JWGC USA update

[Tony[_5_]]

For those of you not on facebook, after two days of competition our guys are doing good. We've had one Racing Task and one Assigned Area Task. Today they are another 3 Hour AAT.

All flying Standard Cirri. JP, Boyd, and Daniel are flying well together here.

Scores are available on http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/jwgc2015/

The contest website www.jwgc2015.com is kept up to date freshly and is informative.

Club Class gets trackers every other day. Today is our day, and Boyd and Daniel have trackers. http://www.livetrack24.com/tasks/2394/2d

We are posting regularly on the US Junior Soaring Facebook page and also on the US Soaring Team Twitter feed, if you're into that.

I'll try to give occasional updates here too.

[Craig Reinholt]

> Club Class gets trackers every other day. Today is our day, and Boyd and Daniel have trackers. http://www.livetrack24.com/tasks/2394/2d

Just now watched Boyd and Daniel land with the ending credits and soundtrack of the movie Superman playing in the background. Glad to see both safely home. Keeping my fingers crossed for a good result.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 2:06:14 AM UTC-5, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> > Club Class gets trackers every other day. Today is our day, and Boyd and Daniel have trackers. http://www.livetrack24.com/tasks/2394/2d
>
> Just now watched Boyd and Daniel land with the ending credits and soundtrack of the movie Superman playing in the background. Glad to see both safely home. Keeping my fingers crossed for a good result.

Daniel on the day podium today with a strong 2nd place.
Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!
Our young guys are representing us very well and we should be proud.
Still time to make a donation to the Jr Team.
UH

[John Carlyle]

All right! Wonderful! Congrats to Daniel! And good on Boyd and JP, too. The US Juniors are doing a great job representing us.

-John, Q3

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:50:06 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 2:06:14 AM UTC-5, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> > > Club Class gets trackers every other day. Today is our day, and Boyd and Daniel have trackers. http://www.livetrack24.com/tasks/2394/2d
> >
> > Just now watched Boyd and Daniel land with the ending credits and soundtrack of the movie Superman playing in the background. Glad to see both safely home. Keeping my fingers crossed for a good result.
>
> Daniel on the day podium today with a strong 2nd place.
> Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!
> Our young guys are representing us very well and we should be proud.
> Still time to make a donation to the Jr Team.
> UH

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 7:50:06 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 2:06:14 AM UTC-5, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> > > Club Class gets trackers every other day. Today is our day, and Boyd and Daniel have trackers. http://www.livetrack24.com/tasks/2394/2d
> >
> > Just now watched Boyd and Daniel land with the ending credits and soundtrack of the movie Superman playing in the background. Glad to see both safely home. Keeping my fingers crossed for a good result.
>
> Daniel on the day podium today with a strong 2nd place.
> Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!
> Our young guys are representing us very well and we should be proud.
> Still time to make a donation to the Jr Team.
> UH

And look at the speeds, 120's km/h in Club and 150's km/h in Standard! Fantastic flights by our Juniors.

[Sean Fidler]

Imagine if our "US Junior Team" had a US Junior Development program to train within. Better yet, imagine if they had a strong junior culture like Britain, France, Germany, Australia or Poland in which to bond, train and practice together within. For two of our three Jr pilots, this is their first experience with FAI rules! Thrown right into the fire of a highly competitive Junior World Championship! Despite this lack of support and practice relative to other junior gliding nations, they are somehow still performing admirably. Impressive for sure but much more a statement on their individual talents and great determination than the SSA's support or focus on developing US junior soaring. I'll go into the SSA vs other national organizations in more detail later.

Imagine if our US Junior team (and coaches) had even half the support of the other top junior soaring countries. Even Australia has 3 separate weeks of specific junior team training camps annually (coaching, etc) and even sent some junior pilots to Europe to train with the best in the most competitive events (makes great sense to me). Going to a US rules contest and flying HATs, Timed Area tasks and virtually ZERO Assigned Racing tasks has limited value when an FAI Junior World Championship podium is the goal.

Australia, like the USA, has a very large country geographically to cope with. Regardless, Australia has developed an extremely strong junior team development program and its paying off. Australia is currently winning Standard Class overall (by a large margin) and many of their pilots (6) are doing very well in both classes overall. They even have a young female Jr pilot!

It is also impressive how many strong Junior pilots are coming out of countries like Poland, France, Britain, Germany, Australia, Italy, Czech Republic, Netherlands, etc, etc vs the USA as a baseline. A 21 yr old French kid just won the FAI Sailplane Grand Prix and beat Sebastian Kawa (and most of worlds other top pilots)! There are many other European junior pilots in this league or closing in on that level! There is at least on Australian at this level (currently winning standard class by a month).

Dozens and dozens of of kids are competing for the privilidge of making these teams in these countries. All of these kids from countries with junior development programs are learning and excelling at cross country at a very young age (15, 16, 17...). And behind them are literally hundreds more in each country working towards the goal of cross country and FAI junior competition. Meanwhile, in the USA...we don't really have any focus or energy on Junior soaring at all.

Who was #4, 5, and 6 US Junior Team pilot again? Hmm? How many are trying to make the US Jr team? Do we even know? How many Jr pilots competed tasks at SSA contests in 2015?

We are very lucky to have Boyd, Daniel and JP. They make us look very good! We are all amazingly proud of them! But we need to start putting some real effort, organization and dollars behind them (JP and Daniel have 2 more worlds that they can qualify for...) and behind developing others. I don't think we have too many other US Junior cross country pilots on deck for the next Junior World Championships. Do we? When is the next Junior World Chamoionships going to be hosted by the USA? Has it ever been in the USA? Junior soaring is foundational to the future success of US soaring. But we really don't have Junior soaring at all in the US to be honest. Harris Hill is trying hard. But we need a national program with leadership, goals and series focus and attention.

Despite the great moments our current US Junior Team are providing us (despite all odds), let's not kid ourselves. US junior competition (and even cross country soaring) is not well... If we continue neglecting it the consequences will be far greater than a decline in results in future Junior World Championships...

Video on the Australian Jr teams training program. Just a few days old. They describe their training and you get a sense of the strong junior culture they have created: http://youtu.be/xY9FiqQBYAU

Sean

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Just wondering the results of JWGC are not on the SSA contest results page..


On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:05:35 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Imagine if our "US Junior Team" had a US Junior Development program to train within. Better yet, imagine if they had a strong junior culture like Britain, France, Germany, Australia or Poland in which to bond, train and practice together within. For two of our three Jr pilots, this is their first experience with FAI rules! Thrown right into the fire of a highly competitive Junior World Championship! Despite this lack of support and practice relative to other junior gliding nations, they are somehow still performing admirably. Impressive for sure but much more a statement on their individual talents and great determination than the SSA's support or focus on developing US junior soaring. I'll go into the SSA vs other national organizations in more detail later.
>
> Imagine if our US Junior team (and coaches) had even half the support of the other top junior soaring countries. Even Australia has 3 separate weeks of specific junior team training camps annually (coaching, etc) and even sent some junior pilots to Europe to train with the best in the most competitive events (makes great sense to me). Going to a US rules contest and flying HATs, Timed Area tasks and virtually ZERO Assigned Racing tasks has limited value when an FAI Junior World Championship podium is the goal.
>
> Australia, like the USA, has a very large country geographically to cope with. Regardless, Australia has developed an extremely strong junior team development program and its paying off. Australia is currently winning Standard Class overall (by a large margin) and many of their pilots (6) are doing very well in both classes overall. They even have a young female Jr pilot!
>
> It is also impressive how many strong Junior pilots are coming out of countries like Poland, France, Britain, Germany, Australia, Italy, Czech Republic, Netherlands, etc, etc vs the USA as a baseline. A 21 yr old French kid just won the FAI Sailplane Grand Prix and beat Sebastian Kawa (and most of worlds other top pilots)! There are many other European junior pilots in this league or closing in on that level! There is at least on Australian at this level (currently winning standard class by a month).
>
> Dozens and dozens of of kids are competing for the privilidge of making these teams in these countries. All of these kids from countries with junior development programs are learning and excelling at cross country at a very young age (15, 16, 17...). And behind them are literally hundreds more in each country working towards the goal of cross country and FAI junior competition. Meanwhile, in the USA...we don't really have any focus or energy on Junior soaring at all.
>
> Who was #4, 5, and 6 US Junior Team pilot again? Hmm? How many are trying to make the US Jr team? Do we even know? How many Jr pilots competed tasks at SSA contests in 2015?
>
> We are very lucky to have Boyd, Daniel and JP. They make us look very good! We are all amazingly proud of them! But we need to start putting some real effort, organization and dollars behind them (JP and Daniel have 2 more worlds that they can qualify for...) and behind developing others. I don't think we have too many other US Junior cross country pilots on deck for the next Junior World Championships. Do we? When is the next Junior World Chamoionships going to be hosted by the USA? Has it ever been in the USA? Junior soaring is foundational to the future success of US soaring. But we really don't have Junior soaring at all in the US to be honest. Harris Hill is trying hard. But we need a national program with leadership, goals and series focus and attention.
>
> Despite the great moments our current US Junior Team are providing us (despite all odds), let's not kid ourselves. US junior competition (and even cross country soaring) is not well... If we continue neglecting it the consequences will be far greater than a decline in results in future Junior World Championships...
>
> Video on the Australian Jr teams training program. Just a few days old. They describe their training and you get a sense of the strong junior culture they have created: http://youtu.be/xY9FiqQBYAU
>
> Sean

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Just wondering the results of JWGC are not on the SSA contest results page.
>
>
>The links to the Jr WGC site and US Jr team Facebook page are on the home page.
UH

[Tim Newport-Peace[_2_]]

At 16:36 10 December 2015, wrote:
>On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud
>wrote:
>> Just wondering the results of JWGC are not on the SSA contest results
>page.
>>
>>
>>The links to the Jr WGC site and US Jr team Facebook page are on the
home
>page.
>UH
>
Just go to:
http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/jwgc2015/results

Simples.

[Sean Fidler]

Because it's really important!!!

[Tim Newport-Peace[_2_]]

At 17:10 10 December 2015, Sean Fidler wrote:
>Because it's really important!!!
>
http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/jwgc2015/results
is the Results page. What could be more important than winning?

[Sean Fidler]

And becuase it's really important is why it's on the SSA page...

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:50:06 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 2:06:14 AM UTC-5, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> > > Club Class gets trackers every other day. Today is our day, and Boyd and Daniel have trackers. http://www.livetrack24.com/tasks/2394/2d
> >
> > Just now watched Boyd and Daniel land with the ending credits and soundtrack of the movie Superman playing in the background. Glad to see both safely home. Keeping my fingers crossed for a good result.
>
> Daniel on the day podium today with a strong 2nd place.
> Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!
> Our young guys are representing us very well and we should be proud.
> Still time to make a donation to the Jr Team.
> UH

Boyd wins day 10!
WAAAAHHHHOOOOOO!!!!!!
100 pts away from overall podium with 2 days to go.
JP and Daniel did fairly well.
Go Juniors
UH

[Sean Fidler]

Boyd Willat (USA) just won day 10. He was the only finisher in Club class and moved up to 5th place overall. Congrats Boyd and team!!! One final day left.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:43:20 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Boyd Willat (USA) just won day 10. He was the only finisher in Club class and moved up to 5th place overall. Congrats Boyd and team!!! One final day left.

Ooops- right one day left.
Now the whole TEAM is dedicated to getting Boyd on the podium.
Fun to watch
UH

[John Carlyle]

All right, Boyd! Being the only pilot to complete club class, there's going to be a good story. Great flying!

I'm surprised (but very happy) that they didn't devalue the day with only one completion.

-John, Q3

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:42:37 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Boyd wins day 10!
> WAAAAHHHHOOOOOO!!!!!!
> 100 pts away from overall podium with 2 days to go.
> JP and Daniel did fairly well.
> Go Juniors
> UH

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

> I'm surprised (but very happy) that they didn't devalue the day with only one completion.

That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make minimum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club Class - there are no rule-based surprises.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 9:41:10 AM UTC-5, Dan Daly wrote:
> > I'm surprised (but very happy) that they didn't devalue the day with only one completion.
>
> That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make minimum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club Class - there are no rule-based surprises.

How about the rule based surprise when it is worth more to land short than to finish? And without a ground based helper how would you know?
UH

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
>
> That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make minimum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club Class - there are no rule-based surprises.

Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is devalued. Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you only cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider that to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the rules are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance to the best performance that day.

But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you prefer.

Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

This is one of the absurdities of the IGC scoring rules: Sometimes you can gain a lot of points by waiting in front of the finish line. Day 11 in the standard class was such a day, and has cost the Polish team a medal.

If the 3 in front (2 Poles, 1 Brit) had colluded, en waited 21!!! minutes to cross the finish line, and finished all 3 with a speed of 122.82kph (instead of the real 138.14kph), this would have resulted in the following:

- T0 would have become larger than 3 hours, leading to a 1000pt day instead of a 932point day.

- n2 (returners with speed larger than 66,7% of best speed) would have increased from 3 to 12. Thus the speed points would have increased from 72 to 308 points.

- The result is, that the first 3 would have scored all 1000 points, and number 4 would have had 711 points. This is a 289point lead, instead of the real achieved 72point lead.

- For all others behind 4th place, the results would even have been worse.

- In the total final ranking of the JWGC15, Siodloczek would have become 2nd (instead of 4th in reality), Flis would have become 4th (instead of 6th), and Matt Davis, would have become 7th (instead of 10th).


I understand the reasoning behind the rules: a "lucky" outlier (such as in this case) should not have an unreasonable impact on the final competition results.

However, the implementation is totally wrong: it should never be possible to gain points (or better: increase your pointspread against the rest), by flying slower.

I have seen this happen a couple of times in the past, but never with such a substantial impact as in this case.






On Friday, 11 December 2015 15:59:53 UTC+1, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
> >
> > That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make minimum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club Class - there are no rule-based surprises.
>
> Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is devalued. Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you only cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider that to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the rules are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance to the best performance that day.
>
> But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you prefer.
>
> Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!
>
> Steve Leonard

[Bruce Hoult]

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:51:28 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> This is one of the absurdities of the IGC scoring rules: Sometimes you can gain a lot of points by waiting in front of the finish line. Day 11 in the standard class was such a day, and has cost the Polish team a medal.
>
> If the 3 in front (2 Poles, 1 Brit) had colluded, en waited 21!!! minutes to cross the finish line, and finished all 3 with a speed of 122.82kph (instead of the real 138.14kph), this would have resulted in the following:
>
> - T0 would have become larger than 3 hours, leading to a 1000pt day instead of a 932point day.
>
> - n2 (returners with speed larger than 66,7% of best speed) would have increased from 3 to 12. Thus the speed points would have increased from 72 to 308 points.
>
> - The result is, that the first 3 would have scored all 1000 points, and number 4 would have had 711 points. This is a 289point lead, instead of the real achieved 72point lead.
>
> - For all others behind 4th place, the results would even have been worse..
>
> - In the total final ranking of the JWGC15, Siodloczek would have become 2nd (instead of 4th in reality), Flis would have become 4th (instead of 6th), and Matt Davis, would have become 7th (instead of 10th).
>
>
> I understand the reasoning behind the rules: a "lucky" outlier (such as in this case) should not have an unreasonable impact on the final competition results.
>
> However, the implementation is totally wrong: it should never be possible to gain points (or better: increase your pointspread against the rest), by flying slower.
>
> I have seen this happen a couple of times in the past, but never with such a substantial impact as in this case.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, 11 December 2015 15:59:53 UTC+1, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
> > >
> > > That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make minimum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club Class - there are no rule-based surprises.
> >
> > Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is devalued. Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you only cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider that to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the rules are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance to the best performance that day.
> >
> > But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you prefer.
> >
> > Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!
> >
> > Steve Leonard

It's easy enough to ensure this, by using continuous (or at least piecewise continuous) functions in the rules, rather than step functions.

But then you have to have someone mathematically competent on the rules committee.

There are certainly a few such here (e.g. JC), but maybe not in IGC.

[Tim Newport-Peace[_2_]]

At 13:55 12 December 2015, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:51:28 PM UTC+3,
>wr=
>ote:
>> This is one of the absurdities of the IGC scoring rules: Sometimes you
>ca=
>n gain a lot of points by waiting in front of the finish line. Day 11 in
>th=
>e standard class was such a day, and has cost the Polish team a medal.
>>=20
>> If the 3 in front (2 Poles, 1 Brit) had colluded, en waited 21!!!
>minutes=
> to cross the finish line, and finished all 3 with a speed of 122.82kph
>(in=
>stead of the real 138.14kph), this would have resulted in the following:
>>=20
>> - T0 would have become larger than 3 hours, leading to a 1000pt day
>inst=
>ead of a 932point day.
>>=20
>> - n2 (returners with speed larger than 66,7% of best speed) would have
>in=
>creased from 3 to 12. Thus the speed points would have increased from 72
>to=
> 308 points.
>>=20
>> - The result is, that the first 3 would have scored all 1000 points,
and
>=
>number 4 would have had 711 points. This is a 289point lead, instead of
>the=
> real achieved 72point lead.
>>=20
>> - For all others behind 4th place, the results would even have been
>worse=
>..
>>=20
>> - In the total final ranking of the JWGC15, Siodloczek would have
become
>=
>2nd (instead of 4th in reality), Flis would have become 4th (instead of
>6th=
>), and Matt Davis, would have become 7th (instead of 10th).
>>=20
>>=20
>> I understand the reasoning behind the rules: a "lucky" outlier (such as
>i=
>n this case) should not have an unreasonable impact on the final
>competitio=
>n results.
>>=20
>> However, the implementation is totally wrong: it should never be
>possible=
> to gain points (or better: increase your pointspread against the rest),
>by=
> flying slower.=20
>>=20
>> I have seen this happen a couple of times in the past, but never with
>suc=
>h a substantial impact as in this case.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Friday, 11 December 2015 15:59:53 UTC+1, Steve Leonard wrote:
>> > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
>> > >=20
>> > > That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make
>min=
>imum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club
>Cl=
>ass - there are no rule-based surprises.
>> >=20
>> > Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is
>devalued.=
> Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you
only
>=
>cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider
>th=
>at to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the
rules
>=
>are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance
>t=
>o the best performance that day.
>> >=20
>> > But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you
prefer.
>> >=20
>> > Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!
>> >=20
>> > Steve Leonard
>
>It's easy enough to ensure this, by using continuous (or at least
>piecewise=
> continuous) functions in the rules, rather than step functions.
>
>But then you have to have someone mathematically competent on the rules
>com=
>mittee.
>
>There are certainly a few such here (e.g. JC), but maybe not in IGC.
>
The chairman of the annex A (Competition Rules) sub-committee of IGC is
Rick Sheppe. If you are sugesting that he is not mathematically competent
consider his CV.:

1. Gliding · Active glider pilot since 1967. Flight instructor since 1981.
Tug pilot since 1988. · Diamond Badge Nr. 6517 2. Technical · Instrument
designer: consultant to Cambridge Aero Instruments, Nielsen-Kellerman
Corporation and ClearNav Systems. Software developer for several glide
computers, variometers, and Flight Recorders. Responsible for FR security
standards and algorithms. · Functional designer of the first IGC-approved
Flight Recorder · Originator of the IGC file format. · Early consultant
to Flight Recorder Approval Committee 1996-1997. Responsible for some FR
security standards. Originator of the idea to remove Flight Recorder
specifications from the Sporting Code. · Attended numerous WGC, Pre-WGC,
and EGC competitions as technical expert for instrumentation. ·
Barograph/Flight Recorder calibration station, instrument repairman ·
Member of the organization (“GNSS Expert�) at World Air Games in 1997.
Advisor to the International Jury. 3. Administrative · Acting Team Captain
at WGC 2003 (Poland), Team Captain at WGC 2012 (Argentina) · Member of
OSTIV Working Group for Light and Ultralight Sailplanes · Former Soaring
Society of America Director. · IGC positions: - IGC Alternate Delegate
from USA - Annex A Committee member - Safety Pays Working Group member -
Scoring Software Testing Working group member (Chairman as of May 1, 2012)
- Communications and PR Committee member

Does that strike you as someone who is not mathematically competent?

[Sean Fidler]

More complaining about IGC rules as if US rules are the solution. Sigh.

Absurdity is spending tremendous effort developing an entirely different, watered down set of competition rules (US rules, which serve only to isolate the USA from the rest of the world) and then attending the World Championship contest once every two years vs the very best pilots in the world flying under the rules (IGC) which they are all intimately familiar, practiced and coached and expecting to be competitive.

No assigned tasks, HATs, etc.

Insanity is doing this same exercise over and over, again and again and expecting a different result.

Our junior team faught extremely hard through a myriad of institutional handicaps. Just as our overall US team does. I feel it's a good time to point out the 200 ton elephant in "the room."

Congratulations to Boyd (9th), Daniel (15th) and JP (22nd) and their great coaches and crew. They truly did an incredible job despite tremendous disadvantages against most of the other teams.

The question is will the US take any action to help be more competitive. Answer: ?. ...back to the land of the soaring vacation? And the European teams (and Australia) go back to the land of incredible Junior development, training and culture.

Sean

[Bruce Hoult]

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:30:07 PM UTC+3, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
> At 13:55 12 December 2015, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> >On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:51:28 PM UTC+3,
> >wr=
> >ote:
> >> This is one of the absurdities of the IGC scoring rules: Sometimes you
> >ca=
> >n gain a lot of points by waiting in front of the finish line. Day 11 in
> >th=
> >e standard class was such a day, and has cost the Polish team a medal.
> >>=20
> >> If the 3 in front (2 Poles, 1 Brit) had colluded, en waited 21!!!
> >minutes=
> > to cross the finish line, and finished all 3 with a speed of 122.82kph
> >(in=
> >stead of the real 138.14kph), this would have resulted in the following:
> >>=20
> >> - T0 would have become larger than 3 hours, leading to a 1000pt day
> >inst=
> >ead of a 932point day.
> >>=20
> >> - n2 (returners with speed larger than 66,7% of best speed) would have
> >in=
> >creased from 3 to 12. Thus the speed points would have increased from 72
> >to=
> > 308 points.
> >>=20
> >> - The result is, that the first 3 would have scored all 1000 points,
> and
> >=
> >number 4 would have had 711 points. This is a 289point lead, instead of
> >the=
> > real achieved 72point lead.
> >>=20
> >> - For all others behind 4th place, the results would even have been
> >worse=
> >..
> >>=20
> >> - In the total final ranking of the JWGC15, Siodloczek would have
> become
> >=
> >2nd (instead of 4th in reality), Flis would have become 4th (instead of
> >6th=
> >), and Matt Davis, would have become 7th (instead of 10th).
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> I understand the reasoning behind the rules: a "lucky" outlier (such as
> >i=
> >n this case) should not have an unreasonable impact on the final
> >competitio=
> >n results.
> >>=20
> >> However, the implementation is totally wrong: it should never be
> >possible=
> > to gain points (or better: increase your pointspread against the rest),
> >by=
> > flying slower.=20
> >>=20
> >> I have seen this happen a couple of times in the past, but never with
> >suc=
> >h a substantial impact as in this case.
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> On Friday, 11 December 2015 15:59:53 UTC+1, Steve Leonard wrote:
> >> > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
> >> > >=20
> >> > > That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make
> >min=
> >imum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club
> >Cl=
> >ass - there are no rule-based surprises.
> >> >=20
> >> > Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is
> >devalued.=
> > Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you
> only
> >=
> >cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider
> >th=
> >at to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the
> rules
> >=
> >are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance
> >t=
> >o the best performance that day.
> >> >=20
> >> > But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you
> prefer.
> >> >=20
> >> > Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!
> >> >=20
> >> > Steve Leonard
> >
> >It's easy enough to ensure this, by using continuous (or at least
> >piecewise=
> > continuous) functions in the rules, rather than step functions.
> >
> >But then you have to have someone mathematically competent on the rules
> >com=
> >mittee.
> >
> >There are certainly a few such here (e.g. JC), but maybe not in IGC.
> >
> The chairman of the annex A (Competition Rules) sub-committee of IGC is
> Rick Sheppe. If you are sugesting that he is not mathematically competent
> consider his CV.:
>
> 1. Gliding · Active glider pilot since 1967. Flight instructor since 1981.
> Tug pilot since 1988. · Diamond Badge Nr. 6517 2. Technical · Instrument
> designer: consultant to Cambridge Aero Instruments, Nielsen-Kellerman
> Corporation and ClearNav Systems. Software developer for several glide
> computers, variometers, and Flight Recorders. Responsible for FR security
> standards and algorithms. · Functional designer of the first IGC-approved
> Flight Recorder · Originator of the IGC file format. · Early consultant
> to Flight Recorder Approval Committee 1996-1997. Responsible for some FR
> security standards. Originator of the idea to remove Flight Recorder
> specifications from the Sporting Code. · Attended numerous WGC, Pre-WGC,
> and EGC competitions as technical expert for instrumentation. ·
> Barograph/Flight Recorder calibration station, instrument repairman ·
> Member of the organization ("GNSS Expert") at World Air Games in 1997.
> Advisor to the International Jury. 3. Administrative · Acting Team Captain
> at WGC 2003 (Poland), Team Captain at WGC 2012 (Argentina) · Member of
> OSTIV Working Group for Light and Ultralight Sailplanes · Former Soaring
> Society of America Director. · IGC positions: - IGC Alternate Delegate
> from USA - Annex A Committee member - Safety Pays Working Group member -
> Scoring Software Testing Working group member (Chairman as of May 1, 2012)
> - Communications and PR Committee member
>
> Does that strike you as someone who is not mathematically competent?

Nice CV but the results speak for themselves -- there are nearly as many mathematical absurdities and perverse incentives in the contest scoring rules as there are in the interactions between most countries tax and welfare systems.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Rick is a smart guy who understands all these problems deeply.

The perversities of the IGC scoring formulas are well known. The problem is huge institutional inertia against change, not that the person in charge of the subcommittee doesn't understand the issues.

The US scoring formula is monstrously over complex. But at least it has no known incentives to deliberately stop short of the finish or land out. It had those in the past, and they were promptly removed.

John Cochrane BB

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:17:12 +0000, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

> Does that strike you as someone who is not mathematically competent?
>
He sounds like a competent software designer and implementer with a good
grounding in electronics, but says nothing about his competence or
otherwise as a mathematician.

In short, not unlike myself, though his electronics design skills are
probably better than mine.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Dan Marotta]

I don't know the man and have no dog in this fight, but I did not see
anything in the resume you stated that would indicate mathematical
competency, such as a degree in math, physics, or engineering. Not
saying he doesn't have that but you just threw a bunch of snow and
claimed something for which I see no proof. Maybe I missed that. I
have a degree in electrical engineering and a diamond badge, but I don't
consider myself very competent in math any more, though I can add 2 + 2.

On 12/12/2015 7:17 AM, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
> At 13:55 12 December 2015, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:51:28 PM UTC+3,
>> wr=
>> ote:
>>> This is one of the absurdities of the IGC scoring rules: Sometimes you
>> ca=
>> n gain a lot of points by waiting in front of the finish line. Day 11 in
>> th=
>> e standard class was such a day, and has cost the Polish team a medal.
>>> =20
>>> If the 3 in front (2 Poles, 1 Brit) had colluded, en waited 21!!!
>> minutes=
>> to cross the finish line, and finished all 3 with a speed of 122.82kph
>> (in=
>> stead of the real 138.14kph), this would have resulted in the following:
>>> =20
>>> - T0 would have become larger than 3 hours, leading to a 1000pt day
>> inst=
>> ead of a 932point day.
>>> =20
>>> - n2 (returners with speed larger than 66,7% of best speed) would have
>> in=
>> creased from 3 to 12. Thus the speed points would have increased from 72
>> to=
>> 308 points.
>>> =20
>>> - The result is, that the first 3 would have scored all 1000 points,
> and
>> =
>> number 4 would have had 711 points. This is a 289point lead, instead of
>> the=
>> real achieved 72point lead.
>>> =20
>>> - For all others behind 4th place, the results would even have been
>> worse=
>> ..
>>> =20
>>> - In the total final ranking of the JWGC15, Siodloczek would have
> become
>> =
>> 2nd (instead of 4th in reality), Flis would have become 4th (instead of
>> 6th=
>> ), and Matt Davis, would have become 7th (instead of 10th).
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> I understand the reasoning behind the rules: a "lucky" outlier (such as
>> i=
>> n this case) should not have an unreasonable impact on the final
>> competitio=
>> n results.
>>> =20
>>> However, the implementation is totally wrong: it should never be
>> possible=
>> to gain points (or better: increase your pointspread against the rest),
>> by=
>> flying slower.=20
>>> =20
>>> I have seen this happen a couple of times in the past, but never with
>> suc=
>> h a substantial impact as in this case.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> On Friday, 11 December 2015 15:59:53 UTC+1, Steve Leonard wrote:
>>>> On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
>>>>> =20
>>>>> That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make
>> min=
>> imum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club
>> Cl=
>> ass - there are no rule-based surprises.
>>>> =20
>>>> Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is
>> devalued.=
>> Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you
> only
>> =
>> cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider
>> th=
>> at to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the
> rules
>> =
>> are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance
>> t=
>> o the best performance that day.
>>>> =20
>>>> But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you
> prefer.
>>>> =20
>>>> Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!
>>>> =20
>>>> Steve Leonard
>> It's easy enough to ensure this, by using continuous (or at least
>> piecewise=
>> continuous) functions in the rules, rather than step functions.
>>
>> But then you have to have someone mathematically competent on the rules
>> com=
>> mittee.
>>
>> There are certainly a few such here (e.g. JC), but maybe not in IGC.
>>
> The chairman of the annex A (Competition Rules) sub-committee of IGC is
> Rick Sheppe. If you are sugesting that he is not mathematically competent
> consider his CV.:
>
> 1. Gliding · Active glider pilot since 1967. Flight instructor since 1981.
> Tug pilot since 1988. · Diamond Badge Nr. 6517 2. Technical · Instrument
> designer: consultant to Cambridge Aero Instruments, Nielsen-Kellerman
> Corporation and ClearNav Systems. Software developer for several glide
> computers, variometers, and Flight Recorders. Responsible for FR security
> standards and algorithms. · Functional designer of the first IGC-approved
> Flight Recorder · Originator of the IGC file format. · Early consultant
> to Flight Recorder Approval Committee 1996-1997. Responsible for some FR
> security standards. Originator of the idea to remove Flight Recorder
> specifications from the Sporting Code. · Attended numerous WGC, Pre-WGC,
> and EGC competitions as technical expert for instrumentation. ·
> Barograph/Flight Recorder calibration station, instrument repairman ·
> Member of the organization (“GNSS Expert�) at World Air Games in 1997.
> Advisor to the International Jury. 3. Administrative · Acting Team Captain
> at WGC 2003 (Poland), Team Captain at WGC 2012 (Argentina) · Member of
> OSTIV Working Group for Light and Ultralight Sailplanes · Former Soaring
> Society of America Director. · IGC positions: - IGC Alternate Delegate
> from USA - Annex A Committee member - Safety Pays Working Group member -
> Scoring Software Testing Working group member (Chairman as of May 1, 2012)
> - Communications and PR Committee member
>
> Does that strike you as someone who is not mathematically competent?
>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Dale Watkins]

2 plus 2 still 22 ?

[JS]

Looking forward to reading the "how I dunnits" and "how I shoulda dunnits" from the team.

******** to arguing about the rules. Every game has rules and is entered knowing them. People seem to accept American "football" teams standing there with a ball and watching the clock tick down to zero. It's the same thing.

Zulu Romeo, good finish.
(now you can give Attila his glider back)
Jim

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-6, JS wrote:
> Looking forward to reading the "how I dunnits" and "how I shoulda dunnits" from the team.
>
> ******** to arguing about the rules. Every game has rules and is entered knowing them. People seem to accept American "football" teams standing there with a ball and watching the clock tick down to zero. It's the same thing..
>
> Zulu Romeo, good finish.
> (now you can give Attila his glider back)
> Jim

Yep. I let out a scream of "NOOOOOO!!!!" on the last day when Boyd's tracker said he had landed out. I think based on the altitude, that he probably won the Limbo Contest that day! Or maybe it was a Monty Python moment. He landed out. But, he got better.

Well done, guys! Looking forward to hearing more about it.

Steve

[Paul Agnew]

Did anyone catch the track of the kid that landed short and ran across the finish line carrying his tracker? I wish there was a video.

[Tony[_5_]]

He also landed 300m short toward the end of the contest. No running Ricky Bobby style that time though.

[Daniel Sazhin]

Hey Guys,

Thanks for all the support and enthusiasm along the way. We definitely kept track and we really appreciated it. As far as takeaways from the contest, we learned a tremendous amount and are really excited going into the future.. I am doing a write-up for the US Team and future junior pilots as far as lessons learned and what worked, etc.

This biggest implication of the US vs. FAI rules has little to do with the mechanics of starting, finishing or the like. The adjustments were easy, including doing a direct finish instead of the finish sectors we have. The biggest difference is the gaggle dynamic that exists and gets reinforced due to the point structure in place in FAI rules. We learned that it is very costly to try to outsmart the gaggle.

The Club Class Nationals at Hobbs were great practice for the Junior worlds.. The tasks seemed to be as intense and reasonably reflected the difficulty in tasking we experienced. I would definitely like to see more Nationals conducted in such a manner, with the variety of Assigned and Area tasks that we had there.

The other major takeaway is the need to practice team flying. I am now a complete convert. Team-flying can be extremely effective and we were able to fly a lot better because we did this. We were all amazed that we were able to stick together so well. Going into 2017, JP and I plan on practicing team-flying as much as we can. We would like to make informal weekend meets at Mifflin where we can fly with John Good and do ground school on tactics and strategy so that we can perform better in the upcoming Junior Worlds.

Our idea is to also expand this to other serious juniors within a reasonable radius of Mifflin and hopefully make this the basis of a consistent junior racing contingent.

Something that would be helpful to us developing skills and tactics for future world competitions is if team-flying were to be allowed at the National level. It would certainly be a great way to implement the practice we intend on doing during the off-season in a racing environment.

Best Regards,
Daniel

[[email protected]]

> Yep. I let out a scream of "NOOOOOO!!!!" on the last day when Boyd's tracker said he had landed out.

We certainly came close! We had some bad luck and plummeted from 6000ft AGL to 850ft without hitting any reasonable nibble. The sink was atrocious and the only reprieve was a weak little thermal over the field we were planning on landing in. All three of us, plus a straggler were parked in this little thermal, digging out. It was certainly a slow climb, but we got away and made it back home. Prior to plummeting out of the sky, we were really cooking along. If we had managed to keep the pace we were going and come back at minimum time, Boyd would have gotten third place. It was a good tactical gamble, but it did not work out.

Climbing out of that field was certainly exciting. It was the most fun low save I ever had, being in the company of three other gliders.

Best Regards,
Daniel

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:38:45 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> > Yep. I let out a scream of "NOOOOOO!!!!" on the last day when Boyd's tracker said he had landed out.
>
> We certainly came close! We had some bad luck and plummeted from 6000ft AGL to 850ft without hitting any reasonable nibble. The sink was atrocious and the only reprieve was a weak little thermal over the field we were planning on landing in. All three of us, plus a straggler were parked in this little thermal, digging out. It was certainly a slow climb, but we got away and made it back home. Prior to plummeting out of the sky, we were really cooking along. If we had managed to keep the pace we were going and come back at minimum time, Boyd would have gotten third place. It was a good tactical gamble, but it did not work out.
>
> Climbing out of that field was certainly exciting. It was the most fun low save I ever had, being in the company of three other gliders.
>
> Best Regards,
> Daniel

I noticed a lot of time on that last day with ground speeds showing 140 KPH or so, and vertical speeds of 4 to 5 M/sec down. For most everyone. And for rather extended periods of time. Glad you guys kept it together. I am sure you have heard this before, but I have been told when running crosswind, and in strong sink, immediate turn upwind.

Haven't been there or done that but it is interesting to me how at the world level, you live or die by the gaggle (or leaving it) and in the US, we hate the idea of the gaggle and the group flying and call people "leeches" for doing so. To me, this seems a far greater difference than our scoring system differences, or assigned versus AAT ratio on number of tasks, direct versus finish line or cylinder.

Thanks for the insights so far!

Steve Leonard

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

From Daniel::

"This biggest implication of the US vs. FAI rules has little to do with the mechanics of starting, finishing or the like....The biggest difference is the gaggle dynamic that exists and gets reinforced due to the point structure in place in FAI rules. "

I have heard this message consistently from US team members, and it is the number one lesson I came back with from a WGC. In our team efforts, this ought to be cut out and framed somewhere. How do we get better at that highly tactical game, and how do we collect and pass on the knowledge that each team gains.

John Cochrane BB

[Sean Fidler]

We could stop wasting lots of time and effort and argument developing and maintaining our own unique US sailplane competition rules (which isolate us from the rest of the world at all levels) and adopt IGC rules. :-)

Or perhaps we make slight modifications to IGC rules rather than developing our own rules. There is no way to be successful at both things.

At an absolute minimum. All US nationals MUST BE IGC RULES. Are we a serious soaring country or a soaring vacation country?

Everyone means well...but the writing is clearly written on the wall...

Sean

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 1:32:44 PM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> We could stop wasting lots of time and effort and argument developing and maintaining our own unique US sailplane competition rules (which isolate us from the rest of the world at all levels) and adopt IGC rules. :-)
>
> Or perhaps we make slight modifications to IGC rules rather than developing our own rules. There is no way to be successful at both things.
>
> At an absolute minimum. All US nationals MUST BE IGC RULES. Are we a serious soaring country or a soaring vacation country?
>
> Everyone means well...but the writing is clearly written on the wall...
>
> Sean

Did you notice the size of the turn areas on the AAT tasks at the Junior Worlds, Sean? Just curious. Sometimes 10 KM, but often 30 and as much as 40 KM RADIUS! Gasp! Soaring Vacation, indeed!

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 9:52:19 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> More complaining about IGC rules as if US rules are the solution. Sigh.
>
> Absurdity is spending tremendous effort developing an entirely different, watered down set of competition rules (US rules, which serve only to isolate the USA from the rest of the world) and then attending the World Championship contest once every two years vs the very best pilots in the world flying under the rules (IGC) which they are all intimately familiar, practiced and coached and expecting to be competitive.
>
> No assigned tasks, HATs, etc.
>
> Insanity is doing this same exercise over and over, again and again and expecting a different result.
>
> Our junior team faught extremely hard through a myriad of institutional handicaps. Just as our overall US team does. I feel it's a good time to point out the 200 ton elephant in "the room."
>
> Congratulations to Boyd (9th), Daniel (15th) and JP (22nd) and their great coaches and crew. They truly did an incredible job despite tremendous disadvantages against most of the other teams.
>
> The question is will the US take any action to help be more competitive. Answer: ?. ...back to the land of the soaring vacation? And the European teams (and Australia) go back to the land of incredible Junior development, training and culture.
>
> Sean

Sean, did you notice that the Junior Worlds had 50% TAT. Not 5% but 50% !!
So much for the AST theory.
Great job by all the Juniors competitors.

[ND]

>
> The other major takeaway is the need to practice team flying. I am now a complete convert. Team-flying can be extremely effective and we were able to fly a lot better because we did this. We were all amazed that we were able to stick together so well. Going into 2017, JP and I plan on practicing team-flying as much as we can. We would like to make informal weekend meets at Mifflin where we can fly with John Good and do ground school on tactics and strategy so that we can perform better in the upcoming Junior Worlds.
>
> Our idea is to also expand this to other serious juniors within a reasonable radius of Mifflin and hopefully make this the basis of a consistent junior racing contingent.
>
> Something that would be helpful to us developing skills and tactics for future world competitions is if team-flying were to be allowed at the National level. It would certainly be a great way to implement the practice we intend on doing during the off-season in a racing environment.
>


i would love to come down to mifflin with my sailplane to take part in this!

[[email protected]]

To Sean's point, what is the #1 objective of our U.S. National contests? If it's to help insure an American winning the World Championships, I might agree we should adopt IGC rules. If it's more complicated than that, then following everyone else may not make sense.

Similarly, is it easier for a pilot who's very good at making his/her own decisions to be good at IGC gaggle flying, or is the reverse true? Some of our most respected and internationally successful pilots have been renowned for their lead-from-the-front, individualistic style here: e.g., A.J. Smith, George Moffat, and Doug Jacobs, with 4 world championships among them (without intending to slight anyone else).

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

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 14 December 2015 14:55:28 UTC-7, wrote:
> To Sean's point, what is the #1 objective of our U.S. National contests? If it's to help insure an American winning the World Championships, I might agree we should adopt IGC rules. If it's more complicated than that, then following everyone else may not make sense.
>
> Similarly, is it easier for a pilot who's very good at making his/her own decisions to be good at IGC gaggle flying, or is the reverse true? Some of our most respected and internationally successful pilots have been renowned for their lead-from-the-front, individualistic style here: e.g., A.J. Smith, George Moffat, and Doug Jacobs, with 4 world championships among them (without intending to slight anyone else).
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

From the SSA web site - United States Soaring Team pilots are chosen by the Soaring Society of America (SSA) based on recent performance in National and World-level competition. After each of the US Nationals, competitors' scores are compared to the winner's score. The winner of each Nationals receives a score of 100, and the other contestants are ranked relative to the winner's score. The pilot's current year and the best of the two previous years' performance are considered when selecting U.S. Soaring Team members with the current year being weighted more heavily.

U.S. Soaring Team rankings can be very close with only a fraction of a point separating competitors. When U.S. pilots do well in world level contests they earn bonus points that count toward their selection to future US Soaring Teams. The number of team members who represent the United States at a World Soaring Championships is ultimately determined by the World Championship contest organizers and the SSA.

From 2015 National FAI-Class Competition Rulebook -
1.0 >> GENERAL
1.1 The purpose of a National FAI Class Soaring Championship is to determine a National FAI Class Champion and to measure the performance of all entrants. Performance in Nationals will be used to provide a basis for pilots to qualify for entry into future soaring Championships and to select pilots for the U.S. Team in International Competition

[Sean Fidler]

I think you may be confused with my position. I have been stating simple statistical facts on US/SSA tasking and these facts are very comprehensive per my annual report on US tasking proportions.

The USA/SSA has, of late, held roughly 5% (less than 10 task total) assigned tasks annually. That percentage has been shrinking. In fact, assigned tasks are on a trajectory to be zero in 2-3 years in the USA/SSA. The recent Junior Worlds ran roughly 6 assigned tasks in 11 flying days!

The IGC task guidance is 50% timed area tasks and 50% assigned racing tasks for a given competition. On good days, assigned tasks! Area tasks are secondary, assigned are preferred! This ratio was on target per IGC guidance at the Junior Worlds, yes.

The USA/SSA, on the other hand runs almost 70% timed area tasks (average radius 19 miles!). Again, only 5% assigned racing tasks. This is NOTHING like the IGC in my view. The USA, instead, runs their own unique (TIMED) Modified Assigned Tasks (affectionately known by some as the HAT or "half assed task" ;-)) which ranges from the INFAMOUS zero (pure OLC task) to one turn (basically OLC) to the so called "long MAT. Rhe UsA/SSA runs as money or more one and zero turn MATs than assigned racing tasks! The long MAT is designed to eat up almost all of the minimum time but calling the right task length is very difficult to get right. They are often not long enough and require a good deal of decision making at the end of the assigned portion. The problem with the MAT vs the pure Assigned racing Task it is actually extremely complex. Pilot workload is significantly increased. It favors proficiency with flight computers and requires significant heads down time contemplating various TP combination scenarios. It's like a high stakes casino really. You must put all your "chips" on the best additional turnpoints to add before heading to the finish in order to eat up any remaining minimum time. The key moments of the task is usually not the assigned racing portion but is the small fraction of the total task that is left to pilots choice. You can become a hero or a zero in a heartbeat. MATs are very much about calculating timing and playing with the computer to calculate potential options with visable weather. Nothing like the IGC at all.

These unique USA/SSA tasks are all intended to reduce land outs but the unintended consequences are they destroy tactical racing and further isolate the USA from international competition.

I think some of the comments from our junior team reflect this concern.

Sean

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 9:20:00 PM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> The recent Junior Worlds ran roughly 6 assigned tasks in 11 flying days!
>
5 of 10 were assigned. Pretty easy to see this from the task sheets. "Roughly 6 in 11 flying days"? You are better with stats than that, Sean.

Average Area radius for the Club Class was 26.67 KM or 16.56 miles.

The US Team's top place on any day was on an assigned task. Where he was the only finisher. Think this means the assigned tasks were only on "the good days"? Well, three Std class pilots did top 130 KPH on that day, but everyone else was in the low to mid 80s on KPH.

At the last 15/18/Open Worlds, our best daily finish (again a 1st place) was by Dave Mockler on, are you ready for this, an ASSIGNED TASK.

Maybe the type of task flown at our nationals isn't quite as important as the tactics on when to start and who to fly with at the Worlds?

Just a few observations and comments from another who has not (yet) "been there, done that."

Steve Leonard

[Sean Fidler]

No, I strongly disagree. My facts are highly accurate (despite being typed from a car and from memory). 5/6 whatever. It's 50% IGC assigned tasks vs 5% (actually, I think it was 3% to be exact) assigned tasks in the USA. No Mats, no Hats whatsoever were run in Australia. I'm not sure how my point could be any more substantiated than that, sir.

I believe that flying the same rules (and therefore the same strategy and tactics), at all US contests, as the rest of the gliding competition world flys (safely and without issue or without mass exodus from the sport because "it is too hard") is important to the USA on many levels. We are embarrassing ourselves when "some" try to argue that our watered down US rules are not having a significant impact on our US team pilots ability to compete effectively at Gliding World Championships. At the same tim, the grand US rules "experiment" is not improving our participation numbers or satisfaction or enjoyment. For many it is in fact quite irritating to be isolated from the rest of the world.... Even our Zias ranking system is entirely different from the rest of the soaring worlds FAI pilot ranking. US pilots results from Us contests are not even added to that list anymore...

The general trend for US rules is continuing to move steadily towards more and more watering down of the tasking with the impossible goal of eliminating land outs or mass land outs. OLC "contests" are being seriously discussed, etc, etc, etc.

There is no reason we can't have fun at US contests (just as the rest of the world does...) while flying IGC rules. This is a general misconception that has led us down a resource intensive path (US rules) that has limited, neutral or negative value to our sport here in the USA. Our numbers are not increasing. "Hey, the tasking is easier now, I'm signing up" but wouldn't do so until this happened...said nobody ever. "Our pilot satisfaction is not demonstrably higher (with many it is lower). Yet we spend tremendous effort and endlessly debate and continuously modify our own unique US gliding competition rules on an annual basis. No rules are perfect. I know everyone means well, but is all this effort really worth the actual measured results? What is the goal for having our own US rules again? Why do we do all this again? Under what circumstances will we stop being the only country on earth up with its own gliding competition rules? Especially vs. the obvious benefits (time, resources, priorities, etc) of being on the same rules page with the rest of the worlds competition soaring community?

Who within the SSA has the power to force all of us US (and Candian) contest pilots to have to fly entirely different rules? Who are the cheerleaders? Who were the architects? Why do we allow this given the current return on investment?

I'll take the IGC rules and put the manpower we spend managing them to other uses which (in my opinion) are far more in need of attention for US soaring. It's like the flat tax. Get rid of the IRS. Simplify. We have a number of great guys on this "problem." who would (in my humble opinion) be far better utilized working on growth or junior soaring or increasing our US clubs cross country skills and culture, etc, etc, etc.

I am happy to get into the finer details but the broad, general policy of wrestling with our own unique US rules (completely isolating us from the rest of the soaring competition world) vs. simply utilizing IGC rules is something that HAS NEVER made any sense to me, whatsoever. I'm continuously baffled by it. Is it just me? No...

I look forward to some honest answers to the questions above...

Sean

[Sean Fidler]

No, I strongly disagree. My facts are highly accurate (despite being typed from a car and from memory). 5/6 whatever. It's 50% IGC assigned tasks vs 5% (actually, I think it was 3% to be exact) assigned tasks in the USA. No Mats, no Hats whatsoever were run in Australia. I'm not sure how my point could be any more substantiated than that, sir. ;-)

I believe that flying the same rules (and therefore the same strategy and tactics), at all US contests, as the rest of the gliding competition world uses (safely and without issue or without mass exodus from the sport because "it is too hard") is important to the USA on many levels. We are embarrassing ourselves when "some" try to argue that our watered down US rules are not having a significant impact on our US team pilots ability to compete effectively at FAI Gliding World Championships which are all run under IGC rules (the world standard). At the same time, the grand US rules "experiment" is not improving our participation numbers or satisfaction or enjoyment. For many, it is in fact quite irritating to be isolated from the rest of the world.... Even our own private US ranking system is entirely different from the rest of the soaring worlds FAI pilot ranking. US pilots results from US contests are not even added to that list anymore... Even more isolation.

The general trend for US rules is continuing to move steadily towards more and more watering down of the tasking with the impossible goal of eliminating land outs or mass land outs. OLC "contests" are being seriously discussed, etc, etc, etc.

There is no reason we can't have fun at US contests (just as the rest of the world does...) while flying IGC rules. This is a general misconception that has led us down a resource intensive path (US rules) that has limited, neutral or negative value to our sport here in the USA. Our numbers are not increasing. "Hey, the tasking is easier now, I'm signing up" but wouldn't do so until this happened...said nobody ever. "Our pilot satisfaction is not demonstrably higher (with many it is lower). Yet we spend tremendous effort and endlessly debate and continuously modify our own unique US gliding competition rules on an annual basis. No rules are perfect. I know everyone means well, but is all this effort really worth the actual measured results? What is the goal for having our own US rules again? Why do we do all this again? Under what circumstances will we stop being the only country on earth up with its own gliding competition rules? Especially vs. the obvious benefits (time, resources, priorities, etc) of being on the same rules page with the rest of the worlds competition soaring community?

Who within the SSA has the power to force all of us US (and Candian) contest pilots to have to fly entirely different rules? Who are the cheerleaders? Who were the architects? Why do we allow this given the current return on investment?

I'll take the IGC rules and put the manpower we spend managing them to other uses which (in my opinion) are far more in need of attention for US soaring. It's like the flat tax. Get rid of the IRS. Simplify. We have a number of great guys on this "problem." who would (in my humble opinion) be far better utilized working on growth or junior soaring or increasing our US clubs cross country skills and culture, etc, etc, etc.

I am happy to get into the finer details but the broad, general policy of wrestling with our own unique US rules (completely isolating us from the rest of the soaring competition world) vs. simply utilizing IGC rules is something that HAS NEVER made any sense to me, whatsoever. I'm continuously baffled by it. Is it just me? No...

I look forward to some honest answers to the questions above...

Sean

[plantain]

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 1:56:48 AM UTC+11, wrote:
> On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 9:41:10 AM UTC-5, Dan Daly wrote:
> > > I'm surprised (but very happy) that they didn't devalue the day with only one completion.
> >
> > That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make minimum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club Class - there are no rule-based surprises.
>
> How about the rule based surprise when it is worth more to land short than to finish? And without a ground based helper how would you know?
> UH

This keeps coming up. Which rule exactly are you referring to?

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Sean:

Again. (And again, and again, and again): No country uses IGC rules. IGC rules, verbatim, are only applicable for world championships. Start right at entry is by nomination from National Aero Clubs. So how are you going to do entries for US nationals if you "use IGC rules?" Ask the NAC to decide who gets in to Nephi? And go on from there. Stewards, international jury, site selection, so forth. You simply cannot use these, verbatim, for national and regional contests. Every country creates a set of national rules, adapting IGC rules more or less.

Again. And again and again and again: The choice of assigned tasks vs. turn area tasks vs. MATs is completely up to the competition director. IGC rules have fixed proportions of tasks -- resulting in assigned tasks in thunderstorms because we used up the allowed fraction of turn area tasks. US rules do not have any fixed proportions. THIS IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE CD, not the rules. If you want assigned tasks, talk to your CD. Talk to your fellow pilots at nationals and convince them that's what they really want to do.

The clamor for "use IGC rules" would be much reduced if anyone bothered to actually read the rules before clamoring.

John Cochrane

[plantain]

> IGC rules have fixed proportions of tasks
No, they don't. They recommend but do not require no more than 2/3rds of one task type.
6.1) TASK TYPES The following task types are available for use during the
Championships. A single task type should not be used for more than 67% of the
Championship Days in each class.
Preliminary Remarks b) In this Annex the words "must", "shall", and "may not" indicate mandatory
requirements; "should" indicates a recommendation; "may" indicates what is
permitted; and "will" indicates what is going to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GMkuPiIZ2k

I am not familiar with the US rules, but I do know the IGC rules quite well and they're not the bogeymen they're made out to be. Nor are they perfect - still quite a few step functions left. I would like to see them gone, like Bruce Hoult suggested.

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:50:34 PM UTC+11, John Cochrane wrote:
> Sean:
>
> Again. (And again, and again, and again): No country uses IGC rules. IGC rules, verbatim, are only applicable for world championships. Start right at entry is by nomination from National Aero Clubs. So how are you going to do entries for US nationals if you "use IGC rules?" Ask the NAC to decide who gets in to Nephi? And go on from there. Stewards, international jury, site selection, so forth. You simply cannot use these, verbatim, for national and regional contests. Every country creates a set of national rules, adapting IGC rules more or less.
>
> Again. And again and again and again: The choice of assigned tasks vs. turn area tasks vs. MATs is completely up to the competition director. IGC rules have fixed proportions of tasks -- resulting in assigned tasks in thunderstorms because we used up the allowed fraction of turn area tasks. US rules do not have any fixed proportions. THIS IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE CD, not the rules. If you want assigned tasks, talk to your CD. Talk to your fellow pilots at nationals and convince them that's what they really want to do.
>
> The clamor for "use IGC rules" would be much reduced if anyone bothered to actually read the rules before clamoring.
>
> John Cochrane

[Sean Fidler]

Common John! ;-)

Saying the rules committee has nothing to do with the tasks run at US contests is like saying that the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with inflation, output or employment. Common! Who are you trying to kid?

You guys came up with these experimental task types (only in the USA, even Canada doesn't use HATs). Saying the RC has nothing to do with tasking is just really, really funny when you think about it. Thanks for the chuckle. The purpose of the experiment was to provide CDs a means of providing more more flexibility (lower difficulty) for contest pilots in order to reduce land-outs in unpredictable weather, right? But in reality land-outs have not really decreased all that much. Task challenge and for some overall contest enjoyment has been reduced.

Blame it on the CDs? No. I certainly do not. Talk to the CDs? I do and they have responded to encouragement in some cases. I am thankful for this, but it's only been at nationals really. I'll run the numbers soon. I suspect it was only a 2% increase at best.

Other counties seem to, somehow, run a significant number of assigned tasks at regional level, junior level contests and even junior training camps (and of course roughly 50% at nationals (weather permitting) becuase they are loved by many pilots and simple to manage for beginners. They don't have an enormously higher land out rate. The US runs only 1-2 assigned tasks a year NATIONWIDE at regionals, if we are lucky! A handful more at nationals.. Again, land-out rates are roughly the same.

Many US pilots (and Candian) are no longer excited about US regionals becuase of the silly tasks that are often called. A significant number have entirely stopped planning to attend regionals. Now "we" are even seriously studying the introduction of an OLC task. This will probably further hamper assigned tasks.

I like the idea of the IGC setting a reasonable task ratio standard at the Worlds. Most countries seem to adopt those basic standards in their contests. The US RC needs to inject at least some guidance protecting assigned tasks or we will have none soon.

Look at the turnout for the FAI Sailplane Grand Prix USA (July 2016). We could have had almost 50 entrants if more than 20 were allowed to enter. Some people, perhaps more than you think, still want to to race.

It's incredible how resistant many in SSA leadership roles are to this idea..

Cheerio,

Sean

[Dennis Vreeken]

Even Canada , really

[Per Carlin]

Very interesting to read your thought and concerns regarding tasks.

US looks completely different from Europe. Here(in Europe) do we mainly (almost only) fly the Assigned Speed Task (AST, speed over given distance) and the Assigned Area Task(AAT, distance over given time in defined areas, recalculated to speed) defined by the IGC Sporting Code. Different pilots has different preferences regarding the two tasks, but if the CD calls out to many AAT will definitely the AST-guys complain loud. I guess that the long term is the ratio between AST:AAT close to 1:1. In a single competition is it more AST if the weather is good and homogeneous and more AAT in unstable conditions with predicted showers. Never or seldom does the CD calls for AAT to reduce the out landings in the big competitions, maybe in the smaller ones. There is a long tradition in Europe to fly AST, and when we fly AAT do we want the areas to be reasonable small (5-15km). To some extent do we actually fly to little AAT at the top level to be prepared for the WGC, the opposite as you describe for the US pilots.

There is a long winter ahead
/Per, G7

[Tony[_5_]]

at 13.5 Worlds, Francois and I's best result was on one of the 2 AAT days (1st and 2nd). Perhaps it was all the practice ;)

I had a lot of fun crewing for JP. Our guys did a nice job flying together and it was a lot of fun to watch them. Invaluable experience. On to Lithuania!

[Sean Fidler]

Per Carlin,

That is very interesting indeed. Clearly may European pilots arriv at the various world championships quite battle hardened and well prepared. No question there.

Thanks for sharing.

Sean

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 12:31:58 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
>
>
> Blame it on the CDs? No. I certainly do not. Talk to the CDs? I do and they have responded to encouragement in some cases. I am thankful for this, but it's only been at nationals really. I'll run the numbers soon. I suspect it was only a 2% increase at best.
>
>
> Cheerio,
>
> Sean

A suggestion from the last guy to call an Assigned Task at a US contest...

Why not advertise Region 6 as a "mostly AT" contest this year (that is your region,right?). Couldn't hurt to have some real data on whether that effects participation, pilot satisfaction, etc.


Erik Mann
P3

[Sean Fidler]

OK...Ill bite.

I actually already have! Check out this AMAZING website. www.sgp.aero/usa2016 - The FIRST EVER FAI Sailplane Grand Prix USA 2016 to be held next July 24th -31st. It has been sold out for many months now...

Numerous top ranked FAI pilots will be traveling to the USA next summer (more internation pilots than have been to the USA, for a non world championship event, in a VERY long time I imagine...). Pilots from Australia, Germany, Britain, etc. Over 10 of these international competitors (not including Canada) have applied to fly our FAI Sailplane Grand Prix USA. Unfortunatly, per the FAI SGP rules, only 5 international competitors will be accepted (of 20 total pilots in the contest). Wow. Imagine that. Top international pilots signing up for a US contest in Ionia, MI! An assigned task only contest clearly creating STRONG demand for top international pilots to travel to Ionia, MI USA and fly an assigned task only contest. An assinged task only event (in the USA!) which was sold out and significantly overbooked OVER A YEAR BEFOR THE CONTEST BEGINS! Hmmm. I wonder why that could be?

We also have almost 25 US and Canadian pilots in the que. They are in the process of being widdled down to the max of 15 based on SSA rankings (becuase the SSA stoped maintaining the FAI information...sigh)

Clearly, there is strong demand for ASSIGNED TASKS in the USA. Perhaps even more demand would exist if SGP USA was hosted by a more exotic location.

Personally I would rather do a grand prix match race with one other glider friend in Ionia than go to a regional contest that will only run timed, wide area TAT "weather skill" tasks. Hell, I would rather practice an assigned task by myself (something I do all the time) or try a state record flight than go to a TAT, MAT only contest. In all my contests over the last 5 years, I think I have only done 5-6 assinged tasks. I am SICK of timed, area tasks. I am probably not alone..............

I hear you. Many cry (like children at times) about assigned tasks (even though we very rarely run them at all). Some phycisally cower when assigned tasks are even "hinted at" even if the weather forecast is enormously good.. Its amazing how fearful many seem to be. Just because many protest against or threaten not to attend a contests if assigned tasks are possible does not make them justified in their strong resistance. I think assigned task (rather than just going to the best weather) make pilots better cross country pilots. I think they gave great value to newer cross country pilots. I think flying only to the best weather makes a pilot quite weak at certain areas. Assigned tasks are very rewarding and yes, sometimes, difficult. You might even land out once in awhile. So what. There is a reason they do 50% ASTs at major contests wordwide. I think an "assigned tasks lives matter" T shirt is coming! ;-)

I believe that we should strive to have at least 20% assigned tasks in the USA, not 3%. Still a small fraction (20% vs. 50%) of general international levels, but nearly 7x more than are run in the US today. There is good value, as a country, to remaining proficient in assigned tasks. We cannot purely focus on broad weather strategy, computer management task. And it is a total misconception that this value is only for the US team pilots who have to go to world championships where 50% of the task are likely to be AST.

Im really getting tired of this conversation. But I think its a important one.

The USA runs 3% NOT TIMED TASKS and 97% timed tasks. Say that 10 times for me. This is undisputed data and is not proportional to the desires of all US glider pilots, despite what the pollsters are trying to sell us.

Sean

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

OK, back on topic...... ;-)

I say, "Congrats to the Junior pilots, team members, suppliers, helpers, etc., job well done".

I will also be looking for some of the "war stories" of flights.

[Papa3[_2_]]

I'm very aware of the work you're doing on the Grand Prix idea. It's freakin' fantastic!

My point is just that we need to balance our objectives. The typical "low-key regionals" has a very varied level of pilot abilities and ambitions. Maybe we need to promote some contests as more AT-heavy and see what happens..

A side thought. I set up the Fairfield regionals this year with a "Gold Class" and a "Silver Class" rather than traditional equipment-based lines. It was clearly stated that the Gold Class would use more ambitious tasking, and it's where I called the Assigned Task (1 out of 4, so only 25%) and a long MAT that was supposed to be just about an Assigned Task (but the weather was actually even better than forecast, so people had more optional time than optimal).

Perhaps that approach in some smaller regionals might be better than having 3 small classes split by span/type? State that the Gold Class will use more ambitious tasking and more ATs.

Just a thought.

P3


On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 1:20:08 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> OK...Ill bite.
>
> I actually already have! Check out this AMAZING website. www.sgp.aero/usa2016 - The FIRST EVER FAI Sailplane Grand Prix USA 2016 to be held next July 24th -31st. It has been sold out for many months now...
>
> Numerous top ranked FAI pilots will be traveling to the USA next summer (more internation pilots than have been to the USA, for a non world championship event, in a VERY long time I imagine...). Pilots from Australia, Germany, Britain, etc. Over 10 of these international competitors (not including Canada) have applied to fly our FAI Sailplane Grand Prix USA. Unfortunatly, per the FAI SGP rules, only 5 international competitors will be accepted (of 20 total pilots in the contest). Wow. Imagine that. Top international pilots signing up for a US contest in Ionia, MI! An assigned task only contest clearly creating STRONG demand for top international pilots to travel to Ionia, MI USA and fly an assigned task only contest. An assinged task only event (in the USA!) which was sold out and significantly overbooked OVER A YEAR BEFOR THE CONTEST BEGINS! Hmmm. I wonder why that could be?
>
> We also have almost 25 US and Canadian pilots in the que. They are in the process of being widdled down to the max of 15 based on SSA rankings (becuase the SSA stoped maintaining the FAI information...sigh)
>
> Clearly, there is strong demand for ASSIGNED TASKS in the USA. Perhaps even more demand would exist if SGP USA was hosted by a more exotic location..
>
> Personally I would rather do a grand prix match race with one other glider friend in Ionia than go to a regional contest that will only run timed, wide area TAT "weather skill" tasks. Hell, I would rather practice an assigned task by myself (something I do all the time) or try a state record flight than go to a TAT, MAT only contest. In all my contests over the last 5 years, I think I have only done 5-6 assinged tasks. I am SICK of timed, area tasks. I am probably not alone..............
>
> I hear you. Many cry (like children at times) about assigned tasks (even though we very rarely run them at all). Some phycisally cower when assigned tasks are even "hinted at" even if the weather forecast is enormously good. Its amazing how fearful many seem to be. Just because many protest against or threaten not to attend a contests if assigned tasks are possible does not make them justified in their strong resistance. I think assigned task (rather than just going to the best weather) make pilots better cross country pilots. I think they gave great value to newer cross country pilots.. I think flying only to the best weather makes a pilot quite weak at certain areas. Assigned tasks are very rewarding and yes, sometimes, difficult.. You might even land out once in awhile. So what. There is a reason they do 50% ASTs at major contests wordwide. I think an "assigned tasks lives matter" T shirt is coming! ;-)
>
> I believe that we should strive to have at least 20% assigned tasks in the USA, not 3%. Still a small fraction (20% vs. 50%) of general international levels, but nearly 7x more than are run in the US today. There is good value, as a country, to remaining proficient in assigned tasks. We cannot purely focus on broad weather strategy, computer management task. And it is a total misconception that this value is only for the US team pilots who have to go to world championships where 50% of the task are likely to be AST.
>
> Im really getting tired of this conversation. But I think its a important one.
>
> The USA runs 3% NOT TIMED TASKS and 97% timed tasks. Say that 10 times for me. This is undisputed data and is not proportional to the desires of all US glider pilots, despite what the pollsters are trying to sell us.
>
> Sean

[Dan Marotta]

This Thread <http://giphy.com/gifs/my-brilliance-dead-horse-KqLPb0IrGHwiY>

On 12/16/2015 11:20 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> OK...Ill bite.
>
> I actually already have! Check out this AMAZING website. www.sgp.aero/usa2016 - The FIRST EVER FAI Sailplane Grand Prix USA 2016 to be held next July 24th -31st. It has been sold out for many months now...
>
> Numerous top ranked FAI pilots will be traveling to the USA next summer (more internation pilots than have been to the USA, for a non world championship event, in a VERY long time I imagine...). Pilots from Australia, Germany, Britain, etc. Over 10 of these international competitors (not including Canada) have applied to fly our FAI Sailplane Grand Prix USA. Unfortunatly, per the FAI SGP rules, only 5 international competitors will be accepted (of 20 total pilots in the contest). Wow. Imagine that. Top international pilots signing up for a US contest in Ionia, MI! An assigned task only contest clearly creating STRONG demand for top international pilots to travel to Ionia, MI USA and fly an assigned task only contest. An assinged task only event (in the USA!) which was sold out and significantly overbooked OVER A YEAR BEFOR THE CONTEST BEGINS! Hmmm. I wonder why that could be?
>
> We also have almost 25 US and Canadian pilots in the que. They are in the process of being widdled down to the max of 15 based on SSA rankings (becuase the SSA stoped maintaining the FAI information...sigh)
>
> Clearly, there is strong demand for ASSIGNED TASKS in the USA. Perhaps even more demand would exist if SGP USA was hosted by a more exotic location.
>
> Personally I would rather do a grand prix match race with one other glider friend in Ionia than go to a regional contest that will only run timed, wide area TAT "weather skill" tasks. Hell, I would rather practice an assigned task by myself (something I do all the time) or try a state record flight than go to a TAT, MAT only contest. In all my contests over the last 5 years, I think I have only done 5-6 assinged tasks. I am SICK of timed, area tasks. I am probably not alone..............
>
> I hear you. Many cry (like children at times) about assigned tasks (even though we very rarely run them at all). Some phycisally cower when assigned tasks are even "hinted at" even if the weather forecast is enormously good. Its amazing how fearful many seem to be. Just because many protest against or threaten not to attend a contests if assigned tasks are possible does not make them justified in their strong resistance. I think assigned task (rather than just going to the best weather) make pilots better cross country pilots. I think they gave great value to newer cross country pilots. I think flying only to the best weather makes a pilot quite weak at certain areas. Assigned tasks are very rewarding and yes, sometimes, difficult. You might even land out once in awhile. So what. There is a reason they do 50% ASTs at major contests wordwide. I think an "assigned tasks lives matter" T shirt is coming! ;-)
>
> I believe that we should strive to have at least 20% assigned tasks in the USA, not 3%. Still a small fraction (20% vs. 50%) of general international levels, but nearly 7x more than are run in the US today. There is good value, as a country, to remaining proficient in assigned tasks. We cannot purely focus on broad weather strategy, computer management task. And it is a total misconception that this value is only for the US team pilots who have to go to world championships where 50% of the task are likely to be AST.
>
> Im really getting tired of this conversation. But I think its a important one.
>
> The USA runs 3% NOT TIMED TASKS and 97% timed tasks. Say that 10 times for me. This is undisputed data and is not proportional to the desires of all US glider pilots, despite what the pollsters are trying to sell us.
>
> Sean

--
Dan, 5J

[Alex[_6_]]

> A side thought. I set up the Fairfield regionals this year with a "Gold Class" and a "Silver Class" rather than traditional equipment-based lines. It was clearly stated that the Gold Class would use more ambitious tasking, and it's where I called the Assigned Task (1 out of 4, so only 25%) and a long MAT that was supposed to be just about an Assigned Task (but the weather was actually even better than forecast, so people had more optional time than optimal).
>
> Perhaps that approach in some smaller regionals might be better than having 3 small classes split by span/type? State that the Gold Class will use more ambitious tasking and more ATs.
>

In Ballieau in France they do 3 classes:

Beginners, Speed and Distance

The beginners class is focused on easy tasks manageable for low experience levels.

The speed class is focused on flying shorter tasks during the best part of the day

The long distance class focuses on doing maximum distance, launching early and landing late.

Of course all classes focus primarily on assigned speed tasks, weather permitting. Area tasks are not particulary popular in Europe.

http://2015.planeur-bailleau.org/index.php/en/general-information

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

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 9:56:15 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> I'm very aware of the work you're doing on the Grand Prix idea. It's freakin' fantastic!
>
> My point is just that we need to balance our objectives. The typical "low-key regionals" has a very varied level of pilot abilities and ambitions. Maybe we need to promote some contests as more AT-heavy and see what happens.
>
> A side thought. I set up the Fairfield regionals this year with a "Gold Class" and a "Silver Class" rather than traditional equipment-based lines. It was clearly stated that the Gold Class would use more ambitious tasking, and it's where I called the Assigned Task (1 out of 4, so only 25%) and a long MAT that was supposed to be just about an Assigned Task (but the weather was actually even better than forecast, so people had more optional time than optimal).
>
> Perhaps that approach in some smaller regionals might be better than having 3 small classes split by span/type? State that the Gold Class will use more ambitious tasking and more ATs.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> P3
>
>
> On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 1:20:08 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > OK...Ill bite.
> >
> > I actually already have! Check out this AMAZING website. www.sgp.aero/usa2016 - The FIRST EVER FAI Sailplane Grand Prix USA 2016 to be held next July 24th -31st. It has been sold out for many months now...
> >
> > Numerous top ranked FAI pilots will be traveling to the USA next summer (more internation pilots than have been to the USA, for a non world championship event, in a VERY long time I imagine...). Pilots from Australia, Germany, Britain, etc. Over 10 of these international competitors (not including Canada) have applied to fly our FAI Sailplane Grand Prix USA. Unfortunatly, per the FAI SGP rules, only 5 international competitors will be accepted (of 20 total pilots in the contest). Wow. Imagine that. Top international pilots signing up for a US contest in Ionia, MI! An assigned task only contest clearly creating STRONG demand for top international pilots to travel to Ionia, MI USA and fly an assigned task only contest. An assinged task only event (in the USA!) which was sold out and significantly overbooked OVER A YEAR BEFOR THE CONTEST BEGINS! Hmmm. I wonder why that could be?
> >
> > We also have almost 25 US and Canadian pilots in the que. They are in the process of being widdled down to the max of 15 based on SSA rankings (becuase the SSA stoped maintaining the FAI information...sigh)
> >
> > Clearly, there is strong demand for ASSIGNED TASKS in the USA. Perhaps even more demand would exist if SGP USA was hosted by a more exotic location.
> >
> > Personally I would rather do a grand prix match race with one other glider friend in Ionia than go to a regional contest that will only run timed, wide area TAT "weather skill" tasks. Hell, I would rather practice an assigned task by myself (something I do all the time) or try a state record flight than go to a TAT, MAT only contest. In all my contests over the last 5 years, I think I have only done 5-6 assinged tasks. I am SICK of timed, area tasks. I am probably not alone..............
> >
> > I hear you. Many cry (like children at times) about assigned tasks (even though we very rarely run them at all). Some phycisally cower when assigned tasks are even "hinted at" even if the weather forecast is enormously good. Its amazing how fearful many seem to be. Just because many protest against or threaten not to attend a contests if assigned tasks are possible does not make them justified in their strong resistance. I think assigned task (rather than just going to the best weather) make pilots better cross country pilots. I think they gave great value to newer cross country pilots. I think flying only to the best weather makes a pilot quite weak at certain areas. Assigned tasks are very rewarding and yes, sometimes, difficult. You might even land out once in awhile. So what. There is a reason they do 50% ASTs at major contests wordwide. I think an "assigned tasks lives matter" T shirt is coming! ;-)
> >
> > I believe that we should strive to have at least 20% assigned tasks in the USA, not 3%. Still a small fraction (20% vs. 50%) of general international levels, but nearly 7x more than are run in the US today. There is good value, as a country, to remaining proficient in assigned tasks. We cannot purely focus on broad weather strategy, computer management task. And it is a total misconception that this value is only for the US team pilots who have to go to world championships where 50% of the task are likely to be AST.
> >
> > Im really getting tired of this conversation. But I think its a important one.
> >
> > The USA runs 3% NOT TIMED TASKS and 97% timed tasks. Say that 10 times for me. This is undisputed data and is not proportional to the desires of all US glider pilots, despite what the pollsters are trying to sell us.
> >
> > Sean

This is like the old "Little guys meet" that Blairstown and a couple others used to run at least once a season.
It was run on 2 consecutive weekends.
We had a typical morning meeting, task calls (Gold class & Silver class sorta based on experience & equipment), task sheets, turnpoint photo's, etc.
Just like a "real contest" but no ranking involved.

Lots of fun and a good learning experience as well.

[If you were game, "Liars dice" in the evening.......]

PS, P3, you flew in those, didn't you? That was my start, flying "002" before my 1st real regional @ HHSC.... me in a ASW-20A, UH in a borrowed 1-35 (MS).

[Sean Fidler]

I love the idea of gold, silver etc. Makes good sense. I love the idea of the "handicapped assigned tasks" too which change the distance of the points on various radials to create level distances for each handicap level (I think this how it works...).

But overall the whole reason I got into soaring was the enjoyment of "racing" with fellow pilots to specific turnpoints in Michigan. I was hooked. But, sadly, now that I fly organized US contests, assigned racing tasks have turned out to be extremely rare and still shrinking while the rest of the world runs them like crazy.

Hat tip to the our US Junior team for sure. They did an outstanding job. In part due to their great performance, I think energy is building enough to restart the idea of an organized junior camp or perhaps even a US Junior nationals in the not to distant future. Fingers crossed...

Sean

[Craig Reinholt]

Congratulations to all participants. I'm looking forward to your next JWGC in Lithuania.
Here are some thoughtful comments about the final day by Tom Arscott. Very insightful regarding tactics and risk.
https://www.facebook.com/britishglidingteam/posts/972053282851635

[Sean Fidler]

"Big sectors, close together in a relatively short AAT can be a recipe for a bit of a lottery, and there was a lot to be gained or lost on the last day." Well said kid! A "bit" of a lottery? You don't say! ;-)

Great report. These are all extremely bright kids, especially our US guys who don't yet have all the tools and practice opportunities that many of these other top junior teams enjoy. If we can somehow narrow this margin, our juniors will be right in there in 2017. They also get a final chance in 2019. What a great goal! As a country, the USA would really benefit from increasing the support for our Junior team (and expanding it) moving forward.

[GeneReinecke]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 8:33:42 AM UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> Congratulations to all participants. I'm looking forward to your next JWGC in Lithuania.
> Here are some thoughtful comments about the final day by Tom Arscott. Very insightful regarding tactics and risk.
> https://www.facebook.com/britishglidingteam/posts/972053282851635

Just an excerpt from the young winner's thank yous:
Firstly, on behalf of the whole team, I need to thank our generous sponsors, without whom this would not have been possible. The British Gliding Association for all their support, including entering us in to the comp and transporting our gliders, British Airways for flying the whole team across the world, Land Rover for providing us with a Discovery for the comp, Apogee for lending and fitting us out a container to transport all of our equipment, and Sydney Charles, Lasham Gliding Society, Naviter and Navboys for supporting the team throughout the year.
Where are the US team sponsors? Jeep, Delta Air Lines, a US shipping company, etc. Hello? Is there any marketing benefit to these organizations to sponsor a US team in the future? Any marketing gurus out there that might want to tackle this? Or do we want soaring in the US to remain a middle aged (and up) guys' sport for those who can afford it?
Gene

[Sean Fidler]

Exactly right. We must have 25 Delta pilots in our ranks. If its a value to BA, its probably of some value to Delta (or some of the others). And so on, and so on, and so on...

You miss 100% of the shots you do not try................

Sean

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 10:34:27 AM UTC-5, GeneReinecke wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 8:33:42 AM UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> > Congratulations to all participants. I'm looking forward to your next JWGC in Lithuania.
> > Here are some thoughtful comments about the final day by Tom Arscott. Very insightful regarding tactics and risk.
> > https://www.facebook.com/britishglidingteam/posts/972053282851635
>
> Just an excerpt from the young winner's thank yous:
> Firstly, on behalf of the whole team, I need to thank our generous sponsors, without whom this would not have been possible. The British Gliding Association for all their support, including entering us in to the comp and transporting our gliders, British Airways for flying the whole team across the world, Land Rover for providing us with a Discovery for the comp, Apogee for lending and fitting us out a container to transport all of our equipment, and Sydney Charles, Lasham Gliding Society, Naviter and Navboys for supporting the team throughout the year.
> Where are the US team sponsors? Jeep, Delta Air Lines, a US shipping company, etc. Hello? Is there any marketing benefit to these organizations to sponsor a US team in the future? Any marketing gurus out there that might want to tackle this? Or do we want soaring in the US to remain a middle aged (and up) guys' sport for those who can afford it?
> Gene

[JS]

Good point Gene.
Did you know about the prizes that were made available?
<<
The GFA M&D department managed to put together an incredible package of prizes;

Brietling hats (which sell on eBay for a good price),
Milvus trousers,
CloudDancer wing covers and canopy covers,
Smart watches
and in addition for the winner of each class a one week all expenses paid trip to South Africa to fly a JS1.
>>
A class act.
Jim


On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 7:34:27 AM UTC-8, GeneReinecke wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 8:33:42 AM UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> > Congratulations to all participants. I'm looking forward to your next JWGC in Lithuania.
> > Here are some thoughtful comments about the final day by Tom Arscott. Very insightful regarding tactics and risk.
> > https://www.facebook.com/britishglidingteam/posts/972053282851635
>
> Just an excerpt from the young winner's thank yous:
> Firstly, on behalf of the whole team, I need to thank our generous sponsors, without whom this would not have been possible. The British Gliding Association for all their support, including entering us in to the comp and transporting our gliders, British Airways for flying the whole team across the world, Land Rover for providing us with a Discovery for the comp, Apogee for lending and fitting us out a container to transport all of our equipment, and Sydney Charles, Lasham Gliding Society, Naviter and Navboys for supporting the team throughout the year.
> Where are the US team sponsors? Jeep, Delta Air Lines, a US shipping company, etc. Hello? Is there any marketing benefit to these organizations to sponsor a US team in the future? Any marketing gurus out there that might want to tackle this? Or do we want soaring in the US to remain a middle aged (and up) guys' sport for those who can afford it?
> Gene