MATs

[MNLou]

Sean Fidler's contest tasking statistics were an eye opener for me. I did 2 contests last year and in both, only TATs were called. I didn't realize how common MATs were.

I cannot find any information on the strategy to use to fly them competitively nor can I find anything that gives one an idea how to set up a MAT in one's flight computer. (Nor how and when to change the task in mid flight.)

Any advice (or direction to documents) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance -

Lou

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> I cannot find any information on the strategy to use to fly them competitively nor can I find anything that gives one an idea how to set up a MAT in one's flight computer. (Nor how and when to change the task in mid flight.)
>
> Any advice (or direction to documents) would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance -
>
> Lou

Have you tried the appendix to the rules, John Good's guide to sailplane competition, and the instrument owner's manual? The clearnav has extensive MAT management tools.
John Cochrane

[Mike the Strike]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 8:48:24 PM UTC-7, MNLou wrote:
> Sean Fidler's contest tasking statistics were an eye opener for me. I did 2 contests last year and in both, only TATs were called. I didn't realize how common MATs were.
>
> I cannot find any information on the strategy to use to fly them competitively nor can I find anything that gives one an idea how to set up a MAT in one's flight computer. (Nor how and when to change the task in mid flight..)
>
> Any advice (or direction to documents) would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance -
>
> Lou

MATs with multiple-assigned turnpoints can be a lot of fun - you essentially fly an AST until you run out of time and then head home. It's a real race, but even the slower guys can have fun and don't end up stuck in a field 50 miles from home.

MATs with one or two turnpoints are tricky - essentially after the first mandated turn(s) they turn into an OLC flights with turnpoints! My main advice here is to choose to fly in a part of the task area that has quite a few alternate turnpoints just in case one or more are blocked by bad weather. Don't ask me how I discovered this!

Mike

[Sean Fidler]

It is highly underestimated how complex one or zero turn MATS really are. Yes, they ARE very, very common. And yes, they are rapidly increasing in total percentage of US tasks!

Less experienced contest pilots all seem to struggle to get their head around the OLC tasks (one or zero turn HAT). I did. I still cannot stand them Becuase they are about local knowledge and guessing (luck) than anything else.

Pilot management of the "free" portion of the OLC task is very difficult. This is especially true if you are not a local pilot and are unfamiliar with the flying area visually. Errors in managing turnpoint order (and rules) has huge potential influence on the scores and ultimately the final contest results. Ones "ability" to quickly program expensive flight computers "on the fly" in order to better understand possible "free" HAT turnpoint combinations that will best use up available minimum time (vs. your competitor) is a critical success factor. This best combination of free turnpoints is constantly changing as conditions change along the task. This experience is fairly similar to the complexity (and luck) of wide (60 mile diameter) area TATs (slightly constrained OLC task). But nothing introduces luck like an OLC HAT task!

ASTs or "too long" MATs (very rare BTW) are far, far easier tasks to manage from a flight computer, strategy and local knowledge standpoint. Especially for beginners or people without expensive computers on board. A $50 handheld GPS is all you really need! With a Lomg MAT, Even 15 minutes of extra time for "free" turnpoints at the end of the task can dramatically change the result (from the end of the assigned portion). The free portion of a MAT essentially "destroys" the MAT task by introducing OLC like behaviors (and complexity and luck).

Study hard but the only way to get good at OLC tasks is local knowledge and a lot of practice (an expensive flight computer helps too). Expect more and more of them if the current trends continue. I would say 50% in 3-5 years is possible in the US.

[Sean Fidler]

It is highly underestimated how complex one or zero turn MATS really are. Yes, they ARE very, very common. Yes, they are rapidly increasing in total percentage of US tasks!

Less experienced contest pilots (unsurprisingly) seem to struggle with getting their heads around the OLC tasks (one or zero turn HAT). I did. I still cannot stand them becuase they are about more about local knowledge than anything else (see OLC).

Task management of the "free" portion of the OLC task is very difficult. This is especially true if you are not a local pilot and are unfamiliar with the flying area. Errors in managing turnpoint order (and rules) has huge potential influence on the scores and ultimately the final contest results. A pilots "ability" to quickly and constantly program expensive flight computers "on the fly" in order to better understand possible "free" HAT turnpoint combinations that will best use up available minimum time (vs. your competitor) is a critical success factor. This best combination of free turnpoints is, of course, constantly changing as conditions and circumstances change along the task. This experience is fairly similar to the decision making complexity (and luck) of wide (60 mile diameter) area TATs (aka slightly constrained OLC task). But nothing introduces luck like an OLC HAT task!

ASTs or "very long" MATs (actually fairly rare BTW) are far, far easier tasks to manage from a flight computer, strategy and local knowledge standpoint. This is more about flying well and less about wild variances in strategy. Especially for beginners or people without expensive computers on board.. A $50 handheld GPS is all you need! But even with a "long" MAT, As little as 15 minutes of "extra time" for "free" turnpoints at the "end" of the task can dramatically change the result (vs. the end of the assigned portion). The free portion of a MAT can essentially "destroys" the MATs assigned purity by introducing OLC like behaviors (massive swings in strategy, risk, complexity and of course luck).

Study "the guide" but the only way to get good at OLC tasks is local knowledge and a lot of practice (an expensive flight computer helps too). Expect more and more OLC "MATs" in the USA if the current trends continue. I would say 50% of all US task may be OLC (MATs, many of them the very short one or zero TP variety) in 3-5 years. We are on route to becoming OLC nation!

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 2:17:04 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> It is highly underestimated how complex one or zero turn MATS really are. Yes, they ARE very, very common. Yes, they are rapidly increasing in total percentage of US tasks!
>
> Less experienced contest pilots (unsurprisingly) seem to struggle with getting their heads around the OLC tasks (one or zero turn HAT). I did. I still cannot stand them becuase they are about more about local knowledge than anything else (see OLC).
>
> Task management of the "free" portion of the OLC task is very difficult. This is especially true if you are not a local pilot and are unfamiliar with the flying area. Errors in managing turnpoint order (and rules) has huge potential influence on the scores and ultimately the final contest results.. A pilots "ability" to quickly and constantly program expensive flight computers "on the fly" in order to better understand possible "free" HAT turnpoint combinations that will best use up available minimum time (vs. your competitor) is a critical success factor. This best combination of free turnpoints is, of course, constantly changing as conditions and circumstances change along the task. This experience is fairly similar to the decision making complexity (and luck) of wide (60 mile diameter) area TATs (aka slightly constrained OLC task). But nothing introduces luck like an OLC HAT task!
>
> ASTs or "very long" MATs (actually fairly rare BTW) are far, far easier tasks to manage from a flight computer, strategy and local knowledge standpoint. This is more about flying well and less about wild variances in strategy. Especially for beginners or people without expensive computers on board. A $50 handheld GPS is all you need! But even with a "long" MAT, As little as 15 minutes of "extra time" for "free" turnpoints at the "end" of the task can dramatically change the result (vs. the end of the assigned portion). The free portion of a MAT can essentially "destroys" the MATs assigned purity by introducing OLC like behaviors (massive swings in strategy, risk, complexity and of course luck).
>
> Study "the guide" but the only way to get good at OLC tasks is local knowledge and a lot of practice (an expensive flight computer helps too). Expect more and more OLC "MATs" in the USA if the current trends continue. I would say 50% of all US task may be OLC (MATs, many of them the very short one or zero TP variety) in 3-5 years. We are on route to becoming OLC nation!

Sean, you are bringing very good points. We should actually ban MAT tasks in favor of AST tasks with an option to turn home early. That way a contest director would be forced to assign enough turn points for the fastest guys.

If we did this the outcome would probably be TAT with 30 miles radius.

You just can't win. Even using the current rules CDs could do the right thing. Why aren't they? I always thought that the objective of the contest day was to get back for the evening beer and food :). Time to find a crew so they can get me beer to the field and food :)

I think for Nationals MATs with one turn points should be simply banned.

AK

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 9:51:39 AM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 2:17:04 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > It is highly underestimated how complex one or zero turn MATS really are. Yes, they ARE very, very common. Yes, they are rapidly increasing in total percentage of US tasks!
> >
> > Less experienced contest pilots (unsurprisingly) seem to struggle with getting their heads around the OLC tasks (one or zero turn HAT). I did. I still cannot stand them becuase they are about more about local knowledge than anything else (see OLC).
> >
> > Task management of the "free" portion of the OLC task is very difficult.. This is especially true if you are not a local pilot and are unfamiliar with the flying area. Errors in managing turnpoint order (and rules) has huge potential influence on the scores and ultimately the final contest results. A pilots "ability" to quickly and constantly program expensive flight computers "on the fly" in order to better understand possible "free" HAT turnpoint combinations that will best use up available minimum time (vs. your competitor) is a critical success factor. This best combination of free turnpoints is, of course, constantly changing as conditions and circumstances change along the task. This experience is fairly similar to the decision making complexity (and luck) of wide (60 mile diameter) area TATs (aka slightly constrained OLC task). But nothing introduces luck like an OLC HAT task!
> >
> > ASTs or "very long" MATs (actually fairly rare BTW) are far, far easier tasks to manage from a flight computer, strategy and local knowledge standpoint. This is more about flying well and less about wild variances in strategy. Especially for beginners or people without expensive computers on board. A $50 handheld GPS is all you need! But even with a "long" MAT, As little as 15 minutes of "extra time" for "free" turnpoints at the "end" of the task can dramatically change the result (vs. the end of the assigned portion). The free portion of a MAT can essentially "destroys" the MATs assigned purity by introducing OLC like behaviors (massive swings in strategy, risk, complexity and of course luck).
> >
> > Study "the guide" but the only way to get good at OLC tasks is local knowledge and a lot of practice (an expensive flight computer helps too). Expect more and more OLC "MATs" in the USA if the current trends continue. I would say 50% of all US task may be OLC (MATs, many of them the very short one or zero TP variety) in 3-5 years. We are on route to becoming OLC nation!
>
> Sean, you are bringing very good points. We should actually ban MAT tasks in favor of AST tasks with an option to turn home early. That way a contest director would be forced to assign enough turn points for the fastest guys.
>
> If we did this the outcome would probably be TAT with 30 miles radius.
>
> You just can't win. Even using the current rules CDs could do the right thing. Why aren't they? I always thought that the objective of the contest day was to get back for the evening beer and food :). Time to find a crew so they can get me beer to the field and food :)
>
> I think for Nationals MATs with one turn points should be simply banned.
>
> AK

I'd be fine with long MAT's since they keep the class flying the same turnpoints in the same air mass. Combine that with a min. time that uses the soaring day well and you have a race. As Sean pointed out, the problem with that concept is the end of the MAT. In order to keep the beginner/intermediate pilots close to the finish to reduce land-outs, the last called TP's are often chosen too close in. That makes for a short-legged cat's cradle that to me is no fun to fly. I like long lines and fewer TP's further away. To beginners, that's intimidating. As BB pointed out, they may experience too many land-outs and not come back.
This coming season, I suggest the CD at all contests spend more time questioning pilots about the previous day's task. That kind of critique many CD's don't want to hear, I'm afraid since the Monday morning quarterbacks will come at them. However, I encourage them to get that kind of feedback and adjust task calling.
Herb

[Mike the Strike]

I flew my first multiple-turnpoint MAT at Region 9 a couple of years ago and there were enough turnpoints that the fastest guys had essentially an AST.. The slower guys (including me) skipped the last one or two turnpoints and headed home. It was a blast and felt like a real race even for us slower guys.

On your flight computer, you set it up as an AST and just head for home when time is up! In this task, you concentrate on racing in the same sky as everyone else.

Sean and I agree on at least one thing - single turnpoint MATs suck!

Mike

[Papa3[_2_]]

Having CD'd a number of contests with tricky weather, I'll give you my perspective.

1. I certainly agree that 1 turn MATs should be used (if at all) as very much a last resort. There are certain types of terrain where there are enough "self-evident" options that once you are at the declared turnpoint, it should be obvious what the one or two viable choices would be (e.g. dropping the fleet at Burnt Cabins on the Fairfield ridges, the only viable option is to go Northeast to one of several turnpoints). Similar situations exist at other mountian and ridge sites. That said, I would certainly consider NOT calling such a task and taking the risk that some of the newer pilots might be intimidated by second, third, or fourth turnpoints in a long MAT. Worth a deep discussion and I've certainly become more sensitive to the 1 turn MAT.

2. Another MAT that is very marginal is the "pick one of X first turnpoints" scattered across the map. To me, this is the most luck-prone, random outcome option. Frankly, I'd much rather have 3 options in the can up front and call the task in the air (e.g. Task A is a 2 turn MAT to the SE, Task B is a 2 turn to the NW, Task C is 2 turns to the S).

3. I've now called a number of long MATs, and the feedback I've gotten is very favorable. I strongly believe that an MAT where say 70% of the fleet doesn't even add turnpoints is a very good call. It's essentially an AST with some added tactical considerations for the end game.

4. I've been called an "aggressive" CD for some calls in marginal (weak) weather where I used AATs with relatively small areas. Believe me when I say that sending 25 gliders out and having 22 landouts in fields is NOT a pleasant feeling. With bigger (18M) and more expensive ($150K+) gliders replacing the $30K 15M/Std gliders of the early 1980s, the financial risks are very, very real.

5. The net of the above is that it's not the rules that are the "problem". I think more explicit guidance for CDs backed up with specific scenarios and alternatives might result in some "improvements". RC, I'll volunteer to document some examples and alternatives, if needed.

Okay - off to start shovelling out from the current blizzard. It's gonna be a long winter...

Erik Mann (P3)


On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 10:48:24 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
> Sean Fidler's contest tasking statistics were an eye opener for me. I did 2 contests last year and in both, only TATs were called. I didn't realize how common MATs were.
>
> I cannot find any information on the strategy to use to fly them competitively nor can I find anything that gives one an idea how to set up a MAT in one's flight computer. (Nor how and when to change the task in mid flight..)
>
> Any advice (or direction to documents) would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance -
>
> Lou

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/27/2015 11:44 AM, wrote:
> This coming season, I suggest the CD at all contests spend more time questioning pilots about the previous day's task. That kind of critique many CD's don't want to hear, I'm afraid since the Monday morning quarterbacks will come at them. However, I encourage them to get that kind of feedback and adjust task calling.
> Herb


I second that, additionally it would be nice for the contest
registration form to include a "task preference" section for the pilots
to fill out...

Luke Szczepaniak

[Luke Szczepaniak]

Sean, you know very well that i want more Assigned tasks both in Canada
and in the US.

In regards to your stats, have you dropped all sports class contests
from the numbers? If not, you should as sports class does not do AST,
which is fine.. The tasking philosophy of Sports class in the major
reason I choose not to fly in said class, my opinion will most likely
change when I get old ;-)

Your point about AST being real head to head type of race is well made,
but MAT and TAT are also a real test of skill, i.e the pilots ability to
read the WX which is after all a major part of flying.

In the end, it appears to me that the top pilots win regardless of task
type, they fly their own flight, adjust the strategy and tactics to the
given task type and above all have good situational awareness.

Luke Szczepaniak

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 9:51:39 AM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 2:17:04 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > > It is highly underestimated how complex one or zero turn MATS really are. Yes, they ARE very, very common. Yes, they are rapidly increasing in total percentage of US tasks!
> > >
> > > Less experienced contest pilots (unsurprisingly) seem to struggle with getting their heads around the OLC tasks (one or zero turn HAT). I did. I still cannot stand them becuase they are about more about local knowledge than anything else (see OLC).
> > >
> > > Task management of the "free" portion of the OLC task is very difficult. This is especially true if you are not a local pilot and are unfamiliar with the flying area. Errors in managing turnpoint order (and rules) has huge potential influence on the scores and ultimately the final contest results. A pilots "ability" to quickly and constantly program expensive flight computers "on the fly" in order to better understand possible "free" HAT turnpoint combinations that will best use up available minimum time (vs. your competitor) is a critical success factor. This best combination of free turnpoints is, of course, constantly changing as conditions and circumstances change along the task. This experience is fairly similar to the decision making complexity (and luck) of wide (60 mile diameter) area TATs (aka slightly constrained OLC task). But nothing introduces luck like an OLC HAT task!
> > >
> > > ASTs or "very long" MATs (actually fairly rare BTW) are far, far easier tasks to manage from a flight computer, strategy and local knowledge standpoint. This is more about flying well and less about wild variances in strategy. Especially for beginners or people without expensive computers on board. A $50 handheld GPS is all you need! But even with a "long" MAT, As little as 15 minutes of "extra time" for "free" turnpoints at the "end" of the task can dramatically change the result (vs. the end of the assigned portion). The free portion of a MAT can essentially "destroys" the MATs assigned purity by introducing OLC like behaviors (massive swings in strategy, risk, complexity and of course luck).
> > >
> > > Study "the guide" but the only way to get good at OLC tasks is local knowledge and a lot of practice (an expensive flight computer helps too). Expect more and more OLC "MATs" in the USA if the current trends continue. I would say 50% of all US task may be OLC (MATs, many of them the very short one or zero TP variety) in 3-5 years. We are on route to becoming OLC nation!
> >
> > Sean, you are bringing very good points. We should actually ban MAT tasks in favor of AST tasks with an option to turn home early. That way a contest director would be forced to assign enough turn points for the fastest guys.
> >
> > If we did this the outcome would probably be TAT with 30 miles radius.
> >
> > You just can't win. Even using the current rules CDs could do the right thing. Why aren't they? I always thought that the objective of the contest day was to get back for the evening beer and food :). Time to find a crew so they can get me beer to the field and food :)
> >
> > I think for Nationals MATs with one turn points should be simply banned..
> >
> > AK
>
> I'd be fine with long MAT's since they keep the class flying the same turnpoints in the same air mass. Combine that with a min. time that uses the soaring day well and you have a race. As Sean pointed out, the problem with that concept is the end of the MAT. In order to keep the beginner/intermediate pilots close to the finish to reduce land-outs, the last called TP's are often chosen too close in. That makes for a short-legged cat's cradle that to me is no fun to fly. I like long lines and fewer TP's further away. To beginners, that's intimidating. As BB pointed out, they may experience too many land-outs and not come back.
> This coming season, I suggest the CD at all contests spend more time questioning pilots about the previous day's task. That kind of critique many CD's don't want to hear, I'm afraid since the Monday morning quarterbacks will come at them. However, I encourage them to get that kind of feedback and adjust task calling.
> Herb

I'll go further. Maybe CD's need to ask pilots a bit more about what they as a group, want in tasking for a particular contest. The mandatory meeting is a reasonable place to do this.
Pilots also should be giving input to the task advisers. Maybe seeing them before the task meeting with an opinion like- "hey the weather looks good and reliable, how about an assigned task".
Most people would rather not take a position and reserve the option to complain.
More pilots also should volunteer to serve in the advising capacity. Then they get heard and also get a taste of what goes on to set the task.
UH

[Sean Fidler]

Good points Luke, Eric and Hank.

Luke, I would be happy to strip out the Sports data. I think that makes sense. I will also open the Google sheet up to download so others can play with it.

We could automate this "spreadsheet" behind the SSA "firewall" from the contest data. That way it would be always up to date and open for all to see. Just a thought...

Sean

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

My main objection to unrestricted MATs is that they are boring. The right strategy is to find one good area of sky and then plow around it over and over again. If it gets weak, come back home and stick to the 5 turnpoints near the home airport so you make sure not to land out. Often you can win the day with something more daring, but it's not worth the risk.

They have their place. A bunch of us got about 1000k out of a ridge task at Mifflin. It could not have been done by anything else, and a pity to waste the chance on a short AT because some rule book said we had to.

Like UH says. Talk to the CD and task advisers. CDs and task advisers, talk to the pilots.

We have a huge buffet of tasks available: Long MATs, short MATs, MATs with restricted turnpoints, (nobody has called a three turnpoint only MAT. Might be fun!); TATs with a few big areas ("OLC") TATs with a many small areas, (very close to handicapped assigned tasks), and the AT. We ought to be able to keep people happy!

John Cochrane

[Sean Fidler]

Don't forget the HAT!

;-)

[Papa3[_2_]]

So John, I'll actually disagree with you. Too much flexibility certainly makes it confusing, especially for new pilots. What is the right strategy for a given type of task? Not everyone who comes to our races can run a "real time stochastic models" in their heads :-) I can absolutely see where even a long MAT introduces some challenging considerations that may seem unfair or overwhelming to newer pilots.

If we are going to try out novel or unusual variations, then I do think we would want to make sure that pilots are thoroughly briefed before hand, and I'm not sure that every CD is equipped to do that...

P3



On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 1:43:40 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> My main objection to unrestricted MATs is that they are boring. The right strategy is to find one good area of sky and then plow around it over and over again. If it gets weak, come back home and stick to the 5 turnpoints near the home airport so you make sure not to land out. Often you can win the day with something more daring, but it's not worth the risk.
>
> They have their place. A bunch of us got about 1000k out of a ridge task at Mifflin. It could not have been done by anything else, and a pity to waste the chance on a short AT because some rule book said we had to.
>
> Like UH says. Talk to the CD and task advisers. CDs and task advisers, talk to the pilots.
>
> We have a huge buffet of tasks available: Long MATs, short MATs, MATs with restricted turnpoints, (nobody has called a three turnpoint only MAT. Might be fun!); TATs with a few big areas ("OLC") TATs with a many small areas, (very close to handicapped assigned tasks), and the AT. We ought to be able to keep people happy!
>
> John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 1:43:40 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> My main objection to unrestricted MATs is that they are boring. The right strategy is to find one good area of sky and then plow around it over and over again. If it gets weak, come back home and stick to the 5 turnpoints near the home airport so you make sure not to land out. Often you can win the day with something more daring, but it's not worth the risk.
>
> They have their place. A bunch of us got about 1000k out of a ridge task at Mifflin. It could not have been done by anything else, and a pity to waste the chance on a short AT because some rule book said we had to.
>
> Like UH says. Talk to the CD and task advisers. CDs and task advisers, talk to the pilots.
>
> We have a huge buffet of tasks available: Long MATs, short MATs, MATs with restricted turnpoints, (nobody has called a three turnpoint only MAT. Might be fun!); TATs with a few big areas ("OLC") TATs with a many small areas, (very close to handicapped assigned tasks), and the AT. We ought to be able to keep people happy!
>
> John Cochrane

My personal favorite is the MAT with no turn points allowed to be repeated. It means you must move around, not flying around in some really good little triangle of air. Some guys don't like it because you have to think and you have to go away a bit to ensure you have a nearer in turn point at the end if you need it to tune up the last part of the flight.
That said, we do need to try for variety which certainly can include an AT or 2.
Note that I said AT. There is no task called an AST in the US contest rules..
UH

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Let's talk about the real issue. The assigned task is tactical. The key skill it tests is being able to sniff out gaggle dynamics. Ideally you start 5 minutes after the gaggle, cacth them, move through the guys waiting for the gaggle and lead out just in time to flinal glide home. Or sometimes move ahead, jump from smaller gaggle to smaller gaggle, or whatever. But everyone else is trying to do the same thing.

This is not easy. Gaggle / start dynamics and tactics are a huge subject. We could write books about them. The top pilots at this are masters of an incredibly complex game. But make no mistake, that game is what assigned tasks are about.

The MAT and TAT don't allow many gaggles and markers to form. They end up valuing much more your ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air.

This is not a judgment. Decide what you like to do with your precious two weeks of vacation. I happen to like the latter kind of task. AT advocates are really saying they want the former. Doing well at IGC contests requires a lot more of that tactical skill than is typically used at US contests.

But, once again. Talk to the CD. Talk to the task advisers.

John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Let's talk about the real issue. The assigned task is tactical. The key skill it tests is being able to sniff out gaggle dynamics. Ideally you start 5 minutes after the gaggle, cacth them, move through the guys waiting for the gaggle and lead out just in time to flinal glide home. Or sometimes move ahead, jump from smaller gaggle to smaller gaggle, or whatever. But everyone else is trying to do the same thing.

This is not easy. Gaggle / start dynamics and tactics are a huge subject. We could write books about them. The top pilots at this are masters of an incredibly complex game. But make no mistake, that game is what assigned tasks are about.

The MAT and TAT don't allow many gaggles and markers to form. They end up valuing much more your ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air.

This is not a judgment. Decide what you like to do with your precious two weeks of vacation. I happen to like the latter kind of task. AT advocates are really saying they want the former. Doing well at IGC contests requires a lot more of that tactical skill than is typically used at US contests.

But, once again. Talk to the CD. Talk to the task advisers.

John Cochrane

[John Carlyle]

John Cochrane's point about what skill ATs test is excellent. Pilots should seriously consider if understanding gaggle dynamics is a skill that they want. For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air, as that's what I'll be doing during non-contest flying. Therefore, I'll be asking the task advisers to continue calling TATs and MATs and to skip the ATs.

-John, Q3


On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 10:54:15 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Let's talk about the real issue. The assigned task is tactical. The key skill it tests is being able to sniff out gaggle dynamics. Ideally you start 5 minutes after the gaggle, cacth them, move through the guys waiting for the gaggle and lead out just in time to flinal glide home. Or sometimes move ahead, jump from smaller gaggle to smaller gaggle, or whatever. But everyone else is trying to do the same thing.
>
> This is not easy. Gaggle / start dynamics and tactics are a huge subject. We could write books about them. The top pilots at this are masters of an incredibly complex game. But make no mistake, that game is what assigned tasks are about.
>
> The MAT and TAT don't allow many gaggles and markers to form. They end up valuing much more your ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air.
>
> This is not a judgment. Decide what you like to do with your precious two weeks of vacation. I happen to like the latter kind of task. AT advocates are really saying they want the former. Doing well at IGC contests requires a lot more of that tactical skill than is typically used at US contests.
>
> But, once again. Talk to the CD. Talk to the task advisers.
>
> John Cochrane

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:47:52 AM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
> John Cochrane's point about what skill ATs test is excellent. Pilots should seriously consider if understanding gaggle dynamics is a skill that they want. For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air, as that's what I'll be doing during non-contest flying. Therefore, I'll be asking the task advisers to continue calling TATs and MATs and to skip the ATs.
>
> -John, Q3
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 10:54:15 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Let's talk about the real issue. The assigned task is tactical. The key skill it tests is being able to sniff out gaggle dynamics. Ideally you start 5 minutes after the gaggle, cacth them, move through the guys waiting for the gaggle and lead out just in time to flinal glide home. Or sometimes move ahead, jump from smaller gaggle to smaller gaggle, or whatever. But everyone else is trying to do the same thing.
> >
> > This is not easy. Gaggle / start dynamics and tactics are a huge subject. We could write books about them. The top pilots at this are masters of an incredibly complex game. But make no mistake, that game is what assigned tasks are about.
> >
> > The MAT and TAT don't allow many gaggles and markers to form. They end up valuing much more your ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air.
> >
> > This is not a judgment. Decide what you like to do with your precious two weeks of vacation. I happen to like the latter kind of task. AT advocates are really saying they want the former. Doing well at IGC contests requires a lot more of that tactical skill than is typically used at US contests.
> >
> > But, once again. Talk to the CD. Talk to the task advisers.
> >
> > John Cochrane

I enjoy all task types, but I agree they do test different skills.

To summarize:

1) MAT = follow the macro-scale weather
2) TAT = follow the micro-scale weather
3) AST = follow the glider in front of you

They are all available - CDs generally have an ear out or what the pilots want to do.

9B

[Sean Fidler]

John Cochrane's point about what skill ATs test is excellent. Pilots should seriously consider if understanding gaggle dynamics is a skill that they want. For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air, as that's what I'll be doing during non-contest flying. Therefore, I'll be asking the task advisers to continue calling TATs and MATs and to skip the ATs.

-John, Q3

Thank you for demonstrating the flawed logic that poisons US contest flying so perfectly!

To be specific, your key statement was this. "For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather..." Let's talk about that, and Cochrane's...

The first point is "be careful what you wish for!" You already have what you want. You are already being "tested" :-) (lol) ONLY on "reading" the weather in US tasks. That is almost like saying you wish to only be tested on reading my palm! To say you only want to develop the skill of reading weather is like saying you don't want to learn how to land the plane in flight school! The tasks we run in the US are already highly free form and "un-objective." Pilots are flying such widely varying routes. It is not a test anymore, it's a crap shoot! Again, it's almost all we do in US tasks.

Soaring weather develops (or overdevelops) in minutes. It is PURE LUCK if you fly for one hour in one direction and get better weather than another who flies an hour in another direction. There is absolutely no way you can consistently "read the weather" better than another skilled pilot in that common scenario of wildly different routing. LUCK is therefore ABSOLUTELY a big part of the US competition soaring format. a format that is already so incredibly SUBJECTIVE and variable!!!!!! We almost NEVER fly the same race track. We fly almost pure OLC in the US today. We say go wherever you want and show me that you can "read (aka guess) the weather" better than your "competitor." Competitors who are perhaps 40-50-60 or even hundreds of miles away from your us in the same task! How unsatisfying! How subjective. How disappointing.

In 2014, 98% of SSAtasks were TAT or MAT. Half of the MATs were zero or one turn. Most of the rest were 3 or 4 (average 2.9). So, John, I ask why are you are complaining? Did you fly an "evil" AT in 2014? I doubt it, there were only 4! Did you fly an AT in 2013? I doubt it, there were only 7! The chances of you flying an AT in the US is almost zero in 2015. You are probably dancing on your desk right now, aren't you? All you do is guess the weather "just as you do at home." <--- my point about US pilots not challenging themselves. Hey, look at that cloud, let's go over there! What a minute "I'm reading the weather!" Wait a minute, it looks better over there! Amazing.

ATs require a pilot to read the weather as well. It is even more important.. That is the point. Just missing one key cloud (better climb) or choosing one better ridge actually has an objective, measurable value. Every meter counts. Reading the weather is not an hour ahead however (impossible). In ATs it's about consistently making the best decisions about the weather 5-15 minutes ahead. Consistently making choices not only about which cloud is better ahead but what "part" of that cloud is better! Skill here means gains! This is FAR more objective that flying two hours away from your competitors and saying "I won!" What did you win exactly? A guessing contest!

The assumption that ATs are ONLY about gaggle flying skills is both wrong and ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as they "cause" more landouts than a long MAT or any other challenging, well called task for that matter. First of all, ATs allow for pilots to start anytime they wish. That variable will naturally spread the pilots out significantly. Just as in any other task, the best pilots cannot be simply followed. This is actually the surest way to lose In my experience. The best pilots are constantly pulling ahead. Soon, if you only follow, you are pulling into thermals minutes later and are not getting the same air. This assures that the lead pilot will leave you eventually. But be my guest gentleman. Go ahead and keep assuming that leeching is the way to manage ATs. If you study them carefully, you'll see the real best pilots do not follow that strategy much at all and the tactics are quite amazing.

These far higher skill level pilots (and their strategies) are probably why these same pilots win the world championships. They flow over to all tasks and all flying and make then 2-5% better on all flying days. Yep, PLEASE keep thinking this way!!!

Disgusted,

Sean

[Tony[_5_]]

It's amazing that when flying so many tasks that apparently depend purely on luck, are subjective, and highly variable, that the same people win day after day...

[John Carlyle]

Got your attention, did I Sean? Good!

The fact is your opinions on "what US soaring needs" are outliers. Perhaps that's because you're inexperienced with contest flying. So am I, but unlike you I'm willing to listen to experienced soaring contest pilots and CDs, and give weight to their opinions.

It's clear you don't like US soaring. OK. It's also clear that many US pilots do like it, and aren't anxious to adopt your "vision". Either man up, accept that your ideas have lost (with as much grace as you can muster), or move to Europe so you can fly in a manner that you'd prefer.

-John, Q3

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Thank you for demonstrating the flawed logic that poisons US contest flying so perfectly!
>
> To be specific, your key statement was this. "For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather..." Let's talk about that, and Cochrane's...
>
> The first point is "be careful what you wish for!" You already have what you want. You are already being "tested" :-) (lol) ONLY on "reading" the weather in US tasks. That is almost like saying you wish to only be tested on reading my palm! To say you only want to develop the skill of reading weather is like saying you don't want to learn how to land the plane in flight school! The tasks we run in the US are already highly free form and "un-objective." Pilots are flying such widely varying routes. It is not a test anymore, it's a crap shoot! Again, it's almost all we do in US tasks.
>
> Soaring weather develops (or overdevelops) in minutes. It is PURE LUCK if you fly for one hour in one direction and get better weather than another who flies an hour in another direction. There is absolutely no way you can consistently "read the weather" better than another skilled pilot in that common scenario of wildly different routing. LUCK is therefore ABSOLUTELY a big part of the US competition soaring format. a format that is already so incredibly SUBJECTIVE and variable!!!!!! We almost NEVER fly the same race track. We fly almost pure OLC in the US today. We say go wherever you want and show me that you can "read (aka guess) the weather" better than your "competitor." Competitors who are perhaps 40-50-60 or even hundreds of miles away from your us in the same task! How unsatisfying! How subjective. How disappointing.
>
> In 2014, 98% of SSAtasks were TAT or MAT. Half of the MATs were zero or one turn. Most of the rest were 3 or 4 (average 2.9). So, John, I ask why are you are complaining? Did you fly an "evil" AT in 2014? I doubt it, there were only 4! Did you fly an AT in 2013? I doubt it, there were only 7! The chances of you flying an AT in the US is almost zero in 2015. You are probably dancing on your desk right now, aren't you? All you do is guess the weather "just as you do at home." <--- my point about US pilots not challenging themselves. Hey, look at that cloud, let's go over there! What a minute "I'm reading the weather!" Wait a minute, it looks better over there! Amazing.
>
> ATs require a pilot to read the weather as well. It is even more important. That is the point. Just missing one key cloud (better climb) or choosing one better ridge actually has an objective, measurable value. Every meter counts. Reading the weather is not an hour ahead however (impossible). In ATs it's about consistently making the best decisions about the weather 5-15 minutes ahead. Consistently making choices not only about which cloud is better ahead but what "part" of that cloud is better! Skill here means gains! This is FAR more objective that flying two hours away from your competitors and saying "I won!" What did you win exactly? A guessing contest!
>
> The assumption that ATs are ONLY about gaggle flying skills is both wrong and ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as they "cause" more landouts than a long MAT or any other challenging, well called task for that matter. First of all, ATs allow for pilots to start anytime they wish. That variable will naturally spread the pilots out significantly. Just as in any other task, the best pilots cannot be simply followed. This is actually the surest way to lose In my experience. The best pilots are constantly pulling ahead. Soon, if you only follow, you are pulling into thermals minutes later and are not getting the same air. This assures that the lead pilot will leave you eventually. But be my guest gentleman. Go ahead and keep assuming that leeching is the way to manage ATs. If you study them carefully, you'll see the real best pilots do not follow that strategy much at all and the tactics are quite amazing.
>
> These far higher skill level pilots (and their strategies) are probably why these same pilots win the world championships. They flow over to all tasks and all flying and make then 2-5% better on all flying days. Yep, PLEASE keep thinking this way!!!
>
> Disgusted,
>
> Sean

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 7:31:09 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> John Cochrane's point about what skill ATs test is excellent. Pilots should seriously consider if understanding gaggle dynamics is a skill that they want. For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air, as that's what I'll be doing during non-contest flying. Therefore, I'll be asking the task advisers to continue calling TATs and MATs and to skip the ATs.
>
> -John, Q3
>
> Thank you for demonstrating the flawed logic that poisons US contest flying so perfectly!
>
> To be specific, your key statement was this. "For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather..." Let's talk about that, and Cochrane's...
>
> The first point is "be careful what you wish for!" You already have what you want. You are already being "tested" :-) (lol) ONLY on "reading" the weather in US tasks. That is almost like saying you wish to only be tested on reading my palm! To say you only want to develop the skill of reading weather is like saying you don't want to learn how to land the plane in flight school! The tasks we run in the US are already highly free form and "un-objective." Pilots are flying such widely varying routes. It is not a test anymore, it's a crap shoot! Again, it's almost all we do in US tasks.
>
> Soaring weather develops (or overdevelops) in minutes. It is PURE LUCK if you fly for one hour in one direction and get better weather than another who flies an hour in another direction. There is absolutely no way you can consistently "read the weather" better than another skilled pilot in that common scenario of wildly different routing. LUCK is therefore ABSOLUTELY a big part of the US competition soaring format. a format that is already so incredibly SUBJECTIVE and variable!!!!!! We almost NEVER fly the same race track. We fly almost pure OLC in the US today. We say go wherever you want and show me that you can "read (aka guess) the weather" better than your "competitor." Competitors who are perhaps 40-50-60 or even hundreds of miles away from your us in the same task! How unsatisfying! How subjective. How disappointing.
>
> In 2014, 98% of SSAtasks were TAT or MAT. Half of the MATs were zero or one turn. Most of the rest were 3 or 4 (average 2.9). So, John, I ask why are you are complaining? Did you fly an "evil" AT in 2014? I doubt it, there were only 4! Did you fly an AT in 2013? I doubt it, there were only 7! The chances of you flying an AT in the US is almost zero in 2015. You are probably dancing on your desk right now, aren't you? All you do is guess the weather "just as you do at home." <--- my point about US pilots not challenging themselves. Hey, look at that cloud, let's go over there! What a minute "I'm reading the weather!" Wait a minute, it looks better over there! Amazing.
>
> ATs require a pilot to read the weather as well. It is even more important. That is the point. Just missing one key cloud (better climb) or choosing one better ridge actually has an objective, measurable value. Every meter counts. Reading the weather is not an hour ahead however (impossible). In ATs it's about consistently making the best decisions about the weather 5-15 minutes ahead. Consistently making choices not only about which cloud is better ahead but what "part" of that cloud is better! Skill here means gains! This is FAR more objective that flying two hours away from your competitors and saying "I won!" What did you win exactly? A guessing contest!
>
> The assumption that ATs are ONLY about gaggle flying skills is both wrong and ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as they "cause" more landouts than a long MAT or any other challenging, well called task for that matter. First of all, ATs allow for pilots to start anytime they wish. That variable will naturally spread the pilots out significantly. Just as in any other task, the best pilots cannot be simply followed. This is actually the surest way to lose In my experience. The best pilots are constantly pulling ahead. Soon, if you only follow, you are pulling into thermals minutes later and are not getting the same air. This assures that the lead pilot will leave you eventually. But be my guest gentleman. Go ahead and keep assuming that leeching is the way to manage ATs. If you study them carefully, you'll see the real best pilots do not follow that strategy much at all and the tactics are quite amazing.
>
> These far higher skill level pilots (and their strategies) are probably why these same pilots win the world championships. They flow over to all tasks and all flying and make then 2-5% better on all flying days. Yep, PLEASE keep thinking this way!!!
>
> Disgusted,
>
> Sean


My TV starts to look a little funny when I set the contrast to maximum, but it gives a different view of things for sure.

AST's are not all about leeching and gaggle flying - true. They are more that way than the other formats as everyone would admit. In a world with Flarm they are a bit more that way than they used to be. More "head to head racing" means more using other gliders as samples of lift conditions around, and particularly ahead, of you. It's axiomatic. It's the thing that the AST proponents describe as a virtue. Embrace it. It's not necessarily bad or good. I quite enjoy flying with other gliders around - and I'm getting better at using Flarm in those opportunities where you can sit back with 3 or 4 gliders out in front of you and take a slightly different course to sample they air they are not in. You get to see 3 to 4 time as much air. If you find a great thermal the guys in front of you a few miles won't turn around and if they find a better one you can roll right in. It's good for picking up a couple of minutes here and there when it works. It's kind of fun - but it's a very different thought process.

If you think weather is either 1) random or 2) mostly local knowledge. I'd encourage you to look at recent contest results. As has been mentioned, you see that the winners on MAT days tend to be not very different from the ones who win on other days and not necessarily the local pilots. Heck, the 1-turn MAT day at Montague was won by a talented pilot from...(wait for it)....Brooklyn. Why? Superior strategy and flawless execution of that strategy. It wasn't random - after the race a lot of pilots were saying "wish I'd thought of that!"

I find I have to exercise very different neurons on MAT days. On days where thunderstorms pop up my experience is that it is far more "random" to be the late guy into a 1-mile turn with a building CB over it on an AST day than the guy who has to pick a different route on a MAT day.

I'd also welcome an analysis of the point spread (points standard deviation) for less-specified versus more specified tasks. My general observation is that greater spread most of the time means that the task better separated out the pilots' total ability to get speed out of the day regardless of the task format.

Only in extreme cases where pilots can get cut off, stuck or landed out, do I think of the outcome of a single day as "random". Being forced under an overcast might be a test of scratching skills, or the luck of hitting the one thermal you need to get in and out, or your willingness to push over bad terrain - all happen and different task formats get pilots into these different situations in different proportions. Randomness or luck is more a function of the weather, not as much the format, though certainly there is some interaction between the two and plusses and minuses for any format.

My high school Physics teacher used to refer to tests with large point spreads as "separators" in that they separated the men from the boys. Maybe that's what we need at least a couple of days in every contest with a bigger points spread based on pilot decisions rather than luck, so that the overall results aren't as subject to a single day with dicey weather. If you have one of those early in a contest (kind of like Moriarty 2014, but not necessarily that extreme) and the rest of the contests with all ASTs where the total spread is narrow there is no prayer for anyone to move up.

Some musings for your consideration.

9B

[Tom Kelley #711]

> If you think weather is either 1) random or 2) mostly local knowledge. Heck, the 1-turn MAT day at Montague was won by a talented pilot from...(wait for it)...Brooklyn. Why? Superior strategy and flawless execution of that strategy. It wasn't random - after the race a lot of pilots were saying "wish I'd thought of that!"

AS UH has already stated, theirs NO AST's in the USA>>>>

10.3.2 Task Types
10.3.2.1 Assigned Task (AT)- Speed over a course of one or more designated turnpoints, with a finish at the contest site.
10.3.2.2 Modified Assigned Task (MAT) - Speed over a course of one or more turnpoints, with a finish at the contest site.

Their are "conditions" to meet on both task's. Some CD's(which we are not overflowing with in numbers) including me, have called 8 plus turnpoints for a MAT with a min time. When I called this task at R9, most had a "wow" factor. But at the end of the day, every(yes, everyone, as I rode around on my motorcycle and asked) entrant that flew this task gave me a "thumbs up". Numerous entrants said it was the best task and most fun they had ever had on a contest day task.
This long turn MAT was even done by "Charlie S" as it allows "windows" where if your slower you can still get home. It is a speed task. A zero turn or one turn MAT does NOT favor anyone. The winner is the one who made the best decisions on that particular day.

Fact. The top guys even "screw up" and make bad decisions. They win by making better decisions with fewer bad decisions. Everything, yes, everything happens for a reason. Some "reason" happens because we are stupid and make bad decisions. This post shows I am still capable of making bad decisions.

The next statement is also a bad decision. BUT 9B get your "****" straight, as their were two (2) one turn MAT's days at Montague 15M's. The first one was won by a "Old, grumpy man from New Mexico"....and he enjoyed every minute of it!

CD's, with their advisers, along with the weatherman, really know their stuff. Second guessing them, after the fact, not even being their is IMHO....(I'll stop here and show I still can make good decisions)...but its what your thinking.

Best. #711.

[Sean Fidler]

Tom,

The "winner?" in an OLC, HAT (one or zero turn MAT) is the one who made the best weather guess (while flying well) about where the soaring conditions will be best for that afternoon. This is a fact. Luck and weather forecasting "skill" is a major, major part of that result. US Tasks have clearly become much more about "weather guessing" while managing expensive flight computers to manage numerous FREE turn point combinations and minimum time finish requirements.

AST, AT. I think people get it. Give me a break!

Finally, there are no FAI classes in the USA. Except for 15/18 (pure) our classes are basically all flavors of US Sports class with a slightly narrowed handicap range. Sadly, this also includes the US "Club?" class now that the glider list (and handicap range) has been modified from the FAI prescribed glider list against the wishes of many US Club Class pilots. Look at the recently "renamed" FAI HANDICAP CLASS at the Pan American Championship coming up this April in Benton. That was originally named the FAI Pam Am CLUB CLASS. But "US insistence" on changing the allowed gliders, handicap range (and other rules) from standard FAI ultimately resulted in FAI requiring the word FAI CLUB be removed and replaced with the name FAI HANDICAP! That isn't really even an FAI event either! This is a classic example of US thinking.

The US rules (and tasks) are entirely different than FAI in almost every conceivable way. Why do we even call any of the US classed FAI? FAI 15? FAI 18? In the US? Please! Why is that word FAI inserted? Its laughable. There is nothing FAI about US soaring or the classes or the tasks we complete in. Who are we trying to kid?

Now there is a lot of OLC (weather guessing) in US tasking. Ill give you that.

Only 4 AT's in 2014, trending to zero.................

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Sorry Tom I missed that - but the fact that you won a MAT HATter day doesn't surprise me either. In neither case did the mysteries of weather guessing benefit low-seeded and/or local pilots as has been suggested ought to be the case.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Is it three threads or four that have been hijacked into a discussion of MAT tasking?

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 8:29:47 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Is it three threads or four that have been hijacked into a discussion of MAT tasking?

The current rant is over the tp circle diameter. When he finds out it was done for safety reasons, I expect an entirely new road to be paved.

Us old folks need to claim fame(flame) when ever possible.........you know I was messin with ya.

Best, not gusting, #711.