US COMPETITION RULES COMMITTEE 2018 POLL RESULTS

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Results of the US Competition Rules Committee 2018 Poll are now posted on the Contest Rules and Process page of SSA.org. Thanks to the large number of pilots who provided responses and detailed feedback. The Committee looks forward to further input and dialog as we head into the 2019 season.

https://www.ssa.org/files/member/2018_Pilot_Opinion_Poll_Data_with_Comments..pdf

For the Competition Rules Committee,

Andy Blackburn
9B

[krasw]

On Wednesday, 14 November 2018 23:47:15 UTC+2, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Results of the US Competition Rules Committee 2018 Poll are now posted on the Contest Rules and Process page of SSA.org. Thanks to the large number of pilots who provided responses and detailed feedback. The Committee looks forward to further input and dialog as we head into the 2019 season.
>
> https://www.ssa.org/files/member/2018_Pilot_Opinion_Poll_Data_with_Comments.pdf
>
> For the Competition Rules Committee,
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

You have misread FAI SC3 Annex A. The paper talks about mandatory task mix of at least of 1/3 AATs or ASTs. Nowhere in Annex A does it say so. The rule is:

"6.1 TASK TYPES The following task types are available for use during the
Championships. A single task type should not be used for more than 67% of the
Championship Days in each class.
• Racing Task
• Assigned Area Task "

The wording is SHOULD. It means "try to do it like this, but it's not safe or possible, do whatever you like.". You interpret SHOULD as a MUST, which is not the spirit of this rule. It is there to give some sort of guidance, not telling you to set AST task to rain because you have run out of AATs.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Thanks for pointing that out. You are quite correct on the wording.

The arguments for and against the move to FAI Rules were crafted by proponents and opponents to the move. The specific argument against that you reference was based on the view from opponents that the FAI guidance on task mix tends to be adhered to in practice much more rigorously than a “do what makes the most sense to maximize completions” type of guidance. It would require a more rigorous analytical exercise to determine whether FAI Rules as currently constructed and interpreted result in more incomplete tasks than under US Rules, but that was the argument put to the US Pilot community. That, coupled with the contention that the US has fewer motorgliders, sustainers and competitors with crews, was the spirit behind the perspective that FAI Rules might result in more problematic offield landings and thereby lead to reduced participation.

I wish we had the resources to resolve all these issues analytically. We’d welcome statistical evidence from FAI-based contests that deviated significantly from the FAI guidelines. Certainly US rules based on FAI could employ local procedures that further emphasize completions as a goal if that was viewed as a positive feature by the pilot community.

Andy Blackburn
Chair, SSA Competition Rules Committee

[Jim White[_3_]]

Our experience with Distance Handicap Tasks is that they dramatically
reduce land outs, especially with the lower handicapped non turbo gliders.

Easy to set, easy to score, see www.handicaptask.uk for details. Also take
a look at https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/icl-final-2018/
for an example. I directed this comp over a weekend. The only land outs
were two pundits in JS1c's pushing too hard.

Jim

[krasw]

On Friday, 16 November 2018 05:23:47 UTC+2, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Thanks for pointing that out. You are quite correct on the wording.
>
> The arguments for and against the move to FAI Rules were crafted by proponents and opponents to the move. The specific argument against that you reference was based on the view from opponents that the FAI guidance on task mix tends to be adhered to in practice much more rigorously than a “do what makes the most sense to maximize completions” type of guidance. It would require a more rigorous analytical exercise to determine whether FAI Rules as currently constructed and interpreted result in more incomplete tasks than under US Rules, but that was the argument put to the US Pilot community. That, coupled with the contention that the US has fewer motorgliders, sustainers and competitors with crews, was the spirit behind the perspective that FAI Rules might result in more problematic offield landings and thereby lead to reduced participation.
>
> I wish we had the resources to resolve all these issues analytically. We’d welcome statistical evidence from FAI-based contests that deviated significantly from the FAI guidelines. Certainly US rules based on FAI could employ local procedures that further emphasize completions as a goal if that was viewed as a positive feature by the pilot community.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> Chair, SSA Competition Rules Committee

That particular rule has been misread by many competition directors, even at WGC level. I've witnessed mass land-out on AST on hopeless day. Asked why was AAT not given afterwards. "The rules say so" was comp. directors answer.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 5:00:06 AM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> Our experience with Distance Handicap Tasks is that they dramatically
> reduce land outs, especially with the lower handicapped non turbo gliders..
>
> Easy to set, easy to score, see www.handicaptask.uk for details. Also take
> a look at https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/icl-final-2018/
> for an example. I directed this comp over a weekend. The only land outs
> were two pundits in JS1c's pushing too hard.
>
> Jim

How is this approach better than turn-area (AAT/TAT) tasks with large turn circles? Often the ratio of the maximum to minimum distance in such a task is 2:1 or larger, allowing a wide range of glider performance. The required distance is implicitly related to glider performance via the required minimum time on task. One difference I can see is that in a traditional turn area task those flying higher performance gliders are allowed to fly the shorter distance if they so choose. That would be a desired choice for those who end up flying the task at low speed despite the theoretical performance of the glider. It allows them to still get scored as having completed the task, albeit at low speed. Also, if bad weather makes a turnpoint inaccessible, one can just nick the circle, and either fly deeper into other circles or accept the under-minimum-time penalty. With the distance handicap approach, higher-performance gliders may be forced further into bad weather..