2009 Proposed US Contest Rules Changes

[[email protected]]

Hi Race Fans
The proposed contest rules changes for 2009 are available at the SSA
web site under Sailplane Racing/Rules& Process. Due to a long time in
developing some of these changes the comment period will be quite
short. Please comment to RC members by 1/7/2009. Debate on this site
will be used as grist for coming activities but is not considered
formal feedback.
Respectfully submitted
For the Rules Subcommittee
H Nixon RC Chair

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 3, 3:31*pm, wrote:
> Hi Race Fans
> The proposed contest rules changes for 2009 are available at the SSA
> web site *under Sailplane Racing/Rules& Process. Due to a long time in
> developing some of these changes the comment period will be quite
> short. Please comment to RC members by 1/7/2009. Debate on this site
> will be used as grist for coming activities but is not considered
> formal feedback.
> Respectfully submitted
> For the Rules Subcommittee
> H Nixon *RC Chair

(quote) Rule 10.8.6 has been changed such that starts will only
receive distance credit for distance flown from the“front” half of a
start cylinder.

The distance of the first task leg shall be taken as the distance from
the Start
Position to the control fix at the first turnpoint, but not greater
than the distance
from the Start Point to that control fix. (end quote)

The change to rule 10.8.6 appears to be intended to discourage starts
from the back half of the start cylinder. The comment suggests that
any start from the front half will score actual distance flown.
However, it appears that pilots starting near the back boundary of the
front half may fly non scoring distance without realizing it.

Consider the following worst case: Start cylinder 5 mile radius, area
task with first control area of 30 mile radius, center of first turn
area is 40 miles from start point. This gives a minimum first leg of
5 miles.

The proposed rule states - The distance of the first task leg shall be
taken as the distance from the Start Position to the control fix at
the first turnpoint, but not greater than the distance from the Start
Point to that control fix. This means the full score area of the
start cylinder is defined by an arc drawn from the first area control
fix through the start point. If the control fix happens to be near
the center of the first turn area then the arc will intersect the
start cylinder edges close to the straight line that defines the front
half. However, if the pilot chooses to turn anywhere except on a
straight line drawn through the start point and the first control
point, the arc will intersect the start cylinder away from the front
half line. The extreme case appears to be when the first turnpoint
control fix is on the edge of the turn area at a point that is on a
tangent drawn from the start point. There are two such points.

The worse case scenario is realized when a pilot starts the task close
to the edge of the back half on the assumption he will fly to one
tangent point and, because of a change in conditions, actually flies
to the other tangent point.

In a simple graphic analysis of the defined task I estimated a
distance of over 8 miles of start cylinder circumference between the
intersections of the two extreme case arcs and the start circle. In
other words, the potential front half circumference of approx 31.4
miles is reduced to a no risk arc of approx 23.4 miles. Someone with a
greater enjoyment of math will come up with a more accurate answer.

How, with the proposed rule change, is the pilot expected to know
whether the selected start cylinder exit point will result in a
devalued first leg distance?

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 3:25*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 3, 3:31*pm, wrote:
>
> > Hi Race Fans
> > The proposed contest rules changes for 2009 are available at the SSA
> > web site *under Sailplane Racing/Rules& Process. Due to a long time in
> > developing some of these changes the comment period will be quite
> > short. Please comment to RC members by 1/7/2009. Debate on this site
> > will be used as grist for coming activities but is not considered
> > formal feedback.
> > Respectfully submitted
> > For the Rules Subcommittee
> > H Nixon *RC Chair
>
> (quote) Rule 10.8.6 has been changed such that starts will only
> receive distance credit for distance flown from the“front” half of a
> start cylinder.
>
> The distance of the first task leg shall be taken as the distance from
> the Start
> Position to the control fix at the first turnpoint, but not greater
> than the distance
> from the Start Point to that control fix. (end quote)
>
> The change to rule 10.8.6 appears to be intended to discourage starts
> from the back half of the start cylinder. *The comment suggests that
> any start from the front half will score actual distance flown.
> However, it appears that pilots starting near the back boundary of the
> front half may fly non scoring distance without realizing it.
>
> Consider the following worst case: *Start cylinder 5 mile radius, area
> task with first control area of 30 mile radius, center of first turn
> area is 40 miles from start point. *This gives a minimum first leg of
> 5 miles.
>
> The proposed rule states - The distance of the first task leg shall be
> taken as the distance from the Start Position to the control fix at
> the first turnpoint, but not greater than the distance from the Start
> Point to that control fix. *This means the full score area of the
> start cylinder is defined by an arc drawn from the first area control
> fix through the start point. *If the control fix happens to be near
> the center of the first turn area then the arc will intersect the
> start cylinder edges close to the straight line that defines the front
> half. * However, if the pilot chooses to turn anywhere except on a
> straight line drawn through the start point and the first control
> point, the arc will intersect the start cylinder away from the front
> half line. * The extreme case appears to be when the first turnpoint
> control fix is on the edge of the turn area at a point that is on a
> tangent drawn from the start point. There are two such points.
>
> The worse case scenario is realized when a pilot starts the task close
> to the edge of the back half on the assumption he will fly to one
> tangent point and, because of a change in conditions, actually flies
> to the other tangent point.
>
> In a simple graphic analysis of the defined task I estimated a
> distance of over 8 miles of start cylinder circumference between the
> intersections of the two extreme case arcs and the start circle. *In
> other words, the potential front half circumference of approx 31.4
> miles is reduced to a no risk arc of approx 23.4 miles. Someone with a
> greater enjoyment of math will come up with a more accurate answer.
>
> How, with the proposed rule change, is the pilot expected to know
> whether the selected start cylinder exit point will result in a
> devalued first leg distance?
>
> Andy

I had to read that one three times -- and get out my daughter's high-
school geometry textbook ;-)

I had a similar reaction - but without the analytic rigor. Andy, I
assume you were using the minimum first leg distance (is there a
minimum beyond the cylinders not touching?) coupled with the maximum
turn area radius (30 mi). It's a problem in that the acceptable start
locations are not defined until after a pilot starts, and even if it
were defined, it's hard for a pilot to know for certain if they are in
the "front half".

I am assuming that the problem this is designed to solve is the one of
pilots starting out the top near the back of the cylinder and bumping
gaggles on the way to the front. Maybe others have seen this happen
but I have not, and I can't imagine anyone starting out the back side
of the cylinder. So I wonder if it is worth the complexity to solve a
problem that may not exist - at least not to a significant extent.

9B

9B

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 5:26*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 6, 3:25*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 3:31*pm, wrote:
>
> > > Hi Race Fans
> > > The proposed contest rules changes for 2009 are available at the SSA
> > > web site *under Sailplane Racing/Rules& Process. Due to a long time in
> > > developing some of these changes the comment period will be quite
> > > short. Please comment to RC members by 1/7/2009. Debate on this site
> > > will be used as grist for coming activities but is not considered
> > > formal feedback.
> > > Respectfully submitted
> > > For the Rules Subcommittee
> > > H Nixon *RC Chair
>
> > (quote) Rule 10.8.6 has been changed such that starts will only
> > receive distance credit for distance flown from the“front” half of a
> > start cylinder.
>
> > The distance of the first task leg shall be taken as the distance from
> > the Start
> > Position to the control fix at the first turnpoint, but not greater
> > than the distance
> > from the Start Point to that control fix. (end quote)
>
> > The change to rule 10.8.6 appears to be intended to discourage starts
> > from the back half of the start cylinder. *The comment suggests that
> > any start from the front half will score actual distance flown.
> > However, it appears that pilots starting near the back boundary of the
> > front half may fly non scoring distance without realizing it.
>
> > Consider the following worst case: *Start cylinder 5 mile radius, area
> > task with first control area of 30 mile radius, center of first turn
> > area is 40 miles from start point. *This gives a minimum first leg of
> > 5 miles.
>
> > The proposed rule states - The distance of the first task leg shall be
> > taken as the distance from the Start Position to the control fix at
> > the first turnpoint, but not greater than the distance from the Start
> > Point to that control fix. *This means the full score area of the
> > start cylinder is defined by an arc drawn from the first area control
> > fix through the start point. *If the control fix happens to be near
> > the center of the first turn area then the arc will intersect the
> > start cylinder edges close to the straight line that defines the front
> > half. * However, if the pilot chooses to turn anywhere except on a
> > straight line drawn through the start point and the first control
> > point, the arc will intersect the start cylinder away from the front
> > half line. * The extreme case appears to be when the first turnpoint
> > control fix is on the edge of the turn area at a point that is on a
> > tangent drawn from the start point. There are two such points.
>
> > The worse case scenario is realized when a pilot starts the task close
> > to the edge of the back half on the assumption he will fly to one
> > tangent point and, because of a change in conditions, actually flies
> > to the other tangent point.
>
> > In a simple graphic analysis of the defined task I estimated a
> > distance of over 8 miles of start cylinder circumference between the
> > intersections of the two extreme case arcs and the start circle. *In
> > other words, the potential front half circumference of approx 31.4
> > miles is reduced to a no risk arc of approx 23.4 miles. Someone with a
> > greater enjoyment of math will come up with a more accurate answer.
>
> > How, with the proposed rule change, is the pilot expected to know
> > whether the selected start cylinder exit point will result in a
> > devalued first leg distance?
>
> > Andy
>
> I had to read that one three times -- and get out my daughter's high-
> school geometry textbook ;-)
>
> I had a similar reaction - but without the analytic rigor. Andy, I
> assume you were using the minimum first leg distance (is there a
> minimum beyond the cylinders not touching?) coupled with the maximum
> turn area radius (30 mi). It's a problem in that the acceptable start
> locations are not defined until after a pilot starts, and even if it
> were defined, it's hard for a pilot to know for certain if they are in
> the "front half".
>
> I am assuming that the problem this is designed to solve is the one of
> pilots starting out the top near the back of the cylinder and bumping
> gaggles on the way to the front. Maybe others have seen this happen
> but I have not, and I can't imagine anyone starting out the back side
> of the cylinder. So I wonder if it is worth the complexity to solve a
> problem that may not exist - at least not to a significant extent.
>
> 9B
>
> 9B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text

How do I "clearly" know where to turn in the turn area now?
Hmmmm.......need something with maybe a red arc in the turn area from
the start fix from where I started in start cylinder. This is what I
"clearly" need.
It would be to "easy" to have just a start circle with a max. start
height, since now we can exit anywhere along the side of the cylinder.
We had the exit out the top because of only one prime exit point and
that was to help spread out the folks. But now we can exit anywhere
along the radius of the cylinder, so why do we still need to exit out
the top???? Hmmmmmmmm......where's that brown cow.......

Thermal tight, Soar high, spend more money and look inside...........
711.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 6, 5:26*pm, wrote:
>
> I had to read that one three times -- and get out my daughter's high-
> school geometry textbook ;-)

And I thought you would be the one that provided the answer to 4
decimal places! ;)

Andy

[HL Falbaum[_2_]]

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 6, 5:26 pm, wrote:
>
> I had to read that one three times -- and get out my daughter's high-
> school geometry textbook ;-)

>And I thought you would be the one that provided the answer to 4
>decimal places! ;)

>Andy

If I read this correctly, the scored first leg distance is unknown until the
first turn is made? Still, one never really knows how far you will fly, so
does it matter? The object is to run out the clock, and you don't really
know how it will go till about half the flight, and you see the conditions
ahead.

The power of prophecy would be very handy.

Hartley Falbaum
USA "KF"

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 7, 7:20*am, "HL Falbaum" > wrote:
>
> If I read this correctly, the scored first leg distance is unknown until the
> first turn is made?

No, while that is true, it is not the point I wished to make.

To understand the issue you need a picture of the task I described
showing the tangent points and the arcs that intersect the start
cylinder. Since I can't provide that you will need to draw it
yourself.

The point I wished to make is that the area of the start cylinder that
will give full credit for first leg distance is dependent on the
position of the first turn area control fix (the pilot selected turn
point). Since the position of that control fix is unknown when the
start point is selected, the pilot takes a risk when starting in some
areas in the front half. The no risk area of the start cylinder is
not the "front half" but an area that may be considerably smaller than
the "front half". That no risk area is defined by the area of overlap
between the two arcs drawn from the turn area tangent points.

Note that no start penalty will show on the score sheet, you just lose
distance that you thought was part of your first leg. This makes it a
hidden penalty and most pilots would not even realize they had lost
points as a result of the chosen start point.

This will be of particular interest to SW pilots that often start out
of the top and needs to be understood by anyone flying at R9 Parowan
unless the proposed rule change is abandoned.


Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 8:34*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 7:20*am, "HL Falbaum" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > If I read this correctly, the scored first leg distance is unknown until the
> > first turn is made?
>
> No, while that is true, it is not the point I wished to make.
>
> To understand the issue you need a picture of the task I described
> showing the tangent points and the arcs that intersect the start
> cylinder. *Since I can't provide that you will need to draw it
> yourself.
>
> The point I wished to make is that the area of the start cylinder that
> will give full credit for first leg distance is dependent on the
> position of the first turn area control fix (the pilot selected turn
> point). *Since the position of that control fix is unknown when the
> start point is selected, *the pilot takes a risk when starting in some
> areas in the front half. *The no risk area of the start cylinder is
> not the "front half" but an area that may be considerably smaller than
> the "front half". *That no risk area is defined by the area of overlap
> between the two arcs drawn from the turn area tangent points.
>
> Note that no start penalty will show on the score sheet, you just lose
> distance that you thought was part of your first leg. *This makes it a
> hidden penalty and most pilots would not even realize they had lost
> points as a result of the chosen start point.
>
> This will be of particular interest to SW pilots that often start out
> of the top and needs to be understood by anyone flying at R9 Parowan
> unless the proposed rule change is abandoned.
>
> Andy

Okay - you shamed me into doing the math (only one decimal place).

I agree with Andy that the rule creates a potential problem because it
defines the "front half" of the cylinder as the circular arc centered
on the "control fix" in the first turn area (that's the place where
Winscore determines you made the turn) that passes through the center
of the start cylinder.

To visualize this draw two circles on a piece of paper - one has a
radius of 5 units (this is the start cylinder). Draw the second with a
radius of 30 units, just above the first and touching at the edge.
Your diagram now looks like a simple drawing of a soccer ball sitting
on top of a baseball. This is the worst case scenario - the biggest
possible first turn area (30 mi) sitting as close as possible to the
start cylinder (somebody check me that there isn't some minimum first
leg distance in the rules that is greater than 35 miles).

Now imagine two pilots - one pilot who thinks conditions look best to
the extreme right edge of the first turn area and another who thinks
the extreme left edge of the turn area looks best. Each pilot
contemplates what their "front half" of the start cylinder will be if
they fly as they intend to the right/left sides of the turn area. The
first pilot figures on a "front half" that is rotated to the right by
some number of degrees to reflect his expected rightward courseline.
The second pilot figures on a "front half" that is rotated to the left
by an equivalent angle. Based on strategy (or just where the lift is)
each pilot takes a start from the far corner of their respective semi
circles (not exactly a semicircle since it's defined by an arc, but I
don't have a word for that shape). The first pilot to the right and
the second pilot to the left.

Each pilot heads out on course, but a few miles out each notices
something that makes them change their plan (a cu popping, a fast-
climbing competitor, whatever). Each now decides to go the the
opposite side of the first turn area from their initial plan - and
does so. They fly the course, land and turn in their flight logs. When
the scores come back they find themselves scored for less distance
than they thought. They go to the scorer who looks at the logs and
discovers that when each pilot changed their first turn point they
rotated the first leg course line and thereby rotated the allowed
"front half" of the start cylinder. For scoring purposes each pilot
started miles outside their respective "front half" and had their
first leg distance reduced by that amount.

So now the math part:

In the worst case scenario described above it is possible for the
"front half" of the start cylinder to be rotated plus or minus 51.3
degrees to the left or right of the line between the center of the
start cylinder and the center of the first turn area. This means that
if you are either of the pilots in the above example you will be
scored for 5 miles less than you actually flew.

So how might pilots respond to this? One possibility it that pilots
might play it totally safe and start out of the part of the cylinder
where all possible first turnpoint "fixes" can be reached without
penalty. If you do the math this is an arc with an angle of 77.3
degrees centered on the line from the center of the start cylinder to
the center of the first turn area. This "safe arc" has a length of 6.7
miles rather than 31.4 miles for a full "front half" of the cylinder.
The other possibility is that pilots who don't start in this "safe
arc" will feel compelled to press on to their initially planned
turnpoint out of concern that they will be docked miles if they
change. For some flights you may need to have Winscore recalculate the
control fix in the first turn to trade off distance lost at the start
versus distance made at the turn - that would be funky.

I realize this is the worst case scenario and that the first turn area
may likely be a bit further away than 35 miles or smaller than 30
miles in radius - particularly in the west. This would make the "safe
arc" for starting bigger than I describe.The big issue in my mind,
though, is that it is impossible to know ahead of time what is the
allowable start half-cylinder for any flight and therefore pilots will
tend to funnel back toward the front edge of the cylinder to be safe
and to keep their options open, the opposite of what "start anywhere"
is intended to achieve.

Also, I am not sure that this is a rule change that solves a problem
that exists in practice. I presume the thing the RC wants to avoid is
pilots starting out the top of the back of the cylinder and bombing
through start gaggles. I'm not saying it can't happen, I just haven't
seen it.

I'm sure that was clear as mud.

9B

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 7, 1:04*pm, wrote:
> To visualize this draw two circles on a piece of paper - one has a
> radius of 5 units (this is the start cylinder). Draw the second with a
> radius of 30 units, just above the first and touching at the edge.
> Your diagram now looks like a simple drawing of a soccer ball sitting
> on top of a baseball. This is the worst case scenario - the biggest
> possible first turn area (30 mi) sitting as close as possible to the
> start cylinder (somebody check me that there isn't some minimum first
> leg distance in the rules that is greater than 35 miles).
>

Close, but you have confused the issue by using an invalid task
example. The minimum separation between the closest points of the
start cylinder and the first turn area is 5 statute miles. See rule
10.3.1.1.

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 12:28*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 1:04*pm, wrote:
>
> > To visualize this draw two circles on a piece of paper - one has a
> > radius of 5 units (this is the start cylinder). Draw the second with a
> > radius of 30 units, just above the first and touching at the edge.
> > Your diagram now looks like a simple drawing of a soccer ball sitting
> > on top of a baseball. This is the worst case scenario - the biggest
> > possible first turn area (30 mi) sitting as close as possible to the
> > start cylinder (somebody check me that there isn't some minimum first
> > leg distance in the rules that is greater than 35 miles).
>
> Close, but you have confused the issue by using an invalid task
> example. *The minimum separation between the closest points of the
> start cylinder and the first turn area is 5 statute miles. *See rule
> 10.3.1.1.
>
> Andy

Thanks Andy,

RTFR - I was afraid of that. I'll redo the math.

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 1:35*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 7, 12:28*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 1:04*pm, wrote:
>
> > > To visualize this draw two circles on a piece of paper - one has a
> > > radius of 5 units (this is the start cylinder). Draw the second with a
> > > radius of 30 units, just above the first and touching at the edge.
> > > Your diagram now looks like a simple drawing of a soccer ball sitting
> > > on top of a baseball. This is the worst case scenario - the biggest
> > > possible first turn area (30 mi) sitting as close as possible to the
> > > start cylinder (somebody check me that there isn't some minimum first
> > > leg distance in the rules that is greater than 35 miles).
>
> > Close, but you have confused the issue by using an invalid task
> > example. *The minimum separation between the closest points of the
> > start cylinder and the first turn area is 5 statute miles. *See rule
> > 10.3.1.1.
>
> > Andy
>
> Thanks Andy,
>
> RTFR - I was afraid of that. I'll redo the math.
>
> Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Okay, The new numbers for a 40 mile first leg (center to center) are
that the "safe sector" has an included angle of around 85 degrees and
a distance along the circumference of 7.5 miles. If you increase the
first leg to 70 miles the angle goes up to 120 degrees and the
periphery extends to 21 miles. Compare that to a full "front half" for
reasonably long first legs of a bit under 31 miles around the edge of
the cylinder (it's not a full half circle because it's measured as an
arc from the first turn).

Whew!

9B

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 7, 3:50*pm, wrote:
> Okay, *The new numbers for a 40 mile first leg (center to center) are
> that the "safe sector" has an included angle of around 85 degrees and
> a distance along the circumference of 7.5 miles. If you increase the
> first leg to 70 miles the angle goes up to 120 degrees and the
> periphery extends to 21 miles. Compare that to a full "front half" for
> reasonably long first legs of a bit under 31 miles around the edge of
> the cylinder (it's not a full half circle because it's measured as an
> arc from the first turn).

Your angles look reasonable to me but you seem to have made the same
mistake as I did in my second post for the length of the front half
circumference. The full circumference is piD or 31.4 miles. The
length of the front half circumference is then about 15.7, and the no
risk arc is about half of that at 7.5 for the task I defined. For the
120 deg included angle of your second task the circumference should be
about (120/360)*31.4=10.5.

I wonder which flight computer software will be the first to depict
this safe start area.

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 3:43*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 3:50*pm, wrote:
>
> > Okay, *The new numbers for a 40 mile first leg (center to center) are
> > that the "safe sector" has an included angle of around 85 degrees and
> > a distance along the circumference of 7.5 miles. If you increase the
> > first leg to 70 miles the angle goes up to 120 degrees and the
> > periphery extends to 21 miles. Compare that to a full "front half" for
> > reasonably long first legs of a bit under 31 miles around the edge of
> > the cylinder (it's not a full half circle because it's measured as an
> > arc from the first turn).
>
> Your angles look reasonable to me but you seem to have made the same
> mistake as I did in my second post for the length of the front half
> circumference. *The full circumference is piD or 31.4 miles. *The
> length of the front half circumference is then about 15.7, and the no
> risk arc is about half of that at 7.5 for the task I defined. *For the
> 120 deg included angle of your second task the circumference should be
> about (120/360)*31.4=10.5.
>
> I wonder which flight computer software will be the first to depict
> this safe start area.
>
> Andy

Arrrrgh! That explains my SAT scores for sure.

So, in summary: Instead of a full front half perimeter of 15 miles you
get somewhere between 7.5 and 10.5 miles for a 30 mile turn area -
working its way up to the full semicircle again as the first turn area
gets smaller. The searchable area for a start thermal goes from nearly
80 square miles for the full cylinder to under 40 square miles for the
best case under the proposed rule to a bit over 18 square miles under
the worst case Assuming you want to keep the whole turn area available
post-start, that is. Uncertainty about where the boundaries are would
likely squeeze the field into a somewhat smaller space.

I guess your computer could show you both the safe start area and the
penalty-free portion of the first turn area should you start outside
the safe area. That might burn some CPU cycles. Gonna need one of them
ClearNavs (or Ultimate - sorry Richard).

9B

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 7, 5:19*pm, wrote:

You gotta love that unitended consequences rule!

Andy

[Tuno]

Andy-Sama and Andy-San,

Why aren't the two of you on the RC? (Or at least consultants
thereto?)

My brain hurts

2NO

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 3:04*pm, wrote:
>I presume the thing the RC wants to avoid is
> pilots starting out the top of the back of the cylinder and bombing
> through start gaggles. I'm not saying it can't happen, I just haven't
> seen it.

Looks like the general rc philosophy is promoting airmanship rather
than gamesmanship. I like that.

There are some interesting strawmen presented in this thread... but
surely these are only strawmen.

Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
improvement.

See you on the grid.

-T8

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 8, 8:45*am, wrote:

> Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
> improvement.


Sorry, I don't agree.

If the intent of the rule change is to prevent starts from the back
half there are better ways to do it.

The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the start
cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
point and the first turn point. A valid start would only be given for
an exit from the front half.

The valid start area is then fixed for all contestants regardless of
where they turn in the first area. This valid start area is easily
visualized by the contestant without needing any special computer
software.

Andy

[MarkHawke7]

You really think it sounds better? From the sound of it, about the
only way to know for sure that you get a good start is going to be IF
the PDA software developers (I'm one of them) make some fairly MAJOR
enhancements to their software to depict this arc on the start
cylinder for you to see. And oh by the way, this ONLY something that
is being done here in the the US. I actually thought the "start
anywhere" concept was about the simpliest thing I'd heard so far.
This new way just makes my head spin trying to visualize it let alone
trying to pull it off in the air, in a gaggle with LOTS of other
gliders, etc., etc., etc.

In the end, it sounds like you could do the bombing through from the
back of the start cylinder but did people actually do that? It seems
like it would have to be a pretty good day or perhaps a perfectly
aligned ridge or street to make doing that very profitable. So are we
adding this complexity (read more head down time) to try to keep
something from happening that just wasn't happening?

But perhaps I'm missing the simplicity of it some how.

-Mark
OA

On Jan 8, 8:45*am, wrote:
> On Jan 7, 3:04*pm, wrote:
>
> >I presume the thing the RC wants to avoid is
> > pilots starting out the top of the back of the cylinder and bombing
> > through start gaggles. I'm not saying it can't happen, I just haven't
> > seen it.
>
> Looks like the general rc philosophy is promoting airmanship rather
> than gamesmanship. *I like that.
>
> There are some interesting strawmen presented in this thread... but
> surely these are only strawmen.
>
> Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
> improvement.
>
> See you on the grid.
>
> -T8

[MarkHawke7]

Yes, that seems to make more sense. But just to be explicit, you mean
the line between the center of the start cylinder and the center of
the first turnpoint, right?

-OA
On Jan 8, 9:08*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 8:45*am, wrote:
>
> > Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
> > improvement.
>
> Sorry, I don't agree.
>
> If the intent of the rule change is to prevent starts from the back
> half there are better ways to do it.
>
> The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the start
> cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
> point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given for
> an exit from the front half.
>
> The valid start area is then fixed for all contestants regardless of
> where they turn in the first area. *This valid start area is easily
> visualized by the contestant without needing any special computer
> software.
>
> Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 7:45*am, wrote:
> On Jan 7, 3:04*pm, wrote:

> Looks like the general rc philosophy is promoting airmanship rather
> than gamesmanship. *I like that.
>
> There are some interesting strawmen presented in this thread... but
> surely these are only strawmen.
>
> Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
> improvement.

I thought that the original 'start anywhere' was a big improvement in
reducing gaggling and leeching. And it was actually simpler than the
old rule. I feel like this modification dilutes the impact of that
rule change by bunching starts back into a smaller part of the
cylinder and adds complexity and uncertainty to the start process.
Pilots do try to optimize for the rules even to save a few points or
tens of points. (The last contest I flew 40 points separated 6th and
2nd place).

To the extent that a rule affects pilot actual decision-making it's
not a strawman issue. Knowing whether you are giving up a few miles of
scored distance at the start is something that pilots will act on -
just the way we all acted on the old rule that encouraged pilots to
start from the edge of the cylinder closest to the courseline. Lastly,
my experience with the start anywhere rule last year is that pilots
bombing through pre-start gaggles didn't happen so, to me, that is
more the strawman issue that needs to be proven before adding
complexity to the rules. I'd love to hear from pilots who had a
different contest experience with the 2008 rules.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 11:20*am, MarkHawke7 > wrote:
> You really think it sounds better? *From the sound of it, about the
> only way to know for sure that you get a good start is going to be IF
> the PDA software developers (I'm one of them) make some fairly MAJOR
> enhancements to their software to depict this arc on the start
> cylinder for you to see.

That's not true. The discussion is about getting "full credit" for
distance flown, not about whether or not you get a valid start.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 11:08*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 8:45*am, wrote:
>
> > Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
> > improvement.
>
> Sorry, I don't agree.
>
> If the intent of the rule change is to prevent starts from the back
> half there are better ways to do it.
>
> The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the start
> cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
> point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given for
> an exit from the front half.
>
> The valid start area is then fixed for all contestants regardless of
> where they turn in the first area. *This valid start area is easily
> visualized by the contestant without needing any special computer
> software.
>
> Andy

Yes, I do think it's an improvement. Your version is even better in
its simplicity.

I've never seen anyone start from the back of the circle, either,
though I've only flown a couple of regionals since start anywhere was
adopted. However I can think of a few contest numbers that I would
expect to see trying this, sooner or later. I'd rather *not* fly this
way myself, but probably *would* if it was necessary to be
competitive. I rather we had a rule that took away any incentive to
do this.

-T8

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 8, 9:26*am, MarkHawke7 > wrote:
> Yes, that seems to make more sense. *But just to be explicit, you mean
> the line between the center of the start cylinder and the center of
> the first turnpoint, right?

Yes.

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 11:39*am, wrote:

> To the extent that a rule affects pilot actual decision-making it's
> not a strawman issue.

True enough.

However... I just don't see a) a CD calling an AAT that looks like
Frosty the Snowman and b) the day some CD *does*, I don't see the
pilot who manages to fly into the "penalty" scenario doing extremely
well but for losing a mile or so of distance. In that sense, it looks
like a strawman to me. As Mr. Eastwood once pointed out, everyone's
got an opinion :-).

On typical AATs, say a 40SM center to center first leg and 5SM turn
radius the risk of losing distance points is very small.

But I'd be okay with Andy's proposal too, unless there's some
unintended consequence that isn't immediately obvious. For "normal"
AATs, there's no difference to speak of.

And if it's point spread your after... c'mon out East :-). Doesn't
always feel like racing, but I always learn a few things.

-T8

[Tim Taylor]

On Jan 8, 9:57*am, wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:08*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 8:45*am, wrote:
>
> > > Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
> > > improvement.
>
> > Sorry, I don't agree.
>
> > If the intent of the rule change is to prevent starts from the back
> > half there are better ways to do it.
>
> > The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the start
> > cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
> > point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given for
> > an exit from the front half.
>
> > The valid start area is then fixed for all contestants regardless of
> > where they turn in the first area. *This valid start area is easily
> > visualized by the contestant without needing any special computer
> > software.
>
> > Andy
>
> Yes, I do think it's an improvement. *Your version is even better in
> its simplicity.
>
> I've never seen anyone start from the back of the circle, either,
> though I've only flown a couple of regionals since start anywhere was
> adopted. *However I can think of a few contest numbers that I would
> expect to see trying this, sooner or later. *I'd rather *not* fly this
> way myself, but probably *would* if it was necessary to be
> competitive. *I rather we had a rule that took away any incentive to
> do this.
>
> -T8

Evan,

I'm not sure what you mean by "rather *not* fly this way". Is this in
reference to starting near the back of the cylinder or something else?

I have flown at several sites that I could easily see starting near
the back of the cylinder. I nearly did it a few years ago even with
the 10 mile penalty back then because I could climb 7,000 feet higher
near the back than the front at Air Sailing when we had tasks to the
south.

At Parowan, Minden Logan, and Air Sailing depending on the start
cylinder and the location of the first turn point, there can be a
great reason to go to the back of the cylinder and climb on the higher
ground.

The proposed rules seems to add nothing but confusion and complexity
to a very simple idea. Start anywhere in the cylinder or out the top.
Score the distance from the startpoint to the turnpoint.

The start anywhere is a vast improvement over the old system. At
Uvalde with the top of the cylinder above cloud base you had one or
two thermals on the closest edge of the cylinder with pilots pushing
into the wisps and the usual gaggle compression at the top. I will
take Start Anywhere over that anytime.

TT

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 8, 10:07*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 9:26*am, MarkHawke7 > wrote:
>
> > Yes, that seems to make more sense. *But just to be explicit, you mean
> > the line between the center of the start cylinder and the center of
> > the first turnpoint, right?
>
> Yes.

I had to go back and check the rules to see if I had used incorrect or
ambiguous terminology in my proposed rule. I don't think I did.

10.3.2.3 Turn Area Task (TAT) - Speed over a course through one or
more turn areas, with a finish
at the contest site.
10.3.2.3.1 Turn areas are turnpoints with a designated radius defining
a cylinder.
10.3.2.3.2 The CD shall designate a minimum flight time, a sequence of
one or more turnpoints
and a radius for each which shall be an integral number of miles not
greater than 30.

10.8.6 The distance of the first task leg shall be taken as the
distance from the Start Point to the
control fix at the first turnpoint, minus the Start Radius. (2008
rule)

The turnpoint is defined by the CD. The optimized point that defines
the start each pilot's second task leg is a control fix.

It was all a lot easier to understand when we just took photos. ;)

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 8, 10:17*am, wrote:

> On typical AATs, say a 40SM center to center first leg and 5SM turn
> radius the risk of losing distance points is very small.

For sports class tasks which have to cater for a huge range of
sailplane handicap it is not unreasonable to set a task with large
first turn area and a minimum first leg distance, particularly if the
conditions are unpredictable.

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 12:22*pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 9:57*am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:08*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 8:45*am, wrote:
>
> > > > Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
> > > > improvement.
>
> > > Sorry, I don't agree.
>
> > > If the intent of the rule change is to prevent starts from the back
> > > half there are better ways to do it.
>
> > > The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the start
> > > cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
> > > point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given for
> > > an exit from the front half.
>
> > > The valid start area is then fixed for all contestants regardless of
> > > where they turn in the first area. *This valid start area is easily
> > > visualized by the contestant without needing any special computer
> > > software.
>
> > > Andy
>
> > Yes, I do think it's an improvement. *Your version is even better in
> > its simplicity.
>
> > I've never seen anyone start from the back of the circle, either,
> > though I've only flown a couple of regionals since start anywhere was
> > adopted. *However I can think of a few contest numbers that I would
> > expect to see trying this, sooner or later. *I'd rather *not* fly this
> > way myself, but probably *would* if it was necessary to be
> > competitive. *I rather we had a rule that took away any incentive to
> > do this.
>
> > -T8
>
> Evan,
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "rather *not* fly this way". *Is this in
> reference to starting near the back of the cylinder or something else?
>
> I have flown at several sites that I could easily see starting near
> the back of the cylinder. *I nearly did it a few years ago even with
> the 10 mile penalty back then because I could climb 7,000 feet higher
> near the back than the front at Air Sailing when we had tasks to the
> south.
>
> At Parowan, Minden Logan, and Air Sailing depending on the start
> cylinder and the location of the first turn point, there can be a
> great reason to go to the back of the cylinder and climb on the higher
> ground.
>
> The proposed rules seems to add nothing but confusion and complexity
> to a very simple idea. Start anywhere in the cylinder or out the top.
> Score the distance from the startpoint to the turnpoint.
>
> The start anywhere is a vast improvement over the old system. *At
> Uvalde with the top of the cylinder above cloud base you had one or
> two thermals on the closest edge of the cylinder with pilots pushing
> into the wisps and the usual gaggle compression at the top. *I will
> take Start Anywhere over that anytime.
>
> TT

Hi Tim,

Long time since Albert Lea, eh?

Starting through the top of the cylinder (and staying on top) doesn't
bother me a bit. I just never seem to get the opportunity to do it.
Both regionals I flew this year (R1, R4S) had gates with tops well
above cloud base and in one case the cloud bases were extremely
variable just to spice things up. In no case did I see anyone do
anything dumb or even remotely ungentlemanly in the gate. But at
times it did feel a bit crowded close to cloud, er, cloud clearance
minimums.

What I was referring to was the (so far, largely theoretical) practice
of starting at the back and then flying through the cylinder below max
altitude. The theory is that you'd make good time by using all the
pre-start gaggles. The proposed rule is an attempt to head off that
temptation before it becomes troublesome.

-T8

[Tim Taylor]

On Jan 8, 11:00*am, wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:22*pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 9:57*am, wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 11:08*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 8:45*am, wrote:
>
> > > > > Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
> > > > > improvement.
>
> > > > Sorry, I don't agree.
>
> > > > If the intent of the rule change is to prevent starts from the back
> > > > half there are better ways to do it.
>
> > > > The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the start
> > > > cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
> > > > point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given for
> > > > an exit from the front half.
>
> > > > The valid start area is then fixed for all contestants regardless of
> > > > where they turn in the first area. *This valid start area is easily
> > > > visualized by the contestant without needing any special computer
> > > > software.
>
> > > > Andy
>
> > > Yes, I do think it's an improvement. *Your version is even better in
> > > its simplicity.
>
> > > I've never seen anyone start from the back of the circle, either,
> > > though I've only flown a couple of regionals since start anywhere was
> > > adopted. *However I can think of a few contest numbers that I would
> > > expect to see trying this, sooner or later. *I'd rather *not* fly this
> > > way myself, but probably *would* if it was necessary to be
> > > competitive. *I rather we had a rule that took away any incentive to
> > > do this.
>
> > > -T8
>
> > Evan,
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "rather *not* fly this way". *Is this in
> > reference to starting near the back of the cylinder or something else?
>
> > I have flown at several sites that I could easily see starting near
> > the back of the cylinder. *I nearly did it a few years ago even with
> > the 10 mile penalty back then because I could climb 7,000 feet higher
> > near the back than the front at Air Sailing when we had tasks to the
> > south.
>
> > At Parowan, Minden Logan, and Air Sailing depending on the start
> > cylinder and the location of the first turn point, there can be a
> > great reason to go to the back of the cylinder and climb on the higher
> > ground.
>
> > The proposed rules seems to add nothing but confusion and complexity
> > to a very simple idea. Start anywhere in the cylinder or out the top.
> > Score the distance from the startpoint to the turnpoint.
>
> > The start anywhere is a vast improvement over the old system. *At
> > Uvalde with the top of the cylinder above cloud base you had one or
> > two thermals on the closest edge of the cylinder with pilots pushing
> > into the wisps and the usual gaggle compression at the top. *I will
> > take Start Anywhere over that anytime.
>
> > TT
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Long time since Albert Lea, eh?
>
> Starting through the top of the cylinder (and staying on top) doesn't
> bother me a bit. *I just never seem to get the opportunity to do it.
> Both regionals I flew this year (R1, R4S) had gates with tops well
> above cloud base and in one case the cloud bases were extremely
> variable just to spice things up. *In no case did I see anyone do
> anything dumb or even remotely ungentlemanly in the gate. *But at
> times it did feel a bit crowded close to cloud, er, cloud clearance
> minimums.
>
> What I was referring to was the (so far, largely theoretical) practice
> of starting at the back and then flying through the cylinder below max
> altitude. *The theory is that you'd make good time by using all the
> pre-start gaggles. *The proposed rule is an attempt to head off that
> temptation before it becomes troublesome.
>
> -T8

Evan,

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, many years since Albert Lea, HP-18's
and Std Cirri. What you describe can still happen with the new rules
so I guess I don't see the point in trying to make the rule more
complex. I can climb up right at the center of the cylinder and dive
through the gaggle five miles ahead as long as I don't stay in the
cylinder longer than 2 minutes. Maybe we need to shorten that time to
1 minute so they are likely to get a new start time and make the whole
idea of hitting the front edge worthless.

I like the Start Anywhere because it uses real distance so I can go
over 80 degrees off course line between the center of the start
cylinder and the first turnpoint and start out the side. The
proposed change will have everyone starting in a very narrow range on
the front edge to ensure we get all the distance and we are all back
in the same gaggle again.

Hope you drag your ship out west and run some ridges with us in UT,

Tim (TT)

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 10:41*am, Tim Taylor > wrote:
>*What you describe can still happen with the new rules
> so I guess I don't see the point in trying to make the rule more
> complex. *I can climb up right at the center of the cylinder and dive
> through the gaggle five miles ahead as long as I don't stay in the
> cylinder longer than 2 minutes. *Maybe we need to shorten that time to
> 1 minute so they are likely to get a new start time and make the whole
> idea of hitting the front edge worthless.
>

Good points Tim. It feels like an attempt to solve a problem that
doesn't happen much and in doing so negates some of the benefits of
the original rule change while only halfway meeting the objective of
making the "bump and run" strategy hard to pull off when it is an
option.

Andy's suggestion of a fixed front half should work - with the
understanding that under the worst case scenario a pilot could
technically line up a course line that ran for 10 miles along the
straight edge of the half-cylinder - just the way the angles work out.
Would it happen very often? Who the heck knows? It would be simpler to
understand.

The other possible approach would be to make the start cylinder
smaller (like 3 miles) - no software re-programming required. I like
the bigger cylinder, but it would be an easier experiment to run in
2009.

9B

[[email protected]]

Guys, I think we're all stressed from lack of flying and need to calm
down a bit and stop over-analyzing this one.

Yes, the point of the "front half" business is to further discourage
starting out the back or back of the top and bumping gaggles along the
top edge of the start cylinder.

Yes, the area in which you get full credit for distance is described
by a gentle semicircle defined by the first turn fix. Therefore, yes,
you don't know exactly where the area is before you get to the first
turnpoint.

However, nothing terrible happens to you if you start outside of the
"front half." No penalties, no invalid starts, nothing. You just don't
get full credit for distance. In typical starts out the top, a half
knot of extra thermal strength will be much more important than even
being a mile outside of the extra credit area. Remember, people used
to start out the top back when they got no credit at all for extra
distance. Knowing the exact location of the "extra credit" area is
just not that important.

Thus, if you want to start out the top, the right strategy is to look
for the best possible thermal in the front half to two thirds of the
start cylinder. Programming semicircles into your flight computer and
staring at that isn't going to do any good compared to looking for a
good thermal.

In these extreme situations such that you might be heading 30 degrees
to the left or right of "courseline" into a huge first turn area, let
me suggest that if you have no idea before start whether you're going
to head 30 degrees to the left or 30 degrees to the right, you need to
do some better pre-start thinking rather than worry about start
geometry!

Yes, this means that the very back of the start cylinder is
disadvantaged for starts out the top. The RC is very worried about the
"bump the gaggle" business, especially if the first leg is downwind.
We judged that at least to start with the benefit outweighs the cost.

In the future, we can remove or relax this rule if it is proving too
constraining. Another possibility is to remove some of the "last valid
start" language and let this simple rule alone police the "bump the
gaggles" problem. But clearly if we see bump the gaggles behavior, or
heaven forbid a crash, the whole start anywhere concept will be in
danger. Hence, we thought it better to start conservatively.

Let us know your experiences this year

John Cochrane BB

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 12:15�pm, wrote:
> On Jan 8, 10:41�am, Tim Taylor > wrote:
>
> >�What you describe can still happen with the new rules
> > so I guess I don't see the point in trying to make the rule more
> > complex. �I can climb up right at the center of the cylinder and dive
> > through the gaggle five miles ahead as long as I don't stay in the
> > cylinder longer than 2 minutes. �Maybe we need to shorten that time to
> > 1 minute so they are likely to get a new start time and make the whole
> > idea of hitting the front edge worthless.
>
> Good points Tim. �It feels like an attempt to solve a problem that
> doesn't happen much and in doing so negates some of the benefits of
> the original rule change while only halfway meeting the objective of
> making the "bump and run" strategy hard to pull off when it is an
> option.
>
> Andy's suggestion of a fixed front half should work - with the
> understanding that under the worst case scenario a pilot could
> technically line up a course line that ran for 10 miles along the
> straight edge of the half-cylinder - just the way the angles work out.
> Would it happen very often? Who the heck knows? It would be simpler to
> understand.
>
> The other possible approach would be to make the start cylinder
> smaller (like 3 miles) - no software re-programming required. I like
> the bigger cylinder, but it would be an easier experiment to run in
> 2009.
>
> 9B

The rules are written as an agreement between several parties.
This agreement requires all entrants to be in agreement with the rules
and each other. All entrants must be on equal ground and must not be
required to have special, expensive software which only a few can
afford. If one wishes to start anywhere within the defined start
circle, or turn anywhere they choose within the defined turn area,
they must not have the fear that if they don't have the new and
expensive software they might not recieve their flown distance.
The problem is trying to make something work that has these
restrictions which has been pointed out by several of you. I do
believe the rules committee has seen this and is working on it. If
starting out the top is what is normally not done by almost all the
entrants, has not been normally seen, then simply stop it. Most
contest managers that I have spoken with, starting out the top is
their worst fear for possible problems. This one point of starting out
the top was the underlying reason why the NSF closed its doors in
Hobbs. They were very concerned about one hot jock starting out the
top and bouncing his way thur the gaggles. I was their, I saw the IGC
files, and became very involved with this topic.
We finally got a finish which you can't pull up into. I, and
another, almost got knifed in half, when someone pulled up right in
front of us inside the circle, during the finish. We were at 500 agl.
and chutes don't work from 500 ft. agl.
How can this "new start anywhere" be a "start anywhere" when you
can't do that? That's the crazest dang thing I ever heard. Almost all
of us forgot their geometry 101 in high school. New entrants (or any
entrants) flying in any class should be able to understand the rules
and not feel they are at a disadvange before they even get to the
contest. They won't even come. The contest, yes, the contest, should
not start before the start. The start must be fair and equal to all
entrants. Not just to a few who have more knowledge than most of us.
Many thanks to both Andy's on bring this up. I do believe the
rules committee is working on this, because BB hasn't shown up yet and
told us different. I do believe what the rules committee is trying to
do is stop the starting out the rear half, why? because if the first
leg is downwind, its best to start as far upwind as you can, as it
makes the last leg home into the wind shorter, which saves time.
Remember well that XX talks about saving seconds. By starting up near
one side of the circle you can again use the wind, maybe a quartering
tail wind, to fly to the far otherside of the first turn circle, again
saving time. Remember, even on blue days, streets of lift do line up,
reread A J Smith on this.
Now, new folks don't read RAS and most of you already knew this,
so I feel safe in talking about this. But, is this fair to all
entrants? As long as I win, it sure is..........cause I will tell them
they could of read it on RAS.............

Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe........#711.

[kirk.stant]

I'm confused about the "bouncing start gaggles" issue? If I start out
the top (at the back, for sake of argument), and stay above the MSH,
I'm on course. If I see a gaggle above MSH in front, I would be
stupid not to take advantage of their thermal - but unlikely to be
high enough to aggressively "bounce" it. If I drive down into a start
gaggle and drop back below MSH, then I should be penalized if I don't
hang around for 2 minutes - which would pretty much waste the
advantage of starting out the top earlier.

So, take away the option of the earlier start if you subsequently clip
the edge of the start cylinder - It would force you to either fly
conservatively enough to be sure not to drop back below MSH, or make
you hang around for 2 more minutes if you misjudge your out-the-top
start.

I don't like the proposal as stated - the start area should not be
variable, in any way - that's poor rule making, IMHO. I would prefer
to use the 2008 start anywhere rule as is, and see if gaggles get
bounced.

Out west, of course. Not likely where I'm racing these days!

Kirk
66

[Tuno]

Captain Kirk:

We will gather good notes at Parowan (and elsewhere) this summer and
forward them to the RC.

Hopefully it will take us back to the 2008 version, but let's belly up
to the bar and follow the process.

-Scotty

[Tim Taylor]

On Jan 8, 2:45*pm, wrote:
> Guys, I think we're all stressed from lack of flying and need to calm
> down a bit and stop over-analyzing this one.
>
> Yes, the point of the "front half" business is to further discourage
> starting out the back or back of the top and bumping gaggles along the
> top edge of the start cylinder.
>
> Yes, the area in which you get full credit for distance is described
> by a gentle semicircle defined by the first turn fix. *Therefore, yes,
> you don't know exactly where the area is before you get to the first
> turnpoint.
>
> However, nothing terrible happens to you if you start outside of the
> "front half." No penalties, no invalid starts, nothing. You just don't
> get full credit for distance. In typical starts out the top, a half
> knot of extra thermal strength will be much more important than even
> being a mile outside of the extra credit area. Remember, people used
> to start out the top back when they got no credit at all for extra
> distance. Knowing the exact location of the "extra credit" area is
> just not that important.
>
> Thus, if you want to start out the top, the right strategy is to look
> for the best possible thermal in the front half to two thirds of the
> start cylinder. Programming semicircles into your flight computer and
> staring at that isn't going to do any good compared to looking for a
> good thermal.
>
> In these extreme situations such that you might be heading 30 degrees
> to the left or right of "courseline" into a huge first turn area, let
> me suggest that if you have no idea before start whether you're going
> to head 30 degrees to the left or 30 degrees to the right, you need to
> do some better pre-start thinking rather than worry about start
> geometry!
>
> Yes, this means that the very back of the start cylinder is
> disadvantaged for starts out the top. The RC is very worried about the
> "bump the gaggle" business, especially if the first leg is downwind.
> We judged that at least to start with the benefit outweighs the cost.
>
> In the future, we can remove or relax this rule if it is proving too
> constraining. Another possibility is to remove some of the "last valid
> start" language and let this simple rule alone police the "bump the
> gaggles" problem. But clearly if we see bump the gaggles behavior, or
> heaven forbid a crash, the whole start anywhere concept will be in
> danger. Hence, we thought it better to start conservatively.
>
> Let us know your experiences this year
>
> John Cochrane BB

John,

If the rules committee has already made up its mind, why ask for
input?

Your comments in one of your earlier threads eluded to the prestart
issues at Uvalde under the old rules.

1. I don't see how the new rules prevents the bump and run (there is
still 5 miles from the center to the edge). I can climb up 1500 feet
over the top, and hit the edge at 90 knots and bump any thermal there
and be gone before I have spent two minutes below height to get a new
start. If I am 10 miles back at the back edge I am likely going to be
going at an angle away from the front edge and I would have to be
significantly higher so that I would not spend two minutes back in the
cylinder during the crossing.

2. It encourages everyone to start at the front edge like before. The
arc of the eventual first turn point the center of the start cylinder
limits where you should start in the start cylinder. Anyplace else
takes a distance penalty like before.

3. If the goal is to minimize the bump and run, cut the time under
altitude to a lower number or set a speed limit in the cylinder.

4. Anyone crazy enough to bump and run a prestart gaggle should be hit
with an "unsafe flying" penalty if they go through the middle of a
gaggle without working in from the outside. I think that rule already
deals with the issue.

As a engineer we work on the KISS principle of design (and rules).

Tim (TT)

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 1:45*pm, wrote:
> Guys, I think we're all stressed from lack of flying and need to calm
> down a bit and stop over-analyzing this one.
>
> Yes, the point of the "front half" business is to further discourage
> starting out the back or back of the top and bumping gaggles along the
> top edge of the start cylinder.
>
> Yes, the area in which you get full credit for distance is described
> by a gentle semicircle defined by the first turn fix. *Therefore, yes,
> you don't know exactly where the area is before you get to the first
> turnpoint.
>
> However, nothing terrible happens to you if you start outside of the
> "front half." No penalties, no invalid starts, nothing. You just don't
> get full credit for distance. In typical starts out the top, a half
> knot of extra thermal strength will be much more important than even
> being a mile outside of the extra credit area. Remember, people used
> to start out the top back when they got no credit at all for extra
> distance. Knowing the exact location of the "extra credit" area is
> just not that important.
>
> Thus, if you want to start out the top, the right strategy is to look
> for the best possible thermal in the front half to two thirds of the
> start cylinder. Programming semicircles into your flight computer and
> staring at that isn't going to do any good compared to looking for a
> good thermal.
>
> In these extreme situations such that you might be heading 30 degrees
> to the left or right of "courseline" into a huge first turn area, let
> me suggest that if you have no idea before start whether you're going
> to head 30 degrees to the left or 30 degrees to the right, you need to
> do some better pre-start thinking rather than worry about start
> geometry!
>
> Yes, this means that the very back of the start cylinder is
> disadvantaged for starts out the top. The RC is very worried about the
> "bump the gaggle" business, especially if the first leg is downwind.
> We judged that at least to start with the benefit outweighs the cost.
>
> In the future, we can remove or relax this rule if it is proving too
> constraining. Another possibility is to remove some of the "last valid
> start" language and let this simple rule alone police the "bump the
> gaggles" problem. But clearly if we see bump the gaggles behavior, or
> heaven forbid a crash, the whole start anywhere concept will be in
> danger. Hence, we thought it better to start conservatively.
>
> Let us know your experiences this year
>
> John Cochrane BB

We do turn into tire-biters in the winter don't we?

Now, back at it:

John - I take your points on the scenarios probably being relatively
low probability If risk of traffic conflict in the start cylinder is
the big concern I can totally understand the RC taking a conservative
approach - the last thing you'd want to do is make a rule change that
gets somebody hurt or their glider broken. It's a big responsibility.

The conundrum is that the conservative approach is kind of like the
old joke about clapping your hands to keep the elephants away - the
only way to know if it works is to stop clapping, but who wants to
risk it? Inch by inch we add little complexities into the rules
because we can imagine something that might not be right about the
simple version. That of course means that it can be hard to work
these things out of the rules because you never know at what point the
elephants come back. But what if the elephants are just in our
imagining? It's not an easy question and please don't take this
discussion as criticism of what you guys do. I, for one, am just
trying to figure out what it means so I don't have to deal with in on
the fly next year.

Tuno's recommendation is a good one - which is to look at a reasonable
sample of 2007, 2008 and 2009 contests from the east and west, big and
small (especially big), with MSHs in all the various relationships to
top of lift and cloud base to see what pilots actually do differently.
The RC may do this already in some form. Obviously individual feedback
is the only way to know how people feel about the operational and
workload aspects of it.

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 2:45�pm, wrote:
> Guys, I think we're all stressed from lack of flying and need to calm
> down a bit and stop over-analyzing this one.
>
> Yes, the point of the "front half" business is to further discourage
> starting out the back or back of the top and bumping gaggles along the
> top edge of the start cylinder.
>
> Yes, the area in which you get full credit for distance is described
> by a gentle semicircle defined by the first turn fix. �Therefore, yes,
> you don't know exactly where the area is before you get to the first
> turnpoint.
>
> However, nothing terrible happens to you if you start outside of the
> "front half." No penalties, no invalid starts, nothing. You just don't
> get full credit for distance. In typical starts out the top, a half
> knot of extra thermal strength will be much more important than even
> being a mile outside of the extra credit area. Remember, people used
> to start out the top back when they got no credit at all for extra
> distance. Knowing the exact location of the "extra credit" area is
> just not that important.
>
> Thus, if you want to start out the top, the right strategy is to look
> for the best possible thermal in the front half to two thirds of the
> start cylinder. Programming semicircles into your flight computer and
> staring at that isn't going to do any good compared to looking for a
> good thermal.
>
> In these extreme situations such that you might be heading 30 degrees
> to the left or right of "courseline" into a huge first turn area, let
> me suggest that if you have no idea before start whether you're going
> to head 30 degrees to the left or 30 degrees to the right, you need to
> do some better pre-start thinking rather than worry about start
> geometry!
>
> Yes, this means that the very back of the start cylinder is
> disadvantaged for starts out the top. The RC is very worried about the
> "bump the gaggle" business, especially if the first leg is downwind.
> We judged that at least to start with the benefit outweighs the cost.
>
> In the future, we can remove or relax this rule if it is proving too
> constraining. Another possibility is to remove some of the "last valid
> start" language and let this simple rule alone police the "bump the
> gaggles" problem. But clearly if we see bump the gaggles behavior, or
> heaven forbid a crash, the whole start anywhere concept will be in
> danger. Hence, we thought it better to start conservatively.
>
> Let us know your experiences this year
>
> John Cochrane BB


John Cochrane, the below is your post from DEC. 24, 2008............


More options Dec 24 2008, 1:37 pm

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From:
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Dec 24 2008 1:37 pm
Subject: Re: Start Anywhere
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> Maybe we can convince John to write us a nice explanation of the
> various tactical advantages/disadvantages of side vs top starts with
> high or low MSH and strong/weak lift!



Alas, there's not much to say. The RC is very determined not to
introduce rules that require lots of strategizing and have secret
tricks to them. I can't think of anything clever to do with this one.
Much of the attraction is that it removes a lot of tactics and
geometry.

In most contests, thermals are weak near the top of the start
cylinder, or the top is near cloudbase, so there really isn't much to
be gained by going out the top. Then, the most important
consideration
is to pick a start position that lines up well to clouds or lift
sources on course.


If there is wind, being on the upwind side of the cylinder is
advantageous. Other things equal, the optimal start point is directly
into the wind. Other things aren't equal of course. It will take a
howling wind to get me away from a good looking cu that seems to line
up with energy on course.

...................Now, can we have a public explaination, as to why on
Dec. 24th, you tell us ( yes, in the above quote) what the rules
committee doesn't want to do, BUT JUST DID, with this new half
cylinder start. We are asked to debate the issue and then told by you
not to worry about the flaws, as its only a few points???

Present day transparence should be required for all entrants, just not
a few selected indiviuals. If you knew of these flaws when the half
cylinder was designed, why didn't you speak then and why did you wait
till now???? We are given an short notice on the review and when the
flaws are discovered, we are then told not to worry about them, as its
only a few points?? I want those few points, so why take them away and
not give me them, oh, your doing it because of a flawed rule? Sounds
like TARP all over again.............

Talking around the issue doesn't solve the problem. If the concern is
about starting out the top, then stop it. If their is NO proof of
starting out the top as being a problem, then stop "thinking" of ways
it could become one. Address the problem, if theirs been one to begin
with, and stop creating new ones.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 8, 2:45*pm, wrote:

I asked in my initial post "How, with the proposed rule change, is the
pilot expected to know whether the selected start cylinder exit point
will result in a devalued first leg distance?"

and part of your reply was

> However, nothing terrible happens to you if you start outside of the
> "front half." No penalties, no invalid starts, nothing. You just don't
> get full credit for distance.

I'm surprised the RC thinks that not getting full credit for distance
flown is of no consequence. In the past pilots have worked thermals
away from the optimum start point and then lost altitude to exit at
the optimum start point just so they are not timed on a mile or less
that didn't earn any score.

How is this different?

I see no reason why a pilot that chooses to exit from the back of the
cylinder cannot work any gaggle on route to the first turnpoint. Why
does joining a gaggle in the vicinity of the start have a higher risk
than joining one on course?

I just don't see that the proposed rule, with its hidden complexity,
is justified. Unsafe flying has always been subject to a severe
penalty and anyone flying dangerously in, or above, the start cylinder
is subject to that rule.

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 9:30*am, Andy > wrote:

> I see no reason why a pilot that chooses to exit from the back of the
> cylinder cannot work any gaggle on route to the first turnpoint. *Why
> does joining a gaggle in the vicinity of the start have a higher risk
> than joining one on course?

Traffic density near top of gate/cloud base, for starters. There's
also the issue of blending on course traffic with pre-start traffic.

From my point of view, the potential increase in opposing traffic near
cloud base/top of gate would justify the rule by itself. More
broadly, the rules strategy seems to be to take the incentive for
competitive flying out of the gate area and move it out on course
where it belongs.

-T8

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 8:43*am, wrote:
> On Jan 9, 9:30*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > I see no reason why a pilot that chooses to exit from the back of the
> > cylinder cannot work any gaggle on route to the first turnpoint. *Why
> > does joining a gaggle in the vicinity of the start have a higher risk
> > than joining one on course?
>
> Traffic density near top of gate/cloud base, for starters. *There's
> also the issue of blending on course traffic with pre-start traffic.
>
> From my point of view, the potential increase in opposing traffic near
> cloud base/top of gate would justify the rule by itself. *More
> broadly, the rules strategy seems to be to take the incentive for
> competitive flying out of the gate area and move it out on course
> where it belongs.
>
> -T8

I'm still trying to work out in my mind how going with a 50% smaller
start area DEcreases traffic density. I think the only relevant
scenarios here are ones where you can start out the top of the
cylinder - but can't climb high enough to clear the edge of the
cylinder. That means the top of useable lift has to be within around
1,500' of MSH. Lower than that and pilots will find thermals closer to
the edge of the cylinder or start out the side. Higher than that and
any thermals you hit post-start will be with gliders that also have
already started, which is basically indistinguishable from entering a
thermal 5 miles out on course. That wouldn't appear to me to happen
all that often and the CD could certainly try to avoid setting MSH
close to the forecast top of lift.

TT made the point that even with the proposed modification you still
have 5 miles of radius to find a great start thermal that's somehow
lined up with a gaggle on your intended course line. I don't think I
can reliably see a glider from more than 5 miles away anyway so I
don't think offering the full cylinder will do much to increase
instances of people trying to do this in a premeditated way. I think
it's safe to say that the main scenario is someone starting out the
top who suddenly sees a gaggle along the way.

BB made the point that some pilots may elect to start from behind the
arc where they get distance credit if there's a good thermal to be had
since they can still get a legitimate start. They will just fly a mile
or two without getting credit for it. I'm thinking that would only
really make sense it the lift were really awesome (to save the lost
two minutes of on-course time you'd need to climb the fifteen hundred
feet at 15 knots rather than at 5 knots for example), or you might do
it if you were a dedicated pre-start gaggle bumper (the advantage here
seems minimal - I don't think I can save 2 minutes - or 1 minute by
bumping gaggles). In either case it would mean the rule change wasn't
very effective.

I get that the very back of the cylinder narrows a bit and so starters
from way back there would tend to overfly the middle of the cylinder.
I also get that traffic can fan out a bit on course - particularly if
you have a short first leg with a very big turn area. But a 10-mile
diameter start cylinder is pretty darn big - so the amount of fan-out
on course seems to be small for most TATs and all ASTs and MATs with a
first turn specified.

My perception is that a factor in gaggling is pilots who wait for the
post-start radio calls of other pilots and start right after them.
Under the old rule you had a good sense of where they'd be because the
optimal start point was at the edge of the cylinder near course line.
Under the original start anywhere rule a starter could be anywhere in
a 10 mile distance along course line and was a lot less likely to be
near MSH if the lift was going higher, so it became pretty hard to
time your start to reliably make a marker out of another pilot. Under
the modified rule it may become a more manageable strategy.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 11:57�am, wrote:
> On Jan 9, 8:43�am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 9:30�am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > I see no reason why a pilot that chooses to exit from the back of the
> > > cylinder cannot work any gaggle on route to the first turnpoint. �Why
> > > does joining a gaggle in the vicinity of the start have a higher risk
> > > than joining one on course?
>
> > Traffic density near top of gate/cloud base, for starters. �There's
> > also the issue of blending on course traffic with pre-start traffic.
>
> > From my point of view, the potential increase in opposing traffic near
> > cloud base/top of gate would justify the rule by itself. �More
> > broadly, the rules strategy seems to be to take the incentive for
> > competitive flying out of the gate area and move it out on course
> > where it belongs.
>
> > -T8
>
> I'm still trying to work out in my mind how going with a 50% smaller
> start area DEcreases traffic density. I think the only relevant
> scenarios here are ones where you can start out the top of the
> cylinder - but can't climb high enough to clear the edge of the
> cylinder. That means the top of useable lift has to be within around
> 1,500' of MSH. Lower than that and pilots will find thermals closer to
> the edge of the cylinder or start out the side. Higher than that and
> any thermals you hit post-start will be with gliders that also have
> already started, which is basically indistinguishable from entering a
> thermal 5 miles out on course. That wouldn't appear to me to happen
> all that often and the CD could certainly try to avoid setting MSH
> close to the forecast top of lift.
>
> TT made the point that even with the proposed modification you still
> have 5 miles of radius to find a great start thermal that's somehow
> lined up with a gaggle on your intended course line. I don't think I
> can reliably see a glider from more than 5 miles away anyway so I
> don't think offering the full cylinder will do much to increase
> instances of people trying to do this in a premeditated way. I think
> it's safe to say that the main scenario is someone starting out the
> top who suddenly sees a gaggle along the way.
>
> BB made the point that some pilots may elect to start from behind the
> arc where they get distance credit if there's a good thermal to be had
> since they can still get a legitimate start. They will just fly a mile
> or two without getting credit for it. I'm thinking that would only
> really make sense it the lift were really awesome (to save the lost
> two minutes of on-course time you'd need to climb the fifteen hundred
> feet at 15 knots rather than at 5 knots for example), or you might do
> it if you were a dedicated pre-start gaggle bumper (the advantage here
> seems minimal - I don't think I can save 2 minutes - or 1 minute by
> bumping gaggles). In either case it would mean the rule change wasn't
> very effective.
>
> I get that the very back of the cylinder narrows a bit and so starters
> from way back there would tend to overfly the middle of the cylinder.
> I also get that traffic can fan out a bit on course - particularly if
> you have a short first leg with a very big turn area. But a 10-mile
> diameter start cylinder is pretty darn big - so the amount of fan-out
> on course seems to be small for most TATs and all ASTs and MATs with a
> first turn specified.
>
> My perception is that a factor in gaggling is pilots who wait for the
> post-start radio calls of other pilots and start right after them.
> Under the old rule you had a good sense of where they'd be because the
> optimal start point was at the edge of the cylinder near course line.
> Under the original start anywhere rule a starter could be anywhere in
> a 10 mile distance along course line and was a lot less likely to be
> near MSH if the lift was going higher, so it became pretty hard to
> time your start to reliably make a marker out of another pilot. Under
> the modified rule it may become a more manageable strategy.
>
> 9B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, making the circle 50 percent smaller does not decrease
density. But, the circumference of just the half outside circle is
15.7079 miles. The area of the half circle is 39.269908 square miles
(based on a 5 mile radius). I do agree that this will help stop
leeching, spread folks out, yet will make the start more luck prone to
those who get lucky in finding a strong thermal within the start
cylinder and wish to start out the top. It has not stopped the
prestart competition for the best start. Those who launch last will
have a disadvange on certain days due to with the old start rules,
they knew where to look for the prestart gaggles. Now, launching last
will not give the opportunity to search the start cylinder for the
bigger climbs that earlier starters have found. Of course, the launch
does rotate, but some will again have better luck than others.
The issue still remains. A rule has been made which is flawed
to begin with. Any justifacation attemp towards a flawed rule is
flawed in itself. All turn areas are designed to be turned in at any
point, now is not the case. Any start within a start defined area
should not result in a point decrease if any entrant chooses to turn
anywhere within a defined turn area. An entrant should not get less
points for airmanship he thinks is the best for him/her at that time.
What's bothersome is for those who don't understand this could receive
less points and will never know what has occured.
The argument can be made that all entrants should read and
understand the rules as written. But when a rule is written which
becomes complex and goes against what the wishes of the rules
committee are, as describe by the post of BB, then the SSA directors
should be contacted to inform them as to what they are voting on (some
board members are not current entrants). I know that the rules
committee members will also inform the directors at the SSA general
meeting coming up, of what these posts have discussed, before the
directors vote on this new rule. At least one rules committee member
is a director and whom I highly respect. I have full faith that these
posts have brought up areas to think about and that this will be gone
over at the SSA meeting before its voted on by the directors.

Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe, #711

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 12:48*pm, wrote:
><snip> Those who launch last will
> have a disadvange on certain days due to with the old start rules,
> they knew where to look for the prestart gaggles. Now, launching last
> will not give the opportunity to search the start cylinder for the
> bigger climbs that earlier starters have found. Of course, the launch
> does rotate, but some will again have better luck than others.

Interesting point Tom. That is something we can actually measure by
looking at flight logs to see what the distribution of first climbs is
in 2007 versus 2008. I certainly felt the pressure to get a good climb
out the top last year, but with an MSH that is high enough, if you
don't find a good climb through the top of the cylinder, you would
think you could head out on course and have enough range to get a
reasonable sample of lift on course. It's still a valid strategy to
head out on course, mark a good thermal and come back for a start.

Under the old and new rules there has always been a bit of a
statistical disadvantage to late launchers. I'm not sure I see a magic
solution to the tradeoff between spreading pilots out to decrease
gaggles and bunching them together to make sure everyone gets a more
equal start. It depends on which you think is more important. I think
it's more important to spread them out - within reason.

I guess you could increase the time between last launch and gate
opening, but you start putting pressure on the length of the soaring
day in some cases.

Andy

[[email protected]]

The reason for the start-anywhere refinement did not come from a
desire to stop the fun of blasting out the top from the back half a
Parowan.

We were worried about the following. Imagine a more typical contest in
which you can't get that much about start top, and in particular with
cloudbase 500'-1000' above start top. Think especially about a pretty
strong downwind component on the first leg.

In this situation, it will be very tempting to start out the top near
the back, and try to float around near MSH bumping the start gaggles.
This will give you an extra 10 miles of downwind flying in well-marked
lift. If you drop down into the cylinder for more than 2 minutes, oh
well, you can just take your next exit as start, or go back and try
again. Trying it is a free option. This flying is done in a very
dubious zone, close to the clouds, with pre-start gliders wandering
around everywhre. Safety minded pilots would try to avoid it, but if
everyone else starts doing it, it will be very tempting.

Yes, it will still be tempting to do this starting in the middle of
the cylinder, but we hope it will be less of a problem in practice
with only 5 miles to go. (And unsafe flying penalties still there as a
deterrent)

As for the skulduggery and evil intentions, come on guys, you know us
better than that. We're just trying to get simple, safe, workable,
fair and fun rules here. Are we thinking about problems that haven't
happened yet? You bet! The job of the rules committe is to wake up at
2 in the morning with one more way that things can go wrong and fix it
ahead of time. This scenario hasn't been a problem in the past, but if
we have a whole season of national contests where some smarty figures
out this is the hot strategy, that's a disaster. We don't and should
not wait for problems to develop, especially safety problems, do do
something about them!

Yes, the options to start out the top are a bit less generous. They're
a lot better than the old rules. This whole business is getting to be
a mess, and there is some sentiment on the rules committee to drop
start anywhere and go back to the old rules.

I think we should go with what we have for a year -- last valid start
and front half refinement, though this is a decision ultimately for
our Chair an the SSA board. If you really miss the back half of the
top of the cylinder we can revisit that after a year. If we see people
skimming dangerously over the top of the start cylinder we may have to
restrict it more or differently.

John Cochrane
BB

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 4:56*pm, wrote:
> The reason for the start-anywhere refinement did not come from a
> desire to stop the fun of blasting out the top from the back half a
> Parowan.
>
> We were worried about the following. Imagine a more typical contest in
> which you can't get that much about start top, and in particular with
> cloudbase 500'-1000' above start top. Think especially about a pretty
> strong downwind component on the first leg.
>
> In this situation, it will be very tempting to start out the top near
> the back, and try to float around near MSH bumping the start gaggles.
> This will give you an extra 10 miles of downwind flying in well-marked
> lift. *If you drop down into the cylinder for more than 2 minutes, oh
> well, you can just take your next exit as start, or go back and try
> again. Trying it is a free option. *This flying is done in a very
> dubious zone, close to the clouds, with pre-start gliders wandering
> around everywhre. Safety minded pilots would try to avoid it, but if
> everyone else starts doing it, it will be very tempting.
>
> Yes, it will still be tempting to do this starting in the middle of
> the cylinder, but we hope it will be less of a problem in practice
> with only 5 miles to go. (And unsafe flying penalties still there as a
> deterrent)
>
> As for the skulduggery and evil intentions, come on guys, you know us
> better than that. We're just trying to get simple, safe, workable,
> fair and fun rules here. Are we thinking about problems that haven't
> happened yet? You bet! The job of the rules committe is to wake up at
> 2 in the morning with one more way that things can go wrong and fix it
> ahead of time. This scenario hasn't been a problem in the past, but if
> we have a whole season of national contests where some smarty figures
> out this is the hot strategy, that's a disaster. We don't and should
> not wait for problems to develop, especially safety problems, do do
> something about them!
>
> Yes, the options to start out the top are a bit less generous. They're
> a lot better than the old rules. This whole business is getting to be
> a mess, and there is some sentiment on the rules committee to drop
> start anywhere and go back to the old rules.
>
> I think we should go with what we have for a year -- last valid start
> and front half refinement, though this is a decision ultimately for
> our Chair an the SSA board. If you really miss the back half of the
> top of the cylinder we can revisit that after a year. If we see people
> skimming dangerously over the top of the start cylinder we may have to
> restrict it more or differently.
>
> John Cochrane
> BB

Thanks for taking the time to explain the logic. Sunshine is the best
disinfectant.

No questions in my mind about the motives or competence of the RC.
Some of the rest of us wake up thinking about rules too - and the
racing strategies that issue therefrom.

Any time you have MSH, top of lift and cloudbase close together you're
going to have a bunch of gliders dribbling around in a narrow band
under sketchy conditions. At least now we all know which way to look
for traffic.

9B

9B

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 5:56�pm, wrote:
> The reason for the start-anywhere refinement did not come from a
> desire to stop the fun of blasting out the top from the back half a
> Parowan.
>
> We were worried about the following. Imagine a more typical contest in
> which you can't get that much about start top, and in particular with
> cloudbase 500'-1000' above start top. Think especially about a pretty
> strong downwind component on the first leg.
>
> In this situation, it will be very tempting to start out the top near
> the back, and try to float around near MSH bumping the start gaggles.
> This will give you an extra 10 miles of downwind flying in well-marked
> lift. �If you drop down into the cylinder for more than 2 minutes, oh
> well, you can just take your next exit as start, or go back and try
> again. Trying it is a free option. �This flying is done in a very
> dubious zone, close to the clouds, with pre-start gliders wandering
> around everywhre. Safety minded pilots would try to avoid it, but if
> everyone else starts doing it, it will be very tempting.
>
> Yes, it will still be tempting to do this starting in the middle of
> the cylinder, but we hope it will be less of a problem in practice
> with only 5 miles to go. (And unsafe flying penalties still there as a
> deterrent)
>
> As for the skulduggery and evil intentions, come on guys, you know us
> better than that. We're just trying to get simple, safe, workable,
> fair and fun rules here. Are we thinking about problems that haven't
> happened yet? You bet! The job of the rules committe is to wake up at
> 2 in the morning with one more way that things can go wrong and fix it
> ahead of time. This scenario hasn't been a problem in the past, but if
> we have a whole season of national contests where some smarty figures
> out this is the hot strategy, that's a disaster. We don't and should
> not wait for problems to develop, especially safety problems, do do
> something about them!
>
> Yes, the options to start out the top are a bit less generous. They're
> a lot better than the old rules. This whole business is getting to be
> a mess, and there is some sentiment on the rules committee to drop
> start anywhere and go back to the old rules.
>
> I think we should go with what we have for a year -- last valid start
> and front half refinement, though this is a decision ultimately for
> our Chair an the SSA board. If you really miss the back half of the
> top of the cylinder we can revisit that after a year. If we see people
> skimming dangerously over the top of the start cylinder we may have to
> restrict it more or differently.
>
> John Cochrane
> BB

Here comes hat duracell bunny beating on that drum....

If the rule is flawed, it is what it is. Any attempt to justify a
rule that is flawed, is false justification.
It has been now pointed out very clearly, that what you can not do
is start anywhere within the defined start cylinder area and be able
to turn anywhere within the defined turn area. This has nothing to do
with starting out the top.

I would sincerely and with all due respect John, hate to see
anyone lost a regional or national event because of rule that now
clearly shows points can be lost when one turns in a defined area. No
one thinks anyone is evil. The rules committe members are all very
highly respected. Yet all of us have a sportsmanship duty, that if we
see something that is wrong or think its not right, to speak on it.
This is sportsmanship. We do not want an unfair advantage over another
entrant due to a rule being written wrong or complex as you have
pointed out.

The CD can easily set the max start height at 10,000 agl as its
only suggested to do otherwise. The start height is not what is
flawed. Starting out the top is not flawed. The rules gives us a
defined turn area inwhich we can turn in, at any point we choose. If
we turn somewhere within the turn area and recieve a point loss, its
because of a flawed rule, then that area should be defined and shown
to all entrants where these areas are without special software
required.
Showing examples of what might happen or hear say, does not
give support to a rule, which gives a point lost without the entrant
even knowing about it. We have an agreement between us, the entrants,
and with the NAA, SSA, IGC and contest officals that the contest will
be fair and equal to all and held according to the rules. The rules
are to be fair and equal to all parties. How can anyone support this
rule knowing full well that it can cause a point loss?

Even saying its only a few points is admisson the rule is
flawed.

What we do have are the finest rules that we have ever had. Some
commiittee members have been working on these since 1992. I do believe
we have a commitment not only to us, but to the NAA, SSA and IGC to
make sure our rules will be sound, well thought out and flaw free. I
wish to maintain integrity in our sport for all entrants and between
all said parties.

What we should do is ever allow a rule, that has been shown to be
flawed, even into our sport. Also, a rule that is flawed, should
never be proposed.

Now, that duracell bunny, has beaten this drum to
shreads..........711.

[MarkHawke7]

Ok, we are going to go with the front half circle thing. Let's start
with that as an assumption and that we "give it a try for a year" as
John C is suggesting. What then is the problem with the refinement
suggested by Andy to center the half circle on the line connecting the
start center to the first turnpoint center? This sounds like a MUCH
less complex setup than what is currently be suggested and MUCH easier
to visualize (and perhaps code and score). So why is the proposed/
more complex method better than this? If it's not ALOT better, is
there room in the estimation of the RC for perhaps a refinement to the
current proposal or is that not to be entertained?

Just curious....

-Mark
On Jan
On Jan 9, 7:36*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 9, 5:56 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > The reason for the start-anywhere refinement did not come from a
> > desire to stop the fun of blasting out the top from the back half a
> > Parowan.
>
> > We were worried about the following. Imagine a more typical contest in
> > which you can't get that much about start top, and in particular with
> > cloudbase 500'-1000' above start top. Think especially about a pretty
> > strong downwind component on the first leg.
>
> > In this situation, it will be very tempting to start out the top near
> > the back, and try to float around near MSH bumping the start gaggles.
> > This will give you an extra 10 miles of downwind flying in well-marked
> > lift. If you drop down into the cylinder for more than 2 minutes, oh
> > well, you can just take your next exit as start, or go back and try
> > again. Trying it is a free option. This flying is done in a very
> > dubious zone, close to the clouds, with pre-start gliders wandering
> > around everywhre. Safety minded pilots would try to avoid it, but if
> > everyone else starts doing it, it will be very tempting.
>
> > Yes, it will still be tempting to do this starting in the middle of
> > the cylinder, but we hope it will be less of a problem in practice
> > with only 5 miles to go. (And unsafe flying penalties still there as a
> > deterrent)
>
> > As for the skulduggery and evil intentions, come on guys, you know us
> > better than that. We're just trying to get simple, safe, workable,
> > fair and fun rules here. Are we thinking about problems that haven't
> > happened yet? You bet! The job of the rules committe is to wake up at
> > 2 in the morning with one more way that things can go wrong and fix it
> > ahead of time. This scenario hasn't been a problem in the past, but if
> > we have a whole season of national contests where some smarty figures
> > out this is the hot strategy, that's a disaster. We don't and should
> > not wait for problems to develop, especially safety problems, do do
> > something about them!
>
> > Yes, the options to start out the top are a bit less generous. They're
> > a lot better than the old rules. This whole business is getting to be
> > a mess, and there is some sentiment on the rules committee to drop
> > start anywhere and go back to the old rules.
>
> > I think we should go with what we have for a year -- last valid start
> > and front half refinement, though this is a decision ultimately for
> > our Chair an the SSA board. If you really miss the back half of the
> > top of the cylinder we can revisit that after a year. If we see people
> > skimming dangerously over the top of the start cylinder we may have to
> > restrict it more or differently.
>
> > John Cochrane
> > BB
>
> * * *Here comes hat duracell bunny beating on that drum....
>
> * * If the rule is flawed, it is what it is. Any attempt to justify a
> rule that is flawed, is false justification.
> * * It has been now pointed out very clearly, that what you can not do
> is start anywhere within the defined start cylinder area *and be able
> to turn anywhere within the defined turn area. *This has nothing to do
> with starting out the top.
>
> * * *I would sincerely and with all due respect John, hate to see
> anyone lost a regional or national event because of rule that now
> clearly shows points can be lost when one turns in a defined area. No
> one thinks anyone is evil. The rules committe members are all very
> highly respected. Yet all of us have a sportsmanship duty, *that if we
> see something that is wrong or think its not right, to speak on it.
> This is sportsmanship. We do not want an unfair advantage over another
> entrant due to a rule being written wrong or complex as you have
> pointed out.
>
> * * *The CD can easily set the max start height at 10,000 agl as its
> only suggested to do otherwise. The start height is not what is
> flawed. Starting out the top is not flawed. *The rules gives us a
> defined turn area inwhich we can turn in, at any point we choose. If
> we turn somewhere within the turn area and recieve a point loss, its
> because of a flawed rule, then that area should be defined and shown
> to all entrants where these areas are without special software
> required.
> * * * Showing examples of what might happen or hear say, *does not
> give support to a rule, which gives a point lost without the entrant
> even knowing about it. We have an agreement between us, the entrants,
> and with the NAA, SSA, IGC and contest officals that the contest will
> be fair and equal to all and held according to the rules. The rules
> are to be fair and equal to all parties. How can anyone support this
> rule knowing full well that it can cause a point loss?
>
> * * * Even saying its only a few points is admisson the rule is
> flawed.
>
> * * * What we do have are the finest rules that we have ever had. Some
> commiittee members have been working on these since 1992. I do believe
> we have a commitment not only to us, but to the NAA, SSA and IGC to
> make sure our rules will be sound, well thought out and flaw free. *I
> wish to maintain integrity in our sport for all entrants and between
> all said parties.
>
> * * *What we should do is ever allow a rule, that has been shown to be
> flawed, even into our sport. *Also, a rule that is flawed, should
> never be proposed.
>
> * * *Now, that duracell bunny, has beaten this drum to
> shreads..........711.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Random thoughts:

We have many people concerned about "losing distance by having a start
fix and a first turmpoint fix that might give a first leg that is longer
than allowed by the rules" under the proposed "Start almost anywhere"
rule. You know, with the current rule of turnpoint fix to center of start
cylinder minus start radius, you lose distance unless you exit the cylinder
EXACTLY on the line from the center of the start cylinder to the first
turnpoint fix. And since you don't know exactly where you will turn, you
don't know where to exit to keep from "losing distance". Is the new
rule significantly different? The area of "lost distance" is probably
smaller with the proposed rule than it is with the current rule.

Bumping gaggles in the start cylinder. How many thermals do you think you
will bump in 5 miles? The lower the tops of the thermals, the more gaggles
you might bump. But out west, there may only be one thermal inside the
start cylinder! At Uvalde last summer, I don't think you could have
bumped more than one gaggle from the center to the edge of the start
cylinder.

Looking forward to the return of thermals to the Midwest!

Steve Leonard
ZS

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 11:00*pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> Random thoughts:
>
> We have many people concerned about "losing distance by having a start
> fix and a first turmpoint fix that might give a first leg that is longer
> than allowed by the rules" under the proposed "Start almost anywhere"
> rule. *You know, with the current rule of turnpoint fix to center of start
> cylinder minus start radius, you lose distance unless you exit the cylinder
> EXACTLY on the line from the center of the start cylinder to the first
> turnpoint fix. *And since you don't know exactly where you will turn, you
> don't know where to exit to keep from "losing distance". *Is the new
> rule significantly different? *The area of "lost distance" is probably
> smaller with the proposed rule than it is with the current rule. * *
>
> Bumping gaggles in the start cylinder. *How many thermals do you think you
> will bump in 5 miles? *The lower the tops of the thermals, the more gaggles
> you might bump. *But out west, there may only be one thermal inside the
> start cylinder! *At Uvalde last summer, I don't think you could have
> bumped more than one gaggle from the center to the edge of the start
> cylinder.
>
> Looking forward to the return of thermals to the Midwest!
>
> Steve Leonard
> ZS

Technically, I think you are referring the 2007 Regional Rules. In
2008 the first leg was scored from the point you actually leave the
start cylinder. However, for 2007 you are correct. The issue is
conceptually similar to the 2009 proposal, but under the 2007 rules
the potential magnitude of un-scored distance attributable to
variations in first turn fixes was an order of magnitude smaller than
would be the worst case under the proposed rule for 2009.

One thought for a rule modification would be to extend the 115 mph
speed limit inside the start cylinder to extend to the airspace above
the start cylinder. Do loggers track IAS?

9B

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 10, 1:51*am, wrote:

> Technically, I think you are referring the 2007 Regional Rules. In
> 2008 the first leg was scored from the point you actually leave the
> start cylinder. However, for 2007 you are correct.

I'm puzzled by that. I didn't compete in a Regional in 2008 so I
didn't study the rules. However it was my recollection that, for
regionals, contestants were scored full distance for a start anywhere
in the start cylinder. When I pulled the 2008 regional FAI class
rules from the SSA site to make sure I was using correct assumptions/
terminology for this discussion I found the following:

10.8.6 The distance of the first task leg shall be taken as the
distance from the Start Point to the control fix at the first
turnpoint, minus the Start Radius.

2007 FAI regional rules from SSA web site say

10.8.6 The distance of the first task leg shall be taken as the
distance from the Start Point to the control fix at the first
turnpoint, minus the Start Radius.

The 2007 and 2008 FAI regional rules appear to be the same, so was
"start anywhere" proposed for 2008 regionals but not actually
implemented?

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 9, 7:42*pm, MarkHawke7 > wrote:
>*What then is the problem with the refinement
> suggested by Andy to center the half circle on the line connecting the
> start center to the first turnpoint center? *

One disadvantage of my proposal is that a start made just behind the
fixed semicircle diameter would be invalid and no points at all would
be scored for the day. I doubt any current flight computer software
would flag that start as invalid. I suppose its a trade off.

Andy

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

At 08:51 10 January 2009, wrote:
>
Technically, I think you are referring the 2007 Regional Rules. In
2008 the first leg was scored from the point you actually leave the start
cylinder. However, for 2007 you are correct. The issue is conceptually
similar to the 2009 proposal, but under the 2007 rules the potential
magnitude of un-scored distance attributable to variations in first turn
fixes was an order of magnitude smaller than would be the worst case under
the proposed rule for 2009.

One thought for a rule modification would be to extend the 115 mph speed
limit inside the start cylinder to extend to the airspace above the start
cylinder. Do loggers track IAS?

9B
>

No, I was talking relative to the 2008 Nationals Rules. And I don't
think there is a factor of ten more potential lost distance if you make
the same assumptions of poor start location relative to first turn fix.
The sites that will potentially show this are the ones with low visibility
where you can't see too far out onto the first leg. This might cause you
to do a serious shift in what part of the first turn area you are aiming
for. And the longer the required first leg, the smaller the "lost
distance start area" becomes, and the less distance you can potentially
lose by being in the "bad area".

I think the loggers will only report ground speed. I wouldn't be in
favor of reporting IAS, as some planes have large indicated errors, and
other have very small errors.

And, I didn't see R or N on this, so it applies to all contests for 2009,
right?

Steve Leonard
ZS

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 10:02*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:42*pm, MarkHawke7 > wrote:
>
> >*What then is the problem with the refinement
> > suggested by Andy to center the half circle on the line connecting the
> > start center to the first turnpoint center? *
>
> One disadvantage of my proposal is that a start made just behind the
> fixed semicircle diameter would be invalid and no points at all would
> be scored for the day. *I doubt any current flight computer software
> would flag that start as invalid. *I suppose its a trade off.
>
> Andy

I don't want to tell you what your own proposal was, but I didn't
understand it that way!

There seems to be a certain confusion between what constitutes a valid
start and what part of the start cylinder yields full distance credit
under the new proposal. My understanding is that any valid start
under 07/08 rules is still valid under proposed 09 rules.

I do think that defining the "front" or "full distance credit" portion
of the start cylinder w.r.t. the center of the first turn area rather
than the first turn fix is a logical improvement.

-T8

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 10, 8:22*am, wrote:
> I don't want to tell you what your own proposal was, but I didn't
> understand it that way!


What I said was -
The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the
start
cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
point and the first turn point. A valid start would only be given
for
an exit from the front half.

Note the last sentence.

There may be a trade off between making a rule that defines an area
easily visualized by the pilot and, on the other hand, is easily
scored. Having a fixed semicircle define the full score start area,
but allowing starts behind that area, seems to lead to a complex first
leg distance computation. The RC proposed rule has a very simple
first leg distance computation but arguably a problem with area
visualization.

Making the area fixed and the only valid start area solves both
problems but has a severe penalty if the pilot starts behind the valid
area. I don't think its a better answer than "start anywhere".


Andy

[Larry Goddard]

I need the mailing addresses of all the members of the Racing
Committee... I am going to send each one of them an Occam's Razor.

:-O

Larry
"zero one"



"Andy" > wrote in message
:

> On Jan 10, 8:22 am, wrote:
> > I don't want to tell you what your own proposal was, but I didn't
> > understand it that way!
>
>
> What I said was -
> The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the
> start
> cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
> point and the first turn point. A valid start would only be given
> for
> an exit from the front half.
>
> Note the last sentence.
>
> There may be a trade off between making a rule that defines an area
> easily visualized by the pilot and, on the other hand, is easily
> scored. Having a fixed semicircle define the full score start area,
> but allowing starts behind that area, seems to lead to a complex first
> leg distance computation. The RC proposed rule has a very simple
> first leg distance computation but arguably a problem with area
> visualization.
>
> Making the area fixed and the only valid start area solves both
> problems but has a severe penalty if the pilot starts behind the valid
> area. I don't think its a better answer than "start anywhere".
>
>
> Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 11:08*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 8:22*am, wrote:
>
> > I don't want to tell you what your own proposal was, but I didn't
> > understand it that way!
>
> What I said was -
> The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the
> start
> cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
> point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given
> for
> an exit from the front half.
>
> Note the last sentence.
>
> There may be a trade off between making a rule that defines an area
> easily visualized by the pilot and, on the other hand, is easily
> scored. *Having a fixed semicircle define the full score start area,
> but allowing starts behind that area, seems to lead to a complex first
> leg distance computation. *The RC proposed rule has a very simple
> first leg distance computation but arguably a problem with area
> visualization.
>
> Making the area fixed and the only valid start area solves both
> problems but has a severe penalty if the pilot starts behind the valid
> area. *I don't think its a better answer than "start anywhere".
>
> Andy

Ah. I had what I thought was a better interpretation of your idea,
but on reflection it suffers from a lack of simplicity.

A half cylinder start area is asking for problems. I don't trust
airspace depictions on my PDA to the level of accuracy required... and
in any case I can't see making life so difficult for the guy that is
using a GPS nav without graphic display (or the guy whose graphic
display locks up...).

Why not define the start as the last exit from the beer can, do away
with the two minute altitude rule and instead required the start to be
under a specified GPS ground speed (100 kts, for instance)? This is
an idea, not a fully thought out proposal.

You could "start anywhere", you'd have ample incentive to stay clear
of the gate area if you start out the back, don't get screwed if you
do fall back into the cylinder, and excess speed could be penalized in
a fashion that provided discouragement but not outright
disqualification for offenders. It would make for a very simple rule.

-T8

[Tim Taylor]

On Jan 10, 10:37*am, wrote:
> On Jan 10, 11:08*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 8:22*am, wrote:
>
> > > I don't want to tell you what your own proposal was, but I didn't
> > > understand it that way!
>
> > What I said was -
> > The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the
> > start
> > cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
> > point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given
> > for
> > an exit from the front half.
>
> > Note the last sentence.
>
> > There may be a trade off between making a rule that defines an area
> > easily visualized by the pilot and, on the other hand, is easily
> > scored. *Having a fixed semicircle define the full score start area,
> > but allowing starts behind that area, seems to lead to a complex first
> > leg distance computation. *The RC proposed rule has a very simple
> > first leg distance computation but arguably a problem with area
> > visualization.
>
> > Making the area fixed and the only valid start area solves both
> > problems but has a severe penalty if the pilot starts behind the valid
> > area. *I don't think its a better answer than "start anywhere".
>
> > Andy
>
> Ah. *I had what I thought was a better interpretation of your idea,
> but on reflection it suffers from a lack of simplicity.
>
> A half cylinder start area is asking for problems. *I don't trust
> airspace depictions on my PDA to the level of accuracy required... and
> in any case I can't see making life so difficult for the guy that is
> using a GPS nav without graphic display (or the guy whose graphic
> display locks up...).
>
> Why not define the start as the last exit from the beer can, do away
> with the two minute altitude rule and instead required the start to be
> under a specified GPS ground speed (100 kts, for instance)? *This is
> an idea, not a fully thought out proposal.
>
> You could "start anywhere", you'd have ample incentive to stay clear
> of the gate area if you start out the back, don't get screwed if you
> do fall back into the cylinder, and excess speed could be penalized in
> a fashion that provided discouragement but not outright
> disqualification for offenders. *It would make for a very simple rule.
>
> -T8

Evan,

Glad to see you are coming around to my thinking.

The only thing we need to do to fix the Start Anything rule is reduce
the time to one minute. This is short enough to discourage reentering
the cylinder unless you plan to restart, long enough that you can't
carry speed out of the start and if you accidentally nick it you won't
get a penalty.

The bump and run concern is purely theoretical and the more I think
about it, it will not work. Here are the reasons why the bump and run
idea wont work:

1. From 10 miles you have to be able to know where the gaggle is and
to be high enough to not spend more than two minutes (currently) below
the top.

2. This assumes you can time it so that you get there and there is
still a gaggle there. If the gaggle is there are you going to bump
and run so now you are the rabbit for the hounds? Tactically it makes
no sense. The tactical pilots are going to hang around the front and
watch for the leaders to leave and run with that pack.

3. If your goal is to dolphin through the gaggles that are marked you
are going to get a penalty for unsafe flying.

Bottom line is the proposed rules is not needed and is protecting us
from a non-event and just adding extra complexity to the rules.

The rules should be the 2008 start anywhere with maybe a reduction in
the time required below the top to 1 minute. So much simpler than the
proposed idea.

Judge Learned Hand wrote "Right conclusions are more likely to be
gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of
authoritative selection.''


TT

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 7:15*am, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> At 08:51 10 January 2009, wrote:
>
> Technically, I think you are referring the 2007 Regional Rules. In
> 2008 the first leg was scored from the point you actually leave the start
> cylinder. However, for 2007 you are correct. The issue is conceptually
> similar to the 2009 proposal, but under the 2007 rules the potential
> magnitude of un-scored distance attributable to variations in first turn
> fixes was an order of magnitude smaller than would be the worst case under
> the proposed rule for 2009.
>
> One thought for a rule modification would be to extend the 115 mph speed
> limit inside the start cylinder to extend to the airspace above the start
> cylinder. Do loggers track IAS?
>
> 9B
>
>
>
> No, I was talking relative to the 2008 Nationals Rules. *And I don't
> think there is a factor of ten more potential lost distance if you make
> the same assumptions of poor start location relative to first turn fix.
> The sites that will potentially show this are the ones with low visibility
> where you can't see too far out onto the first leg. *This might cause you
> to do a serious shift in what part of the first turn area you are aiming
> for. *And the longer the required first leg, the smaller the "lost
> distance start area" becomes, and the less distance you can potentially
> lose by being in the "bad area".
>
> I think the loggers will only report ground speed. *I wouldn't be in
> favor of reporting IAS, as some planes have large indicated errors, and
> other have very small errors.
>
> And, I didn't see R or N on this, so it applies to all contests for 2009,
> right?
>
> Steve Leonard
> ZS

Nearly every time I leave out a detail in the name of brevity I get
caught. You are right Steve - the National rules were unchanged w.r.t
Start Anywhere in 2008. We've mostly been discussing the Regional
rules here because there is a helpful distinction between 2007, 2008
and the new proposal.

To answer Andy's question on the distance calculation - I believe the
2008 Regional rules contained a typo an were actually scored without
subtracting the start radius (which i think would have been a weird
random act of math if implemented as written). I could be wrong on
that - I thought I heard it somewhere.

I over-stated the difference in unscored distance penalty between the
2007 Regional and 2009 proposed Regional rules. Theoretically under
either rule you could execute a start, then fly for up to 5 miles
without gettin credit for the distance. My thought was that since
most pilots in practice tended to start near the point where the
courseline hit the cylinder the most you could be off by is 1.6 miles
in the worst case and 0.7 miles for a more "typical" first leg
configuration. That's a bit of apples and oranges, I know. I was
trying to take into account my perception of difference in pilot
behavior under the two rules, where under the old rule starters tended
to congregate at the best thermal near the courseline intersection
with the start cylinder.

9B

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 10, 12:20*pm, wrote:
>To answer Andy's question on the distance calculation - I believe the
>2008 Regional rules contained a typo an were actually scored without
>subtracting the start radius (which i think would have been a weird
>random act of math if implemented as written). I could be wrong on
>that - I thought I heard it somewhere.

How are the scoring rules embedded in Winscore derived if not from the
published rules?

Andy

[ZL]

Andy wrote:
> On Jan 10, 12:20 pm, wrote:
>> To answer Andy's question on the distance calculation - I believe the
>> 2008 Regional rules contained a typo an were actually scored without
>> subtracting the start radius (which i think would have been a weird
>> random act of math if implemented as written). I could be wrong on
>> that - I thought I heard it somewhere.
>
> How are the scoring rules embedded in Winscore derived if not from the
> published rules?
>
> Andy
>
Section 11.2.3.2 has the Regional start anywhere rule for 2008. Thats
the scoring rules section. They missed that it was in two places.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 1:04*pm, ZL > wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 12:20 pm, wrote:
> >> To answer Andy's question on the distance calculation - I believe the
> >> 2008 Regional rules contained a typo an were actually scored without
> >> subtracting the start radius (which i think would have been a weird
> >> random act of math if implemented as written). I could be wrong on
> >> that - I thought I heard it somewhere.
>
> > How are the scoring rules embedded in Winscore derived if not from the
> > published rules?
>
> > Andy
>
> Section 11.2.3.2 has the Regional start anywhere rule for 2008. Thats
> the scoring rules section. They missed that it was in two places.

Yup - that's it. I remember now the typo fix was called out in the
draft 2009 rules.

"10.8.6 The distance of the first task leg shall be taken as the
distance from the Start Point to the control fix at the first
turnpoint, minus the Start Radius"

"11.2.3 Scored Distance
11.2.3.1 Scored distance is the sum of the distance achieved on each
leg of the task (but no leg shall have a length less than zero).
11.2.3.2 ‡ † For all Tasks, the first leg originates at the start fix
(Rule 10.8.5.3)"

It's actually ambiguous because 11.2.3.2 speaks to where the leg
originates, but 10.8.6 speaks to the distance of the first leg. As a
practical matter I'm certain they did not subtract the radius in
WinScore.

Now we're in the weeds for sure.

9B

[PMSC Member]

Do the benefits of "start anywhere" outweigh the disadvantages?

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 10, 2:04*pm, ZL > wrote:
> Section 11.2.3.2 has the Regional start anywhere rule for 2008. Thats
> the scoring rules section. They missed that it was in two places.


thanks

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 11, 6:31*am, PMSC Member > wrote:
> Do the benefits of "start anywhere" outweigh the disadvantages?

My impression is that most pilots who have flown with start anywhere
hae liked it. The discussion here has been mostly about the proposed
modification that the RC is proposing before the rule goes into effect
for Nationals in 2009. The focus of the discussion is whether the
change addresses a real problem.

I took a look at the first day at Region 9 in 2008 to try to
understand at least one example of pilot behavior under the start
anywhere rule.

In Std, 15M and and 18M (all using the same start cylinder) 29 pilots
started through the top of the cylinder, 5 started out the side -
mostly close to the courseline. Roughly 2/3 of the pilots started in
the front half of the cylinder, but starts were distributed all over
the cylinder with the largest "gaggle" of starters comprised of 4
gliders.

Climb rates for out the top starters were as follows: 6 at1.8-3.9kts,
9 at 4-4.9 kts, 5 at 5-6 kts, 5 at 6-7 kts and 4 at 7-8 kts. A number
of the start climbs were for more than 4,000' gains. There appeared to
be pretty good correlation between higher climb rates at the start and
pilots at the top of the scoresheet at the end of the contest, so
perhaps the difference in climb is more a result of strategy than
luck. I'll take a look at some more contest days time permitting.

Overall there's nothing of concern and some potential strategic
insights that might be useful here.

9B

[Brian[_1_]]

On Jan 11, 12:35*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 11, 6:31*am, PMSC Member > wrote:
>
> > Do the benefits of "start anywhere" outweigh the disadvantages?
>
> My impression is that most pilots who have flown with start anywhere
> hae liked it. The discussion here has been mostly about the proposed
> modification that the RC is proposing before the rule goes into effect
> for Nationals in 2009. The focus of the discussion is whether the
> change addresses a real problem.
>
> I took a look at the first day at Region 9 in 2008 to try to
> understand at least one example of pilot behavior under the start
> anywhere rule.
>
> In Std, 15M and and 18M (all using the same start cylinder) 29 pilots
> started through the top of the cylinder, 5 started out the side -
> mostly close to the courseline. Roughly 2/3 of the pilots started in
> the front half of the cylinder, but starts were distributed all over
> the cylinder with the largest "gaggle" of starters comprised of 4
> gliders.
>
> Climb rates for out the top starters were as follows: 6 at1.8-3.9kts,
> 9 at 4-4.9 kts, 5 at 5-6 kts, 5 at 6-7 kts and 4 at 7-8 kts. A number
> of the start climbs were for more than 4,000' gains. There appeared to
> be pretty good correlation between higher climb rates at the start and
> pilots at the top of the scoresheet at the end of the contest, so
> perhaps the difference in climb is more a result of strategy than
> luck. I'll take a look at some more contest days time permitting.
>
> Overall there's nothing of concern and some potential strategic
> insights that might be useful here.
>
> 9B

That leads to what might not be a bad idea. I would think it would be
fairly easy to have Winscore compile a list of start locations for
each day. If the rules committee or even the contest organizers had
this information it might be easier to anaylize how people are
actually starting.

Brian

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 6, 4:25*pm, Andy > wrote:

> In a simple graphic analysis of the defined task I estimated a
> distance of over 8 miles of start cylinder circumference between the
> intersections of the two extreme case arcs and the start circle. *In
> other words, the potential front half circumference of approx 31.4
> miles is reduced to a no risk arc of approx 23.4 miles.

Don't want to re-open this but just in case someone reads it later I
need to correct the numbers. I should have said:

"The potential front half circumference of 16.7 miles is reduced to a
no risk arc of approx 8.7 miles."

My error was caused by starting with the full circle circumference
instead of the half circle circumference. The numbers were fine tuned
by 9B later in the discussion.

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 12, 3:45*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> "The potential front half circumference of 16.7 miles is reduced to a
> no risk arc of approx 8.7 miles."

I'm digging myself a big hole here, but did say I was math averse!

Should be 15.7 and 7.7 of course.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 11, 11:35*am, wrote:
> On Jan 11, 6:31*am, PMSC Member > wrote:
>
> > Do the benefits of "start anywhere" outweigh the disadvantages?
>
> My impression is that most pilots who have flown with start anywhere
> hae liked it. The discussion here has been mostly about the proposed
> modification that the RC is proposing before the rule goes into effect
> for Nationals in 2009. The focus of the discussion is whether the
> change addresses a real problem.
>
> I took a look at the first day at Region 9 in 2008 to try to
> understand at least one example of pilot behavior under the start
> anywhere rule.
>
> In Std, 15M and and 18M (all using the same start cylinder) 29 pilots
> started through the top of the cylinder, 5 started out the side -
> mostly close to the courseline. Roughly 2/3 of the pilots started in
> the front half of the cylinder, but starts were distributed all over
> the cylinder with the largest "gaggle" of starters comprised of 4
> gliders.
>
> Climb rates for out the top starters were as follows: 6 at1.8-3.9kts,
> 9 at 4-4.9 kts, 5 at 5-6 kts, 5 at 6-7 kts and 4 at 7-8 kts. A number
> of the start climbs were for more than 4,000' gains. There appeared to
> be pretty good correlation between higher climb rates at the start and
> pilots at the top of the scoresheet at the end of the contest, so
> perhaps the difference in climb is more a result of strategy than
> luck. I'll take a look at some more contest days time permitting.
>

I took a look at a second day at R9 in 2008 and a day from 2007.
Disclaimer: three contest days is a small sample and all three days
were flown at Parowan under conditions that allowed starts through the
top of the cylinder.

Some interesting (to me) observations:

Under the start anywhere rule the percent of pilots starting through
the top increased to 85% from 60%. Under the old rule most out the top
starts were within a mile or two of where the edge of the cylinder
meets the first leg courseline. Under the new rule starts were broadly
distributed, with a slight bias toward the front half of the cylinder.
As you'd expect, spreading out starts makes for smaller gaggles -
under the old rule it appeard there were at any given time 2-3 big
gaggles with 5-10 gliders in them - the biggest gaggle being at the
edge of the cylinder on courseline.

Now the really interesting part (repeat disclaimer here). Under the
old rules starters out the top had a slightly faster average climb
that starters out the side - less than half a knot. Also, there was
less scatter in out the top climb rates than initial climbs after
starting out the side - this stands to reason - under the old rules
climbing out the top was normally crammed together into a couple of
gaggles.

Under the new rules the opposite is true. Starters out the top had
nearly a knot slower initial climb on average than the admittedly
small number of edge of cylinder starts. The scatter (as measured by
standard deviation as a percent of average climb rate) was about 50
percent higher for starts out the top.

All of this stands to reason in my rationalizing mind. If you have
more room inside the cylinder to look there is some likelihood that a
few pilots will hit boomers and get an advantage, but the lower
average climb rate for starts out the top also indicates that perhaps
pilots got a bit fixated on starting this way - climbing out the top
at 3 knots when there are 10-knotters about is not a great decision.

All of the above is very rough and can be rightly criticized for a
host of reasons. On thing that is clear is that the first climb out of
the start is not the whole story - pilots with weaker thermals tend to
leave them sooner, so you really need to get an aggregate view of
average climb rate to the top of the lift band - even if it's spread
over 2-3 thermals. That's too complex an exercise to do with SeeYou
and a spreadsheet.

9B

[Tim Taylor]

On Jan 13, 6:41*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:35*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 6:31*am, PMSC Member > wrote:
>
> > > Do the benefits of "start anywhere" outweigh the disadvantages?
>
> > My impression is that most pilots who have flown with start anywhere
> > hae liked it. The discussion here has been mostly about the proposed
> > modification that the RC is proposing before the rule goes into effect
> > for Nationals in 2009. The focus of the discussion is whether the
> > change addresses a real problem.
>
> > I took a look at the first day at Region 9 in 2008 to try to
> > understand at least one example of pilot behavior under the start
> > anywhere rule.
>
> > In Std, 15M and and 18M (all using the same start cylinder) 29 pilots
> > started through the top of the cylinder, 5 started out the side -
> > mostly close to the courseline. Roughly 2/3 of the pilots started in
> > the front half of the cylinder, but starts were distributed all over
> > the cylinder with the largest "gaggle" of starters comprised of 4
> > gliders.
>
> > Climb rates for out the top starters were as follows: 6 at1.8-3.9kts,
> > 9 at 4-4.9 kts, 5 at 5-6 kts, 5 at 6-7 kts and 4 at 7-8 kts. A number
> > of the start climbs were for more than 4,000' gains. There appeared to
> > be pretty good correlation between higher climb rates at the start and
> > pilots at the top of the scoresheet at the end of the contest, so
> > perhaps the difference in climb is more a result of strategy than
> > luck. I'll take a look at some more contest days time permitting.
>
> I took a look at a second day at R9 in 2008 and a day from 2007.
> Disclaimer: three contest days is a small sample and all three days
> were flown at Parowan under conditions that allowed starts through the
> top of the cylinder.
>
> Some interesting (to me) observations:
>
> Under the start anywhere rule the percent of pilots starting through
> the top increased to 85% from 60%. Under the old rule most out the top
> starts were within a mile or two of where the edge of the cylinder
> meets the first leg courseline. Under the new rule starts were broadly
> distributed, with a slight bias toward the front half of the cylinder.
> As you'd expect, spreading out starts makes for smaller gaggles -
> under the old rule it appeard there were at any given time 2-3 big
> gaggles with 5-10 gliders in them - the biggest gaggle being at the
> edge of the cylinder on courseline.
>
> Now the really interesting part (repeat disclaimer here). Under the
> old rules starters out the top had a slightly faster average climb
> that starters out the side - less than half a knot. Also, there was
> less scatter in out the top climb rates than initial climbs after
> starting out the side - this stands to reason - under the old rules
> climbing out the top was normally crammed together into a couple of
> gaggles.
>
> Under the new rules the opposite is true. Starters out the top had
> nearly a knot slower initial climb on average than the admittedly
> small number of edge of cylinder starts. The scatter (as measured by
> standard deviation as a percent of average climb rate) was about 50
> percent higher for starts out the top.
>
> All of this stands to reason in my rationalizing mind. If you have
> more room inside the cylinder to look there is some likelihood that a
> few pilots will hit boomers and get an advantage, but the lower
> average climb rate for starts out the top also indicates that perhaps
> pilots got a bit fixated on starting this way - climbing out the top
> at 3 knots when there are 10-knotters about is not a great decision.
>
> All of the above is very rough and can be rightly criticized for a
> host of reasons. On thing that is clear is that the first climb out of
> the start is not the whole story - pilots with weaker thermals tend to
> leave them sooner, so you really need to get an aggregate view of
> average climb rate to the top of the lift band - even if it's spread
> over 2-3 thermals. *That's too complex an exercise to do with SeeYou
> and a spreadsheet.
>
> 9B

Andy,

Great analysis, thanks for taking the time. One thing you may need
to watch for if you do additional analysis, some of us had the boards
out in the bottom of the thermals to core the center and ensure we
were under the top for two minutes before starting the climb out the
top. This may lower the average climb value displayed in SeeYou.

TT

[Tuno]

Will somebody close to 9B please throw a Rubik's Cube over his
transom. Thanks!

2NO

[[email protected]]

On Jan 14, 5:41*am, Tuno > wrote:
> Will somebody close to 9B please throw a Rubik's Cube over his
> transom. Thanks!
>
> 2NO

Is that a new shape for the start cylinder?

Anything worth doing is worth over-doing, I always say.

[Mike the Strike]

Thank goodness for OLC!!!

Mike