View Full Version : Junior World Championships - FAI Rules Absurdity
Kevin Christner
August 11th 13, 08:10 PM
We've heard alot of arguments for and against instituting FAI rules in the US. For the record, I lean towards the FAI rules. If we want to win at the world level we ought to be selecting pilots under the same rules system that they will fly in the WC.
That being said, the recent Junior Worlds showed a major weakness in the current scoring system. From what I can tell from the Soaring Cafe report, the Dutch Team purposely outlanded to devalue the day, resulting in one of the Dutch pilots winning. First, my congratulations to the Dutch team Captain / Coach for this brilliant insight. I have a feeling this could have gone either way, but way to play one to win.
On the other hand, I don't think a scoring system should reward this sort of tactic. And I've heard of (although I can't remember where) pilots finishing straight in, then deciding whether to take a valid finish or the penalty, based on how the points would work out. Chalk this one up as interesting and worth discussion.
http://soaringcafe.com/2013/08/2-coups-to-win-the-cup-jwgc-in-lesnzo-is-over/
2C
Tony[_5_]
August 12th 13, 04:54 AM
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 2:10:47 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> We've heard alot of arguments for and against instituting FAI rules in the US. For the record, I lean towards the FAI rules. If we want to win at the world level we ought to be selecting pilots under the same rules system that they will fly in the WC.
>
>
>
> That being said, the recent Junior Worlds showed a major weakness in the current scoring system. From what I can tell from the Soaring Cafe report, the Dutch Team purposely outlanded to devalue the day, resulting in one of the Dutch pilots winning. First, my congratulations to the Dutch team Captain / Coach for this brilliant insight. I have a feeling this could have gone either way, but way to play one to win.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, I don't think a scoring system should reward this sort of tactic. And I've heard of (although I can't remember where) pilots finishing straight in, then deciding whether to take a valid finish or the penalty, based on how the points would work out. Chalk this one up as interesting and worth discussion.
>
>
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2013/08/2-coups-to-win-the-cup-jwgc-in-lesnzo-is-over/
>
>
>
> 2C
I agree with you Kevin, and I suspect most in the US at least do. I know I've heard a lot of talk about landing out at World and Continental champs to improve your score when discussions about FAI rules come up but I don't know if those were based on actual experience or the theoretical possibility.
I heard that in Argentina, one team recalled their PW-5 pilots in order to prevent the required % of contestants to make it over minimum distance. In that way they prevented the day from counting and helped preserve a lead.
Andy[_1_]
August 12th 13, 05:36 AM
> I agree with you Kevin, and I suspect most in the US at least do.
Not without seeing an analysis of the same day both under FAI and SSA rules.
Andy
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:54:56 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> On Sunday, August 11, 2013 2:10:47 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
>
> > We've heard a lot of arguments for and against instituting FAI rules in the US. For the record, I lean towards the FAI rules.
>
> I agree with you Kevin, and I suspect most in the US at least do.
I'm curious whether people like the idea of consistency with FAI rules as a matter of principle regardless of issues like this or if they prefer FAI rules based on a point-by-point comparison of the FAI us US rules and find the FAI versions superior?
For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.
9B
ZL
August 12th 13, 01:33 PM
On 8/11/2013 10:36 PM, Andy wrote:
>
>> I agree with you Kevin, and I suspect most in the US at least do.
>
> Not without seeing an analysis of the same day both under FAI and SSA rules.
>
> Andy
>
The team landout strategy reduced the last day point difference between
Millenaar and Svoboda by 8 points. The final margin was 27 points, so
the strategy only improved the margin, it did not change the placings.
If all starters had finished, there would have been a tie for first
place. Landing out 2 guaranteed the win. But all the team captain knew
when he made the call was that the CZE team was significantly faster
than his pilot, roughly 10 km/hr, and the outcome on the scoresheet
would be very close. And he could buy his number 1 pilot 7-10 more
points by having his number 2 and 3 landout. They were way down the
score sheet without much to gain by finishing.
Under US rules, the two team mates' landouts would have had no bearing
on the outcome, since the devaluation threshold (60% completions) was
not crossed. And of course the ground crew would not be allowed to
advise the pilots how to deal with this either.
-Dave
> For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.
>
> 9B
Which resulted in many landouts in fields past the finish and short of the airport, the IGC's new safety initiative.
The speed/distance points formula is responsible for a lot of the silly stuff in the IGC rules. (If all finish, it's 1000 points for speed and 300 points for distance. When there are lots of landouts it becomes 1000 points for distance and none for speed.) If you are the only finisher and everyone else lands 1 km short, you get about 1 point for your efforts as it is a 1000 points for distance day. If you land 1 km short and everyone finishes, you get 300 points.
In the US team's analysis, this makes it imperative to play start roulette, and sit with the gaggle, even if by waiting around it becomes clear everyone will land out.
I think the formula was designed thinking only about measurement, and not thinking about incentives. If pilots ignored tactical incentives, it would indeed provide a fine measurement of performance.
John Cochrane
Dan Marotta
August 12th 13, 04:41 PM
<snip> ...what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet
2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1
glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.
9B
Your analysis doesn't account for speed and the altitude gained by pulling
up after finishing.
Sean F (F2)
August 12th 13, 05:28 PM
Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.
The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) are:
1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.
2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!
Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate > 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.
I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!
Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?
I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.
Sean
F2
Tony[_5_]
August 12th 13, 05:57 PM
On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:28:36 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.
>
>
>
> The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) are:
>
>
>
> 1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.
>
>
>
> 2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate > 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.
>
>
>
> I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!
>
>
>
> Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?
>
>
>
> I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2
talk to your CD. Ken Sorenson called 3 long MAT's at Region 10 South and everyone really liked them. Sports had TAT's the other 2 days of course, and the FAI guys had a TAT and an Assigned Task, which they all enjoyed a lot.
On Monday, August 12, 2013 12:28:36 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.
>
>
>
> The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) are:
>
>
>
> 1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.
>
>
>
> 2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate > 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.
>
>
>
> I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!
>
>
>
> Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?
>
>
>
> I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2
Hmm, I'm not sure the different rule sets are the major factor anymore.
More important is the age of the winners. In the US, we mostly tend
to be older by the time we get to be winners at National contests.
Competitors from other countries are younger on the whole and have
more stamina to fly well for a 3 week contest. Look at how well
our pilots did at the WWGC and Club Class WGC this year -- both of
those pilots are very able, and also younger than the average US
contest pilot.
It was heartening to see the pilots at R3 this year (sorry we missed you!),
especially the young people doing so well.
As to the rule sets, Condor contests use the IGC rules almost exclusively
(it's pretty hard to apply the US rules there, actually). I've found
that practicing on Condor does bleed over into better flying under
US contest rules. You just have to understand the differences, and especially
avoid those Vne dives through the start gate!
Matt
Sean Franke
August 12th 13, 06:57 PM
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 12:10:47 PM UTC-7, Kevin Christner wrote:
> We've heard alot of arguments for and against instituting FAI rules in the US. For the record, I lean towards the FAI rules. If we want to win at the world level we ought to be selecting pilots under the same rules system that they will fly in the WC.
>
>
>
> That being said, the recent Junior Worlds showed a major weakness in the current scoring system. From what I can tell from the Soaring Cafe report, the Dutch Team purposely outlanded to devalue the day, resulting in one of the Dutch pilots winning. First, my congratulations to the Dutch team Captain / Coach for this brilliant insight. I have a feeling this could have gone either way, but way to play one to win.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, I don't think a scoring system should reward this sort of tactic. And I've heard of (although I can't remember where) pilots finishing straight in, then deciding whether to take a valid finish or the penalty, based on how the points would work out. Chalk this one up as interesting and worth discussion.
>
>
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2013/08/2-coups-to-win-the-cup-jwgc-in-lesnzo-is-over/
>
>
>
> 2C
Really (FAI vs. US Rules)? Are we doing this again :)
Seriously, most US pilots have not flown an FAI contest. In that case don’t let those against FAI rules or FAI proponents influence you. Fly an FAI contest and decide for yourself. You’re likely to find no rule set is perfect and claims either way have been exaggerated. However, you may prefer one over the other.
Next year you can fly a high level Category One FAI event in Chilhowee. The 1st Pan-American Gliding Championships will be in Tennessee from August 25th to September 7th. Buy or borrow a Club Class Glider. See you there.
Sean R Franke
http://www.fai.org/igc-events/igc-events-calendar-and-results?id=34877&EventCalendarId=9180
Dave Leonard
August 12th 13, 07:09 PM
On Monday, August 12, 2013 10:28:36 AM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.
>
>
>
> The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) are:
>
>
>
> 1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.
>
>
>
> 2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate > 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.
>
>
>
> I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!
>
>
>
> Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?
>
>
>
> I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2
Interesting metric, rules length. Current (2012) IGC Sporting Code Annex A for world and continental soaring championships is a 47 page pdf file. SSA contest rules for "FAI Class Nationals" is a 40 page pdf file. Sort of almost twice as long? Try rescoring the last day at the JWGC using both scoring formulas and see which is simpler, "more transparent", and which leads to more unusual tactics, ie not flying for the best absolute performance.
Both sets of rules are very flexible in terms of tasking as well as starting and finishing procedures. Very much left up to the organizer. No denying most US organizers have low tolerance for landout risk. But that's not rule driven.
The last AST only contest I flew in was Tonopah 2003. The other current task options were available, but not used by the CD. He called a task in the morning and that was it, no changes. Memorable, but not on the top of my fun list.
I wonder how the Florida GP will handle landouts since they are using a 1000 pt scoring system. No mention at all in the rules.
On Monday, August 12, 2013 1:57:32 PM UTC-4, Sean Franke wrote:
> On Sunday, August 11, 2013 12:10:47 PM UTC-7, Kevin Christner wrote:
>
> > We've heard alot of arguments for and against instituting FAI rules in the US. For the record, I lean towards the FAI rules. If we want to win at the world level we ought to be selecting pilots under the same rules system that they will fly in the WC.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That being said, the recent Junior Worlds showed a major weakness in the current scoring system. From what I can tell from the Soaring Cafe report, the Dutch Team purposely outlanded to devalue the day, resulting in one of the Dutch pilots winning. First, my congratulations to the Dutch team Captain / Coach for this brilliant insight. I have a feeling this could have gone either way, but way to play one to win.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On the other hand, I don't think a scoring system should reward this sort of tactic. And I've heard of (although I can't remember where) pilots finishing straight in, then deciding whether to take a valid finish or the penalty, based on how the points would work out. Chalk this one up as interesting and worth discussion.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://soaringcafe.com/2013/08/2-coups-to-win-the-cup-jwgc-in-lesnzo-is-over/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2C
>
>
>
> Really (FAI vs. US Rules)? Are we doing this again :)
>
>
>
> Seriously, most US pilots have not flown an FAI contest. In that case don’t let those against FAI rules or FAI proponents influence you. Fly an FAI contest and decide for yourself. You’re likely to find no rule set is perfect and claims either way have been exaggerated. However, you may prefer one over the other.
>
>
>
> Next year you can fly a high level Category One FAI event in Chilhowee. The 1st Pan-American Gliding Championships will be in Tennessee from August 25th to September 7th. Buy or borrow a Club Class Glider. See you there.
>
>
>
> Sean R Franke
>
>
>
> http://www.fai.org/igc-events/igc-events-calendar-and-results?id=34877&EventCalendarId=9180
I'm looking forward to it. Any thoughts on entrance selection? Are
you just using straight IGC pilot ratings, or do you plan on factoring
in US pilot rankings?
Matt
Sean Franke
August 12th 13, 11:16 PM
On Monday, August 12, 2013 2:41:03 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 1:57:32 PM UTC-4, Sean Franke wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, August 11, 2013 12:10:47 PM UTC-7, Kevin Christner wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > We've heard alot of arguments for and against instituting FAI rules in the US. For the record, I lean towards the FAI rules. If we want to win at the world level we ought to be selecting pilots under the same rules system that they will fly in the WC.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > That being said, the recent Junior Worlds showed a major weakness in the current scoring system. From what I can tell from the Soaring Cafe report, the Dutch Team purposely outlanded to devalue the day, resulting in one of the Dutch pilots winning. First, my congratulations to the Dutch team Captain / Coach for this brilliant insight. I have a feeling this could have gone either way, but way to play one to win.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > On the other hand, I don't think a scoring system should reward this sort of tactic. And I've heard of (although I can't remember where) pilots finishing straight in, then deciding whether to take a valid finish or the penalty, based on how the points would work out. Chalk this one up as interesting and worth discussion.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://soaringcafe.com/2013/08/2-coups-to-win-the-cup-jwgc-in-lesnzo-is-over/
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 2C
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Really (FAI vs. US Rules)? Are we doing this again :)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Seriously, most US pilots have not flown an FAI contest. In that case don’t let those against FAI rules or FAI proponents influence you. Fly an FAI contest and decide for yourself. You’re likely to find no rule set is perfect and claims either way have been exaggerated. However, you may prefer one over the other.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Next year you can fly a high level Category One FAI event in Chilhowee. The 1st Pan-American Gliding Championships will be in Tennessee from August 25th to September 7th. Buy or borrow a Club Class Glider. See you there..
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean R Franke
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.fai.org/igc-events/igc-events-calendar-and-results?id=34877&EventCalendarId=9180
>
>
>
> I'm looking forward to it. Any thoughts on entrance selection? Are
>
> you just using straight IGC pilot ratings, or do you plan on factoring
>
> in US pilot rankings?
>
>
>
> Matt
I'm interested to see how IGC solves the issue? The contest site only take about 45 gliders. This is a Super Continental Championships with North and South America participating. I think it will be full with a waiting list.
There will be X number of spots reserved for US pilots but few US pilots have an IGC ranking. We have to wait for an answer.
Sean R Franke
Kevin Christner
August 13th 13, 12:21 AM
On Monday, August 12, 2013 12:28:36 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.
It appears that it was not the deciding factor. That being said, it very well could have been. The Dutch team captain made an excellent decision. If Czech's would have been a little faster, or the Dutch winner a little slower, it would have been the deciding factor.
I'm not trying to say what is good/right/perfect. Its just an interesting real life situation for everyone to consider.
2C
On Monday, August 12, 2013 9:28:36 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking).
Hi Sean,
Now I'm even more curious. Allow me to probe a little further...
Why do you consider ability to read the weather and go where conditions are strongest "luck". Some people are much better at this than others (much, much better - I know some pretty decent pilots who positively lock up when you ask them to pick a turnpoint). Is it not a soaring skill, reading clouds and terrain? Doesn't lack of any meaningful option of where to go in the horizontal plane basically reduce pilot decision-making from three dimensions to one? It seems like the main skill being measured is who is able to gut it out the lowest to get the big, fast climb or game the gaggle the best since there will be much more bunching/leeching. Those are skills, but aren't they really a subset of the broader skillset of the sport.
If you like US scoring, but IGC tasking, does than mean you favor US rules, just with guidance to CDs to call tasks where every pilot has to fly more or less the same path?
9B
On Monday, August 12, 2013 8:41:57 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Your analysis doesn't account for speed and the altitude gained by pulling
> up after finishing.
Hi Dan,
Quite right, I didn't include any kinetic-to-potential energy exchange. The number of feet involved can vary quite dramatically. In the end, because IGC rules encourage longer tasking that use up the available day and because the scoring for speed versus distance points yield a greater amount of gaggling and start-gate roulette, I thought it was fair to assume that a significant proportion of finishers would be at low McCready settings where the altitude gained in a pullup would be on the same order as the height of obstacles to be surmounted at the airport boundary. A 2-knot McCready starting speed yields less than 100 feet in a pullup to best L/D speed.
There's no single precise answer to what McCready setting to use for such a single-point analysis, but that's also beside the point. The real question was, why is it preferable to set up the finish by rule in such a way that a significant portion of pilots end up making low, slow, straight-in approaches to the airport? Is it a superior way to set up the finish, and if so, why?
9B
Jim White[_3_]
August 13th 13, 12:50 PM
>
>The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US
rules (5% of the world) are:
>
Guys, we love you to bits but this does look like a bit of a recurring
theme to us in the rest of the world. Maybe the US self belief that the US
knows best is what drives you to success but to many in the wider world it
looks a bit daft.
World IGC Rules - US different
World Metric - US Imperial
In particular for commerical aviation:
World Tonnes - US Pounds
World HPa - US Inches of Mercury
Then there is:
World Colour/Favour/Labour - US Color/Favor/Labor
World Government Transparancy - US Gov Secrecy
World Whistle blower hero - US Traitor
World Left leaning liberalism - US Right wing imperialism, I am joking but
to many it looks just like that, more war war than jaw jaw.
Believe me, there is a big wide world out there, that has many varied
cultures and customs, and that is learning how to work together in many
ways for the common good.
You do not need to stand apart or 'lead' all the time, it would be good if
the US sometimes decided to join in. Go on, you can do it!
Evan Ludeman[_4_]
August 13th 13, 02:13 PM
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, Jim White wrote:
> >
>
> >The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US
>
> rules (5% of the world) are:
>
> >
>
> Guys, we love you to bits but this does look like a bit of a recurring
>
> theme to us in the rest of the world. Maybe the US self belief that the US
>
> knows best is what drives you to success but to many in the wider world it
>
> looks a bit daft.
>
>
>
> World IGC Rules - US different
>
> World Metric - US Imperial
>
> In particular for commerical aviation:
>
> World Tonnes - US Pounds
>
> World HPa - US Inches of Mercury
>
>
>
> Then there is:
>
> World Colour/Favour/Labour - US Color/Favor/Labor
>
> World Government Transparancy - US Gov Secrecy
>
> World Whistle blower hero - US Traitor
>
> World Left leaning liberalism - US Right wing imperialism, I am joking but
>
> to many it looks just like that, more war war than jaw jaw.
>
>
>
> Believe me, there is a big wide world out there, that has many varied
>
> cultures and customs, and that is learning how to work together in many
>
> ways for the common good.
>
>
>
> You do not need to stand apart or 'lead' all the time, it would be good if
>
> the US sometimes decided to join in. Go on, you can do it!
Jim,
Glad you still love is even if the government that claims to have the consent of the governed (it certainly hasn't been the "informed consent", lol) isn't so lovable.
You have to understand that politics over here borrows much from professional sports. It doesn't matter that your team is insane, paranoid and intends to trod unforgivably on the very things that made this country (pardon my chauvinism) special, it matters that they win. And having won, principles and promises of doing things a certain way can be safely swept into the closet, business continues apace and the cheer leaders and the fans still cheer.
There's plenty of bs in competition rules on all sides of all oceans. I think it'd be really nice if we all converged on a rules set that kept the emphasis on soaring rather than game theory. It's my opinion that US rules are slightly better in this regard at the moment, but that's just my opinion..
Best,
Evan Ludeman / T8
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, Jim White wrote:
> >
>
> >The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US
>
> rules (5% of the world) are:
>
> >
>
> Guys, we love you to bits but this does look like a bit of a recurring
>
> theme to us in the rest of the world. Maybe the US self belief that the US
>
> knows best is what drives you to success but to many in the wider world it
>
> looks a bit daft.
>
>
>
> World IGC Rules - US different
>
> World Metric - US Imperial
>
> In particular for commerical aviation:
>
> World Tonnes - US Pounds
>
> World HPa - US Inches of Mercury
>
>
>
> Then there is:
>
> World Colour/Favour/Labour - US Color/Favor/Labor
>
> World Government Transparancy - US Gov Secrecy
>
> World Whistle blower hero - US Traitor
>
> World Left leaning liberalism - US Right wing imperialism, I am joking but
>
> to many it looks just like that, more war war than jaw jaw.
>
>
>
> Believe me, there is a big wide world out there, that has many varied
>
> cultures and customs, and that is learning how to work together in many
>
> ways for the common good.
>
>
>
> You do not need to stand apart or 'lead' all the time, it would be good if
>
> the US sometimes decided to join in. Go on, you can do it!
Thanks Jim. All true.
AH
" because IGC rules encourage longer tasking that use up the available day...."
> Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles..."
Minor correction: There is NOTHING in US rules about short tasks or large circle AATs.
"10.3.1.3 Normal Task - Tasks should make as full use of the available soaring weather as is practical"
Appendix: "- Try to use the full day, not merely the best part of it.."
The TAT appendix suggests 8-10 mile radius and 15 miles for the final steering turn.
Short tasks and few enormous turn areas rather than a larger number of smaller turns are choices made by the CD and task advisers, often in response to pilot complaining. If you want the opposite, talk to the CD don't complain about the rules.
John Cochrane
Dan Marotta
August 13th 13, 03:45 PM
Hi 9B,
Agreed. A friend emailed me privately to point out the case of a 0 MC
finish. That would never have occurred to me and is another reason why I
don't compete - too chicken! ;-P
> wrote in message
...
On Monday, August 12, 2013 8:41:57 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Your analysis doesn't account for speed and the altitude gained by pulling
> up after finishing.
Hi Dan,
Quite right, I didn't include any kinetic-to-potential energy exchange. The
number of feet involved can vary quite dramatically. In the end, because IGC
rules encourage longer tasking that use up the available day and because the
scoring for speed versus distance points yield a greater amount of gaggling
and start-gate roulette, I thought it was fair to assume that a significant
proportion of finishers would be at low McCready settings where the altitude
gained in a pullup would be on the same order as the height of obstacles to
be surmounted at the airport boundary. A 2-knot McCready starting speed
yields less than 100 feet in a pullup to best L/D speed.
There's no single precise answer to what McCready setting to use for such a
single-point analysis, but that's also beside the point. The real question
was, why is it preferable to set up the finish by rule in such a way that a
significant portion of pilots end up making low, slow, straight-in
approaches to the airport? Is it a superior way to set up the finish, and if
so, why?
9B
Luke Szczepaniak
August 13th 13, 04:59 PM
> Short tasks and few enormous turn areas rather than a larger number of smaller turns are choices made by the CD and task advisers, often in response to pilot complaining. If you want the opposite, talk to the CD don't complain about the rules.
In the last 5 years I have yet to fly a contest in which a task was over
called, inversely, I have flown many in which tasks were under called or
the day was scrubbed way too early. Personally I much rather land out
due to an over call knowing that I used the whole day to the fullest
rather then come home with a sky in which I could keep flying for
another 2 hours!
I have not heard (maybe I chose not to listen...) a single pilot
complaining that a task was too hard or too long. I do (or choose to?)
hear many who agree with me that we need to use the whole day and need
more assigned tasks. Even at the last US 15m nationals, where Tim did
an excellent job calling tasks and using the whole day, we did not have
a single Assigned Task - this nats decided the US team that is going to
the WGC next year! We can complain to the CD's all we want but it is
the RC that has the authority, perhaps we need more emphasis on the
wording or clearer direction for the CD's coming from the top.
If you want to improve the results on the world stage look to the task
types and duration being flown at FAI contests, we need to train in
similar conditions to be competitive. For the pilots who don't want
that and rather come home early and have a beer the answer is simple -
SPORTS Class...
Luke Szczepaniak
Evan Ludeman[_4_]
August 13th 13, 06:52 PM
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:59:41 AM UTC-4, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> > Short tasks and few enormous turn areas rather than a larger number of smaller turns are choices made by the CD and task advisers, often in response to pilot complaining. If you want the opposite, talk to the CD don't complain about the rules.
>
>
>
>
>
> In the last 5 years I have yet to fly a contest in which a task was over
>
> called, inversely, I have flown many in which tasks were under called or
>
> the day was scrubbed way too early. Personally I much rather land out
>
> due to an over call knowing that I used the whole day to the fullest
>
> rather then come home with a sky in which I could keep flying for
>
> another 2 hours!
>
>
>
> I have not heard (maybe I chose not to listen...) a single pilot
>
> complaining that a task was too hard or too long. I do (or choose to?)
>
> hear many who agree with me that we need to use the whole day and need
>
> more assigned tasks. Even at the last US 15m nationals, where Tim did
>
> an excellent job calling tasks and using the whole day, we did not have
>
> a single Assigned Task - this nats decided the US team that is going to
>
> the WGC next year! We can complain to the CD's all we want but it is
>
> the RC that has the authority, perhaps we need more emphasis on the
>
> wording or clearer direction for the CD's coming from the top.
>
>
>
> If you want to improve the results on the world stage look to the task
>
> types and duration being flown at FAI contests, we need to train in
>
> similar conditions to be competitive. For the pilots who don't want
>
> that and rather come home early and have a beer the answer is simple -
>
> SPORTS Class...
>
>
>
> Luke Szczepaniak
In general, I agree with Luke that our tasking tends to be overly conservative at std/15/18m class regionals. I was personally *greatly* relieved by the tasking at Hobbs, but only because I was new to the environment and not flying very well. It's easy to say from the safety of my office that 15m & open nats deserves stronger tasking and if some crank takes an old glider to a nationals at a venue he's not really prepped to fly, well tough. I had fun. I think :-).
I did encourage the 15m task advisors & CD to use smaller circles on the TATs. But the thing is: weather is uncertain, the schedule is tight, the advisors are there to race, not task set and the pressure is on to crank out a task that works, *quickly*. Tasking well requires effort and more time and study than the CD and advisors are likely to have available. If you want really good, creative, sharp tasking, you probably need to make this a separate job as is done for WGC.
The game has changed since the days of yore when we really didn't know very much about the weather, the tasks were less flexible, the CD took his best guess and we dealt with the consequences (including a lot of land outs). We can likely do better today (with better wx information), but there is no getting around the fact that big circles and MATs are going to reduce the risk of landouts.
My $0.02.
Evan Ludeman / T8
> For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.
Sure, if your finish point is on the edge of the airfield, which most aren't.
Sarah Arnold
August 14th 13, 12:00 AM
This happened to me at Cordele in June. I won the day and when all logs but one were in it looked like I had won the competition overall by 1 point. In the end that last log (land out) pushed us past the limit, the day was devalued, and Wally won overall by 2 points. This to say it wasn't some weird IGC "loophole" which provided incentive for land outs at the JWGC. Our own rules can present the same scenario. It was an excellent team captain playing the game. If we spent more time playing that same way we would learn when to use tactics to our advantage (and when tactics are a waste of energy)..
Sarah Arnold
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:37:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.
>
> Sure, if your finish point is on the edge of the airfield, which most aren't.
Not to nit pick, but there is the issue of landing on the runway. Many, if not most, US glider fields are single runways and the options off runway heading are "varied" to say the least. We need to consider the altitude margin to get lined up on a runway so that you don't end up in a low, skidding turn to final at the end of your glide from the finish to the airport.
> In the case of JWGC this year it was a 3km finish ring at 50m for std and 75m for club, to the >middle of the airfield (roughly 2.5km wide) which made for approximately 35:1 for std and 23:1 >for club. Easily achievable even with no energy (ask me how I know). But it was stressed many >times that it was set at a height which is meant to the absolute minimum you could conceivably >require (MC0 and a headwind) and you should not plan to arrive at that height with no energy. >As far as I know no gliders that were at or above the minimum height that subsequently failed >to make the field.
I think that is incorrect. I have a picture of a US junior team member's glider in a cut hayfield from a week ago - he stated that he was at the requisite finish height (no penalty) but had no extra energy to make the airfield and landed 0.8 mi short. Also, it was posted by the US Team captain at the WWGC that there was one injured pilot and separately a wrecked glider because in a close contest the pilots apparently ignored the very safety advice you mention in order to gain a few points by pushing it down to the top of the cylinder. This is not surprising in a world where team captains order deliberate land outs for less than 10 points "just in case".
Back to my original question. What is the compelling reason to adopt IGC rules in the US? Which rules will represent the big improvement and why? Finish is only one out of many rules, but I've heard no affirmative arguments yet.
I'd love to hear some specifics.
9B
Jerzy
August 14th 13, 04:40 AM
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:52:11 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:59:41 AM UTC-4, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
>
> > > Short tasks and few enormous turn areas rather than a larger number of smaller turns are choices made by the CD and task advisers, often in response to pilot complaining. If you want the opposite, talk to the CD don't complain about the rules.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In the last 5 years I have yet to fly a contest in which a task was over
>
> >
>
> > called, inversely, I have flown many in which tasks were under called or
>
> >
>
> > the day was scrubbed way too early. Personally I much rather land out
>
> >
>
> > due to an over call knowing that I used the whole day to the fullest
>
> >
>
> > rather then come home with a sky in which I could keep flying for
>
> >
>
> > another 2 hours!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have not heard (maybe I chose not to listen...) a single pilot
>
> >
>
> > complaining that a task was too hard or too long. I do (or choose to?)
>
> >
>
> > hear many who agree with me that we need to use the whole day and need
>
> >
>
> > more assigned tasks. Even at the last US 15m nationals, where Tim did
>
> >
>
> > an excellent job calling tasks and using the whole day, we did not have
>
> >
>
> > a single Assigned Task - this nats decided the US team that is going to
>
> >
>
> > the WGC next year! We can complain to the CD's all we want but it is
>
> >
>
> > the RC that has the authority, perhaps we need more emphasis on the
>
> >
>
> > wording or clearer direction for the CD's coming from the top.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If you want to improve the results on the world stage look to the task
>
> >
>
> > types and duration being flown at FAI contests, we need to train in
>
> >
>
> > similar conditions to be competitive. For the pilots who don't want
>
> >
>
> > that and rather come home early and have a beer the answer is simple -
>
> >
>
> > SPORTS Class...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Luke Szczepaniak
>
>
>
>
>
> In general, I agree with Luke that our tasking tends to be overly conservative at std/15/18m class regionals. I was personally *greatly* relieved by the tasking at Hobbs, but only because I was new to the environment and not flying very well. It's easy to say from the safety of my office that 15m & open nats deserves stronger tasking and if some crank takes an old glider to a nationals at a venue he's not really prepped to fly, well tough. I had fun. I think :-).
>
>
>
> I did encourage the 15m task advisors & CD to use smaller circles on the TATs. But the thing is: weather is uncertain, the schedule is tight, the advisors are there to race, not task set and the pressure is on to crank out a task that works, *quickly*. Tasking well requires effort and more time and study than the CD and advisors are likely to have available. If you want really good, creative, sharp tasking, you probably need to make this a separate job as is done for WGC.
>
>
>
> The game has changed since the days of yore when we really didn't know very much about the weather, the tasks were less flexible, the CD took his best guess and we dealt with the consequences (including a lot of land outs). We can likely do better today (with better wx information), but there is no getting around the fact that big circles and MATs are going to reduce the risk of landouts.
>
>
>
> My $0.02.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8
MAT should be called as last resort task just to have contest day. Doesn't matter how you structure MAT it is very unfair task.
Not flown in Worlds, is good for new contest pilots only( Regionals)
1. Finishing task without claiming assigned TP and receiving speed points is very unfair and distorting results.
2013 18M nationals- long MAT , leading pilots 20 minutes ahead of the group arrive in the finish area, condition deteriorate
options:
Finish task 20 minutes under time and be safe
Fly to the next TP and risk land out or overtime.
Those which arrived low and late cut task short and were rewarded with the same points as pilots arriving 20 minutes earlier, here is better part -those who took risk and went to the next TP landed out or didn't reach TP and returned after time and were penalized heavily. Results slow pilots received bonus for poor results and were rewarded very well.
2. MAT has time limit, AST has no time limit , total different strategy absolutely useless for worlds preparations.
3. I think only 2013 18M Nationals had AST tasks (Thank You Eric)
No other FAI class had AST in 2013 and 2012 18M Nationals had only MAT.
We are flying gliders of L/d of 50 to cover 100 miles we need 4 thermals or less , how hard is to fly AST, it could be slow but who cares we are flying contest.
40 years ago we flew gliders of L/d 35 and we flew only AST and long tasks were finished. How hard it could be to fly AST in glider of L/d 50
4. Tasks set with time limit are most of the time under called and we are seating for 2 hours above airport waiting to start in the best 2 or 3 hours condition when we could fly 5 hours .
Driving 3 days to Nationals contest and fly MAT only is waste of time as it is no difference from OLC which could be done at home with more time of flying at fraction of cost.
Jerzy Szemplinski
> Not to nit pick, but there is the issue of landing on the runway. Many, if not most, US glider fields are single runways and the options off runway heading are "varied" to say the least. We need to consider the altitude margin to get lined up on a runway so that you don't end up in a low, skidding turn to final at the end of your glide from the finish to the airport.
Why would you set a task that returns you on a heading other than for a direct landing? If you only have single runways why aren't you using control points to align pilots to them? Good safety concept regardless of finish height.
> I think that is incorrect. I have a picture of a US junior team member's glider in a cut hayfield from a week ago - he stated that he was at the requisite finish height (no penalty) but had no extra energy to make the airfield and landed 0.8 mi short. Also, it was posted by the US Team captain at the WWGC that there was one injured pilot and separately a wrecked glider because in a close contest the pilots apparently ignored the very safety advice you mention in order to gain a few points by pushing it down to the top of the cylinder. This is not surprising in a world where team captains order deliberate land outs for less than 10 points "just in case".
Perhaps the penalty was not awarded immediately and they were not aware at the time (they took some hours to appear), but on that day (if I have the right one) they busted the finish height and were penalized accordingly - http://soaringspot.net/jwgc2013/results/club/daily/day3.html
I don't think traces were published for the accident at WWGC so let's not speculate.
>
> Back to my original question. What is the compelling reason to adopt IGC rules in the US? Which rules will represent the big improvement and why? Finish is only one out of many rules, but I've heard no affirmative arguments yet.
Are there affirmative reasons not to? If you want to be different you should have solid reasons for being so. I'm not convinced they're less safe (if you have a high finish, and someone arrives low but on glide, what are they going to do??) Learning new processes and procedures and how to fly them optimally is not something you want to be doing upon arrival at a world competition.
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:22:43 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Why would you set a task that returns you on a heading other than for a direct landing? If you only have single runways why aren't you using control points to align pilots to them? Good safety concept regardless of finish height.
>
Well - a couple of reasons that I can think of immediately. Simultaneous direct landings onto a single runway for a large number of gliders present challenges that are significantly alleviated with a little extra altitude. Even with a 500-1000 foot finish I have seen very sporty landings when a contestant stops in the middle of the only runway. I can only imagine what happens when you don't have any option but to follow him in directly without delay. Steering turns out on course close to the finish can create high-speed converging traffic (this is often inherent if they are to be effective in steering). We had a fatal midair on the US a couple of years back under this sort of configuration. Setting the control points significantly further out means that you are restricting your tasking options. You also could require gliders to orbit say 20 miles out while they still have altitude and and get permission for a properly sequenced direct landing prior to finishing (probably would meet with significant resistance), or you could restrict contests only to airports with more than one runway (also not likely popular). Of course all these suggestions address the symptoms rather than the root cause, so why not address the root cause?
>
> Perhaps the penalty was not awarded immediately and they were not aware at the time (they took some hours to appear), but on that day (if I have the right one) they busted the finish height and were penalized accordingly - http://soaringspot.net/jwgc2013/results/club/daily/day3.html
>
I stand corrected. I should have checked the final scores. Odd that he thought he finished without penalty and was still nearly a mile short of making the airport. I don't think I've ever heard of that in the US.
>
> I don't think traces were published for the accident at WWGC so let's not speculate.
>
Happy to wait and review later whether the pilots' intent was to finish at the top of the finish cylinder, which would be the fundamental issue in question. I can tell you from direct conversations with other participants in WGCs that they often set up final glides to finish at the top of the cylinder height that is given. They try to have extra energy, but it doesn't always work out. I think it's safe to say the fact that you see lots of glider limping back to the airport low and slow is not a random outcome - it is set up by the rules.
>
> Back to my original question. What is the compelling reason to adopt IGC rules in the US? Which rules will represent the big improvement and why? Finish is only one out of many rules, but I've heard no affirmative arguments yet.
>
> Are there affirmative reasons not to? If you want to be different you should have solid reasons for being so. I'm not convinced they're less safe (if you have a high finish, and someone arrives low but on glide, what are they going to do??) Learning new processes and procedures and how to fly them optimally is not something you want to be doing upon arrival at a world competition.
I think the affirmative reasons are the entire logic why the US rules are different today - in order of priority: lives, injury and property damage. I have surveyed contest pilots on this point specifically and by a significant majority they enter into their glide computer the finish height you give them - a subset add some extra margin, but dive it off at the finish if they any excess energy. They don't end up at or near the finish height you give them by happenstance. The lower you sent that number the more likely you are to have gliders limping in on low, slow "direct landings". Most airports have traffic patterns because it is viewed as safer, not less safe as you argue. I would need more education as to why low and slow is a safer way to manage post-finish approaches to landing.
This is an interesting question for another reason - 95% of US pilots will never fly in a WGC, so you are asking them to fly under rules that are potentially inappropriate for the environment in which they fly their entire lives in the name of a vague notion of consistency for the 5% that do. I think one could easily make the converse argument. The US rules are what they are and making a change will have an adverse impact on 20 times as many pilots as you argue. So again, what is the argument in favor of 50-100 meter finishes at 3-4 km other than the "why not" that you offer? What benefit does it serve?
You did offer that if the airport situation didn't allow for it, extra finish height is in order. Very few US airports have the kind of 10-gliders-across, 1 or 2-km long runways in any direction you see in other countries. So by your own admission are you saying that the US rules are more appropriate for US contest sites anyway?
There must be a reason why the IGC set it up so that gliders are limping low and slow back to the airport post-finish - can anyone tell me? It logic doesn't leap out at me and I'd really like to know why people think it's a good idea.
9B
Sean F (F2)
August 14th 13, 01:45 PM
9B,
It's just the nature of the range of variables. Pilots flying ATs have to read the weather, terrain and clouds just the same. But the small turnpoint forces RACING rather than making big bets on those variables over a wide range of area. This introduces luck and chance, ie stumbling on to something others may not find, good or bad.
Comically, AATs are referee to as HATs (half ass tasks) by many of the better pilots I know...and I agree.
These should be absolute last resort tasks, not the norm.
Sean
Craig R.
August 14th 13, 03:51 PM
Ok. To summarize a bit from the last few posts, the main problems with the US rules are:
1. HATE MAT tasks.
2. Pretty much dislike AAT tasks
3. Want an adrenaline rush on final glide
To me, the first two are an issue between the CD and the pilots at the contest. No rule changes need to be implemented to cover those 2 issues. The only drawback I foresee is that out of 30 pilots at a contest, 5 will want AST's called every day and the other 25 will not return next year because they prefer MAT's and AAT's and don't want to fly for 5 hours on task (6+ for the day). The vocal minority keeps this issue up and running in RAS.
The third is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Both rule sets include procedures that must be obeyed to return to the airport. I compete in a few locations where you could be dead if you land 1/2 mile short of the airport. Sagebrush and lava are not forgiving to fiberglass moving at 48 knots. Agreed, the penalties in the US rules are severe for low returns and speed vs. distance points. You don't need a contest to practice low contest finishes. To prep for an FAI contest, you can do that on any flight at your home airport. So other than getting a thrill and doing it in front of the other contest pilots, what is the point? For me, landing safely without damage to my glider (or me) after many hours in the air is more important than an adrenaline hit.
Craig Reinholt
GC[_2_]
August 15th 13, 06:58 AM
On 13/08/2013 21:50, Jim White wrote:
>>
>> The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US
> rules (5% of the world) are:
>>
> Guys, we love you to bits but this does look like a bit of a recurring
> theme to us in the rest of the world. Maybe the US self belief that the US
> knows best is what drives you to success but to many in the wider world it
> looks a bit daft.
>
> World IGC Rules - US different
> World Metric - US Imperial
> In particular for commerical aviation:
> World Tonnes - US Pounds
> World HPa - US Inches of Mercury
A lecture on the evils of exceptionalism from someone with an address in
the UK shows either immense chutzpah or complete ignorance (well, it is,
after all, the UK).
The reasons for differences in commercial aviation are mainly because
the US effectively invented it and is still the largest single part of
it but Europe (including its UK satellite) sulkily refuses to recognise
this historical fact. While picking up on altimeter sub-scales, he
ignores the actual face of the instrument which the UK also calibrates
in feet while the "World" does it in metres.
While mentioning lbs as a US pecadillo (which was still how the UK
measured most aircraft weights last time I was there), he ignores the
face of UK ASIs still stubbornly calibrated in knots. He also ignores
the UK use of nautical miles on DMEs rather than km.
Finally, I'm surprised he doesn't note the interesting fact that in the
UK it's only legal to sell wine in metric glasses (tiny by world
standards, but metrically tiny - 125ml, 175ml, etc!) but beer has to be
sold in pints or fractions of a pint. Who's running their own private
race there!
I'll leave out the typically smug UK politics but just mention that only
the UK could see the way English words are spelt by themselves as
"World". Guess what spellings are used in teaching English in China?
GC
>
> Then there is:
> World Colour/Favour/Labour - US Color/Favor/Labor
> World Government Transparancy - US Gov Secrecy
> World Whistle blower hero - US Traitor
> World Left leaning liberalism - US Right wing imperialism, I am joking but
> to many it looks just like that, more war war than jaw jaw.
>
> Believe me, there is a big wide world out there, that has many varied
> cultures and customs, and that is learning how to work together in many
> ways for the common good.
>
> You do not need to stand apart or 'lead' all the time, it would be good if
> the US sometimes decided to join in. Go on, you can do it!
>
Jim White[_3_]
August 15th 13, 08:09 AM
At 05:58 15 August 2013, GC wrote:
>The reasons for differences in commercial aviation are mainly because
>the US effectively invented it and is still the largest single part of
>it but Europe (including its UK satellite) sulkily refuses to recognise
>this historical fact.
I think perhaps that George Cayley's coachman, both Brits, has been
accredited with the first manned heavier than air flight in 1853.
The Graf Zeppelin performed the first commercial transatlantic flight in
1929 - German?
The first commercial Jet was the de Havilland Comet
The confusion between Hg and HPa is a safety issue not a cultural one. It
should be resolved.
Beer in the UK is sold in metric measures except in pubs. This is a
cultural thing (see later in my post about diverse cultures) not a safety
issue.
>I'll leave out the typically smug UK politics but just mention that only
>the UK could see the way English words are spelt by themselves as
>"World". Guess what spellings are used in teaching English in China?
Surely you know where the English language comes from? Oh dear.
GC, reread my post. I tried to make my points without insulting anyone. Now
look at yours. Enough said about diplomacy.
Jim
Jim White[_3_]
August 15th 13, 08:13 AM
At 05:58 15 August 2013, GC wrote:
>The reasons for differences in commercial aviation are mainly because
>the US effectively invented it and is still the largest single part of
>it but Europe (including its UK satellite) sulkily refuses to recognise
>this historical fact.
I think perhaps that George Cayley's coachman, both Brits, has been
accredited with the first manned heavier than air flight in 1853.
The Graf Zeppelin performed the first commercial transatlantic flight in
1929 - German?
The first commercial Jet was the de Havilland Comet
The confusion between Hg and HPa is a safety issue not a cultural one. It
should be resolved.
Beer in the UK is sold in metric measures except in pubs. This is a
cultural thing (see later in my post about diverse cultures) not a safety
issue.
>I'll leave out the typically smug UK politics but just mention that only
>the UK could see the way English words are spelt by themselves as
>"World". Guess what spellings are used in teaching English in China?
Surely you know where the English language comes from? Oh dear.
GC, reread my post. I tried to make my points without insulting anyone. Now
look at yours. Enough said about diplomacy.
Jim
7C
August 15th 13, 08:32 AM
Ignoring all the crap about national differences - which really are like seasonings and provide some variety.
I think it's more concerning that larger teams have influence over the competition that smaller teams don't have. Image what would happen if the German team started to do this as matter of course - any team with less than 3 competitors in a class would be at a disadvantage. Hardly sporting, even if it is well within the letter of the rules.
The last day at competitions is really a very different thing than the previous days. All sense appears to go out the window, tactics change, risks are taken that would never otherwise be taken.
How much of this is actually because the point spread at the end is consistently so small?
On Thursday, August 15, 2013 5:02:37 PM UTC+9:30, 7C wrote:
> Ignoring all the crap about national differences - which really are like seasonings and provide some variety.
>
>
>
> I think it's more concerning that larger teams have influence over the competition that smaller teams don't have. Image what would happen if the German team started to do this as matter of course - any team with less than 3 competitors in a class would be at a disadvantage. Hardly sporting, even if it is well within the letter of the rules.
>
>
>
> The last day at competitions is really a very different thing than the previous days. All sense appears to go out the window, tactics change, risks are taken that would never otherwise be taken.
>
>
>
> How much of this is actually because the point spread at the end is consistently so small?
I believe it's only at the juniors you're allowed a team of 3, everywhere else it is just 2.
> Well - a couple of reasons that I can think of immediately. Simultaneous direct landings onto a single runway for a large number of gliders present challenges that are significantly alleviated with a little extra altitude. Even with a 500-1000 foot finish I have seen very sporty landings when a contestant stops in the middle of the only runway. I can only imagine what happens when you don't have any option but to follow him in directly without delay. Steering turns out on course close to the finish can create high-speed converging traffic (this is often inherent if they are to be effective in steering). We had a fatal midair on the US a couple of years back under this sort of configuration. Setting the control points significantly further out means that you are restricting your tasking options. You also could require gliders to orbit say 20 miles out while they still have altitude and and get permission for a properly sequenced direct landing prior to finishing (probably would meet with significant resistance), or you could restrict contests only to airports with more than one runway (also not likely popular). Of course all these suggestions address the symptoms rather than the root cause, so why not address the root cause?
You'll always have pilots converging if they're coming back to the same airfield. The idea is you have them do it at a time with a lower workload, at a reasonable height (~10-20k out) so if something does happen they've a hope of jumping, and at regular cruise speeds rather than the higher energy typical of the finish. It makes sense regardless of finish heights.
What do you mean by 'sporty' landing? If someone stopped midway down a single strip airfield with gliders coming in behind I'd expect them to get a dangerous flying penalty.
>
> I think the affirmative reasons are the entire logic why the US rules are different today - in order of priority: lives, injury and property damage. I have surveyed contest pilots on this point specifically and by a significant majority they enter into their glide computer the finish height you give them - a subset add some extra margin, but dive it off at the finish if they any excess energy. They don't end up at or near the finish height you give them by happenstance. The lower you sent that number the more likely you are to have gliders limping in on low, slow "direct landings". Most airports have traffic patterns because it is viewed as safer, not less safe as you argue. I would need more education as to why low and slow is a safer way to manage post-finish approaches to landing.
Perhaps there's a difference in terminology here, but do you really have airports that require circuits/'patterns' to be flown during competitions? My experience has been that circuits simple don't scale to large fleets and direct landings are much, much safer.
As for prioritizing 'lives, injury and property damage', well, let me just say 'FLARM'...
> You did offer that if the airport situation didn't allow for it, extra finish height is in order. Very few US airports have the kind of 10-gliders-across, 1 or 2-km long runways in any direction you see in other countries. So by your own admission are you saying that the US rules are more appropriate for US contest sites anyway?
Keep in mind the IGC does not actually define the size of the finish ring or the finish altitude. What I'm trying to determine is why there seems to be an allergic reaction to setting those finishes below circuit height. Of course the site has to be taken into consideration when setting the finish - my site has 8km of dense city with obstacles on approach, and I would not suggest a 50m 3k finish over that (although I don't see why the case you present is a problem - even with space for only one glider at a time, if everyone lands long what's the problem...?).
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.