US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

[Tim Taylor]

After the day at Moriarty earlier this year and Nephi yesterday for the 15M/Std Combined class the rules for how a day is devalued needs to be addressed. I understand why the rule was modified a few years ago so that if pilots just didn't fly it would not devalue the day, but the criteria of what makes a valid attempt is now too high.

We had most of the class yesterday not able to get up and make a start. It was not from trying as some pilots took up to three tows. We had a thunderstorm come just north of the field and had to elephant walk the class to the other end. We had several pilots including 7V and GW land out trying to get to better air prior to starting so they were considered not creditable attempts. How much more creditable do you have to be than willing to land out to attempt the task?


Why is this important? Because it makes the contest score subject to random luck rather than showing skill. If we want to attract more pilots to racing we need to ensure that they feel like they can have a fair opportunity to race.

Yesterday should have been devalued to almost nothing or have no score because too few pilots had an opportunity to compete.

Please send a note to one of the SSA Rules Committee Members to ensure that this gets put on their list of things to address this year.

Tim (TT)

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Granted devaluation is a mess, but this situation does not require a rules change. If the whole start zone has no lift, if many pilots cannot stay up, then the task should not be opened. If the task is opened anyway, the CD should cancel the task when it becomes clear that an unfair situation developed. If the CD does not cancel the task, pilots may protest. There is precedent from Parowan, when pilots at the end of the grid had no chance to start, and the protest was upheld.

11.1.3 A valid competition day is a day on which every regular entrant is given a fair opportunity to compete,...

10.8.1.2 After the announcement of task opening time, the CD should consult with the task advisors as to whether the selected task is fair and safe.

3.1.3.1 ... The CD ...is responsible to the SSA for insuring compliance with these rules and fair competition.

(also search about 5 other instances of "fair" in the rules)

You know the process, put in a protest ASAP.

John Cochrane

[Tim Taylor]

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 2:01:55 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> Granted devaluation is a mess, but this situation does not require a rules change. If the whole start zone has no lift, if many pilots cannot stay up, then the task should not be opened. If the task is opened anyway, the CD should cancel the task when it becomes clear that an unfair situation developed. If the CD does not cancel the task, pilots may protest. There is precedent from Parowan, when pilots at the end of the grid had no chance to start, and the protest was upheld.
>
>
>
> 11.1.3 A valid competition day is a day on which every regular entrant is given a fair opportunity to compete,...
>
>
>
> 10.8.1.2 After the announcement of task opening time, the CD should consult with the task advisors as to whether the selected task is fair and safe.
>
>
>
> 3.1.3.1 ... The CD ...is responsible to the SSA for insuring compliance with these rules and fair competition.
>
>
>
> (also search about 5 other instances of "fair" in the rules)
>
>
>
> You know the process, put in a protest ASAP.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

John,

I agree that a protest could be filed at this point, but I still think the rules need to be changed so that not all the responsibility is on the CD during a contest. With start calls no longer required at most contest the CD does not always know how many are on course or not until long after the gate is open. There were several that landed out only a few miles away but the CD did not know if they had started or not.

We also need some hard rules in the scoring for percentages that attempt, etc. that automatically devalue a day until it is zero if too great of a percentage of pilots can't attempt the task. I realize the program should work that way but right now if they don't make a minimum distance they are treated as if they did not try. So if only one or a few get away they get 1000 points rather than a few or none. The definition of a credible attempt may need to be changed to something less restrictive like those that turned in a flight log for the day.

I was one of the few that was not affected by the result but and I have friends on both sides that benefited and were hurt by the last day. Would be nice if we had hard rules so it felt fair to all and they didn't feel like someone had to rule for one group or the other.

Tim

[Steve Koerner]

I agree with Tim. If we are going to endure the complication of having a devaluation scheme in the rules, then most certainly it should have kicked in for yesterday. For myself, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole devaluation concept thrown out in the interest of simplification. It seems to be impossible to get to a devaluation scheme that works right.

As the last person on the grid, I'm pretty sure I launched into impossible conditions. As Tim said, I glided away from the storm to no avail and had to put down in a farm field 8 miles south of Nephi. I don't give up easily.. That said I'm not personally inclined to file a protest since it doesn't actually make any difference to me - I'd already eaten thunderstorm humble pie on the two preceding days so I was out of the running. And for the record, Ron did a really outstanding job as CD for this contest even if there might have been a small mistake in opening the task for 15m handicapped class on the last day. It was really a great contest and very well run.

To share a certain beauty of the occasion it was this: As I had picked what I thought to be the best of dozens of possible fields in the area, I was flopping hopelessly in bits of turbulence at low altitude about a half mile downwind from that chosen field ready to make each turn my last of the contest. To my surprise, I sighted 7V a little west at the same low altitude flopping just like me. We both gave up at exactly the same altitude and glided into that particular farm field for simultaneous landings.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Was there the recommended consultation about a "fair and safe" start with the task advisers? Did anyone pipe up on the radio and say "it is impossible to stay up anywhere near the start cylider, I think starting the task right now would be very unfair?"

John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

PS:
It would be most helpful to have a suggestion of exactly what formula you would like put in place for a situation like this. Include pre-start landouts in the definition of "contestant?," as if they had landed out after starting?
John Cochrane

[Steve Koerner]

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 4:40:38 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> Was there the recommended consultation about a "fair and safe" start with the task advisers? Did anyone pipe up on the radio and say "it is impossible to stay up anywhere near the start cylider, I think starting the task right now would be very unfair?"
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I'm not sure whether advisors were consulted. I know that I was consulted twice I presume because I was the last designated launcher. On one occasion I reported to the CD that I was gliding with no lift found; and on the other occasion, if I remember correctly, I advised that I was in one knot at 1500 AGL. Immediately after that report, the CD confirmed that the task would open in 5 minutes. I was surprised at that. Before I launched there had already been numerous relights in the class.

And I'll say again: I'm not whining about any of this. Ron did a great job with lots of quick decisions to be made yesterday. The culprit was the damn thunderstorm outflow.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 8:07:45 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Sunday, August 10, 2014 4:40:38 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > Was there the recommended consultation about a "fair and safe" start with the task advisers? Did anyone pipe up on the radio and say "it is impossible to stay up anywhere near the start cylider, I think starting the task right now would be very unfair?"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > John Cochrane
>
>
>
> I'm not sure whether advisors were consulted. I know that I was consulted twice I presume because I was the last designated launcher. On one occasion I reported to the CD that I was gliding with no lift found; and on the other occasion, if I remember correctly, I advised that I was in one knot at 1500 AGL. Immediately after that report, the CD confirmed that the task would open in 5 minutes. I was surprised at that. Before I launched there had already been numerous relights in the class.
>
>
>
> And I'll say again: I'm not whining about any of this. Ron did a great job with lots of quick decisions to be made yesterday. The culprit was the damn thunderstorm outflow.

The use of the "fair and safe" criteria to help determine if a task should be open is well known and proven, though not universally applied for some reason.
It sounds like Ron happened to get this one wrong, as have a few CD's over the years. It occasionally happens.
There is a lot right about the current devaluation method, but it can't deal with a rare really bad call.
Also as BB noted there are remedies.
I am NOT throwing rocks at Ron and hope he realizes this.
We should not throw out proven rules because of a rare glitch.
Also remember that sometimes "stuff" happens.

UH

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

And also, a "protest" need not imply any criticism or disrespect for the CD.. In fact, sometimes CDs welcome them. In a case like this, where after the fact it becomes clear that the start may not have been fair, and knowing that in real time would have been very hard, you can do the CD a favor by filing a protest. A CD who after the fact said "you know, that wasn't fair, I'm throwing out the day" would really be asking for trouble. But if a pilot puts in a protest it's much easier for the CD

John Cochrane

[Dave Leonard]

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:40:38 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> Was there the recommended consultation about a "fair and safe" start with the task advisers? Did anyone pipe up on the radio and say "it is impossible to stay up anywhere near the start cylider, I think starting the task right now would be very unfair?"
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

The adviser was on the ground waiting for a relight. The other class task advisers were long gone on course where the weather was fine. A few pilots were staying up, even climbing very slowly, drifting away with the 20+ kt wind.

May be a rare glitch. But it happened in both Region 9 contests this year with two different CDs.

Tough day.

[WaltWX[_2_]]

Tim and all...

Here's the Sat imagery, Radar for the last day at Nephi. The plus plots are the TP database. The label for the plot points is mangled due to a bug in the program.

Here are two radar loops from MTX (Salt Lake City radar): One is reflectivity at 0.5 deg (lowest) elevation angle; the other is for echo tops in thousands feet. The GOES 1km Vis photo follows that. Note that there was an outage of sat imagery between 130pm and 3pm MDT (1930z-2100z):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pyze3df7tc550kt/Nephi_Radar_BaseRef_Tilt1_20140809.mp4

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lc7wtxh3lh83epw/Nephi_EchoTops_20140809.mp4

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zou6a4j9n93az61/Nephi_GOES_1kmVis_20140809.mp4

One suggestion on how to get the most timely radar graphics. Install an app called "RadarScope" or "Radar Pro". It's the best app out there for NEXRAD radar imagery of professional quality (free and paid for version - Iphone, Ipad, Android). I recommend the paid for version ($4.99) because it has lightning data plots. Lightning data in the U.S. is proprietary and must be accessed with a subscription (even the NWS pays for it). The Pro version also has the latest 20 frames instead of 5 (they come in every 3-10 minutes). There is no PC version... just IOS and Android. The free version is minus lightning data and shows only last 5 frames.

I've used this on the ramp just before launch to help make a decision on which way storms are moving or developing. It's also good for deciding on whether or not to disassemble. Works great on a small screen PDA phone.

Walt Rogers WX

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

> I've used this on the ramp just before launch to help make a decision on which way storms are moving or developing. It's also good for deciding on whether or not to disassemble. Works great on a small screen PDA phone.
>
>
>
> Walt Rogers WX

Unfortunately, some don't stop using their smart phone app's on the ground. With the near real-time-radar app and artificial horizon app's that are available today, I have seen tracks that deliberately flew under thunderstorms on a MAT day. Two pilots even admitted to "icing up". I believe we need strong enforcement of the NO SMART PHONE accessible in the cockpit rule........................or we will be picking someone up with a stick and spoon! We all know what awaits us inside a thunderstorm...........ice, hail, lightning and perhaps the biggest factor disorientation! Some may even be tempted to teach themselves how to fly inside clouds OJT.

I recommend the CD at every contest, be directed to check every cockpit on every takeoff, next year.

JJ Sinclair

[noel.wade]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 6:51:56 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
> I recommend the CD at every contest, be directed to check every cockpit on every takeoff, next year.
>

JJ - This is getting off-topic; but no way, man.

Many people now depend on a smartphone/tablet device for their main flight computer (i.e. XCSoar, iGlide, etc). What's that? You think PDAs/PNAs are OK? Hrm, have you thought about the fact that people can connect those to their smartphone or other devices to get cellular or satellite connections and do the exact same thing? Do *you* want to be the one to handle the task of forcing them all to buy expensive panel-mounted systems? And what kind of effect would that have on the pool of pilots who could participate in contests? Smartphones and tablets are making it cheaper and easier for pilots to fly XC and try contests - why would you reverse that trend and make it harder?

As for pilots chasing T-storms and cloud-flying: That has NOTHING to do with someone using a smartphone. That behavior is all about the personality of the pilot, their habits, and their (lack of) ability to evaluate risk. Take away their technology and they'll still find ways to do stupid things; banning a device isn't going to change their attitude. The SSA has processes for putting unsafe pilots on probation and/or banning them from contests - they can and should be used when appropriate.

Lastly, for anyone and everyone who makes the argument that computers in the cockpit are an unsafe distraction: I would ask you to tell me how well you fold and unfold sectional charts in a glider cockpit; especially how you do it while looking outside and with one hand on the stick at all times. And if you tell me you can do that, I will call bullsh*t EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Using a paper map and an old-school prayer-wheel or E6-B requires plenty of heads-down time. You may feel more *comfortable* with it if you learned to fly that way, and it may be more safe for _you_ to fly that way (until you've practiced using a flight computer more and it becomes intuitive); but digital moving maps and flight computers are not inherently more or less safe than paper. It all comes down to practicing with your systems and being able to use them efficiently with minimal heads-down time.
-----

Back on-topic: I think the protest idea is a good one; but its unlikely to be used consistently. Pilots are strongly motivated to focus on the task and attempt to complete it. In-the-moment they are probably not going to think about "ancillary" rules like day devaluation or protests. I don't want to pile extra responsibility onto the CD - having served as one in beginner contests, I know they already have enough on their plate - so I'm not sure if there's a perfect answer. Tim's points are well-taken but I wonder if those suggestions raise more opportunities for gamesmanship with day devaluation (i.e. to protect a lead late in a contest or something like that) - its unlikely as it would probably take the cooperation of multiple pilots; but its still something to keep in mind when proposing "fixes". In the meantime, perhaps the Welcome Briefing at the start of every contest should include a reminder about filing protests (what they're for, how its done, what _not_ to protest, etc). I haven't really seen that addressed at some of the Regionals I've been to.

--Noel

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 11 August 2014 08:55:42 UTC-6, noel.wade wrote:
> On Monday, August 11, 2014 6:51:56 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I recommend the CD at every contest, be directed to check every cockpit on every takeoff, next year.
>
> >
>
>
>
> JJ - This is getting off-topic; but no way, man.
>
>
>
> Many people now depend on a smartphone/tablet device for their main flight computer (i.e. XCSoar, iGlide, etc). What's that? You think PDAs/PNAs are OK? Hrm, have you thought about the fact that people can connect those to their smartphone or other devices to get cellular or satellite connections and do the exact same thing? Do *you* want to be the one to handle the task of forcing them all to buy expensive panel-mounted systems? And what kind of effect would that have on the pool of pilots who could participate in contests? Smartphones and tablets are making it cheaper and easier for pilots to fly XC and try contests - why would you reverse that trend and make it harder?
>
>
>
> As for pilots chasing T-storms and cloud-flying: That has NOTHING to do with someone using a smartphone. That behavior is all about the personality of the pilot, their habits, and their (lack of) ability to evaluate risk. Take away their technology and they'll still find ways to do stupid things; banning a device isn't going to change their attitude. The SSA has processes for putting unsafe pilots on probation and/or banning them from contests - they can and should be used when appropriate.
>
>
>
> Lastly, for anyone and everyone who makes the argument that computers in the cockpit are an unsafe distraction: I would ask you to tell me how well you fold and unfold sectional charts in a glider cockpit; especially how you do it while looking outside and with one hand on the stick at all times. And if you tell me you can do that, I will call bullsh*t EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Using a paper map and an old-school prayer-wheel or E6-B requires plenty of heads-down time. You may feel more *comfortable* with it if you learned to fly that way, and it may be more safe for _you_ to fly that way (until you've practiced using a flight computer more and it becomes intuitive); but digital moving maps and flight computers are not inherently more or less safe than paper. It all comes down to practicing with your systems and being able to use them efficiently with minimal heads-down time.
>
> -----
>
>
>
> Back on-topic: I think the protest idea is a good one; but its unlikely to be used consistently. Pilots are strongly motivated to focus on the task and attempt to complete it. In-the-moment they are probably not going to think about "ancillary" rules like day devaluation or protests. I don't want to pile extra responsibility onto the CD - having served as one in beginner contests, I know they already have enough on their plate - so I'm not sure if there's a perfect answer. Tim's points are well-taken but I wonder if those suggestions raise more opportunities for gamesmanship with day devaluation (i.e. to protect a lead late in a contest or something like that) - its unlikely as it would probably take the cooperation of multiple pilots; but its still something to keep in mind when proposing "fixes". In the meantime, perhaps the Welcome Briefing at the start of every contest should include a reminder about filing protests (what they're for, how its done, what _not_ to protest, etc). I haven't really seen that addressed at some of the Regionals I've been to.
>
>
>
> --Noel

Please review the latest scores for the last day of Nephi. We received via email a flight log from P9 on Sunday since he got back so late. The scorer has unavailable Sunday, yup he has a real job, so I updated them this morning.

[Tim Taylor]

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:42:26 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> PS:
>
> It would be most helpful to have a suggestion of exactly what formula you would like put in place for a situation like this. Include pre-start landouts in the definition of "contestant?," as if they had landed out after starting?
>
> John Cochrane

John,

I think the formula is correct for the devaluation (sorry can't find it in the rules right now) but every pilot the takes a tow should get counted if they turn in a flight log. I think this is where it used to be before it was changed to have the minimum distance. You have the potential for purposeful devaluation, but they can do that today by flying out a few miles as well. Then if 15 pilots try to fly and only a few get around the devaluation or zero for the day is automatic. Several days at Moriarty would have been devalued more and Nephi's last day as well for 15m/Std.

Tim

[[email protected]]

John, I've taken your advice and submitted a formal protest.

Bif Huss "H7"

[Sean Fidler]

Chuckle, chuckle. ;-). Thank you all for my lunchtime reading and some heartfelt laughter.

This thread has already recycled several of my favorite old topics.

1) I do not see how a rule change can "thread the needle' on this issue. There is far too much subjectivity in determining "what is fair?" In a sport which allows starting literally anytime after the starting gate opens (competitors often choosing to start HOURS apart) and a sport that is is often only "constrained" by 60 MILE wide turn area's, LUCK is INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED IN! Who are we trying to kid? This is why I would like to see a far higher proportion of pure Assigned Tasks along with limitations on the start gate (30 minute window for example).

There will always be uncontrollable variables (luck, bad luck) effecting results in any sport no matter how tightly controlled (a gust of wind in the 100 meters, etc). Sailplane racing, however, is extroidinarily loose in its race quality constraints and therefore intentionally introduces a high degree of chance and luck. This is, of course, justified by the goal of reducing the chance of landouts to as close as zero as possible. Unfortunately the quality of the competition has dropped significantly because of that goal (IMO).

In regards to changing the devaluation rule as you suggest, the "judgement" required to determine the fairness of one pilot "getting away" and starting successfully and another "not having a fair chance" is a very fine line. Even the launch order on a particular day in a large contest can have significant effect on the outcome (more luck). If we had more overall focus within the sport of soaring (Grand Prix is the exception) on caring about race quality and constraint of racing variables, I would be much more inclined to say that starting success rates also needs a better form of control. But as it stands with only 3% Assigned Tasks and nearly 65% TAT's (many with 60 mile areas!) and free start rules, why does trying to further define starting fairness really matter? If you tighten this rule than why should you not also provide relief for competitors who find there way into the "wrong side" of a 60 mile turn area? Shouldn't they also be able to claim the task was unfair when they were unable to "get away" from the bad luck they experienced in the wide turn area? The same goes for pilots who choose to start early or late and land out because of that decision. Was that skill or luck? Sure some are going to argue that its all skill choosing when to start or choosing which side of a 60 mile turn area is best. Others (me included) would argue that a large degree of luck is involved. You are taking a risk by starting early or late? You are taking a risk when you choose what side of a 60 mile turn area to head towards! In a sport that intentionally designs in a high degree of "variability" (aka chance, aka uncontrollable variables)...complaining about not being able to start while another does is a fairly weak argument when compared with the opportunities for luck that are designed into the sport in general.

2) Fair opportunity to race? Race? Only 3% of our tasks in the USA in 2013 were races (Pure AT's). TAT's and MAT's are distance/average speed/timing your final turn/additional turn points while managing your computer tasks. A gliders relative position to yours is almost meaningless. With only 3% pure AT's we are not really racing sailplanes any more. 3% works out to only 7 US sailplane races in 2013.

3) I find the complaints about PDA's, smart phone driven soaring apps and cellular data particularly amusing. The US RC has already gone to great lengths to ban cell phones, cellular data and satellite data from competition.. As Noel says this is unenforceable and with that people are likely ignoring the rule entirely. It would be much easier to simply allow smart phones to be used normally and tell the old schoolers to get over it! In reality, cellular data is very unreliable at altitude (> 2000 ft AGL) and most sailplane pilots are very busy when low. It is fairly unpractical to utilize cellular based data when racing in a glider competition. Sporadic weather updates (radar, etc) is the best that one could expect. That said, checking the weather (radar image) a moment before takeoff to get a picture of thunderstorm activity, etc is a smart thing to do in my opinion and should be allowed. I have already made this argument until I was blue in the face. It fell on deaf ears. As it stands today you still have complainers who want it banned and an RC who has "banned it" but doesn't care to enforce the rule in the slightest way. Meanwhile many don't care and use it anyway. I don't see the sense in any of it. We should either enforce the rule tightly or make it legal and get out of our own way once and for all.

Sean


On Sunday, August 10, 2014 1:10:41 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> After the day at Moriarty earlier this year and Nephi yesterday for the 15M/Std Combined class the rules for how a day is devalued needs to be addressed. I understand why the rule was modified a few years ago so that if pilots just didn't fly it would not devalue the day, but the criteria of what makes a valid attempt is now too high.
>
>
>
> We had most of the class yesterday not able to get up and make a start. It was not from trying as some pilots took up to three tows. We had a thunderstorm come just north of the field and had to elephant walk the class to the other end. We had several pilots including 7V and GW land out trying to get to better air prior to starting so they were considered not creditable attempts. How much more creditable do you have to be than willing to land out to attempt the task?
>
>
>
>
>
> Why is this important? Because it makes the contest score subject to random luck rather than showing skill. If we want to attract more pilots to racing we need to ensure that they feel like they can have a fair opportunity to race.
>
>
>
> Yesterday should have been devalued to almost nothing or have no score because too few pilots had an opportunity to compete.
>
>
>
> Please send a note to one of the SSA Rules Committee Members to ensure that this gets put on their list of things to address this year.
>
>
>
> Tim (TT)

[WaltWX[_2_]]

I've only rarely used "Radar Scope" on the ground before launching. On a few occasions I used it after landing to decide on whether to disassemble. My Iphone is carried in the side pocket in "Airplane Mode" (transceiver shut down). Once in awhile (like last Saturday on FG from a 750k triangle), I bring it out to talk with my crew to give me a speedy retrieve. On that flight I landed at Cal City after starting in Tehachapi.

So, I'm advocating use of high res radar and lightning data on the ground just before launch, or to aid situational awareness for the CD just before making a decision to open a task. That would be just one input to the CD. He also has to stay in touch with all the vulnerable launched pilots in the presence of a developing storm. Some times the task committee pilots are not in the right position to make a judgement. Use of 2 minute update trackers with altitude would also help in making a decision by the CD. As I said, it a very stressful high workload environment for the CD to make a subjective "fairness of task" decision.

Let me pose another question. Use of a PDA phone with hi res radar can provide a decisive advantage to a pilot who has to make a decision on which way to get around a storm. When visibility is poor, would the brief "heads down" time to help make the correct decision deviating around a storm be MORE or LESS safe that not using it? Granted, there still is a fairness issue of the PDA "haves" and "have nots". Based on this argument for a margin of safety with on board weather info use and the fact that enforcement is not practical, perhaps allowing uses of these devices should be considered for future rule changes.

Walt Rogers WX

[WaltWX[_2_]]

Just to clarify... I am not a big fan of fiddling on the cockpit with in flight weather devices. Already, I have too many distractions with flight computers. It's far preferable to keep the "eyes out of the cockpit".

Walt WX

[Craig R.]

> As for pilots chasing T-storms and cloud-flying: That has NOTHING to do with someone using a smartphone. That behavior is all about the personality of the pilot, their habits, and their (lack of) ability to evaluate risk. Take away their technology and they'll still find ways to do stupid things; banning a device isn't going to change their attitude. The SSA has processes for putting unsafe pilots on probation and/or banning them from contests - they can and should be used when appropriate.

> --Noel

I guess I'll address the 800lb gorilla in the room that seems to be the root of the problem.
It is my opinion that given the chance, some pilots will cheat when they get the chance if the risk of getting caught is low / penalties are not enforced. With nearly 55 years of playing golf (many many many tournaments), it is a fact that there are those that cheat. I witness it almost daily when I play. It is NOT a small number of people. It may be as simple as moving your ball under summer rules, not posting a low score to your handicap, or perhaps "finding" a lost ball that happen to miraculously appear (from your pocket). The list is endless. Some think that minor cheating is OK and normal. The fact is that cheating is cheating. How many do you know that have "fudged" their income taxes? I have no illusions that glider pilots are more noble than golfers (the gentleman's sport).
With the competition staff normally being volunteers, limited hours in a day to run the show, and trying to keep things running smoothly, most don't have the time to dig deeply to see if someone is not being kosher. No one likes to be the "bad guy", but sometimes I think that one or two public "examples" would be keep some cheaters in line. It won't stop all. I wish it would....

[Mike I Green]

On 8/11/2014 6:51 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
>> I've used this on the ramp just before launch to help make a decision on which way storms are moving or developing. It's also good for deciding on whether or not to disassemble. Works great on a small screen PDA phone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Walt Rogers WX
>
> Unfortunately, some don't stop using their smart phone app's on the ground. With the near real-time-radar app and artificial horizon app's that are available today, I have seen tracks that deliberately flew under thunderstorms on a MAT day. Two pilots even admitted to "icing up". I believe we need strong enforcement of the NO SMART PHONE accessible in the cockpit rule.......................or we will be picking someone up with a stick and spoon! We all know what awaits us inside a thunderstorm...........ice, hail, lightning and perhaps the biggest factor disorientation! Some may even be tempted to teach themselves how to fly inside clouds OJT.
>
> I recommend the CD at every contest, be directed to check every cockpit on every takeoff, next year.
>
> JJ Sinclair
>
Hi JJ,

I remember when it was illegal to have a GPS device in the cockpit.
Didn't last long.

--
Mike I Green

[[email protected]]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 10:43:28 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Chuckle, chuckle. ;-). Thank you all for my lunchtime reading and some heartfelt laughter.
>
>
>
> This thread has already recycled several of my favorite old topics.
>
>
>
> 1) I do not see how a rule change can "thread the needle' on this issue. There is far too much subjectivity in determining "what is fair?" In a sport which allows starting literally anytime after the starting gate opens (competitors often choosing to start HOURS apart) and a sport that is is often only "constrained" by 60 MILE wide turn area's, LUCK is INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED IN! Who are we trying to kid? This is why I would like to see a far higher proportion of pure Assigned Tasks along with limitations on the start gate (30 minute window for example).
>
>
>
> There will always be uncontrollable variables (luck, bad luck) effecting results in any sport no matter how tightly controlled (a gust of wind in the 100 meters, etc). Sailplane racing, however, is extroidinarily loose in its race quality constraints and therefore intentionally introduces a high degree of chance and luck. This is, of course, justified by the goal of reducing the chance of landouts to as close as zero as possible. Unfortunately the quality of the competition has dropped significantly because of that goal (IMO).
>
>
>
> In regards to changing the devaluation rule as you suggest, the "judgement" required to determine the fairness of one pilot "getting away" and starting successfully and another "not having a fair chance" is a very fine line.. Even the launch order on a particular day in a large contest can have significant effect on the outcome (more luck). If we had more overall focus within the sport of soaring (Grand Prix is the exception) on caring about race quality and constraint of racing variables, I would be much more inclined to say that starting success rates also needs a better form of control. But as it stands with only 3% Assigned Tasks and nearly 65% TAT's (many with 60 mile areas!) and free start rules, why does trying to further define starting fairness really matter? If you tighten this rule than why should you not also provide relief for competitors who find there way into the "wrong side" of a 60 mile turn area? Shouldn't they also be able to claim the task was unfair when they were unable to "get away" from the bad luck they experienced in the wide turn area? The same goes for pilots who choose to start early or late and land out because of that decision. Was that skill or luck? Sure some are going to argue that its all skill choosing when to start or choosing which side of a 60 mile turn area is best. Others (me included) would argue that a large degree of luck is involved. You are taking a risk by starting early or late? You are taking a risk when you choose what side of a 60 mile turn area to head towards! In a sport that intentionally designs in a high degree of "variability" (aka chance, aka uncontrollable variables)...complaining about not being able to start while another does is a fairly weak argument when compared with the opportunities for luck that are designed into the sport in general.
>
>
>
> 2) Fair opportunity to race? Race? Only 3% of our tasks in the USA in 2013 were races (Pure AT's). TAT's and MAT's are distance/average speed/timing your final turn/additional turn points while managing your computer tasks. A gliders relative position to yours is almost meaningless. With only 3% pure AT's we are not really racing sailplanes any more. 3% works out to only 7 US sailplane races in 2013.
>
>
>
> 3) I find the complaints about PDA's, smart phone driven soaring apps and cellular data particularly amusing. The US RC has already gone to great lengths to ban cell phones, cellular data and satellite data from competition. As Noel says this is unenforceable and with that people are likely ignoring the rule entirely. It would be much easier to simply allow smart phones to be used normally and tell the old schoolers to get over it! In reality, cellular data is very unreliable at altitude (> 2000 ft AGL) and most sailplane pilots are very busy when low. It is fairly unpractical to utilize cellular based data when racing in a glider competition. Sporadic weather updates (radar, etc) is the best that one could expect. That said, checking the weather (radar image) a moment before takeoff to get a picture of thunderstorm activity, etc is a smart thing to do in my opinion and should be allowed. I have already made this argument until I was blue in the face.. It fell on deaf ears. As it stands today you still have complainers who want it banned and an RC who has "banned it" but doesn't care to enforce the rule in the slightest way. Meanwhile many don't care and use it anyway. I don't see the sense in any of it. We should either enforce the rule tightly or make it legal and get out of our own way once and for all.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
>

Hmmmm. I don't see how this is related to task type or start configuration at all. The central question is whether you get to altitude to get out on course. Having a Grand Prix type start exacerbates that problem and is one reason why organizers are reluctant to implement the Last Start Time for more Grand Prix-type starts. If the weather in the area around the start cycles when you are just off tow you can be left digging out with the task clock running. It's often very tough for a CD to predict exactly when a day will pop to set the gate open and gate close times. Similarly, I find ASTs in variable weather to be more luck-dependent than other task types - and variable weather happens a lot - every single day at R9N had weather issues over significant portions of the task area - including the start. Pilots got cut off from turn points early in the day and late in the day and being forced to go to a 1-mile potentially in the rain would only have upped the luck factor even more.

I agree that there is a difficult "thread the needle" challenge here. When is a failure to get out on course related to bad weather luck versus pilot skill and when is the appropriate remedy to devalue the day versus zero it out it all together? Certainly if you ended up unable to make 1/2 min distance because you couldn't get above release altitude, having the day devalued versus cancelled can still mean a lot of points.

The big challenge with the current system is human behavior -- no one wants to be the one to speak up in the moment or protest after the fact. People invest a lot of time and money in going to contests, it's hard to call a day off while there's still some hope of getting away - no matter how remote. Some objective criteria and guidelines might help. Needs a lot more thought.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

Looks like it is happening again at Truckee. One finisher gets 850, one land-out gets 239, everyone else gets zero!
Is this fair?
JJ

[Tony[_5_]]

will be interesting to hear a report of what happened.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:46:30 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Looks like it is happening again at Truckee. One finisher gets 850, one land-out gets 239, everyone else gets zero!
>
> Is this fair?
>
> JJ

Is it fair? Based on the information we have, yes. If 25 pilots finish and 25 land out, is that fair? Well, so far, we've decided yes. This is no different. Half the pilots who tried finished. Pretty good by the standards of a lot of contests!

The rule "pilots who don't try don't count" was put in long ago, in (as usual) response to a snafu. As I recall, a large number of pilots looked at the sky, didn't even assemble, it turned in to a good day but horribly devalued. After that, you only devalue the day if you actually try. (UH will remember the actual story, which I'm undoubtedly getting wrong. But you see the logic).

What we don't know is why so many pilots didn't fly. Looking forward to the story

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:59:26 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:46:30 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
> > Looks like it is happening again at Truckee. One finisher gets 850, one land-out gets 239, everyone else gets zero!
>
> >
>
> > Is this fair?
>
> >
>
> > JJ
>
>
>
> Is it fair? Based on the information we have, yes. If 25 pilots finish and 25 land out, is that fair? Well, so far, we've decided yes. This is no different. Half the pilots who tried finished. Pretty good by the standards of a lot of contests!
>
>
>
> The rule "pilots who don't try don't count" was put in long ago, in (as usual) response to a snafu. As I recall, a large number of pilots looked at the sky, didn't even assemble, it turned in to a good day but horribly devalued. After that, you only devalue the day if you actually try. (UH will remember the actual story, which I'm undoubtedly getting wrong. But you see the logic).
>
>
>
> What we don't know is why so many pilots didn't fly. Looking forward to the story
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

Some general history on the topic.
It is obvious(to most) that when a significant portion of the pilots attempting the task don't complete that the day should be devalued in some manner..
Originally the requirement was 25% of contestants going at least std min task.
distance.
When, on some occasions, pilots simply didn't try for whatever reason, the rule was changed to 25% of those that "tried", defined and having a scoring distance.
This led to some folks going very short distances to kill the day. That can still happen today but it is very rare, if ever anymore.
There were also time when pilots tore up their landing cards so they would not count to devalue a day and kill it. At least one contest I recall would have been a no contest if that did not happen. Today we are required to turn in flight documentation for all flights so this doesn't happen anymore.
With the implementation of GPS, pilots wanted credit for distance flown before turning around and not going on. The requirement to go at least 1/2 of std min task distance pretty much killed that.
Recently we have heard of a couple cases where it sounds like the criteria for "fair and safe" may not have been met, yet tasks were opened. CD's and task advisers have a responsibility to ensure all have a fair chance to compete.
Sometimes you have to lose a day in the interest of fairness.
We also do not want people feeling they have to go off into storms to stay in the race.
It is also worth noting that this is most easily done using hindsight.
CDs' should not feel pressured to try to make a day out of a bad situation and should not be criticized when they make the safe call, which is many times much harder to make than just throwin' the kids out the window.
FWIW
UH

[[email protected]]

Dang! A protest for the last day. There goes my hard earned (and rare) third place...

That is just how my luck goes, my crappy day (land out on Day 3) is full value, but one of my better days is devalued, and now most likely (for good reason) will be thrown out.

Clearly it was more luck than skill which determined who got away and who did not. After all, the "no name" pilot in the lowest performing ship in the class got away while the current national champion with the multi-megabuck ship ate dirt.

Suppose there would be a protest if the three who got away were TT, 7V and ZL? Wouldn't that have been attributed to superb piloting skill rather than just pure dumb luck? Just asking...

On Day 3 a group of us got flushed by the same cloud street that took somebody else to a win with 90+ mph speed. Really bad luck on our part. So it is OK to can a day because the bad luck happens at the start but not OK to can a day because bad luck happens on course? According to the way I read the rules, yes. So the timing of "bad luck" is critical to your score. Bad luck at the start you are safe, bad luck on course, you are toast. But, hey, that's racing.

Perhaps we should consider deleting rules pertaining to devaluing days and instead implement rule 11.4.6.


P9

[Robert Dunning]

>> "Perhaps we should consider deleting rules pertaining to devaluing days"

+1

Rob Dunning



On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:35:57 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Dang! A protest for the last day. There goes my hard earned (and rare) third place...
>
>
>
> That is just how my luck goes, my crappy day (land out on Day 3) is full value, but one of my better days is devalued, and now most likely (for good reason) will be thrown out.
>
>
>
> Clearly it was more luck than skill which determined who got away and who did not. After all, the "no name" pilot in the lowest performing ship in the class got away while the current national champion with the multi-megabuck ship ate dirt.
>
>
>
> Suppose there would be a protest if the three who got away were TT, 7V and ZL? Wouldn't that have been attributed to superb piloting skill rather than just pure dumb luck? Just asking...
>
>
>
> On Day 3 a group of us got flushed by the same cloud street that took somebody else to a win with 90+ mph speed. Really bad luck on our part. So it is OK to can a day because the bad luck happens at the start but not OK to can a day because bad luck happens on course? According to the way I read the rules, yes. So the timing of "bad luck" is critical to your score. Bad luck at the start you are safe, bad luck on course, you are toast. But, hey, that's racing.
>
>
>
> Perhaps we should consider deleting rules pertaining to devaluing days and instead implement rule 11.4.6.
>
>
>
>
>
> P9

[Craig R.]

> We also do not want people feeling they have to go off into storms to stay in the race.
>
> It is also worth noting that this is most easily done using hindsight.
>
> CDs' should not feel pressured to try to make a day out of a bad situation and should not be criticized when they make the safe call, which is many times much harder to make than just throwin' the kids out the window.
>
> FWIW
>
> UH

Agreed.
One point, however, at some soaring sites like Nephi, a turnpoint could be over 70 miles from the start gate. Even at 13000+ around the start gate, task advisors can't see what the weather is doing downrange at that distance. It is a bit of a guess. With volatile weather like we had at Nephi, it really was a guess. The CD was working with the info he had at the time of the start / no start call. I suspect most CD's would have done the same.
On one day where we had lots of landouts, Walt Rogers was kind enough to send the CD (the next day) an overlay of the radar images over the task area at Nephi. It showed how the area blew up downrange well after the start was called and pilots were on course. No way for anyone to guess that was going to happen considering the morning weather reports.
So perhaps some change is needed in the rules on dropping a day "after the fact" when the weather has other ideas than to humor the pilots on course.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

A last thought. Thanks to Ron Gleason, Nephi was ready to experiment with "drop a day" (or, more accurately, "get the winner's score for a day") scoring. That scoring system is designed explicitly to devalue really bad luck that doesn't get picked up by other parts of the rules. It means if you land out before the start, do a lawn dart, or decide that flying in storms just ain't for you, the contest is not over for you. It would have achieved exactly the devaluation on this last day that Tim is calling for. I gather the vote did not go positively, but perhaps in retrospect those of you who voted no might have changed your minds!
John Cochrane

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:22:25 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> A last thought. Thanks to Ron Gleason, Nephi was ready to experiment with "drop a day" (or, more accurately, "get the winner's score for a day") scoring. That scoring system is designed explicitly to devalue really bad luck that doesn't get picked up by other parts of the rules. It means if you land out before the start, do a lawn dart, or decide that flying in storms just ain't for you, the contest is not over for you. It would have achieved exactly the devaluation on this last day that Tim is calling for. I gather the vote did not go positively, but perhaps in retrospect those of you who voted no might have changed your minds!
>
> John Cochrane

When we adopt "drop a day", it's the AAT with 30 mile radius circle problem writ extra large. Now we won't even be scoring guys and gals on the same *days* let alone on similar tasks.

I'd rather take my lumps, thanks.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

Correct about the voting results.

The criteria for implementing rule 11.4.6 was a unanimous vote. The majority were in favor, but there were a few "nays" in each class.

P9

[[email protected]]

There were 12 landouts on Day 5.

With out the "AAT 30 mile radius circle problem" there most likely would have been more.

P9

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:08:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> There were 12 landouts on Day 5.
>
>
>
> With out the "AAT 30 mile radius circle problem" there most likely would have been more.
>
>
>
> P9

30 mile circles have their place. And their problems.

-Evan

[Dave Springford]

In the US rules, a competitor is defined as someone who has made a start (and has a non zero score), therefore, if only one pilot starts, he constitutes 100% of the competitors for the day.

In the Canadian rules, we define a competitor as someone who takes a launch. So three pilots out of ten in the class constitute "more than 20%".

This change in definition of a competitor, is a suggestion as to how the rules could be changed to better devalue the day in cases as Tim has pointed out at the beginning of this thread.

[[email protected]]

Yes - that's my understanding of how the scoring works. The US rules used to look more like the Canadian rules IIRC but were changed to avoid pilots being able to kill/devalue a day on purpose without at least going out on course some distance. It may be that the kinds of circumstances raised in this thread are the bigger issue because not that many pilots are willing to do a lawn dart on a hopeless day.

[Sean Fidler]

+2

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

I agree that this situation should be averted by not opening the gate, but even the best CD will probably open the gate on the last day, if one more day is needed to make a contest. How about going back to contestants are determined by the number who take a tow with a proviso that any activity on the radio to "count heads", to see if enough will not start (in order to make it a no-contest day), will be considered un-sportsman-like-conduct and appropriate penalty applied.
JJ

[Mike the Strike]

We have at least two types of task failure here. The latest at Nephi involved the inability of late launchers to achieve a decent height as conditions changed during the launch. With the inability of the later launching contestants to achieve start height, the task should never have been opened by the CD, who has a duty to know if the last launcher can climb out. This was similar to the conditions at Parowan a couple of years ago, where cirrus from thunderstorms moved over during launch, killing thermals for later contestants.

The earlier task failure at Moriarty was a bit different, as all contestants reached start height but were confronted by lines of thunderstorms developing on course. Only one chose a working line around the storms, while the rest of us got blocked and baled. I never even thought about protesting, since I had an opportunity to fly the course and blew it by a bad decision of my own.

A rule change isn't needed for the former - just proper monitoring of contestants by the CD. For the latter, reverting to the former rules might be the best bet.

Mike

[Tim Taylor]

On Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:47:06 AM UTC-6, Mike the Strike wrote:
> We have at least two types of task failure here. The latest at Nephi involved the inability of late launchers to achieve a decent height as conditions changed during the launch. With the inability of the later launching contestants to achieve start height, the task should never have been opened by the CD, who has a duty to know if the last launcher can climb out. This was similar to the conditions at Parowan a couple of years ago, where cirrus from thunderstorms moved over during launch, killing thermals for later contestants.
>
>
>
> The earlier task failure at Moriarty was a bit different, as all contestants reached start height but were confronted by lines of thunderstorms developing on course. Only one chose a working line around the storms, while the rest of us got blocked and baled. I never even thought about protesting, since I had an opportunity to fly the course and blew it by a bad decision of my own.
>
>
>
> A rule change isn't needed for the former - just proper monitoring of contestants by the CD. For the latter, reverting to the former rules might be the best bet.
>
>
>
> Mike

Mike,

Nephi was not so clear cut. I was third from last and P9 was 4th from last. We were able to find a small thermal off of tow and work up together. So some of the last few pilots were getting up. Again, I think it would have been hard for a CD to make the call on the last day with much of the fleet hanging in the air at different altitudes. Some of those that eventually landed back got as high as 4,000 agl. I watched at least one pilot fly within a mile of a thermal I was climbing in but did not see me and eventually landed back at Nephi. We had a tight contest going into the last day and I am sure the CD did not want to cancel unless he had to. To me the scoring should cover this with the devaluation function and if X percent do not complete the day should be a zero. Why make it all the responsibility of the CD? Sometimes it is clear but other times can be very difficult to assess until after the fact. The storm was clearing away and we all expected it to get better if we could stay in the air.

Just going back to defining a contestant as those that took a tow and turn in a flight log should be good enough.

Tim

[Nick Kennedy]

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 11:10:41 AM UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:
> After the day at Moriarty earlier this year and Nephi yesterday for the 15M/Std Combined class the rules for how a day is devalued needs to be addressed. I understand why the rule was modified a few years ago so that if pilots just didn't fly it would not devalue the day, but the criteria of what makes a valid attempt is now too high.
>
> Why is this important? Because it makes the contest score subject to random luck rather than showing skill. If we want to attract more pilots to racing we need to ensure that they feel like they can have a fair opportunity to race.
>
>Yesterday should have been devalued to almost nothing or have no score because too few pilots had an opportunity to compete.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim (TT)


Tim makes a very clear point here about 2 unfortunate situations that occurred at Moriarty and Nephi this season.
I disagree with TT that we need another rule change, I think we need to think about using Rule 11.4.6 as John Cochrane suggested, and he is one guy I very highly respect.
Here is what roughly happened in Nephi this August..
Several us [ Ron Gleason, John Cochrane, Andy Blackburn and Bruno Vassel] had a discussion about the possibility of using Rule 11.4.6 at the Region 9 North contest in Nephi Ut. a couple of weeks before the event.
Where that discussion was left, was that maybe, just maybe, it could be brought up and discussed at the mandatory 1st pilot meeting. Nothing at this point was planned or set in concrete.
It was agreed, that it would be unfair to spring this rule, even thought it is in the rule book, on pilots coming to the R9N after they had signed up and made plans to attend. It is a major change that's for sure.

OK- so we have 2 practice days and everyone is busy.
At the Mandatory pilot meeting, it moves fairly quickly and there are no pressing questions or concerns, and then Bruno asks 3 times *IF* there is anything else to discuss, looking at me. I'm totally unprepared for this moment, all I'm thinking about is going back and getting some sleep for Day 1 in the morning.
I stand up and say " Well, what would you guys think about using 11.4.6 "the drop a day rule" at this contest"?
This is what this rule is often referred to but it is not quite the case.
{ this rule needs to be fully explained in another thread by Cochrane and Blackburn to fully understand it } [ it is in the rulebook right now to read it, it is short and concise]
This was at the end of a long day and a rather quiet evening pilot meeting.
Everyone's mind was on the fact we were in for a dynamic week of moisture laden rip roaring flying. Most of us flew 8 straight days BTW.
I think over half had never heard of this rule, another 35% never really had thought about it and the way it would affect their flying attitude.
Luckily Andy Blackburn and John Good were in attendance, these guys are way smarter than me. I asked them to please speak and explain what this rule really in intended to do.
So they did and they answered a bunch of very good questions about how and why this, optional rule at the CD's discretion, got in the rulebook and what the hope for it was.
Great discussion ensued and everyone woke up and got into it. It was fantastic except for the potential to split the group. This was not desired.

After the discussion started to spiral in Bruno got up and said " Should we vote on this in the morning and I want it to be a unanimous vote in each of the three classes".
There was a vote to take a vote in the morning and that passed.

The meeting broke up and several of us stayed late to talk about it.
In the morning after all the regular stuff Bruno called for a vote to use Rule 11.4.6 It was narrowly defeated in each class, remember it had to be unanimous.
Only a a couple as I recall voted against it in each class. OK- move on to the gliders and gridding.
This rule was created to mitigate exactly what happened in New Mexico and Utah, i.e. some guys got screwed out of No fault of their own, just Lady Luck did not look their way at a moment in time.

There is a lot of luck, some good and some not so good in gliding.
Here are a few things that have happened to Pilots completely out of their control: Rope break and off field landing, Family emergency, business emergency, o2 failure, electrical failure, computer failure, Storms, Tow Pilots leave early, Allergy attack, Bee in cockpit , Ballast leak in cockpit.
Here are some brains farts we all seem to do at one time or another: Wrong task, Miss the start, miss the 1st TP, Land out on a good day, Turn off your electrical system in flight, Pull your o2 system apart,etc

This rule is intended to allow you One bad day and not be totally
out of it.
Maybe the Weather is too strong for you, and you don't want to tangle with Mr. CuNim. Maybe you think it's too windy. Your being Smart and Safe. But Mr Madman goes for it and gets 1000 points, sorry pal your done as far as the score sheet goes!

Another intention is to allow pilots too really go for it,racing hard as they can, not in weather necessarily, and not be completely out of it if you bomb, trying to go full out.
T.T. and I agree that the US pilots suffer at the World level to some degree by not being able to Go For It in a contest setting. The current rules encourage Pilots stay with the gaggle, do slightly above average everyday. This is how you place at the top of the score sheet. No bombouts. Using 11..4.6 would all pilots, to go full out, really burn.
This is the way I like to fly often times and many others do too.
At these contests pilots can really be inspired to really try hard, the bar is raised really high.
And looking at the democratic vote for using this Rule in Nephi this R9N a vast majority also feel this way.
Weather is so iffy. Very often you have Windy Blue days with hi pressure or alot of moisture and very unstable conditions. Either way we are going to fly if it is possible and it IS a contest.
So what are we really judging at these regional contests? The ability to stay with the pack with your head down and slowly grind through the days and try hard not to F up?
I kind of think so.
Contests for my close friends are all about having fun in a social setting, going XC, This is the key for me. Fun. Social. Going for it. Support.
And having this rule for a regional contest sounds like way fun to me.
Several pilots, with a cold one in hand, said to me that they would really like to try this; especially after they just took a self inflicted caning out there in the wild blue of The Wasatch Plauteu, Waynes Wonderland,Koosharem, Junction and our favorite spot Richfield/ Salina/ Gunnison valley.
A regional is a good place to try this out.
I mean what do we have to lose? Anything really? Rule changes are very carefully scrutinized and studied, and this one is in the rule book for a reason.
It was written by very smart,,caring thoughtful elected to a board,comp pilots.
Change can be good and we can always go back, like no GPS, no seeyoumobile, open distance tasks,El Mirage, Torrey Pines,etc; just kidding.

I would like to see the R9N, just for all involved to see, that's it, just to see, re scored using the above rule, as a bunch of pilots got hammered on the score sheet, for all sorts of odd reasons, some out of their control, some self inflicted [ I raise my hand, thank you very much ].
Is there anyone out there that could do this rescore? FWIW only thank you
Cheers
Nick Kennedy
T

[Dave Leonard]

Here's the Sports Class at Region 9 N rescored using worst day adjustment.

http:/soarbfss.org/rasp/Nephi_WDA_rescore.pdf

Did not change the winner, but compressed the scores and shuffled a few places.



On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:51:47 PM UTC-6, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> On Sunday, August 10, 2014 11:10:41 AM UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:
>
> > After the day at Moriarty earlier this year and Nephi yesterday for the 15M/Std Combined class the rules for how a day is devalued needs to be addressed. I understand why the rule was modified a few years ago so that if pilots just didn't fly it would not devalue the day, but the criteria of what makes a valid attempt is now too high.
>
> >
>
> > Why is this important? Because it makes the contest score subject to random luck rather than showing skill. If we want to attract more pilots to racing we need to ensure that they feel like they can have a fair opportunity to race.
>
> >
>
> >Yesterday should have been devalued to almost nothing or have no score because too few pilots had an opportunity to compete.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Tim (TT)
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim makes a very clear point here about 2 unfortunate situations that occurred at Moriarty and Nephi this season.
>
> I disagree with TT that we need another rule change, I think we need to think about using Rule 11.4.6 as John Cochrane suggested, and he is one guy I very highly respect.
>
> Here is what roughly happened in Nephi this August..
>
> Several us [ Ron Gleason, John Cochrane, Andy Blackburn and Bruno Vassel] had a discussion about the possibility of using Rule 11.4.6 at the Region 9 North contest in Nephi Ut. a couple of weeks before the event.
>
> Where that discussion was left, was that maybe, just maybe, it could be brought up and discussed at the mandatory 1st pilot meeting. Nothing at this point was planned or set in concrete.
>
> It was agreed, that it would be unfair to spring this rule, even thought it is in the rule book, on pilots coming to the R9N after they had signed up and made plans to attend. It is a major change that's for sure.
>
>
>
> OK- so we have 2 practice days and everyone is busy.
>
> At the Mandatory pilot meeting, it moves fairly quickly and there are no pressing questions or concerns, and then Bruno asks 3 times *IF* there is anything else to discuss, looking at me. I'm totally unprepared for this moment, all I'm thinking about is going back and getting some sleep for Day 1 in the morning.
>
> I stand up and say " Well, what would you guys think about using 11.4.6 "the drop a day rule" at this contest"?
>
> This is what this rule is often referred to but it is not quite the case.
>
> { this rule needs to be fully explained in another thread by Cochrane and Blackburn to fully understand it } [ it is in the rulebook right now to read it, it is short and concise]
>
> This was at the end of a long day and a rather quiet evening pilot meeting.
>
> Everyone's mind was on the fact we were in for a dynamic week of moisture laden rip roaring flying. Most of us flew 8 straight days BTW.
>
> I think over half had never heard of this rule, another 35% never really had thought about it and the way it would affect their flying attitude.
>
> Luckily Andy Blackburn and John Good were in attendance, these guys are way smarter than me. I asked them to please speak and explain what this rule really in intended to do.
>
> So they did and they answered a bunch of very good questions about how and why this, optional rule at the CD's discretion, got in the rulebook and what the hope for it was.
>
> Great discussion ensued and everyone woke up and got into it. It was fantastic except for the potential to split the group. This was not desired.
>
>
>
> After the discussion started to spiral in Bruno got up and said " Should we vote on this in the morning and I want it to be a unanimous vote in each of the three classes".
>
> There was a vote to take a vote in the morning and that passed.
>
>
>
> The meeting broke up and several of us stayed late to talk about it.
>
> In the morning after all the regular stuff Bruno called for a vote to use Rule 11.4.6 It was narrowly defeated in each class, remember it had to be unanimous.
>
> Only a a couple as I recall voted against it in each class. OK- move on to the gliders and gridding.
>
> This rule was created to mitigate exactly what happened in New Mexico and Utah, i.e. some guys got screwed out of No fault of their own, just Lady Luck did not look their way at a moment in time.
>
>
>
> There is a lot of luck, some good and some not so good in gliding.
>
> Here are a few things that have happened to Pilots completely out of their control: Rope break and off field landing, Family emergency, business emergency, o2 failure, electrical failure, computer failure, Storms, Tow Pilots leave early, Allergy attack, Bee in cockpit , Ballast leak in cockpit.
>
> Here are some brains farts we all seem to do at one time or another: Wrong task, Miss the start, miss the 1st TP, Land out on a good day, Turn off your electrical system in flight, Pull your o2 system apart,etc
>
>
>
> This rule is intended to allow you One bad day and not be totally
>
> out of it.
>
> Maybe the Weather is too strong for you, and you don't want to tangle with Mr. CuNim. Maybe you think it's too windy. Your being Smart and Safe. But Mr Madman goes for it and gets 1000 points, sorry pal your done as far as the score sheet goes!
>
>
>
> Another intention is to allow pilots too really go for it,racing hard as they can, not in weather necessarily, and not be completely out of it if you bomb, trying to go full out.
>
> T.T. and I agree that the US pilots suffer at the World level to some degree by not being able to Go For It in a contest setting. The current rules encourage Pilots stay with the gaggle, do slightly above average everyday.. This is how you place at the top of the score sheet. No bombouts. Using 11.4.6 would all pilots, to go full out, really burn.
>
> This is the way I like to fly often times and many others do too.
>
> At these contests pilots can really be inspired to really try hard, the bar is raised really high.
>
> And looking at the democratic vote for using this Rule in Nephi this R9N a vast majority also feel this way.
>
> Weather is so iffy. Very often you have Windy Blue days with hi pressure or alot of moisture and very unstable conditions. Either way we are going to fly if it is possible and it IS a contest.
>
> So what are we really judging at these regional contests? The ability to stay with the pack with your head down and slowly grind through the days and try hard not to F up?
>
> I kind of think so.
>
> Contests for my close friends are all about having fun in a social setting, going XC, This is the key for me. Fun. Social. Going for it. Support.
>
> And having this rule for a regional contest sounds like way fun to me.
>
> Several pilots, with a cold one in hand, said to me that they would really like to try this; especially after they just took a self inflicted caning out there in the wild blue of The Wasatch Plauteu, Waynes Wonderland,Koosharem, Junction and our favorite spot Richfield/ Salina/ Gunnison valley.
>
> A regional is a good place to try this out.
>
> I mean what do we have to lose? Anything really? Rule changes are very carefully scrutinized and studied, and this one is in the rule book for a reason.
>
> It was written by very smart,,caring thoughtful elected to a board,comp pilots.
>
> Change can be good and we can always go back, like no GPS, no seeyoumobile, open distance tasks,El Mirage, Torrey Pines,etc; just kidding.
>
>
>
> I would like to see the R9N, just for all involved to see, that's it, just to see, re scored using the above rule, as a bunch of pilots got hammered on the score sheet, for all sorts of odd reasons, some out of their control, some self inflicted [ I raise my hand, thank you very much ].
>
> Is there anyone out there that could do this rescore? FWIW only thank you
>
> Cheers
>
> Nick Kennedy
>
> T

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

Everything we've done to make racing easier has been accompanied by a drop in participation.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Nick Kennedy]

Dave,

Thank you for posting that rescore sheet.

Interesting to look at and speculate with it in hand.

That was a awesome soaring session we had in Nephi!

I look forward to more of those fantastic contests/ OLC events put on by Bruno Ron and Gene.

Nick

[Sean Fidler]

In sailing, most major events (and most small events for that matter) have as standard practice a "drop" race or "throw out" after a certain number of races are completed (usually 6). This is very standard in sailing. If you get in only 3 races (for example) in for the weekend, all races count because throwing one third of the available sores would greatly skew the results. But once you get a solid number of races, six, everyone throws the worst and only your best 5 count.

I love the idea of "throw-outs" (otherwise referred to as mulligans in sailing) in soaring but think the adjustment should only kick in after 3 solid contest days are completed (.25 * WDSD). Beginning to "tune scores" after only one or two flying days seems a bit early.

Sean

[Ron Gleason]

On Friday, 22 August 2014 09:03:49 UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> In sailing, most major events (and most small events for that matter) have as standard practice a "drop" race or "throw out" after a certain number of races are completed (usually 6). This is very standard in sailing. If you get in only 3 races (for example) in for the weekend, all races count because throwing one third of the available sores would greatly skew the results. But once you get a solid number of races, six, everyone throws the worst and only your best 5 count.
>
>
>
> I love the idea of "throw-outs" (otherwise referred to as mulligans in sailing) in soaring but think the adjustment should only kick in after 3 solid contest days are completed (.25 * WDSD). Beginning to "tune scores" after only one or two flying days seems a bit early.
>
>
>
> Sean

The rule reads as follows

11.4.4 â€* Worst Day Score Adjustment
If this is declared to be in effect, an adjustment is calculated and added to the cumulative score of each entrant.
11.4.4.1 â€* Worst Day Score Differential
For each entrant, WDSD is the greatest difference on any contest day between the entrant's score (before application of a Contest penalty) and the highest score achieved by any regular entrant in the class on that day.
11.4.4.2 â€* A Worst Day Score Adjustment is added to each entrant's cumulative score, as follows:
After one official day: WDSA = zero
After 2 official days: WDSA = 0.25 * WDSD
After 3 official days: WDSA = 0.5 * WDSD
After 4 official days: WDSA = 0.75 * WDSD
After 5 or more official days: WDSA = WDSD

With little to no use of this rule there is no experience or history to try to make assessments of the validity. Maybe after 3 days is better than 2.

Would like to see it actually used before having lengthy discussions.

[Richard[_9_]]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:12:09 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
> Here's the Sports Class at Region 9 N rescored using worst day adjustment..
>
>
>
> http:/soarbfss.org/rasp/Nephi_WDA_rescore.pdf
>
>
>
> Did not change the winner, but compressed the scores and shuffled a few places.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:51:47 PM UTC-6, Nick Kennedy wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, August 10, 2014 11:10:41 AM UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > After the day at Moriarty earlier this year and Nephi yesterday for the 15M/Std Combined class the rules for how a day is devalued needs to be addressed. I understand why the rule was modified a few years ago so that if pilots just didn't fly it would not devalue the day, but the criteria of what makes a valid attempt is now too high.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Why is this important? Because it makes the contest score subject to random luck rather than showing skill. If we want to attract more pilots to racing we need to ensure that they feel like they can have a fair opportunity to race.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >Yesterday should have been devalued to almost nothing or have no score because too few pilots had an opportunity to compete.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Tim (TT)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Tim makes a very clear point here about 2 unfortunate situations that occurred at Moriarty and Nephi this season.
>
> >
>
> > I disagree with TT that we need another rule change, I think we need to think about using Rule 11.4.6 as John Cochrane suggested, and he is one guy I very highly respect.
>
> >
>
> > Here is what roughly happened in Nephi this August..
>
> >
>
> > Several us [ Ron Gleason, John Cochrane, Andy Blackburn and Bruno Vassel] had a discussion about the possibility of using Rule 11.4.6 at the Region 9 North contest in Nephi Ut. a couple of weeks before the event.
>
> >
>
> > Where that discussion was left, was that maybe, just maybe, it could be brought up and discussed at the mandatory 1st pilot meeting. Nothing at this point was planned or set in concrete.
>
> >
>
> > It was agreed, that it would be unfair to spring this rule, even thought it is in the rule book, on pilots coming to the R9N after they had signed up and made plans to attend. It is a major change that's for sure.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > OK- so we have 2 practice days and everyone is busy.
>
> >
>
> > At the Mandatory pilot meeting, it moves fairly quickly and there are no pressing questions or concerns, and then Bruno asks 3 times *IF* there is anything else to discuss, looking at me. I'm totally unprepared for this moment, all I'm thinking about is going back and getting some sleep for Day 1 in the morning.
>
> >
>
> > I stand up and say " Well, what would you guys think about using 11.4.6 "the drop a day rule" at this contest"?
>
> >
>
> > This is what this rule is often referred to but it is not quite the case.
>
> >
>
> > { this rule needs to be fully explained in another thread by Cochrane and Blackburn to fully understand it } [ it is in the rulebook right now to read it, it is short and concise]
>
> >
>
> > This was at the end of a long day and a rather quiet evening pilot meeting.
>
> >
>
> > Everyone's mind was on the fact we were in for a dynamic week of moisture laden rip roaring flying. Most of us flew 8 straight days BTW.
>
> >
>
> > I think over half had never heard of this rule, another 35% never really had thought about it and the way it would affect their flying attitude.
>
> >
>
> > Luckily Andy Blackburn and John Good were in attendance, these guys are way smarter than me. I asked them to please speak and explain what this rule really in intended to do.
>
> >
>
> > So they did and they answered a bunch of very good questions about how and why this, optional rule at the CD's discretion, got in the rulebook and what the hope for it was.
>
> >
>
> > Great discussion ensued and everyone woke up and got into it. It was fantastic except for the potential to split the group. This was not desired..
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > After the discussion started to spiral in Bruno got up and said " Should we vote on this in the morning and I want it to be a unanimous vote in each of the three classes".
>
> >
>
> > There was a vote to take a vote in the morning and that passed.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The meeting broke up and several of us stayed late to talk about it.
>
> >
>
> > In the morning after all the regular stuff Bruno called for a vote to use Rule 11.4.6 It was narrowly defeated in each class, remember it had to be unanimous.
>
> >
>
> > Only a a couple as I recall voted against it in each class. OK- move on to the gliders and gridding.
>
> >
>
> > This rule was created to mitigate exactly what happened in New Mexico and Utah, i.e. some guys got screwed out of No fault of their own, just Lady Luck did not look their way at a moment in time.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > There is a lot of luck, some good and some not so good in gliding.
>
> >
>
> > Here are a few things that have happened to Pilots completely out of their control: Rope break and off field landing, Family emergency, business emergency, o2 failure, electrical failure, computer failure, Storms, Tow Pilots leave early, Allergy attack, Bee in cockpit , Ballast leak in cockpit.
>
> >
>
> > Here are some brains farts we all seem to do at one time or another: Wrong task, Miss the start, miss the 1st TP, Land out on a good day, Turn off your electrical system in flight, Pull your o2 system apart,etc
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This rule is intended to allow you One bad day and not be totally
>
> >
>
> > out of it.
>
> >
>
> > Maybe the Weather is too strong for you, and you don't want to tangle with Mr. CuNim. Maybe you think it's too windy. Your being Smart and Safe. But Mr Madman goes for it and gets 1000 points, sorry pal your done as far as the score sheet goes!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Another intention is to allow pilots too really go for it,racing hard as they can, not in weather necessarily, and not be completely out of it if you bomb, trying to go full out.
>
> >
>
> > T.T. and I agree that the US pilots suffer at the World level to some degree by not being able to Go For It in a contest setting. The current rules encourage Pilots stay with the gaggle, do slightly above average everyday. This is how you place at the top of the score sheet. No bombouts. Using 11.4.6 would all pilots, to go full out, really burn.
>
> >
>
> > This is the way I like to fly often times and many others do too.
>
> >
>
> > At these contests pilots can really be inspired to really try hard, the bar is raised really high.
>
> >
>
> > And looking at the democratic vote for using this Rule in Nephi this R9N a vast majority also feel this way.
>
> >
>
> > Weather is so iffy. Very often you have Windy Blue days with hi pressure or alot of moisture and very unstable conditions. Either way we are going to fly if it is possible and it IS a contest.
>
> >
>
> > So what are we really judging at these regional contests? The ability to stay with the pack with your head down and slowly grind through the days and try hard not to F up?
>
> >
>
> > I kind of think so.
>
> >
>
> > Contests for my close friends are all about having fun in a social setting, going XC, This is the key for me. Fun. Social. Going for it. Support.
>
> >
>
> > And having this rule for a regional contest sounds like way fun to me.
>
> >
>
> > Several pilots, with a cold one in hand, said to me that they would really like to try this; especially after they just took a self inflicted caning out there in the wild blue of The Wasatch Plauteu, Waynes Wonderland,Koosharem, Junction and our favorite spot Richfield/ Salina/ Gunnison valley.
>
> >
>
> > A regional is a good place to try this out.
>
> >
>
> > I mean what do we have to lose? Anything really? Rule changes are very carefully scrutinized and studied, and this one is in the rule book for a reason.
>
> >
>
> > It was written by very smart,,caring thoughtful elected to a board,comp pilots.
>
> >
>
> > Change can be good and we can always go back, like no GPS, no seeyoumobile, open distance tasks,El Mirage, Torrey Pines,etc; just kidding.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I would like to see the R9N, just for all involved to see, that's it, just to see, re scored using the above rule, as a bunch of pilots got hammered on the score sheet, for all sorts of odd reasons, some out of their control, some self inflicted [ I raise my hand, thank you very much ].
>
> >
>
> > Is there anyone out there that could do this rescore? FWIW only thank you
>
> >
>
> > Cheers
>
> >
>
> > Nick Kennedy
>
> >
>
> > T

I would have to say that it did not change the winner but had quite a few changes in all the other places.

I would also say the the vote was not as close as indicated. Many did not vote as it only took 1 no vote. I would estimate that at least 8 of the sports class were not in favor and did not vote.

I would suggest that the rules committee should do a lot of evaluation of past contests and make it public and not just for the first place finishers. This should be done before it is added to the rules. You must realize that the first place finishers cannot themselves support all the contests. It takes all and the number is dwindling. It appears that not much evaluation was done on this rule.

Maybe we should mandate it for all the Nationals next year and if successful and liked let the regional use it.


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 22, 2014 2:05:36 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
> On Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:12:09 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
>
> > Here's the Sports Class at Region 9 N rescored using worst day adjustment.

[Mike C]

On Friday, August 22, 2014 6:56:57 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Everything we've done to make racing easier has been accompanied by a drop in participation.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Get rid of ALL devaluation formulas. Allow one dropped score IF there are more than three contest days. Contest soaring in America is beginning to look more and more like no child left behind.

Mike

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

The plea for data is good, but the main point of the rule is not to reshuffle the podium at the end of the contest, but to change the experience of flying the contest. For that, we can't simulate or re-score, we need to try it.

That's why it's available, as an option, at regionals. The RC does its best to evaluate new ideas with available data. But then you have to go try it, collect some new data, and see if it works, where the bugs are and if people like it. (Last start rule is also there in the same way.)

Pilots who like the idea: Implore the CD / CM of your upcoming regional to declare worst day adjustment for your regional, and announce it before preferential entry deadline so that the pilot's meeting doesn't have to be a long contentious matter.

It is only fair to pilots who don't want to try it to let them know ahead of time.

John Cochrane

[Gregg Leslie[_2_]]

At 12:56 22 August 2014, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>Everything we've done to make racing easier has been accompanied by a
drop
>in participation.
>
>Evan Ludeman / T8


I use to have a blast at contests, bring back the finish line, it was the
best
part about completing a task.

Golf Lima
>

[Gregg Leslie[_2_]]

At 12:56 22 August 2014, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>Everything we've done to make racing easier has been accompanied by a
drop
>in participation.
>
>Evan Ludeman / T8


I use to have a blast at contests, bring back the finish line, it was the
best
part about completing a task.

Golf Lima
>

[Sean Fidler]

Ironically, I used this rule in Ionia (R6N) all 3 years I ran it. I might have been the first to use it actually. So I have some relevant experience with the rule and with the reaction competitors have had to it. Oddly, nobody has asked me about the experience at the SSA.

We advertised the rule usage and promoted it to potential competitors. People seemed to respond positively to the idea (many though it was the ability to throw out a worst day score) although I think it had more to do with locals being able to miss a day for work rather than having a bad flying day and therefore have no chance of scoring well in the contest.

Personally, disagree with the concept of throw outs in sailing or soaring. Especially soaring as we often have so few flying days constituting a competition. I think ALL races should count 100% in a competition. The most consistent pilot is the champion. Not the most consistent pilot with a mulligan. I'm commenting on the rule favorably only in terms regarding the "science experiment" of attracting more "competitors" by making the sport more forgiving via rules (wide radius TAT tasks, worst day score adjustment, etc).

I like the idea of having more competitors but rules like this, compromises in task quality (TAT, MAT) also negatively impact the overall competition quality. We need to be careful that we do not "water the sport down" so much that the people who actually care about serious competition are left disenchanted.

Sean

[[email protected]]

A lot of thought went into the design of this and some of the features are quite clever in terms of avoiding unintended consequences. Re-scoring of past contests is informative as far as it goes, but it doesn't answer any of the basic questions about how pilots might behave differently - the theories are all over the map in this regard. Having a trial at a regionals with some real pilot feedback on the experience and how it affected their contest strategy would answer many of the critical questions.

One purpose of regionals is to broaden the appeal of glider racing. Some feel that being knocked out of contention on a single, perhaps fluky day makes some pilots enjoy contests less while others argue that not everyone deserves a ribbon and fluky days are the real test of racing skill. These little innovations in the rules are attempts to address the first effect while not generating too much of the second effect. Finding the right balance also requires some real world trials.

9B

[Richard[_9_]]

On Saturday, August 23, 2014 11:51:46 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> A lot of thought went into the design of this and some of the features are quite clever in terms of avoiding unintended consequences. Re-scoring of past contests is informative as far as it goes, but it doesn't answer any of the basic questions about how pilots might behave differently - the theories are all over the map in this regard. Having a trial at a regionals with some real pilot feedback on the experience and how it affected their contest strategy would answer many of the critical questions.
>
>
>
> One purpose of regionals is to broaden the appeal of glider racing. Some feel that being knocked out of contention on a single, perhaps fluky day makes some pilots enjoy contests less while others argue that not everyone deserves a ribbon and fluky days are the real test of racing skill. These little innovations in the rules are attempts to address the first effect while not generating too much of the second effect. Finding the right balance also requires some real world trials.
>
>
>
> 9B

Maybe some information would help.

What year was the rule adopted?
How many times has it been used in a regional contest?
Was the question asked on the Pilot Opinion Poll and if so the results?


Richard
www.craggyaero.com.

[Ron Gleason]

Earliest I can find it in a rulebook at the SSA site is 2008 Sport Regionals. No mention in the proposed changes for 2008 document

[Richard[_9_]]

On Saturday, August 23, 2014 4:31:44 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> Earliest I can find it in a rulebook at the SSA site is 2008 Sport Regionals. No mention in the proposed changes for 2008 document

Maybe it is time to adopt the rule or dump it.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

"Oddly, nobody has asked me about the experience at the SSA. "

Actually the ssa rules committee (me) talked to you a lot and to other pilots, and discussed lessons learned at the meeting, reflected in the minutes

John cochrane

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Saturday, August 23, 2014 2:51:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> A lot of thought went into the design of this and some of the features are quite clever in terms of avoiding unintended consequences. Re-scoring of past contests is informative as far as it goes, but it doesn't answer any of the basic questions about how pilots might behave differently - the theories are all over the map in this regard. Having a trial at a regionals with some real pilot feedback on the experience and how it affected their contest strategy would answer many of the critical questions.
>
>
>
> One purpose of regionals is to broaden the appeal of glider racing. Some feel that being knocked out of contention on a single, perhaps fluky day makes some pilots enjoy contests less while others argue that not everyone deserves a ribbon and fluky days are the real test of racing skill. These little innovations in the rules are attempts to address the first effect while not generating too much of the second effect. Finding the right balance also requires some real world trials.
>
>
>
> 9B

If the goal is to broaden the appeal for entry level or "recreational" competition guys, how about making it a Sports Class thing?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean Fidler]

I suppose that is true.

[Ron Gleason]

I just looked at the four 2014 rulebooks on the SSA site; sports regional, FAI regional, sports nationals and FAI nationals.

ONLY the regional rulebooks has the WDSA provision. I did this by searching for WDSA.

The WDSA provision is available for regional events on a class by class by class basis, In WINSCORE when defining the class you choose the WDSA option.

i would like to see more events try this. If I CD a regional event in 2015 I will push for it.

Ron

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Yes, most rules only become available for nationals after they've been tried at regionals. So this rule present in regional but not national rules is a feature not a bug
John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, August 23, 2014 8:28:59 PM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:

>If the goal is to broaden the appeal for entry level or "recreational" competition guys, how about making it a Sports Class thing?
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

It is available for Sports Class - as well as FAI Classes - at Regionals. Since the rule is optional and class-by-class, there isn't really a reason to add the complexity of restricting it to certain classes, or certain situations.

Being knocked out of a contest on a single day is something that pilots talk about at all levels. Broadening the appeal of racing is A goal of Regionals, but of course not THE ONLY goal and can apply at Sports Class as well as other classes. People might feel differently about the rule at higher pilot experience levels. If it's not wanted in a particular class it's not required.

[[email protected]]

While drop a day might be interesting, it doesn't really apply in my mind for fixing what we encountered the last day of Nephi. Many of us truly could not get high enough to get out on course and have any kind of fighting chance to fly the task. The thunderstorm that swept through killed that for 80%+ of us in the last class to launch.

I took 3 tows just to make sure I gave it every possible effort to get up and out. Ron (CD) did a great job on the ground making some hard decisions with little info or time to decide and he sure tried for everyone to get a chance to fly. He then did a great job in analyzing the protest and flight data from everyone and made the right call for throwing out the day in my opinion. Yes, there is a new protest on the throwing out the day, so who knows what the final outcome is, but I firmly believe it should be discarded.

I think drop a day has its place but not for days where 80%+ of the class can't even get up high enough to get out on course after trying for hours to get up...

Bruno - B4

[Nick Kennedy]

I Posted on Aug. 21 that I disagreed with TT on the need for what the Title of this Thread is; "US Rules change needed for devaluation of Contest Day"

I take that back. After consulting with my handler, my advisers and their staff I have come to the conclusion that TT is 100% correct.
Cochrane states that devaluation is a mess and I believe him, but now I'm thinking that the scoring formula needs to be tweaked to address these situations that happened at Moriarty and Nephi.
Moriarty was bizarre and opened my eyes wide.
Nephi was a nature induced tough day that they are still trying to sort out.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, August 24, 2014 5:25:57 PM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> I Posted on Aug. 21 that I disagreed with TT on the need for what the Title of this Thread is; "US Rules change needed for devaluation of Contest Day"
>
>
>
> I take that back. After consulting with my handler, my advisers and their staff I have come to the conclusion that TT is 100% correct.
>
> Cochrane states that devaluation is a mess and I believe him, but now I'm thinking that the scoring formula needs to be tweaked to address these situations that happened at Moriarty and Nephi.
>
> Moriarty was bizarre and opened my eyes wide.
>
> Nephi was a nature induced tough day that they are still trying to sort out.
>
> It can be handled with a protest but protests are a pain in the neck.
>
> Nephi staff is Still dealing with this! It's not like they are getting paid to do so.
>
> Putting more burden on a CD see the future isn't right. We can't put all the responsibility on the CD.
>
>
>
> So as the rules stand right now I figured out; that, If you can get away, by yourself and get out on task, you can get 1000 pts. And the rest of the gang can get 0 pts. This happened at Moriarty.
>
> Maybe; if someone does not protest that they did not have fair chance to compete. This precedent, [ I'm sure not the first time ] was set at Parowan several years ago and it soured a bunch of people on that protest ruling; They threw out they day, a good day, where a guy was towed into the start area, did not connect and landed, we all split and had a very good, fun, safe day flying a good task call.
>
> He felt that he did not have a fair chance to compete and protested. They threw out the day.
>
> Pilots were so ticked; at least one old heavy hitter packed up and left.
>
> Was it right or wrong? I don't know.
>
> So my point is; Protests can be hard on the CD, Staff and the competitors.
>
>
>
> In summary I would like to look at tweaking the scoring formula to devalue a day like the ones above and I support using the WDSA rule and would support a regional event that used it.
>
> In closing I do not feel any rule change would change anyone's mind about entering regional level competition for the first time. As we found out this year several newbies didn't even read the rulebook. And some guys with SSA competition experience also pulled a couple of major whoops. We all had tons of fun thou still.
>
> With all due Respect
>
> Nick Kennedy

Nick makes a good point that is generally known to the RC: It is frequently the case that contest organizers don't want to tick people off by meddling with the flying during or after the fact and pilots are loath to protest unless things have really gone to hell. Protests take up additional time and physical/emotional energy that only the highly dedicated supporters of the sport are willing to endure. We'd love to spare them this burden.

That said, it is often very challenge to construct rules that deal with all the difference circumstances that come up in a way that is not overly complex or intrusive. We all want races to be fair, competitive and enjoyable - more or less in that order.

It will be a lively discussion this fall at the RC meeting. I expect a few of you who were directly involved in some of these incidents will be asked to contribute your observations about some of the important details. When that happens remember, it's for a good cause.

Andy Blackburn, 9B

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

>
> In summary I would like to look at tweaking the scoring formula to devalue a day like the ones above and I support using the WDSA rule and would support a regional event that used it.
>
> Nick Kennedy


I think we would welcome concrete proposals of exactly how you'd change -- proposals that showed understanding the current rules and the many situations they were evolved to cope with. "Competitor" got defined up from anyone taking a tow, after a similar string of unhappy results, which we don't want to go back to.

For the moment, my view is that we should include anyone who lands out before the start as "competitor." Otherwise, I can't think of a tweak (other than worst day score adjustment) that gives whatever the desired outcome is here, without screwing up the other days for which this rule was designed.

A big review and simplification of devaluation is in order, but nothing on my mind in that regard will help here. Remember in your proposals how much everyone wants simplicity and transparency, and how little anyone understands the current rules!

John Cochrane

[Mark Schmidt]

On Sunday, August 24, 2014 3:31:29 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> While drop a day might be interesting, it doesn't really apply in my mind for fixing what we encountered the last day of Nephi. Many of us truly could not get high enough to get out on course and have any kind of fighting chance to fly the task. The thunderstorm that swept through killed that for 80%+ of us in the last class to launch.
>
>
>
> I took 3 tows just to make sure I gave it every possible effort to get up and out. Ron (CD) did a great job on the ground making some hard decisions with little info or time to decide and he sure tried for everyone to get a chance to fly. He then did a great job in analyzing the protest and flight data from everyone and made the right call for throwing out the day in my opinion. Yes, there is a new protest on the throwing out the day, so who knows what the final outcome is, but I firmly believe it should be discarded..
>
>
>
> I think drop a day has its place but not for days where 80%+ of the class can't even get up high enough to get out on course after trying for hours to get up...
>
>
>
> Bruno - B4

Bruno, why don't you think the Worst Day Adjustment rule would handle the situation on the last day at Nephi? It seems to me adopting 11.4.4 would have covered this well, without requiring other changes to rules such as the definition of a competitor (as John points out there are reasons that "Competitor" is defined as it currently is), or devaluation formulas.

As for the validity of the day, IMO 11.1.3 is clear that the day was valid. There is no requirement in the rules that a certain percentage of entrants be able to get a start.

[Tim Taylor]

On Monday, August 25, 2014 5:02:51 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> >
>
> > In summary I would like to look at tweaking the scoring formula to devalue a day like the ones above and I support using the WDSA rule and would support a regional event that used it.
>
> >
>
> > Nick Kennedy
>
>
>
>
>
> I think we would welcome concrete proposals of exactly how you'd change -- proposals that showed understanding the current rules and the many situations they were evolved to cope with. "Competitor" got defined up from anyone taking a tow, after a similar string of unhappy results, which we don't want to go back to.
>
>
>
> For the moment, my view is that we should include anyone who lands out before the start as "competitor." Otherwise, I can't think of a tweak (other than worst day score adjustment) that gives whatever the desired outcome is here, without screwing up the other days for which this rule was designed.
>
>
>
> A big review and simplification of devaluation is in order, but nothing on my mind in that regard will help here. Remember in your proposals how much everyone wants simplicity and transparency, and how little anyone understands the current rules!
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

This would mean allow devaluation after 20% non completion.

Maximum Speed Points:
‡
MSP = STF * (1250 * SCR) (but not greater than STF * 1000)

Scored completion ratio:
‡
SCR = (Number of Finishers) / (Number of contestants)

Where a contestant is defined as any pilot that took a tow and turns in a valid flight log.

Requiring pilots to land out to be a contestant is too high of a bar. Why would we require them to land out if they are down to 1000 feet and have a good airport in reach? Often in the west the airport may be the only safe place to land if they can not get up to several thousand feet.

Tim

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 25 August 2014 13:17:39 UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On Monday, August 25, 2014 5:02:51 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In summary I would like to look at tweaking the scoring formula to devalue a day like the ones above and I support using the WDSA rule and would support a regional event that used it.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Nick Kennedy
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think we would welcome concrete proposals of exactly how you'd change -- proposals that showed understanding the current rules and the many situations they were evolved to cope with. "Competitor" got defined up from anyone taking a tow, after a similar string of unhappy results, which we don't want to go back to.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For the moment, my view is that we should include anyone who lands out before the start as "competitor." Otherwise, I can't think of a tweak (other than worst day score adjustment) that gives whatever the desired outcome is here, without screwing up the other days for which this rule was designed.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A big review and simplification of devaluation is in order, but nothing on my mind in that regard will help here. Remember in your proposals how much everyone wants simplicity and transparency, and how little anyone understands the current rules!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > John Cochrane
>
>
>
> This would mean allow devaluation after 20% non completion.
>
>
>
> Maximum Speed Points:
>
> ‡
>
> MSP = STF * (1250 * SCR) (but not greater than STF * 1000)
>
>
>
> Scored completion ratio:
>
> ‡
>
> SCR = (Number of Finishers) / (Number of contestants)
>
>
>
> Where a contestant is defined as any pilot that took a tow and turns in a valid flight log.
>
>
>
> Requiring pilots to land out to be a contestant is too high of a bar. Why would we require them to land out if they are down to 1000 feet and have a good airport in reach? Often in the west the airport may be the only safe place to land if they can not get up to several thousand feet.
>
>
>
> Tim

Currently for FAI Class Regional Competition a contestant is defined as; A Contestant is a regular entrant whose Scored Distance (Rule 11.2.3) is greater than zero.

Are you proposing that the definition of a contestant be changed to '

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 25 August 2014 13:17:39 UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On Monday, August 25, 2014 5:02:51 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In summary I would like to look at tweaking the scoring formula to devalue a day like the ones above and I support using the WDSA rule and would support a regional event that used it.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Nick Kennedy
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think we would welcome concrete proposals of exactly how you'd change -- proposals that showed understanding the current rules and the many situations they were evolved to cope with. "Competitor" got defined up from anyone taking a tow, after a similar string of unhappy results, which we don't want to go back to.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For the moment, my view is that we should include anyone who lands out before the start as "competitor." Otherwise, I can't think of a tweak (other than worst day score adjustment) that gives whatever the desired outcome is here, without screwing up the other days for which this rule was designed.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A big review and simplification of devaluation is in order, but nothing on my mind in that regard will help here. Remember in your proposals how much everyone wants simplicity and transparency, and how little anyone understands the current rules!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > John Cochrane
>
>
>
> This would mean allow devaluation after 20% non completion.
>
>
>
> Maximum Speed Points:
>
> ‡
>
> MSP = STF * (1250 * SCR) (but not greater than STF * 1000)
>
>
>
> Scored completion ratio:
>
> ‡
>
> SCR = (Number of Finishers) / (Number of contestants)
>
>
>
> Where a contestant is defined as any pilot that took a tow and turns in a valid flight log.
>
>
>
> Requiring pilots to land out to be a contestant is too high of a bar. Why would we require them to land out if they are down to 1000 feet and have a good airport in reach? Often in the west the airport may be the only safe place to land if they can not get up to several thousand feet.
>
>
>
> Tim

Current definition for a contestant is; A Contestant is a regular entrant whose Scored Distance (Rule 11.2.3) is greater than zero.

[Sean Fidler]

I agree that another change of the develuation rule to cover this kind of situation is going to come at a cost. For me, it simply comes down to what scenario is more important and therefore more weighted:

Scenario 1) Pilots purposefully abandoning or not starting a good task which intentionally devalues (or kills in this case) the day. This has happened in the recent past (from what I have gathered) and was part of the reason that rule was changed into its current form

-OR-

Scenario 2) Preventing a "bad luck" situation in which some pilots (in a class) are unable (very subjective word at best) to start the task when others are able to start and complete the task easily. This is a very, very hard thing to qualify as being "unfair." How do you determine what is skill vs. bad luck is or at what point a task changes from "flyable to unflyable?" A thunderstorm is one thing but this rule would also effect a blue, weak day in the midwest for example. What is fair, what is skill, what is luck?

Changing the devaluation formula to protect against this rare, difficult to define, highly subjective and odd "bad luck" situation is going to cause a lot of additional rule complexity and unintended consequence.

In sailing, this kind of "uncontrollable variable" or "bad luck" situation (micro or macro scale weather) happens literally ALL THE TIME!!! A wind shift or reversal can easily take the race leader to the back of the pack (especially in unstable conditions) while taking the boat well back in the pack into the lead. In fact, this is normal. Managing this crazy risk is simply part of sport. Its very difficult for sure! Its not really considered bad luck anymore by top competitors in sailing. Its part of nature and part of understanding the mechanics of weather on a micro scale (near a shoreline or on an inland lake for example). Competitors must learn to manage the instability and learn deal with it emotionally when it doesn't go your way (all the time).

In Formula One racing for another example, when you get a flat tire after hitting a foreign object, you don't have the option of protesting to throw the race out! You have to learn to suck it up and move on to the next race.

In my opinion the SSA rules cannot protect from all situations that involve uncontrollable variables (bad luck). The SSA rules are already stretched pretty thin and try to "cover" a lot of complex situations (perhaps far too many ;-)). Occasionally we all will have to accept a "tough luck" situation and move on. This is the nature of sport. Rules cannot take "bad luck" out of the game.

In short, I do not believe that we should change this rule.

Sean

[[email protected]]

A review of Sean's scenarios is the right thing to consider. I think there are some days that need to be left to the protest process, some may benefit from a better way for the CD to assess whether/when to open the gate and perhaps some change in how you count a competitor under circumstances where heading out on course is a clear lawn dart. In this case a substantial majority couldn't get to the altitude required for cross-country flight after the gate opened. Ron mentions this altitude (9,000' IIRC) in the analysis of the day and this altitude is mentioned in the rules as a guideline. One could imagine counting as a competitor anyone who either has a score for the day or can't reach this height after the start gate opens. Or, the rules could allow the CD to declare anyone who takes a launch to be a competitor on a marginal day - much as we hate leaving anything to the CDs discretion. It does seem odd to require people to land out.

In hindsight it seems to me that devaluation was the right treatment for this sort of circumstance - if people had landed out instead of back at the airport that's what would have happened.

9B

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:23:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> A review of Sean's scenarios is the right thing to consider. I think there are some days that need to be left to the protest process, some may benefit from a better way for the CD to assess whether/when to open the gate and perhaps some change in how you count a competitor under circumstances where heading out on course is a clear lawn dart. In this case a substantial majority couldn't get to the altitude required for cross-country flight after the gate opened. Ron mentions this altitude (9,000' IIRC) in the analysis of the day and this altitude is mentioned in the rules as a guideline. One could imagine counting as a competitor anyone who either has a score for the day or can't reach this height after the start gate opens. Or, the rules could allow the CD to declare anyone who takes a launch to be a competitor on a marginal day - much as we hate leaving anything to the CDs discretion. It does seem odd to require people to land out.
>
>
>
> In hindsight it seems to me that devaluation was the right treatment for this sort of circumstance - if people had landed out instead of back at the airport that's what would have happened.
>
>
>
> 9B

My working definition of a "fair" task is that everyone who takes a launch gets the opportunity to start the task at more or less the same time at more or less the same altitude from more or less the same place. It does not necessarily include "all ships have a good chance to finish the task" since on some days the 1-26 will rule on handicap and on others the Nimbus 4. It is the job of the CD to use the advisers prior to opening the start to assess whether a fair start is possible.
QT

[[email protected]]

Mark,
John's latest post sums up own thoughts very nicely and much better/shorter than I could have expressed:

"My working definition of a "fair" task is that everyone who takes a launch gets the opportunity to start the task at more or less the same time at more or less the same altitude from more or less the same place. It does not necessarily include "all ships have a good chance to finish the task" since on some days the 1-26 will rule on handicap and on others the Nimbus 4. It is the job of the CD to use the advisers prior to opening the start to assess whether a fair start is possible. QT"

I personally experienced (after launching 3 times to make sure) that those opportunities as John mentioned were NOT present during the last day.

Take care,
Bruno - B4

[Mark Schmidt]

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:14:50 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Mark,
>
> John's latest post sums up own thoughts very nicely and much better/shorter than I could have expressed:
>
>
>
> "My working definition of a "fair" task is that everyone who takes a launch gets the opportunity to start the task at more or less the same time at more or less the same altitude from more or less the same place. It does not necessarily include "all ships have a good chance to finish the task" since on some days the 1-26 will rule on handicap and on others the Nimbus 4. It is the job of the CD to use the advisers prior to opening the start to assess whether a fair start is possible. QT"
>
>
>
> I personally experienced (after launching 3 times to make sure) that those opportunities as John mentioned were NOT present during the last day.
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
> Bruno - B4

I don't disagree that on many or perhaps most days, meeting this criteria for "fair" seems reasonable. When conditions are not good though, as they often will not be, I think it is too broad. By the same place do we mean the start cylinder, or something smaller? And does "everyone" mean every single pilot (no matter the skill range in the class)?

If this is what we are talking about, I think the incentives need to be thought through. This would create a situation where a pilot, or group of pilots, who preferred that the day's scores not count would have an incentive to not try their hardest, and later claim the start was not fair (I am absolutely not saying this happened at Nephi).

Besides, the specific criteria in the rules for a valid day is that only 25% of starters have to get anywhere -- very weak, uncertain conditions, in which luck would likely be a major factor. The start is part of the race (in many racing sports, the start effectively IS the race). Why such a difference in philosophy?

If it seems unlikely that anyone calling himself a glider pilot would sandbag and whinge for a few crummy points (not Nephi, flamethrowers away please), remember we are busy arguing about 2nd place. Imagine if it were about 1st, to whom the real money, the groupies, and the global fame go... ;>

[Mark Schmidt]

I should mention that my protest is more narrowly concerned with the rules as they are now, not as they could or should be.

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:38:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Schmidt wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:14:50 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > Mark,
>
> >
>
> > John's latest post sums up own thoughts very nicely and much better/shorter than I could have expressed:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "My working definition of a "fair" task is that everyone who takes a launch gets the opportunity to start the task at more or less the same time at more or less the same altitude from more or less the same place. It does not necessarily include "all ships have a good chance to finish the task" since on some days the 1-26 will rule on handicap and on others the Nimbus 4. It is the job of the CD to use the advisers prior to opening the start to assess whether a fair start is possible. QT"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I personally experienced (after launching 3 times to make sure) that those opportunities as John mentioned were NOT present during the last day.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Take care,
>
> >
>
> > Bruno - B4
>
>
>
> I don't disagree that on many or perhaps most days, meeting this criteria for "fair" seems reasonable. When conditions are not good though, as they often will not be, I think it is too broad. By the same place do we mean the start cylinder, or something smaller? And does "everyone" mean every single pilot (no matter the skill range in the class)?
>
>
>
> If this is what we are talking about, I think the incentives need to be thought through. This would create a situation where a pilot, or group of pilots, who preferred that the day's scores not count would have an incentive to not try their hardest, and later claim the start was not fair (I am absolutely not saying this happened at Nephi).
>
>
>
> Besides, the specific criteria in the rules for a valid day is that only 25% of starters have to get anywhere -- very weak, uncertain conditions, in which luck would likely be a major factor. The start is part of the race (in many racing sports, the start effectively IS the race). Why such a difference in philosophy?
>
>
>
> If it seems unlikely that anyone calling himself a glider pilot would sandbag and whinge for a few crummy points (not Nephi, flamethrowers away please), remember we are busy arguing about 2nd place. Imagine if it were about 1st, to whom the real money, the groupies, and the global fame go... ;>

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:38:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Schmidt wrote:
>
> I don't disagree that on many or perhaps most days, meeting this criteria for "fair" seems reasonable. When conditions are not good though, as they often will not be, I think it is too broad. By the same place do we mean the start cylinder, or something smaller? And does "everyone" mean every single pilot (no matter the skill range in the class)?
>
> If this is what we are talking about, I think the incentives need to be thought through. This would create a situation where a pilot, or group of pilots, who preferred that the day's scores not count would have an incentive to not try their hardest, and later claim the start was not fair (I am absolutely not saying this happened at Nephi).
>
> Besides, the specific criteria in the rules for a valid day is that only 25% of starters have to get anywhere -- very weak, uncertain conditions, in which luck would likely be a major factor. The start is part of the race (in many racing sports, the start effectively IS the race). Why such a difference in philosophy?
>
> If it seems unlikely that anyone calling himself a glider pilot would sandbag and whinge for a few crummy points (not Nephi, flamethrowers away please), remember we are busy arguing about 2nd place. Imagine if it were about 1st, to whom the real money, the groupies, and the global fame go... ;>

I think this reinforces the idea that significant devaluation is the more appropriate remedy for situations like Nephi. Enough pilots got away for the day to be worth something, but not not enough got away for it to be worth very much.

Unless we throw out devaluation entirely I think there will always be the possibility for a pilot to reduce the value of the day by not completing the task - either on purpose or despite his/her best efforts. The impact of one individual can have on scores is generally constrained. It should be considered unsportsmanlike conduct for pilots to collude to have a larger impact on the scores for the day by collectively opting out.

A review of the circumstances that led to the current restrictions around the definition of competitor would be instructive.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[[email protected]]

So the scores are in, the protests filed, and the dust has settled - or has it?

The more I think about this, not just Day 6 at Nephi, but also other contests I have attended, the more I think that all post flight score devaluation should be discarded.

My line of thinking is that somebody who has a good day should not have their score lowered or discarded because somebody else did not. A contestant should get what is earned, nothing more, nothing less.

When somebody has a "flight of a life time", then has it thrown out because somebody else had a crap day, how is that fair?

P9

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:27:00 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> So the scores are in, the protests filed, and the dust has settled - or has it?
>
> The more I think about this, not just Day 6 at Nephi, but also other contests I have attended, the more I think that all post flight score devaluation should be discarded.
>
> My line of thinking is that somebody who has a good day should not have their score lowered or discarded because somebody else did not. A contestant should get what is earned, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> When somebody has a "flight of a life time", then has it thrown out because somebody else had a crap day, how is that fair?
>
> P9

I must say that as a competitor i much prefer the 1-26 Championships approach. Instead of knocking down the score of the top competitor on "tough" days they raise up the scores of the rest. winner always gets 1000 points. On a tough day then each mile is worth more points, just the way that it feels like in the cockpit.

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 12 November 2014 15:14:54 UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:27:00 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > So the scores are in, the protests filed, and the dust has settled - or has it?
> >
> > The more I think about this, not just Day 6 at Nephi, but also other contests I have attended, the more I think that all post flight score devaluation should be discarded.
> >
> > My line of thinking is that somebody who has a good day should not have their score lowered or discarded because somebody else did not. A contestant should get what is earned, nothing more, nothing less.
> >
> > When somebody has a "flight of a life time", then has it thrown out because somebody else had a crap day, how is that fair?
> >
> > P9
>
> I must say that as a competitor i much prefer the 1-26 Championships approach. Instead of knocking down the score of the top competitor on "tough" days they raise up the scores of the rest. winner always gets 1000 points. On a tough day then each mile is worth more points, just the way that it feels like in the cockpit.

I am not sure what the right answer is but I want to see competitions won in the air not on the ground. FWIW

[Sean Fidler]

I agree with P9. The soaring rules have alot of special equations designed to tune the system and "ensure"....."fairness." A noble effort but the "tuning" often results in other unintended consequences.

In sailing, for example, if many boats break down or capsize in high winds, the winner does not have his/her score discounted. In light air, if the winner meets the time limit, he/she wins and if ALL other boats miss the time limit they get a score equal to the total number of boats started. You either finish the race or you get a zero.

This has a simplicity and beauty to it. I prefer it. Every race should count and every winner should be a full winner.

It sounds like people want more equation tuning. More complexity (at significant cost). I say make it simple and pure...

FWIW...

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Thursday, November 13, 2014 7:46:06 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I agree with P9. The soaring rules have alot of special equations designed to tune the system and "ensure"....."fairness." A noble effort but the "tuning" often results in other unintended consequences.
>
> In sailing, for example, if many boats break down or capsize in high winds, the winner does not have his/her score discounted. In light air, if the winner meets the time limit, he/she wins and if ALL other boats miss the time limit they get a score equal to the total number of boats started. You either finish the race or you get a zero.
>
> This has a simplicity and beauty to it. I prefer it. Every race should count and every winner should be a full winner.
>
> It sounds like people want more equation tuning. More complexity (at significant cost). I say make it simple and pure...
>
> FWIW...

Some are bent on making the rules remind us our tax laws ... :)