Reducing collision hazard at contests

[Steve Koerner]

Here's a conceptually simple idea for contest pilots to rattle around... I believe it would be highly effective at reducing dangerous big gaggles that happen during contests. The desirables are that it doesn't damage the sport, it's effective at improving safety, it's easy to understand and it's easy to implement.

The idea is inspired by the blog comments from one of the collision pilots at the recent Hahnweide contest where dense gaggles did lead to a mid-air (fortunately in that incident all 3 pilots successfully parachuted).

Let's require flarm log files from all contestants. Let's designate a 1 point penalty whenever a glider comes within 400 feet horizontal and 150 feet vertical of any other glider. For any pair of gliders that come within penalty range, both are docked 1 point without regard to who approached who. After 5 minutes, the same two gliders will be docked again if they come within penalty range again.

A 400 foot horizontal rule would allow two gliders to safely fly across from one another in a thermal without penalty. Perhaps three gliders could fly together in a thermal if they space out and open the circle. Most likely, though, penalty points would result if more than three gliders attempt to thermal at the same level.

The effect would be to de-motivate gaggle flying. Everyone would want to avoid crowds before the start and on task in order to keep his penalty count low. Pilots would be caused to fly their own machine and think for themselves and that would make for a better test of soaring skill afterall.

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

I don't know about changing things to spread people out, but some work has been done on how to penalize pilots whose flying meets criteria that could be defined as risky.

IGC has looked at WGC's with an interesting study based on IGC files from the 31st-34th WGC (includes Uvalde). It appears feasible to automate penalties in scoring software. Look at the thorough study published in 2017 at https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/collision_risk.pdf . Figure 28 shows what can be done. Take a look at the stats in Fig 28 - for one day!

They suggest going to 1 sec interval for recorders - that could be done now to help with data gathering.

It is an interesting read (to me anyhow).

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Interesting.

I've been doing some analysis of glider turning performance at different altitudes, wing loadings and bank angles lately - and looking at a lot of flight logs up close and personal to see how big the circles are. It turns out the typical turning radius of a thermalling glider is 350-500 feet - for a circumference of a bit over 2000' to a bit over 3000'. That's 5-7 gliders around a circle at 400' separation. That seems like too many, but it also seems too restrictive to set a vertical separation limit of 500-700 feet. You'd probably need to set a limit that's different for vertical versus horizontal distance.

I'd want to know more about how this would affect the dynamics of a gaggle. Imagine the cascading effect down a gaggle of one pilot cracking spoilers to create separation from the glider above him. There may be all kinds of other 'interenting' behaviors.

Worth a discussion.

Andy Blackburn
9B


On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Here's a conceptually simple idea for contest pilots to rattle around... I believe it would be highly effective at reducing dangerous big gaggles that happen during contests. The desirables are that it doesn't damage the sport, it's effective at improving safety, it's easy to understand and it's easy to implement.
>
> The idea is inspired by the blog comments from one of the collision pilots at the recent Hahnweide contest where dense gaggles did lead to a mid-air (fortunately in that incident all 3 pilots successfully parachuted).
>
> Let's require flarm log files from all contestants. Let's designate a 1 point penalty whenever a glider comes within 400 feet horizontal and 150 feet vertical of any other glider. For any pair of gliders that come within penalty range, both are docked 1 point without regard to who approached who.. After 5 minutes, the same two gliders will be docked again if they come within penalty range again.
>
> A 400 foot horizontal rule would allow two gliders to safely fly across from one another in a thermal without penalty. Perhaps three gliders could fly together in a thermal if they space out and open the circle. Most likely, though, penalty points would result if more than three gliders attempt to thermal at the same level.
>
> The effect would be to de-motivate gaggle flying. Everyone would want to avoid crowds before the start and on task in order to keep his penalty count low. Pilots would be caused to fly their own machine and think for themselves and that would make for a better test of soaring skill afterall.

[john firth]

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 4:08:49 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Here's a conceptually simple idea for contest pilots to rattle around... I believe it would be highly effective at reducing dangerous big gaggles that happen during contests. The desirables are that it doesn't damage the sport, it's effective at improving safety, it's easy to understand and it's easy to implement.
>
> The idea is inspired by the blog comments from one of the collision pilots at the recent Hahnweide contest where dense gaggles did lead to a mid-air (fortunately in that incident all 3 pilots successfully parachuted).
>
> Let's require flarm log files from all contestants. Let's designate a 1 point penalty whenever a glider comes within 400 feet horizontal and 150 feet vertical of any other glider. For any pair of gliders that come within penalty range, both are docked 1 point without regard to who approached who.. After 5 minutes, the same two gliders will be docked again if they come within penalty range again.
>
> A 400 foot horizontal rule would allow two gliders to safely fly across from one another in a thermal without penalty. Perhaps three gliders could fly together in a thermal if they space out and open the circle. Most likely, though, penalty points would result if more than three gliders attempt to thermal at the same level.
>
> The effect would be to de-motivate gaggle flying. Everyone would want to avoid crowds before the start and on task in order to keep his penalty count low. Pilots would be caused to fly their own machine and think for themselves and that would make for a better test of soaring skill afterall.

Such a system would certainly combat deliberate intimidation which in
the 70s WGC s was not infrequent. It happened to me several times as one or two
veterans tried to scare me out of "my" thermal.
Anyone else experienced this?

John F

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 4:08:49 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Here's a conceptually simple idea for contest pilots to rattle around... I believe it would be highly effective at reducing dangerous big gaggles that happen during contests. The desirables are that it doesn't damage the sport, it's effective at improving safety, it's easy to understand and it's easy to implement.
>
> The idea is inspired by the blog comments from one of the collision pilots at the recent Hahnweide contest where dense gaggles did lead to a mid-air (fortunately in that incident all 3 pilots successfully parachuted).
>
> Let's require flarm log files from all contestants. Let's designate a 1 point penalty whenever a glider comes within 400 feet horizontal and 150 feet vertical of any other glider. For any pair of gliders that come within penalty range, both are docked 1 point without regard to who approached who.. After 5 minutes, the same two gliders will be docked again if they come within penalty range again.
>
> A 400 foot horizontal rule would allow two gliders to safely fly across from one another in a thermal without penalty. Perhaps three gliders could fly together in a thermal if they space out and open the circle. Most likely, though, penalty points would result if more than three gliders attempt to thermal at the same level.
>
> The effect would be to de-motivate gaggle flying. Everyone would want to avoid crowds before the start and on task in order to keep his penalty count low. Pilots would be caused to fly their own machine and think for themselves and that would make for a better test of soaring skill afterall.

If we're trying to choose pilots to compete in WGC, perhaps they should get a bonus point per minute for ea glider within 400'.

T8

[Craig Funston[_3_]]

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:53:48 PM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
> I don't know about changing things to spread people out, but some work has been done on how to penalize pilots whose flying meets criteria that could be defined as risky.
>
> IGC has looked at WGC's with an interesting study based on IGC files from the 31st-34th WGC (includes Uvalde). It appears feasible to automate penalties in scoring software. Look at the thorough study published in 2017 at https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/collision_risk.pdf . Figure 28 shows what can be done. Take a look at the stats in Fig 28 - for one day!
>
> They suggest going to 1 sec interval for recorders - that could be done now to help with data gathering.
>
> It is an interesting read (to me anyhow).

Dan, great resource & a very interesting read.

Page 35 of the report has a graph of example penalties by competitor. Cross checking that with the contest results shows that the leaders would have had very few penalties. It also reveals there are several pilots that are best avoided. Even without penalties, showing these statistics at the beginning of each day's pilot's meeting might influence pilot behavior.

https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/31st-fai-world-gliding-championship-prievidza-slovakia-2010/results/standard/task-13-on-2010-07-17/total

Thanks,
Craig

[Steve Koerner]

Dan: Thanks for that link. Glad to know IGC is thinking hard about this. The point of that article seems to be that we might fix the problem by identifying particular bad actors and fix their bad behavior with penalties. I'll contend that the problem isn't so much bad actors as it is a bad system of rules that forces or motivates bad action by all players. If we can fix the game, then we don't have to pick on people individually. That's the direction I'm suggesting we take it.

Andy: Look again at my third paragraph. I did suggest that vertical separation would be different from horizontal. Regardless, I'm not right now picking parameters for this. I just threw out some numbers to make the idea understandable.

T8: I agree, WGC is the candidate first and foremost. But if IGC operate on the theory that big changes can't be introduced and that pilots are expendable, then maybe the US needs to lead.

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 14 May 2018 17:32:52 UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Dan: Thanks for that link. Glad to know IGC is thinking hard about this. The point of that article seems to be that we might fix the problem by identifying particular bad actors and fix their bad behavior with penalties. I'll contend that the problem isn't so much bad actors as it is a bad system of rules that forces or motivates bad action by all players. If we can fix the game, then we don't have to pick on people individually. That's the direction I'm suggesting we take it.
>
> Andy: Look again at my third paragraph. I did suggest that vertical separation would be different from horizontal. Regardless, I'm not right now picking parameters for this. I just threw out some numbers to make the idea understandable.
>
> T8: I agree, WGC is the candidate first and foremost. But if IGC operate on the theory that big changes can't be introduced and that pilots are expendable, then maybe the US needs to lead.

Steve wrote 'I agree, WGC is the candidate first and foremost.' A step that the FAI has taken is allow only one participant per country for the 15M class, the offending class, starting in 2022. THerefore 2018 and 2020 will be the last 15M WGC's with multiple participants form the same country. Also the USA submitted a proposal that was accepted by the FAI to change the scoring that should reduce the incentive to gaggle and not take risks, will take a few years to get implemented.

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/8_2_2_usa_-_calculation_of_speed_and_distance_points_year_1_p rop.pdf

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/8_2_1_usa_-_complete_system_of_calculation_of_speed_points_an d_distance_points_-_year_1_proposal.pdf

[Steve Koerner]

Craig: You can look at a chart like that and think you've found the culprits. Now make a list of contest IDs and put them on a dart board and start throwing darts. I think you'll see bad actors show up about the same way. Yes, there is surely differences in flying behavior for different pilots, but attacking the individual can be statistically fallacious. Moreover, that way of thinking takes the fun out of the sport. Those guys on page 35 are all national champions who each believe that they are safe pilots. It's better to acknowledge that the game itself needs improvement.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

As quoted from report :
"Although task separation, longer distance tasks and use of AAT can all encourage greater sep- aration between gliders, it is well-known that none of these factors are entirely effective at eliminating gaggle behaviour particularly during the pre-start and post-start phase. This may explain why the data shows a few competition days of higher number of close encounters de- spite having a very large average glider separation."

I know Sean is not going to like that. I understand back in the day of four hour Post tasks there were not a lot of gaggles.



On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:53:48 PM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
> I don't know about changing things to spread people out, but some work has been done on how to penalize pilots whose flying meets criteria that could be defined as risky.
>
> IGC has looked at WGC's with an interesting study based on IGC files from the 31st-34th WGC (includes Uvalde). It appears feasible to automate penalties in scoring software. Look at the thorough study published in 2017 at https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/collision_risk.pdf . Figure 28 shows what can be done. Take a look at the stats in Fig 28 - for one day!
>
> They suggest going to 1 sec interval for recorders - that could be done now to help with data gathering.
>
> It is an interesting read (to me anyhow).

[Dave Springford]

To reduce gaggling and aggressive flying in contests, prohibit the use of parachutes. Would this change pilot behaviour, discuss ...

[[email protected]]

Oh yes Dave it would change pilot behaviour. Nobody would turn up for the competition. That will certainly eliminate any chance of collision.

Clinton

[2G]

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Here's a conceptually simple idea for contest pilots to rattle around... I believe it would be highly effective at reducing dangerous big gaggles that happen during contests. The desirables are that it doesn't damage the sport, it's effective at improving safety, it's easy to understand and it's easy to implement.
>
> The idea is inspired by the blog comments from one of the collision pilots at the recent Hahnweide contest where dense gaggles did lead to a mid-air (fortunately in that incident all 3 pilots successfully parachuted).
>
> Let's require flarm log files from all contestants. Let's designate a 1 point penalty whenever a glider comes within 400 feet horizontal and 150 feet vertical of any other glider. For any pair of gliders that come within penalty range, both are docked 1 point without regard to who approached who.. After 5 minutes, the same two gliders will be docked again if they come within penalty range again.
>
> A 400 foot horizontal rule would allow two gliders to safely fly across from one another in a thermal without penalty. Perhaps three gliders could fly together in a thermal if they space out and open the circle. Most likely, though, penalty points would result if more than three gliders attempt to thermal at the same level.
>
> The effect would be to de-motivate gaggle flying. Everyone would want to avoid crowds before the start and on task in order to keep his penalty count low. Pilots would be caused to fly their own machine and think for themselves and that would make for a better test of soaring skill afterall.

That's called a gaggle. You might as well penalize all the pilots before they launch.

Tom

[Steve Koerner]

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 9:56:41 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > Here's a conceptually simple idea for contest pilots to rattle around.... I believe it would be highly effective at reducing dangerous big gaggles that happen during contests. The desirables are that it doesn't damage the sport, it's effective at improving safety, it's easy to understand and it's easy to implement.
> >
> > The idea is inspired by the blog comments from one of the collision pilots at the recent Hahnweide contest where dense gaggles did lead to a mid-air (fortunately in that incident all 3 pilots successfully parachuted).
> >
> > Let's require flarm log files from all contestants. Let's designate a 1 point penalty whenever a glider comes within 400 feet horizontal and 150 feet vertical of any other glider. For any pair of gliders that come within penalty range, both are docked 1 point without regard to who approached who. After 5 minutes, the same two gliders will be docked again if they come within penalty range again.
> >
> > A 400 foot horizontal rule would allow two gliders to safely fly across from one another in a thermal without penalty. Perhaps three gliders could fly together in a thermal if they space out and open the circle. Most likely, though, penalty points would result if more than three gliders attempt to thermal at the same level.
> >
> > The effect would be to de-motivate gaggle flying. Everyone would want to avoid crowds before the start and on task in order to keep his penalty count low. Pilots would be caused to fly their own machine and think for themselves and that would make for a better test of soaring skill afterall.
>
> That's called a gaggle. You might as well penalize all the pilots before they launch.
>
> Tom

2G: I don't understand what you are trying to say. Yes, my expectation is that most everybody would probably end up getting at least a few penalty points each day despite trying to avoid flying too close to others. This would not usually
affect results in a significant way -- just a little dither of a few points that would be a function of how attentive you are to the issue.
Steve

[[email protected]]

Contest have been won by 1 point.

P9

[Jim White[_3_]]

IGC document is an interesting read. Didn't see any reference to
calibration of barometric logger heights. The study used a vertical
encounter threshold of 15M. Most loggers are out by at least this much.

Jim

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Duh - skipped right over the horizontal/vertical bit.

I thought about it a bit more.

I could imagine a tactic emerging where teammates further down the scoresheet would hug the closest competitor to their leading teammate to penalize him/her out of contention in the last day or two of a competition. You'd need additional rules to try to judge who's "fault" each penalty is. That might be possible - for instance, penalizing "new" entrants to a thermal. But that might lead to crazy dives to get to the next thermal ahead of the nest competitor(s) and establish a primary position.

Also imagine a couple of gliders in a thermal at the same altitude cracking their airbrakes to block the way of gliders below to let a teammate above get ahead of the group. Yes, it's not very sporting, but certainly unsportsmanlike tactics have been tried. Might need some rules for that to...or maybe people wouldn't try it.

You also wouldn't want people performing crazy maneuvers to clear a conflict without being forced to leave the thermal entirely - zooms, dives, trying to carve across the middle of the thermal to get to the opposite side.

Lastly, people might quibble about not being able to judge these distances very accurately in circumstances where being able to just squeeze in might be important. Would flight computers tell you when you are being penalized? Which flight computers? Software is tough to mandate.

Just noodling.

Andy


On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:32:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Andy: Look again at my third paragraph. I did suggest that vertical separation would be different from horizontal. Regardless, I'm not right now picking parameters for this. I just threw out some numbers to make the idea understandable.
>

[[email protected]]

"Once upon a time", the rule was "start time = release time". I don't remember hearing much complaints about leeching or gaggles in those times... Only about fairness ;-)

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 3:15:06 AM UTC-4, Jim White wrote:
> IGC document is an interesting read. Didn't see any reference to
> calibration of barometric logger heights. The study used a vertical
> encounter threshold of 15M. Most loggers are out by at least this much.
>
> Jim

They talk about that in para 6.4:
"Other enhancements could include:
- Making use of GNSS estimated position error. Note that for vehicles close to each other, they are likely to have similar satellite visibility, subject to similar atmospheric effects, and therefore have similar position error — meaning that their relative separation erroris likely to be smaller than the position error magnitude.
- Making use of expected barometric error due to pressure sensor calibration drift and position error (variation due to cockpit interior static pressure)."

[Tango Eight]

Good rules have the property that it is easy to tell when you are in compliance (or not). Rules of the sort that Steve proposes are troublesome in this regard.

"Oh, but the penalty is small". Yuk. I followed FS through the finish cylinder at Perry, close enough to tell that we were at the same altitude +/- 3 feet. We were lower than we wanted to be having got crushed in the last 3 miles. He finished penalty free, I got docked 20 points (80 feet low). At least I didn't lose 40% of my speed points while still 850' in the air. The gizmos are not as accurate as some presume.

What happens if my flarm fails? DQ for the day? That's going to lead to unhappiness. There were some pretty well known, safety conscious guys flying at Perry that were having flarm problems.

Skeptically,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

I applaud the work of John Wharington, but there are many troubles with the approach and software as it is now. It is very much version 0.01b .

The goal of such a software should be to discover not only dangerous situations, but also the "guilty" party. Just measuring the distance between 2 FLARMs is by far not good enough.

An excellent example is on page 35, fig 28. This is a day 2 gliders collided in a WGC. Just from the graph, can you find which 2 gliders where involved? The answer is you can't, they have some of the lowest "scores" of the day. Of course you should really look at previous days data of the gliders, but that information is unavailable. I don't think you will learn much.

On top of that, I've experienced the system in action during EGC Lasham. On one day I had the highest score of the day (but during the whole contest one of the lower ones). While I was in the cockpit that day, I already knew I would score very high that day. In a small group, I was close below and behind another glider in very good view of him. During other times I was close to my brother/team partner. Not a single moment or event was dangerous. I had a long discussion with the stewards about this, and I think we all agreed the system needs severe refinement.

[[email protected]]

Three different (albeit related) situations leading to potential collisions:
1. Competent pilots get close to each other in the ordinary course of contest flying. No problem.
2. Competent pilots get alarmingly close when one or both make a mistake or just bad timing.
3. "Repeat offenders", that short list we all have of pilots with whom we don't want to even share a gaggle, much less allow them to get close.

Pilots who scare/worry us may do so without ever getting close. In one case, I was climbing strongly and saw two gliders aiming right at my thermal on a blue day and realized/guessed (correctly) they didn't see me and rolled out just in time to be safe. The next day, one of the two forced me to roll out again when he came right through my pre-start thermal, but once again without getting close enough to get my heart beating faster. In yet another case, a "repeat offender" was approaching a gaggle out on course where I was one of several on the same circle. He was obviously/obliviously watching the glider ahead of me as he came busting in so I pulled up and turned out to go over him, frustrating but not within "near miss" distance by my standards.

Proximity to another glider is only one factor.

I agree software can play a role here in identifying problems and perhaps even attributing fault, but I'm not sure automatic penalties, of any magnitude, is the way to do it, at least yet. Plus, as Andy notes, there are myriad potential unintended consequences.

Chip Bearden

[[email protected]]

Gaggle flying is inherently dynamic. It changesas newcomers alter the position and flight path of those already established in the thermal lift. At the same time, everybody wants to out-climb everybody else, and blindly following or adapting to the guy directly opposite you might pitch you into the sink on the edge of the lift just because you and he are focused on making perfectly symmetrical circles and not paying attention to the core of the lift. Add in a few other gliders just above or below, and the situation can quickly become chaotic. Now, add in a penalty for coming "too close," and the dynamic changes again by introducing a factor that is not readily apparent, but can conceivably alter proper and courteous thermaling behavior.

"Oh S#!+, where did that (fond euphemism) come from?" you pull tighter or roll level and now you are in someone else's "Safe Space" and at the end of the day you get docked 10 points (after several encounters over the course of the task.)

You aren't doing anything but flying conservatively and as courteously as possible in a crowded thermal, but you might be penalized by taking evasive action that brings you into closer (but non-threatening) proximity of another glider. You saw him, and judged that your course deviation would minimize the risk of interfering with the first target, but you inadvertently got too close to someone else, as determined by the all seeing and all knowing Oz, the man behind the curtain. And the perfect flight analysis software, and the impeccable GPS data and the fact that discussions concerning intentions and results can add hours and hours to the joyous experience of the CD and scorekeeper.

I say, "Bring it on!" Just another BS impractical rule to keep me from ever deciding to enter a contest. I was wavering, and starting to consider it, but a rule like this will definitely kill that misguided notion.

Sleep late. Fly for fun.

[2G]

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:25:28 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 9:56:41 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > > Here's a conceptually simple idea for contest pilots to rattle around.... I believe it would be highly effective at reducing dangerous big gaggles that happen during contests. The desirables are that it doesn't damage the sport, it's effective at improving safety, it's easy to understand and it's easy to implement.
> > >
> > > The idea is inspired by the blog comments from one of the collision pilots at the recent Hahnweide contest where dense gaggles did lead to a mid-air (fortunately in that incident all 3 pilots successfully parachuted).
> > >
> > > Let's require flarm log files from all contestants. Let's designate a 1 point penalty whenever a glider comes within 400 feet horizontal and 150 feet vertical of any other glider. For any pair of gliders that come within penalty range, both are docked 1 point without regard to who approached who. After 5 minutes, the same two gliders will be docked again if they come within penalty range again.
> > >
> > > A 400 foot horizontal rule would allow two gliders to safely fly across from one another in a thermal without penalty. Perhaps three gliders could fly together in a thermal if they space out and open the circle. Most likely, though, penalty points would result if more than three gliders attempt to thermal at the same level.
> > >
> > > The effect would be to de-motivate gaggle flying. Everyone would want to avoid crowds before the start and on task in order to keep his penalty count low. Pilots would be caused to fly their own machine and think for themselves and that would make for a better test of soaring skill afterall.
> >
> > That's called a gaggle. You might as well penalize all the pilots before they launch.
> >
> > Tom
>
> 2G: I don't understand what you are trying to say. Yes, my expectation is that most everybody would probably end up getting at least a few penalty points each day despite trying to avoid flying too close to others. This would not usually
> affect results in a significant way -- just a little dither of a few points that would be a function of how attentive you are to the issue.
> Steve

If you fly contests you expect to fly in gaggles from time to time. To penalize pilots for doing what comes natural is wrong headed. Penalize them for flying in a clear, unsafe manner, like busting into the middle of a gaggle.. Flight logs now are clear evidence of that.

Tom

[Jim White[_3_]]

I have flown in many competitions both regionals and nationals. Most of us
know which pilots are the less safe and avoid them if possible (maybe
that's why I end up alone a lot!). I have also served on the safety
committee. My experience is that no one ever 'shops' a dodgy pilot to the
organisation. Something like at school! The attraction of logger evidence
is that it is impersonal. The problem is us.

Could we have anonymous reporting verified by trace evidence and a quiet
word instead? Would that be effective?

Jim

[[email protected]]

I am not sure of the actual stats, but collisions during contests doesn't strike me as one of the top risks in soaring, although by far it is the most dramatic and one would think also the most open to suggestions re: how to fix.

My main problem with a points fix or software based fix is that the assumption is that poor/dangerous flying (skill or bad attitude) can be seen a long time before the actual event and therefore by some behavior modification brought about by negative rewards, the problem is significantly reduced.

I am not believing it - I think the collision event happens with very little tell beforehand and for the most part dangerous pilots are already talk to - avoided in thermals - asked to leave the sport and generally persuaded not to fly in our contests where almost everyone knows everybody as friends..

There could be benefit in neg points making World class comps safer, but local/regional/ national races. Good luck changing the EU mind set.

I think the most effective way to help avoid collisions at SSA contests is to discuss close encounters as an agenda item of every pilots meeting, just like weather, safety talk and winners speeches.

That can do that with current files or just ask any one who had the rings screen come up on their Flarm or anyone who felt in danger, to tell the story about what happened in the air. My crew often says" we talk a good safety game on the ground and then become boys in the cockpit" - she is often right.

I have only felt unsafe a hand full of times in contests - there is no format to share to feeling or the experience. I think we need one.

WH

[Dan Marotta]

I have an idea - how about rally starts?

The expected winners will be assigned the latest start times, those with
little or no expectation of winning will start the earliest. Then there
would be no incentive for gaggling.Â* If you join a gaggle, you've
already lost and might as well withdraw or simply just fly for fun as
Mark says.

Or fly your own flight, not someone else's.Â* If you see someone
circling, you can't fly with him unless he's your team member. There's
way too much hanging on to everyone else's coattails.Â* I thought glider
pilots were individuals.

On 5/15/2018 8:04 PM, wrote:
> Gaggle flying is inherently dynamic. It changesas newcomers alter the position and flight path of those already established in the thermal lift. At the same time, everybody wants to out-climb everybody else, and blindly following or adapting to the guy directly opposite you might pitch you into the sink on the edge of the lift just because you and he are focused on making perfectly symmetrical circles and not paying attention to the core of the lift. Add in a few other gliders just above or below, and the situation can quickly become chaotic. Now, add in a penalty for coming "too close," and the dynamic changes again by introducing a factor that is not readily apparent, but can conceivably alter proper and courteous thermaling behavior.
>
> "Oh S#!+, where did that (fond euphemism) come from?" you pull tighter or roll level and now you are in someone else's "Safe Space" and at the end of the day you get docked 10 points (after several encounters over the course of the task.)
>
> You aren't doing anything but flying conservatively and as courteously as possible in a crowded thermal, but you might be penalized by taking evasive action that brings you into closer (but non-threatening) proximity of another glider. You saw him, and judged that your course deviation would minimize the risk of interfering with the first target, but you inadvertently got too close to someone else, as determined by the all seeing and all knowing Oz, the man behind the curtain. And the perfect flight analysis software, and the impeccable GPS data and the fact that discussions concerning intentions and results can add hours and hours to the joyous experience of the CD and scorekeeper.
>
> I say, "Bring it on!" Just another BS impractical rule to keep me from ever deciding to enter a contest. I was wavering, and starting to consider it, but a rule like this will definitely kill that misguided notion.
>
> Sleep late. Fly for fun.

--
Dan, 5J

[Alex[_6_]]

Let's face it, in current IGC rules sticking to the gaggle is a very efficient strategy. Consistent (and well executed) leaching is usually not enough to get you onto the podium, but it's a cheap ticket to a nice and comfy place in the top quartile. Even the really good pilots need to "work" with the gaggle to fence their risks, especially on difficult days.

In my opinion there are three good ways of addressing the issue:

1. A few years back there was an experiment with a software which would retrospectively score competitions on leaching/gaggle flying. Any pilot entering a thermal after the first four entrants would score leaching points. At the end of the day the points would be aggregated leading to a leaching ranking. The ranking worked very very well and nicely showed which pilots made gaggle flying their strategy.

Setting this kind of algorithm up to generate penalty points would be pretty easy. There could be thresholds to tolerate some level of gaggle flying. The penalties should be kept as small as possible - just to make a consistent gaggle strategy to expensive to be economical.

2. The start game is one of the most annoying parts of competition soaring. I really can't imagine who actually enjoys waiting around the airfield forever before starting the race. Unfortunately, on many days, you need to play the game to not lose out.

There are lot's of ideas on how to improve this situation. I like predeclared start times where each participant gets to declare three starting time relative
to the gate opening. For example, you predeclare (in secret) that you will start either 10 minutes or 25 minutes or 38 minutes after gate opening. That leaves enough room for making your own choices but makes it a lot more difficult to leach off the good guys.

3. Change the scoring formula so that fencing risks becomes a less of a winning strategy. Today you get no reward for being the lone finisher and are heavily
penalized for being the lone outlander. The scoring formula heavily incentivizes sticking to the gaggle. There are plenty of ways to change this.

[Tijl Schmelzer]

Yes, that summarizes exactly the problems, and the changes that should work to improve things.

Unfortunately it is not as easy to implement these general ideas into 1 coherent fair (and still fun) system, because there are many small unforeseen consequences.

If you could send me a link on to some information on the guys from the first bullet, I d like to have it to compare notes.

[waremark]

Whether or not you have a strategy to leach, conditions very often dictate that many pilots will use the same thermal. I don't think it would be appropriate to penalise the pilots who are later to arrive at the thermal. Anyway, I wonder whether we are addressing a real safety problem. I have had a midair and a few close encounters without either following or being followed.. I like the suggestion of asking for discussion of any close encounters at briefings/pilots meetings. I think it might encourage good airmanship.

[Sierra Whiskey]

No more rules. Just race.

This is the gliding equivalent of drafting in cycling, NASCAR, Speed Skating, Etc. All of which could cause serious or fatal injuries if done wrong.

Penalizing pilots for flying in close proximity to each other serves no purpose. Heads outside the cockpit, stop staring at the gadgets and gizmos, and go have a good old fashioned race!

[Chris Rowland[_2_]]

At 21:14 16 May 2018, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
>No more rules. Just race.
>
>This is the gliding equivalent of drafting in cycling, NASCAR, Speed
>Skating, Etc. All of which could cause serious or fatal injuries if done
>wrong.
>
>Penalizing pilots for flying in close proximity to each other serves no
>purpose. Heads outside the cockpit, stop staring at the gadgets and
gizmos,
>and go have a good old fashioned race!
>

As I see it the only practical way to prevent large groups of pilots
staying together is to do it in the same way as they do in cycling and
rallying - have a time trial where each pilot starts at a different time.
A sport where everyone starts at the same time, or at a time of the
participant's choosing, will lead to some sort of interaction between them.
Look at match racing in sailing, it's all about using the rules of sailing
to beat your opponent.

This means doing away with the pilot going through a start line at a time
of their choosing and goes to starting at the start of the flight. This is
how it used to be before the days of start lines and loggers.

Do competitors want to do this? Competition gliding has been trying to
move away from this towards pilots having the choice of exactly when to
start and this will inevitably led to grouping. It may not make you go
faster than your opponent but it can help you avoid doing worse.

Chris

[[email protected]]

As regards "leeching" (as opposed to "leaching, with reference to a soluble chemical or mineral, drain away from soil, ash, or similar material by the action of percolating liquid, especially rainwater)

Remember George Moffat's famous quote. "There just isn't a variometer like another sailplane."

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

> 3. Change the scoring formula so that fencing risks becomes a less of a winning strategy. Today you get no reward for being the lone finisher and are heavily penalized for being the lone outlander. The scoring formula heavily incentivizes sticking to the gaggle. There are plenty of ways to change this.

Here's one of them:
https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/8_2_2_usa_-_calculation_of_speed_and_distance_points_year_1_p rop.pdf

[Steve Koerner]

Thanks for the many considered responses here that came from competition pilots. It is good to know that the US proposal to FAI was accepted. After reading the material that Ron Gleason linked, it’s pretty obvious that the US improved scoring method will reduce the gaggle incentive that is so evident at the WGC level. This is sure to improve the WGC mid-air statistics over the long run and make for a better contest for the other reasons cited as well.

The suggestion of my original post would likely go much further to reduce gaggling and improve safety yet there were quite a few concerns expressed - a couple of which I think are valid.

The suggestion #2 made by Alex in his May 16 comment, is quite an excellent idea. I now would lend my support to that idea as the best solution -- better really than my own suggestion at the top of the thread.

After thinking about it, I would suggest a small change to Alex’s #2 proposal. Alex said that each contestant picks his own three secret start times for each day. That would be itself something of a burdensome process and could lead to collusion scenarios among contestants. Here would be my alternative suggestion wherein the contest sets everyone’s start times:

At the beginning of the contest, each contestant is given a list of unique secret start times, one for each contest day. Each such start time is a randomly generated number between 0 and 19. This sheet of start times is analogous to the the sheet of grid positions that we are typically given at the start of contests except that it is custom created for each contestant and is delivered in secret (probably sent to contestants by email). The number for each day is your modulo-20 start time. An example: For day 1, my secret number is 7. That means that my start will be scored as 12:07 or 12:27 or 12:47 or 13:07 or …. Let’s say that the gate opens on day 1 at 12:15, I can start immediately at 12:15 which would be wasting 8 minutes or I could hold off until one of my later start times. This system will most surely spread the field. It will reduce gaggle tendency, reduce start time roulette and reduce leeching. Safety will be improved quite a bit.

As a small further refinement, a massage of the random numbers could ensure even better spreading so that for a field of less than 21 contestants, no two contestants get the same secret number and for a field between 21 and 41, no more than two pilots get the same time assignment, etc.

This might lead to some interesting, and I think harmless, pre-launch interaction among contestants. Those who are most concerned about leeching will surely want to keep their secret number secret. Those lower on the score sheet might choose to publish their start time with the hope of finding out in advance who they will be starting with for the day and perhaps getting a little advantage in arranging to fly together before the start.

Can contest pilots get behind this type of approach?

[[email protected]]

Suppose all pilots would be required to have a semi-loud, annoying, Beep - Beep - Beep sound whenever they were in close proximity to another glider?

Tom Knauff

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:10:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Suppose all pilots would be required to have a semi-loud, annoying,
> Beep - Beep - Beep sound
> whenever they were in close proximity to another glider?
>
> Tom Knauff

They already do - its called a vario.

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 4:47:53 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Thanks for the many considered responses here that came from competition pilots. It is good to know that the US proposal to FAI was accepted. After reading the material that Ron Gleason linked, it’s pretty obvious that the US improved scoring method will reduce the gaggle incentive that is so evident at the WGC level. This is sure to improve the WGC mid-air statistics over the long run and make for a better contest for the other reasons cited as well.
>
> The suggestion of my original post would likely go much further to reduce gaggling and improve safety yet there were quite a few concerns expressed - a couple of which I think are valid.
>
> The suggestion #2 made by Alex in his May 16 comment, is quite an excellent idea. I now would lend my support to that idea as the best solution -- better really than my own suggestion at the top of the thread.
>
> After thinking about it, I would suggest a small change to Alex’s #2 proposal. Alex said that each contestant picks his own three secret start times for each day. That would be itself something of a burdensome process and could lead to collusion scenarios among contestants. Here would be my alternative suggestion wherein the contest sets everyone’s start times:
>
> At the beginning of the contest, each contestant is given a list of unique secret start times, one for each contest day. Each such start time is a randomly generated number between 0 and 19. This sheet of start times is analogous to the the sheet of grid positions that we are typically given at the start of contests except that it is custom created for each contestant and is delivered in secret (probably sent to contestants by email). The number for each day is your modulo-20 start time. An example: For day 1, my secret number is 7. That means that my start will be scored as 12:07 or 12:27 or 12:47 or 13:07 or …. Let’s say that the gate opens on day 1 at 12:15, I can start immediately at 12:15 which would be wasting 8 minutes or I could hold off until one of my later start times. This system will most surely spread the field. It will reduce gaggle tendency, reduce start time roulette and reduce leeching. Safety will be improved quite a bit.
>
> As a small further refinement, a massage of the random numbers could ensure even better spreading so that for a field of less than 21 contestants, no two contestants get the same secret number and for a field between 21 and 41, no more than two pilots get the same time assignment, etc.
>
> This might lead to some interesting, and I think harmless, pre-launch interaction among contestants. Those who are most concerned about leeching will surely want to keep their secret number secret. Those lower on the score sheet might choose to publish their start time with the hope of finding out in advance who they will be starting with for the day and perhaps getting a little advantage in arranging to fly together before the start.
>
> Can contest pilots get behind this type of approach?

I like your idea Steve. Lets try it at a regional.

[krasw]

On Sunday, 20 May 2018 02:47:53 UTC+3, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Thanks for the many considered responses here that came from competition pilots. It is good to know that the US proposal to FAI was accepted. After reading the material that Ron Gleason linked, it’s pretty obvious that the US improved scoring method will reduce the gaggle incentive that is so evident at the WGC level.

IGC gave another year for US proposal because US delegates wanted to iron out problems with devaluation scheme. It was not accepted, that will take another 2 years minimum.

After discussing proposal with WGC pilots we concluded that new formula will change nothing and incentive to fly solo is just not there.

[Henning Pedersen]

It is called a flarm. We have it all The Club planes and most of The private planes. (Øsf. Denmark)

[Steve Koerner]

On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:12:47 AM UTC-7, Henning Pedersen wrote:
> It is called a flarm. We have it all The Club planes and most of The private planes. (Øsf. Denmark)

Flarm is fantastic. It's widely adopted in the US now too. My own guess is that Flarm is preventing about half of the collisions at contests where everyone has it.

Doesn't that leave plenty enough collision hazard to motivate this discussion and plenty enough reason to continue trying to fix the problem?

[[email protected]]

When ever I see something about safety (really "how to survive feeding my Sailplane addiction) I usually read most of the posts until they go of subject.

In this case (while trying to rationalize hwy I am doing contests) I decided to google it.... "cause of glider accidents" just as a fact finding mission. Try it..... pretty interesting

http://www.airsailing.org/downloads/safety/Glider%20Accidents%20and%20Prevention%20R24B.pdf

I have a FLARM - a transponder - thinking about putting a stob into the vertical.... would probably paint the glider hot pink if some one proved it avoided a collision :)

The question is " will rule changes add significantly to safety, REALLY - or get us to the point where the sport is no longer enjoyable" - I know this is a very serious subject and even one collision is one to many - but - many of the suggestions seriously affect the core concepts of the sport and make an already difficult sport to score and follow, even harder.

The newest concept in Sailplane racing "Grand Prix" is in a totally different direction from most of the posts I have read in this thread.

Seems to me to be a measure twice cut once issue - the unintended consequences need to be thought about.

WH

[andrzop]

> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 19:47:15 UTC+2, Steve Koerner wrote:

> Flarm is fantastic. ...


Really? In recent years collided only gliders equipped with Flarm. Whether the global number of collisions has decreased in comparison to the period before Flarm? Flarm causes gaggles and causes a false belief that the pilot is safe.

[Steve Koerner]

On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 11:31:44 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> When ever I see something about safety (really "how to survive feeding my Sailplane addiction) I usually read most of the posts until they go of subject.
>
> In this case (while trying to rationalize hwy I am doing contests) I decided to google it.... "cause of glider accidents" just as a fact finding mission. Try it..... pretty interesting
>
> http://www.airsailing.org/downloads/safety/Glider%20Accidents%20and%20Prevention%20R24B.pdf
>
> I have a FLARM - a transponder - thinking about putting a stob into the vertical.... would probably paint the glider hot pink if some one proved it avoided a collision :)
>
> The question is " will rule changes add significantly to safety, REALLY - or get us to the point where the sport is no longer enjoyable" - I know this is a very serious subject and even one collision is one to many - but - many of the suggestions seriously affect the core concepts of the sport and make an already difficult sport to score and follow, even harder.
>
> The newest concept in Sailplane racing "Grand Prix" is in a totally different direction from most of the posts I have read in this thread.
>
> Seems to me to be a measure twice cut once issue - the unintended consequences need to be thought about.
>
> WH

Hey WH: Like you, I keep a bucket of cold water at hand for new rule ideas that come up on RAS -- most are not good ideas. But surely you'll agree that every now and then it's possible that an idea might arise that is sensible. So let's be specific here, if that is possible. Please reread Alex's May 16 post and my May 19 post above and think on whether or not that particular suggestion might be worthwhile for contest safety and whether that suggestion would damage enjoyment. For myself, I think playing start gate roulette and flying in huge gaggles is not really so enjoyable that it deserves to be preserved in the sport on that basis.

[[email protected]]

I do agree and that is why I read RAS - sometimes good ideas and things to ponder come up - and I am not against new rules to make flying safer and new gadgets to let me see other flying objects and they see me :)

I think pondering ideas is good - but many times what seems ok on paper, in practice does not get the result hoped for. Sorry I am not usually the cold water :) LOL

I also think start gate timing can be hazardous and gaggle flying increases risk and is boring. (we are after all in the US where independence is supposed to be rewarded) - it is a complicated issue to solve.

If you give start times - some pilots will get a huge advantage - they got a climb at the right time - their time was at the best time of day...... separate everyone by 2 minutes and at Sr's in FL takes 2 hours+ to get everyone on task. I think that is a problem and I am not so sure it stops glider from forming gaggles (although smaller).

One of the Soaring 101 things to do in a contest the books/mentors all say, is to use your eyes looking for other gliders circling and to see the best line to run. If you get a penalty for reaching a few circling gliders and then joining the thermal - or running a line only to find out you catch up for a few gliders..... doesn't that fundamentally change the nature of the sport?

I thought the whole TAT type task was made to try to create separation - (I am fairly new to Soaring) - and I think there are those pilots that believe TAT tasks changed the nature of the sport. (I like TAT's MAT's AT's by the way)

I guess all I am saying really is that I would love to read about a idea - then some day read about how it was tried at a local/small contest so there could be some science behind a rule change.

I am fine with rule changes as long as they get the intended result and not so many unintended problems.

My ideas -
1. Incentivize leaving early - why not a bonus for finishing first to return. or maybe the first 3 to return.
2. Don't devalue days. All devaluing does make week days have less incentive to start early, start alone or start at all.

I think I like positive feedback better than penalties :)

My .02

WH

[[email protected]]

The solution is simple. Use the rules for the sailplane race at the World Air Games in Dubai. Or copy the old skydiving blade running canopy competitions and put air race pylons down a mountain. Be better for spectators. Everyone cares about that, right? If we want to race using columns of God's energy we are going to have gliders in the same place, no matter how thick the rule book gets.

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 06:21:30 UTC-6, wrote:
> I do agree and that is why I read RAS - sometimes good ideas and things to ponder come up - and I am not against new rules to make flying safer and new gadgets to let me see other flying objects and they see me :)
>
> I think pondering ideas is good - but many times what seems ok on paper, in practice does not get the result hoped for. Sorry I am not usually the cold water :) LOL
>
> I also think start gate timing can be hazardous and gaggle flying increases risk and is boring. (we are after all in the US where independence is supposed to be rewarded) - it is a complicated issue to solve.
>
> If you give start times - some pilots will get a huge advantage - they got a climb at the right time - their time was at the best time of day...... separate everyone by 2 minutes and at Sr's in FL takes 2 hours+ to get everyone on task. I think that is a problem and I am not so sure it stops glider from forming gaggles (although smaller).
>
> One of the Soaring 101 things to do in a contest the books/mentors all say, is to use your eyes looking for other gliders circling and to see the best line to run. If you get a penalty for reaching a few circling gliders and then joining the thermal - or running a line only to find out you catch up for a few gliders..... doesn't that fundamentally change the nature of the sport?
>
> I thought the whole TAT type task was made to try to create separation - (I am fairly new to Soaring) - and I think there are those pilots that believe TAT tasks changed the nature of the sport. (I like TAT's MAT's AT's by the way)
>
> I guess all I am saying really is that I would love to read about a idea - then some day read about how it was tried at a local/small contest so there could be some science behind a rule change.
>
> I am fine with rule changes as long as they get the intended result and not so many unintended problems.
>
> My ideas -
> 1. Incentivize leaving early - why not a bonus for finishing first to return. or maybe the first 3 to return.
> 2. Don't devalue days. All devaluing does make week days have less incentive to start early, start alone or start at all.
>
> I think I like positive feedback better than penalties :)
>
> My .02
>
> WH

IMO we should look at the hang glider and para glider folks and some concepts they have implemented to address some of these issues

- for starts, a entry cylinder versus a exit cylinder. First leg is 50 miles long, you can define the start ENTRY cylinder centered on the first TP with diameter of 45 miles. This allows folks to spread out along the radius of the cylinder and start when the ENTER the cylinder. May not work well with performance of gliders as the early launchers can really have a better shot at a better starting position.

- leading points. For folks that take the chance and go early and lead out you get rewarded. Many calculations and things to consider

a few more that can be found in this document, if you are so inclined, https://flafly63.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/2016-civl-gap-v1-1.pdf

Ron Gleason