: more ATs, please, especially in good wx. No 30 mile radius AATs unless it's some kind of ridge or wave day and the course line is bloody obvious to all. No "rat maze" long MATs with 11 legs all less than 30 miles, zizagging across the home airport. Creatively called long MAT with longer legs, covering more terrain is okay.
>
>
>
> And: bring back the low finish at the airport in venues where it makes sense.
>
>
>
> We can do all that under US rules or FAI rules, it makes no difference to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> T8

Forgot most important point of all: "Use all the weather". We leave way too much weather on the table when it's good. This is the one redeeming aspect of the MAT. If the CD has cold feet and calls 2.5 hours when 3.5 is easy and 4 is possible, I at least have the option of leaving best scoring aside and using up the day.

T8

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 17th 13, 03:06 PM

On Jan 17, 7:06*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:00:17 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> > This discussion should be more about tasking than rules.
>
> > My $0.02: more ATs, please, especially in good wx. *No 30 mile radius AATs unless it's some kind of ridge or wave day and the course line is bloody obvious to all. *No "rat maze" long MATs with 11 legs all less than 30 miles, zizagging across the home airport. *Creatively called long MAT with longer legs, covering more terrain is okay.
>
> > And: bring back the low finish at the airport in venues where it makes sense.
>
> > We can do all that under US rules or FAI rules, it makes no difference to me.
>
> > T8
>
> Forgot most important point of all: "Use all the weather". *We leave way too much weather on the table when it's good. *This is the one redeeming aspect of the MAT. *If the CD has cold feet and calls 2.5 hours when 3.5 is easy and 4 is possible, I at least have the option of leaving best scoring aside and using up the day.
>
> T8

I agree with all this -- but these are CD issues not rules issues.
TALK TO YOUR CD! The rules are very flexible, and set up so contests
can serve the wishes of the pilots who are there. We just need to
communicate better. Want short tasks and long beer? Fine. Want long
use the day tasks? Want assigned tasks with 25% landouts? Tell the
CD!

John Cochrane

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 17th 13, 03:17 PM

> I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.
> Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.
> R

Yeah, I'm really surprised that this winter's flame war has been over
the idea of using IGC rules, like next spring, at nationals. I thought
for sure that flarm radar (require stealth mode?), the team-flying and
pilot to pilot communication experiment, and the structure of future
national competition (more handicaps? merge classes?) would be the
huge issues we'd be discussing over the winter. Surely, these are the
issues that have bedeviled the rules committee the most -- we really
don't have clean simple answers here. And, in practice, they still
look to me like the issues with the likely most profound impact on US
contest soaring this and in the next few years.

A minor point. As I think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever for
the US to have two sets of rules as fundamentally different as IGC and
US going on at the same time. If one contest uses a line, no altitude
limit, kilometers, and no penalty buffer zones, while the next contest
uses a cylinder, altitude limit, miles, and buffer zones, there will
be no end of confusion. Scorers and CDs can barely keep up with one
set of rules. It also makes no sense to create a completely new set of
hybrid rules halfway between US and IGC, losing the many years of
experience behind every single paragraph in the US rules and opening
us up to who knows how many bugs.

So, the question really is, should the US go wholehog to IGC annex A
for its rules, in all classes. The RC is starting to be attracted to
the idea, because then we could all quit and go home, and if you don't
like a rule, call Switzerland.

Look for it to be polled in the fall.

John Cochrane

ASM

January 17th 13, 04:49 PM

Hi John,

Let me reverse the idea here: is it possible to propose to the IGC to adopt the US SSA rules? In that case we could fly worldwide under the same rules and all the issues would go away. Jacek, Pasco, WA

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

January 17th 13, 04:53 PM

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:17:35 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.
>
> > Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.
>
> > R
>
>
>
> Yeah, I'm really surprised that this winter's flame war has been over
>
> the idea of using IGC rules, like next spring, at nationals. I thought
>
> for sure that flarm radar (require stealth mode?), the team-flying and
>
> pilot to pilot communication experiment, and the structure of future
>
> national competition (more handicaps? merge classes?) would be the
>
> huge issues we'd be discussing over the winter. Surely, these are the
>
> issues that have bedeviled the rules committee the most -- we really
>
> don't have clean simple answers here. And, in practice, they still
>
> look to me like the issues with the likely most profound impact on US
>
> contest soaring this and in the next few years.
>
>
>
> A minor point. As I think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever for
>
> the US to have two sets of rules as fundamentally different as IGC and
>
> US going on at the same time. If one contest uses a line, no altitude
>
> limit, kilometers, and no penalty buffer zones, while the next contest
>
> uses a cylinder, altitude limit, miles, and buffer zones, there will
>
> be no end of confusion. Scorers and CDs can barely keep up with one
>
> set of rules. It also makes no sense to create a completely new set of
>
> hybrid rules halfway between US and IGC, losing the many years of
>
> experience behind every single paragraph in the US rules and opening
>
> us up to who knows how many bugs.
>
>
>
> So, the question really is, should the US go wholehog to IGC annex A
>
> for its rules, in all classes. The RC is starting to be attracted to
>
> the idea, because then we could all quit and go home, and if you don't
>
> like a rule, call Switzerland.
>
>
>
> Look for it to be polled in the fall.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I honestly don't get it, either. There are things about the US rules I really like: the airport bonus comes to mind immediately. There are things I really dislike: the way we treat motorgliders (I stay quiet only because there are so few MGs in 15m. It's just not the same game.).

The reason I can't get too worked up about flying FAI vs US is that I am more concerned with soaring well than scoring well. I find that when I soar well, the score takes care of itself. I am pretty sure I would find that this was also the case under FAI rules.

T8

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 17th 13, 05:51 PM

On Jan 17, 10:49*am, ASM > wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Let me reverse the idea here: is it possible to propose to the IGC to adopt the US SSA rules? In that case we could fly worldwide under the same rules and all the issues would go away. Jacek, Pasco, WA

We can propose all we want, and many have. So far, no luck. Ken
Sorenson and John Good were unable to get the IGC to accept our start
procedure at Uvalde, resulting in a few starts where some competitors
got up in thermal wave and others didn't.

John Cochrane

Sean F (F2)

January 17th 13, 06:17 PM

I agree as well, tasking (ATs whenever humanly possible) is a critical issue and concern. Team flying has already been addressed (wonderful!). Many of the common sense US safety rules are (more than) fine with me personally although I cannot speak for everyone.

I see no relative difference in a 500 ft finish and ground finish other than higher risk. I personally like the safety factor as it has very little downside. If, however, the finish height was zero I would be ok. The rules are not the safety issue the pilots are.

1) If US rules had guidelines for more ATs I believe contest customer sat. goes up!

And 2) If there was one US Club Class Nationals run with IGC rules (even slightly "moderated" IGC) the USA would be a better place!

Sean
F2

[email protected]

January 17th 13, 11:41 PM

At the Uvalde worlds 2012 there were 6 racing tasks and 7 Area tasks.

ASW27BV

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

January 18th 13, 12:40 AM

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:51:33 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Jan 17, 10:49*am, ASM > wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
>
> >
>
> > Let me reverse the idea here: is it possible to propose to the IGC to adopt the US SSA rules? In that case we could fly worldwide under the same rules and all the issues would go away. Jacek, Pasco, WA
>
>
>
> We can propose all we want, and many have. So far, no luck. Ken
>
> Sorenson and John Good were unable to get the IGC to accept our start
>
> procedure at Uvalde, resulting in a few starts where some competitors
>
> got up in thermal wave and others didn't.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I heard that there was a massive protest over start altitude limits during the practice (re, "training") period in Uvalde and the result was this nutty unlimited start. But I can't recall that I ever heard *why* there was an objection to an altitude limit.

T8

noel.wade

January 18th 13, 01:39 AM

A few points, as someone who's just come into glider racing in the
last 5 years:

1) I've studied US and IGC/FAI rules and I think that in many ways the
USA rules are far superior. Because we haven't tried to get multiple
nations to agree to our rules-set, we've been able to adapt and evolve
our rules more readily over the years and I think it has bred a better
system. Our finishes are safer, our tasks often leave less to dumb
luck (more on that in a minute) and scoring quirks, etc. I don't love
every rule in the book and I think that some of our procedures
definitely DO work against us when pilots have to change gears and
adapt to IGC/FAI rules for international contests.

BUT, as John points out, a very few pilots ever go to the Worlds and
the idea of throwing out our rules-set so that a few of the top pilots
get better practice at local events before heading off to the worlds
seems backwards and elitist. The SSA is a national organization that
is supposedly targeting _all_ soaring participants, not just a select
few. Therefore, our rules should support broad and fair competition
that works well and is compatible with our FAA rules, our airspace,
our liability laws (i.e. landouts, distance-days, low finishes,
accidents, etc). That may put us at a disadvantage in world
competitions, but I fail to see how our standing at World
Championships is anything but a vanity issue. Sure finishing on top
*might* have some PR and recruiting advantages for growing the sport;
but there are far more things we can do at the local and regional (and
national) level to grow the sport, than to hope for some "Olympic
moment" to get US culture to change and suddenly value soaring. I
mean, when's the last time you heard a bunch of people say they were
going to take up skiing simply because they heard about an American
winning the FAI Apline or Super-G championships? AND, I might add,
the sport of skiing does just fine in the USA despite a lot of
Europeans winning the top prizes year after year.

2) As for the comment from some people that "we need to call ATs". I
couldn't disagree with you more. While AATs and MATs can be poorly
called (and those are a CD issue, not a rules issue), the AT is a
fundamentally flawed metric for testing pilot skill. That 1 mile
cylinder forces pilots to all fly virtually the same route between
waypoints. You might think that forcing pilots to fly similar courses
is a good thing, but that TOTALLY ignores the fact that the atmosphere
is changing all the time. Just because they fly over the same points
on the ground does _NOT_ mean they fly through the same AIR. And
while you can do _some_ planning ahead when you choose to start on-
course, you simply cannot forecast what the air will be doing over a
particular point on the ground 1-2 hours down the course ahead of
you. This means that pilots who fly along the course legs and
encounter more rising air than their opponents have a HUGE advantage
over the pilots who don't hit that rising air. An AT constrains the
less-lucky pilots and gives them far fewer options, because your
course is essentially fixed and ANY course deviation adds distance and
time. If I go through the start gate 5 minutes after my opponent, but
I hit 2 less thermals on-course as a result is it really a fair judge
of pilot skill if he then wins and I lose? Sure, he exhibited some
skill in picking the exact right time to leave the start gate; but did
he (or she) actually _predict_ that they'd find that extra thermal or
two 100 miles down-course if they left the start-gate at that exact
moment? Is that really a predictable and repeatable skill we should
be evaluating pilots on?

With a reasonable AAT or TAT, you can still make an equal _distance_
by flying a different course-line. So deviating to hit rising air (or
escape sinking air) is not an immediate penalty. The upshot of this
is that an AAT/TAT with reasonably-sized turn cylinders evens out the
luck-factor and gives pilots who start at slightly different times a
chance at encountering the same number of thermals throughout their
entire flight. Compared to an AT, you're dampening the luck-factor in
finding thermals directly on-course. This allows two other skills to
have a larger impact on a pilot's contest performance: Their ability
to find lift (and deviate to it when worthwhile), and their ability to
work lift (or overall glide efficiency) better than their opponents.

So you tell me: What do YOU think is the important factor in
determining the "best" glider pilot out there - their ability to leave
the Start Gate at a precise time and find lift directly on-course? Or
their ability to read the sky while on-course, deviate to lift, and
work it optimally?

Just like Baseball statistics are evolving and the rise of
sabermetrics has allowed us to more accurately measure game-state and
find true player skill, so too can evolutions in contest tasking.

--Noel

noel.wade

January 18th 13, 01:42 AM

Quick correction: Below I should have said "FIS Alpine or Super-G
championships"... D'oh!

On Jan 17, 5:39*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
> mean, when's the last time you heard a bunch of people say they were
> going to take up skiing simply because they heard about an American
> winning the FAI Apline or Super-G championships? *AND, I might add,
>

[email protected]

January 18th 13, 04:49 PM

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:39:24 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:

Noel makes some interesting points and has obviously given the topic some careful thought.
I do not think that the AT is by any means an unfair test, if used properly.
The rules appendix, section 10.3 provides guidelines covering task calling.
It calls for a balanced variety of tasks to be called.
It also gives useful guidance as the when each type of task can and should be used.
I suspect many CD's have not read and applied these guidelines well.
Those commenting on US tasking philosophy would do well to read what the rules writers have intended and communicated.
Noel- thank you for constructively commenting for all to share.
UH

noel.wade

January 18th 13, 05:06 PM

Sean - So rather than trying to defend your position that ATs need to be called more, you just fall back on sarcasm? I like Dr. Evil as much as the next guy, but its not a convincing argument that one of us is right or wrong.

I know there is a lot of tradition and emotion behind the AT. Just like there's a lot or tradition and emotion behind having Umpires call balls and strikes in baseball. But modern studies have proven how inconsistent and inaccurate Umpires are at calling the strike zone as-written in the rule book. Now I'm not saying that the AT doesn't judge some flying skill, or that its "not fair". I'm saying that what it judges may or may not be the best way to determine who the best pilot is; and that the behaviors an AT encourages/dictates _can_ cause luck to play a larger factor in the outcome.

--Noel

Papa3[_2_]

January 18th 13, 06:58 PM

On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:49:40 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:39:24 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Noel makes some interesting points and has obviously given the topic some careful thought.
>
> I do not think that the AT is by any means an unfair test, if used properly.
>
> The rules appendix, section 10.3 provides guidelines covering task calling.
>
> It calls for a balanced variety of tasks to be called.
>
> It also gives useful guidance as the when each type of task can and should be used.
>
> I suspect many CD's have not read and applied these guidelines well.
>
> Those commenting on US tasking philosophy would do well to read what the rules writers have intended and communicated.
>
> Noel- thank you for constructively commenting for all to share.
>
> UH

An interesting data point would be the 2011 Standard Class Nationals in Cordele. We had arguably the best weather of the year and certainly the best in the East for quite some time (rarely less than 7,000 foot bases with most days featuring Cu and lift of 5kts or better). We had a CD (P1) who was dead set on calling more ATs to help us be "competitive when we go to the Worlds." Yet, we only ended up with 2 ATs out of 8 competition days, and one of the ATs was an undercall with significant devaluation. I believe the A Task on at least 2 of the remaining days was an AT, but they were dialed back to AAT after the day didn't seem as good as forecast during the pre-start (not as good meant "only" 4kts to 4,500 or 5,000). Yet, even on those days, the winning speed was never less than 70kts.

This is in no way a criticism of Ray; he did a great job. But, it clearly wasn't a "rules issue." We had the weather. It was a Nationals. We had the intent. Yet, when there was even the slightest chance that the day would be tough, the advisors and CD felt the need to fall back. Why?

Not sure what that says about the whole debate about whether there would/should be more ATs if we flew under a different set of rules...

P3

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 18th 13, 07:11 PM

>
> An interesting data point would be the 2011 Standard Class Nationals in Cordele. * We had arguably the best weather of the year and certainly the best in the East for quite some time (rarely less than 7,000 foot bases with most days featuring Cu and lift of 5kts or better). *We had a CD (P1) who was dead set on calling more ATs to help us be "competitive when we go to the Worlds." * Yet, we only ended up with 2 ATs out of 8 competition days, and one of the ATs was an undercall with significant devaluation. * *I believe the A Task on at least 2 of the remaining days was an AT, but they were dialed back to AAT after the day didn't seem as good as forecast during the pre-start (not as good meant "only" 4kts to 4,500 or 5,000). *Yet, even on those days, the winning speed was never less than 70kts.
>
> This is in no way a criticism of Ray; he did a great job. But, it clearly wasn't a "rules issue." *We had the weather. *It was a Nationals. *We had the intent. * Yet, when there was even the slightest chance that the day would be tough, the advisors and CD felt the need to fall back. Why?
>
> Not sure what that says about the whole debate about whether there would/should be more ATs if we flew under a different set of rules...
>
> P3

Yeah, I think like many things in soaring, there is a big difference
between winter dreaming at the keyboard and putting stick in hand and
going.

We all know what the AT means. A lot more "race" feel, since you see
your buddies out on course. A lot more emphasis on start time and
gaggle/marker strategy. A lot greater danger of being sent to a
turnpoint that's in a thunderstorm, or totally dead area. So, a bigger
chance of mass landouts. A lot greater chance of overcalls and
undercalls. Either the task is too short for the fast guys (who then
spend up spending hours playing start games, or landing under a sky
full of cus) or it's too long for the slow guys. And, a lot better
preparation for WGCs where this stuff is all more common.

It's easy to see how we get all full of enthusiasm in the winter but
shy away from actually doing it in the summer!

John Cochrane

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

January 18th 13, 07:13 PM

On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:58:51 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:49:40 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:39:24 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Noel makes some interesting points and has obviously given the topic some careful thought.
>
> >
>
> > I do not think that the AT is by any means an unfair test, if used properly.
>
> >
>
> > The rules appendix, section 10.3 provides guidelines covering task calling.
>
> >
>
> > It calls for a balanced variety of tasks to be called.
>
> >
>
> > It also gives useful guidance as the when each type of task can and should be used.
>
> >
>
> > I suspect many CD's have not read and applied these guidelines well.
>
> >
>
> > Those commenting on US tasking philosophy would do well to read what the rules writers have intended and communicated.
>
> >
>
> > Noel- thank you for constructively commenting for all to share.
>
> >
>
> > UH
>
>
>
> An interesting data point would be the 2011 Standard Class Nationals in Cordele. We had arguably the best weather of the year and certainly the best in the East for quite some time (rarely less than 7,000 foot bases with most days featuring Cu and lift of 5kts or better). We had a CD (P1) who was dead set on calling more ATs to help us be "competitive when we go to the Worlds." Yet, we only ended up with 2 ATs out of 8 competition days, and one of the ATs was an undercall with significant devaluation. I believe the A Task on at least 2 of the remaining days was an AT, but they were dialed back to AAT after the day didn't seem as good as forecast during the pre-start (not as good meant "only" 4kts to 4,500 or 5,000). Yet, even on those days, the winning speed was never less than 70kts.
>
>
>
> This is in no way a criticism of Ray; he did a great job. But, it clearly wasn't a "rules issue." We had the weather. It was a Nationals. We had the intent. Yet, when there was even the slightest chance that the day would be tough, the advisors and CD felt the need to fall back. Why?
>
>
>
> Not sure what that says about the whole debate about whether there would/should be more ATs if we flew under a different set of rules...
>
>
>
> P3

It says that CDs and advisors really don't like to land people out. That's not a bad thing.

Part of the story has to be that we've had so few ATs called in the last 15 years that we don't have much of a track record on them.

It's worth noting in passing that there is a *huge* difference (imo, anyway) between FAI and US ATs. The US AT is an AAT with 1 stature mile radius turn areas. The FAI course has smaller turn sectors and is scored on fixed distance. The US style has some significant safety advantages (obviously) and also encourages some somewhat different tactics (net positive sporting value imo, but not the right training for WGC).

T8

[email protected]

January 18th 13, 07:36 PM

Having flown in 13 WGC's, a number of European nationals, and in US comps in the days when the assigned task (AT) was the only task used, if I never fly another AT it will be too soon.

The AT is a mindless, hand-holding, relatively dangerous, day-wasting, score leveling exercise that deserves the same fate as the altitude, duration and straight distance tasks that have been appropriately consigned to the dust bin of history.

As for the argument that we should march lock step with the glacial, uninspired IGC bureaucracy, baloney! Just as in many areas where US innovation has made us proud (space, GPS, IT, right turn on red, etc, etc) we should lead the way, not grovel in the dust.

One example that worked: The original TAT (AAT in other lands) had turn areas described by radials and arcs from a point. We stayed with the simpler circle and they finally came along.

As capably noted by previous authors, our national contests are not conducted solely so that a few of us US Team contenders might fly in exact conditions found at WGC's. As noted, our rules committee must consider far more than this to appeal to a wider range of pilots.

AT's encourage mass gaggling from start to finish. I remember one such event on a blue day at an 80's national contest at Hobbs. Everyone, save one pilot, refused to be the first to leave resulting in a late start, 3 hours of near miss thermalling, mindless leeching, and slower speeds. At the pilots meeting the next day the lone wolf pilot was recognized by a round of applause by the those of us that played dodge um all day. Wish I could remember his name.

The difference between US and WGC rules is miniscule and of no consequence in determining who we should be on the team. The pilot that finds the best lift and least sink will win, and our rules certainly will pick that pilot.

Karl Striedieck

Wallace Berry[_2_]

January 18th 13, 08:50 PM

I really don't care who's rules we use as long as we actually race and
go somewhere rather than flying idiot cat's cradle tasks that are "6
turns and go around twice", or area tasks where the circles nearly
overlap. Unless the weather is frankly dangerous, I'd rather land out
100 miles away than fly tasks where I can communicate with my crew by
hollering out the vent window.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 18th 13, 09:51 PM

On Jan 18, 2:50*pm, Wallace Berry > wrote:
> I really don't care who's rules we use as long as we actually race and
> go somewhere rather than flying idiot cat's cradle tasks that are "6
> turns and go around twice", or area tasks where the circles nearly
> overlap. Unless the weather is frankly dangerous, I'd rather land out
> 100 miles away than fly tasks where I can communicate with my crew by
> hollering out the vent window.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Talk to the CD. Talk to the CD. Talk to the CD....Or, these days, talk
to the task advisers, talk to the task advisers, talk to the task
advisers.

There is nothing in the rules that mandates calling unrestricted MATs.
Long MATs, restrictions on using or reusing close-in turnpoints,
restrictions on number of turnpoints, etc. etc. are all in the CD
toolkit for avoiding the mind-numbing churn around three points in
gliding distance of the home airport.

John Cochrane

Sean F (F2)

January 18th 13, 10:27 PM

I just want to say that reading everyone's posts are alot of fun. Thanks! I hope my attempt at humor was not taken as an insult (Dr. Evil, Riiiight!). I just completely disagree with the logic presented. For me people have 1000's of opinions. I still drink beer with people and call them great friends (and they me) even if we disagree passionately about a number of topics. Same applies to us here.

For me, an AAT and especially the infamous MAT (more commonly referred to as the HAT or "half assed task") are abominations to competition and pointless. We should just fly OLC and save the cost of certified loggers ;-) as we seem to fly these tasks 95% of the time!

To Karl: If I were you and had been chased around by leeches for a couple decades, I likely would have a different viewpoint. ;-). Fortunately I do not have this problem as of yet. So I don't mind the idea of these things and don't think that AAT's, MAT's or AT's make that much difference in the tactics of pilots who like to leech or start late and jump the gaggles. The same start cylinder gaggles exist in all of these tasks. Who are we kidding? ;-)

At the end of the day I will respect the elders here and have read the various posts & viewpoints. Some are compelling to me, but most fall short.

I wish to fly more (much more) AT's. IGC is not the key to my happiness however. The AT's in Uvalde 2011 were the most exciting, enjoyable flights of my soaring career (US Rules I believe). The gaggle's were almost non-existant (mainly AT tasks!!!). The group of 15-20 18 meter gliders regularly broke into small packs of 2 or 3 at most. Everyone was going so fast, so far, etc between thermals. Pilots with different tactics split up early and were never seen again. Maybe weak eastern conditions provides more gaggles in AT's, but so what? I saw more gaggles in Fairfield this fall during AAT and MAT tasks then I have seen in the AT's I have flown (to be honest).

As a sailboat racer (regularly within feet of competitors at full speed) I don't really mind close contact or gaggles in gliders. I respect them for sure but am not fearful of them. I think, if you want to call yourself a glider racer you need to build the skills & confidence necessary to manage gaggles and traffic (Flarm, scan, etc). Sometimes I have decided to leave a thermal when it becomes too unpredictable or a glider enters in a dangerous manner. But, we cant make rules that eliminate other gliders from the program entirely (even though some might like to try!).

Sean
F2

noel.wade

January 19th 13, 01:05 AM

Sean -

I'm not offended by your comments, so no worries there.

But saying that certain tasks are "abominations to competition and
pointless" is rather unhelpful and hyperbolic. What is it about the
AAT/TAT and MAT that you hate so much? Can you at least put into
words what kinds of flying, or pilot behavior, or skills that you feel
these tasks inappropriately focus on?

I'm glad you felt exhilarated flying some AT tasks; but have you
considered that maybe the site, weather, or contest committee were the
reason for that - not just the task type?

A good AAT/TAT should be challenging, fun, exhilarating, and provide
many tense moments where you have to choose what course-line to take,
how far to run into cylinders, when to head for home, etc. If you're
not having those experiences in your normal contest flying, then your
contest staff are not calling good tasks.

Lastly, please note that none of us are saying we are scared of gaggle-
flying or unwilling to do it. But there's a difference between having
the occasional gaggle on-course, and a contest task that explicitly
encourages pilots to always stick together and never be innovative or
think on their own, or try their own thing. Its been proven that AT
racing rules strongly encourage and reward gaggle-flying, where
everyone stays together - and the individual who strikes out on their
own loses the vast, VAST majority of the time.

--Noel

Papa3[_2_]

January 19th 13, 02:03 AM

On Friday, January 18, 2013 8:05:57 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
> Sean -
>
>
>
> I'm not offended by your comments, so no worries there.
>
>
>
> But saying that certain tasks are "abominations to competition and
>
> pointless" is rather unhelpful and hyperbolic. What is it about the
>
> AAT/TAT and MAT that you hate so much? Can you at least put into
>
> words what kinds of flying, or pilot behavior, or skills that you feel
>
> these tasks inappropriately focus on?
>
>
>
> I'm glad you felt exhilarated flying some AT tasks; but have you
>
> considered that maybe the site, weather, or contest committee were the
>
> reason for that - not just the task type?
>
>
>
> A good AAT/TAT should be challenging, fun, exhilarating, and provide
>
> many tense moments where you have to choose what course-line to take,
>
> how far to run into cylinders, when to head for home, etc. If you're
>
> not having those experiences in your normal contest flying, then your
>
> contest staff are not calling good tasks.
>
>
>
> Lastly, please note that none of us are saying we are scared of gaggle-
>
> flying or unwilling to do it. But there's a difference between having
>
> the occasional gaggle on-course, and a contest task that explicitly
>
> encourages pilots to always stick together and never be innovative or
>
> think on their own, or try their own thing. Its been proven that AT
>
> racing rules strongly encourage and reward gaggle-flying, where
>
> everyone stays together - and the individual who strikes out on their
>
> own loses the vast, VAST majority of the time.
>
>
>
> --Noel

I was reflecting back on a couple of memorable ATs I've flown over the years. I suspect the reality is that, under good conditions, our US ATs are no more or less likely to have large, furball gaggles and actually do present some interesting tactical challenges. With relatively good conditions, Cu, and a reasonable likelihood of a long day, pilots will make different decisions about when to start. Also, with obvious Cu marking thermals, folks may take different lines or streets. I think of Day 4 at Cordele in 2011. A "manly" 260 mile triangle called by P1 under cu-filled sky with high bases. I picked what I thought was the optimal start considering time, development on course, and corker of a thermal at the edge of the cyclinder. Saw a few gliders here and there, but was never really "with" anyone for probably 200 of the 260 miles.

Contrast that with an AT 14 years earlier at the 1997 Nationals in Cordele. The task was a 156 mile quadrilateral with weakish lift to maybe 4,000 feet. I recall leaving a little later than some of the early starters - maybe middle of the pack. I actually caught up with some of the early guys on the first leg, but the later starters caught us by the first turn. For the next 3 hours probably 25 of the 30 ships in the fleet bounced between two gaggles around almost the whole course. For the most part, I remember it being relatively well behaved, though there were a few curt exchanges over the radio. I had some fun, but I recall being amazed that people were just trying to maintain position (this was my first nationals). The late starters had the race won by the first TP, and there was absolutely no way anyone was going to make a significant gain on the fleet with 30 pairs of eyes watching every ship that made even a small breakaway move. Real peleton stuff. The first 20 finishers all scored over 900 points, and 3/4 of those didn't make a single decision regarding courseline or tactics in the entire flight other than at the start.

Clearly in the second case, a AAT with even 10 mile cylinders would have reduced the gaggling somewhat and probably resulted in a broader spectrum of scores. IMO, that would have been a much tougher test than what we got.

[email protected]

January 19th 13, 04:02 AM

"One example that worked: The original TAT (AAT in other lands) had turn areas described by radials and arcs from a point. We stayed with the simpler circle and they finally came along."

Sorry, no. Radials and arcs (more often called 'wedges') are still in the FAI rules (Annex A, 7.5.2b) and actively used in other countries.
Popular in Australia at the moment as a timesoak as when set 'pointing' at the finish it brings all the gliders in on the same heading.

RW[_2_]

January 28th 13, 05:46 AM

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:17:35 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.
>
> > Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.
>
> > R
>
>
>
> Yeah, I'm really surprised that this winter's flame war has been over
>
> the idea of using IGC rules, like next spring, at nationals. I thought
>
> for sure that flarm radar (require stealth mode?), the team-flying and
>
> pilot to pilot communication experiment, and the structure of future
>
> national competition (more handicaps? merge classes?) would be the
>
> huge issues we'd be discussing over the winter. Surely, these are the
>
> issues that have bedeviled the rules committee the most -- we really
>
> don't have clean simple answers here. And, in practice, they still
>
> look to me like the issues with the likely most profound impact on US
>
> contest soaring this and in the next few years.
>
>
>
> A minor point. As I think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever for
>
> the US to have two sets of rules as fundamentally different as IGC and
>
> US going on at the same time. If one contest uses a line, no altitude
>
> limit, kilometers, and no penalty buffer zones, while the next contest
>
> uses a cylinder, altitude limit, miles, and buffer zones, there will
>
> be no end of confusion. Scorers and CDs can barely keep up with one
>
> set of rules. It also makes no sense to create a completely new set of
>
> hybrid rules halfway between US and IGC, losing the many years of
>
> experience behind every single paragraph in the US rules and opening
>
> us up to who knows how many bugs.
>
>
>
> So, the question really is, should the US go wholehog to IGC annex A
>
> for its rules, in all classes. The RC is starting to be attracted to
>
> the idea, because then we could all quit and go home, and if you don't
>
> like a rule, call Switzerland.
>
>
>
> Look for it to be polled in the fall.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

No, we need you John, too many contest pilots died of too low finishes ,
and nobody died of your stupid rules(don't push me to contact widow),
Make sure my last turn is above 500agl, make sure I never turn below 45 kts..
If I do, make sure I get penalized and look only at the gauges while landing.
Make me worry that all pilots want to fly like me and will follow me with all the time with theirs Flarms. Make sure that I safely crash land between collided gliders on the runway. Defend your rules. Let CD have a chance to set task, so opposite gaggles can fly with high speed head on.
This is your legacy.We need You.
Ryszard Krolikowski

[email protected]

January 28th 13, 02:02 PM

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:46:38 PM UTC-6, RW wrote:
> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:17:35 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > > I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.
>
> >
>
> > > Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.
>
> >
>
> > > R
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Yeah, I'm really surprised that this winter's flame war has been over
>
> >
>
> > the idea of using IGC rules, like next spring, at nationals. I thought
>
> >
>
> > for sure that flarm radar (require stealth mode?), the team-flying and
>
> >
>
> > pilot to pilot communication experiment, and the structure of future
>
> >
>
> > national competition (more handicaps? merge classes?) would be the
>
> >
>
> > huge issues we'd be discussing over the winter. Surely, these are the
>
> >
>
> > issues that have bedeviled the rules committee the most -- we really
>
> >
>
> > don't have clean simple answers here. And, in practice, they still
>
> >
>
> > look to me like the issues with the likely most profound impact on US
>
> >
>
> > contest soaring this and in the next few years.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A minor point. As I think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever for
>
> >
>
> > the US to have two sets of rules as fundamentally different as IGC and
>
> >
>
> > US going on at the same time. If one contest uses a line, no altitude
>
> >
>
> > limit, kilometers, and no penalty buffer zones, while the next contest
>
> >
>
> > uses a cylinder, altitude limit, miles, and buffer zones, there will
>
> >
>
> > be no end of confusion. Scorers and CDs can barely keep up with one
>
> >
>
> > set of rules. It also makes no sense to create a completely new set of
>
> >
>
> > hybrid rules halfway between US and IGC, losing the many years of
>
> >
>
> > experience behind every single paragraph in the US rules and opening
>
> >
>
> > us up to who knows how many bugs.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So, the question really is, should the US go wholehog to IGC annex A
>
> >
>
> > for its rules, in all classes. The RC is starting to be attracted to
>
> >
>
> > the idea, because then we could all quit and go home, and if you don't
>
> >
>
> > like a rule, call Switzerland.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Look for it to be polled in the fall.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > John Cochrane
>
>
>
> No, we need you John, too many contest pilots died of too low finishes ,
>
> and nobody died of your stupid rules(don't push me to contact widow),
>
> Make sure my last turn is above 500agl, make sure I never turn below 45 kts.
>
> If I do, make sure I get penalized and look only at the gauges while landing.
>
> Make me worry that all pilots want to fly like me and will follow me with all the time with theirs Flarms. Make sure that I safely crash land between collided gliders on the runway. Defend your rules. Let CD have a chance to set task, so opposite gaggles can fly with high speed head on.
>
> This is your legacy.We need You.
>
> Ryszard Krolikowski

Ryszard, your rambling 'irony' is completely lost on me. You seem to be bitter, clinging to your strictly assigned tasks and super-low finishes.
Sorry to say but times have passed you by. You won't find a majority of contest pilots going back to those rules. Dumping on those in the sport who want to make soaring contests safer is not helping your cause.

Sean F (F2)

January 28th 13, 05:09 PM

I dont think this discussion needs to be looked at as sinister. There are good people throughout the range of opinion here. I feel that there are justifications for US rules which are sensible, especially for new or conservative pilots. But there are others who would like to fly IGC and they have every right to want the right to have that choice within the USA and under their SSA organization.

I am confident that they WILL have that choice in the US within the next year and even this year, although it may not be at the 2013 Sports Class Nationals as was hoped. It will likely begin in Club Class but should be an option in all classes. Change is a slow process and significant communication and progress has occurred as a result of these debates. While these discussions may have become passionate at times, a positive result will be the outcome in the end.

I look forward to the upcoming season and flying US rules and potentially some IGC rules.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

[email protected]

January 28th 13, 09:09 PM

All

I've been a little preoccupied recently, but I'd like to throw in my perspective here since many of the discussion points seem polarized. I'd like to throw out some ideas about IGC vs US rules and Club class in particular. I have flown in 2 WGC's and one European National Championships.

The US scoring system is not the reason we are not as competitive as we would like to be. (I agree with Karl here) The reason is that our own contest scene is dwindling and not as competitive as it needs to be. (many reasons for this)

A major goal of the RC needs to be to promote a popular, competitive, contest scene. They are doing their best in a difficult environment. Our country is huge and has no areas of critical mass and focus for contest flying as many European countries do.

Having said that, part of promoting a competitive contest scene is to help drive competitiveness within the scoring.

The IGC speed/distance points approach rewards smaller differences in speed and helps to focus pilots on the value and importance of small improvements particularly at the top level. It is NOT the major driver for gaggling (though it has some influence) - gaggling is caused by the fear of losing points relative to other competitors and is rooted most importantly in the massive penalty for going alone and landing out that exists in our own US scoring. Karl himself has noted that gaggling in AST's in the blue at Hobbs happens WITHOUT IGC scoring to blame. That particular bugaboo (IGC drives gaggling) needs to be put in its place. It is a factor yes, but not the dominant one.

I would like to see us take the best of IGC and US systems. We can use IGC speed/distance points equations with our Start and finish procedures. We can reward speed differential more and help reduce the tiny margins by which many National competitions are won in the US. (I resemble that remark...)

Club is the most accessible, affordable racing class available to us. I believe club class is the long term foundation for pilot development in the US and can be an excellent trial class for a 'best of US/IGC' system. (thinking here that handicapping for wt as per the US is a plus, as one example of the ways we can pick the best system)

Club class afficionado's need to embrace a handicap range that matches the IGC high and low (not a Euro-centric cherry picked list that has NO relevance in the US)- the goal needs to be how to make the club class as popular and accessible as possible - competitiveness will then ensue. It is also a perfect development ground for junior pilots (see cost and accessibility)

With a more competitive contest scene, we will be able to send our pilots to WGC's with the confidence that their selection environment (like the Germans for example, whose Nationals in my experience are higher average standard than a WGC) ensures competitive performance.

I propose we stop religious warfare about scoring systems and focus our energies on how we can take the best of all systems into our own, to build a foundation for the future of US competitive soaring.

Hope this helps.

Peter Deane (my own views - not necessarily those of the USTC)

On Monday, 28 January 2013 09:09:04 UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I dont think this discussion needs to be looked at as sinister. There are good people throughout the range of opinion here. I feel that there are justifications for US rules which are sensible, especially for new or conservative pilots. But there are others who would like to fly IGC and they have every right to want the right to have that choice within the USA and under their SSA organization.
>
>
>
> I am confident that they WILL have that choice in the US within the next year and even this year, although it may not be at the 2013 Sports Class Nationals as was hoped. It will likely begin in Club Class but should be an option in all classes. Change is a slow process and significant communication and progress has occurred as a result of these debates. While these discussions may have become passionate at times, a positive result will be the outcome in the end.
>
>
>
> I look forward to the upcoming season and flying US rules and potentially some IGC rules.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2

Wallace Berry[_2_]

January 29th 13, 02:54 AM

In article >,
wrote:

> All
>
> I've been a little preoccupied recently, but I'd like to throw in my
> perspective here since many of the discussion points seem polarized. I'd like
> to throw out some ideas about IGC vs US rules and Club class in particular. I
> have flown in 2 WGC's and one European National Championships.
>
> The US scoring system is not the reason we are not as competitive as we would
> like to be. (I agree with Karl here) The reason is that our own contest scene
> is dwindling and not as competitive as it needs to be. (many reasons for
> this)
>
> A major goal of the RC needs to be to promote a popular, competitive, contest
> scene. They are doing their best in a difficult environment. Our country is
> huge and has no areas of critical mass and focus for contest flying as many
> European countries do.
>
> Having said that, part of promoting a competitive contest scene is to help
> drive competitiveness within the scoring.
>
> The IGC speed/distance points approach rewards smaller differences in speed
> and helps to focus pilots on the value and importance of small improvements
> particularly at the top level. It is NOT the major driver for gaggling
> (though it has some influence) - gaggling is caused by the fear of losing
> points relative to other competitors and is rooted most importantly in the
> massive penalty for going alone and landing out that exists in our own US
> scoring. Karl himself has noted that gaggling in AST's in the blue at Hobbs
> happens WITHOUT IGC scoring to blame. That particular bugaboo (IGC drives
> gaggling) needs to be put in its place. It is a factor yes, but not the
> dominant one.
>
> I would like to see us take the best of IGC and US systems. We can use IGC
> speed/distance points equations with our Start and finish procedures. We can
> reward speed differential more and help reduce the tiny margins by which many
> National competitions are won in the US. (I resemble that remark...)
>
> Club is the most accessible, affordable racing class available to us. I
> believe club class is the long term foundation for pilot development in the
> US and can be an excellent trial class for a 'best of US/IGC' system.
> (thinking here that handicapping for wt as per the US is a plus, as one
> example of the ways we can pick the best system)
>
> Club class afficionado's need to embrace a handicap range that matches the
> IGC high and low (not a Euro-centric cherry picked list that has NO relevance
> in the US)- the goal needs to be how to make the club class as popular and
> accessible as possible - competitiveness will then ensue. It is also a
> perfect development ground for junior pilots (see cost and accessibility)
>
> With a more competitive contest scene, we will be able to send our pilots to
> WGC's with the confidence that their selection environment (like the Germans
> for example, whose Nationals in my experience are higher average standard
> than a WGC) ensures competitive performance.
>
> I propose we stop religious warfare about scoring systems and focus our
> energies on how we can take the best of all systems into our own, to build a
> foundation for the future of US competitive soaring.
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Peter Deane (my own views - not necessarily those of the USTC)
>

Well said!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

noel.wade

January 29th 13, 08:31 PM

On Jan 28, 1:09*pm, wrote:

> Club is the most accessible, affordable racing class available to us. I believe club class is the long term foundation
> for pilot development in the US and can be an excellent trial class for a 'best of US/IGC' system. (thinking here that
> handicapping for wt as per the US is a plus, as one example of the ways we can pick the best system)
>
> Peter Deane (my own views - *not necessarily those of the USTC)

Regardless of whether or not you think "Club" or "Sports" is the way
to go, I would like to point at myself as the perfect example of what
Peter is referring to. I'm 35 (which is young for a US glider pilot).
I started gliding in late 2006. I bought my DG-300 in 2008 (a fancy
and "high-dollar" ship for someone with less than 100 hours in the
sport). I tried my first competition in early 2009 - a little regional
down at Warner Springs, CA.

If it wasn't for the Sports class, I probably never would have even
tried competitions (or maybe once, just to say I'd done it). But why
pay for competition entries just to get my ass repeatedly kicked by
D2s, V2s, and other high-dollar glass being flown by super-experienced
pilots?

The handicapping and spread of pilot experience made Sports Class far
more appealing. And the supportive atmosphere from fellow competitors
(especially the experienced ones who freely share their local
knowledge and wisdom) keep me coming back. And I've found that
atmosphere much more prevalent in Regional handicapped races, than at
high-stakes Nationals.

If you want to push the top end of the contest group, you need to
build a broad, solid base first. Over time a bigger base of pilots
will ensure you net more "top guns" (i.e. 1% of 5000 is more than 1%
of 1000). The cream will rise to the top, and drive everyone around
them (who's serious about staying on top) to do better. If you neglect
the base, the whole system slowly withers on the vine; and without new
blood coming up to challenge the existing top dogs, people aren't as
driven to evolve or improve. Things stagnate - the top dogs probably
stay on top; but only within their own limited peer-group. Eventually
age takes its toll and the top dogs disappear into the sunset - and
who is left to take their place?

--Noel
(with total respect and thanks for the top dogs out there who've
helped me learn to dog-paddle over the past 5 years...)

[email protected]

January 29th 13, 09:27 PM

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:31:23 PM UTC-8, noel.wade wrote:
> Regardless of whether or not you think "Club" or "Sports" is the way
> to go, I would like to point at myself as the perfect example of what
> Peter is referring to. I'm 35 (which is young for a US glider pilot).
> I started gliding in late 2006. I bought my DG-300 in 2008 (a fancy
> and "high-dollar" ship for someone with less than 100 hours in the
> sport). I tried my first competition in early 2009 - a little regional
> down at Warner Springs, CA.
>
> If it wasn't for the Sports class, I probably never would have even
> tried competitions (or maybe once, just to say I'd done it). But why
> pay for competition entries just to get my ass repeatedly kicked by
> D2s, V2s, and other high-dollar glass being flown by super-experienced
> pilots?

One tiny point of dissent with your otherwise good post ;^)

When I flew in my first sanctioned contest, an R12 Regional at Tonopah back around the turn of the century, they were only doing FAI classes, so I had to fly my DG-300 in Standard Class against D1s, D2s, and LS-8s flown by super-experienced pilots. Oddly enough, I managed to win a day. Now, that was back in the days of the 9 lb/sq ft wing loading limit (which put the DG at less of a disadvantage), and while I had no sanctioned contest experience, I had a fair bit of local league racing experience, thanks to the efforts of Peter Deane. Plus, I'd been flying in the Great Basin for years, so I knew when to zig rather than zag like nearly everyone else did that day. My point is, no one need be afraid to fly older ship in FAI class regionals (or even nationals, though I never had time or inclination). You still learn a lot, and skills and technique can often make up for some deficit in performance.

Now, to be honest, I dislike MATs (I'd rather just do my own thing closer to home), and as a result never entered any Sports Class contests. If we can actually get some Club Class contests with sensible performance ranges, and a decent percentage of ATs and TATs I, for one, would likely jump in again...

Marc

Dave Nadler

January 30th 13, 12:54 AM

Really Peter, you have got to stop being so reasonable;
it has absolutely no place on RAS.
See ya, Dave

noel.wade

January 30th 13, 04:57 AM

Marc -

A properly-called MAT can essentially simulate an AT. Why the hate
for MATs? Have you simply had bad experiences because they weren't
properly called?

And as a small quibble: Logically one can say the things you said
about flying in FAI classes. And yes, its a learning experience and
still fun and those are all true statements. But that TOTALLY ignores
emotion and human behavioral tendencies. A contest - even a regional -
requires many HUNDREDS of dollars these days (entry-fee, food,
lodging, gas, other expenses) - and a week of precious vacation-time.
Those of you who can look at an "unwinable" situation and still choose
to put in that time and money are in the slim minority. Most people
are going to want to _feel_ like they have a fighting chance, to get
them to even try. Now once the hook is truly set, then more people
(like me) will gladly hurl themselves into the fray and spend ungodly
amounts of time and money at it. But you have to provide an
attractive "point of entry" for most folks.

--Noel

kirk.stant

January 30th 13, 01:20 PM

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:57:31 PM UTC-6, noel.wade wrote:
> Marc -
>
>
>
> A properly-called MAT can essentially simulate an AT. Why the hate
>
> for MATs? Have you simply had bad experiences because they weren't
>
> properly called?

The key phrase is "properly-called". The real problem a lot of us have with all these new-fangled tasks (Area, MAT, PST) is that they are not being used correctly - they are copouts for CDs who aren't willing to send the fleet out on a challenging task with the possibility of landing out. That has resulted in such horrors as the one-turnpoint MAT (Or - "you get to be CD for the day!") and the AAT with consecutive 30 mile areas that almost overlap ("OLC with a time limit"). With all due respect to KS, I still prefer the old AT - because unless everybody is going to about the same place, IT ISN'T A RACE - ITS A MONTY PYTHON SKIT!

And yes, I have CD'd, and called ATs where everybody landed out, and AATs when I couldn't figure out the weather on a Sunday. It's not easy. But if it was easy, everybody would be doing it!

So, if you have a variety of skills and ships, then a 5 or 6 tp MAT may be the solution. If there is a potential of thunderstorms near one turnpoint, then an AAT with a big area near the risky turnpoint (and small for the safe ones) is an appropriate call. But if the forecast is for a solid day of thermals, then call a nice long (which means at least 4 hours, not 2.5!) AT and have a RACE!

Then there is the PST. An abomination. Here is a task that actively keeps pilots AWAY from contests. Why bother? Just use OLC and skip the scorer altogether.

Bah Humbug, I'm digging out my turnpoint photo book and cameras, and I think there is an old start gate rig around here somewhere...

Kirk
66

[email protected]

January 30th 13, 02:25 PM

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:57:31 PM UTC-8, noel.wade wrote:
> A properly-called MAT can essentially simulate an AT. Why the hate
> for MATs? Have you simply had bad experiences because they weren't
> properly called?

Just about every MAT I've flown has been something along the lines of "here's your first turnpoint, come back in 3 hours". So, yeah, I don't like them, as the ones I've experienced are little more than PSTs with a TP or two thrown in for the hell of it. To me, they are usually more like pin-ball games than actual cross-country glider racing.

> And as a small quibble: Logically one can say the things you said
> about flying in FAI classes. And yes, its a learning experience and
> still fun and those are all true statements. But that TOTALLY ignores
> emotion and human behavioral tendencies. A contest - even a regional -
> requires many HUNDREDS of dollars these days (entry-fee, food,
> lodging, gas, other expenses) - and a week of precious vacation-time.
> Those of you who can look at an "unwinable" situation and still choose
> to put in that time and money are in the slim minority. Most people
> are going to want to _feel_ like they have a fighting chance, to get
> them to even try. Now once the hook is truly set, then more people
> (like me) will gladly hurl themselves into the fray and spend ungodly
> amounts of time and money at it. But you have to provide an
> attractive "point of entry" for most folks.

I think you've inadvertently exposed an important insight here. A lot of us (in my experience more than a slim minority) fly contests not to "win", but to have fun flying decently set tasks with friends in an organized fashion. In fact, when I started "winning" too much, a lot of the fun went out of it for me. I started feeling the competitive urge to put serious work into staying near the top of the scoresheet, then started taking chances I would never take in recreational flying, so eventually I decided it was time to quit. If contests continue to be increasingly expensive (thanks to such things as newly required equipment), time consuming, and with tasks aimed primarily at those who think they have a chance of winning, a lot of the rest of us will vote with our feet, and go do OLC or something. At least, that was my experience, and I wouldn't discount the possibility that this is part of the reason for dwindling numbers...

Marc

Mike the Strike

January 30th 13, 03:49 PM

For once, I agree with Kirk! One-turn MATs are evil, but also a good learning experience. I remember one contest at Parowan some years ago where the threat of widespread thunderstorms led the CD to set one of these. I chose a largish triangle with two turnpoints that both ended up having thunderstorms right over the top of them. With no nearby turnpoints, I had to dash under the storm cloud, dodging hail and lightning to get within the 1-mile radius. Never again!

Mike

Clay[_4_]

January 30th 13, 04:01 PM

Marc, I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that I never experience the anguish of "winning too much." That is one hell of a cross to bear, and I'm sure your fellow competitors are only too happy that you're not up to the task (hey, nice pun):)

Clay

[email protected]

January 30th 13, 04:58 PM

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01:17 AM UTC-8, Clay wrote:
> Marc, I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that I never experience the anguish of "winning too much." That is one hell of a cross to bear, and I'm sure your fellow competitors are only too happy that you're not up to the task (hey, nice pun):)

Well, that didn't quite come out the way I wanted it, but let's just say once I did manage to win 15M in my local regionals, 2nd was no longer good enough ;^)

Of course, I mostly managed to score well by not landing out, a necessity since I never had a crew...

Marc

Sean F (F2)

January 30th 13, 08:49 PM

Noel,

I thought I would respond to your post as I am a pilot of similar contest experience and own a glider of performance. I see glider competition very differently than you do. I am 41, so a little older but flew my first real contest 2 years ago. I think loosing needs to be something you expect as we are both new to this sport. If found ourselves winning right away why bother? That is not a challenge. I come from a sailboat racing background which is an intense sport where even the best competitors lose more than they win. Sailing is just that intense and competitive in most classes. It took me many years to win my first major competition. IOW, I got my ass kicked for years before getting close to the podium. I suggest that you need to be less concerned about getting your ass kicked and instead understand that intense competition is a sign of a great opportunity to learn. We need even more great pilots than we have now in the USA. I am lucky to live near Canada with arguably the best 15/18 meter racing pilots in North America 4 hours away. I flew my first contest in their 18M nationals in a Lak17a while they were flying ASG29's and LS8's. Talk about getting your ass kicked. I never complained. I was happy to pay the entry fee for an opportunity to fly with these great pilots and learn from them.

You say "why pay for competition entries just to get my ass repeatedly kicked by
D2s, V2s, and other high-dollar glass being flown by super-experienced
pilots?"

I say, that is exactly what happens today in most US sports class contests! A true US Club Class would eliminate the high dollar gliders and associated pilots from the environment. It is extremely difficult to handicap a Grob 102 effectively with an ASG29 or V2. So much so that it just makes no competitive sense doing so. Getting your ass kicked is what learning a new sport or business or game is about. Again, if its easy from the offset what is the challenge? Why bother? If you are looking for a class to win immediately in just make one up and apply for a waiver. Perhaps the DG 300 class ;-)? I just see this concept 100% opposite.

You say "The handicapping and spread of pilot experience made Sports Class far
more appealing. And the supportive atmosphere from fellow competitors
(especially the experienced ones who freely share their local
knowledge and wisdom) keep me coming back. And I've found that
atmosphere much more prevalent in Regional handicapped races, than at
high-stakes Nationals."

I say, wow!?! I don't get this statement, at all. Far more appealing to race a cirrus vs. a V2? So the larger the handicap spread the more appealing a sailplane racing class is is to you? I say, it is ABSOLUTELY false that Sports class is the only means of a supportive atmosphere. Keep in mind that the US Club Class has essentially been blocked by the Rules Committee until this year, but only at the nationals if 12+ pilots register to fly within it. What they have proposed is a much larger handicap range than has been proven successful in the rest of the world, essentially destroying the class dynamics itself and changing the game dramatically. When the US Club Class happens (IGC range), and it will, you will find the pilots within this class are extremely friendly, helpful and supportive of new pilots (while being great competitors as well). Supportive and friendly pilots being open to sharing and helping other pilots IS NOT the exclusive territory of US Sports Class.

You say, "If you want to push the top end of the contest group, you need to
build a broad, solid base first. Over time a bigger base of pilots
will ensure you net more "top guns" (i.e. 1% of 5000 is more than 1%
of 1000). The cream will rise to the top, and drive everyone around
them (who's serious about staying on top) to do better. If you neglect
the base, the whole system slowly withers on the vine; and without new
blood coming up to challenge the existing top dogs, people aren't as
driven to evolve or improve. Things stagnate - the top dogs probably
stay on top; but only within their own limited peer-group. Eventually
age takes its toll and the top dogs disappear into the sunset - and
who is left to take their place?"

I say, "The base you speak of will become the US Club Class (IGC handicap range). The top guns will be in the Sports Class High Class moving forward (essentially a blend of standard, 15M, 18M, 20M and Open). The RC just needs to get out of the way, and RETAIN US Sports Class as is!" You should be 100% supportive of that idea based on your post. The US Club Class will be a high tech factory for enthusiastic new young contest pilots in the US for years to come. It will be the foundry for developing Jr. pilots in the US. It will be the place to race IGC rules. A place were you can be competitive with most of the gliders on THIS LIST: http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_SP_Handicap_list_ARG_V2 These gliders are abundantly available, very affordable and translate directly to the world Club Class standards.

Anyway, I know my opinion is vastly different than yours. I just wanted to explain it in detail.
Best,

Sean
F2

[email protected]

January 31st 13, 12:49 AM

To prove limited handicap racing works well and brings in newer pilots, Noel did *quite well* in his DG300 at the first limited handicap range Std Nats at montague last year......

Limited handicap contests work well, and foster competitive racing.

The Argentinian system has proved this very well. We should learn from this and other examples around the world.

2T

On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 12:31:23 UTC-8, noel.wade wrote:
> On Jan 28, 1:09*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > Club is the most accessible, affordable racing class available to us. I believe club class is the long term foundation
>
> > for pilot development in the US and can be an excellent trial class for a 'best of US/IGC' system. (thinking here that
>
> > handicapping for wt as per the US is a plus, as one example of the ways we can pick the best system)
>
> >
>
> > Peter Deane (my own views - *not necessarily those of the USTC)
>
>
>
>
>
> Regardless of whether or not you think "Club" or "Sports" is the way
>
> to go, I would like to point at myself as the perfect example of what
>
> Peter is referring to. I'm 35 (which is young for a US glider pilot).
>
> I started gliding in late 2006. I bought my DG-300 in 2008 (a fancy
>
> and "high-dollar" ship for someone with less than 100 hours in the
>
> sport). I tried my first competition in early 2009 - a little regional
>
> down at Warner Springs, CA.
>
>
>
> If it wasn't for the Sports class, I probably never would have even
>
> tried competitions (or maybe once, just to say I'd done it). But why
>
> pay for competition entries just to get my ass repeatedly kicked by
>
> D2s, V2s, and other high-dollar glass being flown by super-experienced
>
> pilots?
>
>
>
> The handicapping and spread of pilot experience made Sports Class far
>
> more appealing. And the supportive atmosphere from fellow competitors
>
> (especially the experienced ones who freely share their local
>
> knowledge and wisdom) keep me coming back. And I've found that
>
> atmosphere much more prevalent in Regional handicapped races, than at
>
> high-stakes Nationals.
>
>
>
> If you want to push the top end of the contest group, you need to
>
> build a broad, solid base first. Over time a bigger base of pilots
>
> will ensure you net more "top guns" (i.e. 1% of 5000 is more than 1%
>
> of 1000). The cream will rise to the top, and drive everyone around
>
> them (who's serious about staying on top) to do better. If you neglect
>
> the base, the whole system slowly withers on the vine; and without new
>
> blood coming up to challenge the existing top dogs, people aren't as
>
> driven to evolve or improve. Things stagnate - the top dogs probably
>
> stay on top; but only within their own limited peer-group. Eventually
>
> age takes its toll and the top dogs disappear into the sunset - and
>
> who is left to take their place?
>
>
>
> --Noel
>
> (with total respect and thanks for the top dogs out there who've
>
> helped me learn to dog-paddle over the past 5 years...)

Sean F (F2)

January 31st 13, 01:39 AM

But should new pilots expect to do well immediately and if somehow they can't compete initially (as in they are a new contest pilot) run off screaming "you meanies" while in tears?

If that's the environment we must provide to get new pilots into the sport we might as well go back to the participation certificate and no
scoring conversation.

It has nothing to do with how well he does. My concern is the unrealistic expectation and what he would do (run off) if he did not meet his expectation of being competitive out of the box.

Sean

noel.wade

January 31st 13, 03:20 AM

All -

I think people put too much of an emphasis on a couple of key words in
my last post, so let me clarify: The key words were "FIGHTING CHANCE".

I was not implying that we have to coddle people, or give them all
gold stars, or anything of the sort. YES, it should be hard. YES,
there should be learning and skill involved. NO, I didn't expect to
win my first contest (and I didn't even come close). NO, I am not some
kind of "win at all costs" personality.

BUT, and this is the key thing that I was trying to point out: Most
people don't go to a _competition_ in order to come in last place.
They want to feel like they can _compete_. You have to give them an
avenue to feel like they are _competitive_.

Will they have fun? Dear God I hope so - I certainly do! Out here in
WA state, we have been holding an event every Memorial Day weekend for
the last 4 years, called the "Dust Up". It was designed to introduce
new pilots to racing. We hold a series of seminars in the 2 months
leading up to the "contest", showing pilots how to prepare and what's
important to bring. Then we hold 3 days of tasks, starting easy and
slowly ramping up the difficulty. We also hold round-table discussions
and presentations each night. Its been phenomenally successful, and
one of the biggest comments we always hear is how people were afraid
to try a "real" contest - either because they feared they would be
embarrassingly bad, or drag the contest down, or couldn't make it
around the course. And it isn't just newbies to soaring - some of
these people are highly-successful XC pilots with 500+km flights! The
point - again - is that you have to have a point of entry that makes
people _want_ to give it a go.

Yes, some people go to contests just for fun. Some don't ever care
about winning or doing well, and that's OK. But those people are the
minority, and certainly NOT the people who are going to push our
National team to get better - which was the origin of this whole
thread and is what I was posting about.

BTW, TATs/AATs can be super-competitive; and if your CD is only
calling 20-30 mile cylinders then they're doing it wrong. And they
don't have to call 1 mile cylinders to do it right, either (otherwise
you're right back to the luck-factor that is such a problem in ATs,
which I've previously harped on so I won't repeat them here). A 5-10
mile circle will enable some flexibility, eliminate some of the luck-
factor, allow a reasonable spread of handicaps and pilot-skills to
complete the task, and still be "race-y".

For MATs... As John and others have pointed out, they can be used in a
ton of ways. Sometimes the weather dictates a starting point and an
open task. But certainly "Long MATs" and an open section with final
turnpoints (to guide you back to the airport from a certain direction,
or over certain areas) can be used successfully and still give a good
task. Of course, if the weather's weak its not going to be as "fun"
for most folks no matter WHAT you call. I'd rather have a task I can
complete, than a ton of retrieves.

Demand better tasking, don't just declare the system broken. That's
like calling a hammer a piece of **** just because you can't unscrew
an AN4 bolt with the thing!

--Noel

noel.wade

January 31st 13, 03:37 AM

> You say "The handicapping and spread of pilot experience made Sports Class far
> more appealing. And the supportive atmosphere from fellow competitors
> (especially the experienced ones who freely share their local
> knowledge and wisdom) keep me coming back. And I've found that
> atmosphere much more prevalent in Regional handicapped races, than at
> high-stakes Nationals."
>
> I say, wow!?! *I don't get this statement, at all. *Far more appealing to race a cirrus vs. a V2? *So the larger the handicap spread the more appealing a sailplane

Sean - Its not the fact that racing against different kind of gliders
was appealing. It was that the handicap means that the V2 may not win
if I fly a Cirrus better than the pilot of the V2 flies his aircraft.
We may go different distances, but this is not a NASCAR or SCCA
racetrack (something I used to do, BTW). Nor is it a sailboat race on
the same course, side-by-side. Since we all go out the gate at
different times, we're all flying through different air. WE'RE ALL ON
DIFFERENT RACE COURSES. That is a fundamental issue in sailplane
racing. The ground beneath you does not, in itself, define your race-
track. Its a combination of that ground AND the air over the ground at
the precise instant you fly through it. And your starting strategy
helps to set "which" race-course you wind up flying (except Grand Prix
racing, of course). So our glider-racing is inherently a "man versus
wild" sport, predominantly. KS could fly my DG-300 better than anyone
in the world, but in a non-handicapped race he could lose every time
to a decent (but not world-beating) pilot in a Ventus 2 - through no
fault of his own. THAT is what is good about handicapping - the idea
that the pressure is on ME to perform; not just have the fanciest
glass and only be "OK" at my craft (I've seen too much of that in auto-
racing.).

Now in 2009, when I started, the only option for a handicapped race
was in the Sports Class. This meant flying separate from "big dogs" in
15-meter and Standard class, not dealing with the inherent
disadvantage of facing their ships, and possibly flying tasks that
were harder than I was comfortable with on my first contest. I agree
that at the Sports Class Nationals, you have veterans and fancy ships
and the whole system is a little screwy because of the pressure to get
on the Worlds team. HOWEVER, at Regionals I find the spirit of the
Sports Class to be largely successful: The lower-performance ships and
the newer pilots tend to fly in the class; and more experienced guys
with faster glass go to the 15/18/Std classes. Around my local scene,
anyone that dominates in the Sports Class Regionals is encouraged and/
or razzed, so they feel pressure to move to one of the other classes
and face a "real challenge".

You seem to be one of the people who has an extreme opinion about the
Club Class vs. the Sports Class, so let me reiterate that I was not
making a statement either way about these two classes. I was only
pointing out the value of an entry-point for competition and how the
handicapped class helps that. My own experiences are only with Sports
Class because that's all I know. *shrug* I'm moving "up" and out of
the class after flying in 7 contests and really don't care to be drawn
into the big debate over Sports vs. Club; its gotten to the point of
being like arguing about religion and I'd rather fly... :-)

--Noel