2014 SSA/US Tasking Analysis [Archive]

Sean Fidler

January 26th 15, 02:02 AM

This week I will work on further analysis of the average climb rates, raw speeds and distances covered for the all tasks.

I will try to correlate this with information on forecasted conditions. It should be recommended that anyone writing daily contest reports include basic forecast information. Or, perhaps the Winscore scoring software could require/offer inputs for soaring forecast and task call "reasoning." Information such as what was the forecasted soaring conditions used to design the task? Thermal strength, thermal height AGL, wind strength, etc. What factors influenced the task call (thdrsms, handicap range, skill level range, terrain, high cirrus, OD, blue, etc).

I would guess that only 5-10% of the 2014 tasks had even a chance of thunderstorms forecasted for that day (John Cochrane).

One interesting statistic will be the percentage of US MAT (HAT) tasks that are assigned and unassigned. Example: a zero TP MAT would be (ironically) 0% assigned and 100% unassigned (say that real slow 2 or 3 times so it sinks in...). A one turn point MAT would be 20% assigned and 80% unassigned if 5 turn points were achieved (and so on). It will be very interesting to see the reality of our typical "modified" assigned tasks. Maybe we rename the zero TP MAT a BAT? The "*******ized (not at all) Assigned Task." Why do we have the words "assigned task" in a ZERO turn "modified?" assigned? task again?

The IGC/FAI has a required ratio of tasking types in order to ensure quality? Does the US/SSA have required or even recommended task type ratio? At this point, I would be very satisfied with 10% assigned tasks at regionals and 20% at Nationals? The rest can be OLC (MAT, BAT) and TAT. I think this may have something to do with our top pilots struggling at the World Championships as well. They are almost never challenged with racing tasks. This is a fact.

Oddly, the only work being done in the US in regards to tasking (so I am told) is consideration of the introduction of OLC tasks. If that is true, I am confused. Isn't OLC tasking what a zero TP MAT already is? Isn't OLC (one/zero turn MAT) really a "modern" free-distance task? Or are "they" simply discussing a name change from MAT to OLC?

Signing off from the land of 2% assigned tasks, soon to be ZERO.

Sean Fidler

January 26th 15, 02:32 AM

This week I will work on further analysis of 2014 US tasks. Task flight data such as average climb rate, distances flown, speeds achieved, etc.

I will also try to correlate this with available forecast archives. The SSA should, in its contest management guidelines, recommend that anyone writing daily contest reports should include detailed forecast (task decision) information. Perhaps the Winscore scoring software could be enhanced to offer inputs for forecast data used to call the task. This will provide the scorer something to do after the pilots meeting. Useful information such as forecasted thermal strength, forecasted thermal strength per quadrants (weaker to the north, etc), forecasted cloudbase (MSL, AGL), wind strength, etc, etc. The goal here would be to document what factors influenced the task call (convective potential, handicap range, pilot skill level range, terrain, high cirrus encroachment, over-development concern, blue day, etc).

I would guess that only 5-10% of the 2014 tasks had even a slight chance of thunderstorms for the task (John Cochrane). I would guess that a vast majority of 2014 tasks had good forecasts. The performance data will help illustrate this.

One very interesting statistic will be the percentage of a given US MAT (HAT) task that was assigned vs. unassigned. Example: a zero TP MAT would be (ironically) 0% assigned and 100% unassigned (say that real slow 2 or 3 times so it sinks in...). A one turn point MAT would be 20% assigned and 80% unassigned if 5 turn points were achieved (and so on). It will be very interesting to see the reality of our typical "modified" assigned tasks. US MAT's are mainly (ironically) NOT ASSIGNED!!!!!!!! Maybe we should rename the zero TP MAT a BAT? The "*******ized (not at all) Assigned Task." Why do we have the words "assigned task" in a ZERO turn "modified?" assigned? task again? This is ridiculous.

The IGC/FAI requires a certain ratio of task types in its soaring events? Does the US/SSA have required (or even recommended) task type ratios? Why not? At this point, I would be very satisfied with 10% assigned tasks at regionals and 20% at Nationals? The rest can be OLC (MAT, BAT) and TAT. MAT's are mainly unassigned tasks! I think this may have much to do with our top US pilots struggling at the World Championships. They are almost never challenged with racing tasks. This is a fact.

Oddly, the only work being done in the US in regards to tasking (so I am told) is consideration of the introduction of "OLC tasks." If that is true, I am even more confused. Isn't OLC tasking what a ZERO TP MAT already is? Isn't OLC (one/zero turn MAT) really a return back to a "modern" free-distance task? Or are "we" simply discussing a name change from MAT to OLC? I won't hold my breath but I would love to hear more about this.

Signing off from the land of 2% Assigned Tasks, soon to be ZERO!

[email protected]

January 26th 15, 03:57 AM

Sean, I am a old competition pilot that was raised on assigned tasks, often quite long, and often called hours before the soaring for the day was evaluated by advisors. Charlie Spratt introduced the concept of calling tasks in the air based on feedback from sniffers or already airborne competitors.. That was a significant improvment. Then came POST ( pilot option speed tasks) , then AAT's and MAT's. I have been a competition director or pilot numerous times in all of those formats. At one time the competition directors guide to the rules acutally recommended strliving for 20% land outs. The old way was not better for most pilots and definitely not better for organizers and competition directors. The MAT can do anything that an AT can do but better. The CD just needs to choose enough turnpoints so that the better pilots will run out of time before they run out of turnpoints and you effectively have a AAT while allowing slower or less experienced pilots to come home after any turnpoint and still get speed points.
The best strategy for a CD now, is to Task multi turn MAT's on consistant soaring days, AAT's on strong days with storms in the forecast and one turn MAT's for days when soaring is marginal and a task is needed for a complete contest.
Dale Bush DLB

Sean Fidler

January 26th 15, 05:41 AM

Intentionally trying to produce landouts was a poor way of stating the objective. I think the real objective was to ensure that the top 50% of competitors were thoroughly tested. Back then (I believe) the gliders were of vastly different performance with no handicaps (correct me if I am wrong here). That is very different from todays pure classes (15, 18, Open, Std, 20m 2 place even Club and 13.5m). On the other hand, the SSA is now trying to absolutely prevent all land outs, even at our National Championships! This is resulting in WAY to many boring, short, luck influenced, OLC like , 0 or 1 turn MAT, wide turn area TAT, non-racing tasks. It is also resulting in, I believe, our best US pilots struggling at the World Championships. I believe that they are not getting enough challenging competition practice (in addition to being less experienced with FAI rules).

The deflating reality (see data) is that most US MATs (2014) have much more in common with OLC than assigned tasks. 50% of all MATs are HATs. That is one or ZERO turn MATS. If you look at all 2014 US MATs, you see that the overall percentage of assigned turnpoints to "unassigned" or "free" turnpoints, is roughly 30% assigned to 70% unassigned. So our modified ASSIGNED TASKS are, in reality, 70% OLC!

The only possible salvation is OUTLAWING short MATs. I agree with you that long MATs (enough turn points to ensure nobody hits all of them) allows assigned "like" tasks varying skill levels and even wide handicap range. When you have had enough you can just head home! I can live with that if assigned tasks were also called 10-20% of the total tasks. The problem is that very few long MATs are being called in the US (2014). Call me selfish, but I am not 100% worried about beginners. Im worried about enjoying competition with the experienced racers and improving as a glider pilot.

I have seen CD's and task advisors do a good job of estimating speed and "wrapping in" the later turnpoints (of a long MAT) closer and closer to the airfield to minimize the chance of landouts. I am fine with this. But again, long MAT's are actually extremely rare in the US. Only 21 of 63 MATS in 2014 had 5 or greater turnpoints! Again, in contrast, 31 of 63 (50%) 2014 MATS had one or zero turnpoints!!! So, 50% OLC MATS, 33% moderate or long MAT's! Sad.

This is damning evidence. Frankly, it is fairly embarrassing. No other country on earth (that I understand) does MAT's. Let alone 50% ZERO or ONE turn (aka OLC, HAT) MATS.

One turn or zero turn MATS should be (out of respect for our country) renamed OLC free turn point tasks. They have about as much to do with assigned tasks as an aerobatics competition. They should only be allowed in regionals. They should be "OUTLAWED" in Nationals just as the AST has been "OUTLAWED" by the RC in Sports class.

I have never heard of POST. Interesting. Thanks for bringing it up and I appreciate your comments. I still very much want 10-20% Pure Assigned Tasking in 2015 US Contests.

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 10:57:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Sean, I am a old competition pilot that was raised on assigned tasks, often quite long, and often called hours before the soaring for the day was evaluated by advisors. Charlie Spratt introduced the concept of calling tasks in the air based on feedback from sniffers or already airborne competitors. That was a significant improvment. Then came POST ( pilot option speed tasks) , then AAT's and MAT's. I have been a competition director or pilot numerous times in all of those formats. At one time the competition directors guide to the rules acutally recommended strliving for 20% land outs. The old way was not better for most pilots and definitely not better for organizers and competition directors. The MAT can do anything that an AT can do but better. The CD just needs to choose enough turnpoints so that the better pilots will run out of time before they run out of turnpoints and you effectively have a AAT while allowing slower or less experienced pilots to come home after any turnpoint and still get speed points.
> The best strategy for a CD now, is to Task multi turn MAT's on consistant soaring days, AAT's on strong days with storms in the forecast and one turn MAT's for days when soaring is marginal and a task is needed for a complete contest.
> Dale Bush DLB

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

January 26th 15, 07:50 AM

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:41:34 PM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Back then (I believe) the gliders were of vastly different performance with no handicaps (correct me if I am wrong here). That is very different from todays pure classes (15, 18, Open, Std, 20m 2 place even Club and 13.5m)..

Way back before 15M you had Std Cirrus, Libelle, LS-1, then you had ASW-19, LS-4, Discus (a bit later) and LS-3, ASW-20, Ventus (over a window of time). Take a look at the current handicaps for these ships and I believe you'll find a pretty tight handicap range. Yes you had the occasional Austria or Ka-6 or HP-14 turning up but generally with fewer generations of (particularly glass) in existence the spacing of performance felt reasonably tight.

>
> The only possible salvation is OUTLAWING short MATs.

Be careful what you wish for - one potential outcome is more cancelled contest days or VERY short ATs or AATs with more devaluation. With uncertain weather you have to think about what CDs and advisors are going to do if you tie their hands that way. It seems unlikely that they will be able to wish their way to better weather so they will deal with it potentially with more conservative calls. One potential outcome given today's crewless environment is that calling more ATs will translate into fewer on-course hours per contest as CD's compensate for the AT's lack of pilot flexibility with more grid squatting waiting for conditions to improve and shorter tasks - especially should AT's be mandated in some way.

You might be well advised to reach out to CD's and/or advisors for a sample of contests where lots of TATs or no-turn MATs were called. I'm thinking it might be rather difficult to recreate the richness of information that was available to those calling tasks at the time and even spending several hours per contest day reviewing whatever data was available prior to launch (not after) might yield an incomplete or distorted version of the information that was used to make the task call. I didn't fall into either category (CD or advisor) last year but I'd be happy to review what actually happened each day at Montague and Nephi last year. There was a fair amount of weather uncertainty in both cases and at least for Montague an explicit goal of calling 1/3 AT's if the weather cooperated. It didn't cooperate except on a couple of days, including the last where we had an exquisitely called (drum roll) Long MAT.

Could more AT's be called - sure. I'm reasonably sure that pushing it hard will result in shorter races on average. That may be okay as a break from the longer days and will also have more leeching and tight finishes/speeds/scores. In the end, the contests will likely be decided on the days when pilot have to judge the weather too and the points spreads are greater. The AT days will be the days where excellent tactics can pick up a few points but mostly they will be days to play it safe and not stray away from the pack.

Also keep in mind that pushing the landout dimension too hard as part of implementing more ATs may result in more pilots elect to go to the OLC events like Nephi and Ionia are doing in 2015.

9B

Ron Gleason

January 26th 15, 12:40 PM

On Sunday, 25 January 2015 19:32:26 UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> This week I will work on further analysis of 2014 US tasks. Task flight data such as average climb rate, distances flown, speeds achieved, etc.
>
> I will also try to correlate this with available forecast archives. The SSA should, in its contest management guidelines, recommend that anyone writing daily contest reports should include detailed forecast (task decision) information. Perhaps the Winscore scoring software could be enhanced to offer inputs for forecast data used to call the task. This will provide the scorer something to do after the pilots meeting. Useful information such as forecasted thermal strength, forecasted thermal strength per quadrants (weaker to the north, etc), forecasted cloudbase (MSL, AGL), wind strength, etc, etc. The goal here would be to document what factors influenced the task call (convective potential, handicap range, pilot skill level range, terrain, high cirrus encroachment, over-development concern, blue day, etc).
>
> I would guess that only 5-10% of the 2014 tasks had even a slight chance of thunderstorms for the task (John Cochrane). I would guess that a vast majority of 2014 tasks had good forecasts. The performance data will help illustrate this.
>
> One very interesting statistic will be the percentage of a given US MAT (HAT) task that was assigned vs. unassigned. Example: a zero TP MAT would be (ironically) 0% assigned and 100% unassigned (say that real slow 2 or 3 times so it sinks in...). A one turn point MAT would be 20% assigned and 80% unassigned if 5 turn points were achieved (and so on). It will be very interesting to see the reality of our typical "modified" assigned tasks. US MAT's are mainly (ironically) NOT ASSIGNED!!!!!!!! Maybe we should rename the zero TP MAT a BAT? The "*******ized (not at all) Assigned Task." Why do we have the words "assigned task" in a ZERO turn "modified?" assigned? task again? This is ridiculous.
>
> The IGC/FAI requires a certain ratio of task types in its soaring events? Does the US/SSA have required (or even recommended) task type ratios? Why not? At this point, I would be very satisfied with 10% assigned tasks at regionals and 20% at Nationals? The rest can be OLC (MAT, BAT) and TAT. MAT's are mainly unassigned tasks! I think this may have much to do with our top US pilots struggling at the World Championships. They are almost never challenged with racing tasks. This is a fact.
>
> Oddly, the only work being done in the US in regards to tasking (so I am told) is consideration of the introduction of "OLC tasks." If that is true, I am even more confused. Isn't OLC tasking what a ZERO TP MAT already is? Isn't OLC (one/zero turn MAT) really a return back to a "modern" free-distance task? Or are "we" simply discussing a name change from MAT to OLC? I won't hold my breath but I would love to hear more about this.
>
> Signing off from the land of 2% Assigned Tasks, soon to be ZERO!

Requiring or recommending more work for the organizers and workers is dead on arrival. Never enough people, never enough time to get workload done.

Richard[_9_]

January 26th 15, 02:16 PM

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 11:50:03 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:41:34 PM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > Back then (I believe) the gliders were of vastly different performance with no handicaps (correct me if I am wrong here). That is very different from todays pure classes (15, 18, Open, Std, 20m 2 place even Club and 13.5m).
>
> Way back before 15M you had Std Cirrus, Libelle, LS-1, then you had ASW-19, LS-4, Discus (a bit later) and LS-3, ASW-20, Ventus (over a window of time). Take a look at the current handicaps for these ships and I believe you'll find a pretty tight handicap range. Yes you had the occasional Austria or Ka-6 or HP-14 turning up but generally with fewer generations of (particularly glass) in existence the spacing of performance felt reasonably tight..
>
> >
> > The only possible salvation is OUTLAWING short MATs.
>
> Be careful what you wish for - one potential outcome is more cancelled contest days or VERY short ATs or AATs with more devaluation. With uncertain weather you have to think about what CDs and advisors are going to do if you tie their hands that way. It seems unlikely that they will be able to wish their way to better weather so they will deal with it potentially with more conservative calls. One potential outcome given today's crewless environment is that calling more ATs will translate into fewer on-course hours per contest as CD's compensate for the AT's lack of pilot flexibility with more grid squatting waiting for conditions to improve and shorter tasks - especially should AT's be mandated in some way.
>
> You might be well advised to reach out to CD's and/or advisors for a sample of contests where lots of TATs or no-turn MATs were called. I'm thinking it might be rather difficult to recreate the richness of information that was available to those calling tasks at the time and even spending several hours per contest day reviewing whatever data was available prior to launch (not after) might yield an incomplete or distorted version of the information that was used to make the task call. I didn't fall into either category (CD or advisor) last year but I'd be happy to review what actually happened each day at Montague and Nephi last year. There was a fair amount of weather uncertainty in both cases and at least for Montague an explicit goal of calling 1/3 AT's if the weather cooperated. It didn't cooperate except on a couple of days, including the last where we had an exquisitely called (drum roll) Long MAT.
>
> Could more AT's be called - sure. I'm reasonably sure that pushing it hard will result in shorter races on average. That may be okay as a break from the longer days and will also have more leeching and tight finishes/speeds/scores. In the end, the contests will likely be decided on the days when pilot have to judge the weather too and the points spreads are greater. The AT days will be the days where excellent tactics can pick up a few points but mostly they will be days to play it safe and not stray away from the pack.
>
> Also keep in mind that pushing the landout dimension too hard as part of implementing more ATs may result in more pilots elect to go to the OLC events like Nephi and Ionia are doing in 2015.
>
> 9B

More pilots are all ready electing to go to OLC events.

Richard

Craig Reinholt

January 26th 15, 04:04 PM

> More pilots are all ready electing to go to OLC events.
>
> Richard

Location, Location, Location... (Sorry, not intended to hijack this thread)
Utah is an incredible place to fly AND vacation. It has consistently had huge success in drawing pilots from around the country over the past 10 years.. The OLC format allows a broader range of pilot skills and interests than a pure contest, ala Sports Class Nationals. Hence, large turnouts. I am very curious how the Ionia and Moriarty events will turn out.

Richard[_9_]

January 26th 15, 04:10 PM

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 8:04:46 AM UTC-8, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> > More pilots are all ready electing to go to OLC events.
> >
> > Richard
>
> Location, Location, Location... (Sorry, not intended to hijack this thread)
> Utah is an incredible place to fly AND vacation. It has consistently had huge success in drawing pilots from around the country over the past 10 years. The OLC format allows a broader range of pilot skills and interests than a pure contest, ala Sports Class Nationals. Hence, large turnouts. I am very curious how the Ionia and Moriarty events will turn out.

Format Format Format

Richard

Sean Fidler

January 26th 15, 06:02 PM

Craig,

You did not Hijack the threads. I think OLC has something in common with AST tasks. Here is my logic...

I am all for OLC gatherings, events, vacations (whatever we call them). I am the one hosting the Ionia OLC event. Obviously, I fully support OLC events.

We had fairly poor turnout for our Ionia sanctioned contests (3) although 2 of the 3 had over 30 pilots (excellent turnout). Actually, I think one had 40. Anyway... Weather was uncharacteristically poor for those events unfortunately (as it was for many east coast contests those years). I think the main attraction to trying OLC is that it is "not a contest." It is a soaring vacation and you can basically do whatever you want. You don't have to wait for the CD to tell you whether or not you are going to fly on a given day, etc. You can stay home a day or two (something many did anyway at the contests...work, etc). Another benefit is that beginners are free to learn in OLC vacations. The OLC environment (I imagine) actually encourages teaching and learning (for more than contests do). Pilots can freely talk on the radio and latch on to (leech) experienced pilots (who will help pull them along), etc. I think an OLC event is absolutely the right thing for Ionia to try as we have few serious contest pilots and a large amount of beginners. It is going to be great fun and I hope it is well attended. I am guessing 20. That is about the same that we had (on average) for the recent contests.

In my view, OLC is not a truly meaningful form of soaring competition. It is way to unstructured. One can simply grid first every day and move halfway up the scores on that alone! It is a soaring VACATION or potentially a naturally occurring "soaring school." Anyone who thinks these OLC events are soaring competitions is kidding themselves! We are calling the Ionia event the "midwest OLC championships." (www.r6n.org) For anyone who doesn't get it, that is completely tongue and cheek. Sure, we are going to have prizes and reward the longest flights, etc. But we all know it is not an objective test like a contest task. Maybe it will evolve into something bigger than this, but I doubt it. Real contest results will always be the prized goal of the best soaring pilots.

I think one problem we had in the USA is that the only option to fly "events" was SSA sanctioned contests. In most sports 80-90% of the activity is coaching, training and learning. Only 10-20% is actual competition. In soaring (US, can't speak for Europe) 100% of the events (until recently) was SSA sanctioned competition (rules, structure, etc). I can understand (and lived it) how difficult that could be for some. Now with OLC vacations (events) we have another option. I think this is why it is so popular. Kudos to the originator of the OLC event idea!!!

Again, I believe that OLC events make great sense. One benefit of OLC events is that they should take the pressure off the real contest CD's having to run so many watered down OLC tasks. One can hope! That is to say that the number of zero and one turn MATs (and wide turn area TATs) run in real contests should be much less as the OLC soaring vacation events grow. This is great! Contests should be for the serious, intermediate or advanced pilot. OLC is for the soaring vacationer or beginner. Contest pilots can (and will) certainly choose to unwind and attend an OLC vacation event. But most OLC pilots (mostly) are likely not ready for real contests. Now they have somewhere to fly and "event" without complaining about the tasks being too hard. They can accept that real tasks are run in contests and can choose to prepare for those in OLC events before attending the real contest. The competitive OLC pilots will eventually want to test themselves at real contests. This is much better scenario then contests having to accommodate the wishes of everyone including the soaring vacationers with their tasking....

gkemp

January 26th 15, 11:24 PM

I miss long distance tasks, of course, since I don't fly anymore, I miss any kind of task.

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 27th 15, 04:25 AM

It seems to me every winter we get a whole rush of adrenaline: yeah, we gotta go fly them long assigned takss with lots of landouts, and so what if the first turn is in a storm!

Then, every spring, as the armchair gives way to the cockpit and the question becomes, yeah, but do you really want to fly that hard assigned task today, in the iffy weather we have today, with the pilots and gliders and muddy fields we have today, at this contest, all that enthusiasm evaporates.

Again and again and again. This is not a rules question. The assigned task is a legitimate task. If there is any strong demand by pilots to fly assigned tasks, just tell the CD, don't rant about it on RAS.

I can't wait for spring.

John Cochrane

Sean Fidler

January 27th 15, 06:55 PM

John,

ASTs are not (IMO) necessarily "synonymous" with landouts. That is not the goal of the task. That said, ASTs equal landouts is the narrative that is being pushed in the U.S. leadership. This narrative is working well. It has almost succeeded. We are down to only 4 (and a brand new rule US rule "OUTLAWING" ASTs in Sports class).

ASTs (IMO) should be called on all good to great weather forecast days. No task can guarantee no landouts and we should not be trying to absolutely prevent all landouts.

If your narrative that "ASTs equal landouts" is accurate, shouldn't we also stop calling long MATs? Is that what you would like to see? Last I checked, US pilots are still strongly incentivized by US MAT rules to try and get to all of the assigned MAT turnpoint. Even if a weather issue is present.

Is this element of the (long) MAT causing too many landouts as well (just like ASTs)?

I think those are very fair questions.

;-)

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 27th 15, 07:36 PM

> (and a brand new rule US rule "OUTLAWING" ASTs in Sports class).

Not new. Was there all along, because sports ranges from 1-26 to Nimbus 4. It was allowed for club class.

And you can synthesize an AT if you want by the way. Call a long TAT with 1 mile circles and a 1 hour minimum. Shhh.

> If your narrative that "ASTs equal landouts" is accurate, shouldn't we also stop calling long MATs? Is that what you would like to see? Last I checked, US pilots are still strongly incentivized by US MAT rules to try and get to all of the assigned MAT turnpoint. Even if a weather issue is present.

Not as strong. You can break off and head home for a speed finish at any time.

John Cochrane

Sean Fidler

January 27th 15, 08:55 PM

I hear what your saying. The U.S. tasking allows for creativity.

But, we don't have any of those being called. We have almost no ATs and lots of OLC.

CDs don't be afraid to challenge the field. Be a leader! It's important!

I'm going to shut up now. I feel like a broken record.

[email protected]

January 28th 15, 06:19 PM

After an exhaustive and scientific study conducted as per RAS protocol my committee of one has arrived at a definitive conclusion.

"The weather in 2014 was crappy"

It appears that the vast majority of 2014 CDs were just trying to get their guests in the air and create some type of flying fun. From all the cancelled days I don't think we had a "fast" summer conducive to testing the limits of pilot and equipment. I sure hope 2015 is better on those organizers.

Lane
XF

Tango Eight

January 28th 15, 06:33 PM

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 1:19:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> After an exhaustive and scientific study conducted as per RAS protocol my committee of one has arrived at a definitive conclusion.
>
> "The weather in 2014 was crappy"
>
> It appears that the vast majority of 2014 CDs were just trying to get their guests in the air and create some type of flying fun. From all the cancelled days I don't think we had a "fast" summer conducive to testing the limits of pilot and equipment. I sure hope 2015 is better on those organizers.
>
> Lane
> XF

It's nice to see that someone on r.a.s. still has a sense of humor and good will!

T8

Ron Gleason

January 28th 15, 06:42 PM

On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 11:19:14 UTC-7, wrote:
> After an exhaustive and scientific study conducted as per RAS protocol my committee of one has arrived at a definitive conclusion.
>
> "The weather in 2014 was crappy"
>
> It appears that the vast majority of 2014 CDs were just trying to get their guests in the air and create some type of flying fun. From all the cancelled days I don't think we had a "fast" summer conducive to testing the limits of pilot and equipment. I sure hope 2015 is better on those organizers.
>
> Lane
> XF

Lane, must be an east coast thing for 2014. Contests west of the Rockies had few cancelled days. Hope everyone has a great 2015 contest season

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

January 30th 15, 01:23 AM

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I hear what your saying. The U.S. tasking allows for creativity.
>
> But, we don't have any of those being called. We have almost no ATs and lots of OLC.
>
> CDs don't be afraid to challenge the field. Be a leader! It's important!
>
> I'm going to shut up now. I feel like a broken record.

Not sure on which of the 7 threads on task format I should post this, so it'll go here.

A couple of points from the RC on this subject (well, some of the RC - we don't schedule a meeting every time Sean posts a rant - we have day jobs).

1) ASTs have RC support (r.a.s. debating points aside), that's why they are in the rules. We'd like to see them called more rather than less. The fine points of the relative merits of different task formats pale in comparison to variety and challenge being the lifeblood of fun competition.

2) Calling ASTs take some CD conviction and willingness to withstand pilot fear and opposition on occasions. There is some natural risk aversion to mass landouts. If pilots don't want it it's hard to call. Make your preferences known to your CD.

3) No one is going to ban MATs or big-circle TATs, no matter how much you give them funny nicknames. It is extremely unlikely that a specified mix of task formats will ever become a rule. CD discretion and flexibility in calling tasks to suit the weather is more important than firmly held beliefs about what tasks ought to be called in theory or after the fact.

4) The RC would look favorably upon granting a waiver to anyone with the conviction to call an AST-only contest. That is, commit up front that only ASTs would be called - all or nothing. Other formats short of "all in" would be looked upon favorably as well, though wishing for more ASTs hardly seems like a big commitment.

Related note - There will likely be some experiments in racing formats tried at Nephi this year - for those who have an interest. More on that in the coming weeks.

9B

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 30th 15, 03:00 AM

> 4) The RC would look favorably upon granting a waiver to anyone with the conviction to call an AST-only contest. That is, commit up front that only ASTs would be called - all or nothing. Other formats short of "all in" would be looked upon favorably as well, though wishing for more ASTs hardly seems like a big commitment.
>
I don't even think it requires a waiver. So long as there is "variety and challenge" and "safe and fair," as I read the rules you can call all ATs

It might be wise for a CD to announce this ahead of time, to attract AT fans and warn others. But I don't see it required.

John Cochrane

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

January 30th 15, 04:16 AM

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 7:00:20 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > 4) The RC would look favorably upon granting a waiver to anyone with the conviction to call an AST-only contest. That is, commit up front that only ASTs would be called - all or nothing. Other formats short of "all in" would be looked upon favorably as well, though wishing for more ASTs hardly seems like a big commitment.
> >
> I don't even think it requires a waiver. So long as there is "variety and challenge" and "safe and fair," as I read the rules you can call all ATs
>
> It might be wise for a CD to announce this ahead of time, to attract AT fans and warn others. But I don't see it required.
>
> John Cochrane

True, but if we want to provoke some experimentation and innovation (even if it's "back to the future"), I'm happy to draw some attention to it with an official endorsement.

All we need now is some "money where our mouth is".

9B

Karl Striedieck[_2_]

January 30th 15, 09:41 AM

The Oracle of Brighton, MI might find, as I did, some interesting stats relating to pilot ranking and success with the "thinking" tasks, the MAT and TAT.

It turns out that the DJ's, 7V's and DB's finish higher with the tasks that require more than the ability to slavishly chase gaggles as is the case with the AT.

The frequent mislabeling of the AT as the "AST" leads me to believe that the detractors believe a pilot's score for the AT is based on speed while the MAT and TAT scores are calculated differently. Of course all three are tests of speed.The difference is the MAT and TAT add on another level of difficulty by favoring experience, weather insight and (sometimes) local knowledge. The inevitable score leveling present with the AT may feel good to the runners up, but it certainly doesn't represent a ranking of the pilots total soaring abilities.

Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).

Karl Striedieck

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

January 30th 15, 02:50 PM

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 8:23:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > I hear what your saying. The U.S. tasking allows for creativity.
> >
> > But, we don't have any of those being called. We have almost no ATs and lots of OLC.
> >
> > CDs don't be afraid to challenge the field. Be a leader! It's important!
> >
> > I'm going to shut up now. I feel like a broken record.
>
>
> Not sure on which of the 7 threads on task format I should post this, so it'll go here.
>
> A couple of points from the RC on this subject (well, some of the RC - we don't schedule a meeting every time Sean posts a rant - we have day jobs).
>
> 1) ASTs have RC support (r.a.s. debating points aside), that's why they are in the rules. We'd like to see them called more rather than less. The fine points of the relative merits of different task formats pale in comparison to variety and challenge being the lifeblood of fun competition.
>
> 2) Calling ASTs take some CD conviction and willingness to withstand pilot fear and opposition on occasions. There is some natural risk aversion to mass landouts. If pilots don't want it it's hard to call. Make your preferences known to your CD.
>
> 3) No one is going to ban MATs or big-circle TATs, no matter how much you give them funny nicknames. It is extremely unlikely that a specified mix of task formats will ever become a rule. CD discretion and flexibility in calling tasks to suit the weather is more important than firmly held beliefs about what tasks ought to be called in theory or after the fact.
>
> 4) The RC would look favorably upon granting a waiver to anyone with the conviction to call an AST-only contest. That is, commit up front that only ASTs would be called - all or nothing. Other formats short of "all in" would be looked upon favorably as well, though wishing for more ASTs hardly seems like a big commitment.
>
> Related note - There will likely be some experiments in racing formats tried at Nephi this year - for those who have an interest. More on that in the coming weeks.
>
> 9B

Well said 9B
John Godfrey (QT), RC Chair

Steve Leonard[_2_]

January 30th 15, 03:23 PM

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:41:47 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:
>
> Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).
>
> Karl Striedieck

Also note the US Results at Leszno. US Daily win happened on an assigned task.

Steve Leonard

Sean Franke

January 30th 15, 04:02 PM

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:24:06 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:41:47 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> >
> > Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).
> >
> > Karl Striedieck
>
> Also note the US Results at Leszno. US Daily win happened on an assigned task.
>
> Steve Leonard

Dave and I both finished first on an AT in the 2014 WGC. However, that may not be the best way to judge which task we need more practice.
Other WGC placings:
2nd 2014 WGC Day 1: TAT
2nd 2012 WGC Day 4: TAT
2nd 2010 WGC Day 9: AT
Other US Team members may have a similar mix.

Sean Franke

waremark

January 30th 15, 06:41 PM

On Sunday, 25 January 2015 05:44:38 UTC, Sean Fidler wrote:
> 2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GYqUEaesROmKdkzS2Y1h7MSBUrQCdfydJxu6WnSbzOQ/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 2013: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NO7073Z6J-r77aUbR1oOEKrusXwfYf4amtaem_Rw-E4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 2014 US Tasking Highlights
> Total Number of Tasks - 189
> TATs - 122 or 65%
> MATs - 63 or 33%
> ASTs - 4 or 2%
>
> 2014 US Nationals Tasking Highlights
> Total Number of Tasks - 36
> TATs - 17 or 47%
> MATs - 17 or 47%
> ASTs - 2 or 5% (Club Class Nationals)
>
For the benefit of an ignorant pilot from the UK, please could someone explain what the different task types are? (We talk a different language in this particular area).

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

January 30th 15, 06:46 PM

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:02:43 AM UTC-8, Sean Franke wrote:
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:24:06 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:41:47 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> > >
> > > Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).
> > >
> > > Karl Striedieck
> >
> > Also note the US Results at Leszno. US Daily win happened on an assigned task.
> >
> > Steve Leonard
>
> Dave and I both finished first on an AT in the 2014 WGC. However, that may not be the best way to judge which task we need more practice.
> Other WGC placings:
> 2nd 2014 WGC Day 1: TAT
> 2nd 2012 WGC Day 4: TAT
> 2nd 2010 WGC Day 9: AT
> Other US Team members may have a similar mix.
>
> Sean Franke

Normalized for the number of times each task type is called the data presented would suggest slightly better at ATs. While I'm all for improving our placing at WGC, I suspect that task format is not the biggest factor.

As for the US - whatever gets more people flying more contests is just fine by me. If someone calls an all-AT (my terminology got polluted earlier - sorry) contest out west I'll go just for the nostalgia. Have done one of those since 1985. I'll be needing a crew.

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

January 30th 15, 06:52 PM

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, waremark wrote:

> For the benefit of an ignorant pilot from the UK, please could someone explain what the different task types are? (We talk a different language in this particular area).

TAT (Turn Area Task) = AAT

MAT (Modified Assigned Task) = task with some number between 0 and 11 designated 1-mi turnpoints and a minimum task time. To the extent that less than 11 turnpoints are assigned each pilot can add turnpoints to fill out the time or improve his speed. MATs with a lot of assigned turnpoint are referred to informally as "long MATs" and are quite similar to...

AT (Assigned Task, sometimes called Assigned Speed Task, or AST). Like a MAT only no minimum time and all turnpoints are assigned.

9B

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 30th 15, 06:56 PM

> For the benefit of an ignorant pilot from the UK, please could someone explain what the different task types are? (We talk a different language in this particular area).

AT (sometimes referred to as AST): Assigned task. Just like in the UK, flight through a sequence of predeclared turnpoints. Unlike UK/IGC our turnpoints are 1 mile radius circles with credit for distance gained inside the turn area. We find this spreads out traffic and leads to a little less aerobatics in trying to get exactly one fix in the turn area.

TAT Turn area task, like AAT in IGC parlance. Areas are cylinders between 5 miles and 30 miles (ugh) radius, you get the best fix in the turn area.

MAT Modified assigned task. Turn points are all 1 mile radius like assigned task. There is a minimum time like TAT. The first few points are assigned.. After that, go where you want to fill up the allotted time. It's useful to give an assigned task feel to a handicapped contest, or to allow pilots to avoid big areas of bad weather.

More details on the ssa webpage under contests, rules, appendix.

John Cochrane

January 30th 15, 08:55 PM

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 12:44:38 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> 2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GYqUEaesROmKdkzS2Y1h7MSBUrQCdfydJxu6WnSbzOQ/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 2013: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NO7073Z6J-r77aUbR1oOEKrusXwfYf4amtaem_Rw-E4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 2014 US Tasking Highlights
> Total Number of Tasks - 189
> TATs - 122 or 65%
> MATs - 63 or 33%
> ASTs - 4 or 2%
>
> 2014 US Nationals Tasking Highlights
> Total Number of Tasks - 36
> TATs - 17 or 47%
> MATs - 17 or 47%
> ASTs - 2 or 5% (Club Class Nationals)
>
> Of the Modified Assigned Tasks (63)...
> 49% (thats right, 49) were ONE or ZERO TP's (aka HAT or Half Ass Tasks)
> 9 Zero Turn MATs
> 22 One Turn MATs
>
> Number of TATs with Average Turn Area Radius > 20 miles - 16 or 13%
> Number of TATs with all 30 mile Turn Areas - 10 or 8%

i did an AST at the club class nationals this year, and it was a lot of fun :)

Sean Fidler

January 30th 15, 10:40 PM

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 4:41:47 AM UTC-5, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> The Oracle of Brighton, MI might find, as I did, some interesting stats relating to pilot ranking and success with the "thinking" tasks, the MAT and TAT.
>
> It turns out that the DJ's, 7V's and DB's finish higher with the tasks that require more than the ability to slavishly chase gaggles as is the case with the AT.
>
> The frequent mislabeling of the AT as the "AST" leads me to believe that the detractors believe a pilot's score for the AT is based on speed while the MAT and TAT scores are calculated differently. Of course all three are tests of speed.The difference is the MAT and TAT add on another level of difficulty by favoring experience, weather insight and (sometimes) local knowledge. The inevitable score leveling present with the AT may feel good to the runners up, but it certainly doesn't represent a ranking of the pilots total soaring abilities.
>
> Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).
>
> Karl Striedieck

The competitors of most well known "weather sports" (such as sailing and soaring) do not commonly refer to meteorologists as "weather guessers" for nothing.

I continue to see US OLC tasks (75% of US tasks in 2014) as having a high degree of "chance" associated with them. That is to say that weather variation over the wide flying area of an essentially "free distance" task (such as a wide TAT or US HAT) is what I call an "uncontrollable variable." Therefore, a certain amount of "chance" is introduced by their very nature (uncontrollable). Sure, we all "think" (thinking men) about where we expect the weather to be better as we embark on an OLC flight (or most US tasks for that matter). This is because exploiting weather advantage IS the key variable of home airfield OLC flying and a US OLC (HAT) contest task. Just as our completely professional career weatherman prove quite often, "thinking" about where the best weather is going to be in a task area is often (very) quite "challenging" to get right consistently. OLC tasks are weather forecasting tasks, almost exclusively. The exact percentage of these tasks which is weather "luck" vs. weather "skill" is open for debate. What I can tell you absolutely is that a significant portion of a "pilot weather strategy" in an OLC task is what I would call guessing. The science of weather is still well known to be disturbingly inaccurate (see NYC blizzard). This is especially true in soaring meteorology where just a few degrees of temperature can be the difference between strong conditions and weak conditions. What percentage of your most recent pilot weather briefings have proven to be accurate? Are you saying that the pilots are more accurate? Its relative between the pilots sure, but still HIGHLY VARIABLE.

In contrast and to your point, pilot skill in controllable variables such as 1) solid and efficient glider flying skills 2) flying tactics 3) short term decision making (reading the clouds (terrain) that you can see at a given time) 4) a well prepared glider 5) knowledge of the task rules 6) basic task strategy 7) experience, etc all deeply influence a given pilots performance. Strength in these areas, unlike identifying (guessing) on weather variance 200 miles away from another competitor, impact of every flying mile throughout the task. These skills, if higher than fellow competitors, constantly "chips away" and soften less than perfect weather assumptions. These controllable skills allow the best pilots to still perform well in TAT/HAT even when weather mistakes are made. This to me these controllable variables are the true key to being a great pilot.

60 mile diameter turn TATs or OLC HATs (one or zero turn MATs) allow competitors to regularly fly into significantly different air masses. A decision to go to the far left side (or right) of such a turn area is often made WELL outside (in both time and distance) any pilots ability to see the weather ahead visually. Therefore (and at best) only educated guesses are being made in regards to where to go in a wide TAT turn area. There is absolutely know way that any pilot can consistently and accurately predict exactly what is going to be "out there" relative to other pilots who happen (luck) to be able to see better weather conditions outside of your visual range.

AT's, on the other hand, have far, far less variability in that all pilots are flying the same basic "race track." A misconception I see is that AT's result in one big gaggle flying around the task, straight ahead with no alternative choices along the way. This is ridiculous. AT's offer MANY different flight paths. Strategies, tactics and short term weather decisions are all highly available to AT competitors along the way. Only the 1 mile AT turnpoints themselves are common requirements. If you study AT flight logs at major contests with SeeYou you will see A) gaggles that do form break up very quickly and B) pilots take numerous routes on each leg looking for advantages and C) the "winner" is usually well, well ahead. I will produce some (facts) replays to show what I am seeing and how it differs to what "the guy with the spoon" is feeding us.

Again, I understand that soaring weather on a given contest day is often uncertain and inconsistent (supporting my point of course). These situations often lead to a need for well called TAT tasks. In certain locals, terrain concerns may also lead to well called TAT's. I also understand that some sailplane competition classes have large handicap ranges (such as US Sports Class for example). This is what TATs and the US one/zero turn HAT (aka MAT) are designed to manage. Got it. Sure, there is a value to being experienced with this kind of competition task. 65% of World Championship tasks at (IGC) events are TATs I believe. But 35% are AT! Of course, there are NO MAT (or HATs) in the World Championship. Only the US runs MATs and only the US runs the infamous HAT. Somehow, World Championship pilots manage to fly nearly 35% more AT's then the US does while apparently being on the same planet with the same basic weather.

Again, in 2014 98% of US tasks were TAT - MAT (50% of 2014 US MATs were HATS). Only 4 US tasks were AT in 2014. Remember the US has significantly modified the IGC AT in its design allowing additional distance to be earned in each turn (to reform gaggles I guess?).

If you really think we need "more" practice on wide area TAT and HATs (one or zero turn MAT), I am not sure where you are going to find them. We only had 4 tasks in 2014 that were NOT Turn Area or Modified Assign Tasks.

The best US pilots would, still, win tasks (probably by even greater margins) if the US ran more assigned tasks. I do not think different US (or Canadian) pilots would suddenly be winning ATs when the had not been competitive in TAT. That said, I do think that US pilots (in general) would become better pilots if they flew more than 4 AT's a year. The reason some people are worried about ATs is because they are harder. They simply take more skill to complete. They take more skill to win (IMO).

Sean

Tom Kelley #711

January 30th 15, 11:51 PM

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 10:44:38 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> 2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GYqUEaesROmKdkzS2Y1h7MSBUrQCdfydJxu6WnSbzOQ/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 2013: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NO7073Z6J-r77aUbR1oOEKrusXwfYf4amtaem_Rw-E4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 2014 US Tasking Highlights
> Total Number of Tasks - 189
> TATs - 122 or 65%
> MATs - 63 or 33%
> ASTs - 4 or 2%
>
> 2014 US Nationals Tasking Highlights
> Total Number of Tasks - 36
> TATs - 17 or 47%
> MATs - 17 or 47%
> ASTs - 2 or 5% (Club Class Nationals)
>
> Of the Modified Assigned Tasks (63)...
> 49% (thats right, 49) were ONE or ZERO TP's (aka HAT or Half Ass Tasks)
> 9 Zero Turn MATs
> 22 One Turn MATs
>
> Number of TATs with Average Turn Area Radius > 20 miles - 16 or 13%
> Number of TATs with all 30 mile Turn Areas - 10 or 8%

Sean Fidler, 7T,

I will help you. I believe and understand all your asking for are CD's be asked to have a few more AT's at their contest's. At the contest's I'll be going to, I will ask, when your not their, for that to be considered. The contests you go to, you can do whatever you wish. No problem at all.

Just a friendly heads up. The reason the TP diameter was increased in size was for safety reasons. To reduce the possible chance for a mid-air( we have had reported close calls). No one has ever complained about this that I am aware of. Also, a friendly reminder, at the Seniors, the tasks we fly are what's wished. I am sure you can understand. Thanks again.

This should cover it. Thanks big time for all your input and time.

Best regards, #711.

Andrzej Kobus

January 31st 15, 12:10 AM

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 6:51:51 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 10:44:38 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > 2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GYqUEaesROmKdkzS2Y1h7MSBUrQCdfydJxu6WnSbzOQ/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > 2013: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NO7073Z6J-r77aUbR1oOEKrusXwfYf4amtaem_Rw-E4/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > 2014 US Tasking Highlights
> > Total Number of Tasks - 189
> > TATs - 122 or 65%
> > MATs - 63 or 33%
> > ASTs - 4 or 2%
> >
> > 2014 US Nationals Tasking Highlights
> > Total Number of Tasks - 36
> > TATs - 17 or 47%
> > MATs - 17 or 47%
> > ASTs - 2 or 5% (Club Class Nationals)
> >
> > Of the Modified Assigned Tasks (63)...
> > 49% (thats right, 49) were ONE or ZERO TP's (aka HAT or Half Ass Tasks)
> > 9 Zero Turn MATs
> > 22 One Turn MATs
> >
> > Number of TATs with Average Turn Area Radius > 20 miles - 16 or 13%
> > Number of TATs with all 30 mile Turn Areas - 10 or 8%
>
> Sean Fidler, 7T,
>
> I will help you. I believe and understand all your asking for are CD's be asked to have a few more AT's at their contest's. At the contest's I'll be going to, I will ask, when your not their, for that to be considered. The contests you go to, you can do whatever you wish. No problem at all.
>
> Just a friendly heads up. The reason the TP diameter was increased in size was for safety reasons. To reduce the possible chance for a mid-air( we have had reported close calls). No one has ever complained about this that I am aware of. Also, a friendly reminder, at the Seniors, the tasks we fly are what's wished. I am sure you can understand. Thanks again.
>
> This should cover it. Thanks big time for all your input and time.
>
> Best regards, #711.

I am really enjoying Sean's posts. Very rarely I see someone with so much passion trying to make a difference. It is really refreshing to read this lively discussion especially when I spent most of the day in boring corporate world :(

It seems that Sean has a point 2% is really very close to zero.
I think we need to protect endangered species! :)

Karl Striedieck[_2_]

January 31st 15, 01:19 AM

I'm no match for the Oracle of Brighton when it comes to obfuscatory verbosity, but here are a couple thoughts on points I think were addressed.

Weather (best lift, really) in a turn area circle is not the giant crap shoot portrayed. DJ and KM have the experience to line up the streets, go deep if required, check out subsequent circles on the way to the present one, steer to points in a pair of turn areas that best aligns with any streeting, bias the turn point in all the areas with regard to wind direction so that the last leg home in dying lift is shorter, on blue days choose courses that point toward the sun as much as possible to see haze domes (they use polarized glasses for this),etc, etc., etc. These are skills not tested by the railroad track AT, and favor the pilot with more experience and ability to see the big picture, not simply the next Flarm target.

I suspect many of the proponents of the AT had a previous life in bike or sailboat racing, wherein they started smiultaneously and kept their competitors in sight. The racing we do is against the clock. The only thing that should be on your mind is what can I do right now to go the fastest.

If US Team candidates are looking for a task that will best prepare them for WGC's the TAT (AAT) is it. First of all, it usually has a greater score spread, and, second, the wider skill set needed for the TAT is mostly useable on AT's but not the reverse.

The AT belongs on he scrap heap of history along with the free distance,altitude and duration tasks.

KS

Tom Kelley #711

January 31st 15, 01:52 AM

> >
> > Sean Fidler, 7T,
> >
> > I will help you. I believe and understand all your asking for are CD's be asked to have a few more AT's at their contest's. At the contest's I'll be going to, I will ask, when your not their, for that to be considered. The contests you go to, you can do whatever you wish. No problem at all.
> >
> > Just a friendly heads up. The reason the TP diameter was increased in size was for safety reasons. To reduce the possible chance for a mid-air( we have had reported close calls). No one has ever complained about this that I am aware of. Also, a friendly reminder, at the Seniors, the tasks we fly are what's wished. I am sure you can understand. Thanks again.
> >
> > This should cover it. Thanks big time for all your input and time.
> >
> > Best regards, #711.
>
> I am really enjoying Sean's posts. Very rarely I see someone with so much passion trying to make a difference. It is really refreshing to read this lively discussion especially when I spent most of the day in boring corporate world :(
>
> It seems that Sean has a point 2% is really very close to zero.
> I think we need to protect endangered species! :)

Sorry Sean, I deleted my post offering help.........since the AT is dead.

Dang, flying into the sun to see haze domes.....who would of ever thought.

Best. #711.

Tom Kelley #711

January 31st 15, 03:22 AM

Tom Kelley #711

January 31st 15, 03:36 AM

Just the first minute.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay4xnI216iY

Tom Kelley #711

January 31st 15, 03:46 AM

Tom Kelley #711

January 31st 15, 03:50 AM

Sean Fidler

January 31st 15, 04:12 AM

Lord of the OLC,

The fact is that SSA ran only 4 assigned tasks in 2014. You're still upset about that? This is too many? That is only 2% of all 2014 SSA tasks. You seem agitated with someone daring to argue for more. Almost as if a slow demise of ATs is part of the plan. The lobbying against the AT by SSA officials is almost breathtaking to behold. How dare a mortal speak? SILENCE?

Karl, I commend you for arguing that TATs have some value (not a HATs of course). I agree. But I strongly disagree with your rather strong call for the 'genocide" of US assigned tasking. I think there are some Canadians who may disagree with your thinking. Personally, I think we already do "plenty" of TATs personally. I am sure many agree. I think my data on 2014 SSA tasking supports that effectively (70% or so).

You said "the racing we do is against the clock." Who is we exactly? Who determined that this is what WE do?

The funny thing is that I am merely arguing for "slightly more" ATs (more than 2%). Yet this somehow blasphemy? I am not arguing to kill the TAT. Several others have commented here recently (and in other discussions) that they enjoy ATs. I am sure many do. Are you speaking for yourself of for everyone in the SSA? Keep in mind you fly almost entirely in Sports class which has a new rule outlawing AT's. You're safe. Do you still want to kill AT's for pilots in the 15m, 18m, Open, and Club Class?

Karl, if ATs are so bad, why does the rest of the world still fly ATs regularly without concern? Why are ATs still a significant part of all major FAI events and World Championships? Is the rest of the World nuts? Is the rest of the world enjoying mass land outs with every AT with broken gliders scattered all over the countryside? Are the rest of the worlds competitive sparing pilots less skilled because the fly ATs and not all TAT/US MAT/ US HATs? Why is Glider Grand Prix growing?

Sean

Mike the Strike

January 31st 15, 04:16 AM

I'm with Karl! The good guys always seem to beat me, whatever type of task we fly!

Mike

[email protected]

January 31st 15, 12:22 PM

I'm with Sean! We should fly more AT's.
Mark

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

January 31st 15, 02:22 PM

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 7:23:01 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I'm with Sean! We should fly more AT's.
> Mark

No disagreement, and I wonder what a similar analysis would show for the last year of continental championships (see soaring spot).

John Godfrey (QT)
RC Chair

Dave Leonard

January 31st 15, 03:03 PM

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 7:22:50 AM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> No disagreement, and I wonder what a similar analysis would show for the last year of continental championships (see soaring spot).
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> RC Chair

A little more detailed stat info on the AT results in the US to go with this analysis:

2013 had 6 not 7 ATs(Region 10 S had no ATs on the SSA results page)
1 of these had 100% landouts
1 had 50% landouts
1 had 40% landouts
3 worked well, roughly 3 hrs for winner, nearly all finished

2014 had 4 ATs
2 had winning TOC of 1:45 (regional contest, so not horribly devalued)
1 had winning TOC of 4:40 and 40% landouts
1 worked well, roughly 4 hrs for the winner, nearly all finished

Pretty small sample size, but real world results.

Karl Striedieck[_2_]

January 31st 15, 03:04 PM

Sean,

I have trouble wading through your (what seem to me) rambling, unrelated stats and invectives to get to your points.

Suggestion: Ask that gem of a spousal unit of yours, Tiffany (PhD Mechanical Engineering, Law Degree), to proof read your tomes to make them more to the point and with less unrelated baggage.

"Lord of the OLC" for example.

You asked who are we that race against the clock. Answer: those of us who win contests.

Why does the "rest of the world" fly more AT's? So the pilots can hold hands and not have to make as many decisions/screw ups.

Pilot's herd mentality and conservative nature led to a mass land out of all the standard class on a blue day at the 1987 WGC at Benalla because no one would start first and they all played start gate roulette until 4PM.

If any characteristic typifies the US compared to Europe it is our initiative and pioneering spirit: Internet, Moon landing, SR-71, Jazz, research, etc. Let's lead the way in contest tasking as well, rather than surrendering to the dull bureaucracy that stifles improvements.

KS

John Galloway[_1_]

January 31st 15, 04:05 PM

At 15:04 31 January 2015, Karl Striedieck wrote:
>Sean,
>
>I have trouble wading through your (what seem to me) rambling,
unrelated
>st=
>ats and invectives to get to your points.=20
>
>Suggestion: Ask that gem of a spousal unit of yours, Tiffany (PhD
>Mechanica=
>l Engineering, Law Degree), to proof read your tomes to make
them more to
>t=
>he point and with less unrelated baggage.
>
>"Lord of the OLC" for example.=20
>
>You asked who are we that race against the clock. Answer: those
of us who
>w=
>in contests.=20
>
>Why does the "rest of the world" fly more AT's? So the pilots can
hold
>hand=
>s and not have to make as many decisions/screw ups.=20
>
>Pilot's herd mentality and conservative nature led to a mass land
out of
>al=
>l the standard class on a blue day at the 1987 WGC at Benalla
because no
>on=
>e would start first and they all played start gate roulette until 4PM.
>
>If any characteristic typifies the US compared to Europe it is our
>initiati=
>ve and pioneering spirit: Internet, Moon landing, SR-71, Jazz,
research,
>=
>etc. Let's lead the way in contest tasking as well, rather than
>surrenderin=
>g to the dull bureaucracy that stifles improvements.=20
>
>KS

Was it not European initiative and pioneering spirit that resulted in
the US?

John Galloway

Sean Fidler

January 31st 15, 08:15 PM

Karl,

Again I truly commend you for agruing and making points for all to see publicly.

I'm not sure killing ATs is equal to innovation in our aerospace industry. Perhaps a little overdramatic?

You cite the worst case scenarios. But completely discount t the value of racing vs flying to a minimum time. Just flying to a minimum time is boring. You also have no real answer as to how the rest of the world is enjoying what appears to be a completely different sport than the US under its rogue leadership.

You did not answer my main question. Do you want all classes (the ones other than sports class) to conforn to your opinion and end ATs in the USA?

Sean

Karl Striedieck[_2_]

February 1st 15, 01:15 AM

Sean,

I say again, if a pilot hopes to do well with the TAT and MAT they need to realize all tasks are races/speed tasks. Being "bored" would seem to me to have a negative effect on ones performance. The greater demands of the TAT/MAT keep most pilots awake, compared to the those of the AT where you can put your mind in neutral and do OK.

"Completely different sport" "rogue leadership"??? Did Tiffany approve those???

Answer to last question: Yes.

KS

[email protected]

February 1st 15, 02:22 PM

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 11:12:23 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Lord of the OLC,
>
> The fact is that SSA ran only 4 assigned tasks in 2014. You're still upset about that? This is too many? That is only 2% of all 2014 SSA tasks. You seem agitated with someone daring to argue for more. Almost as if a slow demise of ATs is part of the plan. The lobbying against the AT by SSA officials is almost breathtaking to behold. How dare a mortal speak? SILENCE?
>
> Karl, I commend you for arguing that TATs have some value (not a HATs of course). I agree. But I strongly disagree with your rather strong call for the 'genocide" of US assigned tasking. I think there are some Canadians who may disagree with your thinking. Personally, I think we already do "plenty" of TATs personally. I am sure many agree. I think my data on 2014 SSA tasking supports that effectively (70% or so).
>
> You said "the racing we do is against the clock." Who is we exactly? Who determined that this is what WE do?
>
> The funny thing is that I am merely arguing for "slightly more" ATs (more than 2%). Yet this somehow blasphemy? I am not arguing to kill the TAT. Several others have commented here recently (and in other discussions) that they enjoy ATs. I am sure many do. Are you speaking for yourself of for everyone in the SSA? Keep in mind you fly almost entirely in Sports class which has a new rule outlawing AT's. You're safe. Do you still want to kill AT's for pilots in the 15m, 18m, Open, and Club Class?
>
> Karl, if ATs are so bad, why does the rest of the world still fly ATs regularly without concern? Why are ATs still a significant part of all major FAI events and World Championships? Is the rest of the World nuts? Is the rest of the world enjoying mass land outs with every AT with broken gliders scattered all over the countryside? Are the rest of the worlds competitive sparing pilots less skilled because the fly ATs and not all TAT/US MAT/ US HATs? Why is Glider Grand Prix growing?
>
> Sean

Just a minor point: banning assigned tasks in sports class is not a new rule
this year. They've been banned as long as I've been around contests. In
the early '90s all they called were POST tasks. Now there's a task type
that's better off dead!

Matt

Andrzej Kobus

February 1st 15, 04:19 PM

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:15:22 PM UTC-5, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> Sean,
>
> I say again, if a pilot hopes to do well with the TAT and MAT they need to realize all tasks are races/speed tasks. Being "bored" would seem to me to have a negative effect on ones performance. The greater demands of the TAT/MAT keep most pilots awake, compared to the those of the AT where you can put your mind in neutral and do OK.
>
> "Completely different sport" "rogue leadership"??? Did Tiffany approve those???
>
> Answer to last question: Yes.
>
> KS

Karl, please look at the 2014 Opinion Poll.

Do you want to see more or less of Assigned Tasks?
50% more
38% same
8% lees

Do you want to see more or less MAT tasks with few assigned points?
11% more
35% same
52% less

I did not make up these numbers. It seems Sean's views are not in minority.

I think you belong to the 8% group :).

I personally like flying Assigned Tasks or MAT tasks with more points than one could use.

AK

[email protected]

February 1st 15, 06:04 PM

Trying to digest all the information from this thread, it appears to me that the better of the pilots want MAT's or such and the weaker pilots want AT's. Am I correct in this assumption? I can imagine in perfect variable weather with very long turn points that can have divergent paths an AT would be okay.

Thanks Karl for your involvement in the discussion I go back and reread "Winning" all the time.

J

Andrzej Kobus

February 1st 15, 06:36 PM

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:04:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Trying to digest all the information from this thread, it appears to me that the better of the pilots want MAT's or such and the weaker pilots want AT's. Am I correct in this assumption? I can imagine in perfect variable weather with very long turn points that can have divergent paths an AT would be okay.
>
> Thanks Karl for your involvement in the discussion I go back and reread "Winning" all the time.
>
> J

As Karl said the best pilots will find a way to win. I would not call Sean a weak pilot considering his results in 2013 and 2014 18 m Nationals. You can call me a weak pilot but I still would like to fly Assigned Task from time to time.

[email protected]

February 2nd 15, 03:40 AM

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 11:44:38 PM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> 2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GYqUEaesROmKdkzS2Y1h7MSBUrQCdfydJxu6WnSbzOQ/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 2013: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NO7073Z6J-r77aUbR1oOEKrusXwfYf4amtaem_Rw-E4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 2014 US Tasking Highlights
> Total Number of Tasks - 189
> TATs - 122 or 65%
> MATs - 63 or 33%
> ASTs - 4 or 2%
>
> 2014 US Nationals Tasking Highlights
> Total Number of Tasks - 36
> TATs - 17 or 47%
> MATs - 17 or 47%
> ASTs - 2 or 5% (Club Class Nationals)
>
> Of the Modified Assigned Tasks (63)...
> 49% (thats right, 49) were ONE or ZERO TP's (aka HAT or Half Ass Tasks)
> 9 Zero Turn MATs
> 22 One Turn MATs
>
> Number of TATs with Average Turn Area Radius > 20 miles - 16 or 13%
> Number of TATs with all 30 mile Turn Areas - 10 or 8%

I really enjoyed flying the assigned tasks at the club class nationals last summer. I also enjoyed the long MATs at the 2013 Region 10. To me, on the TAT you get to fly with other gliders for about 30 to 40 minutes, then you spend about 2 and half hours alone with your flight computer. Finally, you will work a couple of thermals with two or three other gliders and then glide home. I am sure that if you are top pilot and attract a lot of leaches, your experience is different than mine. In my limited international experience, it seemed to me that the pilots were very much at home flying aggressively and fast in groups of 7 to 15 gliders.

Bill Snead
6W

Sean Fidler

February 2nd 15, 04:04 AM

Andrez,

I was going to wait until Karl dug himself a little further in...

Excellent point and I am shocked that nobody had the guts to bring that up yet.

Remember, Karl has openly stated that he wants to to end Assigned Tasking for all US pilots. Even for pilot pilots in the pure classes which he rarely competes in anymore.

Only 4 assigned tasks in the US in 2014.

Karl (and John Cochrane) really hate assigned tasks. They are great people (and great pilots), and mean well. Yep, they have probably experienced their fair share of mass handouts, etc. Regardless, assigned tasks are very fun to fly when the weather is strong and offers the last true racing task left. Thankfully, we are not all drinking their cool-aid even though they lobby against racing tasks as often I lobby for them. But if you disagree with them, If you want a few racing tasks in the US each year, you had better speak up. They (and I am sure there are others in the SSA hierarchy) are very close to their goal of ending ALL assigned tasking in the USA in favor of ALL timed OLC "like" tasking.

Sincerely,

Sean

Paul B[_2_]

February 2nd 15, 07:40 AM

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 02:15:05 UTC+10, John Galloway wrote:
> At 15:04 31 January 2015, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> >Sean,
> >
> >I have trouble wading through your (what seem to me) rambling,
> unrelated
> >st=
> >ats and invectives to get to your points.=20
> >
> >Suggestion: Ask that gem of a spousal unit of yours, Tiffany (PhD
> >Mechanica=
> >l Engineering, Law Degree), to proof read your tomes to make
> them more to
> >t=
> >he point and with less unrelated baggage.
> >
> >"Lord of the OLC" for example.=20
> >
> >You asked who are we that race against the clock. Answer: those
> of us who
> >w=
> >in contests.=20
> >
> >Why does the "rest of the world" fly more AT's? So the pilots can
> hold
> >hand=
> >s and not have to make as many decisions/screw ups.=20
> >
> >Pilot's herd mentality and conservative nature led to a mass land
> out of
> >al=
> >l the standard class on a blue day at the 1987 WGC at Benalla
> because no
> >on=
> >e would start first and they all played start gate roulette until 4PM.
> >
> >If any characteristic typifies the US compared to Europe it is our
> >initiati=
> >ve and pioneering spirit: Internet, Moon landing, SR-71, Jazz,
> research,
> >=
> >etc. Let's lead the way in contest tasking as well, rather than
> >surrenderin=
> >g to the dull bureaucracy that stifles improvements.=20
> >
> >KS
>
> Was it not European initiative and pioneering spirit that resulted in
> the US?
>
> John Galloway

Yes John, but that may have selected the innovative, pioneering spirit, the others stayed in Europe :). BTW, I am not associated with USA in any way.

Cheers

paul

[email protected]

February 2nd 15, 02:37 PM

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 11:04:49 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Andrez,
>
> I was going to wait until Karl dug himself a little further in...
>
> Excellent point and I am shocked that nobody had the guts to bring that up yet.
>
> Remember, Karl has openly stated that he wants to to end Assigned Tasking for all US pilots. Even for pilot pilots in the pure classes which he rarely competes in anymore.
>
> Only 4 assigned tasks in the US in 2014.
>
> Karl (and John Cochrane) really hate assigned tasks. They are great people (and great pilots), and mean well. Yep, they have probably experienced their fair share of mass handouts, etc. Regardless, assigned tasks are very fun to fly when the weather is strong and offers the last true racing task left. Thankfully, we are not all drinking their cool-aid even though they lobby against racing tasks as often I lobby for them. But if you disagree with them, If you want a few racing tasks in the US each year, you had better speak up. They (and I am sure there are others in the SSA hierarchy) are very close to their goal of ending ALL assigned tasking in the USA in favor of ALL timed OLC "like" tasking.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean

John does not hate assigned tasks. He does, however have a pretty strong view of the plus and minus of calling them, which is what he has communicated.
The RC has no intention of trying to eliminate the AT and stands solidly behind the principle of having a variety of tasks.
You are over stating their positions in an attempt to polarize this discussion and, in my view, are going more than a bit too far.
I like John and the RC, don't hate the AT, we just think it's usefulness and value is limited and that other tasks, properly called, can test skills almost as well with less potential down side risk.
UH

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

February 2nd 15, 02:52 PM

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 6:37:55 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 11:04:49 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > Andrez,
> >
> > I was going to wait until Karl dug himself a little further in...
> >
> > Excellent point and I am shocked that nobody had the guts to bring that up yet.
> >
> > Remember, Karl has openly stated that he wants to to end Assigned Tasking for all US pilots. Even for pilot pilots in the pure classes which he rarely competes in anymore.
> >
> > Only 4 assigned tasks in the US in 2014.
> >
> > Karl (and John Cochrane) really hate assigned tasks. They are great people (and great pilots), and mean well. Yep, they have probably experienced their fair share of mass handouts, etc. Regardless, assigned tasks are very fun to fly when the weather is strong and offers the last true racing task left. Thankfully, we are not all drinking their cool-aid even though they lobby against racing tasks as often I lobby for them. But if you disagree with them, If you want a few racing tasks in the US each year, you had better speak up. They (and I am sure there are others in the SSA hierarchy) are very close to their goal of ending ALL assigned tasking in the USA in favor of ALL timed OLC "like" tasking.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sean
>
> John does not hate assigned tasks. He does, however have a pretty strong view of the plus and minus of calling them, which is what he has communicated.
> The RC has no intention of trying to eliminate the AT and stands solidly behind the principle of having a variety of tasks.
> You are over stating their positions in an attempt to polarize this discussion and, in my view, are going more than a bit too far.
> I like John and the RC, don't hate the AT, we just think it's usefulness and value is limited and that other tasks, properly called, can test skills almost as well with less potential down side risk.
> UH

I can attest to that - and speak for others on the RC as well. It is a requirement of the job to have a balanced, unbiased view of the strengths and weaknesses of various task types and to encourage their use to maximize challenge, enjoyment and safety for those flying in contests. ATs add to the variety and, has been stated, test a mix of skills that are somewhat different from other task types. Feel free to call them as conditions permit.

9B

Matt Herron Jr.

February 2nd 15, 03:28 PM

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:40:15 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 11:44:38 PM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > 2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GYqUEaesROmKdkzS2Y1h7MSBUrQCdfydJxu6WnSbzOQ/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > 2013: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NO7073Z6J-r77aUbR1oOEKrusXwfYf4amtaem_Rw-E4/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > 2014 US Tasking Highlights
> > Total Number of Tasks - 189
> > TATs - 122 or 65%
> > MATs - 63 or 33%
> > ASTs - 4 or 2%
> >
> > 2014 US Nationals Tasking Highlights
> > Total Number of Tasks - 36
> > TATs - 17 or 47%
> > MATs - 17 or 47%
> > ASTs - 2 or 5% (Club Class Nationals)
> >
> > Of the Modified Assigned Tasks (63)...
> > 49% (thats right, 49) were ONE or ZERO TP's (aka HAT or Half Ass Tasks)
> > 9 Zero Turn MATs
> > 22 One Turn MATs
> >
> > Number of TATs with Average Turn Area Radius > 20 miles - 16 or 13%
> > Number of TATs with all 30 mile Turn Areas - 10 or 8%
>
> I really enjoyed flying the assigned tasks at the club class nationals last summer. I also enjoyed the long MATs at the 2013 Region 10. To me, on the TAT you get to fly with other gliders for about 30 to 40 minutes, then you spend about 2 and half hours alone with your flight computer. Finally, you will work a couple of thermals with two or three other gliders and then glide home. I am sure that if you are top pilot and attract a lot of leaches, your experience is different than mine. In my limited international experience, it seemed to me that the pilots were very much at home flying aggressively and fast in groups of 7 to 15 gliders.
>
> Bill Snead
> 6W

I completely agree with Andy and UH. I am all for variety of tasks MAT, TAT, AT. However I feel that the MAT and TAT are more Strategic and build a broader set of skills than the AT. All are true racing tasks. I even support the expansion of OLC type tasks/gatherings as I think it will attract more competitors to the sport.

Matt H

Sean Fidler

February 2nd 15, 04:14 PM

With respect UH, balance? :-). Seriously?

The SSA is down to 4 assigned tasks in 2014 and rapidly trending towards zero in 2015. On the other end of that "balance," 98% of 2014 US tasks were (Karl's) "timed" tasks.

I am regularly getting beat up on this topic by RC members (John C especially). Karl actually seems downright angry about the topic being discussed. He actually involves my wife in most of his posts when responding to me.

From my vantage point, there does not seem to be any real SSA support for assigned tasking in the US. In fact, it appears to me that the SSA is fairly happy to let them die. If there is SSA support for assigned tasking, I have a newsflash........the SSA is currently on track to hold only 1 AT in 2015. I suggest that we consider "increasing" the "support" soon.

This is really all quite depressing if you think about it. Put yourself in the shoes of the overwhelming majority of pilots who responded that they would like MORE ASSIGNED TASKING in the latest opinion poll.

At this point, if the SSA is "supporting" assigned tasks (and not their extinction), why not create a rule (or guideline at least) which requires at least 10%? That would be tangible support. That would have a lot more meaning that the ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is being done to protect them from reaching zero in 2015 (a very real possibility based in the data over the past 10 years).

All of this debate and not one member of the RC mentioned their own opinion poll which showed a very CLEAR PREFERENCE by the majority of CURRENT US CONTEST PILOTS for MORE ASSIGNED TASKS. I wonder, if that data was the other way around (US pilots showed a clear preference for LESS ATs), would it have been cited?

Finally, is there a rule about no ATs in "sports/modern/OLC" class or not? Many seem to "think" there is. Is there? If there is, how was an AT conducted (successfully and to the delight of many) in a 2014 SSA sanctioned Sports (Modern) class contest? This must mean either there "is no rule" or "the rule was ignored." Please clarify as some confusion seems to exist.

Thanks,

Sean

Craig Reinholt

February 2nd 15, 05:11 PM

> At this point, if the SSA is "supporting" assigned tasks (and not their extinction), why not create a rule (or guideline at least) which requires at least 10%? That would be tangible support. That would have a lot more meaning that the ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is being done to protect them from reaching zero in 2015 (a very real possibility based in the data over the past 10 years).

Sean, So you really want the SSA contest rules to state that if a 5 day regional contest doesn't get in at least one AT task, then the entire contest is invalid? A national contest 1-2 days? Nobody would get a finishing score? Nobody gets a pilot ranking score based on their finish? They have just wasted a weeks vacation (or more) to satisfy your demands?
You keep banging on the SSA and rules committee to mandate AT's. Shouldn't you be trashing the contest CDs for failing to not call an AT? Last year at one nationals, the CD (ex-world team member) publicly stated that he was going to call 1/3 ATs. The inconsistent weather caused no AT tasks. Nobody complained and everyone supported his decisions.
If an AT percentage was mandated at contests, I'd never fly another contest again. I won't waste my time if the results could be invalidated. I know I'd not be alone.

Papa3[_2_]

February 2nd 15, 07:26 PM

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 11:19:59 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:15:22 PM UTC-5, Karl Striedieck wrote:

>
> Karl, please look at the 2014 Opinion Poll.
>
> Do you want to see more or less of Assigned Tasks?
> 50% more
> 38% same
> 8% lees
>
> Do you want to see more or less MAT tasks with few assigned points?
> 11% more
> 35% same
> 52% less
>
> I did not make up these numbers. It seems Sean's views are not in minority.
>
> I think you belong to the 8% group :).
>
> I personally like flying Assigned Tasks or MAT tasks with more points than one could use.
>
> AK

As a dear gliding friend of mine used to say "That's all well and good when you're sitting by the fire with a beer in hand..." Point being, it's great to say that you're adamantly in favor of ATs when you're taking a survey from the comfort of your living room. It's another entirely when you're responsible for the safety and well-being of 30 or so other pilots.

If you really believe so strongly in this, then I'd recommend you find a contest willing to let you be the CD. Then, when faced with a group of pilots of wildly differing skills, a forecast that's questionable, and 70% of pilots without crews - go ahead and stick to your guns. I've called days with 90% landouts. Makes boring days in a conference room look downright attractive

And hey, just so we're clear, I'm not some risk averse Safety Nazi. I think we should be pushing the limits and testing skills. I'm just not convinced that ATs are THE answer.

FWIW: The 2011 Standard Class Nationals featured pretty much the best, most consistent weather seen on the East Coast in a decade. Typical days were 5kts or better to 6,000 feet. Our CD (Ray Galloway) was absolutely adamant that we needed to fly a lot more ATs if we were going to be competitive on the World stage, and damned if he wasn't going to be the guy to set us straight. You know how many AT's we ended up with - one (out of 8 flying days). He had them called on at least 2 other days, but as soon as there were some early hickups in terms of reports from the advisors, he changed to Turn Areas. Worth contemplating...

P3

Papa3[_2_]

February 2nd 15, 07:41 PM

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:26:43 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 11:19:59 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:15:22 PM UTC-5, Karl Striedieck wrote:
>
> >
> > Karl, please look at the 2014 Opinion Poll.
> >
> > Do you want to see more or less of Assigned Tasks?
> > 50% more
> > 38% same
> > 8% lees
> >
> > Do you want to see more or less MAT tasks with few assigned points?
> > 11% more
> > 35% same
> > 52% less
> >
> > I did not make up these numbers. It seems Sean's views are not in minority.
> >
> > I think you belong to the 8% group :).
> >
> > I personally like flying Assigned Tasks or MAT tasks with more points than one could use.
> >
> > AK
>
> As a dear gliding friend of mine used to say "That's all well and good when you're sitting by the fire with a beer in hand..." Point being, it's great to say that you're adamantly in favor of ATs when you're taking a survey from the comfort of your living room. It's another entirely when you're responsible for the safety and well-being of 30 or so other pilots.
>
> If you really believe so strongly in this, then I'd recommend you find a contest willing to let you be the CD. Then, when faced with a group of pilots of wildly differing skills, a forecast that's questionable, and 70% of pilots without crews - go ahead and stick to your guns. I've called days with 90% landouts. Makes boring days in a conference room look downright attractive
>
> And hey, just so we're clear, I'm not some risk averse Safety Nazi. I think we should be pushing the limits and testing skills. I'm just not convinced that ATs are THE answer.
>
> FWIW: The 2011 Standard Class Nationals featured pretty much the best, most consistent weather seen on the East Coast in a decade. Typical days were 5kts or better to 6,000 feet. Our CD (Ray Galloway) was absolutely adamant that we needed to fly a lot more ATs if we were going to be competitive on the World stage, and damned if he wasn't going to be the guy to set us straight. You know how many AT's we ended up with - one (out of 8 flying days). He had them called on at least 2 other days, but as soon as there were some early hickups in terms of reports from the advisors, he changed to Turn Areas. Worth contemplating...
>
> P3

Correction - we did in fact have two ATs in the 2011 Standard Class Nationals. Interestingly, the second one turned out to be a significant undercall, in which we only used about half of the available soaring day. Time on course around 2.5hrs because speeds ended up being way higher than the forecast would indicate. Other tasks were consistently 3.5 - 4 hr. So again, another wrinkle that we used to routinely put up with when we only (mostly) had ATs in the bag of tricks.

Tom Kelley #711

February 2nd 15, 07:56 PM

>
> As a dear gliding friend of mine used to say "That's all well and good when you're sitting by the fire with a beer in hand..." Point being, it's great to say that you're adamantly in favor of ATs when you're taking a survey from the comfort of your living room. It's another entirely when you're responsible for the safety and well-being of 30 or so other pilots.
>
> If you really believe so strongly in this, then I'd recommend you find a contest willing to let you be the CD. Then, when faced with a group of pilots of wildly differing skills, a forecast that's questionable, and 70% of pilots without crews - go ahead and stick to your guns. I've called days with 90% landouts. Makes boring days in a conference room look downright attractive
>
> And hey, just so we're clear, I'm not some risk averse Safety Nazi. I think we should be pushing the limits and testing skills. I'm just not convinced that ATs are THE answer.
>
> FWIW: The 2011 Standard Class Nationals featured pretty much the best, most consistent weather seen on the East Coast in a decade. Typical days were 5kts or better to 6,000 feet. Our CD (Ray Galloway) was absolutely adamant that we needed to fly a lot more ATs if we were going to be competitive on the World stage, and damned if he wasn't going to be the guy to set us straight. You know how many AT's we ended up with - one (out of 8 flying days). He had them called on at least 2 other days, but as soon as there were some early hickups in terms of reports from the advisors, he changed to Turn Areas. Worth contemplating...
>
> P3

Well said P3. I whole heartily agree.

Sean, your not "getting beat up" by anyone. Considering KS is offering his time and highly valued competition guidance, your acceptance might be advisable.

The SSA does not choose the CD. The contest management does. Most CM's have meetings as to who they will choose as the CD. When the SSA sanctions the contest, then the CD is confirmed. Along with input from advisers and weatherperson, they choose what they feel is a "fair and equal" task for that particular day and those entrants who are their.

When the task is chosen, the advisers can be addressed by the entrants, as how they feel on the called task. Tasks have been changed numerous times when entrants feel something better could be called. Numerous times I have seen this.

I don't think any CD or any entrant would want a "lock down" on task calls. Also, I don't see how anyone could want this who has not or even flown their. The RC has in their past posts offer guidance on this. They can only offer guidance to the CD. Most RC's are not at the regional events.

Let me share as receiving guidance from one top guy, Dick Johnson, many years ago. I have always been grateful as it lead to a outstanding friendship.

Folks are coming forward to "help you" with information, not to beat you up.. To think otherwise, is not what the Society is about.

Best. #711.

Sean Fidler

February 2nd 15, 08:37 PM

I think we very much need a written SSA guideline but not a mandate. The SSA should publish something similar to the FAI recommendations for task ratios within the class rules. If the SSA does actually want to support continued ATs (a task type clearly under attack by some and down to roughly 2%), then yes, I feel they should put something "on the record" quickly or lose it. This guideline would help CD's with task selection guidelines and would clearly state that Assigned Tasks (Racing Tasks) are an important part of Soaring Society of America competition. It would also help pilots understand what kind of tasking to expect at various contest levels.

I think ⅓ ATs at a US Nationals should be the goal if the weather is good to be honest. Kudos to that CD! MATs are simply not a racing tasks.. Many (see opinion poll) US pilots still strongly value racing tasks despite the lobbying against them for many years.

Much depends on the class. Pure class Nationals (15, 18, Open and standard (if it hangs on)) should try and run AT's on the best weather days (say 30%), for sure! Club Class should aim for the same ratio (one of the main points the US club class now exists after a lot of arguing...). Regionals, on outstanding days, maybe. But a long MAT is a good compromise at a regional IMO. AT's for Sports Class Nationals. Why not? They got one in this summer! But long MATs are probably a better option in most locals.

Remember we are talking about a very small number of tasks here. 4 in 2014.. I would be looking to see something like 10-20 in 2015 and moving forward, around 10-15 (mainly at Nationals). I am not calling for the extinction of the OLC tasks or that TAT. I am only arguing for a few more AT's that we are running today and a reversal of the trend towards ZERO SSA/US ATs...

Tom Kelley #711

February 2nd 15, 08:58 PM

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 1:37:16 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I think we very much need a written SSA guideline but not a mandate. The SSA should publish something similar to the FAI recommendations for task ratios within the class rules. If the SSA does actually want to support continued ATs (a task type clearly under attack by some and down to roughly 2%), then yes, I feel they should put something "on the record" quickly or lose it. This guideline would help CD's with task selection guidelines and would clearly state that Assigned Tasks (Racing Tasks) are an important part of Soaring Society of America competition. It would also help pilots understand what kind of tasking to expect at various contest levels.
>
A10.3.1.2 ‡ Task-calling considerations for the CD.
General
- Select good (i.e. knowledgeable, fair and decisive) task advisors, and use them.
- Use the best available weather sources; get weather updates as appropriate.
- Using the help of weather forecasts and task advisors:
-- Estimate the times at which soarable conditions will start and end.
-- Estimate the times when tasks are likely to open (depends on launch order, class size, launch efficiency, etc.).
-- From these estimates, calculate a maximum time on task (from task-opening time to the estimated end of the day).
-- Estimate the speed that the winners will achieve.
- Select three tasks appropriate to the predicted conditions. At the pilots' meeting, name the longest of these as the primary task.
- Aim for a mix of tasks, balanced across all task types.
- Be ready to modify estimates - and to change tasks - in response to how the day develops.
- Be ready to launch 30 minutes before the earliest possible start of the day.
- If required, launch the sniffer as early as is practical. Launch the fleet as soon as the conditions are acceptable.

Sean,

Please spend time and read the rules, its already in the guidance.

>>>>>- Aim for a mix of tasks, balanced across all task types.<<<<<<<<<

Best, #711.

Tony[_5_]

February 2nd 15, 09:58 PM

Not sure if this has been mentioned but the assigned tasks at Sports Nationals last year was a direct response to pilots wanting an assigned task. I was weather man and in the task meetings each morning. A few of the days we would've liked an assigned task but there was enough variability in the forecast that we got a long MAT instead.

I really like the long MAT BTW ever since I flew the one that 711 called at Moriarty.

Just for reference on that day, check the contest report. It was very close to being an overcall for club, I was in the slowest glider, started immediately and flew the last leg in the blue to get home along with everyone else. There were a few landouts in the modern class who started later and had a longer task.

I join the chorus saying that of you want more AT's ask your CD.

Sean Fidler

February 3rd 15, 04:22 PM

Thanks Matt.

I think my point has been made. I stand with the clear majority of US contest glider pilots.

We are not asking for all ATs. Nor are we asking for the elimination of other tasks many would like to fly. We simply want "SOME" AT's. Greater than 2% or counting them on one hand!

Blasphemy to some but reasonable and important to preserve for the clear majority (see US RC's own opinion poll).

Sean

[email protected]

February 4th 15, 06:21 PM

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 11:22:21 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Thanks Matt.
>
> I think my point has been made. I stand with the clear majority of US contest glider pilots.
>
> We are not asking for all ATs. Nor are we asking for the elimination of other tasks many would like to fly. We simply want "SOME" AT's. Greater than 2% or counting them on one hand!
>
> Blasphemy to some but reasonable and important to preserve for the clear majority (see US RC's own opinion poll).
>
> Sean

I've been reading this interesting thread with pleasure. It reflects a lot of good thinking, good argument and good writing -- and the fact that its the middle of winter and contest pilots have time on their hands.

Here are my take-aways, plus a couple of points that have been suggested, but warrant some emphasis:

1. Sean's review of the tasking data is very useful in terms of telling us what is really being called. It seems clear that while the AT is not dead, it is on life support. It was fun to fly an assigned task with a bunch of other gliders, even though it often turned into a series of gaggles, with the more independent pilots striking out on their own.

2. There are a several factors pushing pretty hard away from the AT, even though its ultimately a decision for the CD and pilots in each contest, as several have pointed out.

3. One factor is the lack of crews for many contest pilots, meaning that pilots would prefer to be flying a task with a good chance of finishing. The TAT and MAT fit that objective better. (Another, related factor is the aging of the contest pilot population. Old guys really prefer to get home. I speak from experience.)

4. A second factor is the diverse performance levels of gliders at many contests that result from combined classes, which results from a drop off in the number of competitors in the FAI classes. With the diversity comes the need for greater flexibility in tasking if a high percentage of completed tasks is a goal. See #3 above. Both the MAT and TAT allow more pilot choice and enhance the possibility of completing. They also, in my view, allow more sophisticated analysis and flying, for reasons Karl described.

5. A third factor is the popularity of the OLC and its effect on pilot thinking. There is now a generation of pilots who believe the most enjoyable soaring involves the go-anywhere, turn-anywhere principles of OLC. They are entitled to their opinion. It would be a mistake to disregard its impact on sanctioned soaring contests, both in reduction of contestants (who needs to go to a contest when you can be scored in OLC any day of the year) and in terms of expectations about tasking.

6. The long MAT realizes many of the racing benefits that Sean sees in the AT, while providing a higher percentage of finishers, and allowing a level of pilot choice. I think it is the best compromise between the AT advocates and those who prefer the TAT. If it is to be effective, however, as a contest vehicle (that is, a task that requires everyone to more or less fly in the same task area at the same time) it has to be something more than a one or two turnpoint task. We have a local season-long contest at the Chicago Glider Club using regional sports class rules with some home-grown modifications. One of the mods is that our MAT tasks require that the credited completed distance not be greater than twice the distance of the assigned turnpoints making up the first portion of the task. That reduces, but does not eliminate, the fly-anywhere issue. Perhaps a suggestion for the RC would be to consider a similar limitations on MAT tasks. (Whether 50% is the right number is open to debate, of course.)

7. Hang on guys, its only a little over a month to the Seniors.

Regards, Mike Shakman (SH)