SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

[[email protected]]

Folks,
Please share your opinions with the rules committee before January 10. Here is my feedback:

Hank,
Happy New Year.

The 2018 rules changes look good with the exception of the finish penalty which is only a minor improvement over the previous -200ft land-out scenario from a competition fairness perspective.

With the proposed rule the following penalties apply to the maximum 600 speed points:
100ft low - 25 points
200ft low - 50 points
300ft low - 225 points
400ft low - 400 points
401ft low - 600 points (on a 1000 point day)

Any big non-linearity in the scoring acts as a big deterrent, for those impacted, to return to future contests. The FAI system of a linear penalty to the ground is far more favorable and in my case a major reason to favor a transition from the SSA to the FAI scoring approach sooner than later. A 400 point low finish penalty will often control the results of the contest for a pilot when, in climb, it's often only 2 minutes of additional circling - this doesn't feel balanced.

I hope you and find a way to adopt a more balanced and ideally linear finish penalty in 2018.

Thanks again for all your efforts over the years.

Cheers,
Bob Fletcher 90

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 1:22:19 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Folks,
> Please share your opinions with the rules committee before January 10. Here is my feedback:
>
> Hank,
> Happy New Year.
>
> The 2018 rules changes look good with the exception of the finish penalty which is only a minor improvement over the previous -200ft land-out scenario from a competition fairness perspective.
>
> With the proposed rule the following penalties apply to the maximum 600 speed points:
> 100ft low - 25 points
> 200ft low - 50 points
> 300ft low - 225 points
> 400ft low - 400 points
> 401ft low - 600 points (on a 1000 point day)
>
> Any big non-linearity in the scoring acts as a big deterrent, for those impacted, to return to future contests. The FAI system of a linear penalty to the ground is far more favorable and in my case a major reason to favor a transition from the SSA to the FAI scoring approach sooner than later. A 400 point low finish penalty will often control the results of the contest for a pilot when, in climb, it's often only 2 minutes of additional circling - this doesn't feel balanced.
>
> I hope you and find a way to adopt a more balanced and ideally linear finish penalty in 2018.
>
> Thanks again for all your efforts over the years.
>
> Cheers,
> Bob Fletcher 90

Yes, and to make sure there is philosophical consistency between the circle and line finishes please implement a graduated penalty for the line finish where you doen't lose all your speed points for landing 1 mi short of the line.

Sarcasm intended.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Yes and remove that dreadful nonlinearity when the glider hits the dirt. Very unfair. And contrast depend on it!
John cochrane.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 1:22:19 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Folks,
> Please share your opinions with the rules committee before January 10. Here is my feedback:
>
> Hank,
> Happy New Year.
>
> The 2018 rules changes look good with the exception of the finish penalty which is only a minor improvement over the previous -200ft land-out scenario from a competition fairness perspective.
>
> With the proposed rule the following penalties apply to the maximum 600 speed points:
> 100ft low - 25 points
> 200ft low - 50 points
> 300ft low - 225 points
> 400ft low - 400 points
> 401ft low - 600 points (on a 1000 point day)
>
> Any big non-linearity in the scoring acts as a big deterrent, for those impacted, to return to future contests. The FAI system of a linear penalty to the ground is far more favorable and in my case a major reason to favor a transition from the SSA to the FAI scoring approach sooner than later. A 400 point low finish penalty will often control the results of the contest for a pilot when, in climb, it's often only 2 minutes of additional circling - this doesn't feel balanced.
>
> I hope you and find a way to adopt a more balanced and ideally linear finish penalty in 2018.
>
> Thanks again for all your efforts over the years.
>
> Cheers,
> Bob Fletcher 90

Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?


Direct paste and copy.... it's up on the SSA site also.


10/19/2017 2017 SSA Pilot Opinion Poll Results

Do you favor a wholesale move to FAI rules?
Yes 29%
No 67%

5.1c Comments on a wholesale move to FAI rules: 42%

5.2 Do you favor a gradual adoption of FAI contest rules?
Yes 37%
No 59%

5.3 Do you favor retaining US contest rules as separate from FAI rules.
Yes 50%
No 43%


Best. Tom #711.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 4:21:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> >
> > Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?
>
>
> Direct paste and copy.... it's up on the SSA site also.
>
>
> 10/19/2017 2017 SSA Pilot Opinion Poll Results
>
> Do you favor a wholesale move to FAI rules?
> Yes 29%
> No 67%
>
> 5.1c Comments on a wholesale move to FAI rules: 42%
>
> 5.2 Do you favor a gradual adoption of FAI contest rules?
> Yes 37%
> No 59%
>
> 5.3 Do you favor retaining US contest rules as separate from FAI rules.
> Yes 50%
> No 43%
>
>
> Best. Tom #711.

How do these numbers look for National contests? The vote of pilots at one of the National contests last year showed majority wanted to adopt to FAI rules, wasn't that the case?

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 4:21:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> >
> > Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?
>
>
> Direct paste and copy.... it's up on the SSA site also.
>
>
> 10/19/2017 2017 SSA Pilot Opinion Poll Results
>
> Do you favor a wholesale move to FAI rules?
> Yes 29%
> No 67%
>
> 5.1c Comments on a wholesale move to FAI rules: 42%
>
> 5.2 Do you favor a gradual adoption of FAI contest rules?
> Yes 37%
> No 59%
>
> 5.3 Do you favor retaining US contest rules as separate from FAI rules.
> Yes 50%
> No 43%
>
>
> Best. Tom #711.

My interpretation of those numbers is that 2/3 of pilots want to (immediately or gradually) move to FAI rules (29% plus 37%)

Half want to have US rules be a separate entity (but not necessarily different) from FAI rules.

The RC has much finer grain analysis available.

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 4:31:36 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 4:21:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?
> >
> >
> > Direct paste and copy.... it's up on the SSA site also.
> >
> >
> > 10/19/2017 2017 SSA Pilot Opinion Poll Results
> >
> > Do you favor a wholesale move to FAI rules?
> > Yes 29%
> > No 67%
> >
> > 5.1c Comments on a wholesale move to FAI rules: 42%
> >
> > 5.2 Do you favor a gradual adoption of FAI contest rules?
> > Yes 37%
> > No 59%
> >
> > 5.3 Do you favor retaining US contest rules as separate from FAI rules.
> > Yes 50%
> > No 43%
> >
> >
> > Best. Tom #711.
>
> How do these numbers look for National contests? The vote of pilots at one of the National contests last year showed majority wanted to adopt to FAI rules, wasn't that the case?

Because I analyzed the data (along with 9B) I can say with confidence that the RC can tell you:
- How many pilots that flew at a FAI class nationals responded to the poll
- How many of the respondents answered "yes" to one or both of the FAI questions.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 2:37:53 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 4:21:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?
> >
> >
> > Direct paste and copy.... it's up on the SSA site also.
> >
> >
> > 10/19/2017 2017 SSA Pilot Opinion Poll Results
> >
> > Do you favor a wholesale move to FAI rules?
> > Yes 29%
> > No 67%
> >
> > 5.1c Comments on a wholesale move to FAI rules: 42%
> >
> > 5.2 Do you favor a gradual adoption of FAI contest rules?
> > Yes 37%
> > No 59%
> >
> > 5.3 Do you favor retaining US contest rules as separate from FAI rules.
> > Yes 50%
> > No 43%
> >
> >
> > Best. Tom #711.
>
> My interpretation of those numbers is that 2/3 of pilots want to (immediately or gradually) move to FAI rules (29% plus 37%)
>
> Half want to have US rules be a separate entity (but not necessarily different) from FAI rules.
>
> The RC has much finer grain analysis available.

QT,

If you do this 29% and 37% higher tech math "yes vote" which equals 66%,
then should you not add the other "no vote" parts of 67% and 59% which equal 126%?, which still gives us a greater "NO" vote?

Only 42% of those who cast the "whole sale" move responded on 5.2C.

Heck, I voted to make the AT TP smaller, as is used in the FAI rules, get rid of the cylinder and use a line with a MSH to start and a line to finish.

Of course, the CD should be able to make changes for what's "best" for that contest site.

Happy Snowflakes,

Best. Tom #711.

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 5:43:42 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 2:37:53 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 4:21:38 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?
> > >
> > >
> > > Direct paste and copy.... it's up on the SSA site also.
> > >
> > >
> > > 10/19/2017 2017 SSA Pilot Opinion Poll Results
> > >
> > > Do you favor a wholesale move to FAI rules?
> > > Yes 29%
> > > No 67%
> > >
> > > 5.1c Comments on a wholesale move to FAI rules: 42%
> > >
> > > 5.2 Do you favor a gradual adoption of FAI contest rules?
> > > Yes 37%
> > > No 59%
> > >
> > > 5.3 Do you favor retaining US contest rules as separate from FAI rules.
> > > Yes 50%
> > > No 43%
> > >
> > >
> > > Best. Tom #711.
> >
> > My interpretation of those numbers is that 2/3 of pilots want to (immediately or gradually) move to FAI rules (29% plus 37%)
> >
> > Half want to have US rules be a separate entity (but not necessarily different) from FAI rules.
> >
> > The RC has much finer grain analysis available.
>
> QT,
>
> If you do this 29% and 37% higher tech math "yes vote" which equals 66%,
> then should you not add the other "no vote" parts of 67% and 59% which equal 126%?, which still gives us a greater "NO" vote?
>
> Only 42% of those who cast the "whole sale" move responded on 5.2C.
>
> Heck, I voted to make the AT TP smaller, as is used in the FAI rules, get rid of the cylinder and use a line with a MSH to start and a line to finish.
>
> Of course, the CD should be able to make changes for what's "best" for that contest site.
>
> Happy Snowflakes,
>
> Best. Tom #711.

Uh, that would be a no on the math part. A "no" answer is only a no to the issue of fast or slow, not to FAI or not.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Suggestion: Before sounding off, read the extensive analysis of poll results re FAI rules that the RC posted in its minutes on the ssa website.

John Cochrane

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 7:44:43 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Suggestion: Before sounding off, read...

Don't be silly John, this is RAS!
Happy 2018 all,
Best Regards, Dave

[Tony[_5_]]

Note there is no option to select if you flew an FAI WGC or SGP in the poll year. I did not get to fly a nationals in 2017 and the regionals I attended was rained out.

Instead I flew the Orlando SGP, 13.5m WGC and crewed for Junior WGC. However the analysis of poll results would indicate that my vote is from someone who flew no contests this year.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> Suggestion: Before sounding off, read the extensive analysis of poll results re FAI rules that the RC posted in its minutes on the ssa website.
>
> John Cochrane

Here's a copy and paste......and it's not all they discussed, just a part!

6. Change US competition to use FAI rules - Various communications and poll..
Discussion: Data suggests significant interest in seriously considering a move to FAI
rules. There is wide divergence between the most active quintile (top 20%) of pilots and
the second most active quintile (second 20%) of pilots. An anonymized tabulation
correlating responses with racing activity and performance was done. This yielded a
segmented view of responses across pilot cohorts that could be sorted by various pilot
participation and performance measures. Mostly the RC looked at results broken down
by overall contest and Nationals participation rates. This breakdown of responses also
allowed the RC to normalize poll results for the 4:1 variation in poll response rate across
pilot cohorts so as to estimate the likely views across the entire US racing pilot
community. It was noted that the top 3 contest participation quintiles of pilots had high
enough response rates to have reasonable confidence that they represented the views of
the cohort, while the bottom two quintiles had lower response rates that may not be fully
representative of the cohort. Lastly, these bottom two cohorts represent only 13% of all
US contest entries.
The strongest support for FAI rules is found among the top 20% most active pilots who
fly 49% of all contests and 61% of all Nationals. Strong opposition to FAI rules was
found among pilots who are the second most active contest flying cohort – but fly
2017 SSA Rules Committee Meeting Minutes
Reedsville PA - November 11, 2017
4
Regionals about 4 times as frequently as Nationals. This second group represents 23% of
all Nationals entries and 23% of all Regionals entries.
A summary of poll responses appears below (Note: “Favor FAI� includes respondents
who answered ‘yes’ to favoring a fast switch to FAI rules OR a gradual switch to FAI
rules (14 pilots answered ‘yes’ to both questions – this was interpreted as favoring a fast
switchover):
The RC discussed how much particular details and implications of FAI rules are broadly
or deeply understood since there were broadly unfavorable responses in the poll about
specific rule changes in the direction of the FAI approach. Questions were raised as to
whether unpopular changes in specific rules could have implications for participation.
a. Energy control at starts
b. Team flying
c. Tasking / landouts
d. Finishes
e. Penalties (e.g. FAI rules have less use of graduated penalties, greater use of contest
disqualification for multiple offenses).
f. Permissible for pilots to receive tactical support from ground crews
g. Elimination of the MAT
h. Scoring formulas and associated incentives. (Note that these may will be under
consideration for changes to FAI rules in 2018).
In addition, questions in the poll about specific rules changes that are part of the FAI
system generated lower support then the overall support for a move to FAI at the high
level (e.g. support for distance credit inside AT turnpoint cylinders, start out the top,
etc.). This led to discussion about how much US pilots may like the idea of FAI rules
but dislike many of the specific details. This led to a further discussion about the
potential to use local procedures to reduce the impact of some of the more significant
changes that FAI rules require that have less support among US pilots. For instance,
should a US shift to FAI rules mandate use of meters and kilometers and allow team
flying at all contests, or should there be adjustments to accommodate the desires of a broader group of US contest pilots?
Quintile
Rank by #
Contests
FlownÂ*Â*
Favor
FAI
Favor
Fast
Switch
to FAI
Total
Resp
Response
Rate (% all
PRL pilots)
%
Favor
FAI
%Â*Â*
Fast
Switch
Avg
PRL
#
Cont/
Yr/
Pilot
%
Total
Nats/
Yr
%
Total
Cont/
Yr
1 40 24 59 64% 68% 41% 89 2.24 61% 49%
2 12 7 33 36% 36% 21% 84 1.05 23% 23%
3 17 6 30 33% 57% 20% 67 0.68 10% 15%
4 7 5 14 15% 50% 36% 76 0.33 5% 7%
5 10 2 13 16% 77% 15% 29 0.30 1% 6%
TOTAL
RESP 86 44 149 33% 58% 30% 69 0.92 100% 100%
2017 SSA Rules Committee Meeting Minutes
Reedsville PA - November 11, 2017
5
Some expressed the view that a change to FAI rules should be “all or nothing� as
diluting the rules to accommodate US pilot preferences (to not allow team flying or
ground crew assistance at contests, for instance) would negate the whole purpose of
moving to FAI rules which is to prepare pilots to fly at the WGC. It was noted that many
countries have elaborate local procedures and some countries don’t use FAI rules at all
(e.g. Canada, UK and Australia) so the “all or nothing� view varies around the world. It
was agreed that it will be critical to craft specific proposals (pure FAI, vs FAI rules that
accommodate some US practices vs current US rules) in order to obtain clear guidance
from the US racing pilot community on a rules transition. It was also agreed that all of
this will take significant effort which will need to begin quickly.
Actions:
• Create a description of each major area of FAI rules that is different from US rules,
without description of potential implications.
• Articulate two versions of each area of FAI rules – one without any local procedures,
one with local procedures to address some of the significant differences as much as
practical within the FAI framework (e.g. may not include adding back MAT task,
could include minimum finish height like was used at Uvalde).
• Recruit knowledgeable proponent(s) of FAI rules and proponent(s) of US rules to
opine on pros/cons of each approach.
• Craft specific proposal(s) for polling of pilot group.

Best. Tom #711.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?

You need to integrate all the other feedback.

When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work.

This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> >
> > Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?
>
> You need to integrate all the other feedback.
>
> When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work.
>
> This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Andy, I get all of that, but why not have one contest with FAI rules to get some experience?

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:00:14 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?
> >
> > You need to integrate all the other feedback.
> >
> > When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules.. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work.
> >
> > This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly.
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
> > 9B
>
> Andy, I get all of that, but why not have one contest with FAI rules to get some experience?

There was the PAGC. I'm not sure how you objectively collect, process and take action on the "experience."

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

It'sa worthy idea. It's been discussed and some initial conversations have been had. You need to have all the infrastructure in place. Some thoughts on what needs doing.

1) Local procedures drafted and agreed to. We don't really have all that clear an idea what pilots want in the gory details. Do you really want team flying and allowance for ground crew support (long range Flarm tracking with ground-based high-gain antennae is one common example)? I'd write local procedures against that, but a significant number of pilots might want to form teams or have some ground support. Others hate the idea. There are many tens of decisions like this to be made and choices will affect pilot participation one way or the other.
2) Scoring scripts written for SeeYou to support #1. There are a few people who are able and possibly willing to support this over some reasonable time frame.
3) Scorer who knows how to use SeeYou found and recruited.
4) Unique requirements of FAI rules supported or worked around in #1.
5) Stuff you didn't anticipate because so much is new.

It's not impossible, but it's new and unfamiliar and you need to get organizers to agree to take the risk and do the work.

Lastly, you might be well advised to not spring this on pilots who already signed up for contests and scheduled their vacations.

If there were organizer support and pilots already signed up for that same contest were nearly unanimously in favor of giving it a go, it might be possible to do it under waiver. Some informal outreach has not yielded results to my knowledge, but if organizers, pilots and other supporting volunteers got seriously motivated to do it, I for one would be favorably inclined on the request.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:27:45 AM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:00:14 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here is my observation. Based on what I remember from the poll, majority of pilots voted for adopting FAI rules, yet the rules committee decided to study the issue instead of adopting the rules. Why not adopt the FAI rules for one of the contests this coming year. I am puzzled by this development. Why do we need to have a study if pilots already said they wanted the FAI rules?
> > >
> > > You need to integrate all the other feedback.
> > >
> > > When asked about specific rules provisions, there were majorities opposed to rules that would be included in a generic implementation of FAI rules. These could be integrated as a set of "local procedures" that are part of every implementation of FAI rules, but what, exactly would all of those procedures be? It's pretty clear that this is a complex topic that you can't just shoot from the hip on, as much as many people would like to implement their own personal interpretation - and believe me, everyone has their own distinct interpretation of what FAI rules means. You need to pour through all the poll results in detail. I have, QT has. A few other have to varying levels of detail. It needs thoughtful people willing to put in hours and hours of serious work.
> > >
> > > This is a big shift and most people have only the most general awareness on what's involved - or the patience to go through it throughly.
> > >
> > > Andy Blackburn
> > > 9B
> >
> > Andy, I get all of that, but why not have one contest with FAI rules to get some experience?
>
> There was the PAGC. I'm not sure how you objectively collect, process and take action on the "experience."

A pilot poll could be designed to capture valuable data, alternatively a retrospective session with all pilots of such contest could be held. One could capture the level of satisfaction, safety aspects, what worked well and what did not.

In the end it is all about what majority of pilots want not what someone thinks they want. It is not my opinion and it is not RC opinion that matters it is the opinion of the majority of pilots and the best way to find out if we are going in the right direction is to test the rules in practice.

A super regional contest could be held to try this out.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:12:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> It'sa worthy idea. It's been discussed and some initial conversations have been had. You need to have all the infrastructure in place. Some thoughts on what needs doing.
>
> 1) Local procedures drafted and agreed to. We don't really have all that clear an idea what pilots want in the gory details. Do you really want team flying and allowance for ground crew support (long range Flarm tracking with ground-based high-gain antennae is one common example)? I'd write local procedures against that, but a significant number of pilots might want to form teams or have some ground support. Others hate the idea. There are many tens of decisions like this to be made and choices will affect pilot participation one way or the other.
> 2) Scoring scripts written for SeeYou to support #1. There are a few people who are able and possibly willing to support this over some reasonable time frame.
> 3) Scorer who knows how to use SeeYou found and recruited.
> 4) Unique requirements of FAI rules supported or worked around in #1.
> 5) Stuff you didn't anticipate because so much is new.
>
> It's not impossible, but it's new and unfamiliar and you need to get organizers to agree to take the risk and do the work.
>
> Lastly, you might be well advised to not spring this on pilots who already signed up for contests and scheduled their vacations.
>
> If there were organizer support and pilots already signed up for that same contest were nearly unanimously in favor of giving it a go, it might be possible to do it under waiver. Some informal outreach has not yielded results to my knowledge, but if organizers, pilots and other supporting volunteers got seriously motivated to do it, I for one would be favorably inclined on the request.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Andy, this is a very open minded position. You are right about timing being an issue. Let's see if there is an interest for this year.

[[email protected]]

Andy, you ought to know it is never the opinion of the majority of pilots that counts. I have seen it for years being the opinion of the committees that always matters and the rest of us just end up having to live with whatever they decide. It happens in soaring and it happens in every race or club association.

[[email protected]]

Andy Blackburn of the rules committee helping me on speed/distance points specifics:
We changed the ratio of speed to distance points a few years back, so the maximum penalty for a pilot who would otherwise score 1000 ought to be 400, not 600.

RWF - I should fuss with the rules formulas more often! :)

[[email protected]]

It seems with such harsh penalties one is better off landing out if they are confident of getting home but arriving low.

[[email protected]]

Too much b.s. In the name of safety or "fairness", the continued dumbing down of the skill set needed to race. Dump all the finish rules, allow guys to make a flying finish no lower than 200 ft. Or a rolling finish, no penalty. Land short and you get distance points only. Start your motor and you get distance points. Why all the intricacies? There wasn't anything wrong with how we did it 20 years ago.

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 1 January 2018 10:12:48 UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> It'sa worthy idea. It's been discussed and some initial conversations have been had. You need to have all the infrastructure in place. Some thoughts on what needs doing.
>
> 1) Local procedures drafted and agreed to. We don't really have all that clear an idea what pilots want in the gory details. Do you really want team flying and allowance for ground crew support (long range Flarm tracking with ground-based high-gain antennae is one common example)? I'd write local procedures against that, but a significant number of pilots might want to form teams or have some ground support. Others hate the idea. There are many tens of decisions like this to be made and choices will affect pilot participation one way or the other.
> 2) Scoring scripts written for SeeYou to support #1. There are a few people who are able and possibly willing to support this over some reasonable time frame.
> 3) Scorer who knows how to use SeeYou found and recruited.
> 4) Unique requirements of FAI rules supported or worked around in #1.
> 5) Stuff you didn't anticipate because so much is new.
>
> It's not impossible, but it's new and unfamiliar and you need to get organizers to agree to take the risk and do the work.
>
> Lastly, you might be well advised to not spring this on pilots who already signed up for contests and scheduled their vacations.
>
> If there were organizer support and pilots already signed up for that same contest were nearly unanimously in favor of giving it a go, it might be possible to do it under waiver. Some informal outreach has not yielded results to my knowledge, but if organizers, pilots and other supporting volunteers got seriously motivated to do it, I for one would be favorably inclined on the request.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

For #2 why not get a hold of the Scripts used at the 2012 Worlds held in Uvalde? They worked fine there, I was one of the scorers. QT may have them

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:42:22 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> It seems with such harsh penalties one is better off landing out if they are confident of getting home but arriving low.


Kevin?
You have framed the problem here. The current rules conflate a safety issue and a fairness issue and often have unexpected consequences. Frequently the contest site sets a really high finish for good operational reasons. We had a 1400ft one mile finish at one contest. In this case, you got landed out if you finished at 1150ft over the airport! Clearly not a safety issue when they had about 5 power movements each afternoon. If the finish height had been at 400ft then a 150ft finish, other than along the runway, it could be argued to have been unsafe.

Having a linear finish penalty of about twice the points needed to gain the height makes sense and then addressing foolish unsafe finishes as unsafe flying keeps everything fair. The FAI rules use 1 point/m as the penalty and the <200ft SSA penalty is similar at 25 points/100ft. I struggle to see anyone objecting to a 300+ point penalty for someone finishing between the hangars. In FAI contests the unsafe flying penalty is often applied for strange behavior.

Bob Fletcher 90

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:04:25 PM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> For #2 why not get a hold of the Scripts used at the 2012 Worlds held in Uvalde? They worked fine there, I was one of the scorers. QT may have them

It occurred to me. I don't know what's in it. WGC flying is a bit different from Regional flying - teams, ground crews, FAI marshals. Those aren't script items, but I don't know it there's anything in the scripts you'd want to alter for non-WGC flying and less experienced pilots. It would need a look - assuming that an organizer wanted to raise their had to host. I wager they'd need help getting everything done.

Andy

[[email protected]]

If the penalty does not scale to the day on a devalued day you could finish the task, arrive low, and have less points then you started the day with. The point penalty vs climb penalty only works if you have a climb to take. We all screw up final glides and if there is no climb to take the prudent thing to do us land out under the point penalty rule as proposed. On a tough day the landout might also help devalue the day further limiting the hit of a landout. You can also miss the finish line and land with an airport bonus which might be tactically prudent but not safe. Penalties like the point scenario are intended to incentivize safety (promoting safety is always worth going after)but very often unintentionally encourage unsafe flying.

[[email protected]]

As Kev aptly described, it seems like the rules scema actually defeats its proported purpose of enhancing safety. This keeps up the contests become more a "contest" of who can "gam" the rules structure, more than a test of soaring skill.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:25:28 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> As Kev aptly described, it seems like the rules scema actually defeats its proported purpose of enhancing safety. This keeps up the contests become more a "contest" of who can "gam" the rules structure, more than a test of soaring skill.

Nope. Here's the proposed wording. You always get at least as many points as a landout at the cylinder edge. On a devalued day you could reach that many points at higher than 400', but you'd not generally be able to figure that out while flying and it would still be in your interest to finish, unless you can't make the airport.

10.9.2.5.1 When the Finish Height Difference is not greater than 400 feet, the pilot is eligible for a finish time, at the cylinder entry time.
10.9.2.5.2 When the Finish Height Difference is greater than zero and less than or equal to 400 feet, a penalty (¶ 12.1.3.5) applies; such penalty shall not yield a score lower than if Finish Height Difference exceeded 400'.
10.9.2.5.3 When the Finish Height Difference is greater than 400 feet, the task is incomplete. The distance of the final task leg shall be computed per ¶ 10.9.2.6.

BTW, this is the philosophy that people voted for. Of the 55% of pilots who voted to modify the finish rule (45% didn't want to change it), 54% wanted a penalty equal to a landout at a finish height from which you couldn't glide to a landing at the home airport. The RC picked 400' as that altitude for both 1 mile and 2 mile cylinders. For two miles, assuming 100' at the threshold, no need to use altitude in a turn to final and a runway at the center of the cylinder (could be better, could be a lot worse if the finish is downwind and you have to actually make a pattern), that works out to about 35:1.

That was the thinking.

Andy Blackburn

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:56:02 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Too much b.s. In the name of safety or "fairness", the continued dumbing down of the skill set needed to race. Dump all the finish rules, allow guys to make a flying finish no lower than 200 ft. Or a rolling finish, no penalty. Land short and you get distance points only. Start your motor and you get distance points. Why all the intricacies? There wasn't anything wrong with how we did it 20 years ago.

I don't recall a 200' limit back in the good old days. You could scrape gelcoat off on the runway and get a good finish and pull up to buttonhook a pattern.

The only difference was then you didn't have GPS and a glide computer. My recollection was final glides had a lot more buffer on them because you were never 100% sure of your position or the winds so you generally didn't try a best L/D glide from beyond visual range to 0'. Of course glide computers offer more precision than accuracy in these situations, so you can end up in a pickle if you depend on one being that good at predicting the future.

I wrote a computer program to calculate final glides from the ground for the New Zealand Team at the 1983 WGC. The pilots would report distance and we'd estimate winds from the ground and give them height needed to get home. I didn't include any buffer and landed them both out one day a couple of miles short somewhere out in the desert west of Hobbs. Oops!

9B

[MNLou]

I was one of the minority who voted for no change. My logic was, assuming most finish cylinders are well positioned and a minimum of 800' agl, you needed at least 600 feet agl to finish and then safely fly a pattern while merging with the existing gliders in the pattern. Below that, I felt it was unsafe flying.

If someone hits the finish cylinder at 400'agl, they will need priority in the pattern, thus creating a mess for those who are already stacked up.

It was pretty eye opening to me to be 7th of 9 in the pattern and have someone finish desperately low and need priority. Luckily, it was a nice wide runway.

Just my $0.02.

Lou

[[email protected]]

Andy, is there any objective evidence that the safety altitude finish has actually improved safety? Back in the day, we usually had many more entrants and I don’t recall any carnage with the “any where on the airport finish� and it was certainly less stressful on final glide.
Dale Bush

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 8:11:27 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
> I was one of the minority who voted for no change. My logic was, assuming most finish cylinders are well positioned and a minimum of 800' agl, you needed at least 600 feet agl to finish and then safely fly a pattern while merging with the existing gliders in the pattern. Below that, I felt it was unsafe flying.
>
> If someone hits the finish cylinder at 400'agl, they will need priority in the pattern, thus creating a mess for those who are already stacked up.
>
> It was pretty eye opening to me to be 7th of 9 in the pattern and have someone finish desperately low and need priority. Luckily, it was a nice wide runway.
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> Lou

Lou, from my experience a higher finish altitude e.g. 800 AGL is actually causing traffic problems. Pilots choose different ways to lose altitude, often making unnecessary and unpredictable turns or building different patterns. Lower altitude makes everyone fly similar paterns simply because they don't have other choice, 500 feet seemed quite okay. I am sure there will be situations where higher altitude might be needed, but adopting unnecessarily high finish altitude creates problems of its own.

[[email protected]]

Lou,
In some respects we have let racing become a little too tempered here in the US, where a low finisher's pattern impact is eye-opening. In Lithuania Adam Czeladzki showed me what a finely-tuned final glide looks like as he gained a few minutes on me in the last 20 km: https://www.facebook.com/ecc.czeladz/videos/vb.100002549061416/864167887011505/?type=2&video_source=user_video_tab

I'm not advocating for these direct landing or rolling finishes at SSA contests but it helps put into context that finishing at 600ft is perhaps some way from a "zero speed points" safety issue at gliding only locations.

Bob Fletcher 90

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

What was wrong with the good old days, you ask? Answer, about every other year a major accident involving low energy at the finish or crashes one or two miles from the airport. Numbers here

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/soaring/ppts/contest_safety.ppt

Memories fade, don't they.

Where they still allow this stuff, the crashes go on. Szeged 2010 was particularly memorable for me because I was there. A glider on low slow final glide hit a truck driving on the airport boundary road. Last few mile crashes continue under IGC rules.

Uvalde 2017 decided to go back to the fun times of the good old days with finish line and rolling finishes allowed. Great stuff on the strong days. Then came the rain days, and only miracles saved us from a major crash. Go look at the traces. Multiple extremely low energy arrivals, including one that reportedly did a ballistic below stall speed trajectory over the final row of trees before the airport.

I love the attitude here. The task has a start gate, turnpoints, and a finish gate. The start and finish have altitude limits. If you don't make them, you haven't completed the task. Really, guys, would you go do a running race, miss the finish line, but demand to be counted because you made it to the locker room? If you miss the start gate do you demand a valid race because you took off at the same airport as everyone else? It's nice of RC to give us graduated soft penalties in the first place. IGC doesn't do that -- prepare to start whining when you miss the start, turn, or finish by one meter. Now you miss the finish line by 400 feet and that's not enough? Buck up and fly the task, and if you can't complete the task take your medicine. The task ends at the finish gate, not at the airport. Just because tasks ended at the airport 30 years ago doesn't mean they do anymore.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

John,
You always have great insight. However, any issues with the Uvalde finish in the rain were related to it being 4500' along a 6000' runway rather than in its middle. A few people failed to notice this until finishing and discovered lots of value in their landing flaps.

If the finish line was in the middle of the 6000' runway it's hard to see that a 10 - 500' finish height would be a problem - just land ahead.

The last Worlds I flew transitioned from the zero height finish line to a finish circle with a 200m finish at 5km, which was just fine especially with its 1 point/m low finish penalty.

My only issue with the SSA 800ft finish with its 400ft landout cut-off is the excessive penalty between 400ft and 600ft which is about equivalent to being an hour late on a racing day.

Bob Fletcher 90

[[email protected]]

John, I hear your arguments and appreciate the sentiment. But you know as well as I do that accidents do happen and will continue to happen every year no matter what new or old or innovative rules or penalties we adopt, be it high finish, low finish or no finish. Stupidity can't be regulated. If we are going to regulate/ penalize finishes to these draconian levels, why not regulate proximity within gaggles, penalize any saves below 800 ft, penalize low drag flying off the wing tip vortices of a competitor, limit task finish times to under 3 hours per day because multiple "long" days creates fatigue, the list becomes endless.

In addition, the competition degrades from a test of "soaring" skill, to one of "system/scoring management.

I don't race anymore (primarily because of issues just like the one in this thread), so I am just an interested observer. The issues should be settled completely, solely by those who are actively racing today. In addition, member of the RC should be required to race at least two regionals per year to remain on the committee, and direct polling of only the racing community should determine what U.S. racers want for their races irregardless of its affect on Worlds. The Worlds are a completely seperate issue and involve only a few guys who can train however they need to in order to be competitive there.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

This is simply not true. Crashes are not inevitable. When there is a huge points advantage to clearing the fence by 10 feet and plopping it down for a rolling finish, people will do it. The crash results prove it. The high finishes have essentially cured the longstanding problems. Be clear: the issue is not low high speed finishes. The issue is the possibility, and hence the competitive necessity, to accept Mc 0 + 10 feet final glides, and the consequent last minute 1-2 mile out landings, or last minute low energy maneuvering at the airport. If the rules allow it, and you don't do it, you will lose contests.

BTW, I finished 250 feet low at Uvalde, it largely cost me the contest, and I'm not complaining. Yes it was a safe approach to the airport. But I did not make the task.

John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Why? the task ends at 800'. 600', ok maybe that's an honest mistake. 400' low means you really did not finish this task.

[[email protected]]

John, hate to say it, but crashes are innevitable when people with large egos are involved in any sort of racing. We will never be able to "legislate" absolute safety, and guys will forever take risks to win. Sure some rule making is common sense based. But, there is an ever increasing trend to try to substitute rules for experience. It has never worked.

A close look at your very own data in the link you posted shows that the accidents that were fatal were stall spin. Anyone who has a smiggen of aeronautical sense, if screwing up a final glide and running out of options, will put there ship down straight ahead, you gotta work hard at killing yourself setting your ship down even into the trees if it is done in a controlled fashion. Two of the accidents were stall spin while trying to do a pattern, most likely while low, another screw up totally preventable.

As your data shows, the greatest combined source of accidents is found in off field landings and midairs. If that is the case, where are all the rules/regs to mitigate those accidents? I think what no one wants to say is accidents close to the field are publicity attractors, negative that is, and the concern is about our image and possible FAA intervention.

Yes we had fatalities during the "good old days " 70's-80's-90's. I witnessed a few myself, but things are not safer now. That is a fallacy. We had 60 sometimes 70 sailplanes racing a single national and absolutely huge regionals as well. We have 1/3 of that now with an accident rate that has not decreased in pace with the shrinking participation. Racing has not gotten safer. There is so much inner cockpit distraction and blind dependance on, at times, overly optomistic flight computers, that guys are stretching way beyond their natural abilities, much more so than when we had to make educated guesses based on what our asses were telling us.

A very good case can be made emphatically and statistically that racing is more dangerous today, due to the above mentioned point as well as the fact that performance has progressed to the point where an off field landing is such a rare occurrence guys do not have the experience level they need in their ship to safely make an off field landing, which used to be a normal occurrence in any contest.

[[email protected]]

To incentivize finishing above a certain height there should be s bonus and not a penalty. A landing at the airport has the potential for a full points finish. Hit the finish cylinder above a certain height gains a bonus. Punitive measures encourage gaming to avoid the hit which often results in unsafe behavior the rule is intended to discourage.

[[email protected]]

Kev, I really like that concept. That seems a much easier and more "encouraging" way to go about encouraging a different flying mindset.

[jfitch]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 8:00:28 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> This is simply not true. Crashes are not inevitable. When there is a huge points advantage to clearing the fence by 10 feet and plopping it down for a rolling finish, people will do it. The crash results prove it. The high finishes have essentially cured the longstanding problems. Be clear: the issue is not low high speed finishes. The issue is the possibility, and hence the competitive necessity, to accept Mc 0 + 10 feet final glides, and the consequent last minute 1-2 mile out landings, or last minute low energy maneuvering at the airport. If the rules allow it, and you don't do it, you will lose contests.
>
> BTW, I finished 250 feet low at Uvalde, it largely cost me the contest, and I'm not complaining. Yes it was a safe approach to the airport. But I did not make the task.
>
> John Cochrane

I agree with John. If you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a 1000 ft high finish line to avoid a penalty, by the same logic you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a rolling finish to avoid death. The flying skills required in either case are identical - only the consequences are different. To assert otherwise is completely illogical. In fact, allowing low finishes replaces skill with risk taking as the major competitive advantage in final glides. The idea that "airmanship" or "experience" are the difference is specious: accepting a lot of risk and finding a little luck will put you on the podium ahead of someone whose greater experience informs him that it is not worth the risk. A high finish removes the risk and makes only experience and skill count.

The attitude of many here seems to be that soaring is inherently a risky sport, so don't bother with making it less so. I can tell you that where I fly, the most often mentioned reason among fellow pilots for not flying contests is that it is too risky - competition rewards risk and to be competitive they would need to fly with higher risk of a crash than they would otherwise. For those who want glider competition to just be about who will take the greatest risk, there are many other sports that offer that attraction.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 8:00:28 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > This is simply not true. Crashes are not inevitable. When there is a huge points advantage to clearing the fence by 10 feet and plopping it down for a rolling finish, people will do it. The crash results prove it. The high finishes have essentially cured the longstanding problems. Be clear: the issue is not low high speed finishes. The issue is the possibility, and hence the competitive necessity, to accept Mc 0 + 10 feet final glides, and the consequent last minute 1-2 mile out landings, or last minute low energy maneuvering at the airport. If the rules allow it, and you don't do it, you will lose contests.
> >
> > BTW, I finished 250 feet low at Uvalde, it largely cost me the contest, and I'm not complaining. Yes it was a safe approach to the airport. But I did not make the task.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> I agree with John. If you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a 1000 ft high finish line to avoid a penalty, by the same logic you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a rolling finish to avoid death. The flying skills required in either case are identical - only the consequences are different. To assert otherwise is completely illogical. In fact, allowing low finishes replaces skill with risk taking as the major competitive advantage in final glides. The idea that "airmanship" or "experience" are the difference is specious: accepting a lot of risk and finding a little luck will put you on the podium ahead of someone whose greater experience informs him that it is not worth the risk. A high finish removes the risk and makes only experience and skill count.
>
> The attitude of many here seems to be that soaring is inherently a risky sport, so don't bother with making it less so. I can tell you that where I fly, the most often mentioned reason among fellow pilots for not flying contests is that it is too risky - competition rewards risk and to be competitive they would need to fly with higher risk of a crash than they would otherwise. For those who want glider competition to just be about who will take the greatest risk, there are many other sports that offer that attraction.

John, no one is talking about removing the penalty. Bob is simply saying that the penalty is too harsh. Arriving at 400 feet agl with 100 pts penalty would still send a strong message not to do it. Why does it need to be 400 pts? The 400 feet agl is a lot of altitude, so it is less about safety and more about punishment, very discouraging when a day ends early.

I personally never take final glide risks, once however even with plenty of altitude to spare I came close to getting a small penalty. Even if you do everything right and have spare altitude things can happen.

Knowing I could reach an airport at 400 feet is better than looking for a thermal at 800 feet 3 miles out, sometimes over unlandable terrain, not to mention in the path of many incoming gliders. Yes I have seen it myself.

Again small penalty is also discouraging and probably sufficient.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Having thought about all the different final glide scenarios a lot and having made at least half a dozen proposals to the RC over the past four years, I can say with some confidence that a simple calculation of how many points you give up sticking with a slow climb and fixing that to an arrival height penalty gradient only works in a world where pilots have perfect information about what lies ahead on final glide.

While pilots may not be explicitly aware of this, the decision to take a sub-par climb at X miles from home is implicitly a probabilisitic calculation.. Mathematically, you have to consider the pilot estimation of the probability of finding a better climb than the current sub-par one somewhere between their current position and home. If it is late in the day and you re 50 miles from home at 5000' AGL climbing an 1.5 knots what probability do you assign to the outcome that this is the last thermal of the day versus the outcome that you'll find a better climb somewhere in the next 35-40 miles. This is a pretty common scenario. The penalty gradient (pts/ft) is the value that arbitrates between choosing one path or the other. A higher penalty gradient shifts the decision more toward staying with the slow climb rather than rolling the dice. There are at least half a dozen other cantgories of final glide scenarios with their own unique decision logic, this is just one of them.

I'm inclined to agree that "get-home-itis" will likely dominate on final glides gone bad in the last few miles or so. Given all that, a flat penalty gradient of somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 point per foot would be a simpler option for a 1000' gate. Pilots seem not to like the simpler option because 100 points for 100' low seems too harsh - hence the two-tier gradient. It doesn't have any cliff like the old rule so it's a continuous curve, but an accelerating one. Personally, I'd be in favor of upping the penalty gradient from the first foot - it alters the calculation on the one scenario over which pilots have the most decision-making control. But, we make compromises based on feedback and pilots seem to like the "smaller penalties for smaller errors". Okay - two tiers.

Jon is right (as is John) - the only difference between an incomplete task at 400' and an incomplete task at 0' is the pilot's tolerance for personal risk. There are some pilots who feel that the ability to overcome the fear of a catastrophic crash is a "skill" that ought to be measured in glider racing. I'm inclined to agree that it is not likely a participation-building approach. If it's the worm-burner pass that people miss (I do), then there are ways to allow for that. For instance, I've always been fond of the idea of a 1000'/4-mile altitude check prior to a no altitude limit line finish as a way to enforce sufficient finish energy. That also addresses some claims (which I don't agree with) that finishing with extra energy is more hazardous because it gives pilots "too may" options to maneuver rather than needing to land "right NOW". I've seen five glider on base an final with no alternative options at a single runway airport and it wan't pretty.

My 2c.

Andy Blackburn
9B


On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 2:54:46 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 8:00:28 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > This is simply not true. Crashes are not inevitable. When there is a huge points advantage to clearing the fence by 10 feet and plopping it down for a rolling finish, people will do it. The crash results prove it. The high finishes have essentially cured the longstanding problems. Be clear: the issue is not low high speed finishes. The issue is the possibility, and hence the competitive necessity, to accept Mc 0 + 10 feet final glides, and the consequent last minute 1-2 mile out landings, or last minute low energy maneuvering at the airport. If the rules allow it, and you don't do it, you will lose contests.
> > >
> > > BTW, I finished 250 feet low at Uvalde, it largely cost me the contest, and I'm not complaining. Yes it was a safe approach to the airport. But I did not make the task.
> > >
> > > John Cochrane
> >
> > I agree with John. If you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a 1000 ft high finish line to avoid a penalty, by the same logic you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a rolling finish to avoid death. The flying skills required in either case are identical - only the consequences are different. To assert otherwise is completely illogical. In fact, allowing low finishes replaces skill with risk taking as the major competitive advantage in final glides. The idea that "airmanship" or "experience" are the difference is specious: accepting a lot of risk and finding a little luck will put you on the podium ahead of someone whose greater experience informs him that it is not worth the risk. A high finish removes the risk and makes only experience and skill count.
> >
> > The attitude of many here seems to be that soaring is inherently a risky sport, so don't bother with making it less so. I can tell you that where I fly, the most often mentioned reason among fellow pilots for not flying contests is that it is too risky - competition rewards risk and to be competitive they would need to fly with higher risk of a crash than they would otherwise. For those who want glider competition to just be about who will take the greatest risk, there are many other sports that offer that attraction.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Just to highlight Andy's excellent point: The issue is not height at finish.. The issue is height in the last mile or so, and the competitive necessity to do occasional 55 knot final glides to just barely clear trees around the airport.

This is solved with a steering turn that has a minimum altitude leaving 25:1 or so glide, or 30:1 + 500 feet, or with a ring or cylinder at 2 miles or so imposing 600-800 feet, after which pilots can finish on a line, or buzz the airport to their hearts' content. The grand prix has steering turns with minimum altitudes, so that should even cheer up the "follow the FAI" set. (These are the real minimums, they must be higher if you want US style graduated penalties)

If what you want really is the thrill of buzzing the airport at the end of a long cross country flight, it is easy to do that without bringing back the historic litter of fiberglass (then) in the last mile or so.

John Cochrane

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:40:00 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Just to highlight Andy's excellent point: The issue is not height at finish. The issue is height in the last mile or so, and the competitive necessity to do occasional 55 knot final glides to just barely clear trees around the airport.
>
> This is solved with a steering turn that has a minimum altitude leaving 25:1 or so glide, or 30:1 + 500 feet, or with a ring or cylinder at 2 miles or so imposing 600-800 feet, after which pilots can finish on a line, or buzz the airport to their hearts' content. The grand prix has steering turns with minimum altitudes, so that should even cheer up the "follow the FAI" set. (These are the real minimums, they must be higher if you want US style graduated penalties)
>
> If what you want really is the thrill of buzzing the airport at the end of a long cross country flight, it is easy to do that without bringing back the historic litter of fiberglass (then) in the last mile or so.
>
> John Cochrane

Also reinforce 9B and BB here. I am not one of the "pilots who feel that the ability to overcome the fear of a catastrophic crash is a "skill" that ought to be measured in glider racing."

And I continue to be amused about this "too stiff an altitude penalty" point of view. What it tells me is that for those pilots the task ends at the airport regardless of what the rules say. It also argues for awarding speed points when you land short of the airport. After all, I almost made it...

[Tony[_5_]]

John,

I know that at the last two junior WGC's, pilots earned speed points without landing at the airfield.

In Australia the finish height was zero or very low.

In Lithuania the finish height was semi reasonable but with a strong headwind and club class gliders in the second to last day all the finishers opted to land out.

I know the women's world's had similar issues and I recall same kind of stories from Argentina.

So maybe this idea of having to finish at the airport is purely an american belief. Clearly the FAI does not care if you make it home.

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 10:30:01 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> John,
>
> I know that at the last two junior WGC's, pilots earned speed points without landing at the airfield.
>
> In Australia the finish height was zero or very low.
>
> In Lithuania the finish height was semi reasonable but with a strong headwind and club class gliders in the second to last day all the finishers opted to land out.
>
> I know the women's world's had similar issues and I recall same kind of stories from Argentina.
>
> So maybe this idea of having to finish at the airport is purely an american belief. Clearly the FAI does not care if you make it home.

Tony,
Whichever John you are addressing (assume me).

1. There is no requirement (anymore) in US Rules to land at the airport after finishing the task. This is true whether the task ends at a 2 mi circle or a finish line on the airport.

2. I guess I didn't make myself clear. IMO pilots who say e.g. "you should have a linear penalty for crossing the finish ring low" are effectively saying: If you have a finish line, you should still get speed points for landing short.

I am baffled by this paradoxical thinking. The only way I can make any sense of it is to assume that the in these pilots' minds, even with a finish circle, the task really ends at the airport.

I treat both the finish ring with min altitude and the zero height finish line the same philosophically - if you hit the "ground" first you didn't finish. No speed points for not finishing.

In the US rules, there is some forgiveness for the first 200' to accommodate instrument errors vs logger data.

[[email protected]]

I will give you my take as a very new person to Soaring comp, but being pretty competitive person by nature.

To me the sport was about the use of energy given by nature and decision making to best use that energy. I think you can finish at any height and allow those as the two factors decide the winner.

In my limited experience I have had 2 situations that really gave me concern while flying - both at contests in the pattern to land after finishing.

One a guy after doing his high speed pass decided to slip between me and two guys in the pattern - I didn't see him come from below until he was way to close for comfort. Scared the crap out of me.

Another was a guy without enough energy to get into the pattern landed against the flow of landing gliders - it was hard to watch.

Sorry but I know there is a thrill of doing a low pass at high speed, but I am sure low pass finishes and inching onto an airport when there are 30+ planes with no engines trying to do the one and only landing they can do, is very smart or good for Soaring.

On non-comp days - I am all in!

WH

[Tango Eight]

What's the point of being exacting about the finish when our turns, even on an assigned task, have literal miles of wiggle room (and are scored to the pilot's best advantage)? Surely a minor tuneup to Winscore could choose the optimum finish point for a complete task, anywhere in a 15 mile radius circle.

/s

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 4:23:33 PM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> What's the point of being exacting about the finish when our turns, even on an assigned task, have literal miles of wiggle room (and are scored to the pilot's best advantage)? Surely a minor tuneup to Winscore could choose the optimum finish point for a complete task, anywhere in a 15 mile radius circle.
>
> /s
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

We do get scored to the optimum point, it just happens to be on a 1 or 2 mile radius circle. I've used that wiggle room lots of times to get a bit more distance. Gonna be a little early, finish at the side of the circle.
UH

[Tony[_5_]]

uh Hank???

11.2.3.3 For completed tasks, the final leg ends at the Finish Point; any finish radius is subtracted from its length.

Sure you can use up another mile worth of time by going to the edge of the finish circle but the way i read it you don't get credit for that distance.

Unless you are flying the 1-26 Championships. They score to entry point of the circle. You can finish in the "back" of the circle. Now that SSA has adopted starting out the back like the 1-26's have done for ever, maybe its time the SSA allows finishing in the back too :)

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 5:12:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 4:23:33 PM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> > What's the point of being exacting about the finish when our turns, even on an assigned task, have literal miles of wiggle room (and are scored to the pilot's best advantage)? Surely a minor tuneup to Winscore could choose the optimum finish point for a complete task, anywhere in a 15 mile radius circle.
> >
> > /s
> >
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> We do get scored to the optimum point, it just happens to be on a 1 or 2 mile radius circle. I've used that wiggle room lots of times to get a bit more distance. Gonna be a little early, finish at the side of the circle.
> UH

Huh? Surely the RC chair jests.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 7:44:26 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 5:12:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 4:23:33 PM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > What's the point of being exacting about the finish when our turns, even on an assigned task, have literal miles of wiggle room (and are scored to the pilot's best advantage)? Surely a minor tuneup to Winscore could choose the optimum finish point for a complete task, anywhere in a 15 mile radius circle.
> > >
> > > /s
> > >
> > > -Evan Ludeman / T8
> >
> > We do get scored to the optimum point, it just happens to be on a 1 or 2 mile radius circle. I've used that wiggle room lots of times to get a bit more distance. Gonna be a little early, finish at the side of the circle.
> > UH
>
> Huh? Surely the RC chair jests.

Yep I screwed that one up
UH

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> What's the point of being exacting about the finish when our turns, even on an assigned task, have literal miles of wiggle room (and are scored to the pilot's best advantage)? Surely a minor tuneup to Winscore could choose the optimum finish point for a complete task, anywhere in a 15 mile radius circle.
>
> /s
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

There have been proposals to do that for starts - it would simplify a lot of pre-start complexity, but add some on course uncertainty, particularly on time-limited tasks since the pilot wouldn't know until after the flight exactly where or when (s)he stated for scoring purposes.

it seems a little superfluous to to it for finishes since most of the time the final glide speed exceeds the average speed on course up to the beginning of the final glide. Therefore, the optimal finish point would be at the end of the glide (remember the 10-minute rule? it was designed to eliminate the effect of the final glide on overall average speed on course).

Setting such a fines up as a circle around the airport would lead to some unpleasant brinksmanship as pilots overfly the airport and continue out into the boonies until they are either out of altitude and have to land out, or reach the limit of their comfort that they can turn around and still make it back to the airport at best L/D. That seems counter-productive to safety and not particularly a good measure of soaring skill.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 12:31:57 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > What's the point of being exacting about the finish when our turns, even on an assigned task, have literal miles of wiggle room (and are scored to the pilot's best advantage)? Surely a minor tuneup to Winscore could choose the optimum finish point for a complete task, anywhere in a 15 mile radius circle.
> >
> > /s
> >
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> There have been proposals to do that for starts - it would simplify a lot of pre-start complexity, but add some on course uncertainty, particularly on time-limited tasks since the pilot wouldn't know until after the flight exactly where or when (s)he stated for scoring purposes.
>
> it seems a little superfluous to to it for finishes since most of the time the final glide speed exceeds the average speed on course up to the beginning of the final glide. Therefore, the optimal finish point would be at the end of the glide (remember the 10-minute rule? it was designed to eliminate the effect of the final glide on overall average speed on course).
>
> Setting such a fines up as a circle around the airport would lead to some unpleasant brinksmanship as pilots overfly the airport and continue out into the boonies until they are either out of altitude and have to land out, or reach the limit of their comfort that they can turn around and still make it back to the airport at best L/D. That seems counter-productive to safety and not particularly a good measure of soaring skill.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Jus' to clarify...

"/s" is internet shorthand for "sarcasm".

I've always been fine with clearly & narrowly defined starts, finishes, total loss of speed points if you miss either gate. The only thing I don't care for on the high finish is that the only place I can see it is inside my cockpit. The old zero agl line finish had a big advantage in that respect. However, on balance, I agree that the high finish solves more problems than it creates.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 8:20:45 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 12:31:57 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > What's the point of being exacting about the finish when our turns, even on an assigned task, have literal miles of wiggle room (and are scored to the pilot's best advantage)? Surely a minor tuneup to Winscore could choose the optimum finish point for a complete task, anywhere in a 15 mile radius circle.
> > >
> > > /s
> > >
> > > -Evan Ludeman / T8
> >
> > There have been proposals to do that for starts - it would simplify a lot of pre-start complexity, but add some on course uncertainty, particularly on time-limited tasks since the pilot wouldn't know until after the flight exactly where or when (s)he stated for scoring purposes.
> >
> > it seems a little superfluous to to it for finishes since most of the time the final glide speed exceeds the average speed on course up to the beginning of the final glide. Therefore, the optimal finish point would be at the end of the glide (remember the 10-minute rule? it was designed to eliminate the effect of the final glide on overall average speed on course).
> >
> > Setting such a fines up as a circle around the airport would lead to some unpleasant brinksmanship as pilots overfly the airport and continue out into the boonies until they are either out of altitude and have to land out, or reach the limit of their comfort that they can turn around and still make it back to the airport at best L/D. That seems counter-productive to safety and not particularly a good measure of soaring skill.
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
> > 9B
>
> Jus' to clarify...
>
> "/s" is internet shorthand for "sarcasm".
>
> I've always been fine with clearly & narrowly defined starts, finishes, total loss of speed points if you miss either gate. The only thing I don't care for on the high finish is that the only place I can see it is inside my cockpit. The old zero agl line finish had a big advantage in that respect. However, on balance, I agree that the high finish solves more problems than it creates.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Well said T8. IIWK, I would have a finish criteria that gave you credit for total energy (not just altitude) by some formula even a pilot could do in their head.

I would also have a final glide computer that gave me useful audio monitoring of above/below required TE.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 5:20:45 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:

Oops, my bad! Missed the /s at the bottom. On the other hand, it provoked a very nice clarification.

AB
9B

> Jus' to clarify...
>
> "/s" is internet shorthand for "sarcasm".
>
> I've always been fine with clearly & narrowly defined starts, finishes, total loss of speed points if you miss either gate. The only thing I don't care for on the high finish is that the only place I can see it is inside my cockpit. The old zero agl line finish had a big advantage in that respect. However, on balance, I agree that the high finish solves more problems than it creates.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8