Benalla [Archive] - AviationBanter

January 12th 17, 05:39 PM

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 9:04:35 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:33:07 AM UTC-5, Duster wrote:
> > Not a real fan of Facebook, but here is one link
>
> me, either. Thanks for link.
>
> They are really going out of their way to make the experience unpleasant for non-members. Is there anyway to make that big floating frame go away without having an account?
>
> -Evan

Congratulations to Sean! Please figure out how to make the tracker stay on. When Sean's is gone I follow Dave Springford, our Northern neighbour. He was in the big pack seeming to be led my Tom Claffey. Seems like work.
Congratulations also to Uys and Attie! It's rare to see a brand new glider do that well. Ask Dick Butler how difficult.
Bruce Taylor and Andrew Georgeson decided not to go with the pack and paid dearly in points, but had a nicer time.

Rrrrrrr.
Data mining programs try to make everyone contribute. How do they make huge (understatement) amounts of money on such crap? They took "Come to the Dark Side. We have cookies" literally.
Believe as Duster suggests the best way to make the frame go away completely is log in with some absolute BS email address with no address book. Yet to do that.
Accepting cookies (peligro) from them at least allows looking at videos and photos. Or right click/open in new tab helps.
Jim

Jim White[_3_]

January 12th 17, 05:48 PM

Well done Sean, great result. Maybe now they'll listen?

January 12th 17, 05:51 PM

> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 7:13:23 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> > Such routine is this at WGC level that it did not make news anywhere?
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 7:13:17 AM UTC-8, Renny wrote:
> We may hear more later.....

Mentioned in John Good's report.
http://ussoaringteams.org/january-12th/
Jim

Dan Marotta

January 12th 17, 05:53 PM

The problem for us Luddites (of facebook) is that you're asked to
register or log in before seeing the information. If you select "Not
Now" the bottom quarter of your screen is blocked by the "Sign UP/Log
In" box. I had a facebook account at one time and was bombarded with
emails/notifications. Since I'm not interested in looking up old girl
friends, I deleted the account. But I continued to get the same email
spam until I blocked the domain.

See out takes from the Southpark episode related to facebook...

THIS <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAVQLM7Jf_4>
and
THIS <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rcp32eHrQ&list=RDUAVQLM7Jf_4>

A total of about 2 minutes

On 1/12/2017 9:33 AM, Duster wrote:
> Not a real fan of Facebook, but here is one link
>
> https://www.facebook.com/SoaringSocietyofAmerica/
>
> Quite a remarkable video of one of the gaggles:
> Scroll down to see the post by Matthew Scutter and pics by Sean
>

--
Dan, 5J

January 12th 17, 06:01 PM

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 9:53:20 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> The problem for us Luddites (of facebook) is that you're asked to
> register or log in before seeing the information.Â* If you select
> "Not Now" the bottom quarter of your screen is blocked by the "Sign
> UP/Log In" box.Â* I had a facebook account at one time and was
> bombarded with emails/notifications.Â* Since I'm not interested in
> looking up old girl friends, I deleted the account.Â* But I continued
> to get the same email spam until I blocked the domain.
>
>
>
> See out takes from the Southpark episode related to facebook...
>
>
>
> THIS
>
> and
>
> THIS
>
>
>
>
> A total of about 2 minutes
>
>
>
> On 1/12/2017 9:33 AM, Duster wrote:
>
>
>
> Not a real fan of Facebook, but here is one link
>
> https://www.facebook.com/SoaringSocietyofAmerica/
>
> Quite a remarkable video of one of the gaggles:
> Scroll down to see the post by Matthew Scutter and pics by Sean
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J

Also search for "the onion cia facebook program" using your favorite method..
Jim

Mark Zuckerberg

January 12th 17, 06:04 PM

Testing, testing.... :-).

Dan Stroschine

January 12th 17, 07:01 PM

On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:28:41 AM UTC-7, Dave Springford wrote:
> There are 70 trackers deployed amongst 113 pilots. They were dispersed such that every country has at least one tracker per class so you can probably guess where the other pilot from each country is, in each class :)

The tracking seems to be working great! The refresh is amazing. Now it's even more interesting to watch.

Frank Whiteley

January 12th 17, 08:20 PM

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-7, Dan Stroschine wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:28:41 AM UTC-7, Dave Springford wrote:
> > There are 70 trackers deployed amongst 113 pilots. They were dispersed such that every country has at least one tracker per class so you can probably guess where the other pilot from each country is, in each class :)
>
>
> The tracking seems to be working great! The refresh is amazing. Now it's even more interesting to watch.

Yes, but the missing 43 trackers and those not functioning make the race less interesting because you can see some of the real challenges live. It'll get better along with the new Iridium satellite constellation and other changes.

WRT Facebook reluctance and luddites. I don't post much on Facebook, but really do enjoy the streams from various quarters including many of the people I shared a military career with. Social media is not a panacea, the Internet is simply a smorgasbord of shifting paradigms. So much so that it is difficult to keep up with more than 3-4 or maybe a half dozen. However, Facebook does allow for various soaring communities to share and for some sites to aggregate this actively. I expect more in the future.

I'll share that someone with a video channel has recently and suddenly seen a huge increase in viewers and comments and questions that appear to be contact from a new demographic, millennials I'd reckon, based on the banter. Almost like a celeb tweeted a channel checkout to a fanbase. Flash in the pan or long term impact remains to be seen.

So get a gmail or some other toss away account, sign up for Facebook and like some soaring related pages. Twitter is not as engaged in US Soaring as it is in Europe and Canada. I'm clueless about snapchat, but my attention span is longer than 30 seconds.

You too Bob!

Frank Whiteley

Jonathon May[_2_]

January 12th 17, 08:28 PM

At 16:33 12 January 2017, Duster wrote:
>Not a real fan of Facebook, but here is one link
>
>https://www.facebook.com/SoaringSocietyofAmerica/
>
>Quite a remarkable video of one of the gaggles:
>Scroll down to see the post by Matthew Scutter and pics by Sean
>
>
Howard Jones (uk) described it as
"A knife fight in a phone box"
Plus blue
Plus 32C
Not my idea of fun

January 12th 17, 08:58 PM

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:30:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
> At 16:33 12 January 2017, Duster wrote:
> >Not a real fan of Facebook, but here is one link
> >
> >https://www.facebook.com/SoaringSocietyofAmerica/
> >
> >Quite a remarkable video of one of the gaggles:
> >Scroll down to see the post by Matthew Scutter and pics by Sean
> >
> >
> Howard Jones (uk) described it as
> "A knife fight in a phone box"
> Plus blue
> Plus 32C
> Not my idea of fun

Thanks Jonathon.
Makes flying alone in the middle of nowhere even more appealing.
Jim

[email protected]

January 12th 17, 09:06 PM

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:00:07 PM UTC-6, Jim White wrote:
> Well done Sean, great result. Maybe now they'll listen?

Only if he can get rid of Wilbur ;)
Congrats, Sean!

Jonathan St. Cloud

January 12th 17, 09:25 PM

Back in another segment of my aviation life, we used to say "if it takes a helicopter to get there it is not worth visiting". Of course the complete opposite is what is true. In another segment of life, my offshore racing days, I was asked if a five day race I did one February was fun, I answered "no but it was worth doing". Each is drawn to their own ""fun.

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:30:06 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
> >
> >> Howard Jones (uk) described it as
> "A knife fight in a phone box"
> Plus blue
> Plus 32C
> Not my idea of fun

Jock Proudfoot

January 12th 17, 09:27 PM

At 14:13 12 January 2017, krasw wrote:
>There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
gliders returned to airfield. Such routine is this at WGC level that it
did not make news anywhere? >

Do they use FLARM ?

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 12th 17, 10:12 PM

Flarm is essentially useless in big crowded gaggles. Alarms are going off all the time. That says something more about the wisdom of big crowded gaggles and rules that promote them rather than anything bad about flarm.

January 12th 17, 10:25 PM

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 2:12:18 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> Flarm is essentially useless in big crowded gaggles. Alarms are going off all the time. That says something more about the wisdom of big crowded gaggles and rules that promote them rather than anything bad about flarm.

The flying today is scrubbed due to PM wind forecast.
Jim

[email protected]

January 12th 17, 11:45 PM

FLARM is most definitely *not* useless in big crowded gaggles. You do need competition mode enabled, and a proper display (I recommend a FlarmView).
Has saved me many times already this competition from gliders turning inside me just as I was about to tighten up.

January 13th 17, 12:56 AM

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 3:45:02 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> FLARM is most definitely *not* useless in big crowded gaggles. You do need competition mode enabled, and a proper display (I recommend a FlarmView).
> Has saved me many times already this competition from gliders turning inside me just as I was about to tighten up.

In Matthew Scutter's video of a crowded Benalla pre-start gaggle, the FLARM behaves as it should.
Can only find the video on FB. Sorry.
https://www.facebook.com/SoaringSocietyofAmerica/
Jim

Dan Marotta

January 13th 17, 02:16 AM

What happens when you "like" something and why should I do it?

On 1/12/2017 1:20 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-7, Dan Stroschine wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:28:41 AM UTC-7, Dave Springford wrote:
>>> There are 70 trackers deployed amongst 113 pilots. They were dispersed such that every country has at least one tracker per class so you can probably guess where the other pilot from each country is, in each class :)
>>
>> The tracking seems to be working great! The refresh is amazing. Now it's even more interesting to watch.
> Yes, but the missing 43 trackers and those not functioning make the race less interesting because you can see some of the real challenges live. It'll get better along with the new Iridium satellite constellation and other changes.
>
> WRT Facebook reluctance and luddites. I don't post much on Facebook, but really do enjoy the streams from various quarters including many of the people I shared a military career with. Social media is not a panacea, the Internet is simply a smorgasbord of shifting paradigms. So much so that it is difficult to keep up with more than 3-4 or maybe a half dozen. However, Facebook does allow for various soaring communities to share and for some sites to aggregate this actively. I expect more in the future.
>
> I'll share that someone with a video channel has recently and suddenly seen a huge increase in viewers and comments and questions that appear to be contact from a new demographic, millennials I'd reckon, based on the banter. Almost like a celeb tweeted a channel checkout to a fanbase. Flash in the pan or long term impact remains to be seen.
>
> So get a gmail or some other toss away account, sign up for Facebook and like some soaring related pages. Twitter is not as engaged in US Soaring as it is in Europe and Canada. I'm clueless about snapchat, but my attention span is longer than 30 seconds.
>
> You too Bob!
>
> Frank Whiteley

--
Dan, 5J

Tom Claffey[_2_]

January 13th 17, 05:13 AM

At 21:27 12 January 2017, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
>At 14:13 12 January 2017, krasw wrote:
>>There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
>gliders returned to airfield. Such routine is this at WGC level that it
>did not make news anywhere? >
>
>Do they use FLARM ?
>

Yes, Flarm is mandatory.
T1

Bruce Hoult

January 13th 17, 09:15 AM

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:16:20 AM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
> What happens when you "like" something and why should I do it?
>
> On 1/12/2017 1:20 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-7, Dan Stroschine wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:28:41 AM UTC-7, Dave Springford wrote:
> >>> There are 70 trackers deployed amongst 113 pilots. They were dispersed such that every country has at least one tracker per class so you can probably guess where the other pilot from each country is, in each class :)
> >>
> >> The tracking seems to be working great! The refresh is amazing. Now it's even more interesting to watch.
> > Yes, but the missing 43 trackers and those not functioning make the race less interesting because you can see some of the real challenges live. It'll get better along with the new Iridium satellite constellation and other changes.
> >
> > WRT Facebook reluctance and luddites. I don't post much on Facebook, but really do enjoy the streams from various quarters including many of the people I shared a military career with. Social media is not a panacea, the Internet is simply a smorgasbord of shifting paradigms. So much so that it is difficult to keep up with more than 3-4 or maybe a half dozen. However, Facebook does allow for various soaring communities to share and for some sites to aggregate this actively. I expect more in the future.
> >
> > I'll share that someone with a video channel has recently and suddenly seen a huge increase in viewers and comments and questions that appear to be contact from a new demographic, millennials I'd reckon, based on the banter. Almost like a celeb tweeted a channel checkout to a fanbase. Flash in the pan or long term impact remains to be seen.
> >
> > So get a gmail or some other toss away account, sign up for Facebook and like some soaring related pages. Twitter is not as engaged in US Soaring as it is in Europe and Canada. I'm clueless about snapchat, but my attention span is longer than 30 seconds.

The person who posted the thing you "like" can see a count of how many people "liked" it (and can bring up a list of just who) and may get a warm fuzzy feeling in their tummy.

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

January 13th 17, 12:24 PM

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:15:56 -0800, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:16:20 AM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> What happens when you "like" something and why should I do it?
>>
>> On 1/12/2017 1:20 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-7, Dan Stroschine
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:28:41 AM UTC-7, Dave Springford
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> There are 70 trackers deployed amongst 113 pilots. They were
>> >>> dispersed such that every country has at least one tracker per
>> >>> class so you can probably guess where the other pilot from each
>> >>> country is, in each class :)
>> >>
>> >> The tracking seems to be working great! The refresh is amazing. Now
>> >> it's even more interesting to watch.
>> > Yes, but the missing 43 trackers and those not functioning make the
>> > race less interesting because you can see some of the real challenges
>> > live. It'll get better along with the new Iridium satellite
>> > constellation and other changes.
>> >
>> > WRT Facebook reluctance and luddites. I don't post much on Facebook,
>> > but really do enjoy the streams from various quarters including many
>> > of the people I shared a military career with. Social media is not a
>> > panacea, the Internet is simply a smorgasbord of shifting paradigms.
>> > So much so that it is difficult to keep up with more than 3-4 or
>> > maybe a half dozen. However, Facebook does allow for various soaring
>> > communities to share and for some sites to aggregate this actively.
>> > I expect more in the future.
>> >
>> > I'll share that someone with a video channel has recently and
>> > suddenly seen a huge increase in viewers and comments and questions
>> > that appear to be contact from a new demographic, millennials I'd
>> > reckon, based on the banter. Almost like a celeb tweeted a channel
>> > checkout to a fanbase. Flash in the pan or long term impact remains
>> > to be seen.
>> >
>> > So get a gmail or some other toss away account, sign up for Facebook
>> > and like some soaring related pages. Twitter is not as engaged in US
>> > Soaring as it is in Europe and Canada. I'm clueless about snapchat,
>> > but my attention span is longer than 30 seconds.
>
> The person who posted the thing you "like" can see a count of how many
> people "liked" it (and can bring up a list of just who) and may get a
> warm fuzzy feeling in their tummy.

.... and the Zuck gets more information about you that he can flog to
advertisers.

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

[email protected]

January 13th 17, 02:41 PM

FYI if you make a bogus FB account and use it only to consume content without giving any data FB will eventually lock it. No one rides for free.

Frank Whiteley

January 13th 17, 03:03 PM

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:26:05 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:15:56 -0800, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:16:20 AM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> What happens when you "like" something and why should I do it?
> >>
> >> On 1/12/2017 1:20 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-7, Dan Stroschine
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:28:41 AM UTC-7, Dave Springford
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> There are 70 trackers deployed amongst 113 pilots. They were
> >> >>> dispersed such that every country has at least one tracker per
> >> >>> class so you can probably guess where the other pilot from each
> >> >>> country is, in each class :)
> >> >>
> >> >> The tracking seems to be working great! The refresh is amazing. Now
> >> >> it's even more interesting to watch.
> >> > Yes, but the missing 43 trackers and those not functioning make the
> >> > race less interesting because you can see some of the real challenges
> >> > live. It'll get better along with the new Iridium satellite
> >> > constellation and other changes.
> >> >
> >> > WRT Facebook reluctance and luddites. I don't post much on Facebook,
> >> > but really do enjoy the streams from various quarters including many
> >> > of the people I shared a military career with. Social media is not a
> >> > panacea, the Internet is simply a smorgasbord of shifting paradigms.
> >> > So much so that it is difficult to keep up with more than 3-4 or
> >> > maybe a half dozen. However, Facebook does allow for various soaring
> >> > communities to share and for some sites to aggregate this actively.
> >> > I expect more in the future.
> >> >
> >> > I'll share that someone with a video channel has recently and
> >> > suddenly seen a huge increase in viewers and comments and questions
> >> > that appear to be contact from a new demographic, millennials I'd
> >> > reckon, based on the banter. Almost like a celeb tweeted a channel
> >> > checkout to a fanbase. Flash in the pan or long term impact remains
> >> > to be seen.
> >> >
> >> > So get a gmail or some other toss away account, sign up for Facebook
> >> > and like some soaring related pages. Twitter is not as engaged in US
> >> > Soaring as it is in Europe and Canada. I'm clueless about snapchat,
> >> > but my attention span is longer than 30 seconds.
> >
> > The person who posted the thing you "like" can see a count of how many
> > people "liked" it (and can bring up a list of just who) and may get a
> > warm fuzzy feeling in their tummy.
>
> ... and the Zuck gets more information about you that he can flog to
> advertisers.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Yeah, showing me ads for items I've already purchased via Amazon somehow seems like a waste of bandwidth. Scrolling past the other ads is trivial. We don't get any of that on our organizational pages. Remember MySpace? Still out there but no one talks about it much. Same could happen with Facebook in time but soaring organizations can't really ignore it for now. A lot of video and other content is there at the moment that may not appear elsewhere, which is unfortunate, because I'd really like to share it with Bob. BGA makes pretty good use of FB and Twitter.

Your personal digital footprint is interesting BTW.

Best,

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley

January 13th 17, 03:19 PM

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 8:03:16 AM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:26:05 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:15:56 -0800, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:16:20 AM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > >> What happens when you "like" something and why should I do it?
> > >>
> > >> On 1/12/2017 1:20 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > >> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-7, Dan Stroschine
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:28:41 AM UTC-7, Dave Springford
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>> There are 70 trackers deployed amongst 113 pilots. They were
> > >> >>> dispersed such that every country has at least one tracker per
> > >> >>> class so you can probably guess where the other pilot from each
> > >> >>> country is, in each class :)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The tracking seems to be working great! The refresh is amazing. Now
> > >> >> it's even more interesting to watch.
> > >> > Yes, but the missing 43 trackers and those not functioning make the
> > >> > race less interesting because you can see some of the real challenges
> > >> > live. It'll get better along with the new Iridium satellite
> > >> > constellation and other changes.
> > >> >
> > >> > WRT Facebook reluctance and luddites. I don't post much on Facebook,
> > >> > but really do enjoy the streams from various quarters including many
> > >> > of the people I shared a military career with. Social media is not a
> > >> > panacea, the Internet is simply a smorgasbord of shifting paradigms.
> > >> > So much so that it is difficult to keep up with more than 3-4 or
> > >> > maybe a half dozen. However, Facebook does allow for various soaring
> > >> > communities to share and for some sites to aggregate this actively..
> > >> > I expect more in the future.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'll share that someone with a video channel has recently and
> > >> > suddenly seen a huge increase in viewers and comments and questions
> > >> > that appear to be contact from a new demographic, millennials I'd
> > >> > reckon, based on the banter. Almost like a celeb tweeted a channel
> > >> > checkout to a fanbase. Flash in the pan or long term impact remains
> > >> > to be seen.
> > >> >
> > >> > So get a gmail or some other toss away account, sign up for Facebook
> > >> > and like some soaring related pages. Twitter is not as engaged in US
> > >> > Soaring as it is in Europe and Canada. I'm clueless about snapchat,
> > >> > but my attention span is longer than 30 seconds.
> > >
> > > The person who posted the thing you "like" can see a count of how many
> > > people "liked" it (and can bring up a list of just who) and may get a
> > > warm fuzzy feeling in their tummy.
> >
> > ... and the Zuck gets more information about you that he can flog to
> > advertisers.
> >
> >
> > --
> > martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org |
>
> Yeah, showing me ads for items I've already purchased via Amazon somehow seems like a waste of bandwidth. Scrolling past the other ads is trivial. We don't get any of that on our organizational pages. Remember MySpace? Still out there but no one talks about it much. Same could happen with Facebook in time but soaring organizations can't really ignore it for now. A lot of video and other content is there at the moment that may not appear elsewhere, which is unfortunate, because I'd really like to share it with Bob. BGA makes pretty good use of FB and Twitter.
>
> Your personal digital footprint is interesting BTW.
>
> Best,
>
> Frank Whiteley

At least some is shareable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dMaYwImixc
@5:46 gets some comments.

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

January 13th 17, 03:25 PM

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 07:03:13 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:

> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:26:05 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:15:56 -0800, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:16:20 AM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> >> What happens when you "like" something and why should I do it?
>> >>
>> >> On 1/12/2017 1:20 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-7, Dan Stroschine
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:28:41 AM UTC-7, Dave Springford
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> There are 70 trackers deployed amongst 113 pilots. They were
>> >> >>> dispersed such that every country has at least one tracker per
>> >> >>> class so you can probably guess where the other pilot from each
>> >> >>> country is, in each class :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The tracking seems to be working great! The refresh is amazing.
>> >> >> Now it's even more interesting to watch.
>> >> > Yes, but the missing 43 trackers and those not functioning make
>> >> > the race less interesting because you can see some of the real
>> >> > challenges live. It'll get better along with the new Iridium
>> >> > satellite constellation and other changes.
>> >> >
>> >> > WRT Facebook reluctance and luddites. I don't post much on
>> >> > Facebook,
>> >> > but really do enjoy the streams from various quarters including
>> >> > many of the people I shared a military career with. Social media
>> >> > is not a panacea, the Internet is simply a smorgasbord of shifting
>> >> > paradigms. So much so that it is difficult to keep up with more
>> >> > than 3-4 or maybe a half dozen. However, Facebook does allow for
>> >> > various soaring communities to share and for some sites to
>> >> > aggregate this actively. I expect more in the future.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll share that someone with a video channel has recently and
>> >> > suddenly seen a huge increase in viewers and comments and
>> >> > questions that appear to be contact from a new demographic,
>> >> > millennials I'd reckon, based on the banter. Almost like a celeb
>> >> > tweeted a channel checkout to a fanbase. Flash in the pan or long
>> >> > term impact remains to be seen.
>> >> >
>> >> > So get a gmail or some other toss away account, sign up for
>> >> > Facebook and like some soaring related pages. Twitter is not as
>> >> > engaged in US Soaring as it is in Europe and Canada. I'm clueless
>> >> > about snapchat, but my attention span is longer than 30 seconds.
>> >
>> > The person who posted the thing you "like" can see a count of how
>> > many people "liked" it (and can bring up a list of just who) and may
>> > get a warm fuzzy feeling in their tummy.
>>
>> ... and the Zuck gets more information about you that he can flog to
>> advertisers.
>>
>>
>> --
>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
>
> Yeah, showing me ads for items I've already purchased via Amazon somehow
> seems like a waste of bandwidth. Scrolling past the other ads is
> trivial. We don't get any of that on our organizational pages. Remember
> MySpace? Still out there but no one talks about it much. Same could
> happen with Facebook in time but soaring organizations can't really
> ignore it for now. A lot of video and other content is there at the
> moment that may not appear elsewhere, which is unfortunate, because I'd
> really like to share it with Bob. BGA makes pretty good use of FB and
> Twitter.
>
> Your personal digital footprint is interesting BTW.
>
I minimise it somewhat, but I do run a couple of websites and have
projects on SourceForge and have fairly wide interests.

OTOH I don't use any social media, unless you count Newsgroups accessed
over NNTP and SEN. My home site is locked up fairly tight and checked for
leaks and visibility with Gibson Research's ShieldsUP tool.

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

Jonathan St. Cloud

January 13th 17, 03:57 PM

Sean re-designed is panel and it still has crap hanging off the sides and top.

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 7:19:45 AM UTC-8, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> At least some is shareable.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dMaYwImixc
> @5:46 gets some comments.

January 13th 17, 05:06 PM

Not the highest day, but the trough has moved north.
http://reg.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/4day_col.shtml
Jim

Bruce Hoult

January 13th 17, 06:43 PM

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:41:58 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> FYI if you make a bogus FB account and use it only to consume content without giving any data FB will eventually lock it. No one rides for free.

gas, grass, or ass?

I must be old.

Frank Whiteley

January 13th 17, 07:10 PM

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:43:03 AM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:41:58 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> > FYI if you make a bogus FB account and use it only to consume content without giving any data FB will eventually lock it. No one rides for free.
>
> gas, grass, or ass?
>
> I must be old.

True, but most of what it's looking for is already out there, do you can dangle that. Some use it as an open book and it ranges from joy to tragedy.

Frank Whiteley

Dan Marotta

January 13th 17, 10:22 PM

I did, so, if and when they lock it, I'll simply create another....

On 1/13/2017 7:41 AM, wrote:
> FYI if you make a bogus FB account and use it only to consume content without giving any data FB will eventually lock it. No one rides for free.

--
Dan, 5J

January 13th 17, 10:36 PM

"A" tasks of 418k for 15m, 446k* for 18m, 557k for open today.
* but with 40k cylinders.
Jim

Tony[_5_]

January 13th 17, 11:15 PM

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 4:36:29 PM UTC-6, JS wrote:
> "A" tasks of 418k for 15m, 446k* for 18m, 557k for open today.
> * but with 40k cylinders.
> Jim

a giant circle AAT for 18 meter class. Has the task setter been reading RAS the last few years?? :D

[email protected]

January 13th 17, 11:26 PM

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 6:15:57 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 4:36:29 PM UTC-6, JS wrote:
> > "A" tasks of 418k for 15m, 446k* for 18m, 557k for open today.
> > * but with 40k cylinders.
> > Jim
>
> a giant circle AAT for 18 meter class. Has the task setter been reading RAS the last few years?? :D

One of our team members can set him straight.
UH

[email protected]

January 14th 17, 02:42 AM

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 5:26:18 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 6:15:57 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 4:36:29 PM UTC-6, JS wrote:
> > > "A" tasks of 418k for 15m, 446k* for 18m, 557k for open today.
> > > * but with 40k cylinders.
> > > Jim
> >
> > a giant circle AAT for 18 meter class. Has the task setter been reading RAS the last few years?? :D
>
> One of our team members can set him straight.
> UH

Make that two, don't forget about Wilbur.

Steve Leonard[_2_]

January 14th 17, 04:22 AM

It is all good. 7T has learned about those things here at home. Go, Sean, go!

RuudH

January 14th 17, 11:10 AM

Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
> There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged gliders returned to airfield. Such routine is this at WGC level that it did not make news anywhere?

If you look at the score sheet, LK and HK were involved in this occurrence
I have put both igc files together in this GoogleEarth KML file https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35654093/2close4comfort.kmz

It looks like LK turned inside HK during thermalling
HK immediately returned in the direction of Benalla and landed on Baddaginnie (Earlston) airstrip.
LK initially continued the task and flew back a little bit later to Benalla.

This slide was shown during a safety briefing
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35654093/safety-briefing-wgc2017.jpg

Jock Proudfoot

January 14th 17, 12:32 PM

At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
>Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
>> There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
gliders
>returned to airfield. >

Matthew Scutter's Gliding
https://www.facebook.com/MatthewScuttersGliding/?fref=hovercard

Jim White[_3_]

January 14th 17, 02:29 PM

At 12:32 14 January 2017, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
>At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
>>Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
>>> There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
>gliders
>>returned to airfield. >
This the work of an ethics committee.

1) It is hard to argue that someone who gives up their race to assist
another pilot in mortal trouble isn't doing the right thing

2) It is also hard to argue that the organisation that decides to cancel
the race because said pilot gave up his race for noble reason and was so
disadvantaged isn't doing the right thing

yet note that the rules say that pilots involved in a mid air must suffer
a technical land out at that point. I was not present in this rule making
but presume that the reasoning is that this rule discourages pilots from
continuing in potentially lethally compromised gliders. It also has a
deterrent effect on rash pilot behaviour as the penalty is very high, even
if not to life and limb.

so

3) It is therefore possible to argue that the organisers who cancel the
task, remove the points downside to the pilots from unsafe flying and that
is wrong.

Better to find a way to reward the good shepherd for his proper and
humane decision?

Always controversial, not always correct
Jim

Rich Owen[_2_]

January 14th 17, 02:47 PM

Lol!!!!

Chris Rollings[_2_]

January 14th 17, 03:10 PM

At 14:29 14 January 2017, Jim White wrote:
>At 12:32 14 January 2017, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
>>At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
>>>Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
>>>> There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
>>gliders
>>>returned to airfield. >
>This the work of an ethics committee.
>
>1) It is hard to argue that someone who gives up their race to assis
>another pilot in mortal trouble isn't doing the right thing
>
>2) It is also hard to argue that the organisation that decides to cance
>the race because said pilot gave up his race for noble reason and was s
>disadvantaged isn't doing the right thing
>
>yet note that the rules say that pilots involved in a mid air must suffe
>a technical land out at that point. I was not present in this rule makin
>but presume that the reasoning is that this rule discourages pilots fro
>continuing in potentially lethally compromised gliders. It also has a
>deterrent effect on rash pilot behaviour as the penalty is very high,
eve
>if not to life and limb.

The rule was, I believe, introduced after a mid-air (in cloud) in a UK
Nationals in the late 1960's. One of the pilots flew on for about another
50 km with a couple of feet of wing missing.

>
>so
>
>3) It is therefore possible to argue that the organisers who cancel th
>task, remove the points downside to the pilots from unsafe flying and
tha
>is wrong.
>
>Better to find a way to reward the good shepherd for his proper an
>humane decision?
>
>Always controversial, not always correct
>Jim
>
>

Jonathan St. Cloud

January 14th 17, 05:00 PM

So I am confused. Matthew Scutter's FB post says both gliders crashed and both pilots safely bailed out. One glider spiraled in and the other looped all the way to ground. Other posts say one glider returned to Benalla and the other landed at another airport. Glad both are safe, terrible about the collision and loss of equipment.

The first mid-air the day before, I never did hear who was involved and level of damage, what class glider...

Stay safe down there guys and gal!

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:45:07 AM UTC-8, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
> At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
> >Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
> >> There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
> gliders
> >returned to airfield. >
>
> Matthew Scutter's Gliding
> https://www.facebook.com/MatthewScuttersGliding/?fref=hovercard

Renny[_2_]

January 14th 17, 05:07 PM

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 10:00:56 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> So I am confused. Matthew Scutter's FB post says both gliders crashed and both pilots safely bailed out. One glider spiraled in and the other looped all the way to ground. Other posts say one glider returned to Benalla and the other landed at another airport. Glad both are safe, terrible about the collision and loss of equipment.
>
> The first mid-air the day before, I never did hear who was involved and level of damage, what class glider...
>
> Stay safe down there guys and gal!
>
>
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:45:07 AM UTC-8, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
> > At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
> > >Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
> > >> There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
> > gliders
> > >returned to airfield. >
> >
> > Matthew Scutter's Gliding
> > https://www.facebook.com/MatthewScuttersGliding/?fref=hovercard

There is a bit more info here from John Good...

http://ussoaringteams.org/january-14th/

Tony[_5_]

January 14th 17, 05:20 PM

Two mid airs.

Jonathan St. Cloud

January 14th 17, 05:52 PM

But to be fair, they did get a safety briefing after the first midair that included a slide about waving to other pilots as they enter a thermal.

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:20:18 AM UTC-8, Tony wrote:
> Two mid airs.

January 14th 17, 11:03 PM

Day 5 isn't canceled.
Not that high again. Clouds seem to be scarce.
15m has a 280k nominal task with two 25km circles.
18m has 279k nominal with two 30km circles.
Open is 283k nominal with a 10km and two 25km circles.
Jim

Tony[_5_]

January 15th 17, 12:45 AM

Strange thing is that for Task 2 in the 18 meter class where supposedly two gliders bumped with minimal damage...There are no two gliders scored with identical distance.

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 15th 17, 12:53 AM

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 7:45:56 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> Strange thing is that for Task 2 in the 18 meter class where supposedly two gliders bumped with minimal damage...There are no two gliders scored with identical distance.

12 Jan; Day 3; two ASG29E's tied at 28.5 km. You can download the IGC files and replay the incident. Fairly aggressive pre-start between the two...

Tom Claffey[_2_]

January 15th 17, 01:01 AM

At 17:00 14 January 2017, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>So I am confused. Matthew Scutter's FB post says both gliders crashed
and
>=
>both pilots safely bailed out. One glider spiraled in and the other
looped
>=
>all the way to ground. Other posts say one glider returned to Benalla and
>t=
>he other landed at another airport. Glad both are safe, terrible about
>the=
> collision and loss of equipment.
>
>The first mid-air the day before, I never did hear who was involved and
>lev=
>el of damage, what class glider...
>
>Stay safe down there guys and gal! =20
>
>
>On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:45:07 AM UTC-8, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
>> At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
>> >Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
>> >> There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged=20
>> gliders
>> >returned to airfield. >
>>=20
>> Matthew Scutter's Gliding
>> https://www.facebook.com/MatthewScuttersGliding/?fref=3Dhovercard
>
First midair was 18M class two days ago, one glider landed in field, the
other
returned home. Damage minimal, repaired overnight, both flew yesterday.
Second midair was 15M yesterday, tail missing on one, wing damage on the
other causing spiral dive, both bailed out. The Australian has broken nose
and
damaged vertebra, the German has a broken leg.
T1

Tony[_5_]

January 15th 17, 01:05 AM

Doh! Wrong day

Tom Kelley #711

January 15th 17, 02:44 AM

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 8:23:49 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> Everyone is airborne for practice day 1.
> http://www.livetrack24.com/events/WGC2017
> Jim

US Team @SoaringUSA
Tasks just cancelled for all classes. #wgc2017

[email protected]

January 15th 17, 08:02 PM

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:53:39 PM UTC-8, Dan Daly wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 7:45:56 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > Strange thing is that for Task 2 in the 18 meter class where supposedly two gliders bumped with minimal damage...There are no two gliders scored with identical distance.
>
> 12 Jan; Day 3; two ASG29E's tied at 28.5 km. You can download the IGC files and replay the incident. Fairly aggressive pre-start between the two...

Where can I find the IGC files?
Thanks

Vernon Brown

January 15th 17, 09:01 PM

At 20:02 15 January 2017, wrote:
>On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:53:39 PM UTC-8, Dan Daly wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 7:45:56 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
>> > Strange thing is that for Task 2 in the 18 meter class where
supposedly
>two gliders bumped with minimal damage...There are no two gliders scored
>with identical distance.
>>
>> 12 Jan; Day 3; two ASG29E's tied at 28.5 km. You can download the IGC
>files and replay the incident. Fairly aggressive pre-start between the
>two...
>
>Where can I find the IGC files?
>Thanks
>

You can find them here,
http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/34th-fai-world-gliding-championships-benalla-gld-2017/
Click, Task & results, then the, class you want to view, then the pilots
comp (CN) number, it should then open up in whatever system you are using,
See You etc.

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 15th 17, 09:03 PM

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 3:02:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:53:39 PM UTC-8, Dan Daly wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 7:45:56 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > > Strange thing is that for Task 2 in the 18 meter class where supposedly two gliders bumped with minimal damage...There are no two gliders scored with identical distance.
> >
> > 12 Jan; Day 3; two ASG29E's tied at 28.5 km. You can download the IGC files and replay the incident. Fairly aggressive pre-start between the two....
>
> Where can I find the IGC files?
> Thanks

There are IGC files for each competitor; go to http://wgc2017.com/results(hidden)/daily-race-results.aspx?day=6&class=18_Metre#dayStart ; then scroll down to contest IDs HK and LK; they're links, click on the ids to download. You should get . 12 Jan for the touch... they have not posted any IGC files for the day with the loss of gliders. This is consistent with the mid-air at WGC Uvalde, when the incident glider IGC files were not released.

I think this is a pity; reconstruction would be useful at safety meetings.

January 15th 17, 09:03 PM

Winter, time to get a life.
With no live racing from Aus last night, decided to watch "Zulu Romeo - Good Start", and monitor Allan Barnes on a coaching flight out of Lake Keepit.
SPOT tracking is really poor.
Today looks better at Benalla... Guessing N then SW and home?
Jim

Tom Kelley #711

January 15th 17, 09:14 PM

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 5:53:39 PM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 7:45:56 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > Strange thing is that for Task 2 in the 18 meter class where supposedly two gliders bumped with minimal damage...There are no two gliders scored with identical distance.
>
> 12 Jan; Day 3; two ASG29E's tied at 28.5 km. You can download the IGC files and replay the incident. Fairly aggressive pre-start between the two...

Those boys are dancing closer in-flight then a couple doing a waltz @ a slow dance contest!

Thanks Dan for point it out!

Best. #711.

Tony[_5_]

January 15th 17, 09:20 PM

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 3:03:10 PM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 3:02:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:53:39 PM UTC-8, Dan Daly wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 7:45:56 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > > > Strange thing is that for Task 2 in the 18 meter class where supposedly two gliders bumped with minimal damage...There are no two gliders scored with identical distance.
> > >
> > > 12 Jan; Day 3; two ASG29E's tied at 28.5 km. You can download the IGC files and replay the incident. Fairly aggressive pre-start between the two....
> >
> > Where can I find the IGC files?
> > Thanks
>
> There are IGC files for each competitor; go to http://wgc2017.com/results(hidden)/daily-race-results.aspx?day=6&class=18_Metre#dayStart ; then scroll down to contest IDs HK and LK; they're links, click on the ids to download. You should get . 12 Jan for the touch... they have not posted any IGC files for the day with the loss of gliders. This is consistent with the mid-air at WGC Uvalde, when the incident glider IGC files were not released.
>
> I think this is a pity; reconstruction would be useful at safety meetings..

they initially did have the files up. not for the midair pilots i doubt. but everyone else was up. would've been another good day for the Jonker brothers...

Duster

January 16th 17, 02:31 AM

According to livetrack24, aerotow in progress as of 9:30pm EST (US) Sunday.

Duster

January 16th 17, 02:32 AM

Aerotows in progress as of 9:30pm (US EST).

krasw

January 16th 17, 12:30 PM

Quote from Austrian team's blog:

"Ich mÃ¶chte hiermit mitteilen, dass ich den Wettbewerb beende. Auf Grund von zwei erlebten unverschuldeten near misses in den letzten Tagen, mit einmal fÃ¼nf und einmal elf Metern Abstand, sowie der beiden ZusammenstÃ¶ÃŸe im Bewerb, kann ich mir und meiner Familie gegenÃ¼ber eine weitere Teilnahme nicht mehr verantworten. Trotz intensiver Aufrufe durch die Wettbewerbsleitung und der Pilotenvertreter sehe ich keine Chance auf die Reduzierung der Pulkbildung. Die hier in Benalla vorherrschende Blauthermik fÃ¼hrt ganz einfach dazu, dass sich die Flugzeuge immer wieder im selben Aufwind finden. Ich bin der Meinung, es wird auch weiterhin zu gefÃ¤hrlichen Begegnungen in der Luft kommen, es wird auch weiterhin UnfÃ¤lle geben. Es ist deshalb fÃ¼r mich die Konsequenz daraus, bei dem System nicht mehr mitzutun.

Ich mÃ¶chte mich beim Ã–sterreichischen Aeroclub bedanken, der mir die MÃ¶glichkeit geboten hat hier in Benalla dabei zu sein, bei allen Teamkollegen hier vor Ort und wÃ¼nsche allen noch einen schÃ¶nen und vor allem unfallfreien Bewerb.

Ludwig Starkl"

Short wrap-up for language-challenged: Dry weather and massive gaggles lead to 2 mid-airs and too many close calls (5 and 11 meters distance between gliders). Situation did not improve during competition and flying was outright dangerous. Pilot decided to withdraw. Can't blame him, it takes courage to do this.

[email protected]

January 16th 17, 01:08 PM

And what about Jonkers brothers ? Apparently they didn't fly the 6Â° race.

[email protected]

January 16th 17, 01:56 PM

According to the SA team Facebook page they both outlanded unfortunately.

Paul T[_4_]

January 16th 17, 02:01 PM

At 13:08 16 January 2017, wrote:
>And what about Jonkers brothers ? Apparently they didn't fly the
6=C2=B0
>ra=
>ce.
>

https://www.facebook.com/SouthAfricanGlidingTeam/?fref=ts

Plonked it! Starting after 14.00 obviously a tactical error.

John Bojack J4

January 16th 17, 03:51 PM

Lowly (and only) LS-10 has taken a 9th and a 7th flying amongst all the latest super new models. :)
Too bad DG doesn't bother to place some top world-class pilots in a few more LS-10's.

January 16th 17, 04:26 PM

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:30:56 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> Quote from Austrian team's blog:
>
> "Ich mÃ¶chte hiermit mitteilen, dass ich den Wettbewerb beende. Auf Grund von zwei erlebten unverschuldeten near misses in den letzten Tagen, mit einmal fÃ¼nf und einmal elf Metern Abstand, sowie der beiden ZusammenstÃ¶ÃŸe im Bewerb, kann ich mir und meiner Familie gegenÃ¼ber eine weitere Teilnahme nicht mehr verantworten. Trotz intensiver Aufrufe durch die Wettbewerbsleitung und der Pilotenvertreter sehe ich keine Chance auf die Reduzierung der Pulkbildung. Die hier in Benalla vorherrschende Blauthermik fÃ¼hrt ganz einfach dazu, dass sich die Flugzeuge immer wieder im selben Aufwind finden. Ich bin der Meinung, es wird auch weiterhin zu gefÃ¤hrlichen Begegnungen in der Luft kommen, es wird auch weiterhin UnfÃ¤lle geben. Es ist deshalb fÃ¼r mich die Konsequenz daraus, bei dem System nicht mehr mitzutun.
>
> Ich mÃ¶chte mich beim Ã–sterreichischen Aeroclub bedanken, der mir die MÃ¶glichkeit geboten hat hier in Benalla dabei zu sein, bei allen Teamkollegen hier vor Ort und wÃ¼nsche allen noch einen schÃ¶nen und vor allem unfallfreien Bewerb.
>
>
> Ludwig Starkl"
>
> Short wrap-up for language-challenged: Dry weather and massive gaggles lead to 2 mid-airs and too many close calls (5 and 11 meters distance between gliders). Situation did not improve during competition and flying was outright dangerous. Pilot decided to withdraw. Can't blame him, it takes courage to do this.

Bravo, Ludwig! It's supposed to be fun; not life-threatening!
Uli

Tango Eight

January 16th 17, 04:42 PM

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:30:56 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> Quote from Austrian team's blog:
>
> "Ich mÃ¶chte hiermit mitteilen, dass ich den Wettbewerb beende. Auf Grund von zwei erlebten unverschuldeten near misses in den letzten Tagen, mit einmal fÃ¼nf und einmal elf Metern Abstand, sowie der beiden ZusammenstÃ¶ÃŸe im Bewerb, kann ich mir und meiner Familie gegenÃ¼ber eine weitere Teilnahme nicht mehr verantworten. Trotz intensiver Aufrufe durch die Wettbewerbsleitung und der Pilotenvertreter sehe ich keine Chance auf die Reduzierung der Pulkbildung. Die hier in Benalla vorherrschende Blauthermik fÃ¼hrt ganz einfach dazu, dass sich die Flugzeuge immer wieder im selben Aufwind finden. Ich bin der Meinung, es wird auch weiterhin zu gefÃ¤hrlichen Begegnungen in der Luft kommen, es wird auch weiterhin UnfÃ¤lle geben. Es ist deshalb fÃ¼r mich die Konsequenz daraus, bei dem System nicht mehr mitzutun.
>
> Ich mÃ¶chte mich beim Ã–sterreichischen Aeroclub bedanken, der mir die MÃ¶glichkeit geboten hat hier in Benalla dabei zu sein, bei allen Teamkollegen hier vor Ort und wÃ¼nsche allen noch einen schÃ¶nen und vor allem unfallfreien Bewerb.
>
>
> Ludwig Starkl"
>
> Short wrap-up for language-challenged: Dry weather and massive gaggles lead to 2 mid-airs and too many close calls (5 and 11 meters distance between gliders). Situation did not improve during competition and flying was outright dangerous. Pilot decided to withdraw. Can't blame him, it takes courage to do this.

Courage? Or did he simply conclude that fighting through Tokyo traffic -- very rarely even having to find his own lift -- wasn't a valid test for selecting a champion of the sport we know and love called "Soaring"?

The IGC seems to be locked into this notion that the peloton must always score well, even if it does not finish. Imagine what might happen if we flushed those rules and did something innovative (lol) like 600 points for speed, 400 for distance. No devaluations, no re-valuations. Everyone knows at all times what points are in play and how to earn them.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Jonathan St. Cloud

January 16th 17, 04:59 PM

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:52:01 AM UTC-8, John Bojack J4 wrote:
> Lowly (and only) LS-10 has taken a 9th and a 7th flying amongst all the latest super new models. :)
> Too bad DG doesn't bother to place some top world-class pilots in a few more LS-10's.

Rick Walter's (RIP) won the pre-worlds in a LS-10 when it was first on Market. I was always surprised that the LS-6 drivers did not buy the LS-10. At a fit 200 pounds I just could not close the canopy though, (Longer torso, broad shoulders). I too thought DG should put a few top pilots in their LS-10 years ago.

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 16th 17, 05:35 PM

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 10:52:01 AM UTC-5, John Bojack J4 wrote:
> Lowly (and only) LS-10 has taken a 9th and a 7th flying amongst all the latest super new models. :)
> Too bad DG doesn't bother to place some top world-class pilots in a few more LS-10's.

It is not even advertised on their new website. From the product page: "The company currently produces DG-808C, DG-1001, and LS8 gliders in different variations."

krasw

January 16th 17, 05:49 PM

maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2017 18.42.58 UTC+2 Tango Eight kirjoitti:this.
>
> Courage? Or did he simply conclude that fighting through Tokyo traffic -- very rarely even having to find his own lift -- wasn't a valid test for selecting a champion of the sport we know and love called "Soaring"?
>
> The IGC seems to be locked into this notion that the peloton must always score well, even if it does not finish. Imagine what might happen if we flushed those rules and did something innovative (lol) like 600 points for speed, 400 for distance. No devaluations, no re-valuations. Everyone knows at all times what points are in play and how to earn them.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Instead of bashing IGC you can contact your IGC delegate (who happens to be Annex A sub-group chair BTW), or IGC president (your compatriot) directly, and propose rule change. IGC does what pilots collectively want. Good proposals will be put forward to rules. Just saying "someone should do something" gets you nowhere. Score formula changes are not easy or simple, they might work with some scenarios, but at the same time do opposite in others, or create new unwanted behaviour.

Tango Eight

January 16th 17, 08:28 PM

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 12:49:55 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2017 18.42.58 UTC+2 Tango Eight kirjoitti:this.
> >
> > Courage? Or did he simply conclude that fighting through Tokyo traffic -- very rarely even having to find his own lift -- wasn't a valid test for selecting a champion of the sport we know and love called "Soaring"?
> >
> > The IGC seems to be locked into this notion that the peloton must always score well, even if it does not finish. Imagine what might happen if we flushed those rules and did something innovative (lol) like 600 points for speed, 400 for distance. No devaluations, no re-valuations. Everyone knows at all times what points are in play and how to earn them.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Instead of bashing IGC you can contact your IGC delegate (who happens to be Annex A sub-group chair BTW), or IGC president (your compatriot) directly, and propose rule change. IGC does what pilots collectively want. Good proposals will be put forward to rules. Just saying "someone should do something" gets you nowhere. Score formula changes are not easy or simple, they might work with some scenarios, but at the same time do opposite in others, or create new unwanted behaviour.

Look, I get all of that. I am not pretending that BS'ing on this forum is a substitute for real effort, this is just a quick cartoon idea born of frustration (and also frank concern for good friends flying in that melee), tossed out for the purpose of discussion and thought-experiment. I'm simply curious at this point to know if others think as I do and this is as good a place as any to ask. Maybe everyone else likes it as is? <shrug>

Surely you would agree that any proposal along the lines I have just sketched out, signed only by myself, would be a complete non-starter at IGC. They are proud of what they have and their process is incremental and glacial, so why would I waste my time?

Now -- if -- this turned into a lively discussion with good ideas converging on a solution that might really improve international competition, then of course I'd be willing to put my shoulder to the wheel in whatever fashion seemed appropriate. A serious proposal signed by some hundreds of (mostly European) pilots could be very worth while, but it's a little hard for this one American to see how to do that.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[email protected]

January 16th 17, 08:46 PM

Why do European sailplane pilots want to race like US stock car drivers? At some point the insurance companies might be re-writing the racing rules.
On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 3:28:53 PM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 12:49:55 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> > maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2017 18.42.58 UTC+2 Tango Eight kirjoitti:this..
> > >
> > > Courage? Or did he simply conclude that fighting through Tokyo traffic -- very rarely even having to find his own lift -- wasn't a valid test for selecting a champion of the sport we know and love called "Soaring"?
> > >
> > > The IGC seems to be locked into this notion that the peloton must always score well, even if it does not finish. Imagine what might happen if we flushed those rules and did something innovative (lol) like 600 points for speed, 400 for distance. No devaluations, no re-valuations. Everyone knows at all times what points are in play and how to earn them.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Evan Ludeman / T8
> >
> > Instead of bashing IGC you can contact your IGC delegate (who happens to be Annex A sub-group chair BTW), or IGC president (your compatriot) directly, and propose rule change. IGC does what pilots collectively want. Good proposals will be put forward to rules. Just saying "someone should do something" gets you nowhere. Score formula changes are not easy or simple, they might work with some scenarios, but at the same time do opposite in others, or create new unwanted behaviour.
>
> Look, I get all of that. I am not pretending that BS'ing on this forum is a substitute for real effort, this is just a quick cartoon idea born of frustration (and also frank concern for good friends flying in that melee), tossed out for the purpose of discussion and thought-experiment. I'm simply curious at this point to know if others think as I do and this is as good a place as any to ask. Maybe everyone else likes it as is? <shrug>
>
> Surely you would agree that any proposal along the lines I have just sketched out, signed only by myself, would be a complete non-starter at IGC. They are proud of what they have and their process is incremental and glacial, so why would I waste my time?
>
> Now -- if -- this turned into a lively discussion with good ideas converging on a solution that might really improve international competition, then of course I'd be willing to put my shoulder to the wheel in whatever fashion seemed appropriate. A serious proposal signed by some hundreds of (mostly European) pilots could be very worth while, but it's a little hard for this one American to see how to do that.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

[email protected]

January 16th 17, 08:56 PM

Not really... 18 and Open class (I hear) have been fairly split up on course. I've been flying basically alone for the majority of my flights on each day, perhaps with 1-3 other gliders for a portion. I have intentionally left well ahead of the gaggle and many others in other classes, are doing the same. Think Tour de France break aways. It's really fun racing rather than playing chance and weather guess.

Fortunately, the gaggle has been caught starting too late a couple times and has been too inefficient (2-4 kph slower).

There was a collision at Uvalde in 2012 right? Hmmm. Generalizing and diminishing this event sounds like sour grapes to me. IMO (as a pilot flying here) the flying is almost exactly the same as in any large contest in the USA. The most frightening flying I have ever witnessed was the pre-startvgaghle at seniors to be perfectly honest. The difference is that everyone here is VERY good and is fully capable of staying with others as long as they want. So the gaggles I have witnessed here are often together at the same altitude more at the start and apparently out on course in 15m especially..

Another rule system would not alter this behavior much if at all.

The US starting system max altitude rule requiring a decent below and then waiting 2 minutes below that a max altitude probably would have causes 10 crashes here by now. What a ridiculous rule! That US starting rule consistently creates the most dangerous moments that I have ever witnessed in soaring and worries me much more than anything I have seen here! The "no max start altitude" start system used here at the WGC (IGC rules) creates the best starting safety possible and rewards the best pilots for using the available lift and getting higher. The starts here are docile in comparison to the "US start circle of death" as we call it... Gaggle climbs up above max height in strong thermal, descends at high speed circling thermal, waits two minutes, then recenter and climbs while others exit and renter, descend and climb...mass chaos and extremely dangerous! "US rules patented!"

So I suggest thinking this thru a little bit more intelligently before attacking the IGC (again for the 300 time) and trying to delegitimize the WGC event. The US rules are terrible. Some aspects are ok. And the IGC feels pretty much the same as do almost all pilots outside the USA. So US thinking is virtually insignificant. Keep that in perspective...

My opinion is that only one pilot in each class should be here. That means less traffic and eliminates large gaggles, team flying and much of the complexity, as well as high cost of sending six gliders...

I am enjoying this WGC event immensely. It has been really fun (minus the collision)! It's really nice to participate in a "real racing" competition and not exclusively a chance weather guessing game like we are forced to endlessly endure in US contests.

I had even more fun in Horsham at the FAI SGP Australia as it was only 15 gliders and pure racing!

Tony[_5_]

January 16th 17, 10:29 PM

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 2:56:52 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Not really... 18 and Open class (I hear) have been fairly split up on course. I've been flying basically alone for the majority of my flights on each day, perhaps with 1-3 other gliders for a portion. I have intentionally left well ahead of the gaggle and many others in other classes, are doing the same. Think Tour de France break aways. It's really fun racing rather than playing chance and weather guess.
>
> Fortunately, the gaggle has been caught starting too late a couple times and has been too inefficient (2-4 kph slower).
>
> There was a collision at Uvalde in 2012 right? Hmmm. Generalizing and diminishing this event sounds like sour grapes to me. IMO (as a pilot flying here) the flying is almost exactly the same as in any large contest in the USA. The most frightening flying I have ever witnessed was the pre-startvgaghle at seniors to be perfectly honest. The difference is that everyone here is VERY good and is fully capable of staying with others as long as they want. So the gaggles I have witnessed here are often together at the same altitude more at the start and apparently out on course in 15m especially.
>
> Another rule system would not alter this behavior much if at all.
>
> The US starting system max altitude rule requiring a decent below and then waiting 2 minutes below that a max altitude probably would have causes 10 crashes here by now. What a ridiculous rule! That US starting rule consistently creates the most dangerous moments that I have ever witnessed in soaring and worries me much more than anything I have seen here! The "no max start altitude" start system used here at the WGC (IGC rules) creates the best starting safety possible and rewards the best pilots for using the available lift and getting higher. The starts here are docile in comparison to the "US start circle of death" as we call it... Gaggle climbs up above max height in strong thermal, descends at high speed circling thermal, waits two minutes, then recenter and climbs while others exit and renter, descend and climb...mass chaos and extremely dangerous! "US rules patented!"
>
> So I suggest thinking this thru a little bit more intelligently before attacking the IGC (again for the 300 time) and trying to delegitimize the WGC event. The US rules are terrible. Some aspects are ok. And the IGC feels pretty much the same as do almost all pilots outside the USA. So US thinking is virtually insignificant. Keep that in perspective...
>
> My opinion is that only one pilot in each class should be here. That means less traffic and eliminates large gaggles, team flying and much of the complexity, as well as high cost of sending six gliders...
>
> I am enjoying this WGC event immensely. It has been really fun (minus the collision)! It's really nice to participate in a "real racing" competition and not exclusively a chance weather guessing game like we are forced to endlessly endure in US contests.
>
> I had even more fun in Horsham at the FAI SGP Australia as it was only 15 gliders and pure racing!

Actually at Uvalde 2012 there were two collision. One with only wingtip damage (both gliders returned to land) and the other involved parachutes. sounds familiar?

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 16th 17, 11:53 PM

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 5:29:27 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 2:56:52 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > Not really... 18 and Open class (I hear) have been fairly split up on course. I've been flying basically alone for the majority of my flights on each day, perhaps with 1-3 other gliders for a portion. I have intentionally left well ahead of the gaggle and many others in other classes, are doing the same. Think Tour de France break aways. It's really fun racing rather than playing chance and weather guess.
> >
> > Fortunately, the gaggle has been caught starting too late a couple times and has been too inefficient (2-4 kph slower).
> >
> > There was a collision at Uvalde in 2012 right? Hmmm. Generalizing and diminishing this event sounds like sour grapes to me. IMO (as a pilot flying here) the flying is almost exactly the same as in any large contest in the USA. The most frightening flying I have ever witnessed was the pre-startvgaghle at seniors to be perfectly honest. The difference is that everyone here is VERY good and is fully capable of staying with others as long as they want. So the gaggles I have witnessed here are often together at the same altitude more at the start and apparently out on course in 15m especially.
> >
> > Another rule system would not alter this behavior much if at all.
> >
> > The US starting system max altitude rule requiring a decent below and then waiting 2 minutes below that a max altitude probably would have causes 10 crashes here by now. What a ridiculous rule! That US starting rule consistently creates the most dangerous moments that I have ever witnessed in soaring and worries me much more than anything I have seen here! The "no max start altitude" start system used here at the WGC (IGC rules) creates the best starting safety possible and rewards the best pilots for using the available lift and getting higher. The starts here are docile in comparison to the "US start circle of death" as we call it... Gaggle climbs up above max height in strong thermal, descends at high speed circling thermal, waits two minutes, then recenter and climbs while others exit and renter, descend and climb...mass chaos and extremely dangerous! "US rules patented!"
> >
> > So I suggest thinking this thru a little bit more intelligently before attacking the IGC (again for the 300 time) and trying to delegitimize the WGC event. The US rules are terrible. Some aspects are ok. And the IGC feels pretty much the same as do almost all pilots outside the USA. So US thinking is virtually insignificant. Keep that in perspective...
> >
> > My opinion is that only one pilot in each class should be here. That means less traffic and eliminates large gaggles, team flying and much of the complexity, as well as high cost of sending six gliders...
> >
> > I am enjoying this WGC event immensely. It has been really fun (minus the collision)! It's really nice to participate in a "real racing" competition and not exclusively a chance weather guessing game like we are forced to endlessly endure in US contests.
> >
> > I had even more fun in Horsham at the FAI SGP Australia as it was only 15 gliders and pure racing!
>
> Actually at Uvalde 2012 there were two collision. One with only wingtip damage (both gliders returned to land) and the other involved parachutes. sounds familiar?

True - same order, too; the touch, a briefing, then more serious collision.

[email protected]

January 17th 17, 04:56 AM

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 12:56:52 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Not really... 18 and Open class (I hear) have been fairly split up on course. I've been flying basically alone for the majority of my flights on each day, perhaps with 1-3 other gliders for a portion. I have intentionally left well ahead of the gaggle and many others in other classes, are doing the same. Think Tour de France break aways. It's really fun racing rather than playing chance and weather guess.
>
> Fortunately, the gaggle has been caught starting too late a couple times and has been too inefficient (2-4 kph slower).
>
> There was a collision at Uvalde in 2012 right? Hmmm. Generalizing and diminishing this event sounds like sour grapes to me. IMO (as a pilot flying here) the flying is almost exactly the same as in any large contest in the USA. The most frightening flying I have ever witnessed was the pre-startvgaghle at seniors to be perfectly honest. The difference is that everyone here is VERY good and is fully capable of staying with others as long as they want. So the gaggles I have witnessed here are often together at the same altitude more at the start and apparently out on course in 15m especially.
>
> Another rule system would not alter this behavior much if at all.
>
> The US starting system max altitude rule requiring a decent below and then waiting 2 minutes below that a max altitude probably would have causes 10 crashes here by now. What a ridiculous rule! That US starting rule consistently creates the most dangerous moments that I have ever witnessed in soaring and worries me much more than anything I have seen here! The "no max start altitude" start system used here at the WGC (IGC rules) creates the best starting safety possible and rewards the best pilots for using the available lift and getting higher. The starts here are docile in comparison to the "US start circle of death" as we call it... Gaggle climbs up above max height in strong thermal, descends at high speed circling thermal, waits two minutes, then recenter and climbs while others exit and renter, descend and climb...mass chaos and extremely dangerous! "US rules patented!"
>
> So I suggest thinking this thru a little bit more intelligently before attacking the IGC (again for the 300 time) and trying to delegitimize the WGC event. The US rules are terrible. Some aspects are ok. And the IGC feels pretty much the same as do almost all pilots outside the USA. So US thinking is virtually insignificant. Keep that in perspective...
>
> My opinion is that only one pilot in each class should be here. That means less traffic and eliminates large gaggles, team flying and much of the complexity, as well as high cost of sending six gliders...
>
> I am enjoying this WGC event immensely. It has been really fun (minus the collision)! It's really nice to participate in a "real racing" competition and not exclusively a chance weather guessing game like we are forced to endlessly endure in US contests.
>
> I had even more fun in Horsham at the FAI SGP Australia as it was only 15 gliders and pure racing!

7T

First off congrats on the day three win! Sounds like youâ€™re having a lot of fun.

I just wanted to put in my take on your comments. Iâ€™ve flown in many Seniors, Club Class and Sports Class National contests that have large start gaggles and havenâ€™t witnessed the â€œUS Start Circle of Deathâ€ as you put it. Iâ€™ve never seen someone descending dangerously through the gaggle at high speed to get below the max start height.. In fact, its been my experience, that most pilots leave the gaggle, descend and then reenter at a reasonable speed to be able to quickly feel and recenter the thermal. Additionally, Iâ€™m sure you know that the rules state that â€œWhile inside or within 2 miles of any Start Cylinder that has been designated for use by any competition class, pilots are expected to avoid flight at indicated airspeeds greater than 115 mph, (100 kts), and to pay particular attention to safe flight near circling sailplanes.â€ This rule is in place to prevent your â€œCircle of Death.â€ I for one, am a supporter of the Start Cylinder top. I think that, in the interest of creating a â€œfair and safeâ€ task, the the start top rule is essential. You say you â€œIt's really fun racing rather than playing chance and weather guess,â€ but, doesnâ€™t allowing a pilot who just by chance before the start finds wave or lift that no-one else encounters and then starts with that altitude advantage, reward chance or weather guessing?

Itâ€™s my opinion that the US rules are designed to encourage maximum contest participation. Iâ€™m not convinced that eliminating a rule that I think would reduce the â€œfair and safeâ€ guideline of US tasks or to call a majority of Assigned Tasks which can result in mass gaggles and potentially mass land outs would increase US Contest participation.

Just my opinion, though Iâ€™m open to discussing any rule change that will recruit more contest pilots.

Bif Huss â€œH7â€

US Contest Rules Committee

Â*

Tim Taylor

January 17th 17, 05:52 AM

Any reason why US 15M does not have a tracker today (Day 7)? That measn I may have to follow the 18M more closely without switching back and forth. On the plus side I might get some sleep tonight.

Tim Taylor

January 17th 17, 05:57 AM

Any reason why US 15M does not have a tracker today (Day 7)? Â*That means I may have to follow the 18M more closely without switching back and forth. Â*On the plus side I might get some sleep tonight. Â*

Tom Kelley #711

January 17th 17, 06:24 AM

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 10:57:45 PM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
> Any reason why US 15M does not have a tracker today (Day 7)? Â*That means I may have to follow the 18M more closely without switching back and forth. Â*On the plus side I might get some sleep tonight. Â*

Tweeter tweet said only the top guys/gals would be carrying them as their is not enough for all.

Best. #711.

krasw

January 17th 17, 07:42 AM

maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2017 18.59.40 UTC+2 Jonathan St. Cloud kirjoitti:
> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:52:01 AM UTC-8, John Bojack J4 wrote:
> > Lowly (and only) LS-10 has taken a 9th and a 7th flying amongst all the latest super new models. :)
> > Too bad DG doesn't bother to place some top world-class pilots in a few more LS-10's.
>
> Rick Walter's (RIP) won the pre-worlds in a LS-10 when it was first on Market. I was always surprised that the LS-6 drivers did not buy the LS-10. At a fit 200 pounds I just could not close the canopy though, (Longer torso, broad shoulders). I too thought DG should put a few top pilots in their LS-10 years ago.

LS6 drivers in my airfield had LS10 options bought and were anticipating the new glider. Then nothing happened for 5 years, they grew tired of waiting and ordered ASG29's instead. Same thing happened everywhere. LS10 was killed because factory could not deliver it.

January 17th 17, 07:45 AM

Ouch. 7T landed 2.5km before the finish.
Jim

Chris Wedgwood[_2_]

January 17th 17, 10:33 AM

Is Kawa unwell? Very odd to see him so far down the sheets.

Nick Hill[_3_]

January 17th 17, 11:33 AM

On 17/01/2017 07:42, krasw wrote:
> maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2017 18.59.40 UTC+2 Jonathan St. Cloud kirjoitti:
>> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:52:01 AM UTC-8, John Bojack J4 wrote:
>>> Lowly (and only) LS-10 has taken a 9th and a 7th flying amongst all the latest super new models. :)
>>> Too bad DG doesn't bother to place some top world-class pilots in a few more LS-10's.
>>
>> Rick Walter's (RIP) won the pre-worlds in a LS-10 when it was first on Market. I was always surprised that the LS-6 drivers did not buy the LS-10. At a fit 200 pounds I just could not close the canopy though, (Longer torso, broad shoulders). I too thought DG should put a few top pilots in their LS-10 years ago.
>
> LS6 drivers in my airfield had LS10 options bought and were anticipating the new glider. Then nothing happened for 5 years, they grew tired of waiting and ordered ASG29's instead. Same thing happened everywhere. LS10 was killed because factory could not deliver it.
>

It was unfortunate timing that all LS10 development stopped for multiple
years due to litigation surrounding LS going out business and being
taken over by DG. By the time that was resolved and work restarted the
ASG29 was available and established and the LS6 owners had moved on.
Couple that with the LS10 not getting exposure with multiple top pilots
in comps it always remained as a niche product. As another poster
mentioned it seems to have been quietly dropped from the product range.

--

Nick Hill

[email protected]

January 17th 17, 05:12 PM

During the LS meeting in Ludwigshafen in 2015, a DG representative said that in case multiple orders are received, they are considering producing some more LS10. It is not commercially reasonable to produce just one or two gliders of a type per year. Apparently there has not been enough demand since then.

Best,
Christoph

January 17th 17, 06:11 PM

Overall the 17th looked like a great day at the races.

The lone Nihonjin is doing very well. GO MAK!
Matthew and the fellow we call "Ace", too.
Perhaps the EB29s showed their worth? Watched EB leave B3, AG et al in the dust just short of the first turnpoint.
The V3 has really come into the picture. WO and 3V leading the day. 3 more in the top 10.
I know very little about sailplane racing. The collision days were a complete turn-off.
But days like yesterday...
Jim

Perhaps start an LS10 thread?

[email protected]

January 18th 17, 12:51 AM

Yeah sorry guys, blew it yesterday. Long story. Was almost at 133kph, needed a 3 knot climb to maintain that for 1500 feet. Anything higher would have increased speed so a 900 day was close but...no cigar. These guys here are incredible. Just happy to be here and experience the pace they set.

My point on rules is that we need to be careful. Our rules in this environment would not diffuse gaggles much (IMO). That said, I agree with John C, John G and Rick Scheppe that our rule system is more inviting to not flying in gaggles.

My example yesterday (only land out) was a great example of why FAI scoring rewards reducing risk by staying in touch with the gaggle or others. I flew almost entirely alone and was isolated at the end of the flight. Even though I made it to the mountains which are the best late day lift source, they were. It working and I was doomed. Also, now behind, few points scenarios allow a major catch up.

So I want US scoring to make it into FAI. But not the tasking!

Tom Claffey[_2_]

January 18th 17, 01:08 AM

At 17:12 17 January 2017, wrote:
>During the LS meeting in Ludwigshafen in 2015, a DG representative said
>tha=
>t in case multiple orders are received, they are considering producing
>some=
> more LS10. It is not commercially reasonable to produce just one or two
>gl=
>iders of a type per year. Apparently there has not been enough demand
>since=
> then.
>
>Best,
>Christoph
>

The reason there are no orders is because it simply does not go quite as
well
as the others and has a lower wing loading. It is a lovely glider to fly,
sure,
but so is the LS6-18.
T1

[email protected]

January 18th 17, 01:11 AM

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:51:07 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Yeah sorry guys, blew it yesterday. Long story. Was almost at 133kph, needed a 3 knot climb to maintain that for 1500 feet. Anything higher would have increased speed so a 900 day was close but...no cigar. These guys here are incredible. Just happy to be here and experience the pace they set.
>
> My point on rules is that we need to be careful. Our rules in this environment would not diffuse gaggles much (IMO). That said, I agree with John C, John G and Rick Scheppe that our rule system is more inviting to not flying in gaggles.
>
> My example yesterday (only land out) was a great example of why FAI scoring rewards reducing risk by staying in touch with the gaggle or others. I flew almost entirely alone and was isolated at the end of the flight. Even though I made it to the mountains which are the best late day lift source, they were. It working and I was doomed. Also, now behind, few points scenarios allow a major catch up.
>
> So I want US scoring to make it into FAI. But not the tasking!

Sean, I was watching you on the tracker yesterday. Why did you go so deep in the last turn area? Doubtless I am missing something, but it appeared you could have just touched the west edge of that area and had enough altitude to get to the finish. I believe you would have been over 5 hours if you had?

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 18th 17, 01:12 AM

7T: I'm sorry to hear of your heartbreaking landout, especially from such a good position. Time to show great sports psychology and go win tomorrow!

It's a great example of the IGC rules issue: Only landout, a few km short: 330 points. Only finisher, everyone else a few km short: they get 999 points. Now you know why "stick with the gaggle" is so vital in IGC scoring. Better to land out with the gaggle than to take any risk in order to be the only finisher.

US scoring isn't perfect either. It also switches from speed to distance points in a complex way depending on landouts.

Heres my current best suggestion:

points = (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed, 750 x distance / winner distance)

the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs. distance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number of landouts.

So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets 750. The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.

It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the winner's speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of speed and distance.

And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score! And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell you if it's a speed day or distance day.

it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional incentive to deliberately land out.

John Cochrane

Steve Leonard[_2_]

January 18th 17, 01:32 AM

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:51:07 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Yeah sorry guys, blew it yesterday. Long story. Was almost at 133kph, needed a 3 knot climb to maintain that for 1500 feet. Anything higher would have increased speed so a 900 day was close but...no cigar. These guys here are incredible. Just happy to be here and experience the pace they set.
>
> My point on rules is that we need to be careful. Our rules in this environment would not diffuse gaggles much (IMO). That said, I agree with John C, John G and Rick Scheppe that our rule system is more inviting to not flying in gaggles.
>
> My example yesterday (only land out) was a great example of why FAI scoring rewards reducing risk by staying in touch with the gaggle or others. I flew almost entirely alone and was isolated at the end of the flight. Even though I made it to the mountains which are the best late day lift source, they were. It working and I was doomed. Also, now behind, few points scenarios allow a major catch up.
>
> So I want US scoring to make it into FAI. But not the tasking!

Focus on the current race, Sean. Plenty of time for the US System distraction when you get home!

And, yeah. Those guys you are racing are REALLY GOOD!

Steve Leonard

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

January 18th 17, 08:09 AM

Winning a day against those guys is quite an accomplishment.

Racing is making decisions based on estimated probabilities. As BB points out, scoring affects those decisions because it skews the upside/downside payoffs. Limited upside and huge downside equals risk averse behavior to maximize total score. Landouts and devaluation are one way this happens but speed points are another.

Example - The prior race day I stayed up late watching the final leg. Early on that leg you were basically tied for fastest speed with the pilot who ultimately won the day - and about 10 km behind him. It seems that you were both ahead of the main gaggle. It wasn't clear if there were tracker-less gliders with either of you - you looked to be alone. The ultimate winner seemed to connect with better lift and maintained speed while you lost about 6kph. In a straight proportional speed scoring system you'd have scored 940 points, but IGC scoring spreads the speed points out about 2x versus straight pro-rata points allocation so you ended up with 888 I think, or almost double the points gap.

Another reason why people are well-advised to stick with the gaggle unless they are highly confident (high estimated probability) they can maintain any "lone wolf" advantage.

People back here are pulling for all you guys.

9B

Jim White[_3_]

January 18th 17, 08:43 AM

At 01:12 18 January 2017, John Cochrane wrote:
>7T: I'm sorry to hear of your heartbreaking landout, especially from such
>a=
> good position. Time to show great sports psychology and go win
tomorrow!=
>=20
>
>It's a great example of the IGC rules issue: Only landout, a few km
>short:=
> 330 points. Only finisher, everyone else a few km short: they get 999
>poin=
>ts. Now you know why "stick with the gaggle" is so vital in IGC scoring.
>Be=
>tter to land out with the gaggle than to take any risk in order to be the
>o=
>nly finisher.=20
>
>US scoring isn't perfect either. It also switches from speed to distance
>po=
>ints in a complex way depending on landouts.=20
>
>Heres my current best suggestion:=20
>
>points =3D (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed,
>75=
>0 x distance / winner distance)=20
>
>the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs.
>d=
>istance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number
>o=
>f landouts.=20
>
>So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets
750.
>=
>The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.=20
>
>It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the
>winner's=
> speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of
>spee=
>d and distance.=20
>
>And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score!

>=
>And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell
>you=
> if it's a speed day or distance day.=20
>
>it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional
>incen=
>tive to deliberately land out.=20
>
>John Cochrane
>
Why only get speed points if you finish. I do not see why you shouldn't
earn speed points for going to ground quickly. 100 point finish bonus 500
distance 400 speed

Tango Eight

January 18th 17, 03:25 PM

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 8:12:30 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

> Heres my current best suggestion:
>
> points = (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed, 750 x distance / winner distance)
>
> the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs. distance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number of landouts.
>
> So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets 750. The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.
>
> It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the winner's speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of speed and distance.
>
> And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score! And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell you if it's a speed day or distance day.
>
> it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional incentive to deliberately land out.
>
> John Cochrane

I like it. Even better: devalue based on task for short tasks, not stats that develop only after the fact.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

John Cochrane[_3_]

January 18th 17, 04:17 PM

Andy:
Actually, the IGC effort to give 2 x speed points is a completely needless complication. Speed points are twice as easy to lose -- and twice as easy to get. So it makes absolutely no difference to strategy . All it does is to make 300 distance points the same thing as US 600 distance points -- which is why the US raised speed points to about 600. That's why I dropped the 2 x speed and raised distance points in the suggestion.
John Cochrane

krasw

January 18th 17, 05:52 PM

On Wednesday, 18 January 2017 03:12:30 UTC+2, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> Heres my current best suggestion:
>
> points = (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed, 750 x distance / winner distance)
>
> the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs. distance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number of landouts.
>
> So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets 750.. The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.
>
> It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the winner's speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of speed and distance.
>
> And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score! And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell you if it's a speed day or distance day.
>
> it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional incentive to deliberately land out.
>
> John Cochrane

I remember outright several competition days where your formula would give exactly same points to many pilots that do not manage to fly over 75% of winners speed, but come home anyway (at different speeds). With 66% speed limit for speed points this is not an issue.

January 18th 17, 06:02 PM

Flying again today?
Jim

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

January 18th 17, 06:11 PM

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 8:12:30 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> 7T: I'm sorry to hear of your heartbreaking landout, especially from such a good position. Time to show great sports psychology and go win tomorrow!
>
> It's a great example of the IGC rules issue: Only landout, a few km short: 330 points. Only finisher, everyone else a few km short: they get 999 points. Now you know why "stick with the gaggle" is so vital in IGC scoring. Better to land out with the gaggle than to take any risk in order to be the only finisher.
>
> US scoring isn't perfect either. It also switches from speed to distance points in a complex way depending on landouts.
>
> Heres my current best suggestion:
>
> points = (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed, 750 x distance / winner distance)
>
> the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs. distance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number of landouts.
>
> So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets 750.. The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.
>
> It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the winner's speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of speed and distance.
>
> And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score! And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell you if it's a speed day or distance day.
>
> it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional incentive to deliberately land out.
>
> John Cochrane

But I want to have to solve non-linear partial differential equations in my head while on task! Why do you want to take all the fun out of it?

Make racing great again!

QT (tongue firmly in cheek)

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

January 18th 17, 07:44 PM

Well, the difference between 66% and 75% is 9%, so it's a matter of degree. I've seen speeds less than half the winners on occasion (and complaints about the resulting score). Lowering the percent does focus on relatively small numbers of points between pilots who have already dropped 250 point to the winners. Dropping 340 points to the winners instead of 250 so you can claim a few dozen points against another pilot who is waaaay out of the money seems like it might be worthy of re-thinking as it only solves an ego problem with very slow finishers wanting to feel like they did better than a long landout or another very slow finisher. You pay a price in more important parts of the scoring formula (because math!) to create points spread at the bottom of the daily scoresheet. We need to look at all of this holistically. You can't push on the ballon on one side and expect it not to bulge out somewhere else.

A little adjustment to 75% doesn't matter as much as the assymetry of devaluation that BB describes, but it does create tension for other considerations.

9B

Tom Claffey[_2_]

January 18th 17, 10:24 PM

At 18:02 18 January 2017, JS wrote:
>Flying again today?
>Jim
>

Yep! :)

Duster

January 18th 17, 11:08 PM

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 4:30:06 PM UTC-6, Tom Claffey wrote:
> At 18:02 18 January 2017, JS wrote:
> >Flying again today?
> >Jim
> >

Grid time and prelim tasks for all 3 classes set for 1/19/17
https://www.facebook.com/ussoaringteams/posts/234720150264868

[email protected]

January 18th 17, 11:08 PM

ENOUGH scoring BS. Let's keep the thread focused on what's happening in Benalla.

If you want to discuss/argue FAI vrs USA scoring then start another thread.

Go Team USA!

January 19th 17, 01:34 AM

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 2:30:06 PM UTC-8, Tom Claffey wrote:
> At 18:02 18 January 2017, JS wrote:
> >Flying again today?
> >Jim
> >
>
> Yep! :)

Thanks, Tom!
From what I've seen, don't think Sammy The Snail will be going home with you. I know Kerrie doesn't like him.
Jim

krasw

January 19th 17, 06:58 AM

On Wednesday, 18 January 2017 21:44:13 UTC+2, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Well, the difference between 66% and 75% is 9%, so it's a matter of degree.

No it isn't. If winner flies 100 km/h, you score speed points from speed range of 66-100 km/h. That is 34 km/h range. Diminishing that to 25 km/h means 26% reduction, not 9%. So you are in effect taking away quarter of point spread awarded to fastest "lone wolf".

There is simple scoring formula that is understood by most, the GP scoring. If that is what pilots like, it is available.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

January 19th 17, 01:03 PM

Sure, you can take a percentage of a percentage, but it kind of misses the bigger picture about how scoring math works and what the tradeoffs are. You can't just talk about one objective in isolation. You have to check snider how they play off against each other.

If your goals are:

1) Not penalize landouts so much that coming up 2km short knocks you out of the contest - especially if you are unlucky enough to be the only landout for the day. This is the case being discussed where scoring encourages staying in gaggles most of the flight.

2) Award points roughly proportional to speed/winner's speed.

3) Not have long landouts score more than the slowest finishers.

4) Allow for wide variations in finishers speeds and still have proportional scoring as in #2.

You have a problem that is constrained such that you can't maximize all the constraints at once. My personal view is id rather compromise on #4 a bit and somewhat on #3 in order to optimize more around #1 and somewhat on #2. The reason is because doing that helps prevent a bit of bad luck from knocking a pilot totally out of contention (the gaggle incentive problem).

Increasing weighting on #3 and #4 might be good if you are optimizing for score differentiation in the bottom half of the scoresheet, but they also contribute to separating the bottom half from the top half because slow finishers and landouts get even fewer points.

In the US rules we used to have 400 max points for a land out which allowed finishers to get points differentiation down to 40% of the winner's speed. We've upped it to 60% now.

I don't know if 75% is too much, but it's pretty clear that if you want to reduce incentives for taking risks flying away from the gaggle, reducing the penalty if it doesn't work out would help - as was demonstrated to clearly by Sean's situation, which was exacerbated by how IGC devaluation works where a lone landout gets 300-plus points. Miss the last thermal getting home and drop from 3rd to middle of the pack. It's no wonder people elect to stay in the glider tornado even though they mostly claim that they hate it.

One person's perspective FWIW.

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

January 19th 17, 01:05 PM

"check snider" --> "consider"

(autocorrect)

Dan Marotta

January 19th 17, 03:33 PM

We see a lot of that these days - knowing the rules going in and
complaining about the results later. If you land out, you're not gonna
win the contest. Note: I did NOT hear Sean complain about this and do
not intend to imply such.

On 1/18/2017 12:44 PM, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Well, the difference between 66% and 75% is 9%, so it's a matter of degree. I've seen speeds less than half the winners on occasion (and complaints about the resulting score). Lowering the percent does focus on relatively small numbers of points between pilots who have already dropped 250 point to the winners. Dropping 340 points to the winners instead of 250 so you can claim a few dozen points against another pilot who is waaaay out of the money seems like it might be worthy of re-thinking as it only solves an ego problem with very slow finishers wanting to feel like they did better than a long landout or another very slow finisher. You pay a price in more important parts of the scoring formula (because math!) to create points spread at the bottom of the daily scoresheet. We need to look at all of this holistically. You can't push on the ballon on one side and expect it not to bulge out somewhere else.
>
> A little adjustment to 75% doesn't matter as much as the assymetry of devaluation that BB describes, but it does create tension for other considerations.
>
> 9B

--
Dan, 5J

krasw

January 19th 17, 04:41 PM

Ok, let's imagine score formula that gives 900 points to all finishers and remaining 100 points are awarded according to speed. No more gaggles, problems solved?

Wrong. Nothing changes. Same pilots will win and others loose. All we change is point spread between pilots. If winner of the whole competition gets 10000 points and last one 6000, new formula gives 10000 to winner and 9500 to last one. Point spread is very small, but it is as difficult to make any difference by flying as before. Next we start calculating decimals.

Tom Kelley #711

January 19th 17, 05:42 PM

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 8:23:49 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> Everyone is airborne for practice day 1.
> http://www.livetrack24.com/events/WGC2017
> Jim

Live feed....their time......so add whatever to get yours....MDT add 6 hrs.

The Gliding Federation of Australia Inc shared 34th FAI World Gliding Championships Benalla Australia's post.
3 hrs Â·
Enhanced live tracking starts today, Friday 20 January with live transmission of the daily briefing from 10 am followed by specialist live commentary from the launch point, specialist commentary during the race plus live visual crosses to competing gliders during the racing and live chase plane coverage of the final glides.
Get set for a new level of audio visual experience in sailplane competitions - feel the excitement and tension, get expert commentary from experienced competition pilots and see all the action live.
This will also happen on the final day of the competition as the competitors battle it out for first place.
Go to: wgc2017.com for all the action from 10 am today

Bruce Hoult

January 19th 17, 06:00 PM

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 8:42:56 PM UTC+3, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 8:23:49 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> > Everyone is airborne for practice day 1.
> > http://www.livetrack24.com/events/WGC2017
> > Jim
>
> Live feed....their time......so add whatever to get yours....MDT add 6 hrs.
>
>
> The Gliding Federation of Australia Inc shared 34th FAI World Gliding Championships Benalla Australia's post.
> 3 hrs Â·
> Enhanced live tracking starts today, Friday 20 January with live transmission of the daily briefing from 10 am followed by specialist live commentary from the launch point, specialist commentary during the race plus live visual crosses to competing gliders during the racing and live chase plane coverage of the final glides.
> Get set for a new level of audio visual experience in sailplane competitions - feel the excitement and tension, get expert commentary from experienced competition pilots and see all the action live.
> This will also happen on the final day of the competition as the competitors battle it out for first place.
> Go to: wgc2017.com for all the action from 10 am today

So, that's 2 AM Moscow/StP, 1 AM eastern Europe, midnight western Europe, 11 PM UK.

Tim Taylor

January 19th 17, 09:50 PM

Just wanted to congratulate 5E and XC for great flights on Day 9! Very nice team flying Sean and Erik. They have had a tough start but nice to see them getting into the groove.

Mike Robison was only 1.6 kph behind the winner as well.

January 19th 17, 10:45 PM

20th looks a bit windy and lowish...
With clouds?
Jim

MNLou

January 19th 17, 10:51 PM

What Tim said!

Lou

Duster

January 20th 17, 01:18 AM

Open and 18m cancelled for Day 10; 15m tasked. Overnight thunderstorms.

Dave Springford

January 20th 17, 02:08 AM

On Friday, 20 January 2017 09:51:37 UTC+11, MNLou wrote:
> What Tim said!
>
> Lou

18 m and open canceled for the 20th. 15 m on the grid, but on the paved runway because so much rain came down overnight and until about 11 am that the grass runway is to muddy to use.

Forecast of 2-3 kts lift to 4000-5000 ft and 25 kts wind. It's going to be a fun day : )

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 20th 17, 02:37 AM

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 9:08:33 PM UTC-5, Dave Springford wrote:
> On Friday, 20 January 2017 09:51:37 UTC+11, MNLou wrote:
> > What Tim said!
> >
> > Lou
>
> 18 m and open canceled for the 20th. 15 m on the grid, but on the paved runway because so much rain came down overnight and until about 11 am that the grass runway is to muddy to use.
>
> Forecast of 2-3 kts lift to 4000-5000 ft and 25 kts wind. It's going to be a fun day : )

Dave, is there a Team Cup going on? Can't find mention of it...

Jock Proudfoot

January 20th 17, 02:48 AM

At 02:37 20 January 2017, Dan Daly wrote:
>On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 9:08:33 PM UTC-5, Dave
Springford wrote:
>> On Friday, 20 January 2017 09:51:37 UTC+11, MNLou wrote:
>> > What Tim said!
>> >
>> > Lou
>>
>> 18 m and open canceled for the 20th. 15 m on the grid, but on
the paved
>runway because so much rain came down overnight and until
about 11 am that
>the grass runway is to muddy to use.
>>
>> Forecast of 2-3 kts lift to 4000-5000 ft and 25 kts wind. It's
going to
>be a fun day : )
>
>Dave, is there a Team Cup going on? Can't find mention of it...
>

http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/34th-fai-world-gliding-
championships-benalla-gld-2017/results

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 20th 17, 03:14 AM

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:00:08 PM UTC-5, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
> At 02:37 20 January 2017, Dan Daly wrote:
> >On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 9:08:33 PM UTC-5, Dave
> Springford wrote:
> >> On Friday, 20 January 2017 09:51:37 UTC+11, MNLou wrote:
> >> > What Tim said!
> >> >
> >> > Lou
> >>
> >> 18 m and open canceled for the 20th. 15 m on the grid, but on
> the paved
> >runway because so much rain came down overnight and until
> about 11 am that
> >the grass runway is to muddy to use.
> >>
> >> Forecast of 2-3 kts lift to 4000-5000 ft and 25 kts wind. It's
> going to
> >be a fun day : )
> >
> >Dave, is there a Team Cup going on? Can't find mention of it...
> >
>
> http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/34th-fai-world-gliding-
> championships-benalla-gld-2017/results

Thanks, Jock - I was looking on WGC2017 site. They just cancelled on just into the launch. Watching on spot the gliders.

[email protected]

January 20th 17, 03:37 AM

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 7:14:17 PM UTC-8, Dan Daly wrote:
> They just cancelled on just into the launch. Watching on spot the gliders.

They cancelled due to excessive crosswind...

Did anyone else notice that most of the wing runners did a poor job in the wind? Nearly all were held level instead of upwind wing low.

Also a bit sporty with a couple tow planes drifting into the grass at liftoff. Whee!!

-Tom

[email protected]

January 20th 17, 06:07 AM

A general comment not confined to us contests - I don't think racing scoring rules should be manipulated to change pilot behaviour to indirectly enhance safety. There will always be unintended consequences. That is not to say that a rule that clearly encourages unsafe flying should not be removed.

Unsafe flying practices such as during gaggling or other poor airmanship issues should be punished directly by significant point losses - that is different from using scoring to alter the nature of the contest flying with the secondary aim of improving safety.

As for racing scoring: zero points for land out. Devalue the day in direct proportion to the percentage of land outs. Finishers get points related to speed either in direct proportion (too lenient) or related to square of speed ( too harsh IMHO except at the very top levels). Yes - a day with no finishers would be a no contest day. In other sports a competitor who can't finish is deemed to have withdrawn from the race and I don't see why gliding is different.

The other side of the coin should be a shift to setting tasks that should be achievable for all fit and competent competitors.

Make glider races races - you dont have to attempt to use the whole day - other sports don't with the exception of endurance events like the Le Mans 25 hour.

John Galloway

krasw

January 20th 17, 11:26 AM

Kawa seems unhappy with fellow pilots' tactics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6LhVFA2hE0&feature=youtu.be

Andrzej Kobus

January 20th 17, 11:43 AM

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:26:54 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> Kawa seems unhappy with fellow pilots' tactics:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6LhVFA2hE0&feature=youtu.be

I suggest you watch the video again. I did not hear him saying he was unhappy with fellow pilots' tactics but rather he was unhappy with blue days that kill individual flying.

Tony[_5_]

January 20th 17, 01:48 PM

Maybe the FAI should start requiring tricycle landing gear towplanes...

Tango Eight

January 20th 17, 03:05 PM

Karl Striedieck[_2_]

January 20th 17, 05:58 PM

Sebastian's comments regarding his frustration with leeching are spot on. Unfortunately, in the real world of blue skies and WGC scoring you can be a winner on welfare.

Someone with more IT acumen than I would know if the present state of tracking would lend itself to a scoring adjustment based on whether a pilot was doing his "share" of the leading.

KS

Duster

January 20th 17, 06:07 PM

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:05:59 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:26:54 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> > Kawa seems unhappy with fellow pilots' tactics:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6LhVFA2hE0&feature=youtu.be
>
> No, he's unhappy that he's getting beaten.

Kawa's earlier WGC video shows that he's being consistent in expressing his dislike for the blue days since it doesn't put the emphasis on individual pilot performance. Just 33 pts off 1st place. (his teammate is in 3rd)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0r1lFIIrUs

Tango Eight

January 20th 17, 06:31 PM

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:07:59 PM UTC-5, Duster wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:05:59 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:26:54 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> > > Kawa seems unhappy with fellow pilots' tactics:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6LhVFA2hE0&feature=youtu.be
> >
> > No, he's unhappy that he's getting beaten.
>
> Kawa's earlier WGC video shows that he's being consistent in expressing his dislike for the blue days since it doesn't put the emphasis on individual pilot performance. Just 33 pts off 1st place. (his teammate is in 3rd)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0r1lFIIrUs

Kawa has done plenty of the cat and mouse flying he's complaining about! It's just that he's usually winning. No one complains when they are winning.

best,
Evan

Steve Leonard[_2_]

January 20th 17, 07:00 PM

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 12:31:52 PM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> Kawa has done plenty of the cat and mouse flying he's complaining about! It's just that he's usually winning. No one complains when they are winning.
>
> best,
> Evan

That may be true, Evan. But he also said that he would be willing to sit at the start line all day and throw away a potential world championship victory for himself to keep the other person from winning (by following). That is a pretty powerful statement, and to me seems more than just complaining because he is not winning. Hopefully, the weather will let us all see how it plays out.

Just my two cents,
Steve Leonard

[email protected]

January 20th 17, 08:11 PM

> That may be true, Evan. But he also said that he would be willing to sit at the start line all day and throw away a potential world championship victory for himself to keep the other person from winning (by following). That is a pretty powerful statement, and to me seems more than just complaining because he is not winning. Hopefully, the weather will let us all see how it plays out.
>
> Just my two cents,
> Steve Leonard

Lets all remember one should not measured by what he has said but what he has done.

Duster

January 20th 17, 08:34 PM

> > Kawa has done plenty of the cat and mouse flying he's complaining about! It's just that he's usually winning. No one complains when they are winning.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan

C'mon, Evan, the video "complaint" was made on the day he won the class on the first contest day!..and referred to weather that did not reflect on the pilots skill. He was being humble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0r1lFIIrUs

Jonathan St. Cloud

January 20th 17, 08:46 PM

Too bad they can't call a POST, that would spread the field out a bit :)

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:26:54 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
> Kawa seems unhappy with fellow pilots' tactics:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6LhVFA2hE0&feature=youtu.be

Tom Kelley #711

January 20th 17, 09:40 PM

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:46:53 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Too bad they can't call a POST, that would spread the field out a bit :)
>
>
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:26:54 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
> > Kawa seems unhappy with fellow pilots' tactics:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6LhVFA2hE0&feature=youtu.be

or best yet...a zero turn MAT of 5 + hours!

That's why US rules are "KING" and the World should adopt them! :>}.

Quacking Best. #711.

Tony[_5_]

January 20th 17, 10:59 PM

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 12:31:52 PM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:07:59 PM UTC-5, Duster wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:05:59 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:26:54 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> > > > Kawa seems unhappy with fellow pilots' tactics:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6LhVFA2hE0&feature=youtu.be
> > >
> > > No, he's unhappy that he's getting beaten.
> >
> > Kawa's earlier WGC video shows that he's being consistent in expressing his dislike for the blue days since it doesn't put the emphasis on individual pilot performance. Just 33 pts off 1st place. (his teammate is in 3rd)
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0r1lFIIrUs
>
> Kawa has done plenty of the cat and mouse flying he's complaining about! It's just that he's usually winning. No one complains when they are winning.
>
> best,
> Evan

his deficit is almost equal to what he lost to Mak on the day he placed 18th.

Andrzej Kobus

January 20th 17, 11:44 PM

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 4:40:15 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:46:53 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Too bad they can't call a POST, that would spread the field out a bit :)
> >
> >
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:26:54 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
> > > Kawa seems unhappy with fellow pilots' tactics:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6LhVFA2hE0&feature=youtu.be
>
> or best yet...a zero turn MAT of 5 + hours!
>
> That's why US rules are "KING" and the World should adopt them! :>}.
>
> Quacking Best. #711.

Good sense of humor, LOL

Tango Eight

January 21st 17, 12:51 AM

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:34:39 PM UTC-5, Duster wrote:
> > > Kawa has done plenty of the cat and mouse flying he's complaining about! It's just that he's usually winning. No one complains when they are winning.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Evan
>
> C'mon, Evan, the video "complaint" was made on the day he won the class on the first contest day!..and referred to weather that did not reflect on the pilots skill. He was being humble.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0r1lFIIrUs

Jus' so we're clear: I'm not casting aspersions on anyone, least of all Sebastian Kawa.

There definitely is a point at which the tactical game starts to detract from the soaring game, and it sounds like Mak and Sebastian have reached that point, and that's unfortunate.

-Evan

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 21st 17, 01:13 AM

Getting back to the competition:
@WGC2017
The wind has shifted, and we will re-grid on runway 08. Same grid order. First launch 1300. #wgc2017

*******
Just what the crews needed on the last day after yesterday's mudfest!

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 21st 17, 01:48 AM

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:13:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Daly wrote:
> Getting back to the competition:
> @WGC2017
> The wind has shifted, and we will re-grid on runway 08. Same grid order. First launch 1300. #wgc2017
>
> *******
> Just what the crews needed on the last day after yesterday's mudfest!

Just heard on the audio feed - first launch at 1300 (9pmEST).

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 21st 17, 02:03 AM

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:48:46 PM UTC-5, Dan Daly wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:13:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Daly wrote:
> > Getting back to the competition:
> > @WGC2017
> > The wind has shifted, and we will re-grid on runway 08. Same grid order. First launch 1300. #wgc2017
> >
> > *******
> > Just what the crews needed on the last day after yesterday's mudfest!
>
> Just heard on the audio feed - first launch at 1300 (9pmEST).

pushed to 1310

January 21st 17, 02:33 AM

The last day has started to launch.
Jim

Steve Leonard[_2_]

January 21st 17, 03:27 AM

Oh, man. Second turn area for the 15 meter is Dookie. And the Opens start with a run to Dookie.

:-)

Tim Taylor

January 21st 17, 03:29 AM

Why no live Tracking today?

[email protected]

January 21st 17, 02:15 PM

Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who's the greatest of them all?? I'll give you a hint, he flys a Diana 2.

Tony[_5_]

January 21st 17, 05:36 PM

Mak should've stayed with the gaggle...

Tim Taylor

January 21st 17, 06:13 PM

On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:36:30 AM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> Mak should've stayed with the gaggle...

Hindsight is 20:20. The gaggle almost didn't make it home, some very low saves and weak lift going into the last turn. The US and CA team didn't make it home. UJ was down to about 300 meters agl about 50 km out, I wasn't sure he was going to make it home.

Would have been better to start with a group of 8 to 10 gliders but hard to tell from just seeing those with trackers rather than knowing what other gliders were doing.

[email protected][_2_]

January 22nd 17, 12:16 PM

On 21/01/2017 11:51, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:34:39 PM UTC-5, Duster wrote:
>>>> Kawa has done plenty of the cat and mouse flying he's complaining about! It's just that he's usually winning. No one complains when they are winning.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>> Evan
>>
>> C'mon, Evan, the video "complaint" was made on the day he won the class on the first contest day!..and referred to weather that did not reflect on the pilots skill. He was being humble.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0r1lFIIrUs
>
> Jus' so we're clear: I'm not casting aspersions on anyone, least of all Sebastian Kawa.
>
> There definitely is a point at which the tactical game starts to detract from the soaring game, and it sounds like Mak and Sebastian have reached that point, and that's unfortunate.
>
> -Evan
>

I'd just say that "leeching" is team flying by somebody who isn't on
your team.

--
GC

Bruce Hoult

January 22nd 17, 12:19 PM

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:16:14 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> On 21/01/2017 11:51, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:34:39 PM UTC-5, Duster wrote:
> >>>> Kawa has done plenty of the cat and mouse flying he's complaining about! It's just that he's usually winning. No one complains when they are winning.
> >>>>
> >>>> best,
> >>>> Evan
> >>
> >> C'mon, Evan, the video "complaint" was made on the day he won the class on the first contest day!..and referred to weather that did not reflect on the pilots skill. He was being humble.
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0r1lFIIrUs
> >
> > Jus' so we're clear: I'm not casting aspersions on anyone, least of all Sebastian Kawa.
> >
> > There definitely is a point at which the tactical game starts to detract from the soaring game, and it sounds like Mak and Sebastian have reached that point, and that's unfortunate.
> >
> > -Evan
> >
>
> I'd just say that "leeching" is team flying by somebody who isn't on
> your team.

And never leading....