WWGC. [Archive] - AviationBanter

krasw

January 17th 20, 10:48 AM

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 12:32:37 PM UTC+2, krasw wrote:
> perjantai 17. tammikuuta 2020 8.47.08 UTC+2 krasw kirjoitti:
> > Hundreds of people around the world are trying to follow the scores and then we see on scoreboard "unsportsmanlike behaviour" with penaltys that actually change scores in every class, even one medalist is dropped to 4th place.
> >
> > AND NOT A WORD OF EXPLANATION. Just business as usual. Here are some nice pictures from the grid.
>
> And now people are asking about this via their FB page and yes you guessed it, they are deleting comments.

Well this is awkward:

https://segelflug.aero/blog/blog/2020/01/17/what-means-sportiness/

Google translated:

"Now back to the tracking systems:

One of them was tried out here in the competition and enabled all pilots to be shown with a delay of 15 minutes. At the end of the flight, this was reduced to 0 min.

Here is an example from the club class of the last day of the classification. The tracking time is shown at the top right. This picture then appears 15 minutes later on our displays.

Unfortunately, it now turned out that the Australian team, represented by *********, used the "raw data" for their pilots without delay.

The team captains rated this as "unsporting behavior". In the following hours there were four protests from different teams, the outcome of which we wait and then publish. (First of all, there was a point deduction of 250 points for every Australian pilot on the last day of the evaluation).

Our opinion is: "We don't just see the bypassing of the time delay as individual, sporty trifles. It affects all gliding sports in terms of fairness and sportiness, which we are committed to."

Paul T[_4_]

January 17th 20, 03:16 PM

At 10:48 17 January 2020, krasw wrote:
>On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 12:32:37 PM UTC+2, krasw wrote:
>> perjantai 17. tammikuuta 2020 8.47.08 UTC+2 krasw kirjoitti:
>> > Hundreds of people around the world are trying to follow the
scores
>and=
> then we see on scoreboard "unsportsmanlike behaviour" with
penaltys that
>a=
>ctually change scores in every class, even one medalist is dropped
to 4th
>p=
>lace.
>> >=20
>> > AND NOT A WORD OF EXPLANATION. Just business as usual.
Here are some
>ni=
>ce pictures from the grid.
>>=20
>> And now people are asking about this via their FB page and yes
you
>guesse=
>d it, they are deleting comments.
>
>Well this is awkward:
>
>https://segelflug.aero/blog/blog/2020/01/17/what-means-
sportiness/
>
>Google translated:
>
>"Now back to the tracking systems:
>
>One of them was tried out here in the competition and enabled all
pilots
>to=
> be shown with a delay of 15 minutes. At the end of the flight, this
was
>re=
>duced to 0 min.
>
>Here is an example from the club class of the last day of the
>classificatio=
>n. The tracking time is shown at the top right. This picture then
appears
>1=
>5 minutes later on our displays.
>
>Unfortunately, it now turned out that the Australian team,
represented by
>*=
>********, used the "raw data" for their pilots without delay.
>
>The team captains rated this as "unsporting behavior". In the
following
>hou=
>rs there were four protests from different teams, the outcome of
which we
>w=
>ait and then publish. (First of all, there was a point deduction of
250
>poi=
>nts for every Australian pilot on the last day of the evaluation).
>
>Our opinion is: "We don't just see the bypassing of the time delay
as
>indiv=
>idual, sporty trifles. It affects all gliding sports in terms of fairness
>a=
>nd sportiness, which we are committed to."

All goes back to what we want from a WGC? - the sport seems to
have 'morphed' from one where it was predominately individual
against individual using very little external aids into one where it
seems team flying and external team direction using sophisticated
technology as become the norm, if the team can afford it. IGC needs
not to be lead by the manufacturers and larger well funded
European teams -which unfortunately its seems is too often the
case.

[email protected]

January 17th 20, 04:01 PM

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-5, Paul T wrote:
> At 10:48 17 January 2020, krasw wrote:
> >On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 12:32:37 PM UTC+2, krasw wrote:
> >> perjantai 17. tammikuuta 2020 8.47.08 UTC+2 krasw kirjoitti:
> >> > Hundreds of people around the world are trying to follow the
> scores
> >and=
> > then we see on scoreboard "unsportsmanlike behaviour" with
> penaltys that
> >a=
> >ctually change scores in every class, even one medalist is dropped
> to 4th
> >p=
> >lace.
> >> >=20
> >> > AND NOT A WORD OF EXPLANATION. Just business as usual.
> Here are some
> >ni=
> >ce pictures from the grid.
> >>=20
> >> And now people are asking about this via their FB page and yes
> you
> >guesse=
> >d it, they are deleting comments.
> >
> >Well this is awkward:
> >
> >https://segelflug.aero/blog/blog/2020/01/17/what-means-
> sportiness/
> >
> >Google translated:
> >
> >"Now back to the tracking systems:
> >
> >One of them was tried out here in the competition and enabled all
> pilots
> >to=
> > be shown with a delay of 15 minutes. At the end of the flight, this
> was
> >re=
> >duced to 0 min.
> >
> >Here is an example from the club class of the last day of the
> >classificatio=
> >n. The tracking time is shown at the top right. This picture then
> appears
> >1=
> >5 minutes later on our displays.
> >
> >Unfortunately, it now turned out that the Australian team,
> represented by
> >*=
> >********, used the "raw data" for their pilots without delay.
> >
> >The team captains rated this as "unsporting behavior". In the
> following
> >hou=
> >rs there were four protests from different teams, the outcome of
> which we
> >w=
> >ait and then publish. (First of all, there was a point deduction of
> 250
> >poi=
> >nts for every Australian pilot on the last day of the evaluation).
> >
> >Our opinion is: "We don't just see the bypassing of the time delay
> as
> >indiv=
> >idual, sporty trifles. It affects all gliding sports in terms of fairness
> >a=
> >nd sportiness, which we are committed to."
>
>
>
> All goes back to what we want from a WGC? - the sport seems to
> have 'morphed' from one where it was predominately individual
> against individual using very little external aids into one where it
> seems team flying and external team direction using sophisticated
> technology as become the norm, if the team can afford it. IGC needs
> not to be lead by the manufacturers and larger well funded
> European teams -which unfortunately its seems is too often the
> case.

Let the well funded Europeans run WGCs, makes American victories sweeter.

[email protected]

January 17th 20, 06:11 PM

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 2:48:24 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 12:32:37 PM UTC+2, krasw wrote:
> > perjantai 17. tammikuuta 2020 8.47.08 UTC+2 krasw kirjoitti:
> > > Hundreds of people around the world are trying to follow the scores and then we see on scoreboard "unsportsmanlike behaviour" with penaltys that actually change scores in every class, even one medalist is dropped to 4th place.
> > >
> > > AND NOT A WORD OF EXPLANATION. Just business as usual. Here are some nice pictures from the grid.
> >
> > And now people are asking about this via their FB page and yes you guessed it, they are deleting comments.
>
> Well this is awkward:
>
> https://segelflug.aero/blog/blog/2020/01/17/what-means-sportiness/
>
> Google translated:
>
> "Now back to the tracking systems:
>
> One of them was tried out here in the competition and enabled all pilots to be shown with a delay of 15 minutes. At the end of the flight, this was reduced to 0 min.
>
> Here is an example from the club class of the last day of the classification. The tracking time is shown at the top right. This picture then appears 15 minutes later on our displays.
>
> Unfortunately, it now turned out that the Australian team, represented by *********, used the "raw data" for their pilots without delay.
>
> The team captains rated this as "unsporting behavior". In the following hours there were four protests from different teams, the outcome of which we wait and then publish. (First of all, there was a point deduction of 250 points for every Australian pilot on the last day of the evaluation).
>
> Our opinion is: "We don't just see the bypassing of the time delay as individual, sporty trifles. It affects all gliding sports in terms of fairness and sportiness, which we are committed to."

Now that the information is out, it seems a fair penalty. Unfortunate for the pilots, impossible to know the degree of complicity there, if any. I'd feel like a pretty big idiot right now if I was the coach of Jo Davis. This took her off the podium at a world championship. That will sting.
The advantage of cheating was used (to whatever degree) every day of the contest and so to me the penalty now seems appropriate. That said I really have no idea, I'm not a contest pilot, but it would equate to about a 20 point penalty per day, eliminating any real likelyhood of winning, which it should.
Seems obvious to me that any reasonably honest soul can see that hacking the tracking info is unfair play, and would obviously be illegal. The 15 min.. delay is there for obvious reasons. It's a soaring contest, not an IT contest. It doesn't need to be written down anywhere to be enforced. It's cheating.
And it seems there is a larger and larger group of people that are able to come up with justifications for what is obviously that.

krasw

January 17th 20, 07:09 PM

On Friday, 17 January 2020 20:11:52 UTC+2, wrote:
>
> Now that the information is out, it seems a fair penalty. Unfortunate for the pilots, impossible to know the degree of complicity there, if any. I'd feel like a pretty big idiot right now if I was the coach of Jo Davis. This took her off the podium at a world championship. That will sting.
> The advantage of cheating was used (to whatever degree) every day of the contest and so to me the penalty now seems appropriate. That said I really have no idea, I'm not a contest pilot, but it would equate to about a 20 point penalty per day, eliminating any real likelyhood of winning, which it should.
> Seems obvious to me that any reasonably honest soul can see that hacking the tracking info is unfair play, and would obviously be illegal. The 15 min. delay is there for obvious reasons. It's a soaring contest, not an IT contest. It doesn't need to be written down anywhere to be enforced. It's cheating.
> And it seems there is a larger and larger group of people that are able to come up with justifications for what is obviously that.

True, it was a fair penalty and this is going to be an important precedent.

"Ground controlling" the pilots is something that whole team has to bear the responsibility, not only the guy on the ground telling relaying info. Medal was lost because of the penalty, but it might as well be won because of cheating.

Dan Marotta

January 17th 20, 07:39 PM

Doping race horses, throwing a boxing match, stealing baseball signals,
and now this.Â* Whoda thunk it?

On 1/17/2020 12:09 PM, krasw wrote:
> On Friday, 17 January 2020 20:11:52 UTC+2, wrote:
>> Now that the information is out, it seems a fair penalty. Unfortunate for the pilots, impossible to know the degree of complicity there, if any. I'd feel like a pretty big idiot right now if I was the coach of Jo Davis. This took her off the podium at a world championship. That will sting.
>> The advantage of cheating was used (to whatever degree) every day of the contest and so to me the penalty now seems appropriate. That said I really have no idea, I'm not a contest pilot, but it would equate to about a 20 point penalty per day, eliminating any real likelyhood of winning, which it should.
>> Seems obvious to me that any reasonably honest soul can see that hacking the tracking info is unfair play, and would obviously be illegal. The 15 min. delay is there for obvious reasons. It's a soaring contest, not an IT contest. It doesn't need to be written down anywhere to be enforced. It's cheating.
>> And it seems there is a larger and larger group of people that are able to come up with justifications for what is obviously that.
> True, it was a fair penalty and this is going to be an important precedent.
>
> "Ground controlling" the pilots is something that whole team has to bear the responsibility, not only the guy on the ground telling relaying info. Medal was lost because of the penalty, but it might as well be won because of cheating.

--
Dan, 5J

Tango Eight

January 17th 20, 08:56 PM

Huge resources are committed to WGC. I think the organizers and the sanctioning body owe the competitors a fair competition at a minimum.

225 pts means you aren't serious about the infraction, and you look forward to more of the same.

T8

BobW

January 17th 20, 10:19 PM

> Huge resources are committed to WGC. I think the organizers and the
> sanctioning body owe the competitors a fair competition at a minimum.
>
> 225 pts means you aren't serious about the infraction, and you look forward
> to more of the same.

Congratulations to Sarah Arnold !and every other competitor who abided by the
rules, explicit and implicit)!!!

Opining as someone 100% ignorant of the rules as they apply to this sort of
cheating, were I king, the entire team woulda been disqualified, end of
discussion. Kinda-sorta related, can anyone advise me where I can go to have
my moral compass inexpensively removed?

Bob W.

Charlie Quebec

January 17th 20, 10:21 PM

It cost one pilot a win, thatâ€™s a pretty fair sanction.

Al McNamara[_4_]

January 17th 20, 10:52 PM

At 22:21 17 January 2020, Charlie Quebec wrote:
>It cost one pilot a win, that=E2=80=99s a pretty fair sanction.
>
So having looked at the rules, I can't see anything which forbids this in
this competition. No 'hacking' was involved. There are lots of freely
available sites that show the live data.

The UK competition rules were changed last year to specifically forbid
this, but the rules of this comp don't appear to have done so. I wonder
what the US rules say?

Charlie Quebec

January 17th 20, 11:08 PM

The problem was accessing the live tracking without a delay, via pst access allowed. This gave an unfair advantage apparently.

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 17th 20, 11:11 PM

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 6:00:05 PM UTC-5, Al McNamara wrote:
> At 22:21 17 January 2020, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> >It cost one pilot a win, that=E2=80=99s a pretty fair sanction.
> >
> So having looked at the rules, I can't see anything which forbids this in
> this competition. No 'hacking' was involved. There are lots of freely
> available sites that show the live data.
>
> The UK competition rules were changed last year to specifically forbid
> this, but the rules of this comp don't appear to have done so. I wonder
> what the US rules say?

I'm guessing that it was from Local Procedures V9.1 para 4.1.1.c: Carriage of GNSS data transmitters for public displays
The organizers will require competing sailplanes to carry GNSS data transmitters to enable the public display of GNSS flight records during competition flights. Such display will not begin before the start line is opened and the actual positions of the sailplanes shall be displayed with a time delay of at least 15 minutes. This delay may be reduced to zero prior the finish..

Al McNamara[_4_]

January 17th 20, 11:30 PM

At 23:11 17 January 2020, Dan Daly wrote:
>On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 6:00:05 PM UTC-5, Al McNamara wrote:
>> At 22:21 17 January 2020, Charlie Quebec wrote:
>> >It cost one pilot a win, that=3DE2=3D80=3D99s a pretty fair sanction.
>> >
>> So having looked at the rules, I can't see anything which forbids this
in
>> this competition. No 'hacking' was involved. There are lots of freely
>> available sites that show the live data.
>>=20
>> The UK competition rules were changed last year to specifically forbid
>> this, but the rules of this comp don't appear to have done so. I
wonder
>> what the US rules say?
>
>I'm guessing that it was from Local Procedures V9.1 para 4.1.1.c:
Carriage
>=
>of GNSS data transmitters for public displays
>The organizers will require competing sailplanes to carry GNSS data
>transmi=
>tters to enable the public display of GNSS flight records during
>competitio=
>n flights. Such display will not begin before the start line is opened
and
>=
>the actual positions of the sailplanes shall be displayed with a time
>delay=
> of at least 15 minutes. This delay may be reduced to zero prior the
>finish=
But nothing which forbids teams from accessing live data via any of the
many sites that show it, and nothing which restricts what teams can discuss
with pilots on the allocated frequencies. I'm not suggesting that we
should be allowing this in competitions going forward (but ultimately do
wonder how it can be effectively policed) rather questioning whether any
rules in this comp were actually broken.

[email protected]

January 17th 20, 11:46 PM

If anything, the penality response to the 2019 WWGC "real time tracking" has sent the message its OK to cheat in FAI soaring competitions. How disgraceful, how disappointing! A one-time 225 point penality is absurd considering it "covers" 9 days of scoring.

So the question ... what should the penality be in this instance? Opining: First, team pilots should be given a contest score of 1 point per contest day. Following: Team management, technicians, and pilots should be banned from the premisess of any World Gliding Championships for the next two championships.

Directed to Eric Mozer and Rick Sheppe: It is my deepest hope the IGC will amend Annex A to install harsher penalties for rule infractions deemed "Unsporting Behavior". Above and beyond all, soaring needs to eliminate cheating.

IGC, please step up.

[email protected]

January 18th 20, 12:17 AM

Statement:

â€œ On the final day of competition, a complaint was lodged that alleged the Australian Team had gained unauthorized access to undelayed data from the official competition tracking system. This was the system that all competitors were compelled to use. Following an investigation, a penalty of 250pts was applied to all Australian Team competitors.

Four protests were subsequently lodged in both support (further penalties including disqualification) and defence (removal of the penalty). The jury deliberated for 6 hours and called on the assistance of a number of IT experts that included the system designer. The ultimate outcome being a 225pt overall penalty to all Australian competitors. The penalty was levied for a team action and as such, does not infer infringement by individual Australian pilots.â€

Tango Eight

January 18th 20, 12:36 AM

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 7:17:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Statement:
>
> â€œ On the final day of competition, a complaint was lodged that alleged the Australian Team had gained unauthorized access to undelayed data from the official competition tracking system. This was the system that all competitors were compelled to use. Following an investigation, a penalty of 250pts was applied to all Australian Team competitors.
>
> Four protests were subsequently lodged in both support (further penalties including disqualification) and defence (removal of the penalty). The jury deliberated for 6 hours and called on the assistance of a number of IT experts that included the system designer. The ultimate outcome being a 225pt overall penalty to all Australian competitors. The penalty was levied for a team action and as such, does not infer infringement by individual Australian pilots.â€

Are the protests available for spectators like us to read?

T8

WaltWX[_2_]

January 18th 20, 12:40 AM

This infringement was on the "official competition tracking system". OGN like receiving stations already provide real-time data from FLARM and many teams already use this source (UN-delayed tracking). What I don't know is whether the rules prohibit that access. Some of the well funded teams place their own OGN trackers around a task area to gain access to real-time (FLARM) tracking.

A similar issue about access to real-time information in the cockpit comes up with respect to weather data. U.S. Rules now allow access to that... mainly because with smartphones and ubiquitous Internet... it's near impossible to enforce a rule prohibiting it.

Walt WX

Tom BravoMike

January 18th 20, 01:56 AM

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 9:21:51 PM UTC-6, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> Interesting news, the entire Australian team has been penalised for unsporting behaviour on the last day.. A protest is currently being heard.
> The bun fight at the Keepit corral.

So the solution is... to stop fighting it. Make the teams on the ground be part of the 'team flying', like in car racing the crews in the pitstops compete how fast they can change the tires and influence the results. Let the competition be OPEN and viewable in real time to the organizers, scorers, safety teams and viewers on-line. Don't make it so complicated and vulnerable to cheating, don't make it unsafe by limiting the anti-collision solutions and devices. Don't want the others to overhear your radio? Speak Navajo.... The air masses change all the time, nobody will ever fly in exactly same conditions, strategic and tactic decisions will still need to be made; the results will still depend on pilots' skills and on glider make and model and on how polished the wings are - and on good luck. Tightening the screws of the regulations in reaction to the progress in technology will result in endless suspicions, penalties and protests and suits, and will take away all the fun of it, whatever fun is left there in the current situation.

[email protected]

January 18th 20, 07:57 AM

And from there on impose a way to disrupt team flying. Solution: Different start time Windows, with pilots randomly changing assigned windows each day. Too many rules...

Alastair Lyas[_2_]

January 18th 20, 12:40 PM

If only we could get this much interest for ALL regionals. Maybe
we could slow the decline in gliding !

At 07:57 18 January 2020, wrote:
>And from there on impose a way to disrupt team flying. Solution:
Different
>start time Windows, with pilots randomly changing assigned
windows each
>day. Too many rules...
>

Tango Eight

January 18th 20, 01:34 PM

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:56:23 PM UTC-5, Tom BravoMike wrote:

> So the solution is... to stop fighting it. Make the teams on the ground be part of the 'team flying'

That's what's been going on for the last decade. Check around. There's much history here. The technology arms race led to a ground controlled sport that many find unsatisfying. IGC now trying to find the way back to a more individual sport. Rules enforcement, as we observe, is problematic.

T8

Paul T[_4_]

January 18th 20, 02:34 PM

At 13:34 18 January 2020, Tango Eight wrote:
Rules enforcement, as we observe, is problematic.

A lifetime ban from all gliding competition for those found 'operating
outside the rules' might assist in this - i.e. zero tolerance.

[email protected]

January 18th 20, 02:36 PM

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 8:34:08 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:56:23 PM UTC-5, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>
> > So the solution is... to stop fighting it. Make the teams on the ground be part of the 'team flying'
>
> That's what's been going on for the last decade. Check around. There's much history here. The technology arms race led to a ground controlled sport that many find unsatisfying. IGC now trying to find the way back to a more individual sport. Rules enforcement, as we observe, is problematic.
>
> T8

The IGC is responding to pilots and teams that are demanding actions to reduce the effect of ground controlled glider competition. Without action, some countries have indicated that their future participation is questionable.
Delayed tracking has been needed for some time.
My view is that IGC should respond in a very harsh way to the offending team management to send a message that this kind if cheating will not be tolerated.
It is sad that the performances of the Aussie ladies will be tarnished because we can't know if their performances were fair.
FWIW
UH

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 18th 20, 03:20 PM

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 9:36:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 8:34:08 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:56:23 PM UTC-5, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> >
> > > So the solution is... to stop fighting it. Make the teams on the ground be part of the 'team flying'
> >
> > That's what's been going on for the last decade. Check around. There's much history here. The technology arms race led to a ground controlled sport that many find unsatisfying. IGC now trying to find the way back to a more individual sport. Rules enforcement, as we observe, is problematic.
> >
> > T8
>
> The IGC is responding to pilots and teams that are demanding actions to reduce the effect of ground controlled glider competition. Without action, some countries have indicated that their future participation is questionable.
> Delayed tracking has been needed for some time.
> My view is that IGC should respond in a very harsh way to the offending team management to send a message that this kind if cheating will not be tolerated.
> It is sad that the performances of the Aussie ladies will be tarnished because we can't know if their performances were fair.
> FWIW
> UH

@UH - Agree. I was particularly disappointed that with the significant 'home-field' advantage that Australia already had, in terms of local knowledge, access to resources beyond that of other teams (a phone call away, not a continent), no massive body time-zone shift at the start, no move from Northern winter to scorching summer temps/humidity, no massive cost shipping worries, etc., someone felt the need to do this. Looking at it from the other side, perhaps being on the other end of that equation so much, given that the vast majority of WGCs are in Europe, some thought it might be justifiable. This doesn't seem like the Aussies I know.

Tom BravoMike

January 18th 20, 06:50 PM

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 7:34:08 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:56:23 PM UTC-5, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>
> > So the solution is... to stop fighting it. Make the teams on the ground be part of the 'team flying'
>
> That's what's been going on for the last decade. Check around. There's much history here. The technology arms race led to a ground controlled sport that many find unsatisfying. IGC now trying to find the way back to a more individual sport. Rules enforcement, as we observe, is problematic.
>
> T8

Somehow nobody objects to 'ground controlled' world records - see the Perlan project. And it is a sort of an ongoing world competition - with great expenses involved. Just a thought..

[email protected]

January 18th 20, 07:38 PM

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 1:50:37 PM UTC-5, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 7:34:08 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:56:23 PM UTC-5, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> >
> > > So the solution is... to stop fighting it. Make the teams on the ground be part of the 'team flying'
> >
> > That's what's been going on for the last decade. Check around. There's much history here. The technology arms race led to a ground controlled sport that many find unsatisfying. IGC now trying to find the way back to a more individual sport. Rules enforcement, as we observe, is problematic.
> >
> > T8
>
> Somehow nobody objects to 'ground controlled' world records - see the Perlan project. And it is a sort of an ongoing world competition - with great expenses involved. Just a thought..

How about air controlled?
I understand one altitude record was set using the owners jet to scout the lift areas.
That said, I think record flying is much different than competition in this respect.
UH

[email protected]

January 18th 20, 10:26 PM

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-8, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 7:34:08 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:56:23 PM UTC-5, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> >
> > > So the solution is... to stop fighting it. Make the teams on the ground be part of the 'team flying'
> >
> > That's what's been going on for the last decade. Check around. There's much history here. The technology arms race led to a ground controlled sport that many find unsatisfying. IGC now trying to find the way back to a more individual sport. Rules enforcement, as we observe, is problematic.
> >
> > T8
>
> Somehow nobody objects to 'ground controlled' world records - see the Perlan project. And it is a sort of an ongoing world competition - with great expenses involved. Just a thought..

The difference is not the level of technology or expense being used, it is the level of deception between one competitor and the next.

Martin Gregorie[_6_]

January 18th 20, 11:58 PM

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:50:34 -0800, Tom BravoMike wrote:

> Somehow nobody objects to 'ground controlled' world records - see the
> Perlan project. And it is a sort of an ongoing world competition - with
> great expenses involved. Just a thought..

Record setting is a totally different game. No technology is ruled out
and it can be individual or a group effort.

I was surprised to see how high Perlan 2 was being towed since they got
use of the Grob towplane, so looked at the rules for the absolute gliding
altitude record. It turns out you can tow as high as you like and the
flight counts as a record provided the glider climbs at least another
5000m (16350 ft) after release.

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

mart

January 19th 20, 03:16 AM

So,Australia got 'caught' using freely availible live tracking information from the web. Nobody knows who else was using it, it was just a few clicks away. It is always more likely an English speaking country gets caught since most people know what they are saying.

Does it mean that anybody that has ever used live tracking through which ever legal way gets penalised? Setting up flarm receivers would definitely be illegal. I wonder how many comps will have different winners in retrospect..

Michael Opitz

January 19th 20, 03:42 AM

At 23:58 18 January 2020, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:50:34 -0800, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>
>> Somehow nobody objects to 'ground controlled' world records -
see the
>> Perlan project. And it is a sort of an ongoing world competition -
with
>> great expenses involved. Just a thought..
>
>Record setting is a totally different game. No technology is ruled
out
>and it can be individual or a group effort.
>
>I was surprised to see how high Perlan 2 was being towed since
they got
>use of the Grob towplane, so looked at the rules for the absolute
gliding
>altitude record. It turns out you can tow as high as you like and
the
>flight counts as a record provided the glider climbs at least another
>5000m (16350 ft) after release.
>
>
>--
>Martin | martin at
>Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
>
Jim Payne has said that on some days where the stratospheric wave
is working to high altitudes, the lower tropospheric waves are not
working so well. To have to use lots of precious battery life and
oxygen to muddle up through the lower wave system detracted
from the time that they could use to focus on the high altitude
objectives, so they got a tow plane that could reliably get them to
the bottom of the stratospheric system without a hassle. The
additional 5000 meter gain turned out not to be an issue with the
heights they were able to achieve. That whole program is way out
our normal frame of reference and comprehension.

RO

Charlie Quebec

January 19th 20, 03:43 AM

Big difference, the OGN tracking cannot identify gliders if they have flarm in stealth mode. The official tracking was ONLY publicly available via the 15 minute delay, someone found or knew of a backdrop and used it. Iâ€™m disgusted team management did this.

Paul B[_2_]

January 19th 20, 06:25 AM

"Iâ€™m disgusted team management did this."

Charlie Quebec, your form is slipping, not blaming Trump, or those who voted for him?

RC[_2_]

January 19th 20, 08:47 AM

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 4:52:48 PM UTC+11, JS wrote:
> On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 7:21:51 PM UTC-8, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> > Interesting news, the entire Australian team has been penalised for unsporting behaviour on the last day.. A protest is currently being heard.
> > The bun fight at the Keepit corral.
>
> It's been a supreme "vibe slayer" at the comp. Nobody I've spoken with likes it.
> I feel bad for the team pilots, espeially Jo Davis. She flew a fantastic comp.
> Team management gets what they ask for. Too bad the pilots pay.
> Jim

Charlie Quebec

January 19th 20, 08:58 AM

Trumps got enough trouble as it is, poor demented old man.

mart

January 19th 20, 10:06 AM

I have heard from several pilots that it is very easy to crack flarm instruments to give full information.

[email protected]

January 19th 20, 12:31 PM

On Sunday, 19 January 2020 10:06:16 UTC, mart wrote:
> I have heard from several pilots that it is very easy to crack flarm instruments to give full information.

I don't know that there's any cracking involved.

For the watchers, if someone can set their own instrument or web browser to apply a label to an anonymous contact, all they need to do is wander around the launch grid or watch it take off.

There have been some interesting responses in this discussion.

The technical possibilities and rules and the way people react with them are in a constant state of evolution.

At the first international contest I went to, I was in a car, attempting to drive around a bit in front of the pilots and report on the weather. When I agreed to do it, I assumed it would be a waste for 80 or 90% of the time, but if it paid off once or twice it could be worth it. And that's about how it turned out. Several other teams were doing this too. Were we all cheating? I don't think so.

Before the internet, crews could visit the organisation's met person and get updates on the weather, including satellite pictures, and broadcast this to the pilots. Maybe some teams did this and others not. One or two teams even brought their own met. I can remember one day winner saying he'd watched a thunderstorm at midnight over what would turn out to be part of that day's task, and decided it might be not quite as good just there as the forecast.

At one contest (before GPS), another team manager told me afterwards one of his pilots said the pilots from another country had just missed the turn point. A few seconds later the error was announced on the other team's frequency ...

At another, one of our pilots said he was just approaching being back overhead on the way north. Eight knots right over the aerials, I replied. Someone in another team had said this a few seconds earlier.

At yet another, our two pilots in one class were about 30 km to the south, wondering where they were going to get the final decent climb in a not very promising sky. There might be a useful cloud a mile or two south of the last turn, I said. How did you spot that, I was asked afterwards. To be honest, I'd been watching it a few minutes, and I wasn't sure. It looked like it might be falling apart as you got a chance to approach it, so I nearly didn't mention it, then George Moffat said something nice about it.

If information is available, someone will be using it. Until or unless new policy and/or rule is drawn up to exclude it.

I understand the sophisticated end of variometer/navigation development has reached the point where integration of Flarm derived info can tell you on the screen what the nearby gliders' climb rates are. People are asking what skills are actually still being tested in a contest, whether gaggle flying is likely to increase even more, how to avoid mass starts, and so on.

So to some extent I'm surprised ground crews might still see a need or temptation to be stuck to a screen on the off chance they could spot and announce the slightly better thermal just ahead of their pilot, and risk being annoying by saying so.

As Al McN said above, we've now changed our UK rules so crews don't give any information at all to pilots. This will cut out any boring info from watching live tracking sites, though some of us might still look a couple of times, especially as the finishes get more likely, but it would also cut out all the old occasional other info we might have been able to send, like there was a heavy shower 20 minutes ago a few km out, probably still some sink as several people still landing short, or the sea air has just come in, or those two rivals have just landed out so you don't need to panic that last climb is a bit slow.

At one international event, the win in one class was joint by three in the same team. They'd been a handful of points apart in the morning (indeed all the way through the comp), so the ideal result entailed some ground help calculating the required synchronisation of finishes. I can remember the whole team jumping for joy in the evening as they discovered it had worked. No radio would cut that out too. Is this an individual or team sport, or both?

So no radio is one solution, but would it be what people want?

Martin Gregorie[_6_]

January 19th 20, 01:10 PM

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 03:42:55 +0000, Michael Opitz wrote:

> At 23:58 18 January 2020, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:50:34 -0800, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>>
>>> Somehow nobody objects to 'ground controlled' world records -
> see the
>>> Perlan project. And it is a sort of an ongoing world competition -
> with
>>> great expenses involved. Just a thought..
>>
>>Record setting is a totally different game. No technology is ruled
> out
>>and it can be individual or a group effort.
>>
>>I was surprised to see how high Perlan 2 was being towed since
> they got
>>use of the Grob towplane, so looked at the rules for the absolute
> gliding
>>altitude record. It turns out you can tow as high as you like and
> the
>>flight counts as a record provided the glider climbs at least another
>>5000m (16350 ft) after release.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>>
>>
> Jim Payne has said that on some days where the stratospheric wave is
> working to high altitudes, the lower tropospheric waves are not working
> so well. To have to use lots of precious battery life and oxygen to
> muddle up through the lower wave system detracted from the time that
> they could use to focus on the high altitude objectives, so they got a
> tow plane that could reliably get them to the bottom of the
> stratospheric system without a hassle. The additional 5000 meter gain
> turned out not to be an issue with the heights they were able to
> achieve. That whole program is way out our normal frame of reference
> and comprehension.
>
I had guessed that battery capacity might be a limiting factor for Perlan
2 high altitude duration, especially when you consider that cabin heat
has to be battery driven, and hence might limit achievable overall
height, so wasn't too surprised when they got hold of the Grob as their
towplane, so thanks for confirmation that battery capacity was the driver.

The one thing that did surprise me was that the absolute glider altitude
record rules take the form they do and allow such high tows when all the
badges (and national height records?) are for height gain above release
height.

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[email protected]

January 20th 20, 02:54 AM

On Sunday, 19 January 2020 12:31:39 UTC, wrote:
>
> At yet another, our two pilots in one class were about 30 km to the south, wondering where they were going to get the final decent climb in a not very promising sky. There might be a useful cloud a mile or two south of the last turn, I said. How did you spot that, I was asked afterwards. To be honest, I'd been watching it a few minutes, and I wasn't sure. It looked like it might be falling apart as you got a chance to approach it, so I nearly didn't mention it, then George Moffat said something nice about it.

Apologies if anyone might have thought George M was helping the opposition, or I was taking unfair advantage

This was a Pre-Worlds, and a practice day.

mart

January 20th 20, 06:23 AM

Hi Andy, you will have to strip search pilots and gliders to prevent them bringing mobiles on board.

So it is either completely let go of this type of regulation since it is so easily circumvented or use an honesty system and hope for the best.

Or, and i think that is the best option, find a new competition format.

krasw

January 20th 20, 07:24 AM

As a rule, competition pilots do not cheat, and do not like cheaters. Some rules maybe difficult to police, but even the existence of them strongly discourages cheating. If we make only rules we can police with 100% certainty all the time, we are left with very little. The wwgc penalty send the exact message IGC discussed in previous plenary, ground controlling is not what we want in this sport. I seriously doubt any team will risk chance of penalty in future competitions.

[email protected]

January 20th 20, 10:51 AM

I agree with krasw but additionally I think that the penalty for a team organization knowingly cheating should be expulsion and disqualification of the entire team from the contest. Such a measure would ensure a high level of compliance with rules that might not be 100% enforceable by technical means alone.

krasw

January 20th 20, 02:57 PM

On Monday, 20 January 2020 12:51:13 UTC+2, wrote:
> I agree with krasw but additionally I think that the penalty for a team organization knowingly cheating should be expulsion and disqualification of the entire team from the contest. Such a measure would ensure a high level of compliance with rules that might not be 100% enforceable by technical means alone.

Giving penalty that drops pilot from medals is quite serious in my opinion. If whole team would have been disqualified, would that help this sport, or perhaps do harm instead? I'm sure organizers had this whole spectrum of penalties to consider (from no penalty to disqualification) and they did their best in extremely difficult situation.

Nick Kennedy[_3_]

January 20th 20, 03:38 PM

This just blows my mind.
I've live in Australia and worked there.
Spent 4 full comps seasons Hang Gliding there.
This seems to me to be so out of character to the typical Aussies I know.
Cheating? NFW!
Its just not in their DNA if you ask me.
Does anyone really know what happened?
I'm not on FB
Did they use public tracking that was available to all with no time delay?
Or Did they hack the delayed tracking system?
How did they get caught?
Are team leaders in radio contact with their team all day?
What tipped other team leaders off that something was Up?

[email protected]

January 20th 20, 04:05 PM

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:57:06 PM UTC, krasw wrote:
> On Monday, 20 January 2020 12:51:13 UTC+2, wrote:
> > I agree with krasw but additionally I think that the penalty for a team organization knowingly cheating should be expulsion and disqualification of the entire team from the contest. Such a measure would ensure a high level of compliance with rules that might not be 100% enforceable by technical means alone.
>
> Giving penalty that drops pilot from medals is quite serious in my opinion. If whole team would have been disqualified, would that help this sport, or perhaps do harm instead? I'm sure organizers had this whole spectrum of penalties to consider (from no penalty to disqualification) and they did their best in extremely difficult situation.

It hasn't harmed athletics to ban individuals who cheat (and Russia as a whole) for long periods

Ron Gleason

January 20th 20, 04:51 PM

On Monday, 20 January 2020 08:38:40 UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> This just blows my mind.
> I've live in Australia and worked there.
> Spent 4 full comps seasons Hang Gliding there.
> This seems to me to be so out of character to the typical Aussies I know.
> Cheating? NFW!
> Its just not in their DNA if you ask me.
> Does anyone really know what happened?
> I'm not on FB
> Did they use public tracking that was available to all with no time delay?
> Or Did they hack the delayed tracking system?
> How did they get caught?
> Are team leaders in radio contact with their team all day?
> What tipped other team leaders off that something was Up?

Best write up I have seen https://ussoaringteams.org/john-goods-final-report-for-wwgc-2019/

Tango Eight

January 20th 20, 05:38 PM

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:24:49 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> As a rule, competition pilots do not cheat, and do not like cheaters.

Yeah, well... some of our friends need a little more "help" following the rules than others.

I speculate, based on flight logs, that someone at WWGC hoped that they could skate on a pre-start airspace violation by pulling the brakes at 7500', landing, re-launching, then turning in a flight log containing only the second flight of the day. Is this cheating?

The claim of the Australian team (I am told) is that the tracking info they used was on a publicly accessible, unsecured web site and therefore available to all. Apparently, the claim wasn't completely persuasive...

Here's wishing the IGC good ideas informed by good insight. They have some difficult problems to grapple with.

T8

Mike the Strike

January 20th 20, 06:02 PM

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 9:51:32 AM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Monday, 20 January 2020 08:38:40 UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > This just blows my mind.
> > I've live in Australia and worked there.
> > Spent 4 full comps seasons Hang Gliding there.
> > This seems to me to be so out of character to the typical Aussies I know.
> > Cheating? NFW!
> > Its just not in their DNA if you ask me.
> > Does anyone really know what happened?
> > I'm not on FB
> > Did they use public tracking that was available to all with no time delay?
> > Or Did they hack the delayed tracking system?
> > How did they get caught?
> > Are team leaders in radio contact with their team all day?
> > What tipped other team leaders off that something was Up?
>
> Best write up I have seen https://ussoaringteams.org/john-goods-final-report-for-wwgc-2019/

John's analysis is very balanced and describes the situation very well. Those pilots (like myself) who have been around since the competition days of cameras and smoked barograph traces have been predicting this or similar dilemmas ever since we got GPS and other more advanced electronic capabilities. The question is whether to ban new developments completely or ensure that they are equally accessible to all competitors. An unenviable task for the rule makers and enforcers, as we have just witnessed.

Mike

krasw

January 20th 20, 06:11 PM

On Monday, 20 January 2020 19:38:52 UTC+2, Tango Eight wrote:
> I speculate, based on flight logs, that someone at WWGC hoped that they could skate on a pre-start airspace violation by pulling the brakes at 7500', landing, re-launching, then turning in a flight log containing only the second flight of the day. Is this cheating?
>

There is pretty clear rules for providing flight logs of all the flights of the day. Not doing that will pretty invalidate your day on the spot. If we speculate that this happened, it is worst cheating attempt I've heard of.

Dan Daly[_2_]

January 20th 20, 06:18 PM

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:51:32 AM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Monday, 20 January 2020 08:38:40 UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > This just blows my mind.
> > I've live in Australia and worked there.
> > Spent 4 full comps seasons Hang Gliding there.
> > This seems to me to be so out of character to the typical Aussies I know.
> > Cheating? NFW!
> > Its just not in their DNA if you ask me.
> > Does anyone really know what happened?
> > I'm not on FB
> > Did they use public tracking that was available to all with no time delay?
> > Or Did they hack the delayed tracking system?
> > How did they get caught?
> > Are team leaders in radio contact with their team all day?
> > What tipped other team leaders off that something was Up?
>
> Best write up I have seen https://ussoaringteams.org/john-goods-final-report-for-wwgc-2019/

Agree. There is a also a good write-up on Ritz's famous soaring blog ( http://soaring.eu/ ), from an e-mail to her (posted Jan 20):
"â€œThe home team (Australia) had a (support) team member who had been involved, some years ago, in the creation of the tracking system used in the WWGC 2019. He was in possession of an url (address) that gave him access to the raw data (without the 15 minute delay) of all the participants in the competition. This information was used to coach the home team with respect to starting times, the location of thermals and their strength etc. It created a huge advantage for the pilots of the home team. It was not possible for other teams to find this url (address) so the disadvantage for them was real and could not be undone.
Was it illegal for the home team member to type in the specific url? No, probably not, but the data â€œfoundâ€ was not owned by him. It was owned exclusively by the competition management. Seeing those data was one thing but using it to cash in on a competitive advantage for the home team pilots, was not only unethical but nothing less than plain embezzlement. A gliding version of insider trading as a matter of fact.

The team captain of the home team allowed the use of this â€œstolenâ€ information on a daily basis, misleading to a certain extent his pilots with respect to the legality of the data used to coach them. They all knew it was â€œzero delayâ€ tracking info but they conveniently (or ultra naively) overlooked the fact that it was in fact cheating on a monumental scale.
The 250 pt (later 225 pt) penalty issued to each home team pilot was basically a smooth over. You get 50 pts penalty for missing the barrel around a turn point by a few hundred meters, even when you round it on the outside of the barrel. That is a pretty stiff penaltyâ€¦., but for unsporting behavior the price is a measly 25 pts a day. It apparently pays to cheat if the penalty is so light!!! According to the rules, as I interpret them, the whole home team should have been disqualified following this affair.
You wonder how the kingpin of this affair, the home team captain, who is also a leading executive in the Gliding Federation of Australia and a long time IGC delegate, can keep his position after this debacle..!
This occurrence has severely tarnished the image of gliding in general, the GFA in particular and has damaged the reputation of FAI. A very thorough investigation by FAI into this affair seems a necessity. â€

Fairly emotional and strong language.

It will be interesting to see the Contest Manager's report, and the FAI/IGC response.

[email protected]

January 20th 20, 06:57 PM

Thanks for sharing. This is a well written summary.

Within a few years from now, real-time internet will be available in almost every competition glider cockpit - perhaps that is already the case right now. This will enable sharing information on a scale that we cannot imagine yet. And no contest director will be able to track or even prevent this. In this light, I consider it a lucky (or unlucky, depends on how you look at this) coincidence that the incident happening in Lake Keepit became public at all.

My personal opinion on this: We better start thinking about how to incorporate this development in contest rules instead of sticking to the belief that we can prevent information from floating around freely.

Having said that, the unfortunate event in Australia was enabled by rules that will most likely be deprecated within the next decade.