The 11 best things at the 2015 15m/Std Class Nationals at Harris Hill

[XC]

The 11 best things at the 2015 15m/Std Class Nationals

1. The weather. We flew 7 out of 10 days in Elmira. We could have possible even squeaked in another but the CD wisely called a rest day. One of the practice days was fantastic soaring. Thanks to God, Alleluia.

2. FLARM used in the stealth mode, already mentioned in another post. It really worked well.

3. The flying was tough but the atmosphere was relaxed and enjoyable. Thank you pilots for the sportsmanship. Not one pilot left this contest early, in a huff, with a broken glider, or otherwise. Very rare.

4. The dinners were excellent. Thanks go to my wife, Rebecca, and many volunteers.

5. Beer consumed was more than most contests. We killed a 1/2 keg of Stella, 2 1/4's of Yuengling and 1/4 of Labatts. Thanks to those HHSC members who bought the beer.

6. The National Soaring Museum issued a press release for us. We gave about 4 TV news interviews and we were in newspapers all over the region. Thank you NSM for all your support.

7. We flew a finish line. Tons of spectators, thanks the the press release above, were watching from the fence. Crews, juniors and pilots enjoyed it, too. It felt like you were at a race.

8. We had a PA system to announce pilot meetings, task sheets available, "P7 4 miles out", etc. This is a nice detail to include in contest planning.

9. We had the contest during the summer so young people could attend. I estimate we had 20-25 young people involved in the contest in one way or another. The HHSC juniors did a great job with the line. We also had several young people come to visit. Daniel Sazhin competed as a junior. Noah Reitter flew as a guest in the Standard Class and as sniffer.

10. We spaced the grid spots far enough away from each other that every glider could easily get to their spot. Then we compressed the grid. I really recommend this detail to other organizers.

11. Monty Sullivan as CD was outstanding. The overall tone for the contest was perfect. The task setting was spot on. Thanks Monty.

XC

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 7:35:37 AM UTC-4, XC wrote:
> The 11 best things at the 2015 15m/Std Class Nationals
>
> 1. The weather. We flew 7 out of 10 days in Elmira. We could have possible even squeaked in another but the CD wisely called a rest day. One of the practice days was fantastic soaring. Thanks to God, Alleluia.
>
> 2. FLARM used in the stealth mode, already mentioned in another post. It really worked well.
>
> 3. The flying was tough but the atmosphere was relaxed and enjoyable. Thank you pilots for the sportsmanship. Not one pilot left this contest early, in a huff, with a broken glider, or otherwise. Very rare.
>
> 4. The dinners were excellent. Thanks go to my wife, Rebecca, and many volunteers.
>
> 5. Beer consumed was more than most contests. We killed a 1/2 keg of Stella, 2 1/4's of Yuengling and 1/4 of Labatts. Thanks to those HHSC members who bought the beer.
>
> 6. The National Soaring Museum issued a press release for us. We gave about 4 TV news interviews and we were in newspapers all over the region. Thank you NSM for all your support.
>
> 7. We flew a finish line. Tons of spectators, thanks the the press release above, were watching from the fence. Crews, juniors and pilots enjoyed it, too. It felt like you were at a race.
>
> 8. We had a PA system to announce pilot meetings, task sheets available, "P7 4 miles out", etc. This is a nice detail to include in contest planning..
>
> 9. We had the contest during the summer so young people could attend. I estimate we had 20-25 young people involved in the contest in one way or another. The HHSC juniors did a great job with the line. We also had several young people come to visit. Daniel Sazhin competed as a junior. Noah Reitter flew as a guest in the Standard Class and as sniffer.
>
> 10. We spaced the grid spots far enough away from each other that every glider could easily get to their spot. Then we compressed the grid. I really recommend this detail to other organizers.
>
> 11. Monty Sullivan as CD was outstanding. The overall tone for the contest was perfect. The task setting was spot on. Thanks Monty.
>
> XC


12. HHSC brought the standard class back from the dead and had a real race. Congratulations. Well done!

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

FLARM in stealth mode and a finish line? That sounds like the racing I used to love. If this catches on I may have to get back into the racing scene.
WR

[J9]

13. Harris Hill is very family friendly and there are plenty of attractions within an hours' drive.

This contest was a good one we'll remember for a long time...Thanks HHSC!

Janine

[Greg Delp]

Sounds like I missed a great race. Maybe next time.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 08/06/2015 7:35 AM, XC wrote:
> The 11 best things at the 2015 15m/Std Class Nationals
>
> 1. The weather. We flew 7 out of 10 days in Elmira. We could have possible even squeaked in another but the CD wisely called a rest day. One of the practice days was fantastic soaring. Thanks to God, Alleluia.
>
> 2. FLARM used in the stealth mode, already mentioned in another post. It really worked well.
>
> 3. The flying was tough but the atmosphere was relaxed and enjoyable. Thank you pilots for the sportsmanship. Not one pilot left this contest early, in a huff, with a broken glider, or otherwise. Very rare.
>
> 4. The dinners were excellent. Thanks go to my wife, Rebecca, and many volunteers.
>
> 5. Beer consumed was more than most contests. We killed a 1/2 keg of Stella, 2 1/4's of Yuengling and 1/4 of Labatts. Thanks to those HHSC members who bought the beer.
>
> 6. The National Soaring Museum issued a press release for us. We gave about 4 TV news interviews and we were in newspapers all over the region. Thank you NSM for all your support.
>
> 7. We flew a finish line. Tons of spectators, thanks the the press release above, were watching from the fence. Crews, juniors and pilots enjoyed it, too. It felt like you were at a race.
>
> 8. We had a PA system to announce pilot meetings, task sheets available, "P7 4 miles out", etc. This is a nice detail to include in contest planning.
>
> 9. We had the contest during the summer so young people could attend. I estimate we had 20-25 young people involved in the contest in one way or another. The HHSC juniors did a great job with the line. We also had several young people come to visit. Daniel Sazhin competed as a junior. Noah Reitter flew as a guest in the Standard Class and as sniffer.
>
> 10. We spaced the grid spots far enough away from each other that every glider could easily get to their spot. Then we compressed the grid. I really recommend this detail to other organizers.
>
> 11. Monty Sullivan as CD was outstanding. The overall tone for the contest was perfect. The task setting was spot on. Thanks Monty.
>
> XC
>

Agree to all points Sean, it was a fantastic event that I will remember
for a long time.

Luke

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:52:57 AM UTC-4, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> On 08/06/2015 7:35 AM, XC wrote:
> > The 11 best things at the 2015 15m/Std Class Nationals
> >
> > 1. The weather. We flew 7 out of 10 days in Elmira. We could have possible even squeaked in another but the CD wisely called a rest day. One of the practice days was fantastic soaring. Thanks to God, Alleluia.
> >
> > 2. FLARM used in the stealth mode, already mentioned in another post. It really worked well.
> >
> > 3. The flying was tough but the atmosphere was relaxed and enjoyable. Thank you pilots for the sportsmanship. Not one pilot left this contest early, in a huff, with a broken glider, or otherwise. Very rare.
> >
> > 4. The dinners were excellent. Thanks go to my wife, Rebecca, and many volunteers.
> >
> > 5. Beer consumed was more than most contests. We killed a 1/2 keg of Stella, 2 1/4's of Yuengling and 1/4 of Labatts. Thanks to those HHSC members who bought the beer.
> >
> > 6. The National Soaring Museum issued a press release for us. We gave about 4 TV news interviews and we were in newspapers all over the region. Thank you NSM for all your support.
> >
> > 7. We flew a finish line. Tons of spectators, thanks the the press release above, were watching from the fence. Crews, juniors and pilots enjoyed it, too. It felt like you were at a race.
> >
> > 8. We had a PA system to announce pilot meetings, task sheets available, "P7 4 miles out", etc. This is a nice detail to include in contest planning.
> >
> > 9. We had the contest during the summer so young people could attend. I estimate we had 20-25 young people involved in the contest in one way or another. The HHSC juniors did a great job with the line. We also had several young people come to visit. Daniel Sazhin competed as a junior. Noah Reitter flew as a guest in the Standard Class and as sniffer.
> >
> > 10. We spaced the grid spots far enough away from each other that every glider could easily get to their spot. Then we compressed the grid. I really recommend this detail to other organizers.
> >
> > 11. Monty Sullivan as CD was outstanding. The overall tone for the contest was perfect. The task setting was spot on. Thanks Monty.
> >
> > XC
> >
>
> Agree to all points Sean, it was a fantastic event that I will remember
> for a long time.
>
> Luke

Add many thanks to Sean for acting as the leader to get this contest off the ground.
Add to 5- Gary Ittner provided home brewed beer which was very popular.
Point 12- We had a couple of lapsed competitors come back, Chip Bearden and Mike Opitz, both of whom did well and I expect will be back for a good long time.
Best contest for me in quite a while on many levels.
Thanks to all
UH

[Dan Marotta]

KUDOS!

On 8/6/2015 5:58 AM, wrote:
> FLARM in stealth mode and a finish line? That sounds like the racing I used to love. If this catches on I may have to get back into the racing scene.
> WR

--
Dan Marotta

[Sean Fidler]

Sounds fun! Good to hear about the finish line, the PA system and the spectators. As this was a U.S national championship, 50% real assigned tasks and perhaps a 15 minute limit on the start gate (so the finish line has some actual meaning) would be interesting...in the future.

[ND]

I have to strongly agree with everything but particularly numbers one, two, SEVEN(oh god number seven was great) nine, and eleven. sure it was my home turf, but i enjoyed the racing, the camaraderie, and the social aspect of it immensely. Elmira is not to be underestimated! Thanks to everyone involved, not least of whom is XC himself. I'm glad to see so many shared my feelings about the contest, it's one I wont forget, despite all the beer. ;)

-ND

[[email protected]]

The evident organization behind this well-run contest started with informative pre-contest emails from XC and extended throughout. Yeah, we got lucky on the weather. But everything else about the contest was spot on, including all the little details (tie downs, camping accommodations, dinners, etc.) that can add or detract. And a scorer (Doug Martin) who never seemed impatient or set upon despite our many requests...and who uploaded scores each day to the SSA site faster than we could have visited a paper copy tacked up in the Flight Center.

Just to reiterate, Monty Sullivan did a great job as CD, responsive to input but solidly in control the whole way without the noise and posturing of a control freak: a lesson in how to manage the egos in this very individualistic sport.

And, yes, a FINISH LINE!!! (sigh). Just like the old days. I felt like I was 40 again. :) Fun for pilots, staff, and spectators. I recall the PA system announcing tasks and finishers when I first visited Harris Hill in 1968 as a teenager, and it's still a nice feature.

Thanks to all.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 1:41:28 PM UTC-5, ND wrote:
> I have to strongly agree with everything but particularly numbers one, two, SEVEN(oh god number seven was great) nine, and eleven. sure it was my home turf, but i enjoyed the racing, the camaraderie, and the social aspect of it immensely. Elmira is not to be underestimated! Thanks to everyone involved, not least of whom is XC himself. I'm glad to see so many shared my feelings about the contest, it's one I wont forget, despite all the beer. ;)
>
> -ND

Amazing. After all the angst over the past years about coming up with a "safer" way to finish because the line finish was just so dangerous, we rediscover the fun of it without any carnage!

What's next, actual crews at a contest?

Wish I had been there! ;^)

Kirk
66

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> Amazing. After all the angst over the past years about coming up with a "safer" way to finish because the line finish was just so dangerous, we rediscover the fun of it without any carnage!


I know you guys are trolling a bit here, but let's remember a few facts.

Elmira is uniquely suited to a finish line, because it in effect is a finish cylinder. If you don't make the finish, you glide down and land in the valley. Few other airports have this lovely circumstance.

The real problem of the finish line is not the danger of the line itself -- though there were quite a few stall/spin accidents, including fatalities, in the good old days. The real problem is the marginal final glide. Again, not a problem at Elmira. A much bigger problem out west with one runway and nowhere to land in the last 10 miles.

And, one contest without accident does not suddenly erase 50 years of statistics.

John Cochrane BB

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 4:55:07 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Amazing. After all the angst over the past years about coming up with a "safer" way to finish because the line finish was just so dangerous, we rediscover the fun of it without any carnage!
>
>
> I know you guys are trolling a bit here, but let's remember a few facts.
>
> Elmira is uniquely suited to a finish line, because it in effect is a finish cylinder. If you don't make the finish, you glide down and land in the valley. Few other airports have this lovely circumstance.
>
> The real problem of the finish line is not the danger of the line itself -- though there were quite a few stall/spin accidents, including fatalities, in the good old days. The real problem is the marginal final glide. Again, not a problem at Elmira. A much bigger problem out west with one runway and nowhere to land in the last 10 miles.
>
> And, one contest without accident does not suddenly erase 50 years of statistics.
>
> John Cochrane BB

Quite true.
But it was fun
UH

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

It is fun! We should have an optional "show finish" line for contests where a real finish line is impractical.

John Cochrane BB

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 2:33:31 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> It is fun! We should have an optional "show finish" line for contests where a real finish line is impractical.
>
> John Cochrane BB

I proposed this several years ago - you could have a 2 mile ring at 1000' as an initial point to a 50' line finish for timing purposes. You just need to ensure that people are coming from generally the same direction.

9B

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 7:35:37 AM UTC-4, XC wrote:
> The 11 best things at the 2015 15m/Std Class Nationals
>
> 1. The weather. We flew 7 out of 10 days in Elmira. We could have possible even squeaked in another but the CD wisely called a rest day. One of the practice days was fantastic soaring. Thanks to God, Alleluia.
>
> 2. FLARM used in the stealth mode, already mentioned in another post. It really worked well.
>
> 3. The flying was tough but the atmosphere was relaxed and enjoyable. Thank you pilots for the sportsmanship. Not one pilot left this contest early, in a huff, with a broken glider, or otherwise. Very rare.
>
> 4. The dinners were excellent. Thanks go to my wife, Rebecca, and many volunteers.
>
> 5. Beer consumed was more than most contests. We killed a 1/2 keg of Stella, 2 1/4's of Yuengling and 1/4 of Labatts. Thanks to those HHSC members who bought the beer.
>
> 6. The National Soaring Museum issued a press release for us. We gave about 4 TV news interviews and we were in newspapers all over the region. Thank you NSM for all your support.
>
> 7. We flew a finish line. Tons of spectators, thanks the the press release above, were watching from the fence. Crews, juniors and pilots enjoyed it, too. It felt like you were at a race.
>
> 8. We had a PA system to announce pilot meetings, task sheets available, "P7 4 miles out", etc. This is a nice detail to include in contest planning..
>
> 9. We had the contest during the summer so young people could attend. I estimate we had 20-25 young people involved in the contest in one way or another. The HHSC juniors did a great job with the line. We also had several young people come to visit. Daniel Sazhin competed as a junior. Noah Reitter flew as a guest in the Standard Class and as sniffer.
>
> 10. We spaced the grid spots far enough away from each other that every glider could easily get to their spot. Then we compressed the grid. I really recommend this detail to other organizers.
>
> 11. Monty Sullivan as CD was outstanding. The overall tone for the contest was perfect. The task setting was spot on. Thanks Monty.
>
> XC

This was my 27th year of flying races and 26th years since I first flew at Elmira. It was a great contest all around.

Another important point is the number of folks who came to fly knowing they weren't going to win. There were an LS4, a Standard Jantar, and a Pegasus in the Standard Class, while an ASW-20 (sans winglets or water) competed in the 15M. These guys all learned a ton and competed just fine with the top pilots. Just a great attitude all around.

P3

[[email protected]]

<< Elmira is uniquely suited to a finish line, because it in effect is a finish cylinder. If you don't make the finish, you glide down and land in the valley. Few other airports have this lovely circumstance. >>

Yes and no. From the north and northwest, for sure. From some other directions, it depends on how far out you are when you see you're in trouble. The closer you get, the more Elmira looks like a more conventional site with few or no places to put down safely if you're a mile or two short. If you're willing to bail out before that, there are alternatives. But it's the guys who don't want to give up until it's too late that caused the problems in the past. So for many of the tasks we flew this year, we were back to "fly sensibly". Everyone did. And, yeah, it sure was fun!

Not trolling, BB. Sometimes you don't realize how much you miss something until you get to experience it again unexpectedly.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[ND]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 4:55:07 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Amazing. After all the angst over the past years about coming up with a "safer" way to finish because the line finish was just so dangerous, we rediscover the fun of it without any carnage!
>
>
> I know you guys are trolling a bit here, but let's remember a few facts.
>
> Elmira is uniquely suited to a finish line, because it in effect is a finish cylinder. If you don't make the finish, you glide down and land in the valley. Few other airports have this lovely circumstance.
>
> The real problem of the finish line is not the danger of the line itself -- though there were quite a few stall/spin accidents, including fatalities, in the good old days. The real problem is the marginal final glide. Again, not a problem at Elmira. A much bigger problem out west with one runway and nowhere to land in the last 10 miles.
>
> And, one contest without accident does not suddenly erase 50 years of statistics.
>
> John Cochrane BB

it is a problem from elmira when coming from the southeast, but from most every other direction it's not. from the southeast there is 10 miles of city, trees, and hilly fields. having said that we are in a unique position to have a line.

[ND]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 4:55:07 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Amazing. After all the angst over the past years about coming up with a "safer" way to finish because the line finish was just so dangerous, we rediscover the fun of it without any carnage!
>
>
> I know you guys are trolling a bit here, but let's remember a few facts.
>
> Elmira is uniquely suited to a finish line, because it in effect is a finish cylinder. If you don't make the finish, you glide down and land in the valley. Few other airports have this lovely circumstance.
>
> The real problem of the finish line is not the danger of the line itself -- though there were quite a few stall/spin accidents, including fatalities, in the good old days. The real problem is the marginal final glide. Again, not a problem at Elmira. A much bigger problem out west with one runway and nowhere to land in the last 10 miles.
>
> And, one contest without accident does not suddenly erase 50 years of statistics.
>
> John Cochrane BB

it is a problem from elmira when coming from the southeast, but from most every other direction it's not. from the southeast there is 10 miles of city, trees, and hilly fields. having said that we are in a position to have a line, but it's not bad at many other places either. mifflin for example, you have to be high enough to clear the ridges many times, or you have ridge lift,or there are plenty of fields to land in in the home valley.

[Ian[_2_]]

On 06/08/2015 23:42, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 2:33:31 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
>> It is fun! We should have an optional "show finish" line for contests where a real finish line is impractical.
>>
>> John Cochrane BB
>
> I proposed this several years ago - you could have a 2 mile ring at 1000' as an initial point to a 50' line finish for timing purposes. You just need to ensure that people are coming from generally the same direction.
>
> 9B

We tried something similar on one task of the SA leg of the Sailplane
Grand Prix. We set a control turn point with a MINIMUM hight about 5km
out on the final leg. I believe the concept has merit both from a safety
and spectator perspectives.

The SGP rules encourage turnpoints with a maximum hight to promote
spectator points, a turn point with minimum hight was regarded as novel
but allowed. But some pilots missed the minimum hight and there was a
dispute over the penalties imposed. So we did not use it again during
that comp.

Having seen the SGP style contest, I think a "start gate closing time"
to curtail "start line roulette" and would improve spectator value,
reduce outlandings and consequential damage and make life easier for crews.

[Sean Fidler]

Well said IAN! +1

[[email protected]]

So somebody who has difficulty climbing out, or who takes a relight would get zero for the day because of the "start gate closing time"?

P9

[Sean Fidler]

Yes! Absolutely yes!!! If you can't start by the end of the allowed time you will be losing time because the clock has started and you are not on course.

And in exchange: 1) the gliders that start on time will be competing in more of a "race" (not "time trailing") 2) there is much less start gate roulette, 3) circling around in a big pack waiting for others to start first is reduced, 4) starting and then sneaking back to restart again (often head on thru other starting gliders) is reduced, 5) etc, etc. All of this loitering around and restarting is, IMO, a highly dangerous time in a sailplane contest. I dislike it. I want to use as much of the day as possible to race on the defined track with my competitors. Not play around doing aerobatics in the start cycle cylinder at close proximity all afternoon.

Everyone will have to deal with a circumstance of being late occasionally. Remember that opening a start window (just as with opening a start gate today) only happens after the CD has polled the advisors and been told that the task is fair and safe. Pilots struggling or low will have a chance to make it known. The window will be open long enough to relight and get back up. But their needs to be a limit to that charity.

If you are at a formula one race and your engine doesn't start, they do not wait for you to change your engine. They race and you don't.

If you are in a sailboat race and you are late to the starting line you are going to lose some time. Good luck. Try and catch up.

This rule makes the sport of soaring "more like" racing. Today it is really not racing unless you have happened to start together and you are on an assigned task.

OLC is great for free, open start times.

And remember this rule is not a single start time like Sailplane Grand Prix.. Their is still a significant range (say 1 hour, or 30 minutes) in which you can "choose" to start. It's just not ENDLESS (ridiculous) anymore.

I would love to see this adopted in SSA contests. It makes great sense to me.

Sean
7T

[Sean Fidler]

Not a zero for the day...but losing time if the window has opened, yes. Remember, the window only opens if the CD, advisors, and pilots have agreed to do so.

[Sean Fidler]

P9,

No, you would not necessarily get a zero for the day if you are not able to start by the end of the time window. That said, if you can't start by the end of the allowed time (perhaps one hour), you will be losing time because the clock has started and you are not on course. One hour is plenty of time to relight, perhaps 2x, etc.

And in exchange: 1) the gliders that start on time will be competing in more of a meaningful race (not "time trailing") 2) there is much less start gate roulette, 3) circling around in a big pack waiting for others to start first is reduced, 4) starting and then sneaking back to restart again (often head on thru other starting gliders) is reduced, 5) the time on task will become longer for a given day 6) etc, etc. All of this loitering around and restarting is, IMO, a highly dangerous time in a sailplane contest. I dislike it. I want to use as much of the day as possible to race on the defined race track with my competitors. Not play around doing aerobatics in the start cycle cylinder at close proximity all afternoon.

Everyone will have to deal with a circumstance of being tardy (starting after the clock has already started) occasionally. Remember that opening a start window (just as with opening a start gate today) only happens after the CD has polled the advisors and been told that the task is fair and safe. Pilots struggling or low will have a chance to make it known. The window will be open long enough to relight and get back up. But there needs to be a limit to that charity.

If you are at a formula one race and your engine doesn't start, they do not wait for you to change your engine. They race and you don't.

If you are in a sailboat race and you are late to the starting line you are going to lose some time. Good luck. Try and catch up.

This rule makes the sport of soaring "more like" racing. Today it is really not racing unless you have happened to start together and you are on an assigned task.

OLC is great for free, open start times.

And remember this rule is not a single start time like Sailplane Grand Prix.. There is still a significant range (say 1 hour, or 30 minutes) in which you can "choose" to start. It's just not ENDLESS (ridiculous) anymore.

I would love to see this adopted in SSA contests. It makes great sense to me.

Sean
7T

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> I would love to see this adopted in SSA contests. It makes great sense to me.

We tried to get some interest in this proposal a year or two ago. I had the same reaction -- on a reasonably consistent day in which most people can be ready to start, it would get us all out on course and end a lot of leeching and start roulette.

To be clear, the proposal is that the CD announces a "last start time" half hour or so after gate open. You can still start whenever you want, but if you start after last start time your start time is the last start time.

This was in part to accommodate the then groundswell for Grand Prix, as well as the big concern over gaggling and leeching that we see boiling up in the flarm debate. However, it died on the vine somehow with no interest. Perhaps we'll try again and see if anyone can be talked in to running a regional this way. A poll topic for sure.

John Cochrane BB

[Steve Koerner]

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:54:48 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> > I would love to see this adopted in SSA contests. It makes great sense to me.
>
> We tried to get some interest in this proposal a year or two ago. I had the same reaction -- on a reasonably consistent day in which most people can be ready to start, it would get us all out on course and end a lot of leeching and start roulette.
>
> To be clear, the proposal is that the CD announces a "last start time" half hour or so after gate open. You can still start whenever you want, but if you start after last start time your start time is the last start time.
>
> This was in part to accommodate the then groundswell for Grand Prix, as well as the big concern over gaggling and leeching that we see boiling up in the flarm debate. However, it died on the vine somehow with no interest. Perhaps we'll try again and see if anyone can be talked in to running a regional this way. A poll topic for sure.
>
> John Cochrane BB

I'd suggest a small modification that would make this more palatable: After the "last start time" expires, let's begin taxing the contestant at say 10% instead of 100%. That would be 1 second tax per 10 seconds transpired. It seems like 10% is enough to get most everyone out on course yet not completely shaft the poor sap who can't get up or has a relight or has an instrument problem and is late starting. I believe that I read a variation of this idea on a previous post - I think it was 9B.

[Sean Fidler]

Example: If you start 3 minutes late on a 300 minute task (assume thats the winners time on an AT or the AAT time...) then you are only taking a 1% penalty (if any penalty at all really) if you finish in 303 minutes and fly the same speed. 10 points on a 1000 point day. This of course entirely discounts the advantage of being 3 minutes behind a strong pilot, easy to catch at this range if you are in a position to do so.

Or....if you start 30 minutes late on a 300 minute task you only have a 10% penalty. 100 points. A more substantial penalty but, lets face it, 30 minutes (after 30 minutes of open time) is an eternity. If the majority of the class can start but you cannot for 30 minutes after a 30 minute window is agreed upon and opened, its not a rules problem.

The penalty for starting late is still fairly minuscule even if the task is only 150 minutes long. 10% for 15 minutes. And you still have the advantage of catching up to all the gliders ahead.

The point of the rule is to make it smart to get into a decent position and GO. Messing around is far less valuable as the end of the window approaches. If you play the game and get caught in a spot where you cannot start perfectly...TOUGH! You have to take an imperfect start or you wait around for one and risk loosing significant time. This is a beautiful solution in my eyes.

Also, this is how all other true RACING sports are played, with the added exceptional freedom of a 30 minute!!! window...AN ABSOLUTE ETERNITY!

The tax idea is just too complex. Its ticky-tacky. I don't like it. Sorry Andy. 30 minutes is plenty of time to start. Or go ahead and make the window 1 hour.

With that...are you onboard now with a start gate time limit considering how tiny the penalty of starting behind the window really is? Its not really ever 100% unless you stay in the start cylinder until sunset ;-). And with all the other advantages of forcing the field out on course sooner than they typically would be with the current free start rule (more racing, less dangerous interactions, less screwing around)...?

JOHN C: I feel that the start gate time limit should be used at nationals first because thats where the real problem is. No need to trail this rule at a regionals. Just as the boys (and girls) in Elmira went with Stealth Mode at the recent 15m nationals...we need a bold leader to take the bull by the horns and go for it. The current start anytime you want program: high speed flap 1 circling at 120 knots for 30-60 minutes with gliders leaving and entering from all directions, pulling spoilers and coming down thru the high speed gliders while looking at your stopwatch, every task, etc is pretty problematic. Personally, I would like to spend as much of that time flying better, longer tasks as possible. The way to do that is to take away the freedom to wait around indefinitely...and reasonably limit the start gate time window.

Sean
7T

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:03:21 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:54:48 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > I would love to see this adopted in SSA contests. It makes great sense to me.
> >
> > We tried to get some interest in this proposal a year or two ago. I had the same reaction -- on a reasonably consistent day in which most people can be ready to start, it would get us all out on course and end a lot of leeching and start roulette.
> >
> > To be clear, the proposal is that the CD announces a "last start time" half hour or so after gate open. You can still start whenever you want, but if you start after last start time your start time is the last start time.
> >
> > This was in part to accommodate the then groundswell for Grand Prix, as well as the big concern over gaggling and leeching that we see boiling up in the flarm debate. However, it died on the vine somehow with no interest.. Perhaps we'll try again and see if anyone can be talked in to running a regional this way. A poll topic for sure.
> >
> > John Cochrane BB
>
> I'd suggest a small modification that would make this more palatable: After the "last start time" expires, let's begin taxing the contestant at say 10% instead of 100%. That would be 1 second tax per 10 seconds transpired. It seems like 10% is enough to get most everyone out on course yet not completely shaft the poor sap who can't get up or has a relight or has an instrument problem and is late starting. I believe that I read a variation of this idea on a previous post - I think it was 9B.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:58:48 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Example: If you start 3 minutes late on a 300 minute task (assume thats the winners time on an AT or the AAT time...) then you are only taking a 1% penalty (if any penalty at all really) if you finish in 303 minutes and fly the same speed. 10 points on a 1000 point day. This of course entirely discounts the advantage of being 3 minutes behind a strong pilot, easy to catch at this range if you are in a position to do so.
>
> Or....if you start 30 minutes late on a 300 minute task you only have a 10% penalty. 100 points. A more substantial penalty but, lets face it, 30 minutes (after 30 minutes of open time) is an eternity. If the majority of the class can start but you cannot for 30 minutes after a 30 minute window is agreed upon and opened, its not a rules problem.
>
> The penalty for starting late is still fairly minuscule even if the task is only 150 minutes long. 10% for 15 minutes. And you still have the advantage of catching up to all the gliders ahead.
>
> The point of the rule is to make it smart to get into a decent position and GO. Messing around is far less valuable as the end of the window approaches. If you play the game and get caught in a spot where you cannot start perfectly...TOUGH! You have to take an imperfect start or you wait around for one and risk loosing significant time. This is a beautiful solution in my eyes.
>
> Also, this is how all other true RACING sports are played, with the added exceptional freedom of a 30 minute!!! window...AN ABSOLUTE ETERNITY!
>
> The tax idea is just too complex. Its ticky-tacky. I don't like it. Sorry Andy. 30 minutes is plenty of time to start. Or go ahead and make the window 1 hour.
>
> With that...are you onboard now with a start gate time limit considering how tiny the penalty of starting behind the window really is? Its not really ever 100% unless you stay in the start cylinder until sunset ;-). And with all the other advantages of forcing the field out on course sooner than they typically would be with the current free start rule (more racing, less dangerous interactions, less screwing around)...?
>
> JOHN C: I feel that the start gate time limit should be used at nationals first because thats where the real problem is. No need to trail this rule at a regionals. Just as the boys (and girls) in Elmira went with Stealth Mode at the recent 15m nationals...we need a bold leader to take the bull by the horns and go for it. The current start anytime you want program: high speed flap 1 circling at 120 knots for 30-60 minutes with gliders leaving and entering from all directions, pulling spoilers and coming down thru the high speed gliders while looking at your stopwatch, every task, etc is pretty problematic. Personally, I would like to spend as much of that time flying better, longer tasks as possible. The way to do that is to take away the freedom to wait around indefinitely...and reasonably limit the start gate time window.
>
> Sean
> 7T
>
> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:03:21 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:54:48 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > > I would love to see this adopted in SSA contests. It makes great sense to me.
> > >
> > > We tried to get some interest in this proposal a year or two ago. I had the same reaction -- on a reasonably consistent day in which most people can be ready to start, it would get us all out on course and end a lot of leeching and start roulette.
> > >
> > > To be clear, the proposal is that the CD announces a "last start time" half hour or so after gate open. You can still start whenever you want, but if you start after last start time your start time is the last start time.
> > >
> > > This was in part to accommodate the then groundswell for Grand Prix, as well as the big concern over gaggling and leeching that we see boiling up in the flarm debate. However, it died on the vine somehow with no interest. Perhaps we'll try again and see if anyone can be talked in to running a regional this way. A poll topic for sure.
> > >
> > > John Cochrane BB
> >
> > I'd suggest a small modification that would make this more palatable: After the "last start time" expires, let's begin taxing the contestant at say 10% instead of 100%. That would be 1 second tax per 10 seconds transpired. It seems like 10% is enough to get most everyone out on course yet not completely shaft the poor sap who can't get up or has a relight or has an instrument problem and is late starting. I believe that I read a variation of this idea on a previous post - I think it was 9B.

If the task is "properly" called, most everyone is on course within 30 minutes of opening. Tactically there is almost no usable benefit to starting more than 10 minutes or so after the group you want to chase.
I see this as little more than a gimmick intended to try to get more pack flying that some folks call racing.
As an example, look at the recent Elmira contest. Tasks used most of the day and few played games.
Save this stuff for GP events where those that want it will come.

UH

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:58:48 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
>
> The point of the rule is to make it smart to get into a decent position and GO. Messing around is far less valuable as the end of the window approaches. If you play the game and get caught in a spot where you cannot start perfectly...TOUGH! You have to take an imperfect start or you wait around for one and risk loosing significant time. This is a beautiful solution in my eyes.
>
> Also, this is how all other true RACING sports are played, with the added exceptional freedom of a 30 minute!!! window...AN ABSOLUTE ETERNITY!
>

All of these are interesting ideas, and they have a lot of attraction from the comfort of the deck where I'm reading them. However, I think it would be very interesting to get feedback from a broader, more representative group of pilots (i.e. beyond R.A.S., which tends to self-select).

FWIW, consider Day 6 from the recent US Standard/15M Nationals. The day started out very strong, and the early launchers were quickly up to start height. A few of the later launchers were able to sustain but not get all of the way up. A few more relit. I received a huge amount of flak as an advisor since I reported 4kts to 6,000 feet while a few (about 25% to 30% of the fleet) were struggling.

The simple answer is "well then, the gate shouldn't have opened". OTHOH, I've seen many days where cycling near the gate means there is never a perfect time. If guys are high and they let down assuming the gate will open, then it's unfair to them if it is further delayed. Conversely, late launchers may protest that it wasn't fair. IIRC, that's one of the main reasons the grid is shuffled.

Point being, IMO the assumption that the gate opening time can be rigidly timed is good in theory and less so in practice. Our current process does put some premium on a person reading the weather and determining when a start makes sense. That's certainly a skill and one that some folks seem to possess in greater quantities than some other folks.

It is interesting to me that many of the most successful racers in our sport have tended to be lone wolf types who struck out independently as often as not. It's not clear to me after 25 years of racing whether the trend is toward more pack racing or less; I think it really depends on the site and the weather more than anything. But, I think the first order of business is to put some thought into whether pack racing is or isn't what we want. That will determine whether the "fixes" make sense. No?

P3

[[email protected]]

I'm not sure how we got from a discussion on the impact of FLARM stealth on soaring skills and leeching, on the one hand, and time-limited start gates on the other. My first reaction to the latter idea is that there are at least four negative effects, several of which have been noted:

1. Penalizes the pilot who needs a relight or has an equipment problem and has to land. In itself that's a disadvantage. Adding an explicit time/point penalty for starting late doesn't make sense. It's easy to cavalierly say that anyone who can't climb up and start within X amount of time has a different kind of problem, but at Elmira, we had one day with massive relights caused by cycling and OD, among them some of the highest-ranking U.S. pilots. Also at Elmira we saw a lot of starting through the top of the gate, which makes gaggle compression less of an issue. This reminds me of government regulators who try to "enhance" competition by imposing price controls. In this case, if starting late doesn't work, let "market forces" (i.e., the score sheet) take care of it.

2. Reduces the importance of yet another soaring skill: i.e., being able to assess and bracket the best weather of the day, including days when it makes sense to hold back until better weather arrives. Soaring isn't other sports. The fact that Formula One racing cars all start at the same moment is irrelevant to us. What's next, penalizing pilots who deviate from the course line more than X miles because it's "unfair" if everyone doesn't traverse the same terrain? Different sports, different competitive philosophies, different rules.

3. Compresses the field into a smaller slice of time and air, thus encouraging leeching and potentially impacting safety. You think it's crowded now at the top of the gaggle just under the start cylinder ceiling? Just wait until there's a bunch of pilots milling around watching the clock wanting to start just before the deadline...but not before anyone else does.

4. More complications to our scoring system. Winscore has become a chore to support already without these latest "innovations". Every time the rules change, the developer is forced to change the code. Anyone in the software business knows that each time you make a change, you risk introducing bugs, even with extensive regression and user acceptance testing (which, based on experience, isn't always done). Not too many years ago after a Regional contest raised some questions about the scores, I installed Winscore, poked through the documentation, and reran the scoring. No disrespect to the talented and dedicated developer but I was appalled at how difficult and manual some of the necessary operations were. No surprise; there's not much of a "market" for Winscore and the developer isn't getting rich supporting the tiny user group. I also found several bugs that changed the order of daily finishers. This was in late fall after that year's program had been in use all season. I'm not the only one who has encouraged the Rules Committee to factor in necessary changes to the scoring system whenever revisions to the rules are being considered. It's easy to say that starting penalties or thermal taxes can be done automatically. In the real world, that just isn't true.

The Elmira experiment provided evidence that stealth mode yields essentially all of the collision-warning benefits of FLARM without encouraging leeching or reducing the importance of the soaring skills we've always sought to evaluate.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[Bob Pasker]

I've never flown a contest, but I have a question about people coming up short. If that seems to be a problem, why isn't there an altitude floor for the finish line? --bob

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:13:39 AM UTC-4, Bob Pasker wrote:
> I've never flown a contest, but I have a question about people coming up short. If that seems to be a problem, why isn't there an altitude floor for the finish line? --bob

There is, but is can be quite small. Most contests use a finish cylinder with a radius of a mile, with a minimum finish height appropriate for the site, commonly around 500 feet or so.
A few places can still use the lower line finish(bottom about 100 ft AGL)where it is deemed that it can be done with adequate safety.
UH

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:21:59 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I'm not sure how we got from a discussion on the impact of FLARM stealth on soaring skills and leeching, on the one hand, and time-limited start gates on the other. My first reaction to the latter idea is that there are at least four negative effects, several of which have been noted:
>
> 1. Penalizes the pilot who needs a relight or has an equipment problem and has to land. In itself that's a disadvantage. Adding an explicit time/point penalty for starting late doesn't make sense. It's easy to cavalierly say that anyone who can't climb up and start within X amount of time has a different kind of problem, but at Elmira, we had one day with massive relights caused by cycling and OD, among them some of the highest-ranking U.S. pilots. Also at Elmira we saw a lot of starting through the top of the gate, which makes gaggle compression less of an issue. This reminds me of government regulators who try to "enhance" competition by imposing price controls. In this case, if starting late doesn't work, let "market forces" (i.e., the score sheet) take care of it.
>
> 2. Reduces the importance of yet another soaring skill: i.e., being able to assess and bracket the best weather of the day, including days when it makes sense to hold back until better weather arrives. Soaring isn't other sports. The fact that Formula One racing cars all start at the same moment is irrelevant to us. What's next, penalizing pilots who deviate from the course line more than X miles because it's "unfair" if everyone doesn't traverse the same terrain? Different sports, different competitive philosophies, different rules.
>
> 3. Compresses the field into a smaller slice of time and air, thus encouraging leeching and potentially impacting safety. You think it's crowded now at the top of the gaggle just under the start cylinder ceiling? Just wait until there's a bunch of pilots milling around watching the clock wanting to start just before the deadline...but not before anyone else does.
>
> 4. More complications to our scoring system. Winscore has become a chore to support already without these latest "innovations". Every time the rules change, the developer is forced to change the code. Anyone in the software business knows that each time you make a change, you risk introducing bugs, even with extensive regression and user acceptance testing (which, based on experience, isn't always done). Not too many years ago after a Regional contest raised some questions about the scores, I installed Winscore, poked through the documentation, and reran the scoring. No disrespect to the talented and dedicated developer but I was appalled at how difficult and manual some of the necessary operations were. No surprise; there's not much of a "market" for Winscore and the developer isn't getting rich supporting the tiny user group. I also found several bugs that changed the order of daily finishers. This was in late fall after that year's program had been in use all season. I'm not the only one who has encouraged the Rules Committee to factor in necessary changes to the scoring system whenever revisions to the rules are being considered. It's easy to say that starting penalties or thermal taxes can be done automatically. In the real world, that just isn't true.
>
> The Elmira experiment provided evidence that stealth mode yields essentially all of the collision-warning benefits of FLARM without encouraging leeching or reducing the importance of the soaring skills we've always sought to evaluate.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

All good points Chip.

We seem to be of two minds and there is only so much tinkering with the rules to make both desires work, so we will need to decide which is more important to us - and strike a balance that isn't overly complex.

Desire 1) Get everyone out on course and do "real" racing. This argues for GP start - or "last start" which I personally lobbied to get people to try at sanctioned events I attended after we put it in the rules. No takers. People seem to like being able to head out when they feel conditions are most favorable - or at least when they've been able to find a decent climb, which isn't always available on demand. Some people seem to also think that picking the weather and a course line are real soaring skills.

The desire for time-compressed starts seems to be correlated with a parallel desire for more restrictive tasking in terms of course selection (AT, Small-circle AAT, long MAT). The implication is more gaggling and a consequence of more gaggling is more leader-follower behavior (leeching), all the way to races as one big ant trail of gliders.

Desire 2) Discourage leeching. This argues for spread out racing. Wide-open start times are neutral with respect to leeching, but don't actively discourage it. You could go all the way to time windows for starts, different assigned start cylinders, etc. Races would likely would look like mini GPs every quarter hour or so. You could make this softer with a version of GW's "10% penalty". "No leeching" also argues for more spread out tasking (no-turn MAT is the extreme case, but AAT as well - ATs are the most encouraging of leeching behavior).

It's hard to imagine having it both ways. Fly exactly the same course at exactly the same time, but fly totally on your own. Hmmmm...

9B

[Dan Marotta]

Mandating a finish altitude does not keep a glider in the air. Mistakes
and mis-judgements happen and there will be penalties and land outs, but
the glider will come down when it's time.

On 8/11/2015 5:13 AM, Bob Pasker wrote:
> I've never flown a contest, but I have a question about people coming up short. If that seems to be a problem, why isn't there an altitude floor for the finish line? --bob

--
Dan Marotta

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 10:54:41 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> But, I think the first order of business is to put some thought into whether pack racing is or isn't what we want. That will determine whether the "fixes" make sense. No?

A little thread drift here, but why not, it's r.a.s. after all. Erik: Yes.

Pack flying mostly sucks.

ATs provide the means by which mediocre pilots can hang on the apron strings of really good soaring pilots and say "Look hon, I'm 97% as good as __." ATs aren't too bad when they are called on good, strong days with uniform weather and (here's the key) long task legs. On a 50+ mile leg, you can afford to vary your course line a bit and have the chance to do some proper decision making. The thing that drives me *nuts* about the "Long MAT" is that they generally get called with these stubby little 20 mile legs that keep the furballs from spreading out. Yuk. Multiple hours of flying around the Arc de Triomphe. No thanks.

Oh, there are occasional exceptions. We've had some riotously good Nascar style glider racing at Perry some years. It helps when all your buddies are really, really good... and race like gentlemen. That's good fun, but it does tend to compress the scoresheet.

Real accomplishment in this sport (imo) comes from winning a long day on your own decisions, and that means either leading the pack or doing a fair amount of flying on your own. It's really hard to do. I like it because it's hard.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean Fidler]

FWIW, again, I strongly disagree.

Pilots are simply not innocently waiting around in the start cylinder for the "most favorable conditions." Common! That is probably only 10% true, especially at high levels. That statement is pretty funny to me and I think plain false. It damages the discussion here because it is so false. U.S. Pilots are, in general, fairly well conditioned to search for, find and wait around with other pilots (in an accelerated high energy gaggle) to start, often for what seems to be quite and endless amount of time. What goes on in these gaggles is often quite exhilarating to say the least.

Your response is a gross oversimplification and is obviously aimed at me. So I'll bite and respond.

We already know the behavior that a start time limit would produce. Look at any start recording in see you where it's late in the day and the conditions are expected to be very week. The final day of this years PAGC is a great example. There are many, many more.

I contend that we simply will move the endless start posturing process forward with a reasonable time limit on the "game." It will be the same, just shorter in many cases or in a day where conditions are expected to be strongest late in the day. I am in NO WAY asking for a Grand Prix start in all US contest. Please! That would be too good. Too simple!

That said, in a "real" glider race start (Sailplane Grand Prix), the better pilots actually leave the followers rather quickly. I do not believe that (in the U.S.) gaggles would be any larger than they are now. I contend that the gaggles would be SMALLER and would BREAK UP FASTER than current US rules. But I digress...

At the Sailplane Grand Prix World Championship level gaggles break up almost immediately (the best sailplane competition pilots in the world, easily capable of leeching most of the others all day long). Go ahead and look at the flights (recorded on YouTube) PLEASE rather than guessing what will happen! Don't assume or take what someone tells you here to be true. I promise you that SGP finishes are never a big gaggle. In fact usually 20 minutes into the task they are broken up. These are 20 glider classes (no bigger or smaller than our nationals usually). SGP gaggles break up rather quickly on weak and strong days alike (and in mountains and flatlands).

This misconception propagated by many here about Sailplane Grand Prix or start time limits promoting gaggles is amazing in light of those clear, easily available facts. Watch the races. See what happens.

Furthermore, I contend that IT IS ACTUALLY UNLIMITED START WINDOWS (our current rules) THAT PROMOTE OUR GAGGLES. I believe that I can prove it with a short video mash-up of some recent U.S. tasks. You betcha...coming soon! Thanks for forcing me to do more homework Andy.

The definition of insanity is said to be "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Wise words, wise words.

I simply would rather "get to it" and race with less dangerous, wasteful loitering in the start area. A fact many here seem to consistently discount or ignore in these debates is the very real safety risk that our current starting rules consistently create. Eventually, this risk we all must take (willingly, in the case of many) is going to catch up with a couple of us. When it does it is going to sting. I have witnessed some extremely close calls. I am absolutely NOT A FAN of start gaggles waiting around for long periods (with great conditions by the way) playing the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game. This is the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring. I find it, frankly, disturbing. The interrelationship of unlimited start time and the two minute below max start height rule creates a mass panic of descenders as the first key starters begin to go (often a fake) out the top of a strong thermal. This pattern just keeps repeating usually. We must minimize this macho game of who can out-wait the rest of them.

Finally, there is no correlation to starting rules and course type. Starting sooner is equally good for all task types, even hats (OLC).

I have always thought quite differently that most. That said I am shocked in the way many perceive the pre start patterns of sailplane competition with a shoulder shrug to safety. It's a sport. Sports are constrained by boundaries in 3D space and time. DEAL WITH IT! ACCEPT IT. An unlimited start window makes it less of a sport and more of a game IMO.

Unlimited starting times are bad for competition quality and create highly dangerous, unpredictable patterns in our cherished soaring time/distance contests (absolutely not racing). More soon!

End-

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 11:33:04 UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> FWIW, again, I strongly disagree.
>
> Pilots are simply not innocently waiting around in the start cylinder for the "most favorable conditions." Common! That is probably only 10% true, especially at high levels. That statement is pretty funny to me and I think plain false. It damages the discussion here because it is so false. U.S. Pilots are, in general, fairly well conditioned to search for, find and wait around with other pilots (in an accelerated high energy gaggle) to start, often for what seems to be quite and endless amount of time. What goes on in these gaggles is often quite exhilarating to say the least.
>
> Your response is a gross oversimplification and is obviously aimed at me. So I'll bite and respond.
>
> We already know the behavior that a start time limit would produce. Look at any start recording in see you where it's late in the day and the conditions are expected to be very week. The final day of this years PAGC is a great example. There are many, many more.
>
> I contend that we simply will move the endless start posturing process forward with a reasonable time limit on the "game." It will be the same, just shorter in many cases or in a day where conditions are expected to be strongest late in the day. I am in NO WAY asking for a Grand Prix start in all US contest. Please! That would be too good. Too simple!
>
> That said, in a "real" glider race start (Sailplane Grand Prix), the better pilots actually leave the followers rather quickly. I do not believe that (in the U.S.) gaggles would be any larger than they are now. I contend that the gaggles would be SMALLER and would BREAK UP FASTER than current US rules. But I digress...
>
> At the Sailplane Grand Prix World Championship level gaggles break up almost immediately (the best sailplane competition pilots in the world, easily capable of leeching most of the others all day long). Go ahead and look at the flights (recorded on YouTube) PLEASE rather than guessing what will happen! Don't assume or take what someone tells you here to be true. I promise you that SGP finishes are never a big gaggle. In fact usually 20 minutes into the task they are broken up. These are 20 glider classes (no bigger or smaller than our nationals usually). SGP gaggles break up rather quickly on weak and strong days alike (and in mountains and flatlands).
>
> This misconception propagated by many here about Sailplane Grand Prix or start time limits promoting gaggles is amazing in light of those clear, easily available facts. Watch the races. See what happens.
>
> Furthermore, I contend that IT IS ACTUALLY UNLIMITED START WINDOWS (our current rules) THAT PROMOTE OUR GAGGLES. I believe that I can prove it with a short video mash-up of some recent U.S. tasks. You betcha...coming soon! Thanks for forcing me to do more homework Andy.
>
> The definition of insanity is said to be "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Wise words, wise words.
>
> I simply would rather "get to it" and race with less dangerous, wasteful loitering in the start area. A fact many here seem to consistently discount or ignore in these debates is the very real safety risk that our current starting rules consistently create. Eventually, this risk we all must take (willingly, in the case of many) is going to catch up with a couple of us. When it does it is going to sting. I have witnessed some extremely close calls. I am absolutely NOT A FAN of start gaggles waiting around for long periods (with great conditions by the way) playing the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game. This is the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring. I find it, frankly, disturbing. The interrelationship of unlimited start time and the two minute below max start height rule creates a mass panic of descenders as the first key starters begin to go (often a fake) out the top of a strong thermal. This pattern just keeps repeating usually. We must minimize this macho game of who can out-wait the rest of them.
>
> Finally, there is no correlation to starting rules and course type. Starting sooner is equally good for all task types, even hats (OLC).
>
> I have always thought quite differently that most. That said I am shocked in the way many perceive the pre start patterns of sailplane competition with a shoulder shrug to safety. It's a sport. Sports are constrained by boundaries in 3D space and time. DEAL WITH IT! ACCEPT IT. An unlimited start window makes it less of a sport and more of a game IMO.
>
> Unlimited starting times are bad for competition quality and create highly dangerous, unpredictable patterns in our cherished soaring time/distance contests (absolutely not racing). More soon!
>
> End-

Sean, are you going to try to get elected to the US Rules Committee?

[Richard[_9_]]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:45:37 AM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 11:33:04 UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > FWIW, again, I strongly disagree.
> >
> > Pilots are simply not innocently waiting around in the start cylinder for the "most favorable conditions." Common! That is probably only 10% true, especially at high levels. That statement is pretty funny to me and I think plain false. It damages the discussion here because it is so false. U.S. Pilots are, in general, fairly well conditioned to search for, find and wait around with other pilots (in an accelerated high energy gaggle) to start, often for what seems to be quite and endless amount of time. What goes on in these gaggles is often quite exhilarating to say the least.
> >
> > Your response is a gross oversimplification and is obviously aimed at me. So I'll bite and respond.
> >
> > We already know the behavior that a start time limit would produce. Look at any start recording in see you where it's late in the day and the conditions are expected to be very week. The final day of this years PAGC is a great example. There are many, many more.
> >
> > I contend that we simply will move the endless start posturing process forward with a reasonable time limit on the "game." It will be the same, just shorter in many cases or in a day where conditions are expected to be strongest late in the day. I am in NO WAY asking for a Grand Prix start in all US contest. Please! That would be too good. Too simple!
> >
> > That said, in a "real" glider race start (Sailplane Grand Prix), the better pilots actually leave the followers rather quickly. I do not believe that (in the U.S.) gaggles would be any larger than they are now. I contend that the gaggles would be SMALLER and would BREAK UP FASTER than current US rules. But I digress...
> >
> > At the Sailplane Grand Prix World Championship level gaggles break up almost immediately (the best sailplane competition pilots in the world, easily capable of leeching most of the others all day long). Go ahead and look at the flights (recorded on YouTube) PLEASE rather than guessing what will happen! Don't assume or take what someone tells you here to be true. I promise you that SGP finishes are never a big gaggle. In fact usually 20 minutes into the task they are broken up. These are 20 glider classes (no bigger or smaller than our nationals usually). SGP gaggles break up rather quickly on weak and strong days alike (and in mountains and flatlands).
> >
> > This misconception propagated by many here about Sailplane Grand Prix or start time limits promoting gaggles is amazing in light of those clear, easily available facts. Watch the races. See what happens.
> >
> > Furthermore, I contend that IT IS ACTUALLY UNLIMITED START WINDOWS (our current rules) THAT PROMOTE OUR GAGGLES. I believe that I can prove it with a short video mash-up of some recent U.S. tasks. You betcha...coming soon! Thanks for forcing me to do more homework Andy.
> >
> > The definition of insanity is said to be "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Wise words, wise words.
> >
> > I simply would rather "get to it" and race with less dangerous, wasteful loitering in the start area. A fact many here seem to consistently discount or ignore in these debates is the very real safety risk that our current starting rules consistently create. Eventually, this risk we all must take (willingly, in the case of many) is going to catch up with a couple of us. When it does it is going to sting. I have witnessed some extremely close calls. I am absolutely NOT A FAN of start gaggles waiting around for long periods (with great conditions by the way) playing the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game.. This is the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring. I find it, frankly, disturbing. The interrelationship of unlimited start time and the two minute below max start height rule creates a mass panic of descenders as the first key starters begin to go (often a fake) out the top of a strong thermal. This pattern just keeps repeating usually.. We must minimize this macho game of who can out-wait the rest of them.
> >
> > Finally, there is no correlation to starting rules and course type. Starting sooner is equally good for all task types, even hats (OLC).
> >
> > I have always thought quite differently that most. That said I am shocked in the way many perceive the pre start patterns of sailplane competition with a shoulder shrug to safety. It's a sport. Sports are constrained by boundaries in 3D space and time. DEAL WITH IT! ACCEPT IT. An unlimited start window makes it less of a sport and more of a game IMO.
> >
> > Unlimited starting times are bad for competition quality and create highly dangerous, unpredictable patterns in our cherished soaring time/distance contests (absolutely not racing). More soon!
> >
> > End-
>
> Sean, are you going to try to get elected to the US Rules Committee?

Gosh, I thought it was aimed at me.

Richard

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 1:33:04 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> FWIW, again, I strongly disagree.
>
> Pilots are simply not innocently waiting around in the start cylinder for the "most favorable conditions." Common! That is probably only 10% true, especially at high levels. That statement is pretty funny to me and I think plain false. It damages the discussion here because it is so false. U.S. Pilots are, in general, fairly well conditioned to search for, find and wait around with other pilots (in an accelerated high energy gaggle) to start, often for what seems to be quite and endless amount of time. What goes on in these gaggles is often quite exhilarating to say the least.
>
> Your response is a gross oversimplification and is obviously aimed at me. So I'll bite and respond.
>
> We already know the behavior that a start time limit would produce. Look at any start recording in see you where it's late in the day and the conditions are expected to be very week. The final day of this years PAGC is a great example. There are many, many more.
>
> I contend that we simply will move the endless start posturing process forward with a reasonable time limit on the "game." It will be the same, just shorter in many cases or in a day where conditions are expected to be strongest late in the day. I am in NO WAY asking for a Grand Prix start in all US contest. Please! That would be too good. Too simple!
>
> That said, in a "real" glider race start (Sailplane Grand Prix), the better pilots actually leave the followers rather quickly. I do not believe that (in the U.S.) gaggles would be any larger than they are now. I contend that the gaggles would be SMALLER and would BREAK UP FASTER than current US rules. But I digress...
>
> At the Sailplane Grand Prix World Championship level gaggles break up almost immediately (the best sailplane competition pilots in the world, easily capable of leeching most of the others all day long). Go ahead and look at the flights (recorded on YouTube) PLEASE rather than guessing what will happen! Don't assume or take what someone tells you here to be true. I promise you that SGP finishes are never a big gaggle. In fact usually 20 minutes into the task they are broken up. These are 20 glider classes (no bigger or smaller than our nationals usually). SGP gaggles break up rather quickly on weak and strong days alike (and in mountains and flatlands).
>
> This misconception propagated by many here about Sailplane Grand Prix or start time limits promoting gaggles is amazing in light of those clear, easily available facts. Watch the races. See what happens.
>
> Furthermore, I contend that IT IS ACTUALLY UNLIMITED START WINDOWS (our current rules) THAT PROMOTE OUR GAGGLES. I believe that I can prove it with a short video mash-up of some recent U.S. tasks. You betcha...coming soon! Thanks for forcing me to do more homework Andy.
>
> The definition of insanity is said to be "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Wise words, wise words.
>
> I simply would rather "get to it" and race with less dangerous, wasteful loitering in the start area. A fact many here seem to consistently discount or ignore in these debates is the very real safety risk that our current starting rules consistently create. Eventually, this risk we all must take (willingly, in the case of many) is going to catch up with a couple of us. When it does it is going to sting. I have witnessed some extremely close calls. I am absolutely NOT A FAN of start gaggles waiting around for long periods (with great conditions by the way) playing the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game. This is the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring. I find it, frankly, disturbing. The interrelationship of unlimited start time and the two minute below max start height rule creates a mass panic of descenders as the first key starters begin to go (often a fake) out the top of a strong thermal. This pattern just keeps repeating usually. We must minimize this macho game of who can out-wait the rest of them.
>
> Finally, there is no correlation to starting rules and course type. Starting sooner is equally good for all task types, even hats (OLC).
>
> I have always thought quite differently that most. That said I am shocked in the way many perceive the pre start patterns of sailplane competition with a shoulder shrug to safety. It's a sport. Sports are constrained by boundaries in 3D space and time. DEAL WITH IT! ACCEPT IT. An unlimited start window makes it less of a sport and more of a game IMO.
>
> Unlimited starting times are bad for competition quality and create highly dangerous, unpredictable patterns in our cherished soaring time/distance contests (absolutely not racing). More soon!
>
> End-

While trying not to be disagreeable, I don't agree.
If the intent is to start last and run down the group, the pilot still waits as late as possible. Then, when the start time window runs out, he goes, along with everybody else that is trying to do the same thing. The competitive part of the fleet all starts in the last few seconds and has been winding up at the top for the last 2 or 3 minutes.
I was there when this was tried. We scared ourselves silly.
UH

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:33:04 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> FWIW, again, I strongly disagree.
>
> Pilots are simply not innocently waiting around in the start cylinder for the "most favorable conditions." Common! That is probably only 10% true, especially at high levels. That statement is pretty funny to me and I think plain false. It damages the discussion here because it is so false. U.S. Pilots are, in general, fairly well conditioned to search for, find and wait around with other pilots (in an accelerated high energy gaggle) to start, often for what seems to be quite and endless amount of time. What goes on in these gaggles is often quite exhilarating to say the least.
>
> Your response is a gross oversimplification and is obviously aimed at me. So I'll bite and respond.
>
> We already know the behavior that a start time limit would produce. Look at any start recording in see you where it's late in the day and the conditions are expected to be very week. The final day of this years PAGC is a great example. There are many, many more.
>
> I contend that we simply will move the endless start posturing process forward with a reasonable time limit on the "game." It will be the same, just shorter in many cases or in a day where conditions are expected to be strongest late in the day. I am in NO WAY asking for a Grand Prix start in all US contest. Please! That would be too good. Too simple!
>
> That said, in a "real" glider race start (Sailplane Grand Prix), the better pilots actually leave the followers rather quickly. I do not believe that (in the U.S.) gaggles would be any larger than they are now. I contend that the gaggles would be SMALLER and would BREAK UP FASTER than current US rules. But I digress...
>
> At the Sailplane Grand Prix World Championship level gaggles break up almost immediately (the best sailplane competition pilots in the world, easily capable of leeching most of the others all day long). Go ahead and look at the flights (recorded on YouTube) PLEASE rather than guessing what will happen! Don't assume or take what someone tells you here to be true. I promise you that SGP finishes are never a big gaggle. In fact usually 20 minutes into the task they are broken up. These are 20 glider classes (no bigger or smaller than our nationals usually). SGP gaggles break up rather quickly on weak and strong days alike (and in mountains and flatlands).
>
> This misconception propagated by many here about Sailplane Grand Prix or start time limits promoting gaggles is amazing in light of those clear, easily available facts. Watch the races. See what happens.
>
> Furthermore, I contend that IT IS ACTUALLY UNLIMITED START WINDOWS (our current rules) THAT PROMOTE OUR GAGGLES. I believe that I can prove it with a short video mash-up of some recent U.S. tasks. You betcha...coming soon! Thanks for forcing me to do more homework Andy.
>
> The definition of insanity is said to be "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Wise words, wise words.
>
> I simply would rather "get to it" and race with less dangerous, wasteful loitering in the start area. A fact many here seem to consistently discount or ignore in these debates is the very real safety risk that our current starting rules consistently create. Eventually, this risk we all must take (willingly, in the case of many) is going to catch up with a couple of us. When it does it is going to sting. I have witnessed some extremely close calls. I am absolutely NOT A FAN of start gaggles waiting around for long periods (with great conditions by the way) playing the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game. This is the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring. I find it, frankly, disturbing. The interrelationship of unlimited start time and the two minute below max start height rule creates a mass panic of descenders as the first key starters begin to go (often a fake) out the top of a strong thermal. This pattern just keeps repeating usually. We must minimize this macho game of who can out-wait the rest of them.
>
> Finally, there is no correlation to starting rules and course type. Starting sooner is equally good for all task types, even hats (OLC).
>
> I have always thought quite differently that most. That said I am shocked in the way many perceive the pre start patterns of sailplane competition with a shoulder shrug to safety. It's a sport. Sports are constrained by boundaries in 3D space and time. DEAL WITH IT! ACCEPT IT. An unlimited start window makes it less of a sport and more of a game IMO.
>
> Unlimited starting times are bad for competition quality and create highly dangerous, unpredictable patterns in our cherished soaring time/distance contests (absolutely not racing). More soon!
>
> End-


Not really targeted at anyone in particular - though the "real racing" line probably was a fun poke to get the ball rolling. ;-)

No opposition from me in setting a last start time - we put it in the rules and didn't get a single taker in two years so we let it drop in our efforts to simplify. It can easily be put back in, though the scoring programming would need to be done and it's non-trivial. Manual scoring is too much of a pain. Maybe something super-clever can be thought up to minimize the scorer and programmer burden.

I am a bit confused by two contentions I've heard from pilots. One is that having a GP start is totally fair because everyone starts at the same time so no one has an advantage. A related contention (repeated here) is that slower pilots can't keep up with faster ones when they all start at the same time and quickly fall back from the lead.

The other contention I've heard is that leeching confers an significant advantage on those who follow. There have been two forms of this - and a particular flavoring for Flarm. The first form is that pilots starting later can use the leader's thermals to quickly catch up (coring lift faster or having twice as many thermals to sample are the means to this end). The Flarm variant of this argument is that you can now perform this trick from 5 miles back instead of two miles back. The other variant on the contention is more about keeping up than catching up - that slower pilots can figuratively lash their glider to a leader's and use that leader to keep from falling behind (the Flarm flavoring extends the length of the tow rope). This allow them to score almost as well as the leader, or at least better than they would have.

I can't reconcile these two contentions. Either leeching confers a real benefit big enough to worry about or it doesn't. Having thoughtful approaches to a whole host of racing issues (task types, start formats, technology, scoring) relies at east in part on being accurate in our understanding of the magnitude of this effect.

If leeching confers a benefit then compressing the field makes races less fair - to the extent a tighter field increases the opportunity to leech (it certainly doesn't decrease it). True, a dedicated leech need only attach him/herself to a single glider and that is mostly independent of race format (where you go, I go). But a look at almost any race shows virtually everyone joining thermals being used by a glider in front of them at some point(s) along the way and gaggles form from this very behavior - surely we aren't saying that these things don't happen and don't exist? Or are we saying it's okay to leech if you start out on course rather than at the start? Or if you were heading sort of the same direction anyway? Or if you at least try to lead out some times?

If leeching isn't a significant benefit then we needn't worry about trying to spread the field out, but also we really needn't worry about Flarm leeching either because seeing a glider 5 miles ahead of you, while an interesting curiosity, won't allow you to catch up beyond your natural ability to make better speed on course and it may not even allow you to do much to keep up. If you can't keep up when you start wingtip to wingtip there's no way they are going to be able to keep up trying to find someone else's thermals 5 minutes later.

BTW, I've started looking at some actual races, particularly ones that were reputed to be "leechy" and doing some analytics. I'm looking at every thermal for every competitor for each task and recording whether each thermal was independently found or "borrowed" from someone ahead - and how far ahead.. I'm also measuring whether in the latter case the heading of the trailing glider on course would have taken it within 2km and 1000' of the 'lead' glider (Stealth range). I want some real data about how much leeching is really going on and how much of it might be reduced by Stealth mode. [If you want, PM me your suggestions for "leechy" contests (and specify which day) - I'll try to take a look.] One interesting metric is average climb rate achieved in leeched thermals versus independently found thermals - for each pilot and for the entire field. Results for the first contest day I looked at were...surprising. Occasionally you can even see gliders altering course in response to a glider ahead connecting with lift.

9B

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

While I'm a bit "disconnected from a current'racer'", I will say that "leeching" has been around for a while.

I will also state, while you can leech, it does NOT mean you can climb as well as another when you're "scrapping the trees".

I've, "been there, done that" and lost a good regional placing trying to go for a slightly higher podium position.....

"Way back when......", I remember pilots picking starting positions in the morning. When a "hot pilot" picked a start time, a "whole gaggle picked whatever time was shortly thereafter......".
This was back when I was a crew..... likely before some in this thread were born......

I still say, "You can follow a better pilot, but can you "really" core a thermal & get away??

Best I can come up with is...... I did a "pass" in a thermal (of a slow climber) and looked over my shoulder to see KS & SM following me.
Likely will never forget that.
No, they kicked my butt...... sigh.

[[email protected]]

Sean, it must frustrating to always be right and have to spend SO much time explaining yourself to those who aren't bright or experienced enough to figure it out on their own. :)

Seriously, I invite you to examine the starting times of the leaders at Elmira: IIRC, seldom did they hang around and often they were some of the first ones out of the gate. There was little of the pre-start maneuvering I've seen at many contests as pilots jockey to be the last one to leave and try to bounce the gaggles on the first leg to catch up. For one thing, the weather wasn't usually very kind to those who lingered. For another, we were blessed with pilots who had their own ideas about what to do to win and flew that way. You and I haven't flown at the same contests so perhaps your experience is different. I saw a lot of what you describe many years ago but as the number of participants has declined precipitously, it's been less of an issue. And to Andy's point, I have to admit I saw less leeching at Elmira than in prior years.

There was one exception to the no late starts paradigm: Gary Ittner won the third day by leaving nearly 30 minutes later than the next-fastest finishers (and 10+ minutes after the next-to-last starter) on the longest task and at the highest speed of the contest. Who really knows what went into his decision (I recall his saying something about it not being altogether intentional). But one of the most outstanding performances of the national contest would arguably have been prevented by a 30 minute start window rule.

I'm playing with you, of course. One can prove anything with statistics. But you know that already. :)

In the spirit of cooperation, however, and as long as we're thinking out of the box, here's an idea.

Let's say you're right with your statement that the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game [is] the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring." The incentive to orbit at 80 kts. to 100 kts. to avoid (1) popping out of the top of the start cylinder or (2) being the first to leave is built into the rules.

So let's get rid of the 2 minute rule. That was put in to prevent pilots from climbing up above the cylinder and diving down through it (and through the gaggles) to start through the side. The solution to THAT problem is very easy: get rid of the start cylinder. Let's move to a simple start LINE with a maximum altitude. Start whenever you want by crossing the line in the prescribed direction. No incentive to cluster at the top of the thermal; just be under the top of the gate when you go through. To make it even safer, pilots would have to announce their intent and enter the start line area for a run at the gate by passing over an initial point (we could abbreviate it "IP") so everyone would know where they were. Yeah...

Within weeks, software designers would add a feature to graphically depict the entry path all the way into the start line on a moving map without overspeeding. Simple. No more pushing the nose forward the last few seconds and ignoring the redline to squeak under the top of gate. Just tell the software what your personal maximum speed is (the manufacturer's redline, altitude adjusted, would be the default) and follow directions, as if on a very fast final glide.

And with FLARM, no more worries about crowding and potential collisions. Eureka!!! Much safer and more straightforward starts. Set the line any height you want. Sometimes the solution really is simple.

This would be great for folks like you who want head-to-head racing. No more gliders starting as far as 10 miles apart through opposite sides of the cylinder or, even more outrageous, out the top.

Just to head off the inevitable objections, the talk about high-speed start gate accidents in the old days was, in my experience, overblown. I only know of two incidents. One involved a glider where the main pins weren't safetied and the whole assembly came apart at high speed, with the pilot parachuting to safety. The other involved an enthusiastic young pilot in an early (read: flexible) ASW 20 who experienced flutter and landed safely. I'm sure there were others, but the start line was not nearly as lethal as those who promoted the adoption of GPS loggers made it out to be in order to hasten the mandatory use of those gadgets.

We're currently using finish lines in some contests; how about a start line? I can say from experience that a pilot knew exactly where he could and couldn't fly (no circling in the gate), and knew exactly where to look for traffic even without FLARM.

So let's quit arguing about limited start times and get back to the way real men (and women) flew in the golden age of soaring! (sigh)

Just trying to help.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:21:59 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I'm not sure how we got from a discussion on the impact of FLARM stealth on soaring skills and leeching, on the one hand, and time-limited start gates on the other.

They are very related. The whole reason for stealth mode is to reduce the value of flarm for gaggling and leeching. So, that means people who want stealth think gaggling and leeching are a problem, and it's useful to put in rules changes that reduce the benefits of gaggling and leeching.

Multiple start gates, event timers, last start, 15 minute brackets, less (if that's possible) assigned tasks, etc. etc. etc. are all rules changes proposed to reduce gaggling and leeching. That's why this thread went there.

If gaggling and leeching is a problem so we need to impose stealth mode -- which has some costs, to safety, to situational awareness, and for many to the enjoyment of the contest (it's fun to know where your buddies are) -- then it seems logical to explore all these other approaches to stopping gaggling and leeching.

if nothing else, the benefits of flarm for gaggling and leeching would be much lower if one adopted other rules changes that reduced gaggling and leeching.

All the other rules changes also have costs, downsides, complexity and so forth, which is why we don't have them (sometimes, anymore). But if gaggling and leeching are problems bad enough to motivate imposing stealth mode, then they must be bad enough to motivate reconsidering the rest of the anti-gaggling and leeching changes. Or maybe if we reconsidered one of those, we'd put enough stop to gaggling and leeching that we wouldn't have to go through the bother and other costs of imposing stealth.

Not advocating a side here, just why the dicussion is going this way and encouraging that larger discussion.

And here I thought it was going to be a boring rules season...

John Cochrane

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 2:58:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Sean, it must frustrating to always be right and have to spend SO much time explaining yourself to those who aren't bright or experienced enough to figure it out on their own. :)
>
> Seriously, I invite you to examine the starting times of the leaders at Elmira: IIRC, seldom did they hang around and often they were some of the first ones out of the gate. There was little of the pre-start maneuvering I've seen at many contests as pilots jockey to be the last one to leave and try to bounce the gaggles on the first leg to catch up. For one thing, the weather wasn't usually very kind to those who lingered. For another, we were blessed with pilots who had their own ideas about what to do to win and flew that way. You and I haven't flown at the same contests so perhaps your experience is different. I saw a lot of what you describe many years ago but as the number of participants has declined precipitously, it's been less of an issue. And to Andy's point, I have to admit I saw less leeching at Elmira than in prior years.
>
> There was one exception to the no late starts paradigm: Gary Ittner won the third day by leaving nearly 30 minutes later than the next-fastest finishers (and 10+ minutes after the next-to-last starter) on the longest task and at the highest speed of the contest. Who really knows what went into his decision (I recall his saying something about it not being altogether intentional). But one of the most outstanding performances of the national contest would arguably have been prevented by a 30 minute start window rule.
>
> I'm playing with you, of course. One can prove anything with statistics. But you know that already. :)
>
> In the spirit of cooperation, however, and as long as we're thinking out of the box, here's an idea.
>
> Let's say you're right with your statement that the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game [is] the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring." The incentive to orbit at 80 kts. to 100 kts. to avoid (1) popping out of the top of the start cylinder or (2) being the first to leave is built into the rules.
>
> So let's get rid of the 2 minute rule. That was put in to prevent pilots from climbing up above the cylinder and diving down through it (and through the gaggles) to start through the side. The solution to THAT problem is very easy: get rid of the start cylinder. Let's move to a simple start LINE with a maximum altitude. Start whenever you want by crossing the line in the prescribed direction. No incentive to cluster at the top of the thermal; just be under the top of the gate when you go through. To make it even safer, pilots would have to announce their intent and enter the start line area for a run at the gate by passing over an initial point (we could abbreviate it "IP") so everyone would know where they were. Yeah...
>
> Within weeks, software designers would add a feature to graphically depict the entry path all the way into the start line on a moving map without overspeeding. Simple. No more pushing the nose forward the last few seconds and ignoring the redline to squeak under the top of gate. Just tell the software what your personal maximum speed is (the manufacturer's redline, altitude adjusted, would be the default) and follow directions, as if on a very fast final glide.
>
> And with FLARM, no more worries about crowding and potential collisions. Eureka!!! Much safer and more straightforward starts. Set the line any height you want. Sometimes the solution really is simple.
>
> This would be great for folks like you who want head-to-head racing. No more gliders starting as far as 10 miles apart through opposite sides of the cylinder or, even more outrageous, out the top.
>
> Just to head off the inevitable objections, the talk about high-speed start gate accidents in the old days was, in my experience, overblown. I only know of two incidents. One involved a glider where the main pins weren't safetied and the whole assembly came apart at high speed, with the pilot parachuting to safety. The other involved an enthusiastic young pilot in an early (read: flexible) ASW 20 who experienced flutter and landed safely. I'm sure there were others, but the start line was not nearly as lethal as those who promoted the adoption of GPS loggers made it out to be in order to hasten the mandatory use of those gadgets.
>
> We're currently using finish lines in some contests; how about a start line? I can say from experience that a pilot knew exactly where he could and couldn't fly (no circling in the gate), and knew exactly where to look for traffic even without FLARM.
>
> So let's quit arguing about limited start times and get back to the way real men (and women) flew in the golden age of soaring! (sigh)
>
> Just trying to help.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

I really can't think of any big reasons against a start line. There is some modest incentive to cluster off the upwind edge so maybe a little hooking the gate? You would almost certainly have to use a line if you wanted to use any kind of time-regulated start procedure to reduce leeching. (true for GP obviously, but also 15-minute start windows).

Generally the biggest constraint on where people start is where the thermals are. They stubbornly refuse to appear where and when I want them so I have to adjust. I think start out the top has been helpful in keeping people from getting low on the first leg, though when I looked at it last it appeared that people paid a price for this insurance in the form of slower initial club rates on average. Not surprising when you think about it.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:52:11 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 2:58:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Sean, it must frustrating to always be right and have to spend SO much time explaining yourself to those who aren't bright or experienced enough to figure it out on their own. :)
> >
> > Seriously, I invite you to examine the starting times of the leaders at Elmira: IIRC, seldom did they hang around and often they were some of the first ones out of the gate. There was little of the pre-start maneuvering I've seen at many contests as pilots jockey to be the last one to leave and try to bounce the gaggles on the first leg to catch up. For one thing, the weather wasn't usually very kind to those who lingered. For another, we were blessed with pilots who had their own ideas about what to do to win and flew that way. You and I haven't flown at the same contests so perhaps your experience is different. I saw a lot of what you describe many years ago but as the number of participants has declined precipitously, it's been less of an issue. And to Andy's point, I have to admit I saw less leeching at Elmira than in prior years.
> >
> > There was one exception to the no late starts paradigm: Gary Ittner won the third day by leaving nearly 30 minutes later than the next-fastest finishers (and 10+ minutes after the next-to-last starter) on the longest task and at the highest speed of the contest. Who really knows what went into his decision (I recall his saying something about it not being altogether intentional). But one of the most outstanding performances of the national contest would arguably have been prevented by a 30 minute start window rule.
> >
> > I'm playing with you, of course. One can prove anything with statistics.. But you know that already. :)
> >
> > In the spirit of cooperation, however, and as long as we're thinking out of the box, here's an idea.
> >
> > Let's say you're right with your statement that the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game [is] the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring." The incentive to orbit at 80 kts. to 100 kts. to avoid (1) popping out of the top of the start cylinder or (2) being the first to leave is built into the rules.
> >
> > So let's get rid of the 2 minute rule. That was put in to prevent pilots from climbing up above the cylinder and diving down through it (and through the gaggles) to start through the side. The solution to THAT problem is very easy: get rid of the start cylinder. Let's move to a simple start LINE with a maximum altitude. Start whenever you want by crossing the line in the prescribed direction. No incentive to cluster at the top of the thermal; just be under the top of the gate when you go through. To make it even safer, pilots would have to announce their intent and enter the start line area for a run at the gate by passing over an initial point (we could abbreviate it "IP") so everyone would know where they were. Yeah...
> >
> > Within weeks, software designers would add a feature to graphically depict the entry path all the way into the start line on a moving map without overspeeding. Simple. No more pushing the nose forward the last few seconds and ignoring the redline to squeak under the top of gate. Just tell the software what your personal maximum speed is (the manufacturer's redline, altitude adjusted, would be the default) and follow directions, as if on a very fast final glide.
> >
> > And with FLARM, no more worries about crowding and potential collisions.. Eureka!!! Much safer and more straightforward starts. Set the line any height you want. Sometimes the solution really is simple.
> >
> > This would be great for folks like you who want head-to-head racing. No more gliders starting as far as 10 miles apart through opposite sides of the cylinder or, even more outrageous, out the top.
> >
> > Just to head off the inevitable objections, the talk about high-speed start gate accidents in the old days was, in my experience, overblown. I only know of two incidents. One involved a glider where the main pins weren't safetied and the whole assembly came apart at high speed, with the pilot parachuting to safety. The other involved an enthusiastic young pilot in an early (read: flexible) ASW 20 who experienced flutter and landed safely. I'm sure there were others, but the start line was not nearly as lethal as those who promoted the adoption of GPS loggers made it out to be in order to hasten the mandatory use of those gadgets.
> >
> > We're currently using finish lines in some contests; how about a start line? I can say from experience that a pilot knew exactly where he could and couldn't fly (no circling in the gate), and knew exactly where to look for traffic even without FLARM.
> >
> > So let's quit arguing about limited start times and get back to the way real men (and women) flew in the golden age of soaring! (sigh)
> >
> > Just trying to help.
> >
> > Chip Bearden
> > ASW 24 "JB"
> > U.S.A.
>
> I really can't think of any big reasons against a start line. There is some modest incentive to cluster off the upwind edge so maybe a little hooking the gate? You would almost certainly have to use a line if you wanted to use any kind of time-regulated start procedure to reduce leeching. (true for GP obviously, but also 15-minute start windows).
>
> Generally the biggest constraint on where people start is where the thermals are. They stubbornly refuse to appear where and when I want them so I have to adjust. I think start out the top has been helpful in keeping people from getting low on the first leg, though when I looked at it last it appeared that people paid a price for this insurance in the form of slower initial club rates on average. Not surprising when you think about it.
>
> 9B

My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
UH

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
> UH

Yup - that's consistent with what I've seen looking at a bunch of starts before and after start out the top was implemented. A slight tendency to try to win the start with a better climb which tends to spread people out a bit.. Ironically, In the starts I looked at people who started out the side tended to find stronger initial climbs. I'm sure it varies.

9B

[Sean Fidler]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 7:47:25 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
> > UH
>
> Yup - that's consistent with what I've seen looking at a bunch of starts before and after start out the top was implemented. A slight tendency to try to win the start with a better climb which tends to spread people out a bit. Ironically, In the starts I looked at people who started out the side tended to find stronger initial climbs. I'm sure it varies.
>
> 9B

You all know Ill be back next year either way...

That said, I think the time has come to start moving the "dials" a bit more (than has been happening recently with the RC) and then assess the actual behaviors that result (rather than trying to debate what we "think" will happen). If, for example we decided to institute the start gate time limit (thirty minutes or one hour, whatever), would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe it would solve some of the problems.

It would be interesting to see the behavior if on a predicted 5 knot day, one found themselves in a 4.5 kt (and has only found 3.5 kt so far) knot climb with 10 minutes until the start time limit expires. Perhaps one will decide to start rather than a) get stuck with 3.5 later or b) simply waiting around with the pack all afternoon. Maybe many would start earlier rather than risk getting very close to the time limit and risking to consequences.. It actually makes taking a strong climb early a potential advantage. Its hard to predict exaclty how that small change would affect the "game" other than...I basically guarantee...on average we will all be on course sooner than today and we will spend less time in the "circle of death."

I am all for Stealth Mode now by the way, 100%. See, I'm flexible. I think that is clearly out of control. I hope that passes.

In terms of score sheets, I think the top dogs (XG, DJ, DB, KM, ect, etc) are still going to win many of the major contests regardless. In fact, I think the results will mainly remain the same top to bottom no matter what rules we adopt. Im not expecting any real change in results. This is not why I am arguing here. Im arguing because I remain very concerned about start safety and wasting time there vs. getting out on course. Im still shocked how many want to continue the possibility of the extended, spinning, pre-start fur-balls we all so enjoy.

Yes, I admit it. I absolutely hate having to keep track of or wait around with the gaggle(s) and playing the start game when its clearly very soar-able out on course (there is a reason they open the start gate you know!). I often start early anyway knowing full well that some will successfully grind me down eventually out the task (you know who you are). I think I will need to toughen up on that clear weakness if we continue to do "what we are doing" as its a significant give away. I hate that. I may have to play "the game" even more than now.

This is how they did it in the "glory days?" I thought the "glory days" each pilot had a start time and flew thru a defined start gate? What did I miss? IMO, what we do in sailplane contests today is a form of "time trailing" on a fairly free course (see HAT) and a key part of this game is jockeying (or simply out-waiting) to get into a position to "draft up" on the gang (or key pilot) ahead. At least in a Grand Prix you don't gain anything by leeching on. Your all even. And in SGP the scoring favors the winner of the day, greatly. So their is motivation to break the pack (just staying with the pack is not enough).

Finally, in the 5 years I have been flying sailplane contests, I have not seen any discernible change in start gate behavior or patterns. The 2 minute rule is a big, big player in the scariness. I understand the reasoning for the rule but think the behavior is too costly.

Here is a thought. Why is this below max altitude so short (2 min)? Especially considering that start gates are UNLIMITED! Have we considered, for example, a 10 minute below max altitude? Imagine how that would change the game. Or how about you have to go 500 feet below max altitude to reset? At current, one can quickly spiral down from above the limit and keep a lot of energy going in that 2 minutes. Especially if the thermal is wide, strong and well marked by other competitors. Of course this is highly dangerous. I think the problem is that 2 min is really not long enough to settle everyone down. In other common scenarios, one can keep going up, then changing your mind, going down, waiting 2 min, etc, etc, etc. With only 2 min....one can see others leave (make an obvious start) and then quickly descend, wait 2 min, climb back up and start and only be 3-4 minutes behind the "target." An almost perfect leech (draft) up position.

Just a thought.

Sean

[Sean Fidler]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 7:47:25 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
> > UH
>
> Yup - that's consistent with what I've seen looking at a bunch of starts before and after start out the top was implemented. A slight tendency to try to win the start with a better climb which tends to spread people out a bit. Ironically, In the starts I looked at people who started out the side tended to find stronger initial climbs. I'm sure it varies.
>
> 9B

You all know Ill be back next year either way...

That said, I think the time has come to start moving the "dials" a bit more (than has been happening recently with the RC) and then assess the actual behaviors that result (rather than trying to debate what we "think" will happen). If, for example we decided to institute the start gate time limit (thirty minutes or one hour, whatever), would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe it would solve some of the problems.

It would be interesting to see the behavior if on a predicted 5 knot day, one found themselves in a 4.5 kt (and has only found 3.5 kt so far) knot climb with 10 minutes until the start time limit expires. Perhaps one will decide to start rather than a) get stuck with 3.5 later or b) simply waiting around with the pack all afternoon. Maybe many would start earlier rather than risk getting very close to the time limit and risking to consequences.. It actually makes taking a strong climb early a potential advantage. Its hard to predict exaclty how that small change would affect the "game" other than...I basically guarantee...on average we will all be on course sooner than today and we will spend less time in the "circle of death."

I am all for Stealth Mode now by the way, 100%. See, I'm flexible. I think that is clearly out of control. I hope that passes.

In terms of score sheets, I think the top dogs (XG, DJ, DB, KM, ect, etc) are still going to win many of the major contests regardless. In fact, I think the results will mainly remain the same top to bottom no matter what rules we adopt. Im not expecting any real change in results. This is not why I am arguing here. Im arguing because I remain very concerned about start safety and wasting time there vs. getting out on course. Im still shocked how many want to continue the possibility of the extended, spinning, pre-start fur-balls we all so enjoy.

Yes, I admit it. I absolutely hate having to keep track of or wait around with the gaggle(s) and playing the start game when its clearly very soar-able out on course (there is a reason they open the start gate you know!). I often start early anyway knowing full well that some will successfully grind me down eventually out the task (you know who you are). I think I will need to toughen up on that clear weakness if we continue to do "what we are doing" as its a significant give away. I hate that. I may have to play "the game" even more than now.

This is how they did it in the "glory days?" I thought the "glory days" each pilot had a start time and flew thru a defined start gate? What did I miss? IMO, what we do in sailplane contests today is a form of "time trailing" on a fairly free course (see HAT) and a key part of this game is jockeying (or simply out-waiting) to get into a position to "draft up" on the gang (or key pilot) ahead. At least in a Grand Prix you don't gain anything by leeching on. You're all basically even. And in SGP the scoring favors the winner of the day, greatly. So there is good motivation to break the pack (just staying with the pack is not a good strategy as it usually is in US contest, especially if you drafted up 3-5 minutes on the group you are with...HMMM).

Finally, in the 5 years I have been flying sailplane contests, I have not seen any discernible change in start gate behavior or patterns. The 2 minute rule is a big, big player in the scariness. The ability to wait and wait is commonly utilized. I understand the reasoning for the rule but think the negative behavior is clearly too costly to the sport.

Here is a thought. Why is this below max altitude so short (2 min)? Especially considering that start gates open for an UNLIMITED period of time! Have we considered, for example, a 10 minute below max altitude? Imagine how that would change the game. Or how about you have to go 500 feet below max altitude to reset? 1000 ft? At current, one can quickly spiral down from above the limit and keep a lot of energy going in that 2 minutes. Especially if the thermal is wide, strong and well marked by other competitors. Of course this is highly dangerous. I think the problem is that 2 min is really not long enough to settle everyone down. In other common scenarios, one can keep going up, then changing your mind, going down, waiting 2 min, etc, etc, etc. With only 2 min...one can see others leave (make an obvious start) and then quickly descend, wait 2 min, climb back up and start and only be 3-4 minutes behind the "target." An almost perfect leech (draft) up position.

Just a thought.

Sean

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:46:13 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:

> That said, I think the time has come to start moving the "dials" a bit more (than has been happening recently with the RC) and then assess the actual behaviors that result (rather than trying to debate what we "think" will happen). If, for example we decided to institute the start gate time limit (thirty minutes or one hour, whatever), would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe it would solve some of the problems.

RC is pretty flexible - and welcomes innovations. Waivers are not unreasonably denied. Happens every year multiple times. Feel free to try things. You might have to score by hand as we don't have unlimited capacity to change the scoring programs. Getting something as simple as a last start time implemented - like it or not - takes thought and effort to implement. Ron Gleason and I spent a couple of hours going through all the implications of how to pick a start time (and especially a start location) if a pilot starts after the gate close time - assuming you don't just DQ them. Were they headed towards vs away from the first turn, inside vs outside the cylinder when time ran out? We finally concluded you couldn't score it by hand. Many people spend their precious and limited vacation time on attending a contest, so they kind of deserve to have someone dedicate more than the time it takes to type up an idea to thinking about how (and whether) it would actually work.

> Here is a thought. Why is this below max altitude so short (2 min)? Especially considering that start gates open for an UNLIMITED period of time! Have we considered, for example, a 10 minute below max altitude? Imagine how that would change the game. Or how about you have to go 500 feet below max altitude to reset? 1000 ft? At current, one can quickly spiral down from above the limit and keep a lot of energy going in that 2 minutes. Especially if the thermal is wide, strong and well marked by other competitors.. Of course this is highly dangerous. I think the problem is that 2 min is really not long enough to settle everyone down. In other common scenarios, one can keep going up, then changing your mind, going down, waiting 2 min, etc, etc, etc. With only 2 min...one can see others leave (make an obvious start) and then quickly descend, wait 2 min, climb back up and start and only be 3-4 minutes behind the "target." An almost perfect leech (draft) up position.

Generally you're better off staying below MSH than doing all of that. The 2 minute rule is intended to be the minimum time that discourages pilots trying to dive at redline into the top of the cylinder. The problem with a altitude differential is that it innocence redline dives and pull-ups. With a time limit, even at redline you'd bleed off all your energy after 2 minutes so there's not much of a point. As to extending it, anyone who has popped through the top by accident knows the frustration of waiting even 2 minutes.. There would need to be a big benefit unrelated to its current purpose to make it worthwhile to extend it. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why you'd do that. If we could get reliable IAS data, we'd simply implement a speed limit, but GPS logs are TAS plus wind drift so it's a recipe for protest if you ding somebody for overspeed. Even so, bombing around in the cylinder can get you an unsafe flying penalty - though most CDs are loathe to do it. If it gets egregious sanctions can happen (and has happened) so please behave!

I really don't think glider contests are like software DevOps where you just try a bunch of stuff to see what works in the marketplace. It's more like traffic laws - people get upset if you monkey around with it too much without some due process.

Keep the ideas coming and keep complaining about what you don't like. Everybody wants to make contests more fair and more enjoyable for more people.

9B

[Sean Fidler]

The reason to extend the 2 min below max altitude limit is pretty simple in my view:

- to stop encouraging pilots from descending thru/around the pack (and above average golden thermal) over and over. It's not all straight forward up there. Examples: Pilots pull into what they think is a great climb and then, for a number of potential reasons decide to "reset" and try again. Reasons such as they think they screwed up centering and did not achieve the climb they had hoped or expected, another pack finds a better climb nearby the initial thermal. gliders below are climbing faster or better centered, a key competitor shows up 500 ft. below, a key competitor decides to reset themselves just above you, etc.

With a longer limit, a limit long enough that the gaggle would be lost, this behavior of "resetting" is greatly discouraged. Pilots would also have a greater safety factor (not get so close to max altitude in the high speed circle of death) as the penalty for breaking it is more substantial tactically.

I think it's a good idea. I honestly do. Even 5 min mould be effective.

Now imagine starts had a 10 min limit on the max altitude reset and a 30 minute time limit. Now we are talking!!! ;-)

[John Mittell]

At 01:46 12 August 2015, Sean Fidler wrote:
>p position.=20
>
>Just a thought.=20
>
>Sean=20


Im new at this racing and the pre-start tactics but most of the advice I
have been given either in person or from books is that I want to have some
gliders out in front of me (1/3rd to 1/2 of the field). If that is good
advice for me, then it is good for other pilots too and that might drive
all of us to wait for someone to start. It seems that the waiting drives
some of the behaviors that most find objectionable.

Sean offered a thought, please allow me one.

Rather than penalizing pilots who start late let the CD award PLUS points
(Admin or good sport points) for the pilots who are among the first to
depart on course. The caveats being that the pilot has to be in the bottom
half overall (relative standing could be used for the first days of a
contest), and has to stay on course, no return for another start and it
only covers xx number of contestants. XX being decided by the CD.

Perhaps this will break the surface tension on the start gate, give the
field markers to guide on, reduce leeching, and start congestion, and help
the bottom half of the field with better scores ( but not enough to change
the standings among the top competitors)

BZ

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:58:24 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> [snip]
> By the way, there no speed limit in the U.S. rules.
> [snip]

I'm an outsider to this, but in the 2015 rules at http://www.ssa.org/ContestRules , I see:

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

The phrase "...pilots are expected to..." is strangely loose language for a rules document, but it still reads like a speed limit to me.

Cheers,
-Mark Rebuck

[[email protected]]

If the CD set the max start higher there would be no reason to decend through a thermal. Rather, the challenge would be to hang at the top. Besides, perhaps as rare as a "perfectly called task" is a thermal that would support the hipothetical scenario Sean laid oit

[[email protected]]

Now, how about a fsst clap https://youtu.be/Z571ByeNbPQ

[Sean Fidler]

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 11:44:38 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Now, how about a fsst clap https://youtu.be/Z571ByeNbPQ

Golf clap for another entirely unenforced, unenforcable "rule." my rule would truly solve the issue.

[[email protected]]

This thread refuses to die. :)

So...let the 2015 Rules Committee meeting reverberate with the sound of RSG ("Return to the Start Gate")! I was somewhat tongue-in-cheek when I proposed returning to the traditional start line/gate a few days ago just to get people thinking, but why not? True, the start cylinder does spread out the field and provide more opportunities to win the start. But Sean objects to races that don't keep the competitors on the same course at about the same time so if he were intellectually honest (I'm not soliciting comments), he'd be objecting to the 5 mile cylinder, not the 2 minute rule. That latter rule was installed originally to prevent pilots from climbing up high, then diving down into the cylinder, through a gaggle, and out the side of the cylinder for a high-speed start. While Sean may be able to conserve his energy from such a redline dive for TWO MINUTES, I don't know of anyone else on this planet who can unless they have a flywheel spinning in the glider that can be engaged with a ducted fan system. And the start cylinder itself, which begs for some kind of speed limit--directly enforced or not--was implemented when GPS loggers became mandatory and we dispensed with the traditional starting line/gate.

IIRC, the loud objections to the start line/gate at that time were made in great part because they aided GPS logger proponents in their campaign to dispense with the start line/gate and film cameras altogether. It wasn't unsafe, per se. With FLARM and the ability, through GPS, to enforce rules in the gate such as "no short IP" so that all competitors are aligned in a relatively narrow corridor for their start gate runs, and given the enhanced guidance that today's flight computers could provide to deliver all pilots to the line at the optimum speed and altitude, there's no reason not to consider adopting it again.

Yes, there's a tendency to cluster on the upwind side of the starting line. And for most competitors to climb up together in the same gate thermal. And to loiter there waiting for just the right moment to start. In other words, the same things that happen now in the cylinder, although I'll admit that it's easier for a pilot to slip away and start by him- or herself from an obscure part of the cylinder. But that never happens, right? We're all a bunch of sheep, following one another in single file out of the cylinder.

Yes, leeching is a problem. It was a much bigger problem when most national contests pulled 55 to 65 contestants. The only U.S. contest I know of where that happens now is Perry. We have THREE nationals scheduled simultaneously at Nephi, UT next summer and I suspect we won't come close to filling that up. Does anyone else recall that the eventual 1986 U.S. 15 Meter champion drove to Uvalde that year ON THE WAIT LIST hoping (justifiably, it turned out) that someone would drop out so he could fly?

I frankly didn't see much leeching at Elmira: fewer participants and fewer top pilots for any leeches to latch onto. It was interesting the first few days when some of the top guys started very early and it became evident that they weren't doubling back for a second start. It evoked memories of Dick Johnson's "start early and pray for rain" strategy when he regularly headed out and flew by himself all the way around, with remarkable results.

We can make competitive soaring more expensive, more complex, and more inscrutable to and intimidating for newcomers. We can continue driving participation rates down. Or we can quit trying to tweak the rules to solve non-problems and focus on preserving what we have left and perhaps attract a few enterprising souls who don't know what they're missing. I have to say, after being out of soaring for almost 4 years, I was discouraged by the gadgets I thought I'd have to buy just to be on that level playing field: i.e., FLARM, transponder, and $3,000 to $6,000 vario/flight computer system to replace my faithful Cambridge LNAV/GPS-NAV and Glide Navigator II on an ancient Compaq 1550 (blush).

In actuality, it was sort of like when the government warns that taxes will go up 30% and it turns out it's ONLY a 15% increase. I was actually relieved that I might get away with just a FLARM device and some open-source nav software on a cheap tablet and ONLY have to spend a few thousand dollars. That's but a few semesters worth of books for my twin daughters at college. Correlation is not causation but don't pretend cost doesn't have an impact on participation. I hope it's not presumptuous to assume that the analytical types on the Rules Committee would agree that the demand for competitive soaring is not perfectly inelastic.

Think of me and people like me with older gliders [thanks to the RC for introducing handicapping to the Standard Class, BTW], limited budgets, and finite patience to read through today's Rules when you're arguing about how to make competition "perfect". I wasn't surprised when a number of folks at Elmira got confused about some of the features of the MAT task. What was interesting was the mix of relative newcomers and old timers who had the same confusion. That tells me more about the complexity of the Rules than any annual press release by the Rules Committee, whose work I respect and appreciate.

I'd love to see Andy focus his considerable analytical abilities on investigating the factors that impact contest participation rates: economics--including not just the cost of gliders and equipment and operating expenses but the role of exchange rates and the ability (as with houses) to move up the ladder by selling one's used glider for more than original price to help purchase a new one; rules complexity; proliferation of classes; trends in Europe; geographic siting; changing lifestyles and alternative uses for discretionary income and time; etc. I believe I'm on solid ground in saying that one of those factors is NOT whether the dwell time for the start cylinder should be 2 minutes or 4 1/2 minutes or 10 minutes.

With good wishes for all involved,

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 12:30:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:

> I'd love to see Andy focus his considerable analytical abilities on investigating the factors that impact contest participation rates: economics--including not just the cost of gliders and equipment and operating expenses but the role of exchange rates and the ability (as with houses) to move up the ladder by selling one's used glider for more than original price to help purchase a new one(THAT'S COMPLICATED); rules complexity (YUP); proliferation of classes (YUP); trends in Europe (NOT SURE WHAT THIS IS); geographic siting (YUP); changing lifestyles and alternative uses for discretionary income and time (ONLY AIN A GENRAL SENSE); etc. I believe I'm on solid ground in saying that one of those factors is NOT whether the dwell time for the start cylinder should be 2 minutes or 4 1/2 minutes or 10 minutes. (STILL THINKING ABOUT THAT ONE - IS IT BETTER OR WORSE TO HAVE 100%OF THE GLIDERS BOMBING AROUND AT 100 FEET BELOW MSH, HALF IN AND HALF OUT OF THE BEST THERMAL AROUND - INSTEAD OF SOME OF THEM CLIMBING UP HIGHER AND COMING DOWN IN SOME SORT OF SEQUENCE?).

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but we do think about the issue of participation - a lot. It's not much of a race if nobody shows up.

9B

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Let's remember where the start gate came from.

Faced with the technology of the time, our forebears wanted to figure out how to do an aerial start of the race, so that tow realease time was not start time, and we could tow everybody up in an orderly way and then start the race.

They hit on a great solution: the IP call, and passage of a start line, altitude and passage measured by Charlie Spratt. Altitude had to be low, even heading out over boonies, as one could not reliably measure 6000' starts. Also, there being no way to monitor prestart altitude or speed, a brillaint game developed of getting just the right altitude and blasting through the gate at VNE.

It was a great solution for the technology of the time.

But we don't have that technology. We have recording GPS. If you were to start from scratch and invent glider racing with GPS, you would not invent anything of the sort. It's a solution to a problem with different constraints.

Why go back to something developed on the constraints of visual starts and stretched wire altitude measurement? Just for historic preservation, or because we always did it that way?

If we want to reform starts, think about how we would run races if we were inventing them from scratch, and we will be controlling position and altitude with GPS.

Given that we record GPS, it strikes me the most obvious simplification, and the way we might do things starting from scratch, is a "roll out and go" start. Why start the race when you cross some plane in space, especially given that all the turnpoints are just fixes? Why all the tension about getitng one fix above the cylinder, or maxing your glide to the edge? Why not just have a cylinder, and your best fix in the cylinder is a start, just as an area turnpoint your best fix is the turnpoint. Just roll out and go.

Absent that somewhat simpler system, the current start cylinder does a good job, I think, of controlling a start in a way that is simple for pilots and scorers using GPS technology. A straight line often moves the best start point far away from the airport. Start out the top is brilliant. Measuring speed in the cylinder is impractical: the thing on which you are scored must be easily visible in the cockpit, and with unknown wind there is no way to display the speed on which you will be scored. Diving for a line is a barbaric relic of outdated technology.

The same holds for finishes by the way. The finish line is a brilliant solution to the problem, how do you measure the end of the race by hand and stopwatch. It is not what anyone would invent if they are thinking about the problem from scratch given that we measure races with GPS. It is surely not what anyone would invent in an environment in which all approaches to non-towered airports follow the AIM and arrive for downwind at 800 feet. It was a lot of fun, but we're not necessarily here for historic preservation.

John Cochrane BB

[[email protected]]

> I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but we do think about the issue of participation - a lot. It's not much of a race if nobody shows up.

Actually I was serious, Andy! I'd love to see you cut through some of the discussion about why competitive soaring seems to be declining based on data and analytics.

How much has it really declined over time vs. just spreading a fixed number of pilots over more classes? Is it just the one-time effect of a pre-Baby-Boom bulge of ex-WWII-trained pilots becoming inactive? Are we attracting the same number of new names but they just don't come back?

I complain about cost [I won't apologize for digressing; this is USENET, not a debate] but how does the cost of a new glider (or a good used glider) really compare with income vs. the past? How does siting affect participation, and does it impact all classes the same? I know the data on some of this aren't readily available but you've demonstrated an ability to think outside the box.

I'm not in touch with what's happening in Europe except to recall from years ago that the trend was towards motorgliders and two-place. Is Standard Class dying there, too? Club Class was booming a few years ago, flying in the face of the trend towards more expensive gliders. How does that compare to here?

And what's with the Perry regional? The old Chester regional at the same time of year was frequently oversubscribed (they received a waiver one year for 65+ pilots, IIRC). So if Perry is just as popular as Chester was, what's different about it compared with so many other contests where attendance is down?

We all have our opinions. I was intensely curious about your conclusions on the effect of FLARM in unstealthy mode on contest performance. And I look forward to your analysis of leeching.

Yes, I know the Rules Committee strongly considers participation (thanks for the handicapping in Standard Class; I'm puzzled why it hasn't attracted more interest). So I truly was hoping you could turn your attention at some point and perhaps develop some insights on what's been happening to competitive soaring.

Thanks to you and the Rules Committee for your continuing work.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 08/13/2015 11:19 PM, John Cochrane wrote:
> It was a lot of fun, but we're not necessarily here for historic preservation.
But we are here for fun, aren't we?

Luke

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 11:19:09 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> Let's remember where the start gate came from.
>
> Faced with the technology of the time, our forebears wanted to figure out how to do an aerial start of the race, so that tow realease time was not start time, and we could tow everybody up in an orderly way and then start the race.
>
> They hit on a great solution: the IP call, and passage of a start line, altitude and passage measured by Charlie Spratt. Altitude had to be low, even heading out over boonies, as one could not reliably measure 6000' starts. Also, there being no way to monitor prestart altitude or speed, a brillaint game developed of getting just the right altitude and blasting through the gate at VNE.
>
> It was a great solution for the technology of the time.
>
> But we don't have that technology. We have recording GPS. If you were to start from scratch and invent glider racing with GPS, you would not invent anything of the sort. It's a solution to a problem with different constraints.
>
> Why go back to something developed on the constraints of visual starts and stretched wire altitude measurement? Just for historic preservation, or because we always did it that way?
>
> If we want to reform starts, think about how we would run races if we were inventing them from scratch, and we will be controlling position and altitude with GPS.
>
> Given that we record GPS, it strikes me the most obvious simplification, and the way we might do things starting from scratch, is a "roll out and go" start. Why start the race when you cross some plane in space, especially given that all the turnpoints are just fixes? Why all the tension about getitng one fix above the cylinder, or maxing your glide to the edge? Why not just have a cylinder, and your best fix in the cylinder is a start, just as an area turnpoint your best fix is the turnpoint. Just roll out and go.
>
> Absent that somewhat simpler system, the current start cylinder does a good job, I think, of controlling a start in a way that is simple for pilots and scorers using GPS technology. A straight line often moves the best start point far away from the airport. Start out the top is brilliant. Measuring speed in the cylinder is impractical: the thing on which you are scored must be easily visible in the cockpit, and with unknown wind there is no way to display the speed on which you will be scored. Diving for a line is a barbaric relic of outdated technology.
>
> The same holds for finishes by the way. The finish line is a brilliant solution to the problem, how do you measure the end of the race by hand and stopwatch. It is not what anyone would invent if they are thinking about the problem from scratch given that we measure races with GPS. It is surely not what anyone would invent in an environment in which all approaches to non-towered airports follow the AIM and arrive for downwind at 800 feet. It was a lot of fun, but we're not necessarily here for historic preservation.
>
> John Cochrane BB

The "best fix" sounds good but it means a competitor doesn't really know when they started till after the race is scored. That just doesn't "feel right."

[Sean Fidler]

Thread drift. Ok... How's this?

For me, soaring is great fun. I've been doing it consistently for about 5 years now. I've met a bunch of amazing, great, kind people and have learned a tremendous amount about the sport (light years left to go). Thru and thru, as a group, soaring pilots, their friends and family are among the nicest, smartest most interesting people I have ever met. I am attracted to this immensely.

Part of the reason I have devoted time and energy to the sport is that am truly inspired by what competition/cross country pilots are capable of doing in gliders. I am still fascinated by it and want to be a part of it. This, for me, was huge. Glider pilots are amazing pilots, PERIOD.

I probably never would have truly learned of the sport (and what it really is at the highest levels), or been so attracted to it if my dad was not involved. Having a family member with a high performance glider, flying it regularly and promoting how amazing the sport could be all the time was key. Having access to a high performance glider and a group of local friends who could mentor me and take me out on cross country flights shortly after I got my license was the key moment. Would I have got my license if the motivation was just flying around the airport? Probably not.

Those experiences flying with the Ionio boys on short, mentored cross country's "set the hook" for me and eventually led to me buying a glider so that I could fly with everyone rather than leave my dad back at the airport whenever I was flying. Of course once I bought my first glider so I could fly with this gang regularly, the learning curve grew dramatically. The hook set deeper. And so on.

Flying clubs are important to US soaring "health" I suppose but they also seem to lack in areas. They often don't have much to offer in terms of even moderate performance gliders. They often don't promote or in some cases even allow cross country.

It seems that European clubs are more into cross country which is more challenging and more rewarding than local flight, which I think gets old after a year or so. If some inspirational figure is not actively encouraging and facilitating cross country glider flight (the whole point of the sport I think) at that key moment in a glider pilots career, I think they come to the conclusion that they have checked the box and move on.

Obviously without glider clubs more focused on taking pilots into cross country levels, one has to have the financial means to do it on their own. I dont see that as a real problem as numerous 40:1 gliders are available for the same price as a small sailboat or powerboat, which almost everybody seems to have these days (jet skis, snowmobiles, etc). It's a matter of priority. Gliders I suppose are for one person (usually) where a boat (or other rec toy) is for the whole family.

But Europe seems to have an entirely different dynamic with respect to soaring. More youth, larger numbers, etc. U.S. numbers have been steadily declining for 25 years.

One thing I learned in business school. It's often better to adopt successful competitors methods even if at first you don't fully understand them yet. Our clubs (and the SSA) should be talking to European clubs and picking their brains for advise. I wonder how many have actually done that. Perhaps take a trip to Europe on summer and spend a few weeks with a successful club, talk to the people, etc.

Oddly, my flying is at a location that actually IDs itself as IONIA NON CLUB. They don't like the politics. :-).

The rules is a small thing overall but debating the rules is an important thing in terms of competition pilots. My suggestions usually would make getting into competition soaring simpler for the new pilot. I do think our rules are too complicated, but the rule makers are all GREAT PEOPLE, working hard and want nothing but the best for our sport.

Sean
7T

[ND]

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 7:35:37 AM UTC-4, XC wrote:
> The 11 best things at the 2015 15m/Std Class Nationals
>
> 1. The weather. We flew 7 out of 10 days in Elmira. We could have possible even squeaked in another but the CD wisely called a rest day. One of the practice days was fantastic soaring. Thanks to God, Alleluia.
>
> 2. FLARM used in the stealth mode, already mentioned in another post. It really worked well.
>
> 3. The flying was tough but the atmosphere was relaxed and enjoyable. Thank you pilots for the sportsmanship. Not one pilot left this contest early, in a huff, with a broken glider, or otherwise. Very rare.
>
> 4. The dinners were excellent. Thanks go to my wife, Rebecca, and many volunteers.
>
> 5. Beer consumed was more than most contests. We killed a 1/2 keg of Stella, 2 1/4's of Yuengling and 1/4 of Labatts. Thanks to those HHSC members who bought the beer.
>
> 6. The National Soaring Museum issued a press release for us. We gave about 4 TV news interviews and we were in newspapers all over the region. Thank you NSM for all your support.
>
> 7. We flew a finish line. Tons of spectators, thanks the the press release above, were watching from the fence. Crews, juniors and pilots enjoyed it, too. It felt like you were at a race.
>
> 8. We had a PA system to announce pilot meetings, task sheets available, "P7 4 miles out", etc. This is a nice detail to include in contest planning..
>
> 9. We had the contest during the summer so young people could attend. I estimate we had 20-25 young people involved in the contest in one way or another. The HHSC juniors did a great job with the line. We also had several young people come to visit. Daniel Sazhin competed as a junior. Noah Reitter flew as a guest in the Standard Class and as sniffer.
>
> 10. We spaced the grid spots far enough away from each other that every glider could easily get to their spot. Then we compressed the grid. I really recommend this detail to other organizers.
>
> 11. Monty Sullivan as CD was outstanding. The overall tone for the contest was perfect. The task setting was spot on. Thanks Monty.
>
> XC

we are all getting off track here. the harris hill contest was pretty sweet..

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 9:37:15 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Thread drift. Ok... How's this?
>
> For me, soaring is great fun. I've been doing it consistently for about 5 years now. I've met a bunch of amazing, great, kind people and have learned a tremendous amount about the sport (light years left to go). Thru and thru, as a group, soaring pilots, their friends and family are among the nicest, smartest most interesting people I have ever met. I am attracted to this immensely.
>
> Part of the reason I have devoted time and energy to the sport is that am truly inspired by what competition/cross country pilots are capable of doing in gliders. I am still fascinated by it and want to be a part of it. This, for me, was huge. Glider pilots are amazing pilots, PERIOD.
>
> I probably never would have truly learned of the sport (and what it really is at the highest levels), or been so attracted to it if my dad was not involved. Having a family member with a high performance glider, flying it regularly and promoting how amazing the sport could be all the time was key.. Having access to a high performance glider and a group of local friends who could mentor me and take me out on cross country flights shortly after I got my license was the key moment. Would I have got my license if the motivation was just flying around the airport? Probably not.
>
> Those experiences flying with the Ionio boys on short, mentored cross country's "set the hook" for me and eventually led to me buying a glider so that I could fly with everyone rather than leave my dad back at the airport whenever I was flying. Of course once I bought my first glider so I could fly with this gang regularly, the learning curve grew dramatically. The hook set deeper. And so on.
>
> Flying clubs are important to US soaring "health" I suppose but they also seem to lack in areas. They often don't have much to offer in terms of even moderate performance gliders. They often don't promote or in some cases even allow cross country.
>
> It seems that European clubs are more into cross country which is more challenging and more rewarding than local flight, which I think gets old after a year or so. If some inspirational figure is not actively encouraging and facilitating cross country glider flight (the whole point of the sport I think) at that key moment in a glider pilots career, I think they come to the conclusion that they have checked the box and move on.
>
> Obviously without glider clubs more focused on taking pilots into cross country levels, one has to have the financial means to do it on their own. I dont see that as a real problem as numerous 40:1 gliders are available for the same price as a small sailboat or powerboat, which almost everybody seems to have these days (jet skis, snowmobiles, etc). It's a matter of priority. Gliders I suppose are for one person (usually) where a boat (or other rec toy) is for the whole family.
>
> But Europe seems to have an entirely different dynamic with respect to soaring. More youth, larger numbers, etc. U.S. numbers have been steadily declining for 25 years.
>
> One thing I learned in business school. It's often better to adopt successful competitors methods even if at first you don't fully understand them yet. Our clubs (and the SSA) should be talking to European clubs and picking their brains for advise. I wonder how many have actually done that. Perhaps take a trip to Europe on summer and spend a few weeks with a successful club, talk to the people, etc.
>
> Oddly, my flying is at a location that actually IDs itself as IONIA NON CLUB. They don't like the politics. :-).
>
> The rules is a small thing overall but debating the rules is an important thing in terms of competition pilots. My suggestions usually would make getting into competition soaring simpler for the new pilot. I do think our rules are too complicated, but the rule makers are all GREAT PEOPLE, working hard and want nothing but the best for our sport.
>
> Sean
> 7T

Don't drift the thread.
This is a great topic for a new thread.
UH

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> The "best fix" sounds good but it means a competitor doesn't really know when they started till after the race is scored. That just doesn't "feel right."

Well, that's true now! Quite often, you start out the top, dip back in, and start again out the side... Actually, best start isn't really determined until the race is over. The side start might be faster but under min distance.

We also don't know where the best fix is in turn areas, which doesn't seem to cause that much trouble.

But really, in practical terms, you do know what the best fix is. You're killing time milling around in a thermal. You decide to start. At 90 degrees to courseline, hit the start button on the computer, roll out and go. That will be a darn good fix, and in 1% of the time that some other fix does better, it can only help.

Also this is easy for flight computers to figure out. And since on this forum we'll have computers next year that integrate all the flarm data for the last 6 months, reach out to the internet to grab archived traces, integrate with nexrad to show us bird flocks and the gaggles out on course, anticipating that a flight computer could do for the start what it already does for the turn area seems straightforward!

But this is serious topic drift and a better subject for another time

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

> Don't drift the thread.
> This is a great topic for a new thread.
> UH

It's related. :) But I agree, great topic.

And great post by Sean; one of your best. New thread, please. Over to you.

JB