AT, TAT, MAT? [Archive] - AviationBanter

HL Falbaum

October 10th 08, 01:29 PM

"noel.wade" > wrote in message
...
> All -
>
> Does anyone know of any good books or articles on the nuts-and-
> bolts / common-strategies of how to fly the various competition task
> types?
>
> I'm still waiting on my copy of Winning II, but Reichmann and
> Brigliadori don't really touch on these and the competition rules only
> define what the tasks ARE, not how to approach flying them...
>
> I haven't yet been able to find any good reading material (other than
> the SRA 2005 Comp Guide) on how to approach the different task types -
> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> BTW, I've read some of the different rules documents, and it may be
> that I don't fully understand the scoring system... the big question-
> marks in my mind relate to speed points vs. distance points, and their
> trade-offs. For example: when is it worthwhile to push for extra
> distance, even if it might hurt the average speed you have going (so
> far) during a task?
>
> Thanks, take care,
>
> --Noel
>

Actually, The Brigliadori's book has a whole section on AAT strategies and
tactics.

Speed always counts for more than distance, but you *must* finish the task.
Distance is a factor if you think you can't finish the task. A special case
is an AAT final glide with excess height--Very fast final from where you
are, or slower final by increasing distance? In either case your speed for
the segment will be faster than your overall average, so the longer segment
will increase your average more. Hurting your average for more distance
won't help.

Cheers and always happy flights.

Hartley Falbaum
USA "KF"

PMSC Member

October 10th 08, 01:45 PM

[email protected]

October 10th 08, 02:34 PM

Tuno

October 10th 08, 02:37 PM

Noel:

You've demonstrated that you like to gather and use good information.
Before you read specific task strategies, make sure you understand the
rules. As mentioned speed always counts a lot more than distance
points, so strive to finish the task first. Distance points are just a
consolation prize.

I suggest you read the regional contest rules carefully (download them
at the SRA web site if you haven't done so already), then give the SRA
contest guide another read.

One thing you'll realize is that a TAT (also called AAT) is just an AT
with bigger turn radii and a minimum task time. Other than that
they're scored the same, and of course TATs give you the opportunity
to route your task to more favorable weather and terrain.

As you start to understand the rules you'll find that task strategies
are a basic application of common sense and the usual x/c strategies
(stay upwind of courseline, watch weather & terrain, delay thermaling
if possible when approaching a turnpoint from downwind, etc).

After the rules and SRA guide, read everything you can find by Moffat
and Cochrane. The Reichmann and Brigliadori books are translated so
don't read as easily.

And never forget there is no substitute for cockpit time. Learning the
art of detecting lift and deciding when or whether to turn was (and
still is) a far more daunting task to me than getting the arms around
rules and strategies!

~ted/2NO

Papa3

October 10th 08, 03:11 PM

On Oct 9, 11:23*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> All -
>
> Does anyone know of any good books or articles on the nuts-and-
> bolts */ common-strategies of how to fly the various competition task
> types?
>
> I'm still waiting on my copy of Winning II, but Reichmann and
> Brigliadori don't really touch on these and the competition rules only
> define what the tasks ARE, not how to approach flying them...
>
> I haven't yet been able to find any good reading material (other than
> the SRA 2005 Comp Guide) on how to approach the different task types -
> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> BTW, I've read some of the different rules documents, and it may be
> that I don't fully understand the scoring system... the big question-
> marks in my mind relate to speed points vs. distance points, and their
> trade-offs. *For example: when is it worthwhile to push for extra
> distance, even if it might hurt the average speed you have going (so
> far) during a task?
>
> Thanks, take care,
>
> --Noel

Hi Noel,

John Cochrane's web pages have a bunch of interesting reading. Some
of it is fairly "deep" (hey, he's an economist for chrissakes - sorry
John), so be prepared to white board and talk to yourself while you
read.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#For_glider

For my part, I'd also suggest you keep it simple. Aside from the
obvious stuff like being prepared, knowing the basic rules, etc. I'd
do the following:

- All tasks: Assuming you have the basic flying skills (e.g.
thermalling, cruising, etc.), try to stay with people, preferably a
few people who are a bit better than you. Don't be embarassed about
"leaching" in your first contest. At the same time, don't get in
the way. You'll be amazed at how much you'll learn.

- All tasks: Start early and let the good guys catch up to you.
No, really. Forget about start gate roulette or trying to start at
the "optimal time". If you're near/at the top of the gate and it
looks like the day is more-or-less "cooking", go ahead and start.
Sometimes, a few more folks will start soon after, and you'll have
them to fly with for a while. More often than not, they'll sit in
their cockpits laughing (privately) at your rookie mistake while you
get hung out to dry. Inevitably, the good guys will catch you and
pass you. Maybe you can hang with them for a couple of thermals.

- AAT: In theory, you want to finish the task more or less "on
time"; ie. if it's a three hour task, you want to finish around 3
hours. Good theory. In practice, most newbies have trouble hitting
a precise time because their flying is inconsistent. The penalty for
being under time is way worse than being a bit over. Shoot for 15
minutes over time. You'll be so slow that it won't really matter, and
your goal at this point should be to build up contest time anyway.

- MAT: Similar to AAT in terms of time. Other than that, the one
big one is to always aim for a "target rich environment". If there's
a quadrant that has lots of turnpoint options, go there, other things
being equal (i.e. unless it looks like crap compared to the other
areas). There's nothing worse than banking on one turnpoint that
miles from nowhere, only to find that it's surrounded by the only blue
hole/thunderstorm/over-development in the contest area. To put it
another way, always give yourself some options in case the turnpoint
you thought you were heading for isn't going to work out.

There you have it. Follow the above, and you're guaranteed not to
come in DFL.

P3

[email protected]

October 10th 08, 06:47 PM

On Oct 10, 10:11 am, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Oct 9, 11:23 pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > All -
>
> > Does anyone know of any good books or articles on the nuts-and-
> > bolts / common-strategies of how to fly the various competition task
> > types?
>
> > I'm still waiting on my copy of Winning II, but Reichmann and
> > Brigliadori don't really touch on these and the competition rules only
> > define what the tasks ARE, not how to approach flying them...
>
> > I haven't yet been able to find any good reading material (other than
> > the SRA 2005 Comp Guide) on how to approach the different task types -
> > anyone have any recommendations?
>
> > BTW, I've read some of the different rules documents, and it may be
> > that I don't fully understand the scoring system... the big question-
> > marks in my mind relate to speed points vs. distance points, and their
> > trade-offs. For example: when is it worthwhile to push for extra
> > distance, even if it might hurt the average speed you have going (so
> > far) during a task?
>
> > Thanks, take care,
>
> > --Noel
>
> Hi Noel,
>
> John Cochrane's web pages have a bunch of interesting reading. Some
> of it is fairly "deep" (hey, he's an economist for chrissakes - sorry
> John), so be prepared to white board and talk to yourself while you
> read.
>
> http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#For_glider
>
> For my part, I'd also suggest you keep it simple. Aside from the
> obvious stuff like being prepared, knowing the basic rules, etc. I'd
> do the following:
>
> - All tasks: Assuming you have the basic flying skills (e.g.
> thermalling, cruising, etc.), try to stay with people, preferably a
> few people who are a bit better than you. Don't be embarassed about
> "leaching" in your first contest. At the same time, don't get in
> the way. You'll be amazed at how much you'll learn.
>
> - All tasks: Start early and let the good guys catch up to you.
> No, really. Forget about start gate roulette or trying to start at
> the "optimal time". If you're near/at the top of the gate and it
> looks like the day is more-or-less "cooking", go ahead and start.
> Sometimes, a few more folks will start soon after, and you'll have
> them to fly with for a while. More often than not, they'll sit in
> their cockpits laughing (privately) at your rookie mistake while you
> get hung out to dry. Inevitably, the good guys will catch you and
> pass you. Maybe you can hang with them for a couple of thermals.
>
> - AAT: In theory, you want to finish the task more or less "on
> time"; ie. if it's a three hour task, you want to finish around 3
> hours. Good theory. In practice, most newbies have trouble hitting
> a precise time because their flying is inconsistent. The penalty for
> being under time is way worse than being a bit over. Shoot for 15
> minutes over time. You'll be so slow that it won't really matter, and
> your goal at this point should be to build up contest time anyway.
>
> - MAT: Similar to AAT in terms of time. Other than that, the one
> big one is to always aim for a "target rich environment". If there's
> a quadrant that has lots of turnpoint options, go there, other things
> being equal (i.e. unless it looks like crap compared to the other
> areas). There's nothing worse than banking on one turnpoint that
> miles from nowhere, only to find that it's surrounded by the only blue
> hole/thunderstorm/over-development in the contest area. To put it
> another way, always give yourself some options in case the turnpoint
> you thought you were heading for isn't going to work out.
>
> There you have it. Follow the above, and you're guaranteed not to
> come in DFL.
>
> P3

I'll add a couple things (with 2 whole contests under my belt!):

1. look at the forecast for the day. Generally the weather report
you get will plot the expected cloudbase through the day. Plan
on flying your task during the best hours of the day. It works
against
you to start in weaker conditions and finish while there's still an
hour
of strong lift available. This factor favors the MAT and TAT format
over
the AT, since with an assigned task you have to worry about how long
the task will take you and then center THAT in the best soaring!

2. Estimate your speed on task once you know how good the day will be.
Based on that you can determine how far you want to go into the
cylinders,
or how many turnpoints to hit on a MAT. E.g., task time is 3 hours,
conditions are good, so you think you will fly 60mph. Nominal task
length is
160 miles, minimum 120, maximum 200. You'd better fly deep into that
first
cylinder or else you're going to be stuck coming in early.

3. Practice makes perfect. During your weekend flying with your
friends
get together early and call a MAT or TAT for the day and see how it
works.
Also, get Condor and use it in the off season. Mostly the online
competitions
call ATs or arcade tasks, but you can program your own tasks and even
host
them so others come to join. Best of all, you can connect your PDA to
Condor and learn how to use it for MAT and TAT tasks.

Most importantly, fly safe and have fun!
-- Matt (sometimes AI)

Mike the Strike

October 10th 08, 08:01 PM

Here are a few extra hints to make sure that you actually complete the
task:

1) Check your waypoint data, especially if you've entered or updated
any manually. (We once had a competitor enter the wrong coordinates
for a turnpoint and then flew about 90-degrees off course to a landout
in the middle of nowhere)

2) Make sure that you fly the current day's task and not
yesterday's. (I've seen that happen a couple of times).

3) If flying an MAT with poor weather conditions make sure that you
have a choice of turnpoints. (I blew a task last year when I chose
two successive turnpoints with no close alternatives that had
thunderstorms over them when I arrived).

Finishing the task should be your first goal. When you've figured out
how to do that, then you can increase your speed!

Mike

HL Falbaum

October 10th 08, 08:44 PM

"Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
...
> Here are a few extra hints to make sure that you actually complete the
> task:
>
> 1) Check your waypoint data, especially if you've entered or updated
> any manually. (We once had a competitor enter the wrong coordinates
> for a turnpoint and then flew about 90-degrees off course to a landout
> in the middle of nowhere)
>
> 2) Make sure that you fly the current day's task and not
> yesterday's. (I've seen that happen a couple of times).
>
> 3) If flying an MAT with poor weather conditions make sure that you
> have a choice of turnpoints. (I blew a task last year when I chose
> two successive turnpoints with no close alternatives that had
> thunderstorms over them when I arrived).
>
> Finishing the task should be your first goal. When you've figured out
> how to do that, then you can increase your speed!
>
> Mike
>
>

All good suggestions.

In addition---Don't cut your final glide close. Practice with the software
till you can trust it. Add an extra 200 ft until you know it is safe. It is
really neat to make it home past the other gliders in the nearby field.

Hartley

noel.wade

October 10th 08, 10:51 PM

Thanks for all the tips and info, folks! Big thanks for the links to
John Cochrane & KS's past articles.

A couple of responses to the concerns and basic "just fly the task"
comments, so you understand where I'm coming from:

1) I'm flying with an S-Nav, a PDA (XCSoar), and an ewMicroRecorder.
I've practiced using all of the above equipment with AT-type tasks,
but I do need to figure out to set up MAT and TAT tasks. :-) I've
definitely spent some time dialing in my polar and final-glide
settings to try to make that part of it accurate, though (and I'm not
there yet).

2) I have been a big proponent of the Condor soaring simulator since I
first started working on transitioning from SEL to Glider. I have a
nice setup and have flown a lot of hours with it over the last 2
years. I think the thermals are slightly too symmetrical (too easy to
perfectly center in many cases) - but otherwise its an EXCELLENT
resource. Didn't think you could do MAT or TAT tasks with it,
though...

3) Practice: My last several flights at EPH this summer I made a
point of researching in the morning (see point #4 below), and picking
a few waypoints. I then flew to (or beyond) these waypoints on my
flights (noting differences in the forecast and the actual
conditions). I've also spent a fair amount of time flying near
Seattle itself, where cloudbases are very low and the lift is
typically only about 2 knots. This week I did a 125km+ XC flight -
which doesn't sound like much until you learn that the cloudbase was
3000' MSL and we were dodging rain-showers the whole time; and half of
the pilots that day landed out! Flying in weak conditions may not
allow for big distances, but the skills you develop in making low-
saves and "tiptoeing around" are invaluable!

4) Weather: For me this is a hugely important skill to learn as a
pilot. I've worked to become the chief forecaster for our local (west-
side) club. I am still working to get better at reading individual
clouds and timing my jumps to them, but I have become very adept at
using soundings (both real and simulated) and other online weather
resources to figure out the forecasted conditions at various points
along my flight-path. I'll admit it: mostly, I'm stubborn and I don't
trust other people's forecasts. I want to read the tea-leaves myself,
and then if I screw up I have no one else to blame. :-P

5) When to turn: This is still a big one for me. I am developing a
good "butt-meter" when it comes to detecting and centering lift when
I'm flying along slowly or already circling. At my typical cruise-
speed of ~80 knots I find it MUCH harder! Either I stop and turn for
a big bump that isn't workable (just a gust or something ragged); or I
blow through the lift by the time I realize its big enough to use, and
I don't think its worthwhile to try to turn back around to find it.
At least I know I'm not the only one who sometimes dolphin-flies and
pulls up in the sink on the far side because of vario lag... *sigh*

For those that have read this far (I'm impressed!) and have flown in
competitions: On a good day (thermal-strength-wise), how big of an
altitude band do you typically use when jumping between individual
clouds? I know about McCready theory and using streets and energy
lines and such; but I am curious about people's experiences and
anecdotal evidence. And yes, I know the exact answer is dependant
upon terrain and conditions - but I'm still interested to know what
your rough estimate is.

Thanks again for some excellent suggestions and information!

Take care,

--Noel

Barny

October 11th 08, 02:26 PM

Noel, I'm in the same boat as you, so I've been following this thread.
Regarding Altitude band, I find it educational to review other guys at
my field flights on OLC to see their speeds, alt band, how often they
stopped and circled, how many times they stopped only to abandone the
thermal, etc.

[email protected]

October 11th 08, 03:07 PM

Noel (and Barny and all):

Since others might be in the same boat, here is a review of height
bands. Please accept my apology if this goes too far back as others
might benefit.

According to Phil Petmecky's "Breaking the Apron Strings, page 29 and
33," Flight bands are designed solely to increase your speed. The
primary time to use flight bands is when speed or time is a factor;
such as during a contest task, or a long badge flight, or racing the
sun or clouds (this last one is my addition). Altitude bands allow us
to fly fast when conditions warrant, without reducing our options at
lower altitudes. Flight bands expand our options as we get lower.

Per Bob Wander's "Glider Polars and Speed-to-fly Made Easy, page 18,"
Fly aggressive speeds when high in the band, conservative speeds when
in the middle of the band, and fly survival speeds when low in the
band.

The normal operating band is most often the top two thirds of the
convection layer (e.g.: If the maximum achieved altitude is 6,000'
AGL, the normal operating band is between 2,000-6,000 feet). But until
confidence is gained, the new cross-country pilot might use the top
half of the convection layer as the normal operating height band.
Below the normal operating band, any lift should be used (until
gaining more experience).

Raul Boerner
LS6-b
(also with only two Regionals under the belt)

noel.wade

October 11th 08, 05:13 PM

Thanks, Raul. I'm very familiar with the published information...
But as some of those authors point out - what people say about flying
and what people do _when_ flying are sometimes different. :-)

That's why I was looking for some anecdotal responses from competition
pilots... How often are they taking big climbs (regardless of whether
its a great thermal)? How often are they driving far enough between
thermals to lose 2000' or more in altitude between climbs?

Take care,

--Noel

chipsoars

October 11th 08, 05:25 PM

On Oct 11, 12:13*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Thanks, Raul. *I'm very familiar with the published information...
> But as some of those authors point out - what people say about flying
> and what people do _when_ flying are sometimes different. :-)
>
> That's why I was looking for some anecdotal responses from competition
> pilots... How often are they taking big climbs (regardless of whether
> its a great thermal)? *How often are they driving far enough between
> thermals to lose 2000' or more in altitude between climbs?
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel

Try downloading the flightlogs from SSA.org sailplane racing, contest
results and use seeyou to look at the flights and statistics. Usually
the top three spots for each contest day are posted. That will
provide much more reliable data than anecdotal reports ever will.

Chris Reed[_2_]

October 11th 08, 05:32 PM

The advice of Jay Rebbeck (former World Junior Champion)in an article in
Sailplane and Gliding a few years ago was to fly your Macready setting
in the top 50% of the height between ground and cloudbase. Once you drop
below 50%, reduce your speed to fly until you find the thermal to get
you back into the top 50%. He reckons this works irrespective of whether
your cloudbase is 3,000 ft or 15,000 ft.

The thing I find hardest is not stopping to climb in the top 50% for
anything but the best lift - that's why I'm pretty much the slowest
pilot around.

wrote:
> Noel (and Barny and all):
>
> Since others might be in the same boat, here is a review of height
> bands. Please accept my apology if this goes too far back as others
> might benefit.
>
> According to Phil Petmecky's "Breaking the Apron Strings, page 29 and
> 33," Flight bands are designed solely to increase your speed. The
> primary time to use flight bands is when speed or time is a factor;
> such as during a contest task, or a long badge flight, or racing the
> sun or clouds (this last one is my addition). Altitude bands allow us
> to fly fast when conditions warrant, without reducing our options at
> lower altitudes. Flight bands expand our options as we get lower.
>
> Per Bob Wander's "Glider Polars and Speed-to-fly Made Easy, page 18,"
> Fly aggressive speeds when high in the band, conservative speeds when
> in the middle of the band, and fly survival speeds when low in the
> band.
>
> The normal operating band is most often the top two thirds of the
> convection layer (e.g.: If the maximum achieved altitude is 6,000'
> AGL, the normal operating band is between 2,000-6,000 feet). But until
> confidence is gained, the new cross-country pilot might use the top
> half of the convection layer as the normal operating height band.
> Below the normal operating band, any lift should be used (until
> gaining more experience).
>
> Raul Boerner
> LS6-b
> (also with only two Regionals under the belt)

Tuno

October 11th 08, 07:19 PM

The height band theory works best when conditions in the task area are
homogeneous -- adjust for your conditions.

I recall a task at the Parowan Region 9 in 2007 that took me from the
clouds out into the blue, 20 miles or more to the next clouds. I left
the clouds at cloudbase at best L/D speed and kept it there. I just
made it to the next lift!

2NO

Bruce

October 11th 08, 07:38 PM

Noel - It really depends on the conditions. In the strong conditions we have the top pilots are typically doing a lot
more running, and a lot less thermalling than you would believe advisable/possible.

To do this they are using a much wider soaring band. That means they can be more picky about what thermal they take, and
yes the plan is to make big climbs, as infrequently as possible, in the strongest thermals possible. If you blow it and
get low, you have to take what you can get - the trick is to have the fortitude to leave your weak thermal and look for
better as soon as you have enough height to have a reasonable chance of getting to the next 'good' thermal.

I am constantly amazed at how low the top contest pilots are comfortable to go on a strong day, when the thermals are
decent from low down. Conversely, on other days the same pilots will be using maybe 2-3000 feet working band. Getting
home always beats landing out...

Consequently I tend to be sloooow.

One place to look - Recent contest at Magaliesburg (South Africa)
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/getScoring.html?scoringId=202&placeOfStartId=ORIEN1

Reasonable thermals, lots of wind. Look at the difference between the faster and slower pilots. I am the only one to log
flights on OLC in Club class but there are a few 15m pilots to compare.

What really works is to go and fly a contest, or same task as a competitive pilot. Then when you make a valid comparison
of your performance/decisions in similar conditions.

Don't compare your performance to others. Analyse their techniques, try them - use what works for you.

chipsoars wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:13 pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>> Thanks, Raul. I'm very familiar with the published information...
>> But as some of those authors point out - what people say about flying
>> and what people do _when_ flying are sometimes different. :-)
>>
>> That's why I was looking for some anecdotal responses from competition
>> pilots... How often are they taking big climbs (regardless of whether
>> its a great thermal)? How often are they driving far enough between
>> thermals to lose 2000' or more in altitude between climbs?
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> --Noel
>
> Try downloading the flightlogs from SSA.org sailplane racing, contest
> results and use seeyou to look at the flights and statistics. Usually
> the top three spots for each contest day are posted. That will
> provide much more reliable data than anecdotal reports ever will.
>

Bruce

October 11th 08, 07:58 PM

noel.wade wrote:
> Thanks for all the tips and info, folks! Big thanks for the links to
> John Cochrane & KS's past articles.
>
> A couple of responses to the concerns and basic "just fly the task"
> comments, so you understand where I'm coming from:
>
> 1) I'm flying with an S-Nav, a PDA (XCSoar), and an ewMicroRecorder.
> I've practiced using all of the above equipment with AT-type tasks,
> but I do need to figure out to set up MAT and TAT tasks. :-) I've
> definitely spent some time dialing in my polar and final-glide
> settings to try to make that part of it accurate, though (and I'm not
> there yet).
>
> 2) I have been a big proponent of the Condor soaring simulator since I
> first started working on transitioning from SEL to Glider. I have a
> nice setup and have flown a lot of hours with it over the last 2
> years. I think the thermals are slightly too symmetrical (too easy to
> perfectly center in many cases) - but otherwise its an EXCELLENT
> resource. Didn't think you could do MAT or TAT tasks with it,
> though...
>
> 3) Practice: My last several flights at EPH this summer I made a
> point of researching in the morning (see point #4 below), and picking
> a few waypoints. I then flew to (or beyond) these waypoints on my
> flights (noting differences in the forecast and the actual
> conditions). I've also spent a fair amount of time flying near
> Seattle itself, where cloudbases are very low and the lift is
> typically only about 2 knots. This week I did a 125km+ XC flight -
> which doesn't sound like much until you learn that the cloudbase was
> 3000' MSL and we were dodging rain-showers the whole time; and half of
> the pilots that day landed out! Flying in weak conditions may not
> allow for big distances, but the skills you develop in making low-
> saves and "tiptoeing around" are invaluable!
>
> 4) Weather: For me this is a hugely important skill to learn as a
> pilot. I've worked to become the chief forecaster for our local (west-
> side) club. I am still working to get better at reading individual
> clouds and timing my jumps to them, but I have become very adept at
> using soundings (both real and simulated) and other online weather
> resources to figure out the forecasted conditions at various points
> along my flight-path. I'll admit it: mostly, I'm stubborn and I don't
> trust other people's forecasts. I want to read the tea-leaves myself,
> and then if I screw up I have no one else to blame. :-P
>
> 5) When to turn: This is still a big one for me. I am developing a
> good "butt-meter" when it comes to detecting and centering lift when
> I'm flying along slowly or already circling. At my typical cruise-
> speed of ~80 knots I find it MUCH harder! Either I stop and turn for
> a big bump that isn't workable (just a gust or something ragged); or I
> blow through the lift by the time I realize its big enough to use, and
> I don't think its worthwhile to try to turn back around to find it.
> At least I know I'm not the only one who sometimes dolphin-flies and
> pulls up in the sink on the far side because of vario lag... *sigh*
Hi Noel, just my opinion as a low experience contest pilot.

Thermal entry from fast cruise is a very important skill.

As a beginner on this (4 contests - low scores, speed improving) from high speed the trick is to pull up relatively hard
and straight, as the speed bleeds off you can hunt a little to feel which way the lift is best. IF the vario gets to
above your MC Cready setting then turn that way when your speed is near what you want to thermal at. If the vario tops
out below whatever your MC setting is at that height, get the nose down as the lift reduces and keep going. (Thanks mr
Moffatt) Implies you know have decided what your MC number is going to be for the top 50%, next 20%-30% and the
"survival" part of the soaring band. The really hard part is being ruthless about bad thermals, too weak, too broken up,
or just behind you are all thermals that you need to disdain and reject.

If the vario setup is bad you can have a lot of frustration - suggest you have someone who has the experience fly your
ship and get an opinion on whether your probe and vario are working well.
My performance improved markedly when I got a reasonable vario as opposed to the laggy, inaccurate vintage thing my ship
came with. Of course, now I know the poor performance is due to the laggy, inaccurate pilot.

>
> For those that have read this far (I'm impressed!) and have flown in
> competitions: On a good day (thermal-strength-wise), how big of an
> altitude band do you typically use when jumping between individual
> clouds? I know about McCready theory and using streets and energy
> lines and such; but I am curious about people's experiences and
> anecdotal evidence. And yes, I know the exact answer is dependant
> upon terrain and conditions - but I'm still interested to know what
> your rough estimate is.
>
> Thanks again for some excellent suggestions and information!
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel
>

October 11th 08, 11:33 PM

> 5) When to turn: *This is still a big one for me. *I am developing a
> good "butt-meter" when it comes to detecting and centering lift when
> I'm flying along slowly or already circling. *At my typical cruise-
> speed of ~80 knots I find it MUCH harder! *Either I stop and turn for
> a big bump that isn't workable (just a gust or something ragged); or I
> blow through the lift by the time I realize its big enough to use, and
> I don't think its worthwhile to try to turn back around to find it.
> At least I know I'm not the only one who sometimes dolphin-flies and
> pulls up in the sink on the far side because of vario lag... **sigh*
>

In my current thinking this is about the most important thing in
contest success. Maybe the only thing. The good pilots find and center
good lift. It all comes down to thermaling. When I do badly it is
because I missed thermals that better pilots found. I write all these
MacCready articles and such, but my big focus is just on going back to
basics and thermaling better.

By and large, you don't find lift at 80 kts dry (90+ wet). You slow
down in the bumpy air that indicates there is a thermal around here
somewhere, take S turns, sniff around like a dog looking for a hidden
bone, (Forget all that Moffat mid 70s stuff about aerobatic thermal
entries. That happens occasionally, but really rarely) LOOK LOOK LOOK
out the window for cloud shapes, birds, chaff, gliders, or any other
clue, and learn to recognize all those great feelings in your butt,
You want to recognize the feeling that is a thermal, not a gust; to
know that if you turn you will turn into increasing lift, and not the
dreaded sink. You're trying not to ever go past 45 degrees off course
unless you KNOW the lift will be there all the way around.

Of course, you're rock steady in attitude control, thermaling at
exactly the right airspeed.

John Cochrane.

noel.wade

October 12th 08, 06:30 AM

Thanks all,

This may sound egotistical, but when I'm alone or with one or two
other gliders I'm pretty confident my thermaling skills are above-
average (I admit that I still need work in gaggles). I tend to circle
a little bit faster than some folks (usually 48 - 50 knots in my
DG-300), but I turn at a tight 45 - 50 degree bank angle - never less
(narrow thermals here in the west). Doing the math on load factors at
various bank-angles, and given my min-sink speed of about 42 knots, I
think this thermaling speed may be about right (despite some "advice"
that I should be circling slower). The glider certainly doesn't
"groove" through the turns as well when I really try to slow it up and
fly in the mid-to-lower 40's at these bank angles. BTW, I don't
credit my climb capabilities to talent or anything; I just got started
flying in a place where 1 - 2 knot lift was the norm, and cloudbases
are typically around 3000'. If you want to get anywhere in those
conditions, you *cannot* miss a climb or lose a thermal!

I just got "Winning II" last night, and I'm glad to hear someone with
John's experience discount Moffat's thermal entry technique. The
vario swings due to TE compensation and the sudden/aerobatic thermal
entry at 80+ knots seems like it would make it incredibly hard to
judge what the thermal strength truly is (in addition to the safety
issues if you rocket up farther than expected and wind up smack in the
middle of a gaggle that's already circling).

Oh, and unless I'm really low I _never_ make S turns and hunt. :-) I
usually have 2 "targets" in mind when I set out on each inter-thermal
glide; a primary thermal marker (or best guess) and a backup somewhere
beyond it along my course-line. I try to only slow down and hunt if I
hit bumps or other evidence of lift where I'm already expecting it at
these target-points. But sometimes I feel like I've bypassed a good
thermal along the way (perhaps better than the one I'll find at my
target area). Like I said in my earlier post, occasionally I try for
these "good bumps" - and get skunked most of the time. And the cost
of slowing down, turning a circle (even just one) for no gain, and
then speeding back up is just HUGE.

I just don't know if the "cure" is to avoid circling at all in these
situations, or if there are better ways to determine if the lift is
big enough or good enough to work without actually throwing in a
circle.

Thanks for the tip on downloading race flights/IGC files. I've been
meaning to do that, now its time I actually follow through!

Take care,

--Noel

Frank Whiteley

October 12th 08, 07:15 AM

On Oct 11, 11:30*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Thanks all,
>
> This may sound egotistical, but when I'm alone or with one or two
> other gliders I'm pretty confident my thermaling skills are above-
> average (I admit that I still need work in gaggles). *I tend to circle
> a little bit faster than some folks (usually 48 - 50 knots in my
> DG-300), but I turn at a tight 45 - 50 degree bank angle - never less
> (narrow thermals here in the west). *Doing the math on load factors at
> various bank-angles, and given my min-sink speed of about 42 knots, I
> think this thermaling speed may be about right (despite some "advice"
> that I should be circling slower). *The glider certainly doesn't
> "groove" through the turns as well when I really try to slow it up and
> fly in the mid-to-lower 40's at these bank angles. *BTW, I don't
> credit my climb capabilities to talent or anything; I just got started
> flying in a place where 1 - 2 knot lift was the norm, and cloudbases
> are typically around 3000'. *If you want to get anywhere in those
> conditions, you *cannot* miss a climb or lose a thermal!
>
> I just got "Winning II" last night, and I'm glad to hear someone with
> John's experience discount Moffat's thermal entry technique. *The
> vario swings due to TE compensation and the sudden/aerobatic thermal
> entry at 80+ knots seems like it would make it incredibly hard to
> judge what the thermal strength truly is (in addition to the safety
> issues if you rocket up farther than expected and wind up smack in the
> middle of a gaggle that's already circling).
>
> Oh, and unless I'm really low I _never_ make S turns and hunt. :-) *I
> usually have 2 "targets" in mind when I set out on each inter-thermal
> glide; a primary thermal marker (or best guess) and a backup somewhere
> beyond it along my course-line. *I try to only slow down and hunt if I
> hit bumps or other evidence of lift where I'm already expecting it at
> these target-points. *But sometimes I feel like I've bypassed a good
> thermal along the way (perhaps better than the one I'll find at my
> target area). *Like I said in my earlier post, occasionally I try for
> these "good bumps" - and get skunked most of the time. *And the cost
> of slowing down, turning a circle (even just one) for no gain, and
> then speeding back up is just HUGE.
>
> I just don't know if the "cure" is to avoid circling at all in these
> situations, or if there are better ways to determine if the lift is
> big enough or good enough to work without actually throwing in a
> circle.
>
> Thanks for the tip on downloading race flights/IGC files. *I've been
> meaning to do that, now its time I actually follow through!
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel

Try this
http://www.coloradosoaring.org/thinking_pages/soaring/turn_radius/turn_radius_calculator.htm

Frank

Bruce

October 12th 08, 08:53 AM

Hi Noel

John is right on thermalling techniques.
Aerobatics are inefficient - Agreed. But if the question is - when I hit a thermal at 80kt what do I do? Then the only
way to enter the thermal will be to pull hard to slow down while you are still in the lift.

Here's a one time world champion having a difficult day.

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=43802292

Observe how Oscar looks for lift, and also how precise his flying is when he finds it.

BB wrote:
>> 5) When to turn: This is still a big one for me. I am developing a
>> good "butt-meter" when it comes to detecting and centering lift when
>> I'm flying along slowly or already circling. At my typical cruise-
>> speed of ~80 knots I find it MUCH harder! Either I stop and turn for
>> a big bump that isn't workable (just a gust or something ragged); or I
>> blow through the lift by the time I realize its big enough to use, and
>> I don't think its worthwhile to try to turn back around to find it.
>> At least I know I'm not the only one who sometimes dolphin-flies and
>> pulls up in the sink on the far side because of vario lag... *sigh*
>>
>
> In my current thinking this is about the most important thing in
> contest success. Maybe the only thing. The good pilots find and center
> good lift. It all comes down to thermaling. When I do badly it is
> because I missed thermals that better pilots found. I write all these
> MacCready articles and such, but my big focus is just on going back to
> basics and thermaling better.
>
> By and large, you don't find lift at 80 kts dry (90+ wet). You slow
> down in the bumpy air that indicates there is a thermal around here
> somewhere, take S turns, sniff around like a dog looking for a hidden
> bone, (Forget all that Moffat mid 70s stuff about aerobatic thermal
> entries. That happens occasionally, but really rarely) LOOK LOOK LOOK
> out the window for cloud shapes, birds, chaff, gliders, or any other
> clue, and learn to recognize all those great feelings in your butt,
> You want to recognize the feeling that is a thermal, not a gust; to
> know that if you turn you will turn into increasing lift, and not the
> dreaded sink. You're trying not to ever go past 45 degrees off course
> unless you KNOW the lift will be there all the way around.
>

> Of course, you're rock steady in attitude control, thermaling at
> exactly the right airspeed.
>
> John Cochrane.

[email protected]

October 12th 08, 09:00 AM

Now if BB says you need to sniff around like a dog, you need to sniff
around like a dog. He gave you a book worth of advise and it went
right over your head.
First learn the pilot, and then ask yourself the right questions. Like
why would a top racer advise to "sniff around like a dog"?
The answer to that question started 56 miles back when he started his
351 L/D leg to a location that would produce good "huntin".
And in this business, you ain't sh't unless you can "hunt".
There are four other gems he put in there that require some study.
Racing is easy. Racing good is a lucky day. Racing good consistently
is simply rare talent. To advance to must get out on course and hope
for such talent to come along to allow you draft in his magic, seeing
for yourself what can be done.
What you know now is only enough to get out on course.
R

John Galloway[_1_]

October 12th 08, 09:21 AM

At 22:33 11 October 2008, BB wrote:

>
>In my current thinking this is about the most important thing in
>contest success. Maybe the only thing. The good pilots find and center
>good lift. It all comes down to thermaling. When I do badly it is
>because I missed thermals that better pilots found. I write all these
>MacCready articles and such, but my big focus is just on going back to
>basics and thermaling better.
>
>By and large, you don't find lift at 80 kts dry (90+ wet). You slow
>down in the bumpy air that indicates there is a thermal around here
>somewhere, take S turns, sniff around like a dog looking for a hidden
>bone, (Forget all that Moffat mid 70s stuff about aerobatic thermal
>entries. That happens occasionally, but really rarely) LOOK LOOK LOOK
>out the window for cloud shapes, birds, chaff, gliders, or any other
>clue, and learn to recognize all those great feelings in your butt,
>You want to recognize the feeling that is a thermal, not a gust; to
>know that if you turn you will turn into increasing lift, and not the
>dreaded sink. You're trying not to ever go past 45 degrees off course
>unless you KNOW the lift will be there all the way around.
>
>Of course, you're rock steady in attitude control, thermaling at
>exactly the right airspeed.
>
>John Cochrane.

Once again Mr Cochrane gets right to the heart of things. Copy and paste
the above to a preflight cockpit card.

That is the underlying *cause* of the top pilots being so fast - one
resultant *effect* of this is that they can afford to cruise faster, take
fewer thermals and, when it is right to do so, go lower than the likes of
me.

George Moffat's brilliant, but IMHO much misunderstood, article on low
loss flying article showed how one pilot could theoretically beat another
substantially by using various optimisations of technique. However it
often seems to be forgotten that the article was predicated on the stated
assumption that the two contest pilots were flying equally optimal routes
and climbing equally etc. For the learner a far bigger benefit comes from
flying in the right place at the right time.

John Galloway

PMSC Member

October 12th 08, 03:19 PM

On Oct 12, 4:00*am, " > wrote:
> Now if BB says you need to sniff around like a dog, you need to sniff
> around like a dog. He gave you a book worth of advise and it went
> right over your head.
> First learn the pilot, and then ask yourself the right questions. Like
> why would a top racer advise to "sniff around like a dog"?
> The answer to that question started 56 miles back when he started his
> 351 L/D leg to a location that would produce good "huntin".
> And in this business, you ain't sh't unless you can "hunt".
> There are four other gems he put in there that require some study.
> Racing is easy. Racing good is a lucky day. Racing good consistently
> is simply rare talent. To advance to must get out on course and hope
> for such talent to come along to allow you draft in his magic, seeing
> for yourself what can be done.
> What you know now is only enough to get out on course.
> R

New contest pilot is like a new sponge. Needs to get wrung out a few
times before it becomes fully absorbent.

This has gone pretty far afield from the OP, but...

Interesting to me how many guys (XX, DJ, BB, others...) are finally
talking about the intuitive aspects of competition soaring and giving
them the weight they always (imo) deserved. Those are slippery
topics. Hard to discuss, harder to teach. About all you can do is
put the new guy on alert for what to look for.

It's been obvious for a long time that these guys -- and their less
talkative racing peers -- weren't winning because they were better at
MacCready speed to fly, thermaling aerobatics or even flying skills in
general. Knowledge and skill set are necessary, but secondary. The
real deal is the ability -- consistently -- to make the intuitive leap
of understanding. It's a beautiful thing to watch when someone gets
it right.

-T8

Brian[_1_]

October 12th 08, 04:04 PM

Hi Noel,

You probably arent' finding a lot of information on strategy because
it is really too simple to warrant a book and it is different for
different people and skill levels. And the guys that are really good
at aren't telling.

My rookie contest strategy is this.

Start as soon as practical. This puts me in near the most gliders or
ahead of them. This way I can use them for markers as long as possible
as they pass me.

For Minimum Time tasks try to fly the task as close the minimum time
without going under time as possible. This give me the least amount of
time to make a bad decision and have to dig myself out of a hole. I
found out later that there is mathematical advantange to flying close
the the minimum time.

Only be concerned about distance points if it is very likely that you
can not complete the task.

Brian
HP16T N16VP.

October 12th 08, 05:23 PM

On Oct 9, 9:23*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> All -
>
> Does anyone know of any good books or articles on the nuts-and-
> bolts */ common-strategies of how to fly the various competition task
> types?
>
> I'm still waiting on my copy of Winning II, but Reichmann and
> Brigliadori don't really touch on these and the competition rules only
> define what the tasks ARE, not how to approach flying them...
>
> I haven't yet been able to find any good reading material (other than
> the SRA 2005 Comp Guide) on how to approach the different task types -
> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> BTW, I've read some of the different rules documents, and it may be
> that I don't fully understand the scoring system... the big question-
> marks in my mind relate to speed points vs. distance points, and their
> trade-offs. *For example: when is it worthwhile to push for extra
> distance, even if it might hurt the average speed you have going (so
> far) during a task?
>
> Thanks, take care,
>
> --Noel

Many good points made here. Some I agree with, some not. But the
bottom line still is to get out on course and learn by watching. One
good way to do this without actually entering a contest is to free fly
during a contest and just follow the crowd. I was able to be a
sniffer at a National Sports Contest some years back and it was the
best thing I ever did. It got to the point that I could( I thought
anyway) almost tell what pilot was thinking by watching him fly.
Don't worry about "leeching". How else are you supposed to learn?
The good pilots don't care anyway. The point is that these
discussions are fine for the winter and a good place to start, but I
promise that the cliche' is true. You will learn more in one day in
a good race than in all this discussion. And most of it you won't even
know you learned. The best stuff can't be put into words. Not to say
the discussion isn't necessary, but it's my belief that things can be
over analysed. I once read a article by a senior instructor at the
Top Gun school that always stuck with me. His opinion was that the
best fighter pilots were not the officers that were the engineering
students, constantly analysing information. The very best were the
liberal arts majors, who were much more intuitive. True or not, I
have no idea, but an interesting proposition! The sponge analogy is
very apt. TM

noel.wade

October 12th 08, 11:45 PM

Just a clarification for those that might be mis-interpreting some of
my comments: I'm not dismissing information or ignoring it or having
it go "over my head"... I just never stop asking questions or digging
for deeper understanding - sometimes in new directions, sometimes by
trying to refine previous answers or by trying to define special cases
or exceptions to general rules. :-)

Thanks for the continuing good info,

--Noel

JJ Sinclair

October 13th 08, 02:32 PM

What skills do we need to fly a MAT or TAT? As you know it's a wormy
little problem involving several variables; time, distance, altitude
required, wind, speed-to-fly and where's the stinking lift? We are
required to choose the final-turn point (or point-to-turn in a TAT) so
that the final leg will consume the rest of the alloted time with
sufficient altitude to traverse the remaining distance home into an
unknown wind and get there on time! These tasks involve a very
difficult navigation problem; Controlled ETA to a destination in an
aircraft with no visable means of support. Wow! I don't know how we
do it and frankly I couldn't do it very well without my trusty SN-10.
It gives me reliable winds and a running display of time remaining,
distance remaining and altitude required to finish any task I have
dialed in. How do we get better at flying TAT's and MAT's? Practice,
Practice, Practice, and get the best airborne computer available, not
cheap but worth every penny.
JJ

noel.wade wrote:
> Just a clarification for those that might be mis-interpreting some of
> my comments: I'm not dismissing information or ignoring it or having
> it go "over my head"... I just never stop asking questions or digging
> for deeper understanding - sometimes in new directions, sometimes by
> trying to refine previous answers or by trying to define special cases
> or exceptions to general rules. :-)
>
> Thanks for the continuing good info,
>
> --Noel

Brian[_1_]

October 13th 08, 02:39 PM

Just one more comment. The thing that makes the top pilots so good is
the ability to adapt the or even predict the conditions. They know
when to go fast and the know when not to. They know when they can get
low and when they shouldn't. How they do this is just basic soaring
skills but they somehow do it better than the 2nd place guy. I have
yet heard anyone explain how they do this consistantly. I suspect it
is just years of experience.

How to come in at the back of the pack I am a much better expert at,
but it is the same things that will put you there. Falling out of the
lift band and having to climb back up in the 1 knot thermal after
passing up the 4 knot thermal will lose you a lot of time. And staying
high and stopping often in really strong conditions with a large lift
band will cause you to fall behind as well. As you can see what works
one day may not work the next or even from one hour to the next. The
pilot that can shift gears at the right time and fly both of these
conditions best on the same day will win the day. The pilot that can
adapt on a consistant basis will win the contest.

The math of getting around the couse fast is pretty simple. Fly the
McCready numbers for the conditions and you will do well. You will do
excellent if you can fly the McCready speed for the next thermal
instead of the last one. Of course there is some art to find the
thermals as well.

Brian

[email protected]

October 13th 08, 03:22 PM

On Oct 13, 9:39*am, Brian > wrote:

> The math of getting around the couse fast is pretty simple. Fly the
> McCready numbers for the conditions and you will do well. You will do
> excellent if you can fly the McCready speed for the next thermal
> instead of the last one. Of course there is some art to find the
> thermals as well.

Brian,

One 'dirty little secret' is that the fast guys aren't using MacCready
speed to fly. Instrument lag, aerodynamic losses, inertia, hazard to
other traffic and loss of attention better placed elsewhere to name a
few reasons that it is found not to work very well.

In weak to moderate wx, the speed to fly vario is set to Mc = 2 and
the cruise audio deadband is set wide (20 kts) to keep it quiet unless
you barge into big sink or big lift. Cruise speeds are chosen
according to "confidence" (see BB's articles) and they are in the same
range as the MacCready speeds, but no effort is made to "optimize"
speeds based on lift/sink of short duration. You do see guys pulling
up to bump thermals, etc, usually higher in the band where the lift is
apt to be broad. Dry 15m/std class ship, weak/mod wx, confident = 80
kts, need to stretch glide = 65 kts, survival = 55 kts. Attention is
directed out of the cockpit. The truth is out there.

-T8

[email protected]

October 13th 08, 09:22 PM

On Oct 13, 7:22*am, wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:39*am, Brian > wrote:
>
> > The math of getting around the couse fast is pretty simple. Fly the
> > McCready numbers for the conditions and you will do well. You will do
> > excellent if you can fly the McCready speed for the next thermal
> > instead of the last one. Of course there is some art to find the
> > thermals as well.
>
> Brian,
>
> One 'dirty little secret' is that the fast guys aren't using MacCready
> speed to fly. *Instrument lag, aerodynamic losses, inertia, hazard to
> other traffic and loss of attention better placed elsewhere to name a
> few reasons that it is found not to work very well.
>
> In weak to moderate wx, the speed to fly vario is set to Mc = 2 and
> the cruise audio deadband is set wide (20 kts) to keep it quiet unless
> you barge into big sink or big lift. *Cruise speeds are chosen
> according to "confidence" (see BB's articles) and they are in the same
> range as the MacCready speeds, but no effort is made to "optimize"
> speeds based on lift/sink of short duration. You do see guys pulling
> up to bump thermals, etc, usually higher in the band where the lift is
> apt to be broad. *Dry 15m/std class ship, weak/mod wx, confident = 80
> kts, need to stretch glide = 65 kts, survival = 55 kts. *Attention is
> directed out of the cockpit. *The truth is out there.
>
> -T8

There's a lot of good info here, both about generalized racing
strategy and specific strategies for TAT and MAT tasks.

A couple of items for thought:

I definitely observe multiple styles of racing. I have archetype
pilots in mind for each style, but won't mention them here except to
say that they all are frequently at the top of the scoresheet. One
style is the "McCready purist". This style involves flying fast and
straight between thermals and only stopping for the strongest lift.
More often than not this style uses a bigger chunk of the altitude
band that other styles. Some portion of the time this style will get
you in trouble that you will have to dig out of (or land out) and some
other portion of the time you will smoke the field. All it all it it a
higher variance strategy. A second style is the "stay up in the lift
band" style. This style is generally marked by below-McCready cruise
speeds. You can justify this on several grounds, depending on the
conditions. If there are clouds, staying in closer contact helps you
find more and stronger thermals. Staying higher has a True Air Speed
benefit. Staying higher by flying slower gives you more search
distance to find that exceptional thermal. The third style is the "go
for the lift" style. This style looks a lot like the second style,
except that there will be a lot more course deviation - zig-zagging
cloud to cloud, following a line of convergence or a terrain feature
off course line or meandering about in an area of lift to find the
hidden boomer. There are overlays to these styles in terms of cruise
speed versus altitude and how to manage upwind/downwind turnpoints,
for instance, that have been discussed elsewhere and can be applied
irrespective of overall style. I have migrated my style from
something more like the first to something more like the second or
third over the past few years. It has made a big difference.

One way see how efficiently you are flying is to look at a metric like
percent of time spent circling in a program like SeeYou. A good
flight in the west for me will have that percentage in the mid- to
upper-teens with an average L/D of better than the ship's best L/D and
a task speed in the mid-eighties or above - this is without ballast.
If you do the math, this is far better than theoretical McCready
theory would predict. This of course means by definition that to win a
competition task you have to find ways to exceed the predicted
theoretical performance of your ship. That usually involves climbing
without circling whenever you can - remember when you circle you are
going backwards half the time.

With respect to AAT and MAT. People have correctly identified a key
consideration as NOT being under time. This is hardest to do on an AAT
where the last turnpoint is a long way from home. This past summer I
made a turn for home 100 miles out and ended up 25 minutes over time
because the outound leg had been much stronger than the homeward one.
Since you don't really know the weather in all the turn areas you have
to start out with an estimate of where you MIGHT go based on the
forecast (deeper into the stronger turn areas or where there will be
more clouds, markers on course, etc.). Then you have to think of the
major scenarios and try to keep you options open. I generally take off
with a cheat sheet on required distance versus task speed in the
allotted time and at least SOME idea of what each leg might look like
if I am averaging 75-95 mph on course. My approach is to keep going
into the early cylinders if the conditions are good. If the later
cylinders are even better you can think about going over time. Keep at
least a 10 minute "over" buffer on arrival time - more if the last leg
is long. Another thing to keep in mind is to try to avoid making
dogleg courselines - you don't get any credit for the extra distance.

On MAT - have a good chart with all the turnpoints and terrain on it
so you can see everything clearly at once (Glide Plan is a good tool
for this. I scale my charts a 25%). Trying to pick turnpoints off the
flight computer is to hard to do well. Generally, I try to fly
relatively longer legs - particularly early on. You will often find
MATs used when the whether is less predictible - keep this in mind in
terms of not getting cut off from home. If you can find the part of
the task area that is really cooking then try to set up a zig-zag
pattern that keeps you there without the dreaded repeated turnpoint
penalty. These are the days where the right move can really move you
up the scoresheet because the fleet is frequently scattered all over
the task area with varied conditions.

9B

October 13th 08, 09:58 PM

> What skills do we need to fly a MAT or TAT? As you know it's a wormy
> little problem involving several variables; time, distance, altitude
> required, wind, speed-to-fly and where's the stinking lift?
..... Practice,
> Practice, Practice, and get the best airborne computer available, not
> cheap but worth every penny.
> JJ
>

I hate to even think of mentioning it, but adding 15 minuites to
everybody's time makes this whole business of trying to nail the
finish time much less important.
Flame suit on -- no, don't worry, I don't imagine it will ever come
back

John Cochrane

[email protected]

October 13th 08, 10:22 PM

On Oct 13, 1:58*pm, BB > wrote:
> > What skills do we need to fly a MAT or TAT? As you know it's a wormy
> > little problem involving several variables; time, distance, altitude
> > required, wind, speed-to-fly and where's the stinking lift?
> .... Practice,
> > Practice, Practice, and get the best airborne computer available, not
> > cheap but worth every penny.
> > JJ
>
> I hate to even think of mentioning it, but adding 15 minuites to
> everybody's time makes this whole business of trying to nail the
> finish time much less important.
> Flame suit on -- no, don't worry, *I don't imagine it will ever come
> back
>
> John Cochrane

I'm right behind you John - about 50 feet behind. ;-)

9B

noel.wade

October 13th 08, 10:30 PM

The good stuff keeps pouring in... And its very much appreciated! I
also happen to know that there are a few other contest-newbies lurking
on this thread, and hopefully learning as well. :-)

On Oct 13, 1:22*pm, wrote:
> is long. Another thing to keep in mind is to try to avoid making
> dogleg courselines - you don't get any credit for the extra distance.

Quick clarification on this:

I hear people talk about "going deeper into the circles" - but there's
nothing special about staying inside the cylinder if you appear to be
below minimum time, right? For example: say there's a cloud-street
just outside the first turnpoint cylinder that runs at an angle to
your second turnpoint course-line. Rather than going deep into the
first cylinder (past the center mark) and then making a shorter leg to
the next waypoint, couldn't you run into the cylinder as far as the
lift is strong, then turn back and hit the cloud-street and keep your
ground-speed up... Oh, wait...

Hehehe, just realized my mistake in the middle of this train of
thought: The scoring isn't based on the average airspeed/ground-speed
of the glider, with penalties if you miss the TPs or come in under-
time... Your speed is based on the most advantageous fix recorded
inside each cylinder, isn't it? :-P

--Noel
(Now secretly hoping for a simple AT in his first contest flight) :-)

noel.wade

October 13th 08, 10:32 PM

On Oct 13, 1:58*pm, BB > wrote:

> I hate to even think of mentioning it, but adding 15 minuites to
> everybody's time makes this whole business of trying to nail the
>
> John Cochrane

John -

I don't understand - if you add 15 minutes, what's to stop people from
trying to come in 14 minutes and 59 seconds sooner? Doesn't that just
shift the "minimum task time" without affecting the racing (if not,
what's the logic I'm missing)?

--Noel

JJ Sinclair

October 13th 08, 11:08 PM

Bravo Bravo's giving you his little secret on how to never end up
early.......start home when your computer tells you your 15 minutes
over time and you should never get there early. Usually works, but I
once turned 15 minutes late on a day where I had been flying with M/C
of 2.5 (remember time-to-go changes with M/C setting) Well I started a
100 mile final glideinto what developed into cloud street and I ended
up 10 minutes early. lesson learned, set M/C for expected conditions
on final leg which should have been 4 in the above example.
JJ

noel.wade wrote:
> On Oct 13, 1:58�pm, BB > wrote:
>
> > I hate to even think of mentioning it, but adding 15 minuites to
> > everybody's time makes this whole business of trying to nail the
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> John -
>
> I don't understand - if you add 15 minutes, what's to stop people from
> trying to come in 14 minutes and 59 seconds sooner? Doesn't that just
> shift the "minimum task time" without affecting the racing (if not,
> what's the logic I'm missing)?
>
> --Noel

October 14th 08, 12:25 AM

>
> I don't understand - if you add 15 minutes, what's to stop people from
> trying to come in 14 minutes and 59 seconds sooner? *Doesn't that just
> shift the "minimum task time" without affecting the racing (if not,
> what's the logic I'm missing)?
>
> --Noel

I'm guilty of being too obscure. A few years ago the US experimented
with the following rule. To determine your speed for scoring, we take
(Time + 15 minutes)/distance. Time still had to be greater than
minimum time.

The effect of this change is to offset the fact that you get one fast
final glide, or equivalently one fee thermal to the top of the start
gate, per flight, and therefore remove the critical importance of
finishing close to the minimum time.

For example, suppose you fly 50 mph through the air -- top of start
gate to top of last thermal -- and then do a 15 minute, 100 mph
final glide on a 2:00 hour turn area task. If you fly it perfectly and
finish in two hours, you go (50 x 1.75 + 100 x 0.25 )/2 = 56.2 mph.
If you blow it and do a 2:30 flight, you go (50 x 1.25 + 100 x 0.25) /
2.5 = 55 mph or 972 points. That is a huge difference in contest
soaring, so no wonder pilots invest in thousands of dollars of
computers.

If you add 15 minutes to each time, though, you get scored for 50 mph
in each case! The 15 minute time addition exactly offsets the one-
glide-per-flight effect and makes it unimportant how long you stay
out, so long as you end above minium time and fly fast.

I wish I could say that this was overturned by the evil conspiracy of
flight computer manufacturers. Pilot confusion and poor salesmanship
by its advocates did in a very pretty idea.

And I am not trying to revive it -- lost cause!

John Cochrane

noel.wade

October 14th 08, 12:41 AM

On Oct 13, 4:25*pm, BB > wrote:

> I'm guilty of being too obscure. A few years ago the US experimented
> with the following rule. To determine your speed for scoring, we take
> (Time + 15 minutes)/distance. Time still had to be greater than
> minimum time.
>
> The effect of this change is to offset the fact that you get one fast
> final glide, or equivalently one fee thermal to the top of the start
> gate, per flight, and therefore remove the critical importance of
> finishing close to the minimum time.
>
> For example, suppose you fly 50 mph through the air -- top of start
> gate to top of last thermal -- *and then *do a 15 minute, 100 mph
> final glide on a 2:00 hour turn area task. If you fly it perfectly and
> finish in two hours, you go (50 x 1.75 + *100 x 0.25 )/2 = 56.2 mph.
> If you blow it and do a 2:30 flight, you go (50 x 1.25 + 100 x 0.25) /
> 2.5 = 55 mph * or 972 points. That is a huge difference in contest
> soaring, so no wonder pilots invest in thousands of dollars of
> computers.
>
> *If you add 15 minutes to each time, though, you get scored for 50 mph
> in each case! The 15 minute time addition exactly offsets the one-
> glide-per-flight effect and makes it unimportant how long you stay
> out, so long as you end above minium time and fly fast.
>
> I wish I could say that this was overturned by the evil conspiracy of
> flight computer manufacturers. Pilot confusion and poor salesmanship
> by its advocates *did in a very pretty idea.
>
> And I am not trying to revive it -- lost cause!
>
> John Cochrane

OK, got it. Not sure it works in all cases (though it worked OK in a
few random-number cases I threw at it), but I understand it now. My
newbie brain works better when this is phrased "add 15 minutes at 0mph
on to the end of your flight" (this also jives with your "free
thermal" explanation, since if there's no wind your speed along the
course is effectively zero when you're thermalling straight up).
*shrug* Maybe I'm just weird.

I still don't see how this changes the problem with people coming in
under-time, if the raw time (before adding 15 minutes) still has to be
greater than the minimum task time...

BTW there's a little typo in your example numbers. The longer-flight
pilot spent 2.25 hours at 50mph, not 1.25. :-)

--Noel

[email protected]

October 16th 08, 12:12 AM

On Oct 13, 4:41*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Oct 13, 4:25*pm, BB > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm guilty of being too obscure. A few years ago the US experimented
> > with the following rule. To determine your speed for scoring, we take
> > (Time + 15 minutes)/distance. Time still had to be greater than
> > minimum time.
>
> > The effect of this change is to offset the fact that you get one fast
> > final glide, or equivalently one fee thermal to the top of the start
> > gate, per flight, and therefore remove the critical importance of
> > finishing close to the minimum time.
>
> > For example, suppose you fly 50 mph through the air -- top of start
> > gate to top of last thermal -- *and then *do a 15 minute, 100 mph
> > final glide on a 2:00 hour turn area task. If you fly it perfectly and
> > finish in two hours, you go (50 x 1.75 + *100 x 0.25 )/2 = 56.2 mph..
> > If you blow it and do a 2:30 flight, you go (50 x 1.25 + 100 x 0.25) /
> > 2.5 = 55 mph * or 972 points. That is a huge difference in contest
> > soaring, so no wonder pilots invest in thousands of dollars of
> > computers.
>
> > *If you add 15 minutes to each time, though, you get scored for 50 mph
> > in each case! The 15 minute time addition exactly offsets the one-
> > glide-per-flight effect and makes it unimportant how long you stay
> > out, so long as you end above minium time and fly fast.
>
> > I wish I could say that this was overturned by the evil conspiracy of
> > flight computer manufacturers. Pilot confusion and poor salesmanship
> > by its advocates *did in a very pretty idea.
>
> > And I am not trying to revive it -- lost cause!
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> OK, got it. *Not sure it works in all cases (though it worked OK in a
> few random-number cases I threw at it), but I understand it now. *My
> newbie brain works better when this is phrased "add 15 minutes at 0mph
> on to the end of your flight" (this also jives with your "free
> thermal" explanation, since if there's no wind your speed along the
> course is effectively zero when you're thermalling straight up).
> *shrug* Maybe I'm just weird.
>
> I still don't see how this changes the problem with people coming in
> under-time, if the raw time (before adding 15 minutes) still has to be
> greater than the minimum task time...
>
> BTW there's a little typo in your example numbers. *The longer-flight
> pilot spent 2.25 hours at 50mph, not 1.25. *:-)
>
> --Noel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[email protected]

October 16th 08, 12:22 AM

On Oct 13, 4:41*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
> I still don't see how this changes the problem with people coming in
> under-time, if the raw time (before adding 15 minutes) still has to be
> greater than the minimum task time...
>

Apples and oranges - the (now defunct) 15 minute rule flattened out
the points awarded as a function of time on course OVER AND ABOVE the
minimum time. It was an attempt to reverse out an implicit scoring
penalty due to the dilution of final glide speed into sustained cross-
country speed - longer flights got penalized more as the dilution
effect decreased.

The second topic has to do with flight management - being on time but
not under. The penalty for being under time is much more severe than
the hidden penalty for being over - you get marked to minimum time,
which is like averaging in zero speed for the time you are under.

Hope that makes sense to people.

9B

[email protected]

October 16th 08, 12:23 AM

On Oct 13, 4:25*pm, BB > wrote:
> > I don't understand - if you add 15 minutes, what's to stop people from
> > trying to come in 14 minutes and 59 seconds sooner? *Doesn't that just
> > shift the "minimum task time" without affecting the racing (if not,
> > what's the logic I'm missing)?
>
> > --Noel
>
> I'm guilty of being too obscure. A few years ago the US experimented
> with the following rule. To determine your speed for scoring, we take
> (Time + 15 minutes)/distance. Time still had to be greater than
> minimum time.
>
> The effect of this change is to offset the fact that you get one fast
> final glide, or equivalently one fee thermal to the top of the start
> gate, per flight, and therefore remove the critical importance of
> finishing close to the minimum time.
>
> For example, suppose you fly 50 mph through the air -- top of start
> gate to top of last thermal -- *and then *do a 15 minute, 100 mph
> final glide on a 2:00 hour turn area task. If you fly it perfectly and
> finish in two hours, you go (50 x 1.75 + *100 x 0.25 )/2 = 56.2 mph.
> If you blow it and do a 2:30 flight, you go (50 x 1.25 + 100 x 0.25) /
> 2.5 = 55 mph * or 972 points. That is a huge difference in contest
> soaring, so no wonder pilots invest in thousands of dollars of
> computers.
>
> *If you add 15 minutes to each time, though, you get scored for 50 mph
> in each case! The 15 minute time addition exactly offsets the one-
> glide-per-flight effect and makes it unimportant how long you stay
> out, so long as you end above minium time and fly fast.
>
> I wish I could say that this was overturned by the evil conspiracy of
> flight computer manufacturers. Pilot confusion and poor salesmanship
> by its advocates *did in a very pretty idea.
>
> And I am not trying to revive it -- lost cause!
>
> John Cochrane

The main argument against this was due to the rate = distance / time
formula being drilled into us in junior high school. Many people hated
the idea that your speed wasn't distance divided by time. Of course at
that time points were proportional to calculated speed.

Since we have now (I suspect) increased distance points to 600 and
thereby compressed scores so speed points are not necessarily pro-rata
to actual speed around the course, it might be acceptable to re-think
a form of this. While it was analytically elegant to think in terms of
the 15 minutes added in calculating speed around the course I think it
might be better to think about it in terms of how points are awarded
and leave the speed calculation alone. I realize that there are
circumstances where a slower raw speed might earn higher points than a
faster raw speed, but my recollection is that the differences are
minor and the only way this would happen is if someone took a much
longer flight than a competitor flying nearly the same speed. Making
the scoring work with the equivalent of 10 minutes added rather than
15 would likely clean up this apparent anomaly. Also, a modest
incentive not to go chase a cloud street into the next state may not
be so bad.

I would add that, while John's logic and math are absolutely correct
there is often enough going on with the weather that overrrides how
much time you do (or should) spend on course that the logic for being
just on time versus a few minutes late gets washed away like good
intentions.

Now that the government is taking John's advice and recapitalizing the
banks rather than buying their bad loans, maybe we should revisit his
soaring advice too.

My soaring season is done, so I may as well re-hash this sort of
thing.

9B

October 16th 08, 04:41 PM

>
> Now that the government is taking John's advice and recapitalizing the
> banks rather than buying their bad loans, maybe we should revisit his
> soaring advice too.
>

Just to set the record straight, this is a little joke from Andy.
Don't blame me for this mess of a hideous bailout and goverment
takeover of the banking system! (As if anyone ever listened to my
advice in the first place.) Ok, it's not as disastrous as having the
government buy out every bad mortgage in the country, but not by a
whole lot.

John

[email protected]

October 16th 08, 05:40 PM

On Oct 16, 8:41*am, BB > wrote:
> > Now that the government is taking John's advice and recapitalizing the
> > banks rather than buying their bad loans, maybe we should revisit his
> > soaring advice too.
>
> Just to set the record straight, this is a little joke from Andy.
> Don't blame me for this mess of a hideous bailout and goverment
> takeover of the banking system! (As if anyone ever listened to my
> advice in the first place.) Ok, it's not as disastrous as having the
> government buy out every bad mortgage in the country, but not by a
> whole lot.
>
> John

;-)

noel.wade

October 16th 08, 07:48 PM

On Oct 16, 9:40*am, wrote:
> On Oct 16, 8:41*am, BB > wrote:
>
> > > Now that the government is taking John's advice and recapitalizing the
> > > banks rather than buying their bad loans, maybe we should revisit his
> > > soaring advice too.
>
> > Just to set the record straight, this is a little joke from Andy.
> > Don't blame me for this mess of a hideous bailout and goverment
> > takeover of the banking system! (As if anyone ever listened to my
> > advice in the first place.) Ok, it's not as disastrous as having the
> > government buy out every bad mortgage in the country, but not by a
> > whole lot.
>
> > John
>
> ;-)

In a feeble attempt to make this more glider-related:

I'd like to see the bailout architects *actually* have to bail out.
If they survive, we consider letting them stay in office... But I
can't decide if we give them a parachute or not. ;-)

Also, I believe that commercial glider operations need to lobby
congress. Many are failing or have gone into bankruptcy, and they
need the government's help to stay afloat. We keep hearing that
consumer spending is the lynchpin of our economy, and glider rides and
rentals are certainly an excellent avenue for consumers to spend their
money! Furthermore, once launched the glider is a zero-emissions
vehicle - and we are all conscious of environmental impacts and the
cost of energy/fuel these days; so supporting glider operations is
truly an important issue. It is also a wonderful subject for future
government study. Can you imagine how much fuel we could save if we
could develop a glider-based transportation network? To heck with
those noisy and fuel-burning VLJs, why not launch small 3 - 8 person
gliders to 30,000' and then glide to destinations up to 170 miles away
(hey, 200 miles if the towplane climbs at an angle away from the
airport)? That only requires a 30:1 glide-ratio, which is quite
doable with today's technology! All we need is some money from the
government...

--Noel
(who has now used his XCSoar PDA simulator to "fly" a couple of TATs
and understands them much better)

[email protected]

October 17th 08, 01:30 AM

On Oct 13, 6:39*am, Brian > wrote:
> Just one more comment. The thing that makes the top pilots so good is
> the ability to adapt the or even predict the conditions. *They know
> when to go fast and the know when not to. They know when they can get
> low and when they shouldn't. How they do this is just basic soaring
> skills but they somehow do it better than the 2nd place guy. I have
> yet heard anyone explain how they do this consistantly. I suspect it
> is just years of experience.
>
> How to come in at the back of the pack I am a much better expert at,
> but it is the same things that will put you there. Falling out of the
> lift band and having to climb back up in the 1 knot thermal after
> passing up the 4 knot thermal will lose you a lot of time. And staying
> high and stopping often in really strong conditions with a large lift
> band will cause you to fall behind as well. As you can see what works
> one day may not work the next or even from one hour to the next. The
> pilot that can shift gears at the right time and fly both of these
> conditions best on the same day will win the day. The pilot that can
> adapt on a consistant basis will win the contest.
>
> The math of getting around the couse fast is pretty simple. Fly the
> McCready numbers for the conditions and you will do well. You will do
> excellent if you can fly the McCready speed for the next thermal
> instead of the last one. Of course there is some art to find the
> thermals as well.
>
> Brian

I agree with the first point Brian makes but not necessarily the
second. IMHO there are two fundamental and ironclad rules for fast
racing:

1) Don't take weak thermals - by this I mean take only the strongest
20% or so on average.
2) Don't get low.

Brian's first point speaks to the inherent tension between 1) and 2).
Sailplane racing is a game of maximizing probabilities - if you can
understand your odds at any given point in the flight you will fly
faster than if you can't. By odds I mean things like the probability
of finding a top 20% thermal from where you are at any given time.
McCready speeds are a nice way to think about whether you should be
flying faster or slower for the average lift conditions and through
patches of sink, but being off by even 15 knots on cruise speed is
going to make only about a 1.5 minute difference in task time over a
3.5 hour task. By contrast taking a single thermal at 4 knots instead
of 5 knots for 3000 feet costs you the same time. Fussing around for
three turns in zero sink before you core a thermal cost the same time.
I fly 85-knots dry most days, 95 knots if it's smokin' and 75 knots if
I'm in trouble. That's it.

The main skill I see in going fast is knowing when to press on for the
better thermal versus knowing that the one you've got is the best
you're likely to get before you run out of altitude and ideas. Always
feeling the urge to "press on" - and knowing when to resist it - is
the main point.

I remember taking a start one day last year and gliding, gliding,
gliding for something like 45 miles finding nothing great. I passed on
a couple of 3 knot thermals and was getting low enough that I was
about to turn back towards some fields rather than press on. I pushed
into a wind shadow bowl for one last shot at a climb and found an 11-
knotter. Within three turns a 100 seeding point pilot rolled in
beneath me. I found that thermal at the edge of my comfort zone - I
recall he wasn't particularly nervous about his altitude. For both of
us an 11-knot climb for 7,000 feet really helped the old average.

It's all about managing your odds.

9B