Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

[Sean F (F2)]

Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...

1) 10 - 15 gliders thermalling together 500 feet above maximum start height.. Watching each other looking for the best time to start. This requires significant time on the "PDA" analyzing our positions within the cylinder, preparing our stop watch and watching our altimeter preparing for THE US RULES PROCEDURE. Gliders are all over the place, entering this gaggle, leaving, pulling spoilers and descending, etc........

2) THE US RULES STARTING PROCEDURE: Spoilers out, a pack of 10 - 15 gliders begin their decent below the max starting height, preparing to start my watch to time my 2 minute period required to be below the MSH. Speeds increase to well over 100 knots.

3) Descending below the MSH, I start my watch. Now I am forced to check it fairly often. Meanwhile 10 - 15 gliders are WOUND UP to 140 knots and banking 70 degrees, watching their watches for 2 minutes to pass, watching their PDA's (for their location in the cylinder) and desperately watching their altimeters to ensure they do not accidentally climb above MSH.

There is a fairly urgent need to start with the pack, so you concentrate heavily on not making a mistake with altitude and forcing another 2 min period of waiting watching the pack fly off....eyes are in the cockpit a large amount of this time........

4) While focused on instruments, 10-15 gliders are WOUND UP, flying a circle in close proximity, and as 2 min expires for some at different times, they level off and blast out on course, sometimes suddenly and causing near misses and surprise in other pilots.

This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.

In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.

Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!

Sean
F2

[Luke Szczepaniak]

Agree completely, I think I wrote something similar a year or two ago
when this nonsense was introduced. Call me crazy but I feel safer with
guys being below cloud base with their eyes out and head on a swivel
rather than with everyone looking at their watches and altimeters!

Luke Szczepaniak

On 08/13/2013 12:01 PM, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...
>
> 1) 10 - 15 gliders thermalling together 500 feet above maximum start height. Watching each other looking for the best time to start. This requires significant time on the "PDA" analyzing our positions within the cylinder, preparing our stop watch and watching our altimeter preparing for THE US RULES PROCEDURE. Gliders are all over the place, entering this gaggle, leaving, pulling spoilers and descending, etc........
>
> 2) THE US RULES STARTING PROCEDURE: Spoilers out, a pack of 10 - 15 gliders begin their decent below the max starting height, preparing to start my watch to time my 2 minute period required to be below the MSH. Speeds increase to well over 100 knots.
>
> 3) Descending below the MSH, I start my watch. Now I am forced to check it fairly often. Meanwhile 10 - 15 gliders are WOUND UP to 140 knots and banking 70 degrees, watching their watches for 2 minutes to pass, watching their PDA's (for their location in the cylinder) and desperately watching their altimeters to ensure they do not accidentally climb above MSH.
>
> There is a fairly urgent need to start with the pack, so you concentrate heavily on not making a mistake with altitude and forcing another 2 min period of waiting watching the pack fly off....eyes are in the cockpit a large amount of this time........
>
> 4) While focused on instruments, 10-15 gliders are WOUND UP, flying a circle in close proximity, and as 2 min expires for some at different times, they level off and blast out on course, sometimes suddenly and causing near misses and surprise in other pilots.
>
> This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.
>
> In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.
>
> Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!
>
> Sean
> F2
>

[kirk.stant]

I believe when the MSH rule was first established, the max height was supposed to be set above the expected cloudbase or top of lift. That's according to the SN10 manual - I may be wrong. Anybody remember the reasoning for it?

But I agree that it has resulted in some interesting formation flying and high-speed zooming around the start cylinder.

OK in a small contest with guys you know. Pretty damn sporting at a large regional!

By the way, SeeYouMobile has a nice little automatic timer function that tells you how long you have been under the MSH and resets everytime you go above it without starting - sure beats dicking around with a stopwatch or wris****ch (what's that - haven't worn one of those in years!).

Kirk
66

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 08/13/2013 12:20 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
> I believe when the MSH rule was first established, the max height was supposed to be set above the expected cloudbase or top of lift. That's according to the SN10 manual - I may be wrong. Anybody remember the reasoning for it?
>
> But I agree that it has resulted in some interesting formation flying and high-speed zooming around the start cylinder.
>
> OK in a small contest with guys you know. Pretty damn sporting at a large regional!
>
> By the way, SeeYouMobile has a nice little automatic timer function that tells you how long you have been under the MSH and resets everytime you go above it without starting - sure beats dicking around with a stopwatch or wris****ch (what's that - haven't worn one of those in years!).
>
> Kirk
> 66
>


XCSoar has a timer too - it's still increased heads down time, maybe a
feature request for an audio alert when you are below start would help..
but the answer should never be more computer complexity, we need
better/simpler rules! Maybe the solution is to remove the time limit
all together, leave the height limit in place, the speed limit that
already exists should be enough to prevent red line zoomies... just a
thought.

Luke Szczepaniak

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:01:26 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...
>
>
>
> 1) 10 - 15 gliders thermalling together 500 feet above maximum start height. Watching each other looking for the best time to start. This requires significant time on the "PDA" analyzing our positions within the cylinder, preparing our stop watch and watching our altimeter preparing for THE US RULES PROCEDURE. Gliders are all over the place, entering this gaggle, leaving, pulling spoilers and descending, etc........
>
>
>
> 2) THE US RULES STARTING PROCEDURE: Spoilers out, a pack of 10 - 15 gliders begin their decent below the max starting height, preparing to start my watch to time my 2 minute period required to be below the MSH. Speeds increase to well over 100 knots.
>
>
>
> 3) Descending below the MSH, I start my watch. Now I am forced to check it fairly often. Meanwhile 10 - 15 gliders are WOUND UP to 140 knots and banking 70 degrees, watching their watches for 2 minutes to pass, watching their PDA's (for their location in the cylinder) and desperately watching their altimeters to ensure they do not accidentally climb above MSH.
>
>
>
> There is a fairly urgent need to start with the pack, so you concentrate heavily on not making a mistake with altitude and forcing another 2 min period of waiting watching the pack fly off....eyes are in the cockpit a large amount of this time........
>
>
>
> 4) While focused on instruments, 10-15 gliders are WOUND UP, flying a circle in close proximity, and as 2 min expires for some at different times, they level off and blast out on course, sometimes suddenly and causing near misses and surprise in other pilots.
>
>
>
> This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.
>
>
>
> In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.
>
>
>
> Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2

You're doing it wrong.

T8

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 08/13/2013 12:59 PM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> You're doing it wrong.
>
> T8


Evan, this is exactly the answer I got when I brought it up two years
ago. Regardless of how I fly the other guys in the start cylinder are
still doing this. It will continue to happen until we replace the rules
with something even more complex, in the name of "safety" of course.
All the meanwhile we'll be sitting down having dinner and a beer at 5:30
in the afternoon complaining that the sport is dying and that no one
wants to go to contests... here is a bit of a news flash, the sport is
not dying of natural causes.. we're killing it!

Rant over...
Luke Szczepaniak

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:21:55 AM UTC-7, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> Evan, this is exactly the answer I got when I brought it up two years
> ago. Regardless of how I fly the other guys in the start cylinder are
> still doing this. It will continue to happen until we replace the rules
> with something even more complex, in the name of "safety" of course.

A decade or so ago, when this rule first showed up, I added some code to my Palm (remember those?) navigation software that used tones to indicate when I entered the cylinder (from the top or side), warned me if my airspeed was getting too high or if I was about to exit cylinder before the 2 minutes were up, let me know when I could safely proceed from wherever I was to exit, and as I exited whether it was a good or bad start. There was nothing to look at except the other gliders and an occasional glance at the moving map so I could position myself for a reasonably optimal exit. I assume modern nav software written with US rules in mind does pretty much the same thing, but better. The only issue was that if there was one or two strong thermals in the cylinder, there would be a bunch of gliders climbing up, some rolling out and pulling spoilers to avoid going through the top, while others would keep on climbing through the top. I was never into flying with the pack, I imagine those that do will have interesting problems at start, no matter what the rules happen to be.

It seems to me that these "other" pilots just need to be strongly encouraged not to do it wrong...

Marc

[[email protected]]

Having thought long and hard about this for many years, I'm curious what alternative you guys would prefer.

Unlimited altitude start? Then on blue days you absolutely have to sit with the gaggle for 20-30 minutes to get that last 500 feet. Or, everyone goes off into the clouds (demonstrated fact). It can also be remarkably unfair, when early takeoffs find thermal wave or it takes a long time to get to start altitude.

Limited altitude, no 2 minutes, a la IGC? Back to VNE dives. Or VNE dives after orbiting up in the clouds, a la IGC.

The current system has the advantage that you don't have to do any craziness for competitive reasons. If the max height is set sensibly low enough, as the rules suggest, then orbit above or away from everyone else. When it's time to start, return to the cylinder, climb up and go. Or better yet, stay below, well away from the nutty gaggle, and climb out through the top.

"Start anywhere" adds to the options as you get credit for distance flown and can more easily choose to avoid the big gaggle.

I grant many people still do some silly things, like orbit just below MSH in a big gaggle for half an hour. They don't have to, but they choose to and it's not great.

Still, let's hear a better alternative.

John Cochrane

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 08/13/2013 3:07 PM, wrote:
> Limited altitude, no 2 minutes, a la IGC? Back to VNE dives. Or VNE dives after orbiting up in the clouds, a la IGC.

John, we already have a rule that handles the VNE dives...

> 10.8.7 While inside or within 2 miles of any Start Cylinder that has been designated for use by any competition class, pilots are
> expected to avoid flight at indicated airspeeds greater than 115 mph and to pay particular attention to safe flight near circling sailplanes

Luke Szczepaniak

[[email protected]]

>
>
> John, we already have a rule that handles the VNE dives...
>
>
>
> > 10.8.7 While inside or within 2 miles of any Start Cylinder that has been designated for use by any competition class, pilots are
>
> > expected to avoid flight at indicated airspeeds greater than 115 mph and to pay particular attention to safe flight near circling sailplanes
>
>
> Luke Szczepaniak

Do you really want to go back to a start with no 2 minute limit, so the competitively right thing to do is to get up to about 1000 feet high, then manage a high speed dive to the edge of the cylinder, while watching altitude, distance to start, airspeed, oh and of course for other gliders? Then, argue each day with the scorer about whether you have one fix in/under the cylinder, and whether you went more than 115 mph after comparing true/indicated, ground/airspeed?

[[email protected]]

>
> Do you really want to go back to a start with no 2 minute limit, so the competitively right thing to do is to get up to about 1000 feet high, then manage a high speed dive to the edge of the cylinder, while watching altitude, distance to start, airspeed, oh and of course for other gliders? Then, argue each day with the scorer about whether you have one fix in/under the cylinder, and whether you went more than 115 mph after comparing true/indicated, ground/airspeed?

The Europeans have a remarkably sensible solution (in my opinion). If a maximum start height is set, it is simply required that pilots have a single fix BELOW the start height between the time of the start gate opening (usually ~20 minutes after last launch) until the time they actually cross the start line. So you can climb into wave as high as you like and start as high as you like, as long as you do it after the start gate has opened. If you're in the wave before the start gate opens, you have to come down and then climb up again like those who launched later.

This means:
1) Everyone has a fair chance of getting into the wave / getting to cloudbase.
2) No VNE dives to get under the start line.

-matthew

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:21:55 PM UTC-4, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> On 08/13/2013 12:59 PM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > You're doing it wrong.
>
> >
>
> > T8
>
>
>
>
>
> Evan, this is exactly the answer I got when I brought it up two years
>
> ago. Regardless of how I fly the other guys in the start cylinder are
>
> still doing this. It will continue to happen until we replace the rules
>
> with something even more complex, in the name of "safety" of course.
>
> All the meanwhile we'll be sitting down having dinner and a beer at 5:30
>
> in the afternoon complaining that the sport is dying and that no one
>
> wants to go to contests... here is a bit of a news flash, the sport is
>
> not dying of natural causes.. we're killing it!
>
>
>
> Rant over...
>
> Luke Szczepaniak

My opinion... none of the behavior described by the OP yields a significant competitive advantage.

There are many very smart, very consistently fast, very safe pilots in this sport. Those are my role models and I recommend that others choose likewise.

I may go pull flight logs from 18s and look at the starts. I bet I can name in advance a couple of guys with competition records to swoon over who weren't tying their gliders in knots before the start.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Craig R.]

> Evan, this is exactly the answer I got when I brought it up two years
>
> ago. Regardless of how I fly the other guys in the start cylinder are
>
> still doing this. It will continue to happen until we replace the rules
>
> with something even more complex, in the name of "safety" of course.
>
> All the meanwhile we'll be sitting down having dinner and a beer at 5:30
>
> in the afternoon complaining that the sport is dying and that no one
>
> wants to go to contests... here is a bit of a news flash, the sport is
>
> not dying of natural causes.. we're killing it!
>
>
>
> Rant over...
>
> Luke Szczepaniak



Seriously? A rule promoting contest safety killing this sport? Please.

Let’s go the root of the problem.

We have all discussed the cost of entry into soaring. It is severe in relation to many other activities. Since the middle class hasn’t had a real increase in income (not discussing COL increases) over the past couple of decades, disposable income has steadily dropped. We have to be more selective in our recreational activities.. I’ll stop here. We are all pretty well informed on this. No need to beat a “dead horse”.

What is even more insidious and what effecting many other sports besides soaring is that we are losing youth participation in the US.

Let’s talk another sport.... golf. My best friend from Jr. High School through Grad school is a PGA pro and owns his own course. We recently talked about how golf is in a steady decline in dollars and participation for the past decade or two. I postulated that the cost per round has gone up through proliferation of courses, increase in equipment costs and that our incomes haven’t kept pace. People just can’t afford the activity like they used to. He states that this does impact golf numbers, but what is the greater issue is a huge decline in junior programs. Overall, kids are just NOT interested in golf the way we used to be. Tennis? Soaring? Hah! At the junior level, the same can be said for just about any sport other than perhaps football, soccer and baseball (my guesses here). The base is dwindling. Kids have other activities that interest them. Many activities not related to sports.

The result is that participation numbers for these sports decline over time.. A contest rule one way or the other will NOT change this.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

>
>
> Seriously? A rule promoting contest safety killing this sport? Please.
>
>

It is my contention that this particular rule, and several others, that were instituted in the name of safety, in reality do little or nothing to enhance it. Further more, the unintended results of implementing these rules may actually promote unsafe behaviour. It is my opinion, that the complex, constantly changing set of rules are PARTIALLY to blame for the low participation at contests.

Luke Szczepaniak

[[email protected]]

Malcontents don't become champions. If someone doesn't like rules - may change competitions or professions...
The dumbest rules are smarter than complains.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:40:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Malcontents don't become champions. If someone doesn't like rules - may change competitions or professions...
>
> The dumbest rules are smarter than complains.

Wow, that was very insightful! Congratulations.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:01:26 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...

> This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.
>
> In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.
>
> Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!

Hi Sean,

I've had all the start experiences you mention. I share most of your issues with them (just not in CAPS - ;-) ).

I'm not sure what the alternative proposal is, but the ones I can think of have also issues. Unlimited height start clusters everybody at the top of lift or at cloudbase if there are clouds (maybe even above cloudbase - been there, done that and I did not enjoy it). If there is no top there is no start out the top and a giant gaggle tends to form at the point where the first leg course line exists the cylinder - all at top of lift. Done that too. At least with start out the top you spread the pack out a bit.

FYI all my soaring software is European (i.e. not US-based or particularly focused on US rules) and all have a tone for getting below MSH and at 120 seconds. They work great. Not sure what you are using these days, but I expect you'll have it in a future release - it really helps an immense amount in terms of all the fiddling.

I'd love to hear your suggestion? Some possibilities:

1) Unlimited height start? If so how to handle gaggling at top of lift or cloud base and what if any enforcement for the FARs regarding clearance from clouds?
2) Eliminate two minutes below MSH?
3) If yes on #2 - Eliminate the speed limit in the start cylinder? Should there be enforcement for exceeding Vne or leave it to the pilot?
4) Other ideas? I'd love to hear some specific ideas.

Without a better alternative all we are left with is the griping part.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:09:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:01:26 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...
>
>
>
> > This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.
>
> >
>
> > In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.
>
> >
>
> > Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!
>
>
>
> Hi Sean,
>
>
>
> I've had all the start experiences you mention. I share most of your issues with them (just not in CAPS - ;-) ).
>
>
>
> I'm not sure what the alternative proposal is, but the ones I can think of have also issues. Unlimited height start clusters everybody at the top of lift or at cloudbase if there are clouds (maybe even above cloudbase - been there, done that and I did not enjoy it). If there is no top there is no start out the top and a giant gaggle tends to form at the point where the first leg course line exists the cylinder - all at top of lift. Done that too. At least with start out the top you spread the pack out a bit.
>
>
>
> FYI all my soaring software is European (i.e. not US-based or particularly focused on US rules) and all have a tone for getting below MSH and at 120 seconds. They work great. Not sure what you are using these days, but I expect you'll have it in a future release - it really helps an immense amount in terms of all the fiddling.
>
>
>
> I'd love to hear your suggestion? Some possibilities:
>
>
>
> 1) Unlimited height start? If so how to handle gaggling at top of lift or cloud base and what if any enforcement for the FARs regarding clearance from clouds?
>
> 2) Eliminate two minutes below MSH?
>
> 3) If yes on #2 - Eliminate the speed limit in the start cylinder? Should there be enforcement for exceeding Vne or leave it to the pilot?
>
> 4) Other ideas? I'd love to hear some specific ideas.
>
>
>
> Without a better alternative all we are left with is the griping part.
>
>
>
> 9B

The two minute rule causes some bad behavior as Sean and Luke described. Pilots congregate in a thermal just below the altitude limit flying at 100 kts to avoid busting the limit constantly looking at altimeters and timers. A lot of very nervous flying.

This rule is simply not a good rule. It does not improve safety so it should be removed.

How to prevent pilots from diving? Don't limit the start altitude. Then you don't need the 2 minute rule. I know this will cause pilots to stay at the cloud base but they are now all staying under the limit altitude anyway. In the end you would remove the 2 minute rule that causes problems.

I flew before the altitude limit was introduced and I felt safer then than I do now as at the cloud base no one needs to watch an altimeter or a timer.. Heads outside.

[Sean F (F2)]

I like the free start height option. It goes nicely with open start times and will really reward pilots for finding and centering lift. Also may break up the pack and provide interesting tactics.

And sorry for the title of my thread but the beating IGC rules are taking on RAS and in other mediums from certain US pilots needed some balance ;-).

For the record, I felt OK? with this starting procedure although it was highly energized (airspeed and turning radius), often with a big pull up back into a climb after 2 minutes had passed. As long as all the pilots 'knew what was happening tactically' it was fine but occasionally I saw guys going 55 knots thermaling up thru guys going 140 knots descending and later pulling back up into the same crowded thermal....

The golden BB syndrome comes into play mixing gliders in this manner....a lot of chaos can develop in a hurry. So much so that I pulled off and went away once as I was growing concerned about the complexity of keeping track

Again, I think an unlimited or free height start might be safer. Cloud flying is not a concern of mine. It should be self policed. One thought is on days with clouds you could get still get packs waiting for each other to start under said cloud. At least they would not be mixing up and down and looking into their cockpits as often...and they would all be going roily the same speed, turning left, etc.

Sean
F2

[Jerzy]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:29:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:09:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:01:26 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hi Sean,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I've had all the start experiences you mention. I share most of your issues with them (just not in CAPS - ;-) ).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm not sure what the alternative proposal is, but the ones I can think of have also issues. Unlimited height start clusters everybody at the top of lift or at cloudbase if there are clouds (maybe even above cloudbase - been there, done that and I did not enjoy it). If there is no top there is no start out the top and a giant gaggle tends to form at the point where the first leg course line exists the cylinder - all at top of lift. Done that too. At least with start out the top you spread the pack out a bit.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > FYI all my soaring software is European (i.e. not US-based or particularly focused on US rules) and all have a tone for getting below MSH and at 120 seconds. They work great. Not sure what you are using these days, but I expect you'll have it in a future release - it really helps an immense amount in terms of all the fiddling.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'd love to hear your suggestion? Some possibilities:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1) Unlimited height start? If so how to handle gaggling at top of lift or cloud base and what if any enforcement for the FARs regarding clearance from clouds?
>
> >
>
> > 2) Eliminate two minutes below MSH?
>
> >
>
> > 3) If yes on #2 - Eliminate the speed limit in the start cylinder? Should there be enforcement for exceeding Vne or leave it to the pilot?
>
> >
>
> > 4) Other ideas? I'd love to hear some specific ideas.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Without a better alternative all we are left with is the griping part.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 9B
>
>
>
> The two minute rule causes some bad behavior as Sean and Luke described. Pilots congregate in a thermal just below the altitude limit flying at 100 kts to avoid busting the limit constantly looking at altimeters and timers. A lot of very nervous flying.
>
>
>
> This rule is simply not a good rule. It does not improve safety so it should be removed.
>
>
>
> How to prevent pilots from diving? Don't limit the start altitude. Then you don't need the 2 minute rule. I know this will cause pilots to stay at the cloud base but they are now all staying under the limit altitude anyway. In the end you would remove the 2 minute rule that causes problems.
>
>
>
> I flew before the altitude limit was introduced and I felt safer then than I do now as at the cloud base no one needs to watch an altimeter or a timer. Heads outside.

Nothing wrong with altitude limit as long as it is close to the cloud base - no advantage to go trough the top .
We had huge safety problem where cylinder top was well below cloud base in 2013 18M Nationals,
2012 15M Nationals Mifflin and in addition 2011 15M Nationals in Logan where limit was just 1,000 feet above ridge and most gliders were between ridge and top of the start cylinder.
I can say that above start cylinders were the most dangerous moments in my recent contest flying.
Very often there is only one strong thermal in start cylinder area and all pilots will go for it . Rules introduce behavior and we will do all possible to have start advantage on other pilots, proposal to find other thermal and start from other end is only in theory.
In US we use start cylinder and start trough the top, if we change to start line (FAI 10 km) we have larger separation in addition we don't have
30 gliders in the front half of the cylinder, Imagine 50 gliders during WGC in 5 SM start front half cylinder with US rules. ( in reality only front half cylinder is usable)
If we remove start trough the top then no advantage to be just below start altitude and slingshot trough the top in strong thermal and climb to the cloud base another 1,000 or 1,500 feet.
If we have limit of 90 or 100kt and start line for FAI class then no one will dive like in old times at VNE, it is easier to control speed then time.
Two minutes limit is removing two safety futures- vertical separation and horizontal separation as all are trying to be for 2 minutes below specific altitude, in addition it is forcing all pilots in to the same area of limited radius with no vertical separation and very close proximity I think it works opposite to safety.
Yes, we need start altitude limit in cases of very high cloud base, blue thermals or (wave 2012 WGC Uvalde) to give all pilots the same chance, but US start cylinder is very unsafe place to be.
Jerzy Szemplinski

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:39:41 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I like the free start height option. It goes nicely with open start times and will really reward pilots for finding and centering lift. Also may break up the pack and provide interesting tactics.
>
> And sorry for the title of my thread but the beating IGC rules are taking on RAS and in other mediums from certain US pilots needed some balance ;-).
> Sean
>
> F2

Unlimited start heights are unfair to the guy/girl at the back of the grid. Minden and even Hobbs on occasion have cloudbases above 17,500'. All 8 IGC contests I have flown have used height limited starts- usually 1200-2000m.
Richard Walters

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:40:39 PM UTC-7, Jerzy wrote:

> If we have limit of 90 or 100kt and start line for FAI class then no one will dive like in old times at VNE, it is easier to control speed then time.
>
> Two minutes limit is removing two safety futures- vertical separation and horizontal separation as all are trying to be for 2 minutes below specific altitude, in addition it is forcing all pilots in to the same area of limited radius with no vertical separation and very close proximity I think it works opposite to safety.
>
> Yes, we need start altitude limit in cases of very high cloud base, blue thermals or (wave 2012 WGC Uvalde) to give all pilots the same chance, but US start cylinder is very unsafe place to be.
>
> Jerzy Szemplinski

So your specific suggestion is:

1) Reset the MSH suggestion in the rules to, say, 8000' MSL. It would effectively be top of lift or cloud base on many contests in the eastern US. You'd either live with the fact that you'll sometimes get pre-start gaggles congregating at the front edge of the cylinder just barely clear of clouds - or provide for the same penalty for violating the cloud clearance FAR as for violating airspace FARs.

2) Re-set the speed limit in the start cylinder to 90 knots IAS calculated from the log file. You'd have to base it on a standard atmosphere calculation and an estimate for wind based on aggregate circling speed differentials as best as can be estimated from all the log files at the closest time available if IAS isn't available directly in each log - or require logs that include IAS if we don't require it today.

3) Based on 2), you no longer need a 2 minute rule because an 90-knot dive into the top of cylinder at 8,000 feet isn't a concern, since you'll probably be heading out on course at no less than 70.

Is that a correct summary?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32:27 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Correction in #1 - 8,000' AGL.


> So your specific suggestion is:
>
>
>
> 1) Reset the MSH suggestion in the rules to, say, 8000' MSL. It would effectively be top of lift or cloud base on many contests in the eastern US. You'd either live with the fact that you'll sometimes get pre-start gaggles congregating at the front edge of the cylinder just barely clear of clouds - or provide for the same penalty for violating the cloud clearance FAR as for violating airspace FARs.
>
>
>
> 2) Re-set the speed limit in the start cylinder to 90 knots IAS calculated from the log file. You'd have to base it on a standard atmosphere calculation and an estimate for wind based on aggregate circling speed differentials as best as can be estimated from all the log files at the closest time available if IAS isn't available directly in each log - or require logs that include IAS if we don't require it today.
>
>
>
> 3) Based on 2), you no longer need a 2 minute rule because an 90-knot dive into the top of cylinder at 8,000 feet isn't a concern, since you'll probably be heading out on course at no less than 70.
>
>
>
> Is that a correct summary?

[Wojciech Scigala]

Użytkownik napisał:

> The Europeans have a remarkably sensible solution (in my opinion). If
> a maximum start height is set, it is simply required that pilots have
> a single fix BELOW the start height between the time of the start
> gate opening (usually ~20 minutes after last launch) until the time
> they actually cross the start line. So you can climb into wave as
> high as you like and start as high as you like, as long as you do it
> after the start gate has opened. If you're in the wave before the
> start gate opens, you have to come down and then climb up again like
> those who launched later.
This is not actually "European" rule, but one used in Poland and
included in EGC/JWGC Local Procedures. For me it's both fair and safe,
however it is used only if we expect wave conditions. For most days,
there's no start altitude limit at all, as the cloudbase/liftbase limits
it for us.


--
WojtuÅ›

[Sean F (F2)]

Great post Jerzy. We have very few pilots with true FAI rules experience. We should listen to their perspectives very carefully....

FAI start line solves many problems...

[Sean F (F2)]

Richard,

Why? Any start opening 15 minutes after the last launch has the potential of being unfair on a weak day (loosing the gaggle). This is just part of the nature of soaring. Sometimes you have to do it yourself! ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 5:32:50 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Richard,
> Why? Any start opening 15 minutes after the last launch has the potential of being unfair on a weak day (loosing the gaggle). This is just part of the nature of soaring. Sometimes you have to do it yourself! ;-)

Sean,
There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled
is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue.
Richard Walters

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:05:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Sean, There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue. Richard Walters

I have been last off, and 6 or 7 of the 15 minutes were spent on tow because of a weak towplane and not finding any lift to get off in. Finally got off at 2K AGL in a measly weak thermal. I now have 8 or 9 minutes to climb 6000+ feet and fly to the front half of the start cylinder because the drop zone is not even in the start cylinder for the day. It is not so much the weak, low days that can make an unlimited height start unfair. It is the taller days. Where thermals are farther apart. And as others have pointed out, there may only be one good thermal in the front half of your cylinder..

I am with Rick. Limited start height is good. Option to climb out the top or run out the side is good. We need to educate pilots that it is much easier and more effieicent to stay 500 or even 1000 feet below the top until you are ready to climb out the top, if that is your choice. Why? Do you really think you can "feel" the thermal running around at 100 knots with your dive brakes out 100 feet below the top of the cylinder? If you are well below the top of the cylinder, you don't need to be watching the altimeter. Leave. Cruise around a bit. Get back into the thermal and give yourself time to get centered before going out the top. Your climb rate will be better from the time you actually do start until you leave that first climb.

As with so many other rules, pilot behavior can and will test the edges of any rule. You the pilot can choose to make the rule safe or dangerous.

Just my 2 cents.

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:05:42 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:05:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> Sean, There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue. Richard Walters
>
>
>
> I have been last off, and 6 or 7 of the 15 minutes were spent on tow because of a weak towplane and not finding any lift to get off in. Finally got off at 2K AGL in a measly weak thermal. I now have 8 or 9 minutes to climb 6000+ feet and fly to the front half of the start cylinder because the drop zone is not even in the start cylinder for the day. It is not so much the weak, low days that can make an unlimited height start unfair. It is the taller days. Where thermals are farther apart. And as others have pointed out, there may only be one good thermal in the front half of your cylinder.
>
>
>
> I am with Rick. Limited start height is good. Option to climb out the top or run out the side is good. We need to educate pilots that it is much easier and more effieicent to stay 500 or even 1000 feet below the top until you are ready to climb out the top, if that is your choice. Why? Do you really think you can "feel" the thermal running around at 100 knots with your dive brakes out 100 feet below the top of the cylinder? If you are well below the top of the cylinder, you don't need to be watching the altimeter. Leave. Cruise around a bit. Get back into the thermal and give yourself time to get centered before going out the top. Your climb rate will be better from the time you actually do start until you leave that first climb..
>
>
>
> As with so many other rules, pilot behavior can and will test the edges of any rule. You the pilot can choose to make the rule safe or dangerous.
>
>
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Steve Leonard

The simple implication of raising the start height is to increase the time lag from last launch to gate open. For starts up to 17,500, just accounting for tow time, search time and climb time in a thermal that is 2 standard deviations below the mean in strength you'd be talking 45 minutes to an hour depending under typical circumstances - and that's under pretty much ideal conditions in terms of a pilot finding a climb. That's what you'd need to do if you want to let the last guys on the grid get up to start height. Much shorter and you run a big risk of most of the field heading out on course while the last guys off the grid are still climbing.

This may not be all that desirable, depending on the day. You only rarely see pilots getting a floor to ceiling climb right out of the start cylinder, so it might be preferred to let people get out on course and get up to altitude over a few climbs rather that ensuring by rule that most everybody can make a full climb to cloud base first.

I've also been thinking that a lower speed limit in place of the two minute rule might be hard to enforce and would certainly lead to some unhappiness for pilots who get caught in the speed trap, just due to inherent imprecision in estimating IAS off of a flight log.

Since I got my integrated two minute timer in both my computers I am less concerned about the timing workload. Also, the analysis I did a couple of years ago comparing starts through the top of the cylinder versus the edge (before versus after the rule changed) showed a very significant reduction in pre-start congestion and gaggling.

9B

[[email protected]]

Jerzy:
Perhaps you misunderstand the rule. You do NOT have to stay below start top height the whole time before the start. You only need to stay down there for two minutes. So in these situations, fly around above MSH to your heart's content, come down for two whole minutes, and then start.
John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 5:58:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Jerzy:
>
> Perhaps you misunderstand the rule. You do NOT have to stay below start top height the whole time before the start. You only need to stay down there for two minutes. So in these situations, fly around above MSH to your heart's content, come down for two whole minutes, and then start.
>
> John Cochrane

Do you really think that XG does not know the rules? Almost insulting.

[Tim Taylor]

Changes I would like to see is:

1. Reduce the time to one minute. Not sure where the two minutes came from.. There is no need for that long and it just puts more pilots in the area longer.

2. Make the start penalty realistic for leaving too soon. Currently is is about 200 points for a two minute error. Totally unreasonable. How about a maximum of 50 points.

XG, the top at Logan was 1500 to 1700 feet above most of the ridges at Logan. The reason for not higher than 11,000 is that then too many pilots spend too much time hanging around trying to get that last 1000 feet in the start gate. Also at Logan very few pilots start out the top, it is usually a waste of time and costs you points.

The only site that starting out the top is really beneficial is Parowan and sometimes at Hobbs, other than that most sites it is not that important.

TT

[flgliderpilot[_2_]]

I don't fly contests (yet) but, couldn't pilots just be required to leave the start cylinder below a max altitude AND airspeed? The would eliminate the need for a 2 minute delay to prevent zooming would it not?

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:38:10 AM UTC-4, flgliderpilot wrote:
> I don't fly contests (yet) but, couldn't pilots just be required to leave the start cylinder below a max altitude AND airspeed? The would eliminate the need for a 2 minute delay to prevent zooming would it not?

The pilot must leave the cylinder below max height and have at least one fix in the cylinder after the task is open. In order to prevent diving starts of any kind, the requirement is to be below the top for 2 minutes. This eliminates any incentive to try to carry excess energy into the cylinder. During the development of the rule, the RC looked at how long useful energy was retained and found it to be somewhat over a minute. 2 minutes was selected as not being onerous. Speed is also limited, even though this is very hard to enforce due to wind amnd logs not recording airspeed. That has not proven to be a problem.
With a 5 mile cylinder radius, and usually a couple of decent choices for start location, my experience is that the traffic issue is within the control of the pilot and is over stated.
Pilots gather in a clot because they choose to, not because they have to. Commonly the best strategy is to try to find your own best place to start.
UH

[K]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:08:46 PM UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:

>
> The only site that starting out the top is really beneficial is Parowan and sometimes at Hobbs, other than that most sites it is not that important.
>
TT,
Would this not be more of a function of conditions? As you know I am far from being a racing veteran but I spent some time at the last contest I attended analyzing my starts and it seems that (For example) if one is in a strong climb on a blue day it would be an advantage to stay with it out the top.. Conversely, when CU were popping on the ridge between the start and the first TP, I would plan exiting the side of the start gate whenever I had the altitude to connect with the clouds and 120 seconds on SYM. What am I missing?

[[email protected]]

My view of start strategy, which disagrees with TT:

A start out the top is always the most efficient. Any start out the side will necessarily be less than MSH unless you're really lucky to have a thermal right near the edge. If you start out the top, you are at the maximum energy you can get.

If the thermal is at least as strong as what you'd take on course at similar altitude, keep going. (To find such thermals, it's best to scout 1000' below MSH, so you can effectively core it and evaluate it before hitting the top. That also avoids all the gaggles we've been talking about.)

Most of the time, MSH is near the top where thermals are weak. In that case, just poke your nose above the top enough that you're sure you have a fix up there and head off on course. (A logger with altitude display is helpful, your altimeter may be 200 feet off) It doesn't matter if you sink back in the start cylinder, you've marked a start at maximum possible energy.

Start location should be at the upwind part of the start semicircle. A lot of people miss this. If your first leg is cross wind, all the way to the upwind edge is the best place to start. If your first leg is downwind, poking out the top in the middle of the cylider is the best place to start.

Of course, lining up with clouds, ridges, or gaggles is helpful too.

John Cochrane

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:08:46 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> Changes I would like to see is:

> XG, the top at Logan was 1500 to 1700 feet above most of the ridges at Logan. The reason for not higher than 11,000 is that then too many pilots spend too much time hanging around trying to get that last 1000 feet in the start gate. Also at Logan very > few pilots start out the top, it is usually a waste of time and costs you points.
>
>
> The only site that starting out the top is really beneficial is Parowan and sometimes at Hobbs, other than that most sites it is not that important.
>
>
>
> TT

Hi Tim,

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm not sure where/how you determine that "at most sites [starting out the top] is not that important." Looking at some of my best performances at Cordele and Mifflin, it's been due to nailing a corker at the start and climbing at 5 knots to 1500-2000 feet above the top, allowing me to bypass the slow gaggle and catch up to some of the faster guys. I ran some numbers that showed only a 2kt (already centered) improvement in the climb was worth the time "penalty". Is there something I'm missing.

Curious in Jersey (P3)

[Tim Taylor]

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:21:06 PM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:08:46 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
>
> > Changes I would like to see is:
>
>
>
> > XG, the top at Logan was 1500 to 1700 feet above most of the ridges at Logan. The reason for not higher than 11,000 is that then too many pilots spend too much time hanging around trying to get that last 1000 feet in the start gate. Also at Logan very > few pilots start out the top, it is usually a waste of time and costs you points.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The only site that starting out the top is really beneficial is Parowan and sometimes at Hobbs, other than that most sites it is not that important.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > TT
>
>
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Not to hijack the thread, but I'm not sure where/how you determine that "at most sites [starting out the top] is not that important." Looking at some of my best performances at Cordele and Mifflin, it's been due to nailing a corker at the start and climbing at 5 knots to 1500-2000 feet above the top, allowing me to bypass the slow gaggle and catch up to some of the faster guys. I ran some numbers that showed only a 2kt (already centered) improvement in the climb was worth the time "penalty". Is there something I'm missing.
>
>
>
> Curious in Jersey (P3)


I agree with John about starting, so not saying that starting out the top is not better most of the time. What I was saying is grinding around at 300 below the top for an hour is not worth it to find that one that pops you out the top if the group you want to start with has gone out the side 45 minutes earlier.

If you find a good thermal out the top take it, but in eastern conditions you usually don't go that much higher over the top versus someplace like Parowan where you may climb 6,000 to 7,000 feet over the top. In general the distance between thermals is inversely proportional to the strength and height. If the thermal strength is 3 knots in the gate you are likely to find others pretty close by unless there is some blue hole or change in terrain in the direction you are going to go.

Kirk, you are correct in western sites like Air Sailing if you start on the western side of the cylinder and have to go south getting a good climb out the top is important.

In general, the top of the cylinder is set to allow all pilots to reach the same height after fifteen minutes from last launch and to be below the cloud base so they aren't tempted to cloud fly or get conflicts in the mist below the clouds. Other parameters can come into play in setting the top, such as how high the lift is likely to go in the cylinder and the probability of many thermals reaching that versus the rare thermal or odd wave over the clouds. When I have been CD or on task committees we have always tried to set the top as high as practical so that everyone gets a fair start and has a good chance to either climb out the top or reach the next lift from the start height.

If the lift is above the MSH I tend to hang out higher than the top until I am ready to start, drop down to about 500 to 1,000 below, core a thermal and climb out the top. At Logan, I try to start out the side at or slightly below the top because unless it is a 10 knot thermal the average speed on task most days on the first ridge run is faster than can be achieved by climbing.

Back to the original concern, there is very little reason to sit around grinding with the gaggle for an hour unless the maximum thermal height is lower than the MSH and even then if there are a few thermals around I tend to go someplace else until I am ready to start to conserve energy.

[Tim Taylor]

Sorry, it should have said "proportional" to the strength and height, not inversely.

[Sean Franke]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:07:26 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Having thought long and hard about this for many years, I'm curious what alternative you guys would prefer.
>
>
>
> Unlimited altitude start? Then on blue days you absolutely have to sit with the gaggle for 20-30 minutes to get that last 500 feet. Or, everyone goes off into the clouds (demonstrated fact). It can also be remarkably unfair, when early takeoffs find thermal wave or it takes a long time to get to start altitude.
>
>
>
> Limited altitude, no 2 minutes, a la IGC? Back to VNE dives. Or VNE dives after orbiting up in the clouds, a la IGC.
>
>
>
> The current system has the advantage that you don't have to do any craziness for competitive reasons. If the max height is set sensibly low enough, as the rules suggest, then orbit above or away from everyone else. When it's time to start, return to the cylinder, climb up and go. Or better yet, stay below, well away from the nutty gaggle, and climb out through the top.
>
>
>
> "Start anywhere" adds to the options as you get credit for distance flown and can more easily choose to avoid the big gaggle.
>
>
>
> I grant many people still do some silly things, like orbit just below MSH in a big gaggle for half an hour. They don't have to, but they choose to and it's not great.
>
>
>
> Still, let's hear a better alternative.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

BB, I'm trying really hard not to get drawn in this again.

Do you think VNE dives and orbiting up into clouds is old school IGC? I haven't experienced that in the last two WGC's. Max height was set a bit above maximum expected altitude. No need to dive. Is it really a problem? Anomaly?

Cloud flying is prohibited under US rules and IGC. At the last WGC gliders were thermalling right near the home field where prohibited before the start. One day the organizers said if you do it from now on there WILL be a penalty. They sent up an observer every day after. Interesting, pilots stopped thermalling right where prohibited. Seems to me if you don't want cloud flying then enforce the rule.

Sean R Franke

[Ron Gleason]

On Friday, 16 August 2013 10:47:16 UTC-6, Sean Franke wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:07:26 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > Having thought long and hard about this for many years, I'm curious what alternative you guys would prefer.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Unlimited altitude start? Then on blue days you absolutely have to sit with the gaggle for 20-30 minutes to get that last 500 feet. Or, everyone goes off into the clouds (demonstrated fact). It can also be remarkably unfair, when early takeoffs find thermal wave or it takes a long time to get to start altitude.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Limited altitude, no 2 minutes, a la IGC? Back to VNE dives. Or VNE dives after orbiting up in the clouds, a la IGC.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The current system has the advantage that you don't have to do any craziness for competitive reasons. If the max height is set sensibly low enough, as the rules suggest, then orbit above or away from everyone else. When it's time to start, return to the cylinder, climb up and go. Or better yet, stay below, well away from the nutty gaggle, and climb out through the top.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "Start anywhere" adds to the options as you get credit for distance flown and can more easily choose to avoid the big gaggle.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I grant many people still do some silly things, like orbit just below MSH in a big gaggle for half an hour. They don't have to, but they choose to and it's not great.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Still, let's hear a better alternative.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > John Cochrane
>
>
>
> BB, I'm trying really hard not to get drawn in this again.
>
>
>
> Do you think VNE dives and orbiting up into clouds is old school IGC? I haven't experienced that in the last two WGC's. Max height was set a bit above maximum expected altitude. No need to dive. Is it really a problem? Anomaly?
>
>
>
> Cloud flying is prohibited under US rules and IGC. At the last WGC gliders were thermalling right near the home field where prohibited before the start. One day the organizers said if you do it from now on there WILL be a penalty. They sent up an observer every day after. Interesting, pilots stopped thermalling right where prohibited. Seems to me if you don't want cloud flying then enforce the rule.
>
>
>
> Sean R Franke

To me a lot of the issues being discussed have pro and con factors to them. How you determine which side you lean towards is probably personal experience.

What Sean just pointed out is an important one to me; enforcement. The rules for the USA and IGC are defined in such way, IMO, so that software can be used for enforcement. Have scored USA and WGC contests this can easily, well kinda sorta almost, be accomplished with existing software solutions.

Having to provide observers or enforcers in the air is most likely prohibited, financial and resource wise, for anything but a WGC

Carry on

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

I work under the very basic premise of if you cannot enforce a rule then do
not make it, so why stipulate a maximum start height.

Why do we have a maximum start height at all? Prior to the rules of the
past 20 years the start height for a contest was set at 3000 feet. The
reason for this was quite simple. 3000ft was found to be the maximum height
at which the identifying letters in the underside of a glider wing could be
read from the ground by an observer using binoculars. This was necessary
because competitors had to be logged crossing the start line by an observer
on the ground for a start time to be recorded (There was no GPS) So the
reason for specifying a maximum start height at all is historical and has
no logical purpose if the start is recorded on a logger.
For some reason, after the need for observed starts became unecessary the
maximum start height rule was maintained.
The simple answer to the problem is two fold. Stop using start cylinders
and use a standard D start sector with a start line. Do not specify a
maximum start height, replace it with a rule which penalises any glider
exceeding a specified height before the gate opens, after the gate is open
a start can be made at any height. Easily enforceable, fair to all
including those launching last. Simples

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 16, 2013 10:25:33 AM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:

> What Sean just pointed out is an important one to me; enforcement. The rules for the USA and IGC are defined in such way, IMO, so that software can be used for enforcement. Have scored USA and WGC contests this can easily, well kinda sorta almost, be accomplished with existing software solutions..
>

Important point Ron/Sean.

There are certain things that are very challenging to enforce so it's probably preferred to set up the rules so you are not dependent on enforcement that is expensive/difficult or subject to uncertainty in measurement.

It's likely easier to try to set MSH below cloud base to have than observers to enforce clearance from clouds. You could leave it to pilots to report or take pictures so as to zero out fellow competitors' scores for the day, but that seems a bit harsh/impractical too.

The two minute rule is probably more precise to enforce than a speed limit. I am not aware of anyone having been dinged for flying too fast in the start cylinder and I can imagine that it would be the subject of protest given the inherent imprecision in estimating indicated airspeed off a GPS trace.

Other summary observations from this thread:

Raising the start height (to as high as infinity) creates problems with fairness for the back of the grid unless you extend the time from last takeoff to gate open to account for tow, search and potentially multiple climbs to get to top of lift. This may be an impractically long time and could generate protests under the fair opportunity to compete provision in the rules.

Out of the top starts are generally improve task speed and generally are a preferred tactic if allowed and possible. They also have a demonstrated effect (I did the analysis personally) of spreading out starts over the entire area of the start cylinder rather than the edge. This should be beneficial to safety.

There is a challenge with pilot behavior diving into or orbiting gaggles just below MSH, combined with "clock-watching" for the two minute rule. Some of the effects of this may be ameliorated with revisions to glide computer software that automate the two minute measurement. Some of the pilot behavior may in fact be not beneficial to the pilots' performance and could be improved with education. It may also benefit from adjustments in how the rules are implemented.

There may be some benefit from line starts, but I am not really clear how or why this would be true since a line is just a segment of a cylinder with infinite radius. Food for further thought.

That's most of what I got out of it. Pretty good discussion.

9B

[Sean F (F2)]

Rich,

If someone gets to 10k ahead of me launching, I would expect that I should be able to get that high as well in short order. If not, its probably my problem. I need to give myself time to climb up just as the early launcher did. Sometimes there is not enough time for the late launchers to be in position to start 15 minutes after launching or with the early starters. So what? This is a basic fact of contests. I just don't see a early launcher having a head start over a late launcher or re-lite as unfair. As with many things, it depends.

Back to the climbs. The ability to climb higher than the others requires great skill. Often its lighter wing-loading which balances out over the task, etc (assuming all other factors are equal). Sure, occasionally one may get 500 ft above the rest before starting. Good for them! Is this luck? Skill? I say skill.

Furthermore, within a start area and over a period of an hour or so, opportunities to climb should be fairly uniform in said area. I don't see a major difference in climb potential in the start process unless you are in a wave condition and are inexperienced with wave flying.

Grid positions are random, and part of our sports nature (until we all have motor gliders). Example: I was left behind unable to climb high enough to start one day this year at 18 meter nationals. Should I have called the CD and said this is unfair? I was just not finding lift as the gaggles heading out on task (I was 1500 below, struggling), and it took me 20-30 minutes to find a climb and set off after the pack. In my opinion that is just part of the game. Fairness is not guaranteed, same as skill varies. That day it was my inexperience that cost me the chance to start with the pack, not unfairness.

What if you cant get as high as a guy who launched after you? Is that also unfair? ;-)

Anyhoo, I just don't seem to get the unfairness you are concerned with regarding an unlimited start height which will allow pilots to get their heads out of the contest in this highly dangerous part of contest flying. I see it as a great solution to a massive problem that is just a mistake away from causing a big, big bummer for a couple unlucky pilots.

Safety first! Everything else is a distant second. Pilots need to have their heads out of the cockpit, especially when in the start cylinder/line area!

Sean

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:05:10 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 5:32:50 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > Richard,
>
> > Why? Any start opening 15 minutes after the last launch has the potential of being unfair on a weak day (loosing the gaggle). This is just part of the nature of soaring. Sometimes you have to do it yourself! ;-)
>
>
>
> Sean,
>
> There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled
>
> is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue.
>
> Richard Walters

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 16, 2013 11:35:26 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Rich,
> If someone gets to 10k ahead of me launching, I would expect that I should be able to get that high as well in short order. If not, its probably my problem.
> Sean

Sean,
You are forgeting that sometimes the lift that goes to 17,500' is nowhere near the start cylinder. Assuming a large contest and a one hour launch, the first off the grid have an additional hour to explore and utilize this lift, then return for a start. What if the task is overcalled? Invariably, your day at the front of the grid will be met with low cloudbases. Sign up for Minden next year and you can experience in person just how unfair your proposal is.
Richard Walters

[Papa3[_2_]]

I have great pics from sitting in the wave at Mifflin at 10,000 feet (and climbing) while about half the fleet is still on the grid. It was a bit of a fluke that I and one or two other guys got into it, as the one big thermal that happened to go high enough to get into the wave showed up at just the right time/place.

So, suppose this was okay in the rules. Two of us have a 6,000 foot advantage on a 3kt average day, or a 20 minute head start on a 3 hour task. We've won the day before the gate ever opens.

While I don't subscribe to the idea that everything has to be perfectly fair, I don't believe that this sort of luck should be so heavily rewarded. I think there's a balance between trying to over-engineer fairness and no-holds-barred.

P3

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:12:32 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, August 16, 2013 11:35:26 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > Rich,
>
> > If someone gets to 10k ahead of me launching, I would expect that I should be able to get that high as well in short order. If not, its probably my problem.
>
> > Sean
>
>
>
> Sean,
>
> You are forgeting that sometimes the lift that goes to 17,500' is nowhere near the start cylinder. Assuming a large contest and a one hour launch, the first off the grid have an additional hour to explore and utilize this lift, then return for a start. What if the task is overcalled? Invariably, your day at the front of the grid will be met with low cloudbases. Sign up for Minden next year and you can experience in person just how unfair your proposal is.
>
> Richard Walters

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 14:35 17 August 2013, Papa3 wrote:
>I have great pics from sitting in the wave at Mifflin at 10,000 feet (and
>c=
>limbing) while about half the fleet is still on the grid. It was a bit
>of=
> a fluke that I and one or two other guys got into it, as the one big
>therm=
>al that happened to go high enough to get into the wave showed up at just
>t=
>he right time/place.
>
>So, suppose this was okay in the rules. Two of us have a 6,000 foot
>advan=
>tage on a 3kt average day, or a 20 minute head start on a 3 hour task.
>We'=
>ve won the day before the gate ever opens. =20
>
>While I don't subscribe to the idea that everything has to be perfectly
>fai=
>r, I don't believe that this sort of luck should be so heavily rewarded.

>=
> I think there's a balance between trying to over-engineer fairness and
>no=
>-holds-barred. =20
>
>P3
Which is exactly why I suggest that there should be a restriction on the
maximum height before the gate opens. After the gate opens you can climb
to/ start from any height. Don't forget to do away with the start cyclinder
and use a proper D sector with a start line.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:48:38 AM UTC-7, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 14:35 17 August 2013, Papa3 wrote:
>
> >I have great pics from sitting in the wave at Mifflin at 10,000 feet (and
>
> >c=
>
> >limbing) while about half the fleet is still on the grid. It was a bit
>
> >of=
>
> > a fluke that I and one or two other guys got into it, as the one big
>
> >therm=
>
> >al that happened to go high enough to get into the wave showed up at just
>
> >t=
>
> >he right time/place.
>
> >
>
> >So, suppose this was okay in the rules. Two of us have a 6,000 foot
>
> >advan=
>
> >tage on a 3kt average day, or a 20 minute head start on a 3 hour task.
>
> >We'=
>
> >ve won the day before the gate ever opens. =20
>
> >
>
> >While I don't subscribe to the idea that everything has to be perfectly
>
> >fai=
>
> >r, I don't believe that this sort of luck should be so heavily rewarded..
>
>
>
> >=
>
> > I think there's a balance between trying to over-engineer fairness and
>
> >no=
>
> >-holds-barred. =20
>
> >
>
> >P3
>
> Which is exactly why I suggest that there should be a restriction on the
>
> maximum height before the gate opens. After the gate opens you can climb
>
> to/ start from any height. Don't forget to do away with the start cyclinder
>
> and use a proper D sector with a start line.

Hmmmmm...

I think the main issue is that a high starts adds to the average speed on course (because of the higher ratio of gliding to climbing in your time on course) so if you can start high before a competitor can even have a chance to start, particularly on a day where the weather may be changing (say, OD at the start) you may force the late launchers to take up to a 5 mph speed hit because they have to take a start thousands of feet lower (say 12.5k vs 17.5k). I've seen lots of days where it takes a while to climb up that high and where there is OD or some other weather consideration that makes you want to get out of Dodge.

The reason why we have 15 minutes from last launch to gate open is so that everyone has some reasonable chance to get to MSH before anyone can go out on course to reduce the effect of luck in the outcomes. If you want unlimited height starts than you should extend the time period to allow people to climb. If people are getting 12-14k AGL you'll need nearly an hour.

I think this is totally different from whether you are able as a pilot to find a thermal and climb as well as your peers - that is more skill than luck.

You can, as has been suggested, simply say that position on the grid is part of the game and if you can get up and out on course before the weather moves in and while others are still on the gird, good for you. If this is your philosophy the the there is actually no point in having a start opening time at all - it should be launch and go if you want. If I'm grinding around trying to climb in the rain with competitors out on course in the sun, however, I would probably not like it much and might be inclined to protest under the fair opportunity to compete provisions in the rules.

[Sean F (F2)]

Interesting point. I see it now! Well, perhaps the RC has some ideas to noodle on anyway...

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:35:50 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> I have great pics from sitting in the wave at Mifflin at 10,000 feet (and climbing) while about half the fleet is still on the grid. It was a bit of a fluke that I and one or two other guys got into it, as the one big thermal that happened to go high enough to get into the wave showed up at just the right time/place.
>
>
>
> So, suppose this was okay in the rules. Two of us have a 6,000 foot advantage on a 3kt average day, or a 20 minute head start on a 3 hour task. We've won the day before the gate ever opens.
>

Same thing happened at Fairfield last year, but in this case the MSH was high enough so the few who got into wave were able to start 1000 or more above the rest (and I wasn't one of the fortunate few). The day was a very weak one, so 1000' was a huge advantage.

TA

[Sean F (F2)]

Ha Frank I remember this day.

I followed Karl S up in the wave and got the max height start. Still got caught by the gaggle though!

Sean

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:03:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:35:50 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
>
> > I have great pics from sitting in the wave at Mifflin at 10,000 feet (and climbing) while about half the fleet is still on the grid. It was a bit of a fluke that I and one or two other guys got into it, as the one big thermal that happened to go high enough to get into the wave showed up at just the right time/place.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So, suppose this was okay in the rules. Two of us have a 6,000 foot advantage on a 3kt average day, or a 20 minute head start on a 3 hour task. We've won the day before the gate ever opens.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Same thing happened at Fairfield last year, but in this case the MSH was high enough so the few who got into wave were able to start 1000 or more above the rest (and I wasn't one of the fortunate few). The day was a very weak one, so 1000' was a huge advantage.
>
>
>
> TA