Best Software and Hardware for Turn Area Task?

[Snead1]

I am currently flying with a Cambridge GPS NAV and a L-Nav. I would like to up
grade or add equipment to help me fly the Turn Area Task. What works well and
what are the important features that can aid in making correct decisions while
flying the Turn Area Task?

Bill Snead
6W

[Mike Borgelt]

On 07 Aug 2003 03:38:28 GMT, (Snead1) wrote:

>I am currently flying with a Cambridge GPS NAV and a L-Nav. I would like to up
>grade or add equipment to help me fly the Turn Area Task. What works well and
>what are the important features that can aid in making correct decisions while
>flying the Turn Area Task?
>
>Bill Snead
>6W


A pair of dice, roulette wheel or random number generator would be an
appropriate decision making aid for this task.

Seriously, when you think about it this task is very difficult to
anything rational about. You are going to an unknown point in an
area, the decision as to where to turn depends on a time calculation
with a large error band(the task demands calculations from the pilot
i.e.how long it will take to do the task that the task setter doesn't
want to do) and later in the flight your options close off
particularly if the weather gets better.
Some solutions involve moving the turnpoint on the flight computer
screen, a hazardous activity given this task's opportunity to create
high speed crossing tracks.
A moving map helps only somewhat. Our B2000 handles this moderately
well with a combination of director graphics and simple moving map.
We are working on a new display graphic idea which will help.

Mike Borgelt
Borgelt Instruments.

[Andy Durbin]

(Snead1) wrote in message >...
> I am currently flying with a Cambridge GPS NAV and a L-Nav. I would like to up
> grade or add equipment to help me fly the Turn Area Task. What works well and
> what are the important features that can aid in making correct decisions while
> flying the Turn Area Task?
>
> Bill Snead
> 6W

Bill,

You need to have a good prediction of your finish time based on
current ring setting, task distance left to go, average speed up to
now, and current wind estimate. I also find a graphic depiction of the
turn areas to be very useful.

In addition you need the ability to move the turnpoint in the area
before you reach it and to easily reset it to the point that you
actually turn at. Of course those turnpoint moves should result in a
new estimate of time to complete the task.

Look carefully at candidate systems to see if they support these
features. There are different methods for moving the turnpoint, some
systems do not use the wind estimate to calculate the finish time,
some systems do not support the much needed "turn now" function.

Andy (GY)

[rhpf]

Bill,

WinPilot fully supports this task in addition to 2 cylinder start gates. It
also has a tasking feature that can move the point in the turn area as you
fly, and update your task distance and ETA.

Please see my website for information or call.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com
530-905-0062


"Snead1" > wrote in message
...
> I am currently flying with a Cambridge GPS NAV and a L-Nav. I would like
to up
> grade or add equipment to help me fly the Turn Area Task. What works well
and
> what are the important features that can aid in making correct decisions
while
> flying the Turn Area Task?
>
> Bill Snead
> 6W

[Guy Byars]

> We are working on a new display graphic idea which will help.

You ought to work on some informative marketing material for your website.
The only product info on the B2000 there is the manual which is not the best
way to get an overview of the product.

[Michael Stringfellow]

First, I have to say the "dumb-ass" is my own description of the 15-minute
rule, but I think it fairly accurately represents the opinion of the
majority who I fly with in the ASA series. Some are neutral, some are
opposed and some are just plain furious. Most think it's a bit dumb and
adds complexity while subtracting from comprehensibility.

I don't believe it can be a good rule if it takes so much explaining! Rules
should be simple. We don't want something that resembles the US tax code!

My main complaint about the "start height penalty" , if I can call it that,
is that it treats all pilots the same, even though actual start height is
different. I have actually started a task lower than a colleague, flown
faster cross-country than him, then been beaten by him as he converts his
extra height into distance! We both received the same height (time)
penalty, even though I started lower.

You might ask, why didn't I take the extra height and start at the top like
others? First, it's crowded at the top of a start cylinder. Second, we
often get cyclical thermals that go higher than others and sometimes one
group of starters gets higher than the others. The lower group just can't
get up there!

If you want to level the playing field on start height (and I'm not going to
argue that it's unreasonable), then why not use each individual pilot's
actual start height? It's on the logger, and it means you don't have to add
an arbitrary fixed time (or height) to everyone.

The big problem, in my view, is that the decision making has been made more
complicated than under previous rules. Before, when you got final glide, if
you were getting home over minimum time, you just flew to the finish as fast
as possible. (It is a race, after all!) Under the new rule, when you get
final glide, you have to decide the optimum speed and how much of that
height to allocate to speed and how much to distance. Your flight computer
won't tell you! At a critical part of the race, you're having to do mental
arithmetic instead of concentrating on flying.

Anyway, I'd be happy to share opinions with the rule-making committee from
me and my colleagues who have quite a bit of experience flying with them in
local contests. There are some other rule changes we're not delighted about
either.

The discussion on www.asa-soaring.org
is under "Scoring" in the Forums section.

Mike

ASW 20 WA

[Sam Fly]

There is a vote in progress for the vacant seat on the Rules
committee..Now is the time to voice your opinion of the "dumb-ass"
15 minute rule....Vote for the member that will listen to your
complaints and represent you and not force a rule we do not want.

Sam Fly


Michael Stringfellow wrote:
> First, I have to say the "dumb-ass" is my own description of the 15-minute
> rule, but I think it fairly accurately represents the opinion of the
> majority who I fly with in the ASA series. Some are neutral, some are
> opposed and some are just plain furious. Most think it's a bit dumb and
> adds complexity while subtracting from comprehensibility.
>
> I don't believe it can be a good rule if it takes so much explaining! Rules
> should be simple. We don't want something that resembles the US tax code!
>
> My main complaint about the "start height penalty" , if I can call it that,
> is that it treats all pilots the same, even though actual start height is
> different. I have actually started a task lower than a colleague, flown
> faster cross-country than him, then been beaten by him as he converts his
> extra height into distance! We both received the same height (time)
> penalty, even though I started lower.
>
> You might ask, why didn't I take the extra height and start at the top like
> others? First, it's crowded at the top of a start cylinder. Second, we
> often get cyclical thermals that go higher than others and sometimes one
> group of starters gets higher than the others. The lower group just can't
> get up there!
>
> If you want to level the playing field on start height (and I'm not going to
> argue that it's unreasonable), then why not use each individual pilot's
> actual start height? It's on the logger, and it means you don't have to add
> an arbitrary fixed time (or height) to everyone.
>
> The big problem, in my view, is that the decision making has been made more
> complicated than under previous rules. Before, when you got final glide, if
> you were getting home over minimum time, you just flew to the finish as fast
> as possible. (It is a race, after all!) Under the new rule, when you get
> final glide, you have to decide the optimum speed and how much of that
> height to allocate to speed and how much to distance. Your flight computer
> won't tell you! At a critical part of the race, you're having to do mental
> arithmetic instead of concentrating on flying.
>
> Anyway, I'd be happy to share opinions with the rule-making committee from
> me and my colleagues who have quite a bit of experience flying with them in
> local contests. There are some other rule changes we're not delighted about
> either.
>
> The discussion on www.asa-soaring.org
> is under "Scoring" in the Forums section.
>
> Mike
>
> ASW 20 WA
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

In article . net>,
says...

> My main complaint about the "start height penalty" , if I can call it that,
> is that it treats all pilots the same, even though actual start height is
> different. I have actually started a task lower than a colleague, flown
> faster cross-country than him, then been beaten by him as he converts his
> extra height into distance! We both received the same height (time)
> penalty, even though I started lower.

But wouldn't you have the same outcome under the old system, simply
because you started lower? Isn't it the "starting lower" that allowed
him to beat you, not the 15 minutes added to the time?

>
> You might ask, why didn't I take the extra height and start at the top like
> others? First, it's crowded at the top of a start cylinder. Second, we
> often get cyclical thermals that go higher than others and sometimes one
> group of starters gets higher than the others. The lower group just can't
> get up there!

As long as it is crowded at the top of the start cylinder anyway, have
the contest managers considered setting the start height lower, so
that all groups can start at the top?

>
> If you want to level the playing field on start height (and I'm not going to
> argue that it's unreasonable), then why not use each individual pilot's
> actual start height? It's on the logger, and it means you don't have to add
> an arbitrary fixed time (or height) to everyone.

How would you suggest using the start height information? I have
couple of ideas:

1) Pick a "standard" rate-of-climb to apply to all pilots, to
translate the start height into a time that is added on to the flight?
The strategy in that case would be to climb as high as possible if you
thought the thermals on course would have a lower climb rate than the
"standard"; or leave as low as possible if you thought the thermals on
course would have a higher rate of climb than the "standard".

2) Do it like badge and record attempts, and allow the pilots to start
at any height they wish, but penalize them for finishing more than,
say, 3000' below their start height. This might "uncrowd" the start
gate thermals, in addition to giving everyone the same "free" start
height. A minimum AGL finish height could still be set, of course.

>
> The big problem, in my view, is that the decision making has been made more
> complicated than under previous rules. Before, when you got final glide, if
> you were getting home over minimum time, you just flew to the finish as fast
> as possible. (It is a race, after all!) Under the new rule, when you get
> final glide, you have to decide the optimum speed and how much of that
> height to allocate to speed and how much to distance.

But won't the optimum speed already be known before you start your
glide; I.e., isn't it the speed for the McCready setting you are
using, which would be the rate of climb in your last thermal? The
whole idea of the 15 minutes was to make cross-country speed the
predominant factor by reducing the effect of the "free" start height.
For that case, the final glide should be flown according to McCready.
Sounds easier to me.

Personally, I'm a fan of assigned speed tasks, which I much prefer
over PST and AAT. I've always liked them, but must confess that I like
them even more now that I'm flying a motorglider, and don't have to
worry about a bad task call or bad weather causing me to land away
from the home airport.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >, stant2
@mindspring.com says...
> Well, I'm going to try to stay dispassionate about this whole
> argument.
>
> The 15 minute rule IS A DUMB ****ING RULE! It "solves" a problem that
> doesn't exist. First of all, if everyone can start at the same
> height, then how does it advantage anyone? IT DOESN'T. Now, about the
> problem of having to figure out your final glide to the minute or lose
> points, and how unfair it is... Well, gee, we are racing, aren't we?

That's what I want to do also, and I could never see how trying to
arrive at particular time was "racing". It reminded me rallying in a
sports car, which involved following directions very carefully, and
maintaining precise speeds; I.e., nothing like the sports car racing I
used to do. I didn't think is was "unfair", I just thought it wasn't
racing and wasn't fun.

> It's just like a final glide - if you pooch that and end up too low,
> you lose a lot of points! So now you would just have had to not
> finish too soon. Pretty basic navigation task.

Maybe I was doing it wrong, but it didn't seem anything like a "basic
navigation task", which I think is getting to were you want to go.
Getting there at the time you wanted to, in a sailplane, with variable
weather, just seemed like a crap shoot to me. I won some and I lost
some, but I never felt like it was my navigation that resulted in
either, but mostly luck.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Tony Smolder]

Sam Fly > wrote in message >...
> There is a vote in progress for the vacant seat on the Rules
> committee..Now is the time to voice your opinion of the "dumb-ass"
> 15 minute rule....Vote for the member that will listen to your
> complaints and represent you and not force a rule we do not want.
>
> Sam Fly
>
So reading the biography for 2 out of 3 (one of the three I know wants
the "dumb-ass" rules) I cannot deduce which one of the other two will
represent the racers and not force a rule we do not want.

Can the other two please present their view on the "dumb-ass" rules
please? I want to race, go fast, and know who won based on clear,
simple rules, such as Distance/Time = Speed.

No 15 minute add
No 500' minimum finish
Get what you fly!

Thanks,

Tony Smolder - ASA contest manager
TS1
racing every weekend and loving it!

[Marc Ramsey]

"Tony Smolder" > wrote...
> So reading the biography for 2 out of 3 (one of the three I know wants
> the "dumb-ass" rules) I cannot deduce which one of the other two will
> represent the racers and not force a rule we do not want.

What do you mean 'we', Kimosabe?

This 'racer' happens to prefer flying a little farther to timing my finishes to
the minute. I also fail to see how needing to be 500 feet AGL a mile out from
the center of the finish cylinder cramps my style. But, then again, I don't
believe the elected President of the United States is living in the White House,
either... 8^)

Marc

[John Cochrane]

Guys:

I wrote my bio carefully, and I meant it:

"I think rules should be structured to make contest flying safe, fun,
popular, and simple to run and fly, in roughly that order. I have many
ideas,
but I am not running for rules committee to advance any fixed agenda
of rules changes. Instead, I look forward to working with contest
pilots and the rules committee to further these goals."

I have been persuaded that many of my bright sounding ideas were
flawed in the past. I'm still "listening" on this one, and the 500'
finish (though I think it's important to listen to both sides, and to
hear opinions of the quiet and those low down on the scoresheet as
well as the vocal and the top 5). More importantly, I'm not running
for RC to ram my particular opinions down anyone's throat. Despite
occasional glitches and controversies, the RCs democratic and
consultative approach has been superb, and I fully endorse that. I
stand for the goals -- safe, fun, popular, and simple to run and fly
--not a particular means of achieving those goals.

John Cochrane
BB

> > There is a vote in progress for the vacant seat on the Rules
> > committee..Now is the time to voice your opinion of the "dumb-ass"
> > 15 minute rule....Vote for the member that will listen to your
> > complaints and represent you and not force a rule we do not want.
> >
> > Sam Fly
> >
> Can the other two please present their view on the "dumb-ass" rules
> please? I want to race, go fast, and know who won based on clear,
> simple rules, such as Distance/Time = Speed.
>
> No 15 minute add
> No 500' minimum finish
> Get what you fly!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony Smolder - ASA contest manager
> TS1
> racing every weekend and loving it!

[Kirk Stant]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...

> That's what I want to do also, and I could never see how trying to
> arrive at particular time was "racing". It reminded me rallying in a
> sports car, which involved following directions very carefully, and
> maintaining precise speeds; I.e., nothing like the sports car racing I
> used to do. I didn't think is was "unfair", I just thought it wasn't
> racing and wasn't fun.

Well guess what, with the TAT that is exactly what you are doing,
again. Just going fast isn't always going to win, you now have to
adjust your distance for the macready speed you are getting in the
conditions, and just being the fastest won't always win. That is an
improvement? I don't think so!

> Maybe I was doing it wrong, but it didn't seem anything like a "basic
> navigation task", which I think is getting to were you want to go.
> Getting there at the time you wanted to, in a sailplane, with variable
> weather, just seemed like a crap shoot to me. I won some and I lost
> some, but I never felt like it was my navigation that resulted in
> either, but mostly luck.

Huh? Distance to go, time remaining, thermal strength, altitude
available. Do the math, get home when you need to get home. Fastest
wins. Now you still have to do the same math, plus factor in your
achieved speed to decide how far to go before going home. If the
problem is 7000' start heights with a 2:30 time limit, then lower the
start and lengthen the time! A 2:30 race is ridiculous anyway if you
are getting high enough to get any advantage out of your start.

Kirk

[Kirk Stant]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message news:<E01Za.148

> What do you mean 'we', Kimosabe?
>
> This 'racer' happens to prefer flying a little farther to timing my finishes to
> the minute. I also fail to see how needing to be 500 feet AGL a mile out from
> the center of the finish cylinder cramps my style. But, then again, I don't
> believe the elected President of the United States is living in the White House,
> either... 8^)
>
> Marc

Well that explains everything! All these new "feelgood, make it easy,
take away the pilot's choices, don't let anyone do anything that might
be dangerous, warm fuzzy, you all play nice together" rules are THE
REVENGE OF THE DEMOCRATS!!!!

Just wait until Arnold is the gov of Ca! Bwahahaha!

Seriously, I don't see how going a few more miles slower should beat
going a few fewer miles faster. This 'racer' happens to prefer flying
a little faster, and preferably further too - so make the min time
longer! 2:30 is hardly worth rigging for! And if you want to finish
at 500 ft AGL, by all means do so - just don't force me to do it if
there is no reason for it. Funny how the rest of the world, who are
apparently much better glider pilots than we are, don't have these
kind of "mommy" rules. I wonder if we can get Lance to take up
gliding...

Kirk
Off racing in a few hours

[Tony Smolder]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message >...
> "Tony Smolder" > wrote...
> > So reading the biography for 2 out of 3 (one of the three I know wants
> > the "dumb-ass" rules) I cannot deduce which one of the other two will
> > represent the racers and not force a rule we do not want.
>
> What do you mean 'we', Kimosabe?
>
> This 'racer' happens to prefer flying a little farther to timing my finishes to
> the minute. I also fail to see how needing to be 500 feet AGL a mile out from
> the center of the finish cylinder cramps my style. But, then again, I don't
> believe the elected President of the United States is living in the White House,
> either... 8^)
>
> Marc

Marc, you are the first person I've heard from who actually likes the
15 minute rule, so the "WE" was only my exposure to the 50 or so
racers I've talked to this year (ASA and Region 9). Hopefully "WE"
will get a chance to vote for changes to the rules in the future,
instead of having it implemented with no notice or discussion
involving us.

Tony

[Marc Ramsey]

"Kirk Stant" > wrote...
> Just wait until Arnold is the gov of Ca! Bwahahaha!
>
> Seriously, I don't see how going a few more miles slower should beat
> going a few fewer miles faster. This 'racer' happens to prefer flying
> a little faster, and preferably further too - so make the min time
> longer! 2:30 is hardly worth rigging for! And if you want to finish
> at 500 ft AGL, by all means do so - just don't force me to do it if
> there is no reason for it. Funny how the rest of the world, who are
> apparently much better glider pilots than we are, don't have these
> kind of "mommy" rules. I wonder if we can get Lance to take up
> gliding...

I was at in contest with a bunch of obviously REPUBLICAN racers who hated the
500 foot rule so much that they browbeat the CD into using a GPS finish gate
instead. Oh boy, nothing I like more than trying to hook the gate while
avoiding gliders coming at me from THREE different directions, then having to
watch out for people going UNDER me while I'm making a minimal pattern. Now,
that's RACING!

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> Marc, you are the first person I've heard from who actually likes the
> 15 minute rule, so the "WE" was only my exposure to the 50 or so
> racers I've talked to this year (ASA and Region 9).

Here's your second person (or third, if you count John Cochrane).
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Udo Rumpf]

And a fourth,

Udo



"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> says...
> > Marc, you are the first person I've heard from who actually likes the
> > 15 minute rule, so the "WE" was only my exposure to the 50 or so
> > racers I've talked to this year (ASA and Region 9).
>
> Here's your second person (or third, if you count John Cochrane).
> --
> !Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
> directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Richland, WA (USA)

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >, stant2
@mindspring.com says...

> Well guess what, with the TAT that is exactly what you are doing,
> again. Just going fast isn't always going to win, you now have to
> adjust your distance for the macready speed you are getting in the
> conditions, and just being the fastest won't always win. That is an
> improvement? I don't think so!

As I mentioned, I prefer assigned tasks, not the PST or the TAT, so
I'm with you on this one.

>
> > Maybe I was doing it wrong, but it didn't seem anything like a "basic
> > navigation task", which I think is getting to were you want to go.
> > Getting there at the time you wanted to, in a sailplane, with variable
> > weather, just seemed like a crap shoot to me. I won some and I lost
> > some, but I never felt like it was my navigation that resulted in
> > either, but mostly luck.
>
> Huh? Distance to go, time remaining, thermal strength, altitude
> available. Do the math, get home when you need to get home.

I still don't understand what you are talking about: in a PST, there
is no "distance to go", it's a "time to go". Converting the time left
to distance is where I have problems, because there are two components
to the calculation: 1) cross-country speed (anticipated thermal
strength, so it's a guess) 2) final glide speed (depends on altitude
available, AND anticipated thermal strength, so it's a guess,too). So,
while I'm trying to race (getting the best XC speed I can), I'm also
juggling turnpoints, trying to figure which ones will make the task
long enough so I can fly as fast as possible, but still get home just
at the minimum time.

If I were sitting at home, it'd be an interesting problem to work on,
but I don't think it's fun in a sailplane. With the 15 minute rule, I
feel I can drop the calculations and just concentrate on going fast,
because it's easy for me to pick a task that takes long enough, though
it might be 15-20 minutes longer than the minimum.

> If the
> problem is 7000' start heights with a 2:30 time limit, then lower the
> start and lengthen the time!

I'd also prefer lower starts (5000' agl, say), and it might be safer
when the thermals are going higher, because there wouldn't be the
crowding at the top a thermal as every pilot tries to eek out the last
foot before starting.

> A 2:30 race is ridiculous anyway if you
> are getting high enough to get any advantage out of your start.

Over the years (25 in my case), at least in Regionals, it seems the
trend has been to shorten the task time. At Ephrata, we often have 3
hour tasks on 6 hour days. I'd prefer longer tasks of at least 4
hours, so we aren't flying only at the peak of the day, and spend some
time in weaker conditions.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Henryk Birecki]

(Andy Durbin) wrote:

How good predictions are is a matter of opinion, but GPS_LOG WinCE
provides just about all you asked for.

Henryk Birecki

>You need to have a good prediction of your finish time based on
>current ring setting, task distance left to go, average speed up to
>now, and current wind estimate. I also find a graphic depiction of the
>turn areas to be very useful.
>
>In addition you need the ability to move the turnpoint in the area
>before you reach it and to easily reset it to the point that you
>actually turn at. Of course those turnpoint moves should result in a
>new estimate of time to complete the task.
>
>Look carefully at candidate systems to see if they support these
>features. There are different methods for moving the turnpoint, some
>systems do not use the wind estimate to calculate the finish time,
>some systems do not support the much needed "turn now" function.
>
>Andy (GY)

[Ulrich Neumann]

(Snead1) wrote in message >...
> I am currently flying with a Cambridge GPS NAV and a L-Nav. I would like to up
> grade or add equipment to help me fly the Turn Area Task. What works well and
> what are the important features that can aid in making correct decisions while
> flying the Turn Area Task?
>
> Bill Snead
> 6W

Hello Bill,

'guess the discussion went into a different direction.
Anyhow, although I am not totally happy with my Filser LX20, it does
allow the modification of the TAT by moving the turnpoint to where
ever you need it within the cylinder(s). You can perform this task on
the ground or in flight and the instrument will update the distance,
etc. All this is only possible with the software version V5.3, which
still has some bugs that need to be worked out by Filser.

Safe Soaring
Uli Neumann
Libelle 'GM'

[Kirk Stant]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message

> As I mentioned, I prefer assigned tasks, not the PST or the TAT, so
> I'm with you on this one.

Me too. That's why any rule that starts playing with simple "fastest
wins" is bogus to me and my racing friends. I hate the PST, which is
why I won't race in sports class. As far as I'm concerned, a PST task
is just a bunch of guys going cross country. It in no way resembles a
race! (reminds me of the Monty Python idiots race skit).
>
> I still don't understand what you are talking about: in a PST, there
> is no "distance to go", it's a "time to go". Converting the time left
> to distance is where I have problems, because there are two components
> to the calculation: 1) cross-country speed (anticipated thermal
> strength, so it's a guess) 2) final glide speed (depends on altitude
> available, AND anticipated thermal strength, so it's a guess,too). So,
> while I'm trying to race (getting the best XC speed I can), I'm also
> juggling turnpoints, trying to figure which ones will make the task
> long enough so I can fly as fast as possible, but still get home just
> at the minimum time.

We were talking about AAT (TAT here in the US). I don't even want to
think about PSTs. Yuck. But I really do not understand why people are
worried about making the minimum time. Geez, before GPS, you really
had to navigate; now we just follow the needle and presto we get
around the course. Having to make a specific arrival time adds a
little more challenge. Car rallying, which absolutely depends on
going fast and hitting a time to the second, is an international
professional sport that is WAY more popular than soaring, by the
way...
>
> If I were sitting at home, it'd be an interesting problem to work on,
> but I don't think it's fun in a sailplane. With the 15 minute rule, I
> feel I can drop the calculations and just concentrate on going fast,
> because it's easy for me to pick a task that takes long enough, though
> it might be 15-20 minutes longer than the minimum.

But the point is you can't! Despite what Cochrane and other 15 minute
supporters claim, you now have to factor in your speed, the thermal
strength, distance remaining, then decide whether to go slower but
farther, or faster but shorter. And the fastest glider does not
always win! THAT IS WHY IT IS A BAD SOLUTION TO A NON-PROBLEM!
>
> I'd also prefer lower starts (5000' agl, say), and it might be safer
> when the thermals are going higher, because there wouldn't be the
> crowding at the top a thermal as every pilot tries to eek out the last
> foot before starting.

I like lower starts, but if the thermals go higher, then you end up in
a weird "wind-up" at the top of the start altitude, camped out in the
thermal at high-G trying not to climb! I think we should go to a
start arc from the first turnpoint, with a max start height (like the
old start gate, but use GPS) but no limit on how high you go before
starting. I start anywhere on the line, below the line. At redline if
I want. If I misjudge, I go back and do it again. I'm pilot in
command, if I bust my ass it's my problem. It's a race, after all!

> Over the years (25 in my case), at least in Regionals, it seems the
> trend has been to shorten the task time. At Ephrata, we often have 3
> hour tasks on 6 hour days. I'd prefer longer tasks of at least 4
> hours, so we aren't flying only at the peak of the day, and spend some
> time in weaker conditions.

I totally agree! And once you get to starting early (no high starts)
and finishing late (long tasks) you don't need no stinking 15 minute
kloodge rule!

Kirk
66

[Kirk Stant]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message news:<lT9Za.172
>
> I was at in contest with a bunch of obviously REPUBLICAN racers who hated the
> 500 foot rule so much that they browbeat the CD into using a GPS finish gate
> instead. Oh boy, nothing I like more than trying to hook the gate while
> avoiding gliders coming at me from THREE different directions, then having to
> watch out for people going UNDER me while I'm making a minimal pattern. Now,
> that's RACING!
>

Damn, that sounds like fun! People doing their own thing, and nobody getting hurt.

Yep, Republicans, probably. And maybe a Libertarian or two, also...

Kirk

[Marc Ramsey]

"Kirk Stant" > wrote...
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote...
> > I was at in contest with a bunch of obviously REPUBLICAN racers who hated
the
> > 500 foot rule so much that they browbeat the CD into using a GPS finish gate
> > instead. Oh boy, nothing I like more than trying to hook the gate while
> > avoiding gliders coming at me from THREE different directions, then having
to
> > watch out for people going UNDER me while I'm making a minimal pattern.
Now,
> > that's RACING!
> >
>
> Damn, that sounds like fun! People doing their own thing, and nobody getting
hurt.
>
> Yep, Republicans, probably. And maybe a Libertarian or two, also...

Naw, Libertarians won't race unless they can figure out a way to make it pay...

Marc

[CH]

"Snead1" > wrote in message
> I am currently flying with a Cambridge GPS NAV and a L-Nav. I would like
to up
> grade or add equipment to help me fly the Turn Area Task. What works well
and
> what are the important features that can aid in making correct decisions
while
> flying the Turn Area Task?
> Bill Snead; 6W


"Mike Borgelt" > wrote in message >
> ""A pair of dice, roulette wheel or random number generator would be an
> appropriate decision making aid for this task.""
> Mike Borgelt
> Borgelt Instruments.
__________________________________________________ ______

Good point Mike,
and probably no one who helped to create the scooring system, described in
the FAI SC S3 / ANNEX A ever has thought through the consequences with
the eyes of a competition pilot.

Officially we have now
- RT Racing Task (classic task, fix distance for all)
- AST Speed Task - Assigned Areas (var. distance, minimum time)
- PST Speed Task - Pilot Selected (var. distance, minimum time)
- TAT Distance Task - Assigned Areas (var. distance, maximum time)
- TPT Distance Task - Pilot Selected

Well - even if you are told what kind of tasks the competition will contain,
you will not really know what you get, because 3 different possibilities
of scoring are applicable.

A. 1000-Points Scoring System: The Score is expressed in points
(the maximum available daily Score is 1000 points).
B. Kilometre Scoring System: The Score is expressed in kilometres
(the max available daily Score is equal to the best Distance of the Day)
C. Place Scoring System: The Score is expressed in places
(the maximum available Place Score for the Day is 25).
D. Or you might have local scoring rules and formulas.

Most competitions use the 1000point system - lets have a look.

RT Racing Task is the classic task with 2/3 of the max points for
speed and 1/3 for distance, if enough competitors return home.

I still like it, especially the Australian version with different
start
points.
They give speed points only and if you messed up a day completely
you better land short of the home field, even if you could make it
home, because you will get more points)

AST Speed Task over Assigned Area turn points
PST Speed Task over Pilot selected turn points
- for both tasks distance is variable a minimum time applies
- The winner points are splitted 2/3 for speed and 1/3 for distance.
- Finishers get the same distance points as the pilot with the bigest
distance even if there distance is smaller!
- Finishers returning home too early get the speed calculated with
the minimum time given.

In my opinion this kind of scoring is just nonsense!
If more points are given for speed than distance, every pilot will
fly the shortest distance to minimise the risk. After the experience
of the SA preworlds the IGC created the minimum time - what a
stupid idea!!
For variable distance speed tasks the points should be given equally
for distance and speed (50/50%). That would give the pilots a
reason to fly as far and fast as possible.
Each pilots gets points for his own flown distance and his speed.
If done so, the minimum time, which gives the pilot headache to
optimise the task, is not needed anymore.

TAT Distance Task over Assigned Areas turn points
TPT Distance Task over Pilot Selected turn points
- for both tasks a maximum time applies
- distance points are given only
- no penalty is given, if you return home too late, but only the
distance taken, flown until the max. time has been reached.

I can live with TAT. TPT is fine as long as the weather is more or
less homogenious in the competition area.
The only problem is, that normally the task manager will give you
a task like that, if weather conditions are very unpredictable. As a
result you might in Switzerland have turnpoints in the mountains,
in the flat region or towards the Jura, regions with very different
weather pattern. Then it is like throwing the dice - where shall you
go? If selecting the wrong region - you are fu....ed.

Personally I do not like PST and TPT tasks. Unpredictable weather
pattern can just make it a lucky game.
I prefer tasks where pilots have to fly in a given sequence to certain
areas, and every pilot faces about the same problems.
But with the current formulas for AST and PST tasks, I will not fly
any competitions using them. It is just a crazy scoring way to compare
pilots abilities. I do not need this kind of experience. Then I prefer to
spend some nice days flying for fun and declare it in the OLC.

Chris Hostettler
Melbourne

[Todd Smith]

> Marc, you are the first person I've heard from who actually likes the
> 15 minute rule, so the "WE" was only my exposure to the 50 or so

I like the 15 min rule.

Todd Smith
3S

[Kirk Stant]

(Todd Smith) wrote in message >...
> > Marc, you are the first person I've heard from who actually likes the
> > 15 minute rule, so the "WE" was only my exposure to the 50 or so
>
> I like the 15 min rule.
>
> Todd Smith
> 3S


Why? We have tried to explain why we don't like it, with specific
examples of why it is flawed, so would you please explain why you do
like it?

Kirk
66

[Kirk Stant]

(Jonathan Gere) wrote in message >...

> On a 120 minute regionals TAT with 200fpm lift one suffers a 23 point
> loss for 20 minutes overtime without the 15 minute rule, but only a 7
> point loss with the 15 minute rule.

Well I see two problems there: a 120 minute TAT (why even bother?) -
any soaring task that is that short is going to be extremely luck
driven; and if the lift is only 200fpm, how high it the MSH going to
be? If you are starting at 3000 ft, then the whole argument for the 15
minuter rule gets even weaker!

Kirk
66

[Todd Smith]

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message >...
> (Todd Smith) wrote in message >...
> > > Marc, you are the first person I've heard from who actually likes the
> > > 15 minute rule, so the "WE" was only my exposure to the 50 or so
> >
> > I like the 15 min rule.
> >
> > Todd Smith
> > 3S
>
>
> Why? We have tried to explain why we don't like it, with specific
> examples of why it is flawed, so would you please explain why you do
> like it?
>
> Kirk
> 66

Kirk,

Fair enough. I won't try to debate point by point your reasons for
dislike, but will describe why I like the 15 min rule.

1) I believe both the analysis and experience that claims that finishing
exactly at the minimum time gives the best score. (for PST's or TAT's)

2) The ability to time a finish to exact time is not what I want scored.

3) The 15 min rule, greatly reduces the effect of 1)

4) The 15 min rule is simple, easy to implement and has no bad side effects.
All other rules that have been proposed are more complicated or have
other bad side effects.

Thats about it for this specific rule. Now let me make a comment about
the possible background for this intense dislike of this rule. Forgive
me if I misconstrue your opinions or reasons. It seems that you dislike
the PST or TAT tasks in general, and since the 15 min rule is designed
to fix a problem with the PST/TAT that you allready dislike, the reaction
is "ARRGGH, stop tinkering with the damn PST/TAT and just let me fly AST !"

Now, I am a new racing pilot, flying a lower performance glider (Grob 102)
in the northeast (weaker, less predictable lift) so I want flexibility
in tasking so I can get home when the day tanks. (I don't usually have crew)
I also want my fellow club members to get home, they don't have crew either.

We should have a long discussion about the goals of racing (as has been
suggested here allready), since the different goals you and I have probably
drive the difference between our desired rules.

Todd Smith
3S

[Todd Smith]

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message >...
> (Todd Smith) wrote in message >...
> > 1) I believe both the analysis and experience that claims that finishing
> > exactly at the minimum time gives the best score. (for PST's or TAT's)
>
> True statement. It is also true that finishing at exactly field
> elevation at the correct Macready speed for your last thermal gives
> you the best speed. With an AST you only have to worry about getting
> back faster than the next guy. PSTs and TATs add the requirement to
> get back as close to a specific time as you can. It's the price paid
> for the flexibility of these tasks. The 15 minute rule doesn't change
> that - it just obscures it to the point where it is no longer a simple
> matter of crossing the finish line as close to a known time as
> possible, its now a matter of juggling how the flight is going then
> figuring out what the optimum time and distance is the best to finish.
> Practically speaking, for most racers it probably doesn't make a
> difference. But intellectually it sucks. As a aside, I actually kind
> of like the navigation challenge of nailing the final glide in two
> dimensions (altitude and time). But then, my background as an Air
> Force navigator may have something to do with that!
> >

I agree, the price paid for the flexibility of PST/TAT tasks is extra
complexity. Having to nail the finish time exactly is an UNINTENDED
result of the implementation of the PST/TAT tasks, not a desired goal.
So the implementation was changed to remove the unintended side-effect.

I think that 15 min rule obscures the effect into practical insignificance,
and I'm not concerned about the intellectual elegance. As an engineer
I like the practical elegance, it's simple and achieves the goal.

> > 2) The ability to time a finish to exact time is not what I want scored.
>
> Then we shouldn't have timed events. It is the price paid for them,
> and the 15 minute rule doesn't change that! In some other sports,
> solving a problem at an exact time is common. Sailboat racing has the
> start line crossing, which you have to hit at the preferred end of a
> limited start line, at full speed (which takes a while to get to in a
> sailboat), and if you are a second too fast you have to do a penalty
> 270 turn. Car rallying - huge international sport - has controlled
> time checkpoints. So it's not like we are inventing the wheel here.

Car rallying sounds so boring, I don't want sailplane racing to be like that.
I want sailplane racing to be a balls to the walls hunt for lift and distance
The ability to find strong lift, the guts to ignore weak lift and the
brains to know the difference. I don't want it to be about nailing
a time-speed-distance calculation from 50 miles away with my guess
about the thermals that I will find.

Sailboat racing on the other hand is fun and exciting. The start line
dynamics are pretty tight, BUT the distance and speeds are such that a
helmsman can eyeball them and get them right. No computers or GPS required.

> >
> > 3) The 15 min rule, greatly reduces the effect of 1)
>
> It obscures it. But the effect is still there, and the result is
> quite a few pilots have been beaten by someone who flew a bit further
> but a bit faster. Since the calculations to optimize ones finish time
> under the 15 minute rule is way beyond what most people will probably
> want to do inflight, they will just ignore it and just "finist a bit
> over the min time". In my opinion, that is just to "fuzzy" to be a
> valid racing technique. I realize we are talking about just a few
> points here, but it only takes one point to lose. Reat Moffat's book,
> especially the parts about low loss soaring. Giving away any points
> to "chance" is just not acceptable, IMHO.

Currently the only way to hit the finish time exactly is to use a
computer. I doubt many racers can juggle the predicted XC speed,
and the final glide speed, and how far I should head to and from
my next turnpoint (PST) or into the turn area (TAT) without using
pad, pencil and sliderule. It might be an interesting intelectual
game, but its not what I want to be doing. So I would let some
final glide computer tell me "head home NOW to finish at 3:00"

Since I'm letting the computer do it for score=distance/time.
I'll let the computer do it for score=distance/(time+0:15)

The only difference is that the pilot without the computer has
an easier job, just "finish a bit over the min time" and he is
probably very close to the optimum.

> >
> > 4) The 15 min rule is simple, easy to implement and has no bad side effects.
> > All other rules that have been proposed are more complicated or have
> > other bad side effects.
>
> I disagree. It sounds simple, but the secondary effects are subtle
> and not intuitive; and they are definitely "bad side effects". What
> other rules have been proposed? Mine are not rules, but procedures:
> longer minimum times (at least 3 hours) and/or lower start heights
> (5000 agl max). And less emphasis on timed tasks other that as a
> weather option.

We disagree about the negative side-effects of the 15 min rule, and
I think I have described why.

Other proposed rules (not by you, per se) have been. Variable time offsets
depending on actual start height. Having racers finish at start altitude.
Starting at very low altitudes (<3000 agl). The variable time adjustents
would be far worse that the fixed 15 min rule, really complicated to score.
The other rules just seem to make it less fun, maybe a better race, but
less fun.

I would like longer tasks if possible. Now about the less emphasis on timed
tasks. It seems us eastern pilots allways are flying on questionable weather.
At Region 1 this year, the CD/weatherman made their best guess and sent
us off, if the tasks weren't MAT/TAT's we would have either had to abandon
the tasks or land out. We just don't seem to have the precictable weather
that the west seems to have.

> >
> > Thats about it for this specific rule. Now let me make a comment about
> > the possible background for this intense dislike of this rule. Forgive
> > me if I misconstrue your opinions or reasons. It seems that you dislike
> > the PST or TAT tasks in general, and since the 15 min rule is designed
> > to fix a problem with the PST/TAT that you allready dislike, the reaction
> > is "ARRGGH, stop tinkering with the damn PST/TAT and just let me fly AST !"
>
> You are somewhat correct. I do dislike the PST and will not fly them -
> I don't think they are a valid race task. If I was flying a 1-26 I
> might feel different about them, but I race a 15 meter. MATs with
> intelligent turnpoints are fun. I do not mind TATs, but they just
> don't feel as much as a race as the old ASTs where you knew when
> someone started and could tell during the race how you were doing.
> With the new 1 mile AST turn area you can barely do that anymore.
> Otherwise, TATs can be fun, but they do put a premium on have a really
> good computer/moving map (which I don't currently have, but will have
> soon), and on fine-tuning final glides and finish times. Hey, if I
> didn't like the challenge, I wouldn't be racing. I like to race and
> go fast, preferable faster than someone else, and I like having other
> gliders around me - the more the merrier. So I obviously dislike any
> task change that further spreads the field out. The ARRRGH is really
> for the attempts at legislating safety via rules - 500ft at one mile,
> for example. I am a firm believer that the pilot is responsible for
> his safety, not the rules committee. And until there is a demontrated
> danger (and racing finishes aren't, despite what JC says) there
> shouldn't be any preemptive rules. Note I say danger, not risk. There
> is definitely risk. But I can (and it is my responsibility to) manage
> my risk.

I would like the rules not to encourage dangerous activities.
Current race finishes require (for best score) you to fly at MC speed
for the last thermal all the way to the finish line. Thus you are about
1 mile from the airport at 80 knots and 200 feet.
That sounds like no fun at all !

> >
> > Now, I am a new racing pilot, flying a lower performance glider (Grob 102)
> > in the northeast (weaker, less predictable lift) so I want flexibility
> > in tasking so I can get home when the day tanks. (I don't usually have crew)
> > I also want my fellow club members to get home, they don't have crew either.
>
> I started racing in our club's G-102 - fun little ship. Getting home
> is important, no doubt, so there is a place for flexible tasks like
> MATs and TATs. It's their implementation that I (and many of my
> racing buddies) object to. And we race just about every weekend out
> here, even if only two of us show up, so we have plenty of experience
> with the new rules!

Maybe you have too much experience with the rules ! Us low time guys
see the 15 min rule as having this effect: It used to be that
I had to finish exactly on min time, but not less ! Now I should just
finish some little time after the min time, but it's not so critical.

That's simpler in my book, but I give away alot more points than the
5-10 I might lose with sub-optimal finish time.

>
> >
> > We should have a long discussion about the goals of racing (as has been
> > suggested here allready), since the different goals you and I have probably
> > drive the difference between our desired rules.
>
> Agreed - which is pretty much what these multiple parallel threads
> have turned into. Good discussions, that hopefully will focus our
> racing goals.
>
> Fly fast, fly far, have fun, win the Worlds, then do it again.
>
> Kirk
> 66

Have fun.
Todd Smith
3S