US SSA/SRA Contest Rules Poll

[Ken Sorenson]

The annual pilot poll for the US contest rules is open at
http://adamsfive.com/survey/surveys.php

The poll is open to pilots on the SSA pilot ranking list and closes on Nov
14.

The Rules Committee relies heavily on the poll input to steer the Rules
making process, so please give us your input.

Ken Sorenson
SSA Contest Committee Chairman

[Tuno]

What?! No question(s) about safety finishes??

Small potatoes. I appreciate the work on the survey, Ken.

~ted/2NO
Gollywomper II

[[email protected]]

On Oct 30, 7:43 pm, "Ken Sorenson" > wrote:
> The annual pilot poll for the US contest rules is open athttp://adamsfive.com/survey/surveys.php
>
> The poll is open to pilots on the SSA pilot ranking list and closes on Nov
> 14.
>
> The Rules Committee relies heavily on the poll input to steer the Rules
> making process, so please give us your input.
>
> Ken Sorenson
> SSA Contest Committee Chairman

Ken,
Last year pilot pool results were ignored by Rules Committee.(what
gliders can fly for club class qualification)
Hank Nixon explained : you guys need more time .
Please ,clean your act if you want pilots to tread you seriosuly.
Ryszard Krolikowski (RW)

[[email protected]]

On Nov 1, 1:15 am, wrote:
> On Oct 30, 7:43 pm, "Ken Sorenson" > wrote:
>
> > The annual pilot poll for the US contest rules is open athttp://adamsfive.com/survey/surveys.php
>
> > The poll is open to pilots on the SSA pilot ranking list and closes on Nov
> > 14.
>
> > The Rules Committee relies heavily on the poll input to steer the Rules
> > making process, so please give us your input.
>
> > Ken Sorenson
> > SSA Contest Committee Chairman
>
> Ken,
> Last year pilot pool results were ignored by Rules Committee.(what
> gliders can fly for club class qualification)
> Hank Nixon explained : you guys need more time .
> Please ,clean your act if you want pilots to tread you seriosuly.
> Ryszard Krolikowski (RW)

RW
You could not be more incorrect.
#1 US Team qualification process is determined by the US Team
Committee which uses the rules poll to gather input. Possibly this is
not
clear to you. Rules Committed does not determine this.
#2 Any such change is a major change and both committees use a cycle
of about 2 years so people are not caught by surprise.
#3 Recently announced changes limit team selection to a range of
gliders
consistent with the Club Class. See The US Team web site for more
info
on this.
You sat in on the presentation in Caesar Creek in which this process
was
explained and the pending changes were described. The USTC has
continued on course as described by Dan Cole.
For the RC and USTC
UH

[BB]

On Oct 31, 3:08 pm, Tuno > wrote:
> What?! No question(s) about safety finishes??
>
It's on the RC agenda, clearly an important issue. After much
discussion, we couldn't find a way to ask a productive survey
question. State your experience and opinions in the boxes at the
bottom.

John Cochrane

[chris]

On the poll I was confused by the explanation of question 8[?]
regarding using the last exit position of the start cylinder as the
scored start point rather than the point closest to the first
turnpoint.

I understand the concept of the proposed rule change. The explanation
seemed poorly written and confusing to me.

The description said something about exiting out the back, then flying
through the gaggles in the start cylinder. I don't understand this
because if you did this then by definition you pass through the start
cylinder again and then have a restart on the 2nd exit right?
[start=last exit of start cylinder]


Why did we not have a choice to change the scored exit point to
anywhere on the front 180° of the start cylinder? That seems like the
best of both concepts with the fewest problems.

Chris

[[email protected]]

Ryszard you could not be more wrong both in your comment and your
approach. Aside from the fact that Ken and Hank put in hundreds of
hours each year to make sure we actually have contests in this country
the idea that the Rules Committee ignores the annual poll results is
just wrong - plain and simple. As are you sir.

John Seaborn


On Oct 31, 11:15 pm, wrote:
> On Oct 30, 7:43 pm, "Ken Sorenson" > wrote:
>
> > The annual pilot poll for the US contest rules is open athttp://adamsfive.com/survey/surveys.php
>
> > The poll is open to pilots on the SSA pilot ranking list and closes on Nov
> > 14.
>
> > The Rules Committee relies heavily on the poll input to steer the Rules
> > making process, so please give us your input.
>
> > Ken Sorenson
> > SSA Contest Committee Chairman
>
> Ken,
> Last year pilot pool results were ignored by Rules Committee.(what
> gliders can fly for club class qualification)
> Hank Nixon explained : you guys need more time .
> Please ,clean your act if you want pilots to tread you seriosuly.
> Ryszard Krolikowski (RW)

[BB]

> On the poll I was confused by the explanation of question 8[?]
> regarding using the last exit position of the start cylinder as the
> scored start point rather than the point closest to the first
> turnpoint.
>
> I understand the concept of the proposed rule change. The explanation
> seemed poorly written and confusing to me.
>
> The description said something about exiting out the back, then flying
> through the gaggles in the start cylinder. I don't understand this
> because if you did this then by definition you pass through the start
> cylinder again and then have a restart on the 2nd exit right?
> [start=last exit of start cylinder]
>
> Why did we not have a choice to change the scored exit point to
> anywhere on the front 180° of the start cylinder? That seems like the
> best of both concepts with the fewest problems.
>
> Chris

The intent of the poll question is just to see if people like the
principle of being scored from the exit point vs. being scored for
distance from the center minus radius. If the principle is accepted,
you can trust the RC to work through the exact details with a close
eye on traffic, fairness, operational, and other issues.

Clearly, we want to keep "on course" and "prestart" traffic separate
as much as possible. The "last exit" is one easy way to make sure that
people don't start then blaze through the cylinder. Restricting it to
the front 180 does even more, if anyone would ever be nuts enough to
exit out the back of the cylinder and then go all the way around it so
as not to go back in it. Other limits may be imposed as well.

The big issue here is how you feel about the flexibility of starting
anywhere without distance cost, vs. the possibility that the upwind
edge is too attractive in a strong wind. Let us know how you feel
about that.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Nov 1, 11:19 am, chris > wrote:
> On the poll I was confused by the explanation of question 8[?]
> regarding using the last exit position of the start cylinder as the
> scored start point rather than the point closest to the first
> turnpoint.
>
> I understand the concept of the proposed rule change. The explanation
> seemed poorly written and confusing to me.
>
> The description said something about exiting out the back, then flying
> through the gaggles in the start cylinder. I don't understand this
> because if you did this then by definition you pass through the start
> cylinder again and then have a restart on the 2nd exit right?
> [start=last exit of start cylinder]
>
> Why did we not have a choice to change the scored exit point to
> anywhere on the front 180° of the start cylinder? That seems like the
> best of both concepts with the fewest problems.
>
> Chris

If the principle of giving a pilot his best score is applied, and
speed achieved after
exiting the back and then flying across the cylinder (on a street of
through a "boomer")
at a speed that exceeds the rest of the on course speed for the
flight, a pilot can improve both
his speed and his score.
This is a significant safety concern and likely to happen. Where elso
do you have lift so well
marked as the prestart?
Limiting to the "front " 180 solves this but has computation issues
due to potentially significant
variations in the heading of the first leg.
Wanna take a swing at trying to write some language to deal with these
considerations?
This is a good example of something that seems very simple actually
not being so simple.
Thanks for you thoughts.
UH

[01-- Zero One]

" > wrote in message
ups.com:

> On Nov 1, 11:19 am, chris > wrote:
> > On the poll I was confused by the explanation of question 8[?]
> > regarding using the last exit position of the start cylinder as the
> > scored start point rather than the point closest to the first
> > turnpoint.
> >
> > I understand the concept of the proposed rule change. The explanation
> > seemed poorly written and confusing to me.
> >
> > The description said something about exiting out the back, then flying
> > through the gaggles in the start cylinder. I don't understand this
> > because if you did this then by definition you pass through the start
> > cylinder again and then have a restart on the 2nd exit right?
> > [start=last exit of start cylinder]
> >
> > Why did we not have a choice to change the scored exit point to
> > anywhere on the front 1800 of the start cylinder? That seems like the
> > best of both concepts with the fewest problems.
> >
> > Chris
>
> If the principle of giving a pilot his best score is applied, and
> speed achieved after
> exiting the back and then flying across the cylinder (on a street of
> through a "boomer")
> at a speed that exceeds the rest of the on course speed for the
> flight, a pilot can improve both
> his speed and his score.
> This is a significant safety concern and likely to happen. Where elso
> do you have lift so well
> marked as the prestart?
> Limiting to the "front " 180 solves this but has computation issues
> due to potentially significant
> variations in the heading of the first leg.
> Wanna take a swing at trying to write some language to deal with these
> considerations?
> This is a good example of something that seems very simple actually
> not being so simple.
> Thanks for you thoughts.
> UH





Hank,



I think it is simple.



Here is my language: "Your start is scored for distance and time when
and where you exit the start cylinder the last time"



It sounds like your example would still have the pilot who exited at the
back of the cylinder coming back through the cylinder again to use the
pre-start gaggles, hence getting scored when (s)he exits the cylinder at
the front with the rest of the gaggle. I think that if you get a valid
start and distance calculated from the last exit of the start cylinder,
wherever that may be, that seems to answer the questions of safety
because there would be _no_ advantage to taking a boomer toward the back
and bumping through the frontward start gaggles because then you would
be back inside the cylinder and be scored when and where you
subsequently exited the cylinder. Additionally, you would need to be
sure that you were below the start cylinder height for 2 minutes to get
a valid start.



I would submit three examples where my approach would improve safety.



1) Because I will get credit for distance flown, not the minimum
course line distance from the front of the cylinder, there is no
advantage for me to be at or near course line (which is currently the
_most_ advantageous place, and where most of us tend to congregate). I
can now be 5 miles left or right of course line, away from the rest of
the gaggles and know that I am in just as good a position as anyone else
because I get scored for distance and time when I leave the cylinder on
the side.

2) I see a 4 kt. boomer forming toward the back of the cylinder
that I estimate can take me a 1000' above the top of the cylinder. I
climb out of the top of the cylinder, 6 miles back, getting a start from
that location when I exit the top. I take it up appropriately based on
strength and head on course. The only thing I need to be aware of at
this point is that I do not slip back down into the cylinder (which is
where all the pre-start gaggles are milling around) so that my original
start time is busted. And I will certainly be flying a bit slower in
order to make sure that I do not penetrate the start cylinder again.

3) I see a good thermal toward the back of the cylinder. The
contest has seen numerous leechers. I decide to slip out the back of the
cylinder and go around the side and onto course. I have an incentive to
travel toward the back of the cylinder now because I get credit for the
distance from the last exit. This action puts me at least 5 miles to
the left or right of course line hence spreading out the pack.



This approach should be easy to score, easy to understand, and have the
original desired effect of spreading the field out before the start.





Larry Goddard

01 "zero one"

[BB]

>
> I think it is simple.
>
> Here is my language: "Your start is scored for distance and time when
> and where you exit the start cylinder the last time"

As Larry points out, the issue of separating pre-start and post-start
traffic is fairly easy to solve. As one minor addition, if you do slip
back in to the cylinder, you can then start again if you stay under
for two minutes, or take your original start, but scored in the old-
fashioned way. The scoring program already knows to look for multiple
starts and take the best one. The scoring program already finds the
"start fix" so the change is not hard to program.

Previous discussions of this option at SRA meetings focused on a
different issue, highlighted in the pro/con of the poll. In no wind
the "start anywhere" option is great, it's like a start line because
all parts of the start circle are equally good. But in significant
wind, the optimal start point is at the upwind edge of the cylinder,
rather than at the wind-triangle upwind point under current rules. If
in addition, it's a crosswind or downwind, the optimal point is 90
degrees away from the courseline. Now, as currently, it's not a huge
big deal to start 30 degrees away from this optimal point, but it is a
bit worse than currently because you start and then make a sharp
course change. Still, the US RC wisely decided not to use a start
line, because in a significant crosswind it funnels all gliders to one
point in space, the upwind edge of the start line. There is some
concern that the "start anywhere" option would have this same effect.

The most important question, I think, for the poll, is how do pilots
feel about this? Are the obvious advantages of "start anywhere" on
days without much wind offset by the potential disadvantage of this
scenario? In your experience, how often is there enough cross or
downwind on the first leg that this would be a problem? The RC is
pretty good at thinking through traffic issues, but this really is a
pilot preference issue, and hearing opinions on the poll will be very
useful.

John Cochrane

[Udo]

The scoring program already knows to look for multiple
> starts and take the best one. The scoring program already finds the
> "start fix" so the change is not hard to program.

I am not so sure about that.
I had the opportunity to help scoring the Canadian Nat's.
A contestant requested to be scored on the second last start.
This gave him a small advantage due to him being 5 minutes early.
Udo

[[email protected]]

On Nov 2, 10:40 am, BB > wrote:
> > I think it is simple.
>
> > Here is my language: "Your start is scored for distance and time when
> > and where you exit the start cylinder the last time"
>
> As Larry points out, the issue of separating pre-start and post-start
> traffic is fairly easy to solve. As one minor addition, if you do slip
> back in to the cylinder, you can then start again if you stay under
> for two minutes, or take your original start, but scored in the old-
> fashioned way. The scoring program already knows to look for multiple
> starts and take the best one. The scoring program already finds the
> "start fix" so the change is not hard to program.
>
> Previous discussions of this option at SRA meetings focused on a
> different issue, highlighted in the pro/con of the poll. In no wind
> the "start anywhere" option is great, it's like a start line because
> all parts of the start circle are equally good. But in significant
> wind, the optimal start point is at the upwind edge of the cylinder,
> rather than at the wind-triangle upwind point under current rules. If
> in addition, it's a crosswind or downwind, the optimal point is 90
> degrees away from the courseline. Now, as currently, it's not a huge
> big deal to start 30 degrees away from this optimal point, but it is a
> bit worse than currently because you start and then make a sharp
> course change. Still, the US RC wisely decided not to use a start
> line, because in a significant crosswind it funnels all gliders to one
> point in space, the upwind edge of the start line. There is some
> concern that the "start anywhere" option would have this same effect.
>
> The most important question, I think, for the poll, is how do pilots
> feel about this? Are the obvious advantages of "start anywhere" on
> days without much wind offset by the potential disadvantage of this
> scenario? In your experience, how often is there enough cross or
> downwind on the first leg that this would be a problem? The RC is
> pretty good at thinking through traffic issues, but this really is a
> pilot preference issue, and hearing opinions on the poll will be very
> useful.
>
> John Cochrane

I see the effect as somewhat different.
Now, a pilot chooses between the optimum start point based on wind
and thermal distribution relative to
shortest distance to first turn. In fact what most do is try to find
the "fast gaggle(KS, DJ etc) and get with them.

With exit point start, the tradeoff no longer exists. The pilot simply
goes to the best cloud in the windward quadrant- just like everybody
else. They then collect around the same guys, and the result is pretty
much the same.
I describe this from experience in the WGC where we saw the same
thing.
The gaggle collects at the best cloud, and tries to go 30 seconds
after the Brits!

The start method that pretty much stops all of this and drives pilots
to make "soaring starts" is the multi-point start where the fleet is
randomly divided into 3-4 groups each with their own start cylinder.
With this one, there are no big gaggles and you have to go based on
your assessment of the soaring conditions. We put this into place, but
it died due to lack of interest. It worked very well in Oz in 2001.

The biggest benefit to exit point scoring is that it makes your flight
match the result generated
by See You.
Interesting debate.
UH

[Andy[_1_]]

On Nov 1, 8:19 am, chris > wrote:
>
> The description said something about exiting out the back, then flying
> through the gaggles in the start cylinder. I don't understand this
> because if you did this then by definition you pass through the start
> cylinder again and then have a restart on the 2nd exit right?

On a strong day the pre-start gaggles may be much higher than the
maximum start height. It would in theory be possible to exit the
rear, perhaps by climbing through the top adjacent to the rear of the
cylinder then bump pre-start gaggles for approx 10 miles without
descending into the top of the cylinder.

Andy

[[email protected]]

>
> > The description said something about exiting out the back, then flying
> > through the gaggles in the start cylinder. I don't understand this
> > because if you did this then by definition you pass through the start
> > cylinder again and then have a restart on the 2nd exit right?
>
> On a strong day the pre-start gaggles may be much higher than the
> maximum start height. It would in theory be possible to exit the
> rear, perhaps by climbing through the top adjacent to the rear of the
> cylinder then bump pre-start gaggles for approx 10 miles without
> descending into the top of the cylinder.
>
> Andy

It is possible to have the start cylinder height above the expected
top of the lift (or cloudbase) for the day. For the most part this
worked extremely well at this years sports nats. The problem was on
the blue days when, as the thermal weakened at the top, the highest
gliders would begin to sink back down, while lower gliders would still
slowly be climbing, ending with close to 20 gliders withing 200ft of
each other. Of course, this could also happen with a start cylinder
of limited height as pilots use spoilers to keep below the top. It
also is probably not practical in the West - 18000ft of free altitude
would make for some impressive speeds, however.

Has the "start arc" been seriously considered? This is a start line
that arcs towards the turnpoints at each such that the distance to the
center of the first turn is the same no matter where you start. It
would still be advantageous to start at the upwind part of the arc,
but you wouldn't be able to get an extra ~5mi on top of that by going
through the side of a cylinder. This is somewhat more complex to set
up, but most modern flight computers have been programmed to support
it and I know its been used in Europe, although have no idea how
successful it was.

2C

[Ron Gleason]

>
> Has the "start arc" been seriously considered? This is a start line
> that arcs towards the turnpoints at each such that the distance to the
> center of the first turn is the same no matter where you start. It
> would still be advantageous to start at the upwind part of the arc,
> but you wouldn't be able to get an extra ~5mi on top of that by going
> through the side of a cylinder. This is somewhat more complex to set
> up, but most modern flight computers have been programmed to support
> it and I know its been used in Europe, although have no idea how
> successful it was.
>
> 2C

While I do not have any competition experience with gliders, something
I hope to change in 2008, I have competed for many years in hang
gliding competitions. For start cylinders we use two types; the
traditional exit cylinder and an ENTRY cylinder. The entry cylinder
is a large diameter cylinder, typically centered at the first turn
point or beyond it. Lets say the first turn point is 50 miles away,
the entry cylinder could be defined as a 45 mile diameter. Your start
time is determined when you last ENTER the start cylinder. The theory
for this approach is the diameter of the cylinder allows for more
spreading out of the competitors and allows the pilot to determine
best positioning for running to the first turn point. One thing that
you have to ensure is that the diameter of the entry cylinder is large
enough to prevent pilots from flying around the back side, entering
the cylinder from behind and proceeding to first turn point. This
issue can also be addressed by making the center of the start cylinder
also your first turn point.

The ENTRY cylinder sounds similar in concept to the startline arc
mentioned above. The entry cylinder has been very successful for hang
glider and paraglider compeitions.

Ron Gleason
DG303 N303MR

[BB]

> On a strong day the pre-start gaggles may be much higher than the
> maximum start height. It would in theory be possible to exit the
> rear, perhaps by climbing through the top adjacent to the rear of the
> cylinder then bump pre-start gaggles for approx 10 miles without
> descending into the top of the cylinder.
>
> Andy

If this is viewed as a problem, we simply limit the option for last-
exit start to disallow flying over the top of the cylinder. (If you do
it, you still get a start, but scored under the old formula. You still
get a score for the day, and you still can start out the top as now,
but there is no advantage to doing it.)

Again, these traffic problems are easy to solve. The big question is,
do pilots want to do it this way? Or do the potential disadvantages in
strong winds, or the "big gaggle" just moving upwind a bit, make it
better to stay with things as they are?

John Cochrane

[01-- Zero One]

"BB" > wrote in message
oups.com:

> > On a strong day the pre-start gaggles may be much higher than the
> > maximum start height. It would in theory be possible to exit the
> > rear, perhaps by climbing through the top adjacent to the rear of the
> > cylinder then bump pre-start gaggles for approx 10 miles without
> > descending into the top of the cylinder.
> >
> > Andy
>
> If this is viewed as a problem, we simply limit the option for last-
> exit start to disallow flying over the top of the cylinder. (If you do
> it, you still get a start, but scored under the old formula. You still
> get a score for the day, and you still can start out the top as now,
> but there is no advantage to doing it.)
>
> Again, these traffic problems are easy to solve. The big question is,
> do pilots want to do it this way? Or do the potential disadvantages in
> strong winds, or the "big gaggle" just moving upwind a bit, make it
> better to stay with things as they are?
>
> John Cochrane





I see Andy's theory as such a 'non-issue'. What Andy is describing is
exactly the same action that takes place anywhere out on course. And
per his example, the gliders are already separated out into several
thermals, lowering the glider/thermal density.



Simply allow scoring for time and distance from any "exit" from the
cylinder and you have spread out the field as much as they will be
spread out. There will still be the leechers, and some big gaggles.
But we will have mitigated the "one optimal exit point" somewhat. Any
other restriction scenarios force everyone to the "frontmost" or
"windmost" point of the cylinder and the inevitable big gaggles.



My $0.02



Larry Goddard

01 "zero one"

[Andy[_1_]]

On Nov 4, 9:27 am, BB > wrote:
> > On a strong day the pre-start gaggles may be much higher than the
> > maximum start height. It would in theory be possible to exit the
> > rear, perhaps by climbing through the top adjacent to the rear of the
> > cylinder then bump pre-start gaggles for approx 10 miles without
> > descending into the top of the cylinder.
>
> > Andy
>
> If this is viewed as a problem,

John and Larry, I was not presenting this as a problem, only as an
explanation to the poster who wondered how it could be possible to use
start gaggles to advantage.

Andy