View Full Version : Video on contest safety
John Cochrane[_3_]
April 14th 20, 11:51 PM
A good video on contest safety
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LwWncyUfng
Taken on a blue day when everybody sits in a gaggle until it's too late to get home.
Some of the fixes seem a bit complex and strategic -- points for being the leader. Some seem pretty easy -- assigned start times. And it's interesting that Germans are starting to think about a hard deck (flame suit on).
John Cochrane BB
Mike C
April 15th 20, 01:26 AM
On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 4:51:16 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> A good video on contest safety
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LwWncyUfng
>
> Taken on a blue day when everybody sits in a gaggle until it's too late to get home.
>
> Some of the fixes seem a bit complex and strategic -- points for being the leader. Some seem pretty easy -- assigned start times. And it's interesting that Germans are starting to think about a hard deck (flame suit on).
>
> John Cochrane BB
Event Marker start makes a lot of sense.
How about using two start cylinders, assigned according to grid position - l.e. odd/even. That would introduce enough uncertainty as to minimize leeching. Merging streams on first leg shouldn't be too risky methinks.
Tim Taylor
April 15th 20, 03:53 AM
I like the PEV. I have used it at several contests now (Polish Nationals and PanAm). There are several variations on how the PEV can be used. One is to push the button x minutes before start, the other is to push the button before crossing the start line and you can't restart for x minutes.
I prefer the later, push the button just before starting. This can work well for getting rid of leeches. You can fake a start and then come back and the leeches are stuck with the earlier start. This technique also works well when you are working a thermal that is on or near the start line. You don't have to worry about accidentally crossing the line until you are ready..
The other techniques of pushing x minutes before has the issue of needing to make a window of x before, but you must start within a certain period of time. Without the window you can just push the button off tow and start at any time later. You also have to careful to not cross the line until you are sure you are ready to go, otherwise you have to wait for the interval again.
Michael Opitz
April 15th 20, 04:51 AM
At 22:51 14 April 2020, John Cochrane wrote:
>A good video on contest safety
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LwWncyUfng
>
>Taken on a blue day when everybody sits in a gaggle until it's too
late to
>get home.
>
>Some of the fixes seem a bit complex and strategic -- points for
being the
>leader. Some seem pretty easy -- assigned start times. And it's
interesting
>that Germans are starting to think about a hard deck (flame suit
on).
>
>John Cochrane BB
>
I was there at Benalla in 1987, and I was part of that gaggle. It was
day #1. My teammate (John Byrd) and I tried to lead out and break
free from that gaggle at least 3 separate times while out on course.
Each time, we got low while looking for lift and had the gaggle run
back over the top of us. We then proceeded to climb back up
through the gaggle and do it all over again because no one else
wanted to lead out. As the day weakened and we determined that
making it home was "iffy" at best, we just made sure that we stayed
on top of the last gaggle so that we could have the longest final
glides. John was just a little below me. The landing fields were
abundant in the last 30 Km before Benalla, so a lot of competitors
just drove straight ahead until they were on the ground. I flinched
at maybe 200 Ft and made a left 90 degree turn to land in a nice
field. That 90 degree turn cost me the daily win. I finished second
that day with John a short ways behind. So, yes, it was maddening
to start so late because of the "start roulette game", but the gaggle
itself was maddening on course because nobody wanted to take the
initiative and lead out. I was convinced that if others had been as
aggressive as John and I had been, the gaggle might have made
better speed, thus enabling us to finish, as opposed to winding up
12 Km short. That's contest flying...
RO
RR
April 15th 20, 01:40 PM
John, do you have a proposed hard deck rule? The mention in the video was brief, and there seem to be a number of posable issues. The first seems to be, it does not seem to reduce the temptation for a low save, but does seem to reduce the "glide stretch" as the scoring point goes back to the hard deck only in the case of a landout. So if you pull off a 300ft save, no effect of the hard deck. While I like the idea of removing incentives for unsafe behavior, a hard deck seem to be fraught with difficulties.
That was a great video. Good that a wide variety of folks are thinking about this.
Possible Hard deck rule:
How about if at any time in the flight, you are drop below 750 feet, it is scored as a landout then and there.
Would have to be adjusted for ridge flight. Maybe if there is not a reasonable downhill glide to being above 750 feet agl. Not sure if flying over tiger country without a landing option should fit into this.
Leaching seems more interesting. How about if you enter a thermal that is already centered with fiberglass, you just got a free 20 seconds and you should have to pay for it in the scoring. Maybe scale it to how long it takes to find thermal cores that day.
If two are working together to follow an energy line, then each can see the other. If one is behind so the leader can't see, then maybe a few percent cost to the follower.
It will be interesting to see how some rule adjustments to to make things safer will cause new strategies which make new safety issues.
Tango Eight
April 15th 20, 02:19 PM
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 8:40:04 AM UTC-4, RR wrote:
> John, do you have a proposed hard deck rule? The mention in the video was brief, and there seem to be a number of posable issues. The first seems to be, it does not seem to reduce the temptation for a low save, but does seem to reduce the "glide stretch" as the scoring point goes back to the hard deck only in the case of a landout. So if you pull off a 300ft save, no effect of the hard deck. While I like the idea of removing incentives for unsafe behavior, a hard deck seem to be fraught with difficulties.
There's a 285 post thread from early 2018 on just this subject. A few of the difficulties are discussed :-). Happy reading. I predict that by the end of it you'll be (regardless of your initial preferences) almost as grumpy as a pure glider guy that can't buy a tow. Almost.
T8
T8
John Cochrane[_3_]
April 15th 20, 04:23 PM
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 5:40:04 AM UTC-7, RR wrote:
> John, do you have a proposed hard deck rule? The mention in the video was brief, and there seem to be a number of posable issues. The first seems to be, it does not seem to reduce the temptation for a low save, but does seem to reduce the "glide stretch" as the scoring point goes back to the hard deck only in the case of a landout. So if you pull off a 300ft save, no effect of the hard deck. While I like the idea of removing incentives for unsafe behavior, a hard deck seem to be fraught with difficulties.
The best way to run a hard deck in my view is to have a set of SUA files for minimum altitudes in different areas. That avoids the problem of, just how does the pilot know what the altitude is at this point, and it avoids the problem of mountains and ridges. Mountains and ridges stick out of the SUA, which is set at valley floor plus 500-1500 feet or so. The SUA can also be higher over unlandable terrain.
The fact that 99.99% of US contest pilots detest the idea is a larger impediment, but somehow Germans seem less opposed.
John Cochrane BB
Nick Kennedy[_3_]
April 15th 20, 05:41 PM
Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
Launch fatality's
Landing fatality's
CFIT fatalities
Poor assembly fatalities.
The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
Same Sh*t different day.
Gaggles are a problem.
One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
Fly safe in 2020
Nicl
T
jfitch
April 15th 20, 06:15 PM
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
> It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
> Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
> If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
> And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
> Launch fatality's
> Landing fatality's
> CFIT fatalities
> Poor assembly fatalities.
> The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
> Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
> Same Sh*t different day.
>
> Gaggles are a problem.
> One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
> Fly safe in 2020
> Nicl
> T
"Pilots need to be responsible for there actions." This is fine if you want contests to be about who is least risk averse. There is no doubt that outlanding in unsuitable fields are a significant risk in contest flying. Implementing a hard deck as John described is not technically difficult to do, fly, or score, the capability is already implemented in most glide computers. The complexity is a sunk cost for everyone except the contest organizers (a one time/site task of creating the SUA file). Pilots are against it because they like the risk and excitement of the low save and flight over unlandable terrain - or are willing to engage in it to increase their score. If we wish a sailplane race to include as a component a test of low save skill, then so be it. A bit like Russian Roulette though, which I can play at home for far less cost.
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 1:15:58 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
> > It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
> > Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
> > If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
> > And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
> > Launch fatality's
> > Landing fatality's
> > CFIT fatalities
> > Poor assembly fatalities.
> > The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
> > Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
> > Same Sh*t different day.
> >
> > Gaggles are a problem.
> > One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
> > Fly safe in 2020
> > Nicl
> > T
>
> "Pilots need to be responsible for there actions." This is fine if you want contests to be about who is least risk averse. There is no doubt that outlanding in unsuitable fields are a significant risk in contest flying. Implementing a hard deck as John described is not technically difficult to do, fly, or score, the capability is already implemented in most glide computers. The complexity is a sunk cost for everyone except the contest organizers (a one time/site task of creating the SUA file). Pilots are against it because they like the risk and excitement of the low save and flight over unlandable terrain - or are willing to engage in it to increase their score. If we wish a sailplane race to include as a component a test of low save skill, then so be it. A bit like Russian Roulette though, which I can play at home for far less cost.
I think it is different than on might think.
Removing the scoring incentive to go low looking for lift has merit, except nobody does that intentionally.
If the hard deck is in place I expect that most pilots will continue to try to make a save, down to individual comfort level, for the simple reason that they want to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve.
Most pilots who got caught by the safety finish still proceeded back to the airport for a more convenient landing. That said, the incentive to take the risk in the first place was strongly reduced.
FWIW
UH
This is something of an endless discussion which comes up yearly. There isn’t one single good solution. And there is debate on whether there needs to be a solution, is there truly a problem?
Leaching is a fact of life and has existed since forever in contests. Assigning start times? There is a solution which emplaces a handicap on the poor guy who is assigned a disadvantageous time. Having an open gate where guys can start at any height is doable. We have had that at the 1-26 Championships and it has worked well with many guys choosing to start out the top.
What about gaggles after the start? Just as dangerous on a weak day where the whole task is flown in gaggles. Give the guy who first found the thermal a bonus, thereby incentivising individual flying? Theres a thought, but theres another level of complication added to an already complicated imop system for scoring.
Hard decks? Legislation to eliminate stupidity? It helps, example finish height limits, but does not totally prevent guys from killing themselves who choose to fly beyond their skill set. Penalize me for my ability to safely make saves? I don’t like it, I already lost a **** load of time falling into the hole I managed to extract myself from. Thats penalty enough if you ask me. Put an artificial hard deck on my particular ship and I would not be able to get anywhere.
How about leaving the system as it is. Ingenious guys can and do find ways to minimize leaching. Weak day gaggle flying is just a fact of life we all have to live with. How about removing all contest letters from ships and scramble flarm signatures? Find me if you can, with only the contest management knowing who is who, Find/follow me if you can figure out who I am in the air. There’s a thought.
Dan
jfitch
April 15th 20, 08:52 PM
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:34:32 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 1:15:58 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > > Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
> > > It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
> > > Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
> > > If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
> > > And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
> > > Launch fatality's
> > > Landing fatality's
> > > CFIT fatalities
> > > Poor assembly fatalities.
> > > The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
> > > Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
> > > Same Sh*t different day.
> > >
> > > Gaggles are a problem.
> > > One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
> > > Fly safe in 2020
> > > Nicl
> > > T
> >
> > "Pilots need to be responsible for there actions." This is fine if you want contests to be about who is least risk averse. There is no doubt that outlanding in unsuitable fields are a significant risk in contest flying. Implementing a hard deck as John described is not technically difficult to do, fly, or score, the capability is already implemented in most glide computers. The complexity is a sunk cost for everyone except the contest organizers (a one time/site task of creating the SUA file). Pilots are against it because they like the risk and excitement of the low save and flight over unlandable terrain - or are willing to engage in it to increase their score.. If we wish a sailplane race to include as a component a test of low save skill, then so be it. A bit like Russian Roulette though, which I can play at home for far less cost.
>
> I think it is different than on might think.
> Removing the scoring incentive to go low looking for lift has merit, except nobody does that intentionally.
> If the hard deck is in place I expect that most pilots will continue to try to make a save, down to individual comfort level, for the simple reason that they want to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve.
> Most pilots who got caught by the safety finish still proceeded back to the airport for a more convenient landing. That said, the incentive to take the risk in the first place was strongly reduced.
> FWIW
> UH
My support of the hard deck isn't to prevent people from killing themselves.. I don't much care. But I do not want to compete against those with that death wish. I think the idea works perhaps quite differently in flat land vs.. mountain flying. My flying is nearly all mountain flying. A low save out here might be at 3000 or even 4000 AGL - there being no known safe landing site in range from there. Properly constructed, the hard deck would incentivize all pilots to retreat and search for thermals closer to safe (and convenient) landing sites. This is completely fair, unless you feel your only competitive advantage is accomplishing low saves. Nobody gets low intentionally, but some some consistently end up there.
As it is, if there is a cloud on the horizon over tiger country, you know you can make it there but not back, there is an 80% chance of connecting (and a 20% chance of crashing or a 4 day retrieve): there are some pilots that will take that bet. 80% of the time they will win the day. They can do that three days in a 6 day contest and still have 51% chance of winning 3 days and thus the contest. If you do not care about your glider or your health, this is a rational strategy. It is self limiting, but only over a long period of time.
Secondarily, the hard deck mitigates the objections to motorgliders: since the whole contest is flown within glide to safe and convenient landing sites, the convenience advantage of a motor retrieve is lessened. And the incentive to treat the motor as a 'get out of jail free' card on a trip to that cloud on the horizon over tiger country is effectively eliminated.
The argument that getting low and having to dig out of a low save is punishment enough is valid only if all your fellow competitors stayed high. If they were also low, and chose a safe landing site over a questionable low save which results in completing the task, you will be richly rewarded - perhaps with an insurmountable contest lead. Booming days when nearly everyone stays high are not the problem.
Jfitch thanks for the post. We have both had this same discussion before. Competition by its very nature is competition. We all do it for various reasons and motivations. If one is looking for absolute safety in competition just sign up for condor racing and have a ball. As for reality racing you said it yourself, the guy who takes major chances beyond reasonability will eventually 1. Loose, 2. Hurt himself. The odds are against the guy who consistently finds himself digging out of holes on race days. Thats a fact. He may win a day or two, he may even win a contest or two but he will not be a consistent winner. Thats his choice and his problem. Neither I, ssa, nor contest management is responsible for his choices.
Those of us who object to another level of legislation/control are objecting because we object to a “nanny state” mentality that is creeping into every aspect of society. We soar for the freedom it delivers. We race for the measure it gives us of our skills. Some of those skill involve knowing our own capabilities and applying them to the fullest. That may involve taking chances at landing out. That may involve reaching for an area we suspect has lift, getting there low, connecting and moving on. Thats not necessarily luck, thats making an educated decision, weighing the odds and trying it. Those are soaring skills. If we don’t want to test those skills in a contest then it becomes another set of skills we are testing, namely how well we can follow someone else who is making our decisions for us, hence the prevelence of gaggle flying today etc.
I hate gaggle flying, I trust my skills but not those of many of the idiots flying today. I fly my own race and yes it had cost me on weak days but so be it. It is still a test of my knowledge, decision making skills, and my choices along task.
A hard deck is another level of restriction not needed by the majority of racers. The guys who push beyond their abilities will still do just that, they will, as someone else here stated, still thermal low just to avoid the hassle of a land out even if they know their only gonna get distance points n still wreck themselves. Nothing gained by the rule. Or they will find other creative ways to screw up, damaging their ships and themselves.
Dan
I like the :10 minute start separation with “event” designation. We tried a forced-start in the first Sports Nationals, but it was too severe! Contestants picked their launch time, but were required to start within :15 minutes! Gate open with first launch and STI had not yet been invented. Don’t believe we had any leaching, though!
Don’t know about the hard-deck idea.............best to try one major change at a time!
JJ
Jfitch, good post.
From the 2018 discussions and IGC analysis, the risk affecting others in crowded thermals seems like the first thing to work on. Would a 'didn't have to center it' time penalty work here?
The rest (leader/follower and low saves from tiger country) seem more about fairness or safety to self (nanny state stuff). Perhaps if you have a motor and do tiger country things that seem likely to lower your odds of finishing the contest without one, there could be a points cost. The leader follower stuff seems a just cause still waiting for someone to come up with a good idea.
jfitch
April 15th 20, 11:56 PM
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Jfitch thanks for the post. We have both had this same discussion before. Competition by its very nature is competition. We all do it for various reasons and motivations. If one is looking for absolute safety in competition just sign up for condor racing and have a ball. As for reality racing you said it yourself, the guy who takes major chances beyond reasonability will eventually 1. Loose, 2. Hurt himself. The odds are against the guy who consistently finds himself digging out of holes on race days. Thats a fact. He may win a day or two, he may even win a contest or two but he will not be a consistent winner. Thats his choice and his problem. Neither I, ssa, nor contest management is responsible for his choices.
>
> Those of us who object to another level of legislation/control are objecting because we object to a “nanny state” mentality that is creeping into every aspect of society. We soar for the freedom it delivers. We race for the measure it gives us of our skills. Some of those skill involve knowing our own capabilities and applying them to the fullest. That may involve taking chances at landing out. That may involve reaching for an area we suspect has lift, getting there low, connecting and moving on. Thats not necessarily luck, thats making an educated decision, weighing the odds and trying it. Those are soaring skills. If we don’t want to test those skills in a contest then it becomes another set of skills we are testing, namely how well we can follow someone else who is making our decisions for us, hence the prevelence of gaggle flying today etc.
>
>
> I hate gaggle flying, I trust my skills but not those of many of the idiots flying today. I fly my own race and yes it had cost me on weak days but so be it. It is still a test of my knowledge, decision making skills, and my choices along task.
>
> A hard deck is another level of restriction not needed by the majority of racers. The guys who push beyond their abilities will still do just that, they will, as someone else here stated, still thermal low just to avoid the hassle of a land out even if they know their only gonna get distance points n still wreck themselves. Nothing gained by the rule. Or they will find other creative ways to screw up, damaging their ships and themselves.
>
> Dan
Dan, a couple of comments on that. One: the guy who is always flying low and making low saves will very likely eventually get bit. But it can take a long time - I know several pilots who (the consensus was) where "dead men soaring". Some of these proved the label quickly but for others it took many years. Were they especially lucky or especially skilled? I don't know, but the consensus was correct, ultimately. In that many years, some of them won many contests doing what they do. Good for them, but hard on their more conservative competition. A very common refrain I hear from pilots at my glider port: "I won't enter contests because it makes you do things you would not otherwise want to do." Flying in big gaggles and getting low are the two things most often named.
Contest rules are there for only two reasons: to ensure fair competition and encourage safety. It is a continuum from free-for-all to sit-at-home Condor. The question is, are we in the right place? Your definition of "making an educated decision" isn't the same as mine. Tilting the rules one way or the other is likely to attract one constituency or another. There is no morally right answer, however it is almost universally decried that the number of competition pilots is dropping. If we add a hard deck, we might lose you but gain 3 others - I don't know.
I attempt to fly without uncontrolled risk. That means always being within gliding range of a known landing site (even though I fly a motorglider). A casual perusal of some of my fellow competitors IGC files shows that is not the case for them - they will often be below their best L/D to a safe landing. That may be an educated decision, but it is also a pure gamble on the weather. Hitting on 15 at blackjack is also a gamble (and perhaps an educated decision). Is that what soaring competition should be?
Jfitch, good points your sharing. I talk a big game about low saves and taking managed risks, but I in actuality also fly as you do, having a place to set her down at all times when low or contemplating going into marginal areas. My situation (type of machine and experience) is such that they allow me to venture into areas/conditions which would be very very dangerous for other ships and pilots.
That being said, competition flying is always going to be a very small subset of the soaring community and it is dwindling. That is happening for a bunch of reasons, some of which have always been there. The “gaggle flying is dangerous” and “ competition will cause me to do things unsafe” reasons are old ones and have been debated for the past 4 decades. I think our dwindling ranks is probably more due to other factors: the total soaring population dwindling, and the exhorbitant cost to be competitive are probably more pertinent factors today. I don’t really think any changes in our rules will have a significant factor in getting more or for that matter less folks racing. I know for me, I will race under whatever rules we have. I think you would probable get a similar response from most everybody racing currently. The opposition to hard decks is coming from many of us who are just not interested in any further encombrances to flying how we fly.
Yes guys can get by with crazy tactics for awhile, but as you have related, the piper will be paid eventually. I don’t feel its my or the racing communities job to protect people from themselves. Like I said previously, those guys are going to break rules or commit new bonehead moves anyways.. As for them winning, beating me thru their risky actions, that doesn’t affect my opinion of how I did. I got beat on a day last year by a guy who really pulled a risky move. He beat me on points but I know I flew a much better flight. As far as I was concerned, I won the 1,000 points that day. We all have to fly by our own standards irregardless of what the rules say. Its always been that way and should always be that way.
Dan
John Cochrane[_3_]
April 16th 20, 04:30 AM
Given the controversy over hard deck, it is unlikely to happen in the US, at least until the IGC puts it in under pressure from the Germans and the "fly IGC rules" crowd faces an interesting conundrum.
The video had lots of other good ideas for breaking up gaggles. Some of them sounded too complicated to me, or have perverse incentives -- extra points for being the leader for example.
Two that did sound useful are 1) the PEV 10 minute rule and 2) using the start-finish height difference rather than fixed start height and finish gate..
There have been PEV rules before, where you had to hit the PEV to designate a "real" start. This allowed top pilots to fake a start and shake off the gaggle. That hasn't caught on, I think in part because doing fake starts is a PITA. Hitting PEV to say "I want to start 10 minutes from now", with maybe a 5 minute window after that (or penalites) sounds interesting. What could go wrong?
The proposal that your finish height is, say 3000' lower than your start height has been around for a while. I didn't see the advantage, but now I do. Trying to get the exact top of the cylinder takes a lot of work. If you just finish 500 feet lower, you can start in a more relaxed way. That also makes it easier to designate your start 10 minutes ahead of time . Otherwise you hit PEV and of course instantly the thermal you're in dissipates.
These seem worth talking about and won't offend pilots who like to win by being willing to go lower than anyone else. '
John Cochrane BB
5Z
April 16th 20, 05:12 AM
Speaking of legislating safety, I watched this excellent and gut wrenching documentary about Formula 1 on Amazon Prime last night.
"Set in the golden era of Grand Prix Racing '1' tells the story of a generation of charismatic drivers who raced on the edge, risking their lives during Formula 1's deadliest period, and the men who stood up and changed the sport forever."
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2518788/?fbclid=IwAR3syGQ-F3kmyk420qUz35EmPzRm5B8EbAI65QLTsZgv_fjXd5W-l7tXc3M
Of course, our racing is purely for self gratification, not international fame, money and groupies :-)
5Z
John Foster
April 16th 20, 07:47 AM
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:30:32 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> Given the controversy over hard deck, it is unlikely to happen in the US, at least until the IGC puts it in under pressure from the Germans and the "fly IGC rules" crowd faces an interesting conundrum.
>
> The video had lots of other good ideas for breaking up gaggles. Some of them sounded too complicated to me, or have perverse incentives -- extra points for being the leader for example.
>
> Two that did sound useful are 1) the PEV 10 minute rule and 2) using the start-finish height difference rather than fixed start height and finish gate.
>
> There have been PEV rules before, where you had to hit the PEV to designate a "real" start. This allowed top pilots to fake a start and shake off the gaggle. That hasn't caught on, I think in part because doing fake starts is a PITA. Hitting PEV to say "I want to start 10 minutes from now", with maybe a 5 minute window after that (or penalites) sounds interesting. What could go wrong?
>
> The proposal that your finish height is, say 3000' lower than your start height has been around for a while. I didn't see the advantage, but now I do. Trying to get the exact top of the cylinder takes a lot of work. If you just finish 500 feet lower, you can start in a more relaxed way. That also makes it easier to designate your start 10 minutes ahead of time . Otherwise you hit PEV and of course instantly the thermal you're in dissipates.
>
> These seem worth talking about and won't offend pilots who like to win by being willing to go lower than anyone else. '
>
> John Cochrane BB
I'm new to soaring and haven't learned all the rules with regard to racing or contest flying yet. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we already have a requirement for official record attempts that the finish altitude needs to be within a certain altitude of the start altitude? If so, then why not adopt this in the racing/contest scene?
Pat Russell[_2_]
April 16th 20, 01:27 PM
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 11:23:20 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> The fact that 99.99% of US contest pilots detest the idea is a larger impediment, but somehow Germans seem less opposed.
Here's hoping that this thread splits in two: ranting about the hard deck and a separate reasoned discussion of the other ideas in the video.
By the way, John, the video was made by an Austrian, not a German.
Pat
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 2:47:09 AM UTC-4, John Foster wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:30:32 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Given the controversy over hard deck, it is unlikely to happen in the US, at least until the IGC puts it in under pressure from the Germans and the "fly IGC rules" crowd faces an interesting conundrum.
> >
> > The video had lots of other good ideas for breaking up gaggles. Some of them sounded too complicated to me, or have perverse incentives -- extra points for being the leader for example.
> >
> > Two that did sound useful are 1) the PEV 10 minute rule and 2) using the start-finish height difference rather than fixed start height and finish gate.
> >
> > There have been PEV rules before, where you had to hit the PEV to designate a "real" start. This allowed top pilots to fake a start and shake off the gaggle. That hasn't caught on, I think in part because doing fake starts is a PITA. Hitting PEV to say "I want to start 10 minutes from now", with maybe a 5 minute window after that (or penalites) sounds interesting. What could go wrong?
> >
> > The proposal that your finish height is, say 3000' lower than your start height has been around for a while. I didn't see the advantage, but now I do. Trying to get the exact top of the cylinder takes a lot of work. If you just finish 500 feet lower, you can start in a more relaxed way. That also makes it easier to designate your start 10 minutes ahead of time . Otherwise you hit PEV and of course instantly the thermal you're in dissipates.
> >
> > These seem worth talking about and won't offend pilots who like to win by being willing to go lower than anyone else. '
> >
> > John Cochrane BB
>
> I'm new to soaring and haven't learned all the rules with regard to racing or contest flying yet. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we already have a requirement for official record attempts that the finish altitude needs to be within a certain altitude of the start altitude? If so, then why not adopt this in the racing/contest scene?
We have that now. Task setter sets the start height and finish height. It just is not a fixed number like badges and records.
UH
Here’s a thought to prevent leaching...........why not bring back the stare time interval? It was originally based on the amount of time it would take for a contestant to sneak out and take a photo of the first turn point and then return for his start with the first turn point in the box, right? This all went away with GPS tracking!
How about bringing it back, but now you must go on course within your STI? Wouldn’t this force the gaggle to break up and head out? You could wait for the gaggle to depart, but your clock would start at your STI.
Just thinking out loud,
JJ
Nick Kennedy[_3_]
April 16th 20, 05:03 PM
The Gaggle problem and Leeching issue is not not going away, no matter what..
Gaggles form up because pilots are joining up in the best lift in the area with the best pilots; what do we expect pilots to do? Leave the best guys and thermals to go off on there own? Not gonna happen. Luckily Flarm has really helped with the mid air gaggle issue, it works!
We owe B4 a
Big
Thank you for making this mandatory early on in his meets when there were na-sayers out there
Thank You Bruno Vassel!!
Leeching has been happening since the first two gliders got together under a cloudstreet and is also not going anywhere. Under any conditions, I see Karl Streideck or Tim Taylor or Dave Leonard head out in front of me I'm probably going to follow, they are simply smarter than me. And its more fun to fly with your friends, thats why I go to contests, to fly with my friends..
The above "Problems" are due too human nature. We want to stay up to start with and go faster and further, groups obviously do both better.
You don't need to be a Rocket Scientist to figure that out.
Fly Safe in 2020
Nick
well known to gaggle and leech with the best of 'em
T
Leeching may have been around since the beginning of soaring. I haven't been but I was around when people started complaining loudly about it in the 70s. I think it got to be especially bad because of three things:
1. The Byars & Holbrook Soaring Symposia and books/articles by Moffat and Reichmann had made flying fast comprehensible to the average pilot. The mystery was gone. The rest of us may not have been able to execute as well as the top pilots but we understood how they were doing it.
2. The composite revolution in sailplanes made essentially identically performing high-performance gliders widely available to a larger number of pilots. When you had to own a Sisu to have a reasonable chance of winning, that was difficult: there were less than a dozen and they cost a small fortune. And you had to know how to tune and fettle with one to extract the most performance. But the Libelle 301 and the first generation of Standard Class gliders such as the Standard Cirrus, ASW 15, and Libelle 201 made it far easier for the average pilot to stay with the top ones.
3. At the time, national contests often filled up. So it was important to be ranked high enough to gain entry. The straightforward way was Category 1 status; i.e., top ten in one of the three previous nationals. That's a joke now when entire national fields can be less than 10 but it was a big deal then. And the easiest (maybe the only) way for good but not-quite-the-best pilots to make it into the top ten was by leeching Karl Striedieck, George Moffat, Ben Greene, or one of the handful of guys you knew were going to win.
It stayed that way for a long time. I still recall the swings of emotion I had when KS rolled in with me out on course in the early 90s. "Wow, Karl is using my thermal!" And then, "Watch out! There are ten other guys following him who don't even see me."
Leeching and big gaggles are not quite the same thing. Leeching means following another pilot mindlessly, even when they get lost. Gaggling can mean using markers ahead to find thermals, flying with other good pilots who share the work of leading out and spreading out to find the best life, or--leeching.
The only contest of any size I've flown recently was Nephi in 2016 where we had three classes--and that also filled up. I don't recall leeching or gaggling being as much of a problem then. I have read and listened to accounts about recent world championships, however, that indicate both are problems there, not just for scoring but for safety. So, yeah, it would be good to find a way to reduce their popularity--without adding a lot of complication and, frankly, making competitive soaring even less attractive to the average pilot than it is now. Because let's be honest: there are very few contests in the U.S. where more competitors wouldn't be welcomed eagerly by the organizers and many competitors as long as they are safe.
Chip Bearden
JB
Spoken like a dedicated leach, Nick, but our championships are held to determine the best pilot, not to provide enjoyable cruising with your buddies!
JJ
Nick Kennedy[_3_]
April 16th 20, 11:34 PM
JJ
Point well taken.
But, But, But remember you take the 90% of participants out of the Nationals that don't have a ice cubes chance in hell of winning and you you got no Nationals, were the ones paying those pesky bills with our entry fees and tow charges.
Just sayin!
Sign me:
Enjoyably cruising with my friends
Peace brother, glad to see your still sucking air!
Delta8
April 16th 20, 11:46 PM
Here's a crazy thought ,I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake for heresy though . Remove or cover the contest letters , leeches will not know who there following except for the distinction in models/make.
In the past past they were a necessity for spotters but now are they really necessary?
Stephen Szikora
April 16th 20, 11:52 PM
The “best pilot” is determined by the one that makes best use of the existing rules. Changing the rules to enhance safety does not change the pecking order but it might result in fewer accidents and more competitors.
Nick Kennedy[_3_]
April 17th 20, 01:34 AM
I watched that vid again, not much going on right now.
If there are Any anti flarm people out there left- listen at about the 2/3's point when the Flarm Lady says " New traffic 200' above"
That Flarm technology has been a real game changer, safety wise, nothing like it IMHO
Nick
T
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 8:43:30 PM UTC-4, Delta8 wrote:
> Here's a crazy thought ,I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake for heresy
> though . Remove or cover the contest letters , leeches will not know
> who there following except for the distinction in models/make.
>
> In the past past they were a necessity for spotters but now are they
> really necessary?
"On your left, Juliet Bravo."
Chip Bearden
JB
Didn’t mean to jump your ****, too much, Nick, but leaching on a clear day has gotten completely out of hand. I remember a day where nobody would lead out until 4 PM, on a 3 hour task! I started at 3 PM and almost made it around. Only one completed that task. The leaches don’t care if they don’t finish because they will get about the same points as the rest of the gaggle sitting in some field, somewhere! I’m in favor of some kind of action to address this situation. A forced start did the trick 35 years ago.............why not try it again?
JJ
Delta8
April 17th 20, 01:36 PM
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 8:43:30 PM UTC-4, Delta8 wrote:
Here's a crazy thought ,I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake for heresy
though . Remove or cover the contest letters , leeches will not know
who there following except for the distinction in models/make.
In the past past they were a necessity for spotters but now are they
really necessary?
"On your left, Juliet Bravo."
Chip Bearden
JB
Good point ,maybe reduce the size
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 8:43:30 PM UTC-4, Delta8 wrote:
> Here's a crazy thought ,I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake for heresy
> though . Remove or cover the contest letters , leeches will not know
> who there following except for the distinction in models/make.
>
> In the past past they were a necessity for spotters but now are they
> really necessary?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Delta8
Numbers are very useful when making a safety call "Delta Eight inside you".
As far as leeching they are only useful when you are really close. Flarm ID is far more useful for leeching and helps pull the gaggle together.
UH
Eliminate flarm ID for all contests. Eliminate onboard knowledge of who is who out there and then go fly. If some idiot want to stick directly to my tail all the way around, without my pre communicated consent, then I will have a nose to nose conversation with him when I get on the ground. I guarantee it won’t happen again. Problem is alot of you guys do not want anonymity on course. You all like to see who is doing what and where they are.
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:50:07 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Eliminate flarm ID for all contests. Eliminate onboard knowledge of who is who out there and then go fly. If some idiot want to stick directly to my tail all the way around, without my pre communicated consent, then I will have a nose to nose conversation with him when I get on the ground. I guarantee it won’t happen again. Problem is alot of you guys do not want anonymity on course. You all like to see who is doing what and where they are.
Some of the top pilots already do essentially eliminate FLARM ID: they don't input their ID into the FLARMNet database--although that doesn't stop competitors from adding them manually at the contest the first time they share a thermal--and/or they fly in FLARM stealth mode.
For that matter, FLARM is relatively recent. Before that, leeching was all visual, the old-fashioned way, as you said: "stick directly to my tail all the way around, without my pre communicated consent." I guarantee you the top pilots don't want to be followed this way but there's not much they can do about it, short of brandishing a gun in flight or on the ground, not that anyone on this forum would do such a thing, of course. :)
FLARM just makes it easier for the follower. That said, anonymity on course (highly desired by some) is not at all the same as wanting "to see who is doing what and where they are." (useful for all)
ADS-B Out changes the whole game anyway.
Chip Bearden
JB
Dan Marotta
April 18th 20, 12:44 AM
Flying parallel with a buddy at something like 50' altitude difference
and a couple hundred feet laterally, I'm plagued by constant collision
alarms.* Even when not on converging paths.
On 4/16/2020 6:34 PM, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> I watched that vid again, not much going on right now.
> If there are Any anti flarm people out there left- listen at about the 2/3's point when the Flarm Lady says " New traffic 200' above"
> That Flarm technology has been a real game changer, safety wise, nothing like it IMHO
> Nick
> T
--
Dan, 5J
Dan I only see that on adsb out/in not power flarm!
John Cochrane[_3_]
April 18th 20, 03:53 AM
I find alarm id / flarm net spreads out the gaggle, and raises my enjoyment of a contest. With only visual, you have to stick right with the gaggle not to lose them. With flarm radar, you can go a few miles off, explore something, try a different cloud, and yet if the chips are down not lose sight of the gaggle. It's also nice to see what others are doing some miles away and how it's working out.
John Cochrane BB
Well, I’m not seeing any support on breaking up the gaggles............does this mean most of us secretly like the gaggle? Have we found ways to use the gaggle to our advantage? Obviously, the low end of the score sheet doesn’t want to fly alone, but it’s looking like the other end of the score sheet might like to keep things just the way the are?
Just thinking out loud, here!
JJ
Dan Marotta
April 18th 20, 06:25 PM
Thanks Cliff, got a suggested solution?* At present my flying buddy has
ADS-B out and no Flarm so I appreciate being able to "see" him when not
in direct visual contact.* I know I could turn off ADS-B in my Flarm
unit, but that would reduce other safety issues as we do often fly in
the arrival paths to ABQ.
On 4/17/2020 8:24 PM, wrote:
> Dan I only see that on adsb out/in not power flarm!
--
Dan, 5J
Nobody chimed in on my two start cylinder idea. If site sets up three non- overlapping cylinders and the first "steering" turnpoint is equidistant from the two used...?
Matt Herron Jr.
April 18th 20, 09:59 PM
On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 11:30:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Nobody chimed in on my two start cylinder idea. If site sets up three non- overlapping cylinders and the first "steering" turnpoint is equidistant from the two used...?
Well as long as I am not stuck in the one with no thermals.
Just clip yours before start, same as today.
On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 2:30:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Nobody chimed in on my two start cylinder idea. If site sets up three non- overlapping cylinders and the first "steering" turnpoint is equidistant from the two used...?
The concept has been used. We used 4 start cylinders in the Club Class WGC in Australia in 2001. It helped reduce gaggle flying and made team flying much more difficult.
Coming out of that experience, the option was added to US rules. I only recll it being used once. The option was removed a few years ago as a simplification.
I believe the rule is still in place in Oz.
UH
John Cochrane[_3_]
April 19th 20, 04:24 AM
> > Nobody chimed in on my two start cylinder idea. If site sets up three non- overlapping cylinders and the first "steering" turnpoint is equidistant from the two used...?
>
> The concept has been used. We used 4 start cylinders in the Club Class WGC in Australia in 2001. It helped reduce gaggle flying and made team flying much more difficult.
> Coming out of that experience, the option was added to US rules. I only recll it being used once. The option was removed a few years ago as a simplification.
> I believe the rule is still in place in Oz.
> UH
I was at one of the US nationals that tried it, Uvalde in the 2000s sometime. It was not popular for two reasons. First, one cylinder was always noticeably advantaged -- easier lift, better lined up with the clouds, and so forth. Even Uvalde is not easy. That introduced a good deal of luck of the draw.
I think a second reason for distaste with this, as with all the other anti-giggling rules is that following the gaggle, especially on a blue day, is still the crucial strategy. If you leave with or just after the gaggle, you do great. If you fly on your own, you're in trouble. The existing IGC rules make this much much worse. The new scoring formula will make it only as important as it remains in US rules.
If getting with the other gliders remains the critical decision to a good contest score, and you make getting with the other gliders harder, that just loads up the start strategy with extra stress and high tension. Think of the PEV rule, for example. It's one more hurdle to follow. Have you picked up the subtle signals that this is the time to go? Did a group of pilots get together to agree to go at a certain time? Do you have someone listening on the crucial frequencies? Did you guess right? The whole day depends on getting this right. Once you push the PEV too soon, or fail to do it, the whole day is a disaster before you leave the start gate.
John Cochrane
BB
It seems to me that our rules support gaggling, rather than taking direct action to reduce their importance! I flew to 1980(?) Ephrata 15 meter nationals where something like 80 entrants flew. I remember vividly one thermal on the high ground north of the field, everybody in the contest was in that thermal and the lift stopped at 3000 AGL! The guy directly above me decided to leave and pushed over...........I was forced to push over too, I could clearly see the rivets on his gear doors! There was 4 mid-airs in that contest and one fatality. We restricted the total entrants and made other changes, but no direct action to reduce gaggles.
How about bringing back the Start Time Interval? It could work something like this: It takes 1:00 hour to launch the fleet + :15 minutes to open the gate, now we add a reasonable decision time, say :15 minutes. All contestants have an STI of 1:30. The launch spacing would spread out the required starting times! We basically did this in the first Sports Class Nationals held at Minden 1985 (?) where contestants picked their launch time, but were required to start within :15 minutes after launch! The CD could change the STI as required, but everyone’s clock would start at the end of his/ her STI, unless they had started before each pilots STI, expired.
I believe this would reduce the stress level that is almost overwhelming in out Nationals today..........pilots under extreme stress don’t make good decisions!
JJ
I think that was Ephrata 1984, JJ. I missed that one, fortunately.
I would argue that we did take one action to reduce gaggling: you no longer have to radio to announce your start time. Some pilots didn't announce it for a while anyway. But today if you're contemplating a leeching or gaggling strategy, you have to find your tow before the start and stick with him/her like glue. You can't just hover at the top of the start cylinder and wait until KS or one of his known shadowers announces and then jump on the end of the freight train.
Another way is to reduce the number of gliders. I flew a nationals last year with 8 competitors. True, we had another 9 (wow!) pilots in another class, although we didn't always fly the same task. There's a lot less gaggling in single-digit contests. We seem to be headed there more and more for a variety of reasons, many of them outside of our control. That said, sometimes I've felt like our efforts to make competition "purer" for the top echelon have made it less attractive for many to enter contests.
Chip Bearden
JB
Stephen Szikora
April 19th 20, 05:15 PM
Don’t staggered start times introduce a little too much luck into the equation? Conditions change over time. I remember when F1 car racing had qualifying with each car setting times alone. Track conditions and weather conditions changed over the session and it became a crap shoot.
Nick Kennedy[_3_]
April 19th 20, 05:21 PM
On blue/ difficult days, which we have alot of, no matter what you do to spread out the start I guarantee you on the first leg everyone is going to get together and gaggle up.
The first guys to lead out are going to get caught from behind, and when the new gaggle gets stuck for a few minutes trying to get up more are more that are going to dogpile in there. Rinse and repeat.
I was surprised with this gaggle concern that completion pilots voted for the adoption of the IGC rule package which clearly promotes gaggle flying to be successful.
Out of the what 350+ Pilots who are on the US Competition ranking, how many are going to any world meet? Very few. For The rest of us to have to fly the IGC rule package that really promotes gaggle flying?
I understand the argument that US pilots need to fly by the rules that the rest of the world flys by to help them be successful in world competition.
But that really shoots a hole in any plans to alleviate the current USA gaggle concerns so many seem to be up in arms about.
But I personally think this gaggle problem is going away by its self, and as Chip pointed out contests on a whole are getting smaller and smaller, before we know it is going to come down to Mike Marshall and Daniel Szahin, there going to be the only ones left soon enough.
Don't crash & pick up your trash [Bruno]
Nick
T
Tim Taylor
April 19th 20, 09:50 PM
Actually Nick, IGC rules don’t promote gaggling anymore than US rules. This is a false narrative being fed to US pilots by a small group that does not wish to see change. Current IGC rules with the greater reward for higher speed encourages more aggressive flying.
The big concern for top pilots is not gaggles on course but leeching at the start to give a leech pilot an advantage of starting a few minutes behind the better pilots. This is easily fixed with the PEV before start.
The biggest issue with gaggles is prestart when there are few thermals and the the top pilots are trying to evade the leeches. Again the PEV will help with this because just following a top pilot around won’t help if only they know when they are going to start and the leech no longer gets an advantage for starting later. It becomes less important to blindly follow an other pilot prestart.
I have only flown twice with significant gaggles on course. 2012 15m US Nationals where we had to dead glide 15 miles to lift and we ended up with one big gaggle on the whole course and 15m WGC 2018 when the IGC tried the 10 minute start interval and we had 38 gliders start Grand Prix style at the same time. It was like a motocross holeshot dive to the first thermal. The first one there got a clean climb and the rest had to fight for space.
The fastest way around a task is with a group of three to four gliders. That is why most top pilots fly in small groups and not alone. More than four and the group can’t climb well. But having two to four increases the odds of finding better lines and climbs. Even in the US Nationals, especially in the East you will see small groups form before start. Western flying requires less of it, but it is still very helpful in Uvalde and Hobbs..
Tim (TT)
John Foster
April 20th 20, 11:27 PM
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> On blue/ difficult days, which we have alot of, no matter what you do to spread out the start I guarantee you on the first leg everyone is going to get together and gaggle up.
> The first guys to lead out are going to get caught from behind, and when the new gaggle gets stuck for a few minutes trying to get up more are more that are going to dogpile in there. Rinse and repeat.
>
> I was surprised with this gaggle concern that completion pilots voted for the adoption of the IGC rule package which clearly promotes gaggle flying to be successful.
>
> Out of the what 350+ Pilots who are on the US Competition ranking, how many are going to any world meet? Very few. For The rest of us to have to fly the IGC rule package that really promotes gaggle flying?
> I understand the argument that US pilots need to fly by the rules that the rest of the world flys by to help them be successful in world competition..
> But that really shoots a hole in any plans to alleviate the current USA gaggle concerns so many seem to be up in arms about.
> But I personally think this gaggle problem is going away by its self, and as Chip pointed out contests on a whole are getting smaller and smaller, before we know it is going to come down to Mike Marshall and Daniel Szahin, there going to be the only ones left soon enough.
> Don't crash & pick up your trash [Bruno]
> Nick
> T
Here are a few uninformed ideas after reading this whole thread: It sounds like the biggest problem with gaggles is the shear number of gliders in the gaggles. So, taking steps to reduce that number would be the way to go. In the US with declining numbers of pilots racing, eventually this will be a non-issue. However, while there are still 60+ pilots entered at a contest, a few ideas come to mind. Many contests seem to involve multiple classes. Why not set a different task, with a different starting area for each class? This would thin out the starting gaggle considerably. If this isn't enough, then limit the entrants to each class to say 8 to 12 entries, or whatever arbitrary number the CD feels would be a "safe" number of pilots to have in a gaggle at the start.
Or, you could have the same task set, but have different start times, separated by a significant enough length of time, that the first class to launch would all be started before the next class launches. This would require the starting gate to be open for a set time, and everyone would need to start during that window though.
These measures would help to reduce the "congestion" at the start of the task.
Just my $0.02. Take it for what it's worth.
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 6:27:42 PM UTC-4, John Foster wrote:
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > On blue/ difficult days, which we have alot of, no matter what you do to spread out the start I guarantee you on the first leg everyone is going to get together and gaggle up.
> > The first guys to lead out are going to get caught from behind, and when the new gaggle gets stuck for a few minutes trying to get up more are more that are going to dogpile in there. Rinse and repeat.
> >
> > I was surprised with this gaggle concern that completion pilots voted for the adoption of the IGC rule package which clearly promotes gaggle flying to be successful.
> >
> > Out of the what 350+ Pilots who are on the US Competition ranking, how many are going to any world meet? Very few. For The rest of us to have to fly the IGC rule package that really promotes gaggle flying?
> > I understand the argument that US pilots need to fly by the rules that the rest of the world flys by to help them be successful in world competition.
> > But that really shoots a hole in any plans to alleviate the current USA gaggle concerns so many seem to be up in arms about.
> > But I personally think this gaggle problem is going away by its self, and as Chip pointed out contests on a whole are getting smaller and smaller, before we know it is going to come down to Mike Marshall and Daniel Szahin, there going to be the only ones left soon enough.
> > Don't crash & pick up your trash [Bruno]
> > Nick
> > T
>
> Here are a few uninformed ideas after reading this whole thread: It sounds like the biggest problem with gaggles is the shear number of gliders in the gaggles. So, taking steps to reduce that number would be the way to go.. In the US with declining numbers of pilots racing, eventually this will be a non-issue. However, while there are still 60+ pilots entered at a contest, a few ideas come to mind. Many contests seem to involve multiple classes. Why not set a different task, with a different starting area for each class? This would thin out the starting gaggle considerably. If this isn't enough, then limit the entrants to each class to say 8 to 12 entries, or whatever arbitrary number the CD feels would be a "safe" number of pilots to have in a gaggle at the start.
>
> Or, you could have the same task set, but have different start times, separated by a significant enough length of time, that the first class to launch would all be started before the next class launches. This would require the starting gate to be open for a set time, and everyone would need to start during that window though.
>
> These measures would help to reduce the "congestion" at the start of the task.
>
> Just my $0.02. Take it for what it's worth.
What you describe is established common practice.
UH
John Foster
April 21st 20, 12:09 AM
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 4:41:46 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 6:27:42 PM UTC-4, John Foster wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > > On blue/ difficult days, which we have alot of, no matter what you do to spread out the start I guarantee you on the first leg everyone is going to get together and gaggle up.
> > > The first guys to lead out are going to get caught from behind, and when the new gaggle gets stuck for a few minutes trying to get up more are more that are going to dogpile in there. Rinse and repeat.
> > >
> > > I was surprised with this gaggle concern that completion pilots voted for the adoption of the IGC rule package which clearly promotes gaggle flying to be successful.
> > >
> > > Out of the what 350+ Pilots who are on the US Competition ranking, how many are going to any world meet? Very few. For The rest of us to have to fly the IGC rule package that really promotes gaggle flying?
> > > I understand the argument that US pilots need to fly by the rules that the rest of the world flys by to help them be successful in world competition.
> > > But that really shoots a hole in any plans to alleviate the current USA gaggle concerns so many seem to be up in arms about.
> > > But I personally think this gaggle problem is going away by its self, and as Chip pointed out contests on a whole are getting smaller and smaller, before we know it is going to come down to Mike Marshall and Daniel Szahin, there going to be the only ones left soon enough.
> > > Don't crash & pick up your trash [Bruno]
> > > Nick
> > > T
> >
> > Here are a few uninformed ideas after reading this whole thread: It sounds like the biggest problem with gaggles is the shear number of gliders in the gaggles. So, taking steps to reduce that number would be the way to go. In the US with declining numbers of pilots racing, eventually this will be a non-issue. However, while there are still 60+ pilots entered at a contest, a few ideas come to mind. Many contests seem to involve multiple classes. Why not set a different task, with a different starting area for each class? This would thin out the starting gaggle considerably. If this isn't enough, then limit the entrants to each class to say 8 to 12 entries, or whatever arbitrary number the CD feels would be a "safe" number of pilots to have in a gaggle at the start.
> >
> > Or, you could have the same task set, but have different start times, separated by a significant enough length of time, that the first class to launch would all be started before the next class launches. This would require the starting gate to be open for a set time, and everyone would need to start during that window though.
> >
> > These measures would help to reduce the "congestion" at the start of the task.
> >
> > Just my $0.02. Take it for what it's worth.
>
> What you describe is established common practice.
> UH
Does it not work then?
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 4:27:42 PM UTC-6, John Foster wrote:
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > On blue/ difficult days, which we have alot of, no matter what you do to spread out the start I guarantee you on the first leg everyone is going to get together and gaggle up.
> > The first guys to lead out are going to get caught from behind, and when the new gaggle gets stuck for a few minutes trying to get up more are more that are going to dogpile in there. Rinse and repeat.
> >
> > I was surprised with this gaggle concern that completion pilots voted for the adoption of the IGC rule package which clearly promotes gaggle flying to be successful.
> >
> > Out of the what 350+ Pilots who are on the US Competition ranking, how many are going to any world meet? Very few. For The rest of us to have to fly the IGC rule package that really promotes gaggle flying?
> > I understand the argument that US pilots need to fly by the rules that the rest of the world flys by to help them be successful in world competition.
> > But that really shoots a hole in any plans to alleviate the current USA gaggle concerns so many seem to be up in arms about.
> > But I personally think this gaggle problem is going away by its self, and as Chip pointed out contests on a whole are getting smaller and smaller, before we know it is going to come down to Mike Marshall and Daniel Szahin, there going to be the only ones left soon enough.
> > Don't crash & pick up your trash [Bruno]
> > Nick
> > T
>
> Here are a few uninformed ideas after reading this whole thread: It sounds like the biggest problem with gaggles is the shear number of gliders in the gaggles. So, taking steps to reduce that number would be the way to go.. In the US with declining numbers of pilots racing, eventually this will be a non-issue. However, while there are still 60+ pilots entered at a contest, a few ideas come to mind. Many contests seem to involve multiple classes. Why not set a different task, with a different starting area for each class? This would thin out the starting gaggle considerably. If this isn't enough, then limit the entrants to each class to say 8 to 12 entries, or whatever arbitrary number the CD feels would be a "safe" number of pilots to have in a gaggle at the start.
>
> Or, you could have the same task set, but have different start times, separated by a significant enough length of time, that the first class to launch would all be started before the next class launches. This would require the starting gate to be open for a set time, and everyone would need to start during that window though.
>
> These measures would help to reduce the "congestion" at the start of the task.
>
> Just my $0.02. Take it for what it's worth.
I am not a competition pilot, but what you suggest is already in practice. I see contest reports that refer to different classes starting from different points and at different times (and flying different tasks). It appears (to me, anyway) that one of the biggest problems is pre-start gaggle, where everybody launches and grinds around in a herd, waiting for the start gate and disregarding whether everybody in the thermal has flaps or not, 15 meters or 18 meters. Everybody is looking for the easiest way to stay up before heading out to the designated start point at their designated time.
Up until then, it's a Charlie Foxtrot situation.
John Foster
April 21st 20, 07:25 AM
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 7:32:46 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 4:27:42 PM UTC-6, John Foster wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > > On blue/ difficult days, which we have alot of, no matter what you do to spread out the start I guarantee you on the first leg everyone is going to get together and gaggle up.
> > > The first guys to lead out are going to get caught from behind, and when the new gaggle gets stuck for a few minutes trying to get up more are more that are going to dogpile in there. Rinse and repeat.
> > >
> > > I was surprised with this gaggle concern that completion pilots voted for the adoption of the IGC rule package which clearly promotes gaggle flying to be successful.
> > >
> > > Out of the what 350+ Pilots who are on the US Competition ranking, how many are going to any world meet? Very few. For The rest of us to have to fly the IGC rule package that really promotes gaggle flying?
> > > I understand the argument that US pilots need to fly by the rules that the rest of the world flys by to help them be successful in world competition.
> > > But that really shoots a hole in any plans to alleviate the current USA gaggle concerns so many seem to be up in arms about.
> > > But I personally think this gaggle problem is going away by its self, and as Chip pointed out contests on a whole are getting smaller and smaller, before we know it is going to come down to Mike Marshall and Daniel Szahin, there going to be the only ones left soon enough.
> > > Don't crash & pick up your trash [Bruno]
> > > Nick
> > > T
> >
> > Here are a few uninformed ideas after reading this whole thread: It sounds like the biggest problem with gaggles is the shear number of gliders in the gaggles. So, taking steps to reduce that number would be the way to go. In the US with declining numbers of pilots racing, eventually this will be a non-issue. However, while there are still 60+ pilots entered at a contest, a few ideas come to mind. Many contests seem to involve multiple classes. Why not set a different task, with a different starting area for each class? This would thin out the starting gaggle considerably. If this isn't enough, then limit the entrants to each class to say 8 to 12 entries, or whatever arbitrary number the CD feels would be a "safe" number of pilots to have in a gaggle at the start.
> >
> > Or, you could have the same task set, but have different start times, separated by a significant enough length of time, that the first class to launch would all be started before the next class launches. This would require the starting gate to be open for a set time, and everyone would need to start during that window though.
> >
> > These measures would help to reduce the "congestion" at the start of the task.
> >
> > Just my $0.02. Take it for what it's worth.
>
> I am not a competition pilot, but what you suggest is already in practice.. I see contest reports that refer to different classes starting from different points and at different times (and flying different tasks). It appears (to me, anyway) that one of the biggest problems is pre-start gaggle, where everybody launches and grinds around in a herd, waiting for the start gate and disregarding whether everybody in the thermal has flaps or not, 15 meters or 18 meters. Everybody is looking for the easiest way to stay up before heading out to the designated start point at their designated time.
>
> Up until then, it's a Charlie Foxtrot situation.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough then. The whole point of what I suggested was to keep one class only in a gaggle before the start. So that would mean that the starting gaggle for the 15m class would be in a location near the start gate for the 15m task, compared to the 18m gaggle for the 18m task which starts at a different location. The start gates would be distant enough from each other that it would be impractical for both classes to be gaggling together before the start in the same thermal. These can also be separated by time, so that the start gate for one class closes before the next class even launches. One could also even limit the number of class entrants which if these measures implemented, would limit the size of the gaggle to the size of the class. But what do I know? I'm not a contest pilot--yet.
On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 2:25:28 AM UTC-4, John Foster wrote:
> On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 7:32:46 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 4:27:42 PM UTC-6, John Foster wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > > > On blue/ difficult days, which we have alot of, no matter what you do to spread out the start I guarantee you on the first leg everyone is going to get together and gaggle up.
> > > > The first guys to lead out are going to get caught from behind, and when the new gaggle gets stuck for a few minutes trying to get up more are more that are going to dogpile in there. Rinse and repeat.
> > > >
> > > > I was surprised with this gaggle concern that completion pilots voted for the adoption of the IGC rule package which clearly promotes gaggle flying to be successful.
> > > >
> > > > Out of the what 350+ Pilots who are on the US Competition ranking, how many are going to any world meet? Very few. For The rest of us to have to fly the IGC rule package that really promotes gaggle flying?
> > > > I understand the argument that US pilots need to fly by the rules that the rest of the world flys by to help them be successful in world competition.
> > > > But that really shoots a hole in any plans to alleviate the current USA gaggle concerns so many seem to be up in arms about.
> > > > But I personally think this gaggle problem is going away by its self, and as Chip pointed out contests on a whole are getting smaller and smaller, before we know it is going to come down to Mike Marshall and Daniel Szahin, there going to be the only ones left soon enough.
> > > > Don't crash & pick up your trash [Bruno]
> > > > Nick
> > > > T
> > >
> > > Here are a few uninformed ideas after reading this whole thread: It sounds like the biggest problem with gaggles is the shear number of gliders in the gaggles. So, taking steps to reduce that number would be the way to go. In the US with declining numbers of pilots racing, eventually this will be a non-issue. However, while there are still 60+ pilots entered at a contest, a few ideas come to mind. Many contests seem to involve multiple classes. Why not set a different task, with a different starting area for each class? This would thin out the starting gaggle considerably. If this isn't enough, then limit the entrants to each class to say 8 to 12 entries, or whatever arbitrary number the CD feels would be a "safe" number of pilots to have in a gaggle at the start.
> > >
> > > Or, you could have the same task set, but have different start times, separated by a significant enough length of time, that the first class to launch would all be started before the next class launches. This would require the starting gate to be open for a set time, and everyone would need to start during that window though.
> > >
> > > These measures would help to reduce the "congestion" at the start of the task.
> > >
> > > Just my $0.02. Take it for what it's worth.
> >
> > I am not a competition pilot, but what you suggest is already in practice. I see contest reports that refer to different classes starting from different points and at different times (and flying different tasks). It appears (to me, anyway) that one of the biggest problems is pre-start gaggle, where everybody launches and grinds around in a herd, waiting for the start gate and disregarding whether everybody in the thermal has flaps or not, 15 meters or 18 meters. Everybody is looking for the easiest way to stay up before heading out to the designated start point at their designated time.
> >
> > Up until then, it's a Charlie Foxtrot situation.
>
> Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough then. The whole point of what I suggested was to keep one class only in a gaggle before the start. So that would mean that the starting gaggle for the 15m class would be in a location near the start gate for the 15m task, compared to the 18m gaggle for the 18m task which starts at a different location. The start gates would be distant enough from each other that it would be impractical for both classes to be gaggling together before the start in the same thermal. These can also be separated by time, so that the start gate for one class closes before the next class even launches. One could also even limit the number of class entrants which if these measures implemented, would limit the size of the gaggle to the size of the class. But what do I know? I'm not a contest pilot--yet.
I'll repeat myself. That is what is done today in the US. We use different start cylinders for each class to reduce congestion. The video shows the start commonly used in much of the rest of the world under IGC, or similar, rules.
In that start, everyone waits behind the line hoping to go last.
When using multiple classes, they use different starts.
The existing US cylinder start, with the ability to start out the top, provides a somewhat greater opportunity for someone to break away on the start if they wish to. That said, on a weak blue day, the smart thing to do is stay with the group for a more predictable result.
UH
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.