Distance Task Opinions?

[Kilo Charlie]

Some interesting comparisons were recently pointed out to me from a British
friend between the European and US tasking. It seems that more emphasis is
placed upon distance in Europe to the point that we in the US would view it
as impossible task calls. One only has to look at the World contest
recently in Poland or any of the other ones over the past few years that
took place in Europe to see this is the case. I don't think that this is
anything new but would like to get opinions re how this task type would be
accepted here in the US..



Distance Task:



MAT type of task where any TP within the task area may be used with no limit
on the total number of TPs. There must be a minimum distance of X between
each TP, to be determined by the CD based upon conditions and the task area.
There must be an intervening TP. A substantial airport bonus will be given
and a modest bonus given for finishing at the home airfield i.e. so as not
to discourage utilizing paths of lift that might not end at the home field.
No time limitation. Other than those bonuses already mentioned it would be
scored strictly upon total distance flown.



So as to avoid someone saying "but the 15 minute rule already encourages
longer flights!", it is my opinion that the "15 minute rule" has resulted in
not scoring what we state is the purpose of the task (speed over a course)
although it does encourage slightly longer flights by giving added points to
those that fly longer and farther. If you wish to continue with this rule
then lobby the Competition Committee to change the stated goal of the task
which is simply "speed over a course". There is nothing wrong with our
current tasks (but I would drop the 15 minute rule) with scoring based upon
speed but there should be some options for other type of tasks.



I anticipate that some will object to this type of distance task due to long
days with crews picking them up at an airport 2-3 hours away after dark.
Although I agree that it would be difficult to show up without a crew if
this were instituted, practically I would think that the pilot could radio
for their crew to head to some general area if they felt that they would be
landing there thus saving time for both and getting back home at an earlier
hour. It is also my opinion that we have made crews obsolete with the way
we do things now and that maybe this type of tasking would make it a bit
more fun for them but hopefully not quite as grueling as the straight out
tasks of years ago.



I also will anticipate that some will claim that this is little more than a
"mega-PST". I'm not sure that I could argue much with that but it seems
without a time limitation it throws a pretty different light upon strategy
wrt starting during weak lift and ending during the same and maybe away from
the home field.



Finally, although I anticipate the usual flames from those that feel we
worry too much about racing, this task might make the US team a bit more
competitive at the world meets. So what do you all think about this?



Casey Lenox

KC

Phoenix

[Ben Flewett]

Casey,

Having read your posting through twice I am still struggling
to understand your question.

However, I do understand both the US rules and the
World rules for AST's (Annex A). The AST, in it's
current form, has departed considerably from the US
style of area/distance tasking.

In my opinion, the new AST format (as per Annex A)
is a considerable improvement upon the existing US
format. Put simply, you must fly through set areas
in a defined order and remain airborne for a minimum
time. Your score is a function of the distance you
flew over the time you were on task i.e. your average
speed. If you come home earlier than the minimum time
your speed is scored as if you had flown for the minimum
time. The person with the fasted speed wins. This
has effectively removed the possibility that an outlanding
pilot is being able to beat a pilot that makes it back
to the airfield. It has also made it much more simple
for pilots to understand the critical success factors,
i.e. just go as fast as you can and don't come home
too early.

With regard to your question as to whether these tasks
would be readily accepted by US pilots, the answer
is simple - glider pilot's don't like change. Despite
the apparent increased propensity of the gliding movement
to experiment with different task types, I have noticed
a great reluctance amongst individual pilots to change
any aspect of competition gliding.

Whilst AST's are an improvement upon their predecessors,
these tasks are still hopeless. Most pilot's I spoke
to at the WGC were strongly in favour of a return to
setting racing tasks only. My reasons are as follows:

1. AST's introduce too much luck. A scan of the results
in Poland will confirm this. On racing days the top
pilots results are far more consistent. One day John
Coutts came home feeling that he had either won, or
come in the top few places only to find he had finished
28th for the day at over 10kph behind the day winner.
Anyone who flies gliding competitions will know this
would (almost) never happen to an experienced pilot
during a racing task. This happened to a number of
pilots I spoke with.

2. AST's are very hard to set. Brian Spreckley seems
to be the only man alive who is capable of setting
good AST tasks. In both Poland and Hungary the task
setter clearly did not understand how to set AST's.
Setting AST's seems to require an intimate understand
of all the dynamics involved - very few people have
this understanding. For example, in Poland a task
was set that required pilots for make a decision as
to when to run for home approx 220km from the airfield.
As it was impossible to estimate the return speed
accurately, this lead to mistakes by a number of top
pilots.

3. There is much confusion about the purpose of AST's.
Some people think they are designed to allow tasks
to be set in bad/inconsistent weather. Others think
they should only be set in homogenous conditions.
Some think the primary purpose of the AST is to stop
gaggling (which in my opinion they don't). Others
think they are simply there to give variety. All this
adds to the confusion for the task setter.

At the end of the day, if you want to find out who
the best pilot is... set a racing task.

Regards,

Ben.



At 22:24 31 August 2003, Kilo Charlie wrote:
>Some interesting comparisons were recently pointed
>out to me from a British
>friend between the European and US tasking. It seems
>that more emphasis is
>placed upon distance in Europe to the point that we
>in the US would view it
>as impossible task calls. One only has to look at
>the World contest
>recently in Poland or any of the other ones over the
>past few years that
>took place in Europe to see this is the case. I don't
>think that this is
>anything new but would like to get opinions re how
>this task type would be
>accepted here in the US..
>
>
>
>Distance Task:
>
>
>
>MAT type of task where any TP within the task area
>may be used with no limit
>on the total number of TPs. There must be a minimum
>distance of X between
>each TP, to be determined by the CD based upon conditions
>and the task area.
>There must be an intervening TP. A substantial airport
>bonus will be given
>and a modest bonus given for finishing at the home
>airfield i.e. so as not
>to discourage utilizing paths of lift that might not
>end at the home field.
>No time limitation. Other than those bonuses already
>mentioned it would be
>scored strictly upon total distance flown.
>
>
>
>So as to avoid someone saying 'but the 15 minute rule
>already encourages
>longer flights!', it is my opinion that the '15 minute
>rule' has resulted in
>not scoring what we state is the purpose of the task
>(speed over a course)
>although it does encourage slightly longer flights
>by giving added points to
>those that fly longer and farther. If you wish to
>continue with this rule
>then lobby the Competition Committee to change the
>stated goal of the task
>which is simply 'speed over a course'. There is nothing
>wrong with our
>current tasks (but I would drop the 15 minute rule)
>with scoring based upon
>speed but there should be some options for other type
>of tasks.
>
>
>
>I anticipate that some will object to this type of
>distance task due to long
>days with crews picking them up at an airport 2-3 hours
>away after dark.
>Although I agree that it would be difficult to show
>up without a crew if
>this were instituted, practically I would think that
>the pilot could radio
>for their crew to head to some general area if they
>felt that they would be
>landing there thus saving time for both and getting
>back home at an earlier
>hour. It is also my opinion that we have made crews
>obsolete with the way
>we do things now and that maybe this type of tasking
>would make it a bit
>more fun for them but hopefully not quite as grueling
>as the straight out
>tasks of years ago.
>
>
>
>I also will anticipate that some will claim that this
>is little more than a
>'mega-PST'. I'm not sure that I could argue much with
>that but it seems
>without a time limitation it throws a pretty different
>light upon strategy
>wrt starting during weak lift and ending during the
>same and maybe away from
>the home field.
>
>
>
>Finally, although I anticipate the usual flames from
>those that feel we
>worry too much about racing, this task might make the
>US team a bit more
>competitive at the world meets. So what do you all
>think about this?
>
>
>
>Casey Lenox
>
>KC
>
>Phoenix
>
>
>

[Kilo Charlie]

Ben and Marcel...thank you for your responses. It is great to get input
from pilots that have flown at the Worlds and know the way things worked (or
didn't work) there.

It seemed to me that pilots in the last 3 world contests were being asked to
fly exceptionally long days with respect to the conditions each day. I
admit to not following each day closely so my perception could be wrong.
The point of this "new" task (it is much like other new and old tasks at
least in the US) is to force pilots to fly during less than optimal times of
the day or conditions. Currently the way tasking is set in the US we are on
task for the minimum time only (or close to it) and flying when it might be
weak is discouraged by the rules. Maybe the worlds tasking is simply a
function of calling very long tasks in terms of time or distance and the way
to narrow the gap is for us in the US to just call longer times.

Re the "AST" that was confusing Andy....in the US the official designation
for what the FAI rules call a "racing task" is what we term an "assigned
task" but used to be known as an "assigned speed task" aka AST. It looks
like what Ben is calling an AST is what we call a TAT or in the FAI lingo
Speed Task with Assigned Areas. Is that correct Ben? For those that may
not have had a look go to the following link to view the FAI World rules:
http://www.fai.org/sporting_code/sc3.asp

There are lots of pilots here in the US that would prefer having only racing
tasks as well but actually the TAT has been accepted better than some
thought it would be. There are lots of arguements both ways here but no
doubt that the TAT introduces a bit more luck/chance but also may test pilot
skills that may not be tested in the racing task such as ability to select
the best routes. Even more so for the Speed Task-Pilot Selected or what we
call the MAT here in the US.

In my opinion it is good to have ongoing discussions and debates re the
rules whether at the international or local level. Thanks again for your
comments.

Casey

[Ben Flewett]

Casey,

Yes - what I was calling an AST is what you call a
TAT or in the FAI lingo Speed Task with Assigned Areas.

I think you will find a greater level of acceptance
of area tasks at a regional or national level than
you will at international level. I have a theory as
to why this may be the case...

As I mentioned there were only a few pilots at the
Worlds that supported AST's. To quote one of them
'I like ASTs as they allow pilots that don't normally
do very well to score well for a day'. This pilot
had realised that, because ASTs increase the luck factor,
pilots that were consistently scoring towards the bottom
half of the field sometimes popped towards the top
of the score sheet when an AST was set. Whilst this
is all nice and friendly it's not really what international
competition is all about. (I suggested to the guy
that we could also do spot prizes for the funniest
face painted on a glider or maybe play pass-the-parcel
on rainy days).

It’s good to give everyone a chance to do well at a
club level comp. ASTs also allow experienced pilots
to fly further whilst reducing the probability of a
landout for more experienced pilots. However, proper
comps (international/national level) should be about
racing.

Makoto Ichikawa also supports AST's as he believes
they reduce following.

Regards,

Ben.




At 23:06 02 September 2003, Kilo Charlie wrote:
>Ben and Marcel...thank you for your responses. It
>is great to get input
>from pilots that have flown at the Worlds and know
>the way things worked (or
>didn't work) there.
>
>It seemed to me that pilots in the last 3 world contests
>were being asked to
>fly exceptionally long days with respect to the conditions
>each day. I
>admit to not following each day closely so my perception
>could be wrong.
>The point of this 'new' task (it is much like other
>new and old tasks at
>least in the US) is to force pilots to fly during less
>than optimal times of
>the day or conditions. Currently the way tasking is
>set in the US we are on
>task for the minimum time only (or close to it) and
>flying when it might be
>weak is discouraged by the rules. Maybe the worlds
>tasking is simply a
>function of calling very long tasks in terms of time
>or distance and the way
>to narrow the gap is for us in the US to just call
>longer times.
>
>Re the 'AST' that was confusing Andy....in the US the
>official designation
>for what the FAI rules call a 'racing task' is what
>we term an 'assigned
>task' but used to be known as an 'assigned speed task'
>aka AST. It looks
>like what Ben is calling an AST is what we call a TAT
>or in the FAI lingo
>Speed Task with Assigned Areas. Is that correct Ben?
> For those that may
>not have had a look go to the following link to view
>the FAI World rules:
>http://www.fai.org/sporting_code/sc3.asp
>
>There are lots of pilots here in the US that would
>prefer having only racing
>tasks as well but actually the TAT has been accepted
>better than some
>thought it would be. There are lots of arguements
>both ways here but no
>doubt that the TAT introduces a bit more luck/chance
>but also may test pilot
>skills that may not be tested in the racing task such
>as ability to select
>the best routes. Even more so for the Speed Task-Pilot
>Selected or what we
>call the MAT here in the US.
>
>In my opinion it is good to have ongoing discussions
>and debates re the
>rules whether at the international or local level.
> Thanks again for your
>comments.
>
>Casey
>
>
>

[Gary Ittner]

Kilo Charlie wrote:

> There are lots of pilots here in the US that would prefer having only racing
> tasks


Shall we try to define "lots of pilots"? Archives of SRA polls, in which
all active USA racing pilots may vote, are available here:

http://www.serve.com/BSA/sra.htm

1999 poll - Should PST continue to be included as a possible task at
Nats?
Yes 82% (141) No 18% (32)

2001 poll - Should the MAT task be available in Nats?
Yes 89% No 9%

2002 poll - Should TAT be added as a task option for all Nats starting
in 2003?
Yes (197) No (18)

Presumably, American racing pilots who prefer to have only Assigned
Tasks would have voted NO on these three questions. They are a small,
and extremely vocal, minority.

Gary Ittner P7
"Have glider, will race"

[Ben Flewett]

Andy,

To clarify a point, it is not a Euro AST but rather
an international AST as it comes from Annex A, which
defines the rules for World Gliding Championships.

With regard to the terminology the following acronyms
relate to task types in Annex A….

AAT – Assigned Area Task, of which there are two types;

AST - Area Speed Task
ADT – Area Distance Task

Annex A also provides for POST speed tasks and POST
distance tasks as well as traditional racing tasks.
The organisers must choose 2 of the five task types
available and stipulate which task types they intend
to use prior to the start of the competition. For
the two competitions that have been held since the
introduction of Annex A the organisers have elected
to use traditional racing tasks and ASTs. Each of
the task types must be used for at least one third
of set tasks. This all sounds a bit strange but when
you read Annex A it is apparent that the document provides
for a “menu” of rules from which the organisers can
choose depending on the dynamics of the site the competition
is being run from.

In my opinion, the AST has some merit for “fun” comps
but has no place at a World level event (refer to
my earlier posting for my reasons). However, the ADT
and the two POST task types are just a joke. Thankfully,
the organisers have (to date) recognised this and elected
not to use these tasks.

There are considerable differences between the Annex
A AST and the US TAT. I described the main points
of difference in my earlier posting. If you would
like further clarification I would suggest reading
Annex A (which is a pretty boring thing to do).

Cheers,

Ben.




At 23:06 02 September 2003, Kilo Charlie wrote:
>Ben and Marcel...thank you for your responses. It
>is great to get input
>from pilots that have flown at the Worlds and know
>the way things worked (or
>didn't work) there.
>
>It seemed to me that pilots in the last 3 world contests
>were being asked to
>fly exceptionally long days with respect to the conditions
>each day. I
>admit to not following each day closely so my perception
>could be wrong.
>The point of this 'new' task (it is much like other
>new and old tasks at
>least in the US) is to force pilots to fly during less
>than optimal times of
>the day or conditions. Currently the way tasking is
>set in the US we are on
>task for the minimum time only (or close to it) and
>flying when it might be
>weak is discouraged by the rules. Maybe the worlds
>tasking is simply a
>function of calling very long tasks in terms of time
>or distance and the way
>to narrow the gap is for us in the US to just call
>longer times.
>
>Re the 'AST' that was confusing Andy....in the US the
>official designation
>for what the FAI rules call a 'racing task' is what
>we term an 'assigned
>task' but used to be known as an 'assigned speed task'
>aka AST. It looks
>like what Ben is calling an AST is what we call a TAT
>or in the FAI lingo
>Speed Task with Assigned Areas. Is that correct Ben?
> For those that may
>not have had a look go to the following link to view
>the FAI World rules:
>http://www.fai.org/sporting_code/sc3.asp
>
>There are lots of pilots here in the US that would
>prefer having only racing
>tasks as well but actually the TAT has been accepted
>better than some
>thought it would be. There are lots of arguements
>both ways here but no
>doubt that the TAT introduces a bit more luck/chance
>but also may test pilot
>skills that may not be tested in the racing task such
>as ability to select
>the best routes. Even more so for the Speed Task-Pilot
>Selected or what we
>call the MAT here in the US.
>
>In my opinion it is good to have ongoing discussions
>and debates re the
>rules whether at the international or local level.
> Thanks again for your
>comments.
>
>Casey
>
>
>

[Andy Blackburn]

Hey Ben,

Thanks for your reply. The answer to my question about
AST vs TAT differences still isn't clear - your description
of the differences didn't seem like differences to
me so I thought I'd probe a bit more.

Here's your post with my comments - am I missing something
or is the US 15-minute rule the only main difference?

In my opinion, the new AST format (as per Annex A)
is a considerable improvement upon the existing US
format. Put simply, you must fly through set areas
in a defined order (true in the US TAT) and remain
airborne for a minimum time (TAT has a min time too).
Your score is a function of the distance you flew over
the time you were on task i.e. your average speed (only
difference I know of for TAT [new this year] is the
addition of 15 minutes to everyone's time for scoring
purposes -- to reduce the final glide 'amortization
effect' that biases scores towards arriving right at
min time). If you come home earlier than the minimum
time your speed is scored as if you had flown for the
minimum time (true for TAT) . The person with the fasted
speed wins (true for TAT -- except some odd 15-minute
effects for speeds within 1 mph of each other). This
has effectively removed the possibility that an outlanding
pilot is being able to beat a pilot that makes it back
to the airfield. It has also made it much more simple
for pilots to understand the critical success factors,
i.e. just go as fast as you can and don't come home
too early.

Might need to go read the rules myself - yawn.

By the way - Peter Lyons flew my LS-4 for the NZ team
in the '83 WGC at Hobbs. Since then I usually find
myself rooting for the Kiwis as well as the US team.
Congratulations on a very good showing - and an impressive
climb up the scoreboard.

9B


At 14:36 01 September 2003, Ben Flewett wrote:
>Casey,
>
>Having read your posting through twice I am still struggling
>to understand your question.
>
>However, I do understand both the US rules and the
>World rules for AST's (Annex A). The AST, in it's
>current form, has departed considerably from the US
>style of area/distance tasking.
>
>In my opinion, the new AST format (as per Annex A)
>is a considerable improvement upon the existing US
>format. Put simply, you must fly through set areas
>in a defined order and remain airborne for a minimum
>time. Your score is a function of the distance you
>flew over the time you were on task i.e. your average
>speed. If you come home earlier than the minimum time
>your speed is scored as if you had flown for the minimum
>time. The person with the fasted speed wins. This
>has effectively removed the possibility that an outlanding
>pilot is being able to beat a pilot that makes it back
>to the airfield. It has also made it much more simple
>for pilots to understand the critical success factors,
>i.e. just go as fast as you can and don't come home
>too early.
>
>With regard to your question as to whether these tasks
>would be readily accepted by US pilots, the answer
>is simple - glider pilot's don't like change. Despite
>the apparent increased propensity of the gliding movement
>to experiment with different task types, I have noticed
>a great reluctance amongst individual pilots to change
>any aspect of competition gliding.
>
>Whilst AST's are an improvement upon their predecessors,
>these tasks are still hopeless. Most pilot's I spoke
>to at the WGC were strongly in favour of a return to
>setting racing tasks only. My reasons are as follows:
>
>1. AST's introduce too much luck. A scan of the results
>in Poland will confirm this. On racing days the top
>pilots results are far more consistent. One day John
>Coutts came home feeling that he had either won, or
>come in the top few places only to find he had finished
>28th for the day at over 10kph behind the day winner.
> Anyone who flies gliding competitions will know this
>would (almost) never happen to an experienced pilot
>during a racing task. This happened to a number of
>pilots I spoke with.
>
>2. AST's are very hard to set. Brian Spreckley seems
>to be the only man alive who is capable of setting
>good AST tasks. In both Poland and Hungary the task
>setter clearly did not understand how to set AST's.
> Setting AST's seems to require an intimate understand
>of all the dynamics involved - very few people have
>this understanding. For example, in Poland a task
>was set that required pilots for make a decision as
>to when to run for home approx 220km from the airfield.
> As it was impossible to estimate the return speed
>accurately, this lead to mistakes by a number of top
>pilots.
>
>3. There is much confusion about the purpose of AST's.
> Some people think they are designed to allow tasks
>to be set in bad/inconsistent weather. Others think
>they should only be set in homogenous conditions.
>Some think the primary purpose of the AST is to stop
>gaggling (which in my opinion they don't). Others
>think they are simply there to give variety. All this
>adds to the confusion for the task setter.
>
>At the end of the day, if you want to find out who
>the best pilot is... set a racing task.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ben.
>
>
>At 08:42 01 September 2003, Marcel Duenner wrote:
>>'Kilo Charlie' wrote in message news:...
>>>...
>>>
>>> Distance Task:
>>>
>>>
>>> MAT type of task where any TP within the task area
>>>may be used with no limit
>>> on the total number of TPs. There must be a minimum
>>>distance of X between
>>> each TP, to be determined by the CD based upon conditions
>>>and the task area.
>>> There must be an intervening TP. A substantial airport
>>>bonus will be given
>>> and a modest bonus given for finishing at the home
>>>airfield i.e. so as not
>>> to discourage utilizing paths of lift that might not
>>>end at the home field.
>>> No time limitation. Other than those bonuses already
>>>mentioned it would be
>>> scored strictly upon total distance flown.
>>>
>>>...
>>
>>Sorry, Casey, maybe I misunderstood what you are saying.
>>But what you
>>describe above has nothing to do with any of the tasks
>>flown at the
>>WGC in Poland. Or EGC in Hungary last year.
>>In fact, there were no Distance Tasks at all. The Area
>>Tasks we had in
>>Hungary were Speed-Only-Tasks and you could actually
>>win a day by
>>landing out. Bonusses based on how many pilots came
>>home, etc, which I
>>think is total nonsense.
>>In Poland it was much simpler: No bonus for anything.
>>No speed points
>>for landing out. Same distance points for all finishers
>>(unless you
>>had less than 2/3 of the longest distance flown). The
>>result is: come
>>home as fast as possible to win.
>>
>>Regards
>>Marcel
>>
>
>
>
>

[Kirk Stant]

I experienced an interesting (and a bit unsettling) aspect of a TAT
this past Sunday during a local Arizona Soaring Association race.
Task was a TAT with large (25 mile) turn areas; day had lots of Cu's,
and there were lots of options as to where to go (in fact 1st and 2nd
place took completely different routes). But the side effect was to
have gliders running fast under cloudstreets in opposite directions in
the same area at the same time. In my case, the other glider (with
obviously much better lookout discipline!) saw me as we passed, less
than a quarter mile apart, head on, same altitude. I was either in
the cockpit or watching another glider (in another direction) and
failed to see him. The logger traces are fascinating - we couldn't
have flown a better headon intercept if we had tried!

Using the SeeYou 3d view, you can see how each glider was on a
collision course with the other - no relative movement.

If you want to see the effect, the traces are available on the ASA
website - look for Sunday's contest flights for GY and 66.

If the task had been a speed task, this problem would not have
existed, since we would have known where to expect to see the other
gliders.

Something to think about...

Kirk Stant
LS6-b "66"

[Mike Borgelt]

On 4 Sep 2003 06:36:29 -0700, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

>I experienced an interesting (and a bit unsettling) aspect of a TAT
>this past Sunday during a local Arizona Soaring Association race.
>Task was a TAT with large (25 mile) turn areas; day had lots of Cu's,
>and there were lots of options as to where to go (in fact 1st and 2nd
>place took completely different routes). But the side effect was to
>have gliders running fast under cloudstreets in opposite directions in
>the same area at the same time. In my case, the other glider (with
>obviously much better lookout discipline!) saw me as we passed, less
>than a quarter mile apart, head on, same altitude. I was either in
>the cockpit or watching another glider (in another direction) and
>failed to see him. The logger traces are fascinating - we couldn't
>have flown a better headon intercept if we had tried!
>
>Using the SeeYou 3d view, you can see how each glider was on a
>collision course with the other - no relative movement.
>
>If you want to see the effect, the traces are available on the ASA
>website - look for Sunday's contest flights for GY and 66.
>
>If the task had been a speed task, this problem would not have
>existed, since we would have known where to expect to see the other
>gliders.
>
>Something to think about...
>
>Kirk Stant
>LS6-b "66"

Now didn't I mention this possibility some time ago here?

Mike Borgelt

[Gary Ittner]

Kirk Stant wrote:

> In my case, the other glider (with
> obviously much better lookout discipline!) saw me as we passed, less
> than a quarter mile apart, head on, same altitude.


Gosh, a quarter mile? Have you never been in a big gaggle on an Assigned
Task and had another glider stick its belly 10 feet from your canopy?
Have you never been in a gaggle turning right, with another group
directly below turning left, and then seen the two groups merge because
the lower group was climbing slightly faster?


> If the task had been a speed task, this problem would not have
> existed, since we would have known where to expect to see the other
> gliders.


That's the same weak argument that was used for many years by famous
PST-haters like Bill Bartell and Alan Reeter. But have you ever heard of
a collision between racing gliders cruising in different directions on a
flexible task? I haven't. Gaggles are where collisions happen.

I've heard of many collisions in gaggles during Assigned Tasks, usually
when one racer mis-judges his high speed entry into an existing gaggle.
Just off the top of my head I can think of 3 fatal ones: Ephrata '84,
Uvalde '91, Bayreuth '98.

If you're really worried about collisions in races, and not just trying
to use another weak argument to support an "Assigned Task only" minority
opinion, you'll become a big fan of flexible tasks that cause gaggles to
disappear, such as a MAT with zero assigned turnpoints or a TAT with
very large circles.


> Something to think about...


It is, indeed.


Gary Ittner P7
"Have glider, will race"

[Andy Durbin]

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message >
> Using the SeeYou 3d view, you can see how each glider was on a
> collision course with the other - no relative movement.
>
> If you want to see the effect, the traces are available on the ASA
> website - look for Sunday's contest flights for GY and 66.

>
> Kirk Stant
> LS6-b "66"

The traces show about 0.2 mile lateral and about 100ft vertical
separation. Since I had 66 in sight, and was comfortable with the
separation, I didn't change course.

We were both well clear of cloud base at the time. The real risk is
when 2 gliders are head on and both bumping the bases. (Not than
anyone would be within 1000ft of bases above 10k).

Andy (GY)

[Kilo Charlie]

Gary...even though I may be the "vocal minority" in the Arizona Soaring
Association, you are preaching to the choir with me.....I think that we
should continue to have the MAT, TAT and also the AST. I actually think
that the MAT was undercalled this season. If it is because CD's feel that
it is the same as the TAT I think they are incorrect. If you look at my
original post on this thread it suggested a task that discouraged flying
together.

Different tasks evaluate different skills in racing pilots so there should
be a mix to be able to truly see who is the best. It sounds like your
primary reason for disliking the AST is because of following or gaggles.
Although I agree with you that the non-AST tasks discourage that I think
that the top pilots can loose others even on the AST tasks....it has
happened to me even when another top pilot told me to follow him early on in
my racing career! On the other hand I do agree that it is possible to keep
within "striking distance" in a contest by following on some days. I also
think though that some folks take independence to a fault and will pass up a
great thermal on the basis of other pilots already in it. There is also a
fine line at some point in ones racing career when they go from learning
mode, when they should be following or at least watching, to going out on
their own. That point may not be agreed upon by you and them.

Finally it will all continue to be in disarray until the US Competition
Committee defines a set of skills that we are trying to evaluate in racing
pilots and/or a goal of racing gliders. Until then you, I or anyone else
can say whatever they wish in terms of importance but there will be no way
determine which is correct.

Casey
KC

[Kirk Stant]

Gary Ittner > wrote in message >...
>
> Gosh, a quarter mile? Have you never been in a big gaggle on an Assigned
> Task and had another glider stick its belly 10 feet from your canopy?
> Have you never been in a gaggle turning right, with another group
> directly below turning left, and then seen the two groups merge because
> the lower group was climbing slightly faster?

Yes, I have, and I prefer a threat I can see and moving in basically
the same direction to a threat I don't see going in the opposite
direction. One threat is skill related - and I know the skill of the
pilots I fly with most of the time. The other threat is almost
entirely a luck factor. I agree that gaggles can be dangerous, but if
I remember right one of the "selling points" of the TAT is that it is
safer because it reduces gaggles. Ok, but it may introduce a
different threat instead. I know I don't like it when an AST task is
called with only one turnpoint, so that head-ons are inevitable.
>
> That's the same weak argument that was used for many years by famous
> PST-haters like Bill Bartell and Alan Reeter. But have you ever heard of
> a collision between racing gliders cruising in different directions on a
> flexible task? I haven't. Gaggles are where collisions happen.

Actually, it seems that "safety" (or lack of) is used way too much in
justifying rule changes. Same with stats - what is the percentage of
Assigned tasks to Area tasks, with equivalent number of gliders
competing, etc.. Where were the gaggles - an area task with obvious
better routes will also have gaggles, etc...
>
> I've heard of many collisions in gaggles during Assigned Tasks, usually
> when one racer mis-judges his high speed entry into an existing gaggle.
> Just off the top of my head I can think of 3 fatal ones: Ephrata '84,
> Uvalde '91, Bayreuth '98.
>
> If you're really worried about collisions in races, and not just trying
> to use another weak argument to support an "Assigned Task only" minority
> opinion, you'll become a big fan of flexible tasks that cause gaggles to
> disappear, such as a MAT with zero assigned turnpoints or a TAT with
> very large circles.

Actually, I'm not really very worried about collisions in races - I'm
more concerned when I lose situational awareness and let someone get
by without seeing him. I am concerned with diluting the purpose of
racing with all sorts of (in my opinion) dumbed-down tasks. Now I'll
be the first to admit I'm no threat to anyone on the national team,
but I do race enough to know what I like and don't like. And so far,
I like TATs less and less. And I absolutely hate "flexible tasks".
That's not racing, it's going cross country in a hurry! I guess you
can mark me down in the "Assigned Task only" minority.

So you all know what I'll probably call when it's my turn to be CD!

Kirk

[Kilo Charlie]

OK 66 even though I "live with you" I have to add a couple of comments....

I totally agree re the safety card thing.....it is used way too much and so
would like to leave it out of this arguement but you did mention it. I
disagree that any task is any safer than the other. It is not only the
other sailplane that you don't see but also that Cessna or 737 out there
that is the threat. The reason that I got a transponder was so that I
didn't get a Southwest enema on one of those long final glides from the
north. Besides that I can't count the number of AST's that I've been on
where the next turn was nearly 180 degrees and so made a potential conflict
with oncoming traffic.

I have a real problem with folks that announce that they will never call
anything but one type of task. It happened at Tonopah and IMHO it resulted
in pilots being required to choose between a puckered up flight or winning a
contest. Yes, yes, yes I know that we are all in charge of ourselves and
that there was that "hole in the clouds" that some claimed made it OK but if
the forecast was for overdevelopment then giving the pilots some options is
a much more reasonable way to be. I'm surprised that you would argue with
this considering we have flown a large number of TAT's this year in our
local contest. It has been overcalled and I would have liked to have seen
more AST's and MAT's but I didn't hear much dissention.

With all due respect to Ben who is a much more experienced and skilled pilot
than myself, I think that PST type tasks are good. If there were such a
luck factor then the same guys would not be winning them consistently (here
in the US at least). I do agree that there is at least more of a luck
factor and so the scoring should somehow reflect it but it should not be
thrown out.

Just some more thoughts...flame away!

Casey
KC

[JJ Sinclair]

I think the MAT and TAT are both very good options that can, and should be used
at the appropriate time and place. The MAT is an excellent call for Sports
Class where the competitors may be flying everything from an ASH-25 to a 1-26.
Give them several turn points and the ASH driver can get them all and then go
looking for more trouble to get into. The 1-26 driver, on the other hand, may
use up his alloted time in obtaining the first few turn points and then return
home at any time for full credit and speed points. The MAT is also a good call
on a day that may be very weak. If conditions prove better than forcast,
contestants are free to continue onto other turn points.
The TAT is an excellent call on a day where thunderstorms may be a problem, but
exactly where and when can't be predicted too well. Call the TAT with large
circles and the pilots will do the rest.

Both of these tasks are new to US soaring and therefore are being called so
that competitors can become familiar with just how to fly them. I would hope
that in the future they would be used in the appropriate conditions and will
save the day from an inappropriate call where contestants are forced to fly
into dangerous conditions on an AST.
JJ Sinclair