A fair opportunity to compete?

[JJ Sinclair]

(US) rule 11.1.1 states; A valid competition day is one in which every
regular entrant is given a fair opportunity to compete. What is the
definition of fair? I can tell you what I have used as CD in 3
nationals and several regionals over the last 35 years. The launch
should go without interuption. All contestants should be towed to 2000
feet in the designated release area. That's it, you are on your own
after release! There is no guarantee that you will find lift.

On day 3 at parowan this year, the launch went without delay and all
were released in the designated area at 2000 feet. Several pilots
didn't find lift and landed back. Some took re-lights and one landed
on the dry lake in the release area. About half the class found that
all important first thermal, the gate was opened 15 minutes after the
last scheduled launch and most completed the assigned task. Data
loggers were evaluated, scores computed and day 3 was a valid contest
day, right?

Not so fast! Two pilots protested that they hadn't been given a fair
opportunity to compete. The competition committee met and threw out
day 3. Their ruling may seem fair to the 2 protesters, but it was
unfair to the remaining 25 pilots in the class. The CD even went so
far as to state; If one of the protesters had found lift, he would
have come in 3rd for the day! Unbelievable! Just how he determined
that remains a mystery? There was one contestant who did place 3rd on
that day, but his performance was ignored. I tried to talk to the CD
with no response other than; You have the right to protest my ruling.

If my 3rd place had counted, I would have been 5th overall and 19
points out of 4th. I withdrew from the contest in disgust! What has
our competition come to? Are we all guaranteed lift? Who is to decide
if the actions taken by the pilot after release were the correct
ones? If you don't find lift, simply land back and file a protest!

I will turn 75 next month and Pat and I have been asking ourselves
just how much longer all this will be considered fun? In the words of
an old country song; That just about does it, Don't it?

Pat & JJ Sinclair

[John Cochrane]

Charlie's report on the ssa website says it was the last three pilots
to launch who could not stay up, which seems a significant detail. If
the first to launch can find lift, get away from the airport, and wait
to start, but there really is zero lift in the airport area when the
back half of the grid launches, then the decision seems reasonable --
from this very far distance. I take it you don't think there really
was zero lift, and it was possible for the back half of the grid to
stay up off tow.

John Cochrane BB

[Mike the Strike]

I was the weather guy and sniffer at Parowan and was airborne
observing launch conditions. Storm development near the airport
resulted in deteriorating conditions in the drop zone and the latest
pilots to launch were under heavy overcast with no lift. As noted,
several landed out. They did not "fail to find lift" as JJ alleges,
there wasn't any.

I was not involved in discussions about this with the CD or
competition committee, but, if asked, would have given my assessment
that the last aircraft to launch did not have a fair opportunity to
compete based on deteriorating weather conditions in all available
drop zones.

I might add that quite a few of the competitors who completed the task
were not thrilled with the decision to scrap the day, but at least
they exhibited good sportsmanship by accepting the decision in good
grace.

Mike

[Larry Goddard]

Hello JJ,

I am trying to assess the situation from a long way away and little
actual information... just the daily reports from the contest and what
you have told us below.

I think there are situations in which just getting towed to the
designated area at 2000' is not necessarily a fair opportunity. For
instance, let's say you are the last one or two in the class to be towed
and while on tow, showers or whatever inundate the area or the day "just
quits", which we have all seen before. So did those who were towed into
dead air have a fair opportunity to compete? I think not.

Again, I don't know if that applies here or not... just some thoughts...

Larry



"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
:

> (US) rule 11.1.1 states; A valid competition day is one in which every
> regular entrant is given a fair opportunity to compete. What is the
> definition of fair? I can tell you what I have used as CD in 3
> nationals and several regionals over the last 35 years. The launch
> should go without interuption. All contestants should be towed to 2000
> feet in the designated release area. That's it, you are on your own
> after release! There is no guarantee that you will find lift.
>
> On day 3 at parowan this year, the launch went without delay and all
> were released in the designated area at 2000 feet. Several pilots
> didn't find lift and landed back. Some took re-lights and one landed
> on the dry lake in the release area. About half the class found that
> all important first thermal, the gate was opened 15 minutes after the
> last scheduled launch and most completed the assigned task. Data
> loggers were evaluated, scores computed and day 3 was a valid contest
> day, right?
>
> Not so fast! Two pilots protested that they hadn't been given a fair
> opportunity to compete. The competition committee met and threw out
> day 3. Their ruling may seem fair to the 2 protesters, but it was
> unfair to the remaining 25 pilots in the class. The CD even went so
> far as to state; If one of the protesters had found lift, he would
> have come in 3rd for the day! Unbelievable! Just how he determined
> that remains a mystery? There was one contestant who did place 3rd on
> that day, but his performance was ignored. I tried to talk to the CD
> with no response other than; You have the right to protest my ruling.
>
> If my 3rd place had counted, I would have been 5th overall and 19
> points out of 4th. I withdrew from the contest in disgust! What has
> our competition come to? Are we all guaranteed lift? Who is to decide
> if the actions taken by the pilot after release were the correct
> ones? If you don't find lift, simply land back and file a protest!
>
> I will turn 75 next month and Pat and I have been asking ourselves
> just how much longer all this will be considered fun? In the words of
> an old country song; That just about does it, Don't it?
>
> Pat & JJ Sinclair

[JJ Sinclair]

Mike, We all take our turn at the end of the line, don't we? Did the
protesters take their turn in "good grace"? No, they protested a 1000
point day and won an unprecedented protest. To my knowledge this has
never happened before. I remember Big Charlie asking the last launcher
in nationals (Al Lefler), how he was doing? Al replied, I'm in
rain!.............Charlis held the gate 5 minutes, then opened it.
JJ

> I might add that quite a few of the competitors who completed the task
> were not thrilled with the decision to scrap the day, but at least
> they exhibited good sportsmanship by accepting the decision in good
> grace.
>
> Mike

[JJ Sinclair]

John,
If the last of the grid is struggling, the gate opening should be
withheld. Once the gate is opened, the day results should never be
nullified. I would hope that words to that effect find their way into
the rules next year.
JJ

John Cochrane wrote:
> Charlie's report on the ssa website says it was the last three pilots
> to launch who could not stay up, which seems a significant detail. If
> the first to launch can find lift, get away from the airport, and wait
> to start, but there really is zero lift in the airport area when the
> back half of the grid launches, then the decision seems reasonable --
> from this very far distance. I take it you don't think there really
> was zero lift, and it was possible for the back half of the grid to
> stay up off tow.
>
> John Cochrane BB

[John Cochrane]

On Jul 5, 5:36*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> John,
> If the last of the grid is struggling, the gate opening should be
> withheld. Once the gate is opened, the day results should never be
> nullified. I would hope that words to that effect find their way into
> the rules next year.
> JJ
>

"Never" is a long time. The CD usually does not talk to every single
pilot, only to the task advisers, so he may not know of trouble. The
"fair" "safe" and "force majeure" language in the rules allowing days
to be thrown out in extreme circumstances seem sensible in principle,
even if you disagree in their application in this case.

I recall a precedent, a world championship day that was protested and
canceled after the fact because a pilot had been towed away from the
usual drop zone, too far to make it back to the airport and landed
out.

I too am a long way away and not even thinking of second-guessing
decisions here. Thanks for posting the info so we can all think about
it.

John Cochrane BB

[Mike the Strike]

JJ:

I have to concede that the gate was opened before all contestants were
climbing out, which isn't optimal. But I understand the reason - the
CD was trying to get everyone away on a difficult day and with all the
various activities going on may have been having trouble tracking
everyone.

Things weren't perfect, but that's life, we just have to make the best
of events.

Mike

[Tuno]

<snip> What is the definition of fair?</snip>

JJ:

There is a jury at the contest appointed to make that determination.
They met, deliberated, and rendered a decision, not once, but twice.
If the system was completely objective, we would have computers do
every bit of the work, and we agree to work within those subjective
parameters when we take one of those limited Parowan contest slots.

ted/2NO

[QT[_2_]]

On Jul 5, 9:58Â*pm, Tuno > wrote:
> <snip> What is the definition of fair?</snip>
>
> JJ:
>
> There is a jury at the contest appointed to make that determination.
> They met, deliberated, and rendered a decision, not once, but twice.
> If the system was completely objective, we would have computers do
> every bit of the work, and we agree to work within those subjective
> parameters when we take one of those limited Parowan contest slots.
>
> ted/2NO

The rules specifically provide an appeal mechanism for decisions by
the CD.

8.5 ‡ Appeal of a decision of the CD shall be directed to the SSA
Contest Committee Chairman and must include all relevant documents
such as the written protest, the CD's written decision, statements of
witnesses, etc. Written notification of intent to appeal must be given
to the CD within 24 hours of the CD's decision and the appeal must be
delivered to the SSA within ten days of the decision. The Chairman of
the SSA Contest Committee shall seek advice from members of the SSA
Rules Committee, and shall make a prompt response, in writing, giving
a decision and the reason for it.

To the best of my knowledge, JJ did not
1. File any protest
2. File any appeal

As the scorer for the contest, member of the competition committee for
the contest and rules committee member, I can assure all that the
decision to cancel the day was not taken lightly - especially given
the great flights by some of the class members. It is also true that
(in my opinion) the situation was not absolutely black and white. As
reported by Mike the Strike, conditions in the drop zones were rapidly
deteriorating. The following class was not even launched.

What I don't understand is what "resigning in disgust" accomplished.
Had the defined process been followed it would have not only subjected
the decision to more experienced review, but also helped to clarify
the decision making guidelines for this type of situation for the
future. This would not only help the sport but also the volunteers
that we depend on to stage our competitions.

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

Your (US-centric) problem is introducing a subjective word 'fair' into
rules which humans have to apply (I am even willing to concede here that
lawyers are human).

What contitutes fairness? - exactly equal gliders and instruments (and
crew, etc, but you are not borrowing my wife), now that's fair. Or not,
depending on how you argue it.

In UK the siuation in question is simple. The gate opens, not at the
CD's whim, but with max height at 3,000ft AGL it opens 10 minutes after
the last glider in the class starts to be towed. For every 200ft added to
max height, add 1 minute. No ifs, no buts. The only thing the CD can do
after that is cancel the task and have a rebrief before the gate opens if
it is UNSAFE to continue.

Nobody pretended that gliding was fair when I was a boy in the Nationals.
The winner was the pilot with most points after the last day, however it
panned out.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 07:30 06 July 2009, Peter Purdie wrote:
>Your (US-centric) problem is introducing a subjective word 'fair' into
>rules which humans have to apply (I am even willing to concede here that
>lawyers are human).
>
>What contitutes fairness? - exactly equal gliders and instruments (and
>crew, etc, but you are not borrowing my wife), now that's fair. Or not,
>depending on how you argue it.
>
>In UK the siuation in question is simple. The gate opens, not at the
>CD's whim, but with max height at 3,000ft AGL it opens 10 minutes after
>the last glider in the class starts to be towed. For every 200ft added
to
>max height, add 1 minute. No ifs, no buts. The only thing the CD can
do
>after that is cancel the task and have a rebrief before the gate opens
if
>it is UNSAFE to continue.
>
>Nobody pretended that gliding was fair when I was a boy in the
Nationals.
>The winner was the pilot with most points after the last day, however it
>panned out.

With 20/20 hindsight everything is clear, unfortunately that is not, by
definition, available at the time a problem occurs.
Peter has described the UK position accurately except the Director can
also cancel a task for sporting reasons as well as safety reasons and may
also change the location of the drop zone. In the case described the
director could have cancelled launching, recalled the field and wither
scrubbed or rebriefed. If the gate had been opened then the result would
have stood. Once the gate is opened there can only be a retask if ALL
competitors land back.
Under UK rules it is not permitted to cancel a competition day if a
competitor finishes the task and in the case described above the day could
not have been cancelled. I have to say I have great sympathy with JJ in
this case as he, and the other competitors have been subjected to gross
unfairness. It is not their fault that the problem arose. The jury have
acted unfairly to many in an attempt to be fair to a few. I suggest you
need to look at your rules.
I know soccer is not the most popular game in the US but if after a game
it was discovered, and it frequently is, that a winning goal has been
allowed which was either not a goal or the result of a foul the result of
the match still stands.

>

[Del C[_2_]]

My sympathies are entirely with John Sinclair. If all competitors are given
a launch before the start line opens, but a few of them fail to soar and
land out or land back, that is their problem.
It has happened to me to me on a couple of occasions, when I fell down and
was then unable to get away from a relight due to deteriorating conditions.
Tough t*tty.

I think this decision sets a dangerous precedent. If a competitor was
leading with one day to go, he could deliberately land out, then claim
that he wasn't given a fair opportunity to compete and get the day
scrubbed to the detriment of his closest competitors.

Derek Copeland

[[email protected]]

On Jul 4, 11:48*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> (US) rule 11.1.1 states; A valid competition day is one in which every
> regular entrant is given a fair opportunity to compete. What is the
> definition of fair? I can tell you what I have used as CD in 3
> nationals and several regionals over the last 35 years. The launch
> should go without interuption. All contestants should be towed to 2000
> feet in the designated release area. That's it, you are on your own
> after release! There is no guarantee that you will find lift.
>
> On day 3 at parowan this year, the launch went without delay and all
> were released in the designated area at 2000 feet. Several pilots
> didn't find lift and landed back. Some took re-lights and one landed
> on the dry lake in the release area. About half the class found that
> all important first thermal, the gate was opened 15 minutes after the
> last scheduled launch and most completed the assigned task. Data
> loggers were evaluated, scores computed and day 3 was a valid contest
> day, right?
>
> Not so fast! Two pilots protested that they hadn't been given a fair
> opportunity to compete. The competition committee met and threw out
> day 3. Their ruling may seem fair to the 2 protesters, but it was
> unfair to the remaining 25 pilots in the class. The CD even went so
> far as to state; If one of the protesters had found lift, he would
> have come in 3rd for the day! *Unbelievable! *Just how he determined
> that remains a mystery? *There was one contestant who did place 3rd on
> that day, but his performance was ignored. I tried to talk to the CD
> with no response other than; You have the right to protest my ruling.
>
> If my 3rd place had counted, I would have been 5th overall and 19
> points out of 4th. I withdrew from the contest in disgust! *What has
> our competition come to? Are we all guaranteed lift? Who is to decide
> if the actions taken by the pilot after release were the correct
> ones? *If you don't find lift, simply land back and file a protest!
>
> I will turn 75 next month and Pat and I have been asking ourselves
> just how much longer all this will be considered fun? *In the words of
> an old country song; That just about does it, Don't it?
>
> Pat & JJ Sinclair

FWIW
This is a good example of where use of the advisors is invaluable.
They are in the air and can
afdvise whether the day meets the "fair and safe" criteria. If it does
not, they are obligated to say
so and advise either holding the opening or not opening the task. If
the task is opened, they day should go on,
unless the CD cancels they day due to safety concerns, which he is
permitted and encouraged to do under the
rules.
All that said, don't quit JJ. We like having your grumpy self around
to make us laugh and keep us honest.
UH

[ZL]

Tuno wrote:
> <snip> What is the definition of fair?</snip>
>
> JJ:
>
> There is a jury at the contest appointed to make that determination.
> They met, deliberated, and rendered a decision, not once, but twice.
> If the system was completely objective, we would have computers do
> every bit of the work, and we agree to work within those subjective
> parameters when we take one of those limited Parowan contest slots.
>
> ted/2NO

Here's a little more background from someone that was in the air then
but has no dog in this fight.

The drop point was non-standard due to a storm shadowing the entire
airport valley except the drop point. It was downwind 5 to 8 miles from
the airport depending on the towplane you drew. Lift was 8 miles or more
away on a ridge still in the sun for early launchers. Release was
limited to 2000 ft above the airport. The storm was slowly moving to
shadow the drop point and the rest of the valley during the launch. The
drop point did not allow searching other areas for lift without risking
a pre-start landout in the desert. With the headwind, virga and sink
back to the airport a direct return from the most distant drop point
without climbing was not possible.

There were no relights in the Std Class (11) or the first 20+ Sports
class launches. The last 3 Sports class launches (except the pull backs,
which never flew) landed out or returned to the airport. The ridge that
had been generating thermals for the early launchers had been in shadow
for quite awhile by then and finally quit producing lift.

The 18 meter class launched next. All 4 landed back or landed out
without contacting lift to climb in.

The 15 meter class then launched the first 3 ships. I was one of these.
All returned to the airport. One straight in quite low. The launch was
stopped when the chief tow pilot recommended stopping due to extreme
turbulence in the pattern from the slowly expanding storm.

I maintained altitude off tow until the 0 quit, but the virga at least
moved out of the direct path back to the airport so I got back with
little drama. But encountered no lift to climb in.

10 for 10 landed back indicating the storm had for practical purposes
killed any chance of climbing from launch given the drop point in use.

By the way, the Std and Sports advisors launched early and had no
problem climbing away and were not in the area at the time. Cloudbase
was 11-12000 ft above the airport with a 6000 ft start height. Sun was
still on the ground at the farthest edge of the start cylinder, 10+
miles away, on the other side of the ridge. There was no 18 m class
advisor. The 15 m advisor was on the ground next in line for a launch
when it was halted.

-Dave

[ZL]

ZL wrote:
> Tuno wrote:
>> <snip> What is the definition of fair?</snip>
>>
>> JJ:
>>
>> There is a jury at the contest appointed to make that determination.
>> They met, deliberated, and rendered a decision, not once, but twice.
>> If the system was completely objective, we would have computers do
>> every bit of the work, and we agree to work within those subjective
>> parameters when we take one of those limited Parowan contest slots.
>>
>> ted/2NO
>
> Here's a little more background from someone that was in the air then
> but has no dog in this fight.
>
> The drop point was non-standard due to a storm shadowing the entire
> airport valley except the drop point. It was downwind 5 to 8 miles from
> the airport depending on the towplane you drew. Lift was 8 miles or more
> away on a ridge still in the sun for early launchers. Release was
> limited to 2000 ft above the airport. The storm was slowly moving to
> shadow the drop point and the rest of the valley during the launch. The
> drop point did not allow searching other areas for lift without risking
> a pre-start landout in the desert. With the headwind, virga and sink
> back to the airport a direct return from the most distant drop point
> without climbing was not possible.
>
> There were no relights in the Std Class (11) or the first 20+ Sports
> class launches. The last 3 Sports class launches (except the pull backs,
> which never flew) landed out or returned to the airport. The ridge that
> had been generating thermals for the early launchers had been in shadow
> for quite awhile by then and finally quit producing lift.
>
> The 18 meter class launched next. All 4 landed back or landed out
> without contacting lift to climb in.
>
> The 15 meter class then launched the first 3 ships. I was one of these.
> All returned to the airport. One straight in quite low. The launch was
> stopped when the chief tow pilot recommended stopping due to extreme
> turbulence in the pattern from the slowly expanding storm.
>
> I maintained altitude off tow until the 0 quit, but the virga at least
> moved out of the direct path back to the airport so I got back with
> little drama. But encountered no lift to climb in.
>
> 10 for 10 landed back indicating the storm had for practical purposes
> killed any chance of climbing from launch given the drop point in use.
>
> By the way, the Std and Sports advisors launched early and had no
> problem climbing away and were not in the area at the time. Cloudbase
> was 11-12000 ft above the airport with a 6000 ft start height. Sun was
> still on the ground at the farthest edge of the start cylinder, 10+
> miles away, on the other side of the ridge. There was no 18 m class
> advisor. The 15 m advisor was on the ground next in line for a launch
> when it was halted.
>
> -Dave
>
>
The launch was slowed by the remote drop point. A bit over an hour for
the first 2/3 of the field. It felt longer as the last hope for lift
dwindled with the storm growing while waiting for a launch. And the day
never recycled in the valley, staying overcast and cool the rest of the day.

[BravoCharlie]

On Jul 6, 6:50*am, ZL > wrote:
> ZL wrote:
> > Tuno wrote:
> >> <snip> What is the definition of fair?</snip>
>
> >> JJ:
>
> >> There is a jury at the contest appointed to make that determination.
> >> They met, deliberated, and rendered a decision, not once, but twice.
> >> If the system was completely objective, we would have computers do
> >> every bit of the work, and we agree to work within those subjective
> >> parameters when we take one of those limited Parowan contest slots.
>
> >> ted/2NO
>
> > Here's a little more background from someone that was in the air then
> > but has no dog in this fight.
>
> > The drop point was non-standard due to a storm shadowing the entire
> > airport valley except the drop point. It was downwind *5 to 8 miles from
> > the airport depending on the towplane you drew. Lift was 8 miles or more
> > away on a ridge still in the sun for early launchers. Release was
> > limited to 2000 ft above the airport. The storm was slowly moving to
> > shadow the drop point and the rest of the valley during the launch. The
> > drop point did not allow searching other areas for lift without risking
> > a pre-start landout in the desert. With the headwind, virga and sink
> > back to the airport a direct return from the most distant drop point
> > without climbing was not possible.
>
> > There were no relights in the Std Class (11) or the first 20+ Sports
> > class launches. The last 3 Sports class launches (except the pull backs,
> > which never flew) landed out or returned to the airport. The ridge that
> > had been generating thermals for the early launchers had been in shadow
> > for quite awhile by then and finally quit producing lift.
>
> > The 18 meter class launched next. All 4 landed back or landed out
> > without contacting lift to climb in.
>
> > The 15 meter class then launched the first 3 ships. I was one of these.
> > All returned to the airport. One straight in quite low. The launch was
> > stopped when the chief tow pilot recommended stopping due to extreme
> > turbulence in the pattern from the slowly expanding storm.
>
> > I maintained altitude off tow until the 0 quit, but the virga at least
> > moved out of the direct path back to the airport so I got back with
> > little drama. But encountered no lift to climb in.
>
> > 10 for 10 landed back indicating the storm had for practical purposes
> > killed any chance of climbing from launch given the drop point in use.
>
> > By the way, the Std and Sports advisors launched early and had no
> > problem climbing away and were not in the area at the time. Cloudbase
> > was 11-12000 ft above the airport with a 6000 ft start height. Sun was
> > still on the ground at the farthest edge of the start cylinder, 10+
> > miles away, on the other side of the ridge. There was no 18 m class
> > advisor. The 15 m advisor was on the ground next in line for a launch
> > when it was halted.
>
> > -Dave
>
> The launch was slowed by the remote drop point. A bit over an hour for
> the first 2/3 of the field. It felt longer as the last hope for lift
> dwindled with the storm growing while waiting for a launch. And the day
> never recycled in the valley, staying overcast and cool the rest of the day.

I wish to echo ZL's comments. I, also, was not affected by the
decision so these are my unbiased observations. I was one of the 18m
ships who launched after conditions had shut down. I worked zero sink
and at times about +/- 0.5 kt for as long as possible and had explored
all reachable areas within reasonable glide and had no chance to get
away. Much of the time I was out of glide range back to the airport.
After struggling up a couple of hundred feet with Dave I was able to
get back to the field low with a straight in right base. Anyone who
launched after a certain point was not going to get away. The last of
the Sports Class did not have an opportunity to compete and this was
not due to pilot skill but rather conditions which had shut down
completely. There is no question in my mind as to this fact.

Bob

[Tuno]

I was toward the front of the 15M group that was last in the grid. I
watched the last sports class guys struggle mightily, while the three
15M gliders who got launched all landed back within ten minutes.
Looking at the conditions, I was most thankful that the CD stopped the
launch!

JJ I too hope to see you back. At some point somewhere a similar
protest will end up working in your favor!

-ted/2NO

[JJ Sinclair]

The big mistake was in opening the gate, if the last of the class is/
was struggling the CD should call them and then hold the opening of
the gate .................and never open it, if in his mind all didn't
get a fair opportunity to compete. Once the gate is opened the race
should be on and nothing should reverse that. Two years ago the last
10 sports were launched into shadow that had been on the ridge for a
good 30 minutes. I suggested to Charlie that he move the drop zone to
no avail. We all came right back and got in line for a re-light as the
rest of the class took a start and headed north. Guess we should have
protested, but I have never done that and I'm not about to start now.
JJ

Tuno wrote:
> I was toward the front of the 15M group that was last in the grid. I
> watched the last sports class guys struggle mightily, while the three
> 15M gliders who got launched all landed back within ten minutes.
> Looking at the conditions, I was most thankful that the CD stopped the
> launch!
>
> JJ I too hope to see you back. At some point somewhere a similar
> protest will end up working in your favor!
>
> -ted/2NO

[Chad[_2_]]

Just catching up with the discussion here and reading JJ's post. I was
also just thinking of the situation 2 years ago at Parowan he
mentions. I got bit by that situation- I was the second last to be
towed to the dead spot, landed back, and was last to relight only to
be towed to dying lift at a second drop zone opposite the field. I
worked 0.5 knot lift and landed out 11 miles from the field on course,
in the rain, with minor but unflyable damage. Everyone in front of me
made it on course. Everyone behind me (the re- relights) fell out. I
didn't think to protest and glad I didn't, but I sure thought the CD
was too cavalier about opening the gate. There should be some printed
guidance for CDs on how to deal with these situations to avoid
protests and pitting sportsmanship against fairness.

A few observations-
1) This idea that all gliders need to be towed to the same launch spot
is silly. We need to all be given roughly equal chances to contact
lift, and towpilots are as impartial as they come. If the lift zone
shifts, don't keep dropping ships off under virga! Ultimately, you end
up with more relights and a longer launch cue which only increases the
chance of not giving the field a sporting chance.

2) The 2000' is a standard tow height, just like there is a standard
minimum task time. It can AND SHOULD be changed by the CD given the
conditions and the input of his advisors. Dropping ships off at the
southern end of Little Salt Lake 6 miles from Parowan airport is
unsafe for low performance sports class ships. Why do we require high
energy finishes to be at 500-800' altitude, while we expect "fall
outs" to come back low energy at 500' or less??? We need some guidance
on safe glide cones after tow release while allowing for a modicum of
searching for lift. A suggestion- take a 35:1 glider, derate its glide
by 33%, yielding 4.5 statute miles per thousand feet. Then allow for a
1000' pattern. Thus, a 2000' drop can only be made out 4.5 statue
miles. If a greater distance is anticipated, then the tow height
should be raised. This is not unreasonable given the entries in sports
class, and would still be sporting if not a little unsafe still. This
would also prevent the too high problem-- If you towplane encounters
lift early on tow, or your sailplane is light, you end up hitting
2000' ceiling well before the thermal that everyone is circling in 5
miles from the field. Then you must release and lose altitude before
getting to the gaggle/lift zone/etc, putting you at a double
disadvantage- you lost altitude plus you probably don't have the
airport in safe glide anymore. You Duo Discus guys don't know what I'm
talking about here I know... I must stress that while pilots are
responsible for their safety on course and should evaluate contest
goals against aircraft and personal safety, the tow phase of flight
has few options for improving safety. This is a built-in unsafe
procedure we have in contests for moderate performance aircraft. This
is also at the root of a fairness issue.

3) Advisors should be spaced throughout the launch order, so there is
always someone near the back and front. Yes, this may mean more
advisors for a larger contest. Suggest 2 advisors or 20% of field,
whichever is greater.

4) The decision to open the gate, even with contestants having trouble
staying up, should be based on some key questions: Are the conditions
deteriorating to the degree that the task or pre-task period is
becoming clearly unsafe? Were all contestants given a "fighting
chance" to gain altitude and reach the start gate? Would an
experienced pilot/ viable competitor not be able to start given the
conditions?

5) The gate opening decision is critical, and as evidenced here is the
most important decision a CD can make. There should be a go-no go
decision tree, just like a takeoff roll and climbout, leading up to
it. Not just a perfunctory "gate will open in 15 minutes" call.

I think we can definitely go overboard trying to make it fair, and we
should not try to take the advantage of launch order out of the
equation. Sometimes luck plays a factor, and that is part of the
sport. I hope my fellow pilots would not classify me as a whiner in my
years of taking a 34:1 sailplane to regional and national sport class
contests, but we need to fix this problem. Both Parowan and this CD
have had repeated issues with similar scenarios. The SRA and soaring
community should provide guidance as to how we want the CDs to fix
this. Those are my suggestions.

[JJ Sinclair]

Hear-ye, Hear-ye, Hear-ye,
Court is now in session, the honorable Chuck U Farley preciding.
CD, you ar accused of not holding the gate and thereby creating an
injustice for the last 3 launchers in sports class. You are further
accused of gross injustice to the finishers by expunging the results
of day 3 to correct the original injustice (see indictment no.1).
How do you plead....................................?

Chad wrote:
> Just catching up with the discussion here and reading JJ's post. I was
> also just thinking of the situation 2 years ago at Parowan he
> mentions. I got bit by that situation- I was the second last to be
> towed to the dead spot, landed back, and was last to relight only to
> be towed to dying lift at a second drop zone opposite the field. I
> worked 0.5 knot lift and landed out 11 miles from the field on course,
> in the rain, with minor but unflyable damage. Everyone in front of me
> made it on course. Everyone behind me (the re- relights) fell out. I
> didn't think to protest and glad I didn't, but I sure thought the CD
> was too cavalier about opening the gate. There should be some printed
> guidance for CDs on how to deal with these situations to avoid
> protests and pitting sportsmanship against fairness.
>
> A few observations-
> 1) This idea that all gliders need to be towed to the same launch spot
> is silly. We need to all be given roughly equal chances to contact
> lift, and towpilots are as impartial as they come. If the lift zone
> shifts, don't keep dropping ships off under virga! Ultimately, you end
> up with more relights and a longer launch cue which only increases the
> chance of not giving the field a sporting chance.
>
> 2) The 2000' is a standard tow height, just like there is a standard
> minimum task time. It can AND SHOULD be changed by the CD given the
> conditions and the input of his advisors. Dropping ships off at the
> southern end of Little Salt Lake 6 miles from Parowan airport is
> unsafe for low performance sports class ships. Why do we require high
> energy finishes to be at 500-800' altitude, while we expect "fall
> outs" to come back low energy at 500' or less??? We need some guidance
> on safe glide cones after tow release while allowing for a modicum of
> searching for lift. A suggestion- take a 35:1 glider, derate its glide
> by 33%, yielding 4.5 statute miles per thousand feet. Then allow for a
> 1000' pattern. Thus, a 2000' drop can only be made out 4.5 statue
> miles. If a greater distance is anticipated, then the tow height
> should be raised. This is not unreasonable given the entries in sports
> class, and would still be sporting if not a little unsafe still. This
> would also prevent the too high problem-- If you towplane encounters
> lift early on tow, or your sailplane is light, you end up hitting
> 2000' ceiling well before the thermal that everyone is circling in 5
> miles from the field. Then you must release and lose altitude before
> getting to the gaggle/lift zone/etc, putting you at a double
> disadvantage- you lost altitude plus you probably don't have the
> airport in safe glide anymore. You Duo Discus guys don't know what I'm
> talking about here I know... I must stress that while pilots are
> responsible for their safety on course and should evaluate contest
> goals against aircraft and personal safety, the tow phase of flight
> has few options for improving safety. This is a built-in unsafe
> procedure we have in contests for moderate performance aircraft. This
> is also at the root of a fairness issue.
>
> 3) Advisors should be spaced throughout the launch order, so there is
> always someone near the back and front. Yes, this may mean more
> advisors for a larger contest. Suggest 2 advisors or 20% of field,
> whichever is greater.
>
> 4) The decision to open the gate, even with contestants having trouble
> staying up, should be based on some key questions: Are the conditions
> deteriorating to the degree that the task or pre-task period is
> becoming clearly unsafe? Were all contestants given a "fighting
> chance" to gain altitude and reach the start gate? Would an
> experienced pilot/ viable competitor not be able to start given the
> conditions?
>
> 5) The gate opening decision is critical, and as evidenced here is the
> most important decision a CD can make. There should be a go-no go
> decision tree, just like a takeoff roll and climbout, leading up to
> it. Not just a perfunctory "gate will open in 15 minutes" call.
>
> I think we can definitely go overboard trying to make it fair, and we
> should not try to take the advantage of launch order out of the
> equation. Sometimes luck plays a factor, and that is part of the
> sport. I hope my fellow pilots would not classify me as a whiner in my
> years of taking a 34:1 sailplane to regional and national sport class
> contests, but we need to fix this problem. Both Parowan and this CD
> have had repeated issues with similar scenarios. The SRA and soaring
> community should provide guidance as to how we want the CDs to fix
> this. Those are my suggestions.

[ZL]

JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Hear-ye, Hear-ye, Hear-ye,
> Court is now in session, the honorable Chuck U Farley preciding.
> CD, you ar accused of not holding the gate and thereby creating an
> injustice for the last 3 launchers in sports class. You are further
> accused of gross injustice to the finishers by expunging the results
> of day 3 to correct the original injustice (see indictment no.1).
> How do you plead....................................?
>
You are found guilty! Penalty is $5 and time served. Pay the bear. Next
case.

[JJ Sinclair]

>
> You are found guilty! Penalty is $5 and time served. Pay the bear. Next
> case.

Errr, not so fast there bailiff, the defendant hasn't entered a plea
yet!

[Ron Gleason]

The Parowan competition was my first glider competition, I was
competing in the sport class and I was in the air for the start having
been launched in the middle of the field. I have participated in many
hang gliding competitions at the regional, national and world levels
that were both foot launched and aerotow based. I also served as the
USHGA Competition Rulebook Chairperson and the USHGA Competition
Committee Chairperson.

Trying to follow all aspects of the discussion and have the following
observations:

JJ raises a great point, what is the definition of 'fair' when it
relates to the start of a task? There are factors beyond anyone's
control and ensuring that everyone is guaranteed to stick places a
tough burden on the competition organizers. Are we trying to
eliminate any aspect of luck or dynamics associated with weather?

While JJ quoted the rulebook but there was a section excluded that IMO
is important

(US) rule 11.1.1 states; A valid competition day is one in which
every regular entrant is given a fair opportunity to compete, and at
least 25% of Contestants achieve a Scored Distance not less than the
Standard Mnimum Task Distance.

The second part of 11.1.1 is another check and balance to measure the
validity of the task and to define the word 'fair' for a given day.

Pertaining to a task opening. There are few more areas that need to
be examined within the rulebook

10.1.5 Task Opens - at a time designated by the CD, about 15 minutes
after the last competitor who accepts his designated launch starts his
takeoff roll.
10.8.1.1 As the last pilot who accepts the designated launch starts
the takeoff roll, the CD will announce the time the class's task
opening, which shall be approximately 15 minutes after this launch,
and long enough to allow this pilot a fair chance to climb prior to
the task opening.
10.8.1.2 After the announcement of task opening time, the CD should
consult with the task advisors as to whether the selected task is fair
and safe. If a delay or a task change is deemed necessary, this
hsould be announced 10 minutes or more before task opening time; task
changes later than this should be avoided when possible.

If we examine these rulebook sections there are some inconsistencies
and/or undefined terms

How do you resolve the difference between (11.1.1) 'given a fair
opportunity to compete' and (10.8.1.1) 'long enough to allow this
pilot a fair chance to climb prior to the task opening'
What does 'pilot who accepts the designated launch' mean and what does
it imply about the intent of that pilot to attempt to start a task?
If the pilot accepts the launch does s/he also accept the risk of not
being able to perform a valid start?

There is one other area that should be examined in the big picture-
Contest Competition Committee. Section 3.1.4 states Contest
Competition Committee chaired by the CD, it consists of up to three
other members appointed by the CD. These members should be
experienced competition pilots, officials of the contest or pilots
with a good understanding of sail plane competitions. (Entrants are
not eligible) The Contest Competition Committee is responsible for
interpretation, assessment of penalties and protest resolution. IMO
opinion the CCC can and should a group of pilots competing and the CD
should not be part of the equation. Think of the term 'jury of your
peers'.

I was disappointed to hear about the protest and since I believe that
luck is always a variable within the sport of soaring I believe that
the day was a valid one for sports class and should have been scored
BTW my standing would not change as I chose to land at a designated
airport when I did not like the weather conditions.

Ron Gleason
DG303 N303MR
Contest Id MR

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

Having read all this and accepting that I am not familiar with all the US
Rules there is a basic flaw in the argument.
It may well be that the CD opened the gate when he should not have done,
it may well be that some competitors were disadvantaged, however the CD
did open the gate and allow the competition to start and once that
decision was made it should never have been reversed. There was a valid
contest, enough competitors completed to satisfy the requirements for a
day, so what possible justification can there be for declaring it a non
contest day.
JJ is dead right. Mark you if you live in a country where a Winebago
driver can sue the makers of that vehicle for her injuries in the
accident, that occurred when she engaged cruise control and went down the
back to make a cup of coffee, then I suppose anything is possible.

Late news: I am eating cashew nuts from a packet clearly marked with the
words "May contain nuts" No sh1t Sherlock.

[JJ Sinclair]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> > It may well be that the CD opened the gate when he should not have done,
> it may well be that some competitors were disadvantaged, however the CD
> did open the gate and allow the competition to start and once that
> decision was made it should never have been reversed.
> JJ is dead right.

Thanks for the support, Don. I can just about hear a couple of our
British friends discussing all this;
I say, the Americans are having a splendid time bashing one another,
aren't they? Yes, seems some chap by the name of Chuck U Farley isn't
quite up to his best form.

We are capable of doing it right. At the Montague contest a similar
situation developed on the 6th day. The task area was covered with low
clouds and rain starting. Sports class launched last behind open and
standard who were flying their national competition. The CD called the
last launcher (me, I was also the sports adviser) and asked how I was
doing? I replied that hadn't found anything yet, just got off tow.
Will try to make my way over to the start cylinder........recommend
you hold the gate opening. A few minutes later I was at cloud base in
the start cylinder and gave the following assessment; Only 1000 feet
between the top of the mountains and the bottom of the clouds. I see
rain between me and the first turn point. I don't think it would be a
fair race, recommend you scrub it. The CD then scrubbed the day. Not
everyone was happy, 2 were above the clouds at 8000 feet and wanted to
play. We had flown 5 days and didn't need that day to make a contest.

This is the kind of interaction that can arrive at the correct
decision while maintaining fairness and safety. I consider this an
example of CD'ing at its best and Nelson Funston (CD), Noelle (CM),
Rex, Ben and Nick Mayes along with the whole crew from Williams
Soaring put on a first rate show.......Good on you!!!
JJ

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 8, 5:00*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> Having read all this and accepting that I am not familiar with all the US
> Rules there is a basic flaw in the argument.
> It may well be that the CD opened the gate when he should not have done,
> it may well be that some competitors were disadvantaged, however the CD
> did open the gate and allow the competition to start and once that
> decision was made it should never have been reversed. There was a valid
> contest, enough competitors completed to satisfy the requirements for a
> day, so what possible justification can there be for declaring it a non
> contest day.
> JJ is dead right. Mark you if you live in a country where a Winebago
> driver can sue the makers of that vehicle for her injuries in the
> accident, that occurred when she engaged cruise control and went down the
> back to make a cup of coffee, then I suppose anything is possible.
>
> Late news: I am eating cashew nuts from a packet clearly marked with the
> words "May contain nuts" No sh1t Sherlock.

I heard that she actually went to the back of her RV to microwave her
cat to dry it off...

There are enough wacky things in the USA (and elsewhere) that we
don't need to retread old urban legends.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp


Darryl

[dave]

Here's to better times JJ

http://www.pbase.com/plane_pictures/image/114771960/original.jpg

dave

[Rick Culbertson]

On Jul 6, 6:50*am, ZL > wrote:
> ZL wrote:
>
> The launch was slowed by the remote drop point. A bit over an hour for
> the first 2/3 of the field. It felt longer as the last hope for lift
> dwindled with the storm growing while waiting for a launch. And the day
> never recycled in the valley, staying overcast and cool the rest of the day.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

All,

2cents - As the #3or 4 15m ship in line when the launch was halted, I
had a front row seat. The days descriptions contained here as well as
the pro and con comments all seem valid from my POV, and there’s the
rub, perfection is unattainable.

Keeping in mind, as Zl stated “I have no dog in this fight”, I would
add that although I can understand JJs disappointment and subsequent
reaction to “withdraw in disgust”, I respectfully don’t agree with
that decision. Additionally, I fully understand the reasons for and
the validity of submitting the original “protest”, but given its
lopsided impact, and it would have taken a better man than I to do so,
I believe it should have been withdrawn. No disrespect is intended to
the Protester, I know him fairly well and he’s a good guy.

I’m sure this will be looked at by the contest committee to see if
clearer guidelines are appropriate or possible, but as I said before,
perfection is unattainable, you play the cards your dealt.

21

[Micki]

Well, I tried to stay out of it, but I was PLEASED by the discussion
of the rules as a general point. However, some facts that people
haven't mentioned (until Ron Gleason, the newbie at the contest!)

1. The competition committee met and discussed the rules after the
protest(s) were filed. the CD convened the meeting, but was not the
sole decision maker.
2. The start was called at the proper time (15 minutes AFTER last
roll of last of the sports class).
3. The advisors were in communication with the CD (on channel 5, if
the pilots turned their channels to listen)
4. The weather guy was in the air and advising as well, as well as a
pilot on the ground waiting for launch, who was a task advisor in the
sports class.
5. The competition committee also sought advice from John Good, who
is the scribe for the USA rules committee and is more than familiar
with the rules.

By the way, one of the members of the contest competition committee
was also a another "rules committee" member for the SSA/SRA.

OK, back to the discussion of the rules as a general point with these
details included.
Micki Minner
Contest Manager

[JJ Sinclair]

Wow, Dave thats beautiful. Was that taken on day 3 returning from
Kanosh Canyon?
Thanks for sharing,
JJ

dave wrote:
> Here's to better times JJ
>
> http://www.pbase.com/plane_pictures/image/114771960/original.jpg
>
> dave

[dave]

JJ

I spent most of day three waiting for a retrieve from the dry lake, so
that can't be it. I think that it was taken running up North on day 4
toward Milford.

Glad you liked it

dave.

On Jul 9, 12:32*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> Wow, Dave thats beautiful. Was that taken on day 3 returning from
> Kanosh Canyon?
> Thanks for sharing,
> JJ
>
>
>
> dave wrote:
> > Here's to better times JJ
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/plane_pictures/image/114771960/original.jpg
>
> > dave- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jul 6, 4:55*am, wrote:
> On Jul 4, 11:48*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
>
>
> > (US) rule 11.1.1 states; A valid competition day is one in which every
> > regular entrant is given a fair opportunity to compete. What is the
> > definition of fair? I can tell you what I have used as CD in 3
> > nationals and several regionals over the last 35 years. The launch
> > should go without interuption. All contestants should be towed to 2000
> > feet in the designated release area. That's it, you are on your own
> > after release! There is no guarantee that you will find lift.
>
> > On day 3 at parowan this year, the launch went without delay and all
> > were released in the designated area at 2000 feet. Several pilots
> > didn't find lift and landed back. Some took re-lights and one landed
> > on the dry lake in the release area. About half the class found that
> > all important first thermal, the gate was opened 15 minutes after the
> > last scheduled launch and most completed the assigned task. Data
> > loggers were evaluated, scores computed and day 3 was a valid contest
> > day, right?
>
> > Not so fast! Two pilots protested that they hadn't been given a fair
> > opportunity to compete. The competition committee met and threw out
> > day 3. Their ruling may seem fair to the 2 protesters, but it was
> > unfair to the remaining 25 pilots in the class. The CD even went so
> > far as to state; If one of the protesters had found lift, he would
> > have come in 3rd for the day! *Unbelievable! *Just how he determined
> > that remains a mystery? *There was one contestant who did place 3rd on
> > that day, but his performance was ignored. I tried to talk to the CD
> > with no response other than; You have the right to protest my ruling.
>
> > If my 3rd place had counted, I would have been 5th overall and 19
> > points out of 4th. I withdrew from the contest in disgust! *What has
> > our competition come to? Are we all guaranteed lift? Who is to decide
> > if the actions taken by the pilot after release were the correct
> > ones? *If you don't find lift, simply land back and file a protest!
>
> > I will turn 75 next month and Pat and I have been asking ourselves
> > just how much longer all this will be considered fun? *In the words of
> > an old country song; That just about does it, Don't it?
>
> > Pat & JJ Sinclair
>
> FWIW
> This is a good example of where use of the advisors is invaluable.
> They are in the air and can
> afdvise whether the day meets the "fair and safe" criteria. If it does
> not, they are obligated to say
> so and advise either holding the opening or not opening the task. If
> the task is opened, they day should go on,
> unless the CD cancels they day due to safety concerns, which he is
> permitted and encouraged to do under the
> rules.
> All that said, don't quit JJ. We like having your grumpy self around
> to make us laugh and keep us honest.
> UH

Sorry you felt compelled to withdraw JJ - I like having you and your
bat-plane on the grid.

I was one of the handful of 15M launchers that day and after thrashing
about in +/- 50 fpm made a nail-biter of a return back to the field
rather than put it into the dry lake 5 miles west of the field. FWIW
there was no climbing out after a certain time that day unless you
wanted to risk an outlanding in the open desert in order to do a dead-
glide to the sunlight 10 miles west of the field. If I recall
correctly the protester in this case did land in the dry lake prior to
taking a start - a consideration of some consequence as an outlanding
ends your day whereas a relight doesn't.

I don't know if I agree that once the gate opens the task should count
no matter what, though I do think this should be the strong bias.
Whether it should be incumbent on the CD to poll the last launchers in
each class to ensure they are getting up before opening the gate, or
if it should be the responsibility of the individual pilots to call
this out to the CD (my preference) should probably be clarified. If
you can't climb you should make that clear before the gate opens so
the CD has the option of delaying/canceling the opening of the gate or
chalking it up to poor piloting. One such request was granted later in
the contest and I have made such requests myself in the past. I do
wonder whether pilots should forfeit their right to protest the start
later if they don't make the call in real time.

I suspect a future version of the rules could clarify the procedures
and recourse as it seems this sort of thing happens a couple of time
each year.

9B

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

> Whether it should be incumbent on the CD to poll the last launchers in
> each class to ensure they are getting up before opening the gate, or
> if it should be the responsibility of the individual pilots to call
> this out to the CD (my preference) should probably be clarified. If
> you can't climb you should make that clear before the gate opens so
> the CD has the option of delaying/canceling the opening of the gate or
> chalking it up to poor piloting. One such request was granted later in
> the contest and I have made such requests myself in the past. I do
> wonder whether pilots should forfeit their right to protest the start
> later if they don't make the call in real time.

To avoid setting off anguished howls of "I can't climb, you gotta
delay opening the gate!", I don't radio the CD when faced with this
kind of problem. I have, however, called my class advisor on more than
one occasion and let him/her decide to call the CD with an official,
authorized communication. I recognize, of course, that my
request--"[task advisor ID], go to 123.5"--is tantamount to inviting
the world to listen in.

It's tough to judge from afar but it sounds like the task shouldn't
have opened. How to prevent situations like this in the future is
tougher, as is how to deal with them once they've occurred. I'm
strongly of the mind that once the task is open, it should not be
cancelled or invalidated. I don't want to have to judge whether to go
100% and risk a landout knowing the CD might change his/her mind, and
soaring is full of historical situations where nearly no one thought
the task possible but some intrepid pilot proved them wrong. But there
are valid exceptions to every rule in the interests of fairness and/or
safety. Defining those exceptions is difficult, which is why we value
the good CDs so highly. Rest in peace, Charlie Spratt; you made a few
mistakes but far fewer than anyone before or since, given the number
of contests you CD'd.

Finally, there shouldn't be any stigma associated with protesting what
a pilot believes is an unfair outcome. I'd hate to see competition
soaring turn into the US tort system but there is some merit in
raising the protest and having all the facts come out for an impartial
jury to review and decide. It is partly through this kind of exchange
that we will arrive at a better system in the future.

Although I still hope the Rules Committee keeps future Rules changes
to a bare minimum! :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

[Tom[_6_]]

I figured I better let some time pass before I chimed in since I was on the
short end of the ruling at Parowan.



1 - I have no problem with the protest since the rule allowed it.

2 - I have no problem with the decision of the committee and felt they
upheld the rule.

3 - I have no problem with Charlie opening the gate when he did so per the
rules.



Everyone was correct. The rub is the rule itself. This rule punished
competitors that flew well (in this case a vast majority of the field) and
benefited those that landed out / back or choose not to fly. It is
frustrating to have 4 hours negated to zero.



To make matters worse, the Sports Class was moved to the end of the grid the
next day since the 15 and 18 meter guys did not have a contest day. Hello!?
Neither did Sports. Separate topic, but if you fly Sports at R9 you will
not receive the same attention to detail as the FAI guys. Our starts are
historically called poorly and until this year we always launched last.



All week long in the pilot's meeting we were reminded that competition
pilots represent a very small percentage of soaring people. Reading RAS and
going through this last Region 9, it is clear that crappy rules and scoring
that requires a degree in mathematics will probably keep this number in the
same range in the future.



Can't bitch without making suggestions right? Two rule suggestions -



1 - Change the rule so that if a majority of the field scores, adjust the
competitor's score that was not able to start. Instead of bringing 20 some
scores down to zero, adjust 1 or two scores up.



2 - As suggested in other posts, change the call when the gate opens.
Opening the gate 15 minutes after the last competitor starts the t/o roll is
not viable.



Tom Dukerich OD2

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 23:51 14 July 2009, Tom wrote:
>I figured I better let some time pass before I chimed in since I was on
the
>
>short end of the ruling at Parowan.
>
>
>
>1 - I have no problem with the protest since the rule allowed it.
>
>2 - I have no problem with the decision of the committee and felt they
>upheld the rule.
>
>3 - I have no problem with Charlie opening the gate when he did so per
the
>
>rules.
>
>
>
>Everyone was correct. The rub is the rule itself. This rule punished
>competitors that flew well (in this case a vast majority of the field)
and
>
>benefited those that landed out / back or choose not to fly. It is
>frustrating to have 4 hours negated to zero.
>
>
>
>To make matters worse, the Sports Class was moved to the end of the grid
>the
>next day since the 15 and 18 meter guys did not have a contest day.
>Hello!?
>Neither did Sports. Separate topic, but if you fly Sports at R9 you will

>not receive the same attention to detail as the FAI guys. Our starts are

>historically called poorly and until this year we always launched last.
>
>
>
>All week long in the pilot's meeting we were reminded that competition
>pilots represent a very small percentage of soaring people. Reading RAS
>and
>going through this last Region 9, it is clear that crappy rules and
>scoring
>that requires a degree in mathematics will probably keep this number in
>the
>same range in the future.
>
>
>
>Can't bitch without making suggestions right? Two rule suggestions -
>
>
>
>1 - Change the rule so that if a majority of the field scores, adjust the

>competitor's score that was not able to start. Instead of bringing 20
>some
>scores down to zero, adjust 1 or two scores up.
>
>
>
>2 - As suggested in other posts, change the call when the gate opens.
>Opening the gate 15 minutes after the last competitor starts the t/o
roll
>is
>not viable.
>
>
>
>Tom Dukerich OD2

The UK rules are very similar regarding the opening of the gate, but the
CD has the discretion not to open the gate, or to delay the opening.

Some years ago the last day of a competition was marginal as far as
weather was concerned. The leading pilot persuaded other pilots, who had
no chance of winning, to refuse to take a launch in the hope of getting
the day scrubbed/devalued. The net effect was to shorten the launch time
and enable the gate to be opened earlier than would have been the case
with a full grid. After the gate opened the weather stopped launching for
several hours. If the "protest" had not been made the full field would
never have been launched and the day scrubbed.
Unluckily the second place pilot, who had launched, did not score enough
points to win.

[QT[_2_]]

On Jul 14, 7:51Â*pm, "Tom" > wrote:
> I figured I better let some time pass before I chimed in since I was on the
> short end of the ruling at Parowan.
>
> 1 - I have no problem with the protest since the rule allowed it.
>
> 2 - I have no problem with the decision of the committee and felt they
> upheld the rule.
>
> 3 - I have no problem with Charlie opening the gate when he did so per the
> rules.
>
> Everyone was correct. Â*The rub is the rule itself. Â*This rule punished
> competitors that flew well (in this case a vast majority of the field) and
> benefited those that landed out / back or choose not to fly. Â*It is
> frustrating to have 4 hours negated to zero.
>
> To make matters worse, the Sports Class was moved to the end of the grid the
> next day since the 15 and 18 meter guys did not have a contest day. Â*Hello!?
> Neither did Sports. Â*Separate topic, but if you fly Sports at R9 you will
> not receive the same attention to detail as the FAI guys. Â*Our starts are
> historically called poorly and until this year we always launched last.
>
> All week long in the pilot's meeting we were reminded that competition
> pilots represent a very small percentage of soaring people. Â*Reading RAS and
> going through this last Region 9, it is clear that crappy rules and scoring
> that requires a degree in mathematics will probably keep this number in the
> same range in the future.
>
> Can't bitch without making suggestions right? Â*Two rule suggestions -
>
> 1 - Change the rule so that if a majority of the field scores, adjust the
> competitor's score that was not able to start. Â*Instead of bringing 20 some
> scores down to zero, adjust 1 or two scores up.
>
> 2 - As suggested in other posts, change the call when the gate opens.
> Opening the gate 15 minutes after the last competitor starts the t/o roll is
> not viable.
>
> Tom Dukerich Â*OD2

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the rule states:

10.1.5 Task Opens - at a time designated by the CD, about 15 minutes
after the last competitor who accepts his designated launch starts his
takeoff roll.

I.e. the CD has the discretion to delay the opening of the task for
whatever reason. The suggested 15 mins is the nominal time for the
last launch to have a reasonable opportunity to get as good a start as
the first launch. The premise of the race is that everyone gets the
same opportunity to start at the same earliest time from the same
location if they desire (eliminating the luck of the grid draw as a
significant factor).

An alternative would be to allow a start immediately off tow and
virtually never cancel the day once the launch starts, in which case
the luck of the grid draw would be a big factor - so are we measuring
skill or luck?

Should Charlie have held the gate opening? It's easy to say yes with
20/20 hindsight but it was not necessarily easy to tell at the time.
The nullification of a day after it has been run is an exceptional
action justified only by "force majure" circumstances. In this case
we all judged in retrospect that we had not set a mostly level playing
field and if those most affected had performed near their average for
the prior two days it would have materially affected the leadership
positions.
..
Second, there is currently in the rules a (to date unused) provision
for "worst day score adjustment" in regionals.

11.4.4 â€* Worst Day Score Adjustment
If this is declared to be in effect, an adjustment is calculated and
added to the cumulative score of each entrant..

If you think the scoring formulas are complicated now, read the rest
of the rule.

QT

[John Cochrane]

It's worth reiterating that 15 minutes is not carved in stone. Charlie
Spratt had what I thought an excellent habit. About 2 minutes before
the announced gate open time, he would ask the task advisers "do we
have a fair start?" meaning, did the last guys off tow have a decent
chance to climb to start altitude. If not, he would delay start
opening a bit. Now, advisers can't see everyone, and they might well
have missed the developing situation at Parowan since to stay up they
would have to have been in a totally different piece of sky. Nothing's
perfect. But it does help, and to the point here, it is entirely
within the rules. (He would also ask, "is the task doable?" another
commendable question before sending us off.)

>
> 11.4.4 â€* Worst Day Score Adjustment
> If this is declared to be in effect, an adjustment is calculated and
> added to the cumulative score of each entrant..
>
> If you think the scoring formulas are complicated now, read the rest
> of the rule.
>
> QT


Don't give up on drop a day just because the wording of the rule is of
necessity a little complex. This is a great idea, and I hope somebody
tries it! Contests might be a lot more fun if a landout or one slow
low save did not doom you for the rest of the week.

John Cochrane

[JJ Sinclair]

John Cochrane wrote:


> Don't give up on drop a day just because the wording of the rule is of
> necessity a little complex. This is a great idea, and I hope somebody
> tries it! Contests might be a lot more fun if a landout or one slow
> low save did not doom you for the rest of the week.
>
> John Cochrane

Good point John, but you wouldn't be able to 'drop-a-day' that has
been expunged, now would you?
JJ

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jul 15, 9:30*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> Good point John, but you wouldn't be able to 'drop-a-day' that has
> been expunged, now would you?
> JJ

People might be less inclined to protest if they could drop a day and
the competition committee might be less inclined to expunge a day for
95% of the class if the one affected pilot could drop the day.

It creates other issues, but is worth a try.

9B

[Tuno]

People might also be less inclined to protest if there was a financial
risk in doing so.

Protests should be accompanied by a $50 protest fee. (That figure is
taken from another FAI/NAA sport.) If the protest is upheld, the
protester gets the fee returned. Otherwise, it goes to the SSA.

ted/2NO

[JJ Sinclair]

Tuno wrote:

> Protests should be accompanied by a $50 protest fee. (That figure is
> taken from another FAI/NAA sport.) If the protest is upheld, the
> protester gets the fee returned. Otherwise, it goes to the SSA.
>
> ted/2NO

I like your suggestion, Ted. That might just do the job. Right now I'm
concerned that we might be headed into a quagmire of protesting, then
protesting the protest. Luck of the draw is part of the sport and
sometimes we luck out when its our turn at the end of the line and
other times we get clobbered. Protesting isn't the way we should be
headed. A $50 fee with your protest and a firm statement in the rules
that expunging a days results will only be considered under
extraordinary circunstances would keep old JJ in the game for a few
more 'senior' years.
JJ

[T8]

On Jul 15, 8:09Â*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> It's worth reiterating that 15 minutes is not carved in stone. Charlie
> Spratt had what I thought an excellent habit. About 2 minutes before
> the announced gate open time, he would ask the task advisers "do we
> have a fair start?" meaning, did the last guys off tow have a decent
> chance to climb to start altitude. If not, he would delay start
> opening a bit. Now, advisers can't see everyone, and they might well
> have missed the developing situation at Parowan since to stay up they
> would have to have been in a totally different piece of sky. Nothing's
> perfect. But it does help, and to the point here, it is entirely
> within the rules. (He would also ask, "is the task doable?" another
> commendable question before sending us off.)
>
>
>
> > 11.4.4 â€* Worst Day Score Adjustment
> > If this is declared to be in effect, an adjustment is calculated and
> > added to the cumulative score of each entrant..
>
> > If you think the scoring formulas are complicated now, read the rest
> > of the rule.
>
> > QT
>
> Don't give up on drop a day just because the wording of the rule is of
> necessity a little complex. This is a great idea, and I hope somebody
> tries it! Contests might be a lot more fun if a landout or one slow
> low save did not doom you for the rest of the week.
>
> John Cochrane

How's about we give up on drop a day because it's a lousy idea,
instead? Nothin' personal, but a lot of us *really* hate this idea.
It smacks of "competition lite". We've got outlets for that
already.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[AK]

On Jul 15, 8:09Â*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> It's worth reiterating that 15 minutes is not carved in stone. Charlie
> Spratt had what I thought an excellent habit. About 2 minutes before
> the announced gate open time, he would ask the task advisers "do we
> have a fair start?" meaning, did the last guys off tow have a decent
> chance to climb to start altitude. If not, he would delay start
> opening a bit. Now, advisers can't see everyone, and they might well
> have missed the developing situation at Parowan since to stay up they
> would have to have been in a totally different piece of sky. Nothing's
> perfect. But it does help, and to the point here, it is entirely
> within the rules. (He would also ask, "is the task doable?" another
> commendable question before sending us off.)
>
>
>
> > 11.4.4 â€* Worst Day Score Adjustment
> > If this is declared to be in effect, an adjustment is calculated and
> > added to the cumulative score of each entrant..
>
> > If you think the scoring formulas are complicated now, read the rest
> > of the rule.
>
> > QT
>
> Don't give up on drop a day just because the wording of the rule is of
> necessity a little complex. This is a great idea, and I hope somebody
> tries it! Contests might be a lot more fun if a landout or one slow
> low save did not doom you for the rest of the week.
>
> John Cochrane

I second T8. Please forget about “drop a day�. To win one should fly
well everyday. If one screws up one pays the price. That is fair and
simple competition. We already decreased penalties for land outs. I
personally don’t feel like flying in any competition with “drop a day�
rule in force. “Drop a day� can well result in drop in participation.

Where are we heading with this rule, for sure not in the direction of
fair and simple? I know the rule is there. I only hope it stays
dormant since this rule if implemented will **** off many more people
than the Parowan issue.

AK

[John Cochrane]

> People might be less inclined to protest if they could drop a day and
> the competition committee might be less inclined to expunge a day for
> 95% of the class if the one affected pilot could drop the day.
>
> It creates other issues, but is worth a try.
>
> 9B

This is a good point that I hadn't thought of.

Also, our next protest controversy is going to come the next time we
are tasked through a line of thunderstorms, as with the protest in 15
m at Tonopah. Some pilots will protest because having to fly through a
squall line is obviously neither "safe" nor "fair." Others will argue
that tasks should never be canceled, and point out that they dodged
the lightning and survived. The whole business will be an order of
magnitude messier than what happened at Parowan.

Drop a day can make that protest less likely, less necessary, and
convince a lot more pilots to turn around before the dangerous
weather, knowing they can simply drop this day.

John Cochrane BB

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jul 15, 7:37*pm, AK > wrote:
> On Jul 15, 8:09*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
> Where are we heading with this rule, for sure not in the direction of
> fair and simple? I know the rule is there. I only hope it stays
> dormant since this rule if implemented will **** off many more people
> than the Parowan issue.
>
> AK

The simplest thing to do regarding this topic is disallow all
protests.

The other way to dramatically simplify the rules is to eliminate
distance points - if you don't finish, you get zero. MPH and miles are
apples and oranges, much of the complication in the rules come from
trying to mix the two. This offers a harsher variation on "drop a day"
- you can take a zero any day you don't feel like finishing the course
as called. You can do it under the rules today, but this makes it much
simpler and clearer - finish the whole course every day or likely be
done for the contest.

Not my preferred solution - but it's hard to argue with if you like
simplified wording in the rules - it takes out whole sections of
formulas and provisions. And it's totally fair since everyone flies
knowing that a landout ends their contest.

We could also eliminate all the restrictions around opening and
closing of start/finish gates - just leave the gates open from
midnight to midnight and make launch grid first-come fist-served. Get
rid of all the complex rules about rotating classes and grid
positions. If you want an early start get up earlier - simple! It
would be like the old start for the 24 Hours of Le Mans where the
drivers run to their cars.

Other simplification ideas out there?

;-)

9B

[AK]

On Jul 16, 10:31*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > People might be less inclined to protest if they could drop a day and
> > the competition committee might be less inclined to expunge a day for
> > 95% of the class if the one affected pilot could drop the day.
>
> > It creates other issues, but is worth a try.
>
> > 9B
>
> This is a good point that I hadn't thought of.
>
> Also, our next protest controversy is going to come the next time we
> are tasked through a line of thunderstorms, as with the protest in 15
> m at Tonopah. Some pilots will protest because having to fly through a
> squall line is obviously neither "safe" nor "fair." Others will argue
> that tasks should never be canceled, and point out that they dodged
> the lightning and survived. The whole business will be an order of
> magnitude messier than what happened at Parowan.
>
> Drop a day can make that protest less likely, less necessary, and
> convince a lot more pilots to turn around before the dangerous
> weather, knowing they can simply drop this day.
>
> John Cochrane BB

John, in regards to "drop a day", please correct me if I am wrong but
from my example it looks like “drop a day” is a terrible idea and here
it is why:

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day
5 Total

Pilot 1 950 950 1000 1000 1000 4900
Pilot 2 1000 1000 1000 955 500 4455

Pilot 1 is the winner. Clearly Pilot 1 deserves to win.

Now if you introduce drop a day then Pilot 2 is the winner. Does Pilot
2 deserve to win?

Absolutely NOT!

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 16, 10:58*am, AK > wrote:
> On Jul 16, 10:31*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > People might be less inclined to protest if they could drop a day and
> > > the competition committee might be less inclined to expunge a day for
> > > 95% of the class if the one affected pilot could drop the day.
>
> > > It creates other issues, but is worth a try.
>
> > > 9B
>
> > This is a good point that I hadn't thought of.
>
> > Also, our next protest controversy is going to come the next time we
> > are tasked through a line of thunderstorms, as with the protest in 15
> > m at Tonopah. Some pilots will protest because having to fly through a
> > squall line is obviously neither "safe" nor "fair." Others will argue
> > that tasks should never be canceled, and point out that they dodged
> > the lightning and survived. The whole business will be an order of
> > magnitude messier than what happened at Parowan.
>
> > Drop a day can make that protest less likely, less necessary, and
> > convince a lot more pilots to turn around before the dangerous
> > weather, knowing they can simply drop this day.
>
> > John Cochrane BB
>
> John, in regards to "drop a day", please correct me if I am wrong but
> from my example it looks like “drop a day” is a terrible idea and here
> it is why:
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Day 1 * Day 2 * Day 3 * Day 4 * Day
> 5 * * * Total
>
> Pilot 1 * * * * 950 * * 950 * * 1000 * *1000 * *1000 * *4900
> Pilot 2 * * * * 1000 * *1000 * *1000 * *955 * * 500 * * 4455
>
> Pilot 1 is the winner. Clearly Pilot 1 deserves to win.
>
> Now if you introduce drop a day then Pilot 2 is the winner. Does Pilot
> 2 deserve to win?
>
> Absolutely NOT!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Can we please stop using the term "drop a day" That is not what the
rule does.

Andy

[John Cochrane]

> from my example it looks like “drop a day” is a terrible idea and here
> it is why:
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Day 1 * Day 2 * Day 3 * Day 4 * Day
> 5 * * * Total
>
> Pilot 1 * * * * 950 * * 950 * * 1000 * *1000 * *1000 * *4900
> Pilot 2 * * * * 1000 * *1000 * *1000 * *955 * * 500 * * 4455
>
> Pilot 1 is the winner. Clearly Pilot 1 deserves to win.
>
> Now if you introduce drop a day then Pilot 2 is the winner. Does Pilot
> 2 deserve to win?
>
> Absolutely NOT!

There are lots of scenarios to think about here. Many of our top
pilots have lost nationals to mediocre people like me by one unlucky
landout. If Pilot 1 were BB, slow but steady, and Pilot 2 were DJ or
P7, who got a lot of sink on final glide and landed 1/2 mile out
despite a blistering speed, would you feel the same way? Would BB
really deserve to go on to the worlds on this basis? (Not far from the
truth, incidentally) A lot of motivation for "drop a day" comes from
people feeling that yes, in many practical situations like this, pilot
2 did deserve to win and was the best pilot.

"Deserve" is pretty nebulous, and rules like this need to consider
lots and lots of cases, and which kinds really do happen in practice.
They also need to consider fun and incentives.

If we're going to go on to "drop a day" we should start a different
thread, separating it from Parowan and protests. I'd just as soon let
it sit for a while personally

John Cochrane BB

[Ian]

On 5 July, 19:40, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> Charlie's report on the ssa website says it was the last three pilots
> to launch who could not stay up, which seems a significant detail. If
> the first to launch can find lift, get away from the airport, and wait
> to start, but there really is zero lift in the airport area when the
> back half of the grid launches, then the decision seems reasonable --
> from this very far distance.

Maybe use towplanes to get the gliders to lift, then, rather than
using winches?

Ian

[Rick Culbertson]

On Jul 16, 12:08*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > from my example it looks like “drop a day” is a terrible idea and here
> > it is why:
>
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Day 1 * Day 2 * Day 3 * Day 4 * Day
> > 5 * * * Total
>
> > Pilot 1 * * * * 950 * * 950 * * 1000 * *1000 * *1000 * *4900
> > Pilot 2 * * * * 1000 * *1000 * *1000 * *955 * * 500 * * 4455
>
> > Pilot 1 is the winner. Clearly Pilot 1 deserves to win.
>
> > Now if you introduce drop a day then Pilot 2 is the winner. Does Pilot
> > 2 deserve to win?
>
> > Absolutely NOT!
>
> There are lots of scenarios to think about here. Many of our top
> pilots have lost nationals to mediocre people like me by one unlucky
> landout. If Pilot 1 were BB, slow but steady, and Pilot 2 were DJ or
> P7, who got a lot of sink on final glide and landed 1/2 mile out
> despite a blistering speed, would you feel the same way? Would BB
> really deserve to go on to the worlds on this basis? (Not far from the
> truth, incidentally) *A lot of motivation for "drop a day" comes from
> people feeling that yes, in many practical situations like this, pilot
> 2 did deserve to win and was the best pilot.
>
> "Deserve" is pretty nebulous, and rules like this need to consider
> lots and lots of cases, and which kinds really do happen in practice.
> They also need to consider fun and incentives.
>
> If we're going to go on to "drop a day" we should start a different
> thread, separating it from Parowan and protests. I'd just as soon let
> it sit for a while personally
>
> John Cochrane BB

All,
Briefly, yes, rule tweaking can be over done but I'm all for trying
something new now and then, especially if it’s already a useable rule.
I recall the "Super Regional" concept stirred up a hornet’s nest of
RAS comments but nary a peep of complaint or comment about it since it
was applied at Parowan this year. Mainly because it was a non-event,
generally if you wanted in, you got in.

I suspect the drop/dump/toss/relinquish/ do over or gratefully dispose
of a day concept may have substantially more impact but really, why
not try it? Here's my point and the reason for keeping it in this
thread; I'm fairly certain it would have addressed and legitimized the
Parowan sports class day in question mentioned here. And this rule
would have been likely welcomed by most of the 15m class on the last
day when all but two failed to get around due to substantial
widespread t-storms and rain dramatically affecting the late starters.
So really other than producing a list of silly "what if" situations
what’s the harm in giving it a go, I’ll attend that contest, we just
need a CM/CD who's willing to give it a go.
21

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

>On 5 July, 19:40, John Cochrane
>wrote:
>> Charlie's report on the ssa website says it was the last three pilots
>> to launch who could not stay up, which seems a significant detail. If
>> the first to launch can find lift, get away from the airport, and wait
>> to start, but there really is zero lift in the airport area when the
>> back half of the grid launches, then the decision seems reasonable --
>> from this very far distance.

Something I do not understand here, why was the fact that 3 pilots could
not stay up a problem, that frequently happens in comps in the UK and the
competitors relight. There surely is not restriction on starting once the
gate is open. Our rules specify that once the gate is open and the
competition has started competitors may take a launch until 1800hrs so
they have ample opportunity to compete if they do not suceed at first. Any
CD in the UK who allowed the cancellation of a comp day that had been
completed by the majority of the competitors because 3 pilots could not
stay up would very likely suffer total humiliation not to mention serious
abuse, both of which would be richly deserved.

While a CD in the UK will listen to what competitors are saying they DO
NOT take formal advice on conditions from competitors. We do have a non
competitor sniffer who relays back the conditions and of course we listen
to comments on safety matters. Competitors should not be used as advisors
in a formal sense, except on matters of safety, there is a huge conflict
of interest and the system is open to allegations of abuse.
>

[Chad[_2_]]

> Something I do not understand here, why was the fact that 3 pilots could
> not stay up a problem, that frequently happens in comps in the UK and the
> competitors relight. There surely is not restriction on starting once the
> gate is open.

The question is not about relights. The problem, especially with
Parowan, is that sometimes the lift is a long way from the airport.
You can get off aerotow and find yourself scratching into a hole only
to land out. As the thermal heights increase, the thermal spacings
increases more or less proportionally. Using the same 2000' tow height
that works well in a humid landscape at sea level as at 6000'
elevation with high base thunderstorms around is not exactly "working
with nature." At a past Parowan contest, two pilots I know, one a good
one, choose not to launch because the drop point was beyond a safe
glide back to the airport. They didn't protest. From my perspective,
this problem has been growing with little attention from the "big
boys" until this year when someone protests and screws up a bunch of
people's scores. I'm neither supporting or criticizing the protest,
only saying that Sport Class was this course and heading for a while,
so it is no surprise. After learning of more of the facts here, I am
inclined to be less critical of the contest staff, and more critical
of the rules (and the Guidelines for Competition Director).

4-Zulu
Chad

[Brian[_1_]]

On Jul 16, 5:15*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> >On 5 July, 19:40, John Cochrane
> >wrote:
> >> Charlie's report on the ssa website says it was the last three pilots
> >> to launch who could not stay up, which seems a significant detail. If
> >> the first to launch can find lift, get away from the airport, and wait
> >> to start, but there really is zero lift in the airport area when the
> >> back half of the grid launches, then the decision seems reasonable --
> >> from this very far distance.
>
> Something I do not understand here, why was the fact that 3 pilots could
> not stay up a problem, that frequently happens in comps in the UK and the
> competitors relight. There surely is not restriction on starting once the
> gate is open. Our rules specify that once the gate is open and the
> competition has started competitors may take a launch until 1800hrs so
> they have ample opportunity to compete if they do not suceed at first. Any
> CD in the UK who allowed the cancellation of a comp day that had been
> completed by the majority of the competitors because 3 pilots could not
> stay up would very likely suffer total humiliation not to mention serious
> abuse, both of which would be richly deserved.
>
> While a CD in the UK will listen to what competitors are saying they DO
> NOT take formal advice on conditions from competitors. We do have a non
> competitor sniffer who relays back the conditions and of course we listen
> to comments on safety matters. Competitors should not be used as advisors
> in a formal sense, except on matters of safety, there is a huge conflict
> of interest and the system is open to allegations of abuse.
>
>

I wasn't there but I think I understand the problem. This issue is
where does a CD draw the line.

Should the CD Open the Gate if a storm settles over the airport and
the last 3 competitors can not be launched?

How about if they can be launched but it is pouring rain in the drop
zone, with obviously no chance for them to climb out?

OK lets remove the rain but still obviously no chance to climb out.

The issue is even more of an issue at Parowan due to the distance of
the drop zone from the airport. If you can't climb immediately you
will land out. Even those that tried to move away from the bad weather
still ended up landing out.

On the day in question the conditions were obviously deteriorating as
they opted to cancel the launching of the following classes because
they were have a 100% relights/landouts. I wasn't there but I would
have to admit I would be seriously ticked off if I were leading the
contest and then were one of the last 3 to launch into conditions that
I obviously had no opportunity to climb out in. But I can also see
the point of the large number of contestants that were able to get
away in better conditions but then have the day scrubbed because only
a few gliders were not given the opportunity to get away. It is
unfortunate but in this particular situation I think scrubbing the day
was the appropriate thing to do. Of course not opening the gate to
begin with would have probably been the best thing, but I can see that
this might have been hard to see from any direction other than
hindsight. The CD probably didn't realize that all the glider
launching after a certain time were going to landout/relight until he
had already opened the gate.

Brian

[JJ Sinclair]

Ok, I'm the CD. Two minutes before I open the gate, I call the last
launcher and ask how's he doing. He replies he's on a dead glide back
to the airport. I then call my sports advisor. He replies that he's at
12000 feet along with half the class, waiting for the gate to open.
What do I do?

I realize the late launchers are struggling and hold the gate opening
for 5 minutes.

Now, its 20 minutes after the last launcher
rolled........................what do I do? Do I scrub the day
because the last 3 launchers aren't getting a fair shot? NO, I realize
that this sport will never be 100% fair and equal. There is a luck-of-
the-draw issue with launch position and that is just part of the game.
I open the gate and the race is on!

Next day when I get 2 protests, I deny them!

JJ Sinclair, who has CD'd 3 national competitions without a single
protest.

Brian wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:15*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> > >On 5 July, 19:40, John Cochrane
> > >wrote:
> > >> Charlie's report on the ssa website says it was the last three pilots
> > >> to launch who could not stay up, which seems a significant detail. If
> > >> the first to launch can find lift, get away from the airport, and wait
> > >> to start, but there really is zero lift in the airport area when the
> > >> back half of the grid launches, then the decision seems reasonable --
> > >> from this very far distance.
> >
> > Something I do not understand here, why was the fact that 3 pilots could
> > not stay up a problem, that frequently happens in comps in the UK and the
> > competitors relight. There surely is not restriction on starting once the
> > gate is open. Our rules specify that once the gate is open and the
> > competition has started competitors may take a launch until 1800hrs so
> > they have ample opportunity to compete if they do not suceed at first. Any
> > CD in the UK who allowed the cancellation of a comp day that had been
> > completed by the majority of the competitors because 3 pilots could not
> > stay up would very likely suffer total humiliation not to mention serious
> > abuse, both of which would be richly deserved.
> >
> > While a CD in the UK will listen to what competitors are saying they DO
> > NOT take formal advice on conditions from competitors. We do have a non
> > competitor sniffer who relays back the conditions and of course we listen
> > to comments on safety matters. Competitors should not be used as advisors
> > in a formal sense, except on matters of safety, there is a huge conflict
> > of interest and the system is open to allegations of abuse.
> >
> >
>
> I wasn't there but I think I understand the problem. This issue is
> where does a CD draw the line.
>
> Should the CD Open the Gate if a storm settles over the airport and
> the last 3 competitors can not be launched?
>
> How about if they can be launched but it is pouring rain in the drop
> zone, with obviously no chance for them to climb out?
>
> OK lets remove the rain but still obviously no chance to climb out.
>
> The issue is even more of an issue at Parowan due to the distance of
> the drop zone from the airport. If you can't climb immediately you
> will land out. Even those that tried to move away from the bad weather
> still ended up landing out.
>
> On the day in question the conditions were obviously deteriorating as
> they opted to cancel the launching of the following classes because
> they were have a 100% relights/landouts. I wasn't there but I would
> have to admit I would be seriously ticked off if I were leading the
> contest and then were one of the last 3 to launch into conditions that
> I obviously had no opportunity to climb out in. But I can also see
> the point of the large number of contestants that were able to get
> away in better conditions but then have the day scrubbed because only
> a few gliders were not given the opportunity to get away. It is
> unfortunate but in this particular situation I think scrubbing the day
> was the appropriate thing to do. Of course not opening the gate to
> begin with would have probably been the best thing, but I can see that
> this might have been hard to see from any direction other than
> hindsight. The CD probably didn't realize that all the glider
> launching after a certain time were going to landout/relight until he
> had already opened the gate.
>
> Brian

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 17:58 16 July 2009, AK wrote:
> Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day
>5 Total
>
>Pilot 1 950 950 1000 1000 1000 4900
>Pilot 2 1000 1000 1000 955 500 4455

Interesting example. It looks like both pilots scored 1000 on Day 3. How
often does that happen? I inquire purely out of ignorance.
Fix that little item, and your example doesn't work so well.

Jim Beckman

[T8]

On Jul 17, 10:00*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 17:58 16 July 2009, AK wrote:
>
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Day 1 * * * Day 2 * Day 3 * Day 4 * Day
> >5 * * * Total
>
> >Pilot 1 * * * * * * 950 * * 950 * * 1000 * *1000 * *1000 * *4900
> >Pilot 2 * * * * * * 1000 * *1000 * *1000 * *955 * * 500 * * 4455
>
> Interesting example. *It looks like both pilots scored 1000 on Day 3. How
> often does that happen? *I inquire purely out of ignorance.
> Fix that little item, and your example doesn't work so well.
>
> Jim Beckman

Straw man answers straw man?

The point -- which AK and I agree on -- is that in any Eastern venue
you'd be strung up by your toes for suggesting BBs devaluation
scheme. We don't get enough racing weather as it is. When we get 5
or 6 days in a regional, we're doing hand springs, not looking for
excuses to devalue....

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[JJ Sinclair]

Good input Chad, but the issue at Parowan is one of timing. When a
storm forms over the mountain east of the airport, it covers the drop
zone in shadow. If the drop zone is moved west to the dry lake, its a
race to get a class up before the shadow covers the new drop zone. If
tow heights are raised to 2500 feet, that takes longer and the launch
goes even slower which makes the problem worse for the last few on the
grid.
JJ

Chad wrote:
> > Something I do not understand here, why was the fact that 3 pilots could
> > not stay up a problem, that frequently happens in comps in the UK and the
> > competitors relight. There surely is not restriction on starting once the
> > gate is open.
>
> The question is not about relights. The problem, especially with
> Parowan, is that sometimes the lift is a long way from the airport.
> You can get off aerotow and find yourself scratching into a hole only
> to land out. As the thermal heights increase, the thermal spacings
> increases more or less proportionally. Using the same 2000' tow height
> that works well in a humid landscape at sea level as at 6000'
> elevation with high base thunderstorms around is not exactly "working
> with nature." At a past Parowan contest, two pilots I know, one a good
> one, choose not to launch because the drop point was beyond a safe
> glide back to the airport. They didn't protest. From my perspective,
> this problem has been growing with little attention from the "big
> boys" until this year when someone protests and screws up a bunch of
> people's scores. I'm neither supporting or criticizing the protest,
> only saying that Sport Class was this course and heading for a while,
> so it is no surprise. After learning of more of the facts here, I am
> inclined to be less critical of the contest staff, and more critical
> of the rules (and the Guidelines for Competition Director).
>
> 4-Zulu
> Chad

[AK]

On Jul 17, 10:00*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 17:58 16 July 2009, AK wrote:
>
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Day 1 * * * Day 2 * Day 3 * Day 4 * Day
> >5 * * * Total
>
> >Pilot 1 * * * * * * 950 * * 950 * * 1000 * *1000 * *1000 * *4900
> >Pilot 2 * * * * * * 1000 * *1000 * *1000 * *955 * * 500 * * 4455
>
> Interesting example. *It looks like both pilots scored 1000 on Day 3. How
> often does that happen? *I inquire purely out of ignorance.
> Fix that little item, and your example doesn't work so well.
>
> Jim Beckman

Jim, I can provide you with many more examples without having even
scores. You can do so yourself. You will be surprised how bad things
can get. Since this is a little of topic here let's finish this
conversation. I am sure we will have another opportunity to discus
this because John keeps bringing it up. By the way, DJ does not need
“drop a day” (or gift day) to qualify.

[Gliderphud]

On Jul 17, 12:21*am, Brian > wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:15*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
>
>
>
> > >On 5 July, 19:40, John Cochrane
> > >wrote:
> > >> Charlie's report on the ssa website says it was the last three pilots
> > >> to launch who could not stay up, which seems a significant detail. If
> > >> the first to launch can find lift, get away from the airport, and wait
> > >> to start, but there really is zero lift in the airport area when the
> > >> back half of the grid launches, then the decision seems reasonable --
> > >> from this very far distance.
>
> > Something I do not understand here, why was the fact that 3 pilots could
> > not stay up a problem, that frequently happens in comps in the UK and the
> > competitors relight. There surely is not restriction on starting once the
> > gate is open. Our rules specify that once the gate is open and the
> > competition has started competitors may take a launch until 1800hrs so
> > they have ample opportunity to compete if they do not suceed at first. Any
> > CD in the UK who allowed the cancellation of a comp day that had been
> > completed by the majority of the competitors because 3 pilots could not
> > stay up would very likely suffer total humiliation not to mention serious
> > abuse, both of which would be richly deserved.
>
> > While a CD in the UK will listen to what competitors are saying they DO
> > NOT take formal advice on conditions from competitors. We do have a non
> > competitor sniffer who relays back the conditions and of course we listen
> > to comments on safety matters. Competitors should not be used as advisors
> > in a formal sense, except on matters of safety, there is a huge conflict
> > of interest and the system is open to allegations of abuse.
>
> I wasn't there but I think I understand the problem. This issue is
> where does a CD draw the line.
>
> Should the CD Open the Gate if a storm settles over the airport and
> the last 3 competitors can not be launched?
>
> How about if they can be launched but it is pouring rain in the drop
> zone, with obviously no chance for them to climb out?
>
> OK lets remove the rain but still obviously no chance to climb out.
>
> The issue is even more of an issue at Parowan due to the distance of
> the drop zone from the airport. If you can't climb immediately you
> will land out. Even those that tried to move away from the bad weather
> still ended up landing out.
>
> On the day in question the conditions were obviously deteriorating as
> they opted to cancel the launching of the following classes because
> they were have a 100% relights/landouts. *I wasn't there but I would
> have to admit I would be seriously ticked off if I were leading the
> contest and then were one of the last 3 to launch into conditions that
> I obviously had *no opportunity to climb out in. *But I can also see
> the point of the large number of contestants that were able to get
> away in better conditions but then have the day scrubbed because only
> a few gliders were not given the opportunity to get away. It is
> unfortunate but in this particular situation I think scrubbing the day
> was the appropriate thing to do. Of course not opening the gate to
> begin with would have probably been the best thing, but I can see that
> this might have been hard to see from any direction other than
> hindsight. The CD probably didn't realize that all the glider
> launching after a certain time were going to landout/relight until he
> had already opened the gate.
>
> Brian

Brian,

Well said. I was taught that it is best to win when your opponents
have done there best, not to wish them bad luck. The sign of a true
sportsman would be to say that it was best to cancel the day if some
of the pilots did not have a fair chance to compete.

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jul 17, 6:24*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> Ok, I'm the CD. Two minutes before I open the gate, I call the last
> launcher and ask how's he doing. He replies he's on a dead glide back
> to the airport. I then call my sports advisor. He replies that he's at
> 12000 feet along with half the class, waiting for the gate to open.
> What do I do?
>
> I realize the late launchers are struggling and hold the gate opening
> for 5 minutes.
>
> Now, its 20 minutes after the last launcher
> rolled........................what do I do? *Do I scrub the day
> because the last 3 launchers aren't getting a fair shot? NO, I realize
> that this sport will never be 100% fair and equal. There is a luck-of-
> the-draw issue with launch position and that is just part of the game.
> I open the gate and the race is on!
>
> Next day when I get 2 protests, I deny them!
>
> JJ Sinclair, who has CD'd 3 national competitions without a single
> protest.
>

Why wait the extra 5 minutes in that case? If it's clear the day has
shut down for any late launchers, why not declare them SOL right away
so you don't risk the starts for the rest of the class by waiting?

9B

[JJ Sinclair]

Andy wrote:

> Why wait the extra 5 minutes in that case?

Not all is known at gate opening time, just that half the fleet is OK
and a few are struggling.

Lets take the same scenario, but this time we'll make it the last day
and we need one more day to make it a contest. Any question as to
opening the gate now? Does anybody think a sane CD would scrub the
day?
JJ

[Tim[_2_]]

On Jul 16, 2:26*pm, Rick Culbertson > wrote:
SNIP
> So really other than producing a list of silly "what if" situations
> what’s the harm in giving it a go, I’ll attend that contest, we just
> need a CM/CD who's willing to give it a go.
> 21-

I agree with 21 that we should actually try some of the rather
innovative ways the RC has offfered CD's and us racers to make things
more fair. Does anyone remember the option to "windicap" sports class
contests? No, I did not think so because it was never tried and then
faded out of the rules. I, myself, hope that drop-a-day is tried
somewhere soon. If I can, I would gladly fly that contest.

The trouble is that the RC rules options (i.e. windicapping, drop-a-
day, etc.) are never made mandatory. Given the rather entrenched
attitiudes of CD's/CM's out there, it is no wonder that no contests
have made use of the drop-a-day rule this year. Given that it was not
used this year, then what are the chances it will be used next year?
Can the RC ever mandate a rules use? I don't have the answer, but I
would like to see some way that innovations in the rules are trial-ed
so that we all may see the real world positives and negatives.

EY

[Chad[_2_]]

Good points JJ. Let me go back to some of my suggestions:
1) have more task advisors for a large contest spread through the
launch order to provide the CD more data on how the day is going. This
won't solve everything, but will give the CD more info to work with.

2) A 2500 tow will take longer, but this also may mean you can start
the launch earlier and the effective search area is increased
substantially (considering searching below 1000' agl is seldom
fruitful). I've noticed that they wait till the first pilot is ensured
good lift, but if the last pilot finds bad conditions then that is the
luck of the launch order. Why such a disparate attitude toward the
first and last in line? A higher tow, if deemed necessary, means less
less relights and airport congestion, greater terrain clearance (the
red hills of Parowan and Craggy at Montague are 1500' above the
field). My larger complaint is that sub 40:1 ships have a safety
complaint with 5+ mile drop points at 2000' above field elevation,
which may be 500' AGL. In the case of the three pilots at the end of
the line, with a 2500' tow available to them, and the option to tow to
a DIFFERENT drop spot, they have another and possibly reasonable
chance to start. I'm trying to find reasons why NOT to disqualify a
day and why to DENY a protest. Over-optimizing a launch so there is no
room for the vaguaries of nature, errors of the CD, or possible
unfairness in the launch is ENCOURAGING protests. You can always get
more towplanes, limit the participants, split into two contest groups,
or kick some contestants up to FAI classes.

I agree that luck will always play a factor, but we need to make
allowances in the rules and procedures for everyone in the grid to
have a "fighting chance."

Let me put these questions back to the group: 30 sailplanes in a
class, 27 launch into good conditions and get away, the last three get
rained on and land out. Open the gate or not?

Now, what if one of the last to launch is the point leader,
substantially altering the outcome. Should this matter?

What if a firebomber landed at the airport and delayed the last three
contestants. Should the reason for the lengthened launch matter?

What if 20% of the field couldn't contact lift at all? What if 50%?

Does the contest committee have the option to implement other
reparations beside throwing out a day?

There is a lot contained in rule 10.8.1.2 that needs further
illumination:
After the announcement of task opening time, the CD should
consult with the task advisors as to whether the selected task is
fair
and safe. If a delay or a task change is deemed necessary, this
should be announced 10 minutes or more before task opening time; task
changes later than this should be avoided when possible.

The rules and the guidance will not help with every circumstance, and
there will occasionally be unique circumstances where we have to rely
on the human judgement, flawed or not, of the CD. But this has
happened before, and it will happen again. And people will be upset,
probably rightly so, thus my urging that contest community figures
this out.

[L33]

This has been a very interesting thread with many facets that warrent
further review. I'd like to throw in support for a concern that Chad
(4Z) raised. There was a case two years ago at Parowan where, in the
fervor to complete the launch, the launch point was steadily moved
away from the airport until the lower performance gliders had to find
lift or land out. While raising the release height was one proposal, I
believe that launch planning should occur such that release points
cannot be approved outside of safe glide distance from the launch
field. For simplicity, the distance should be based on the contest's
poorest glide ratio with a safety factor applied.

I was one of the few that pushed back that day because I was closely
watching the day and knew I had the lowest performing glider on the
air patch. In retrospect I'm very happy with the choice because I
would have joined Chad for a land out and risked damaging my ship had
I put caution behind me. My concern is for less experienced pilots
that might allow them selves to be suckered into launching into just
such a situation.

Competing is a fun hobby, but it should remain safe.

Horst
L33; Gear Down and Welded

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

I am not saying it's perfect but you might see something of interest in
these:
http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/competitionrules2009.pdf

You will note if significant numbers of competitors fail to complete the
task the day is devalued.

[Chad[_2_]]

On Jul 17, 5:15*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> I am not saying it's perfect but you might see something of interest in
> these:http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/competitionrules2009.pdf
>
> You will note if significant numbers of competitors fail to complete the
> task the day is devalued.

US tasks are devalued based on number of finishers / number of
starters. If you never start, you are never included in that equation.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

At 21:22 17 July 2009, Tim wrote:

>Does anyone remember the option to "windicap" sports class
>contests? No, I did not think so because it was never tried and >then
faded out of the rules. I, myself, hope that drop-a-day is >tried
somewhere soon. If I can, I would gladly fly that contest.
>
>EY
>

Ah, but Windicapping was used, Tim. Back in the days of start gates,
Start Time Intervals, etc. I know someone that got a speed task converted
to Distance because the windicap changed his handicap enough that his first
turnpoint wasn't far enough away based on the elapsed time between his
launch and his start (he only started once that day). Remember that
complex formula? STI in minutes was 1.5 times distance to your first turn
times your handicap. Which, in the case of windicapping, was another thing
you didn't know until after the day was complete, so you really didn't
know what your start time interval was until the scores were computed.

And guess what? It was at another Region 9 contest! Those guys must just
love controversy!

All kidding aside, in an ideal world, the contestants that launched last
should have spoken up, and maybe the CD would have listened. Or, he could
say "If I'da wanted to hear from an..." But I do believe as others have
posted, once a task is open, it is a Go.

I was at a Regionals some years ago when Spratt was the CD. He opened the
task for us Open Class guys. One of the big names said "Are you sure you
want to do that? It is nothing but rain down the first leg." His reply
was "I openned the task, so it is Open." I had almost always been the
first out on course, and I almost said "Charlie, I am still here, so you
can call us back and change the task if you like" but I didn't.
Everyone but me finished that day in Open Class.

We can second guess the decisions at Parowan forever. Fact is, there is
human judgement that goes on during this sport. In the air and on the
ground. And there is some luck. The decisions have been made, and people
have been learning. Hopefully, we won't have a repeat of that situation.
Please keep competing, JJ. We aren't ready for you to stop coming out to
play with the rest of us crazies!

Steve Leonard

[JJ Sinclair]

Chad and I have had this conversation before. The CD must make
decisions based primarily on the best course of action for the most
competitors. When the ridge has been in cloud shadow for 30 minutes,
the best (and only) course of action is to move the drop zone to the
sunlight (dry lake). If the low performance ships don't like it,
don't accept a tow, but the CD is doing the best thing for the
majority of the contestants. Same rational applies to opening the
gate, if 12 ships are in a position to take a start, open the gate.
The decisions on day 3 were in accordance with this philosophy. The
decision to throw out day 3 was not in accordance with best course of
action for the most competitors. It is gratifying to see the big hot-
shot protestor didn't reap his ill-gotten gains, finishing well below
the 3rd place "score guessing" the protest committee allwed he'd have
gotten if he only had found lift on day 3.
JJ

Chad wrote:
> Good points JJ. Let me go back to some of my suggestions:
> 1) have more task advisors for a large contest spread through the
> launch order to provide the CD more data on how the day is going. This
> won't solve everything, but will give the CD more info to work with.
>
> 2) A 2500 tow will take longer, but this also may mean you can start
> the launch earlier and the effective search area is increased
> substantially (considering searching below 1000' agl is seldom
> fruitful). I've noticed that they wait till the first pilot is ensured
> good lift, but if the last pilot finds bad conditions then that is the
> luck of the launch order. Why such a disparate attitude toward the
> first and last in line? A higher tow, if deemed necessary, means less
> less relights and airport congestion, greater terrain clearance (the
> red hills of Parowan and Craggy at Montague are 1500' above the
> field). My larger complaint is that sub 40:1 ships have a safety
> complaint with 5+ mile drop points at 2000' above field elevation,
> which may be 500' AGL. In the case of the three pilots at the end of
> the line, with a 2500' tow available to them, and the option to tow to
> a DIFFERENT drop spot, they have another and possibly reasonable
> chance to start. I'm trying to find reasons why NOT to disqualify a
> day and why to DENY a protest. Over-optimizing a launch so there is no
> room for the vaguaries of nature, errors of the CD, or possible
> unfairness in the launch is ENCOURAGING protests. You can always get
> more towplanes, limit the participants, split into two contest groups,
> or kick some contestants up to FAI classes.
>
> I agree that luck will always play a factor, but we need to make
> allowances in the rules and procedures for everyone in the grid to
> have a "fighting chance."
>
> Let me put these questions back to the group: 30 sailplanes in a
> class, 27 launch into good conditions and get away, the last three get
> rained on and land out. Open the gate or not?
>
> Now, what if one of the last to launch is the point leader,
> substantially altering the outcome. Should this matter?
>
> What if a firebomber landed at the airport and delayed the last three
> contestants. Should the reason for the lengthened launch matter?
>
> What if 20% of the field couldn't contact lift at all? What if 50%?
>
> Does the contest committee have the option to implement other
> reparations beside throwing out a day?
>
> There is a lot contained in rule 10.8.1.2 that needs further
> illumination:
> After the announcement of task opening time, the CD should
> consult with the task advisors as to whether the selected task is
> fair
> and safe. If a delay or a task change is deemed necessary, this
> should be announced 10 minutes or more before task opening time; task
> changes later than this should be avoided when possible.
>
> The rules and the guidance will not help with every circumstance, and
> there will occasionally be unique circumstances where we have to rely
> on the human judgement, flawed or not, of the CD. But this has
> happened before, and it will happen again. And people will be upset,
> probably rightly so, thus my urging that contest community figures
> this out.

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jul 17, 7:10*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> Chad and I have had this conversation before. The CD must make
> decisions based primarily on the best course of action for the most
> competitors. When the ridge has been in cloud shadow for 30 minutes,
> the best (and only) course of action is to move the drop zone to the
> sunlight *(dry lake). If the low performance ships don't like it,
> don't accept a tow, but the CD is doing the best thing for the
> majority of the contestants. Same rational applies to opening the
> gate, if 12 ships are in a position to take a start, *open the gate.
> The decisions on day 3 were in accordance with this philosophy. The
> decision to throw out day 3 was not in accordance with best course of
> action for the most competitors. It is gratifying to see the big hot-
> shot protestor didn't reap his ill-gotten gains, finishing well below
> the 3rd place "score guessing" the protest committee allwed he'd have
> gotten if he only had found lift on day 3.
> JJ
>
>
>
> Chad wrote:
> > Good points JJ. Let me go back to some of my suggestions:
> > 1) have more task advisors for a large contest spread through the
> > launch order to provide the CD more data on how the day is going. This
> > won't solve everything, but will give the CD more info to work with.
>
> > 2) A 2500 tow will take longer, but this also may mean you can start
> > the launch earlier and the effective search area is increased
> > substantially (considering searching below 1000' agl is seldom
> > fruitful). I've noticed that they wait till the first pilot is ensured
> > good lift, but if the last pilot finds bad conditions then that is the
> > luck of the launch order. Why such a disparate attitude toward the
> > first and last in line? A higher tow, if deemed necessary, means less
> > less relights and airport congestion, greater terrain clearance (the
> > red hills of Parowan and Craggy at Montague are 1500' above the
> > field). My larger complaint is that sub 40:1 ships have a safety
> > complaint with 5+ mile drop points at 2000' above field elevation,
> > which may be 500' AGL. In the case of the three pilots at the end of
> > the line, with a 2500' tow available to them, and the option to tow to
> > a DIFFERENT drop spot, they have another and possibly reasonable
> > chance to start. I'm trying to find reasons why NOT to disqualify a
> > day and why to DENY a protest. Over-optimizing a launch so there is no
> > room for the vaguaries of nature, errors of the CD, or possible
> > unfairness in the launch is ENCOURAGING protests. You can always get
> > more towplanes, limit the participants, split into two contest groups,
> > or kick some contestants up to FAI classes.
>
> > I agree that luck will always play a factor, but we need to make
> > allowances in the rules and procedures for everyone in the grid to
> > have a "fighting chance."
>
> > Let me put these questions back to the group: 30 sailplanes in a
> > class, 27 launch into good conditions and get away, the last three get
> > rained on and land out. Open the gate or not?
>
> > Now, what if one of the last to launch is the point leader,
> > substantially altering the outcome. Should this matter?
>
> > What if a firebomber landed at the airport and delayed the last three
> > contestants. Should the reason for the lengthened launch matter?
>
> > What if 20% of the field couldn't contact lift at all? What if 50%?
>
> > Does the contest committee have the option to implement other
> > reparations beside throwing out a day?
>
> > There is a lot contained in rule 10.8.1.2 that needs further
> > illumination:
> > After the announcement of task opening time, the CD should
> > consult with the task advisors as to whether the selected task is
> > fair
> > and safe. *If a delay or a task change is deemed necessary, this
> > should be announced 10 minutes or more before task opening time; task
> > changes later than this should be avoided when possible.
>
> > The rules and the guidance will not help with every circumstance, and
> > there will occasionally be unique circumstances where we have to rely
> > on the human judgement, flawed or not, of the CD. But this has
> > happened before, and it will happen again. And people will be upset,
> > probably rightly so, thus my urging that contest community figures
> > this out.

Yes there are always tradeoffs. I do think a provision in the rules
that the CD can move/raise the release point to give each contestant
an opportunity to compete would be justified. It's often a tough call
as information isn't perfect and conditions change in unpredictable
ways. In Parowan this year the Sports class was large enough that
circumstances were often quite different between the beginning and the
end of the launch, but getting an entire class up with at least a
chance to take a start can require some creative measures.

Good discussion.

9B

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jul 17, 1:19*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> > Why wait the extra 5 minutes in that case?
>
> Not all is known at gate opening time, just that half the fleet is OK
> and a few are struggling.
>
> Lets take the same scenario, but this time we'll make it the last day
> and we need one more day to make it a contest. Any question as to
> opening the gate now? Does anybody think a sane CD would scrub the
> day?
> JJ

But waiting 5 minutes could screw it up for everyone else. If you
believe in the luck of the draw than there is no point in waiting
since what is known and not known at gate opening time is all part of
the luck factor that you you are advocating we not try to correct for.

Last day versus first day shouldn't matter if we are trying to do the
fair thing - though I appreciate that the pressure to cut corners to
get a contest in goes up as the number of remaining days goes down.
Some CDs might open the gate with 60 percent of the fleet back on the
ground. You might well get a contest in, but would it be worth it?

9B

[JJ Sinclair]

Andy wrote?

> But waiting 5 minutes could screw it up for everyone else.

The 5 minutes comes right from the master, Charlie Spratt. Its an
acknowledgment that some are in trouble, but we're here to race and
race we will. Probably done more as an answer (in advance) to any
potential Parowan type protests that might be lurking out there.

> Last day versus first day shouldn't matter if we are trying to do the
> fair thing - though I appreciate that the pressure to cut corners to
> get a contest in goes up as the number of remaining days goes down.
> Some CDs might open the gate with 60 percent of the fleet back on the
> ground. You might well get a contest in, but would it be worth it?

See above under, "We're here to race and race we will". If you want to
hold a contest that is completely fair, get the Parowan management
group together and the winner will be decided by the one who wins the
most protests (or prtests to the original protests)!

This has been a good thread and I believe much has been learned,
however I must take my exit now. I'm off to fly a contest where we
don't protest our launch positions!
Love & kisses to all,
JJ

[Chad[_2_]]

Fly like the wind JJ! Good luck.

[John Cochrane]

> The CD must make
> decisions based primarily on the best course of action for the most
> competitors.

Sorry, in order to run a race, the CD must ensure that the race is
fair (and safe) for all competitors, not "most" competitors. If all
the towplanes break down with two gliders left to launch, you cannot
run a race, even if 44 pilots are circling around in a beautiful sky.
We can debate whether Parowan represented such a circumstance, but not
the principle.

John Cochrane

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 17, 2:22*pm, Tim > wrote:
> I, myself, hope that drop-a-day is tried
> somewhere soon. If I can, I would gladly fly that contest.

Tim,

I don't think you need to inflict, or bless, anyone else with the rule
to find out how it would influence contest results. Just pick a few
contests from this season and ask the scorers to send you the Winscore
files. Then get yourself a copy of Winscore, open the contest data
file, set the "use worst day scoring adjustment" option to on, and
then rescore the contest.

Let us know if there is any significant change in final results.

Andy

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Jul 18, 12:51*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2:22*pm, Tim > wrote:
>
> > I, myself, hope that drop-a-day is tried
> > somewhere soon. If I can, I would gladly fly that contest.

Drop-a-day might make some sense in a long contest (like the ASAs
summer long series, which effectively does drop the worst days), but
in my recent experience back east it's tough to get enough good
contest days in to even have a valid contest! And if the purpose of
a contest is to find out who the best pilot is, then cutting down the
number of scored days just increases the luck factor - which in my
book is the opposite of "fair".

My $.02 on this whole debate (having been at contests where there was
a lot of waiting around after the launch was complete for the lift to
get high enough to open the gate: CDs need to be aware of the
conditions during the launch and not open the gate until everyone has
a fair chance to climb out - once. But once the gate is open, it's a
race, barring the most unusual circumstances (and then only if they
are safety-of-flight related).

Kirk
66

[John Cochrane]

> Drop-a-day might make some sense in a long contest (like the ASAs
> summer long series, which effectively does drop the worst days), but
> in my recent experience back east it's tough to get enough good
> contest days in to even have a valid contest! * And if the purpose of
> a contest is to find out who the best pilot is, then cutting down the
> number of scored days just increases the luck factor - which in my
> book is the opposite of *"fair".

OK, time to move drop a day to its own subject.

Let's start by getting the facts straight. You don't drop a day of the
whole contest, as if it were rained out! Each individual pilot gets
to drop his worst score. Let's read the rule:

11.4.4 Worst Day Score Adjustment If this is declared to be in
effect, an adjustment is calculated and added to the cumulative score
of eachentrant.
11.4.4.1 Worst Day Score Differential For each entrant, WDSD is the
greatest difference on any contest day between the entrant's score
(before application of a Contest penalty) and the highest score
achieved by any regular entrant in the class on that day.
11.4.4.2 A Worst Day Score Adjustment is added to each entrant's
cumulative score, as follows:
After one official day: WDSA = zero
After 2 official days: WDSA = 0.25 * WDSD
After 3 official days: WDSA = 0.5 * WDSD
After 4 official days: WDSA = 0.75 * WDSD
After 5 or more official days: WDSA = WDSD

Now, before we go on about how complicated the rules are, understand
why it is what it is. First, by 11.4.4.1 you don't just "drop" your
lowest score. Why not? They tried that in the UK, and one guy had to
drop a 500 point day -- which was the heavily devalued day he won!
That's silly. So, instead of just "dropping your worst score" you
instead get to "have the winner's score for a day." Next,for all this
worrying about short east coast contests, 11.4.4.2 specifies that
"drop a day" phases in for short contests. So you don't actually get
to fully "drop a day" until 5 days are in the bag.

OK, now you see that the obvious glitches, and Kirk and other's
objections about short eastern contests are already anticipated in the
rules.

Next, is it a good idea? We won't really know until we try it. Many
contests have been re-scored using drop a day, and it does exactly
what you'd think -- it helps pilots who have an isolated landout. I
regard this as "reducing the luck factor" not "increasing the luck
factor," but that's subjective

But we don't really know its effects until pilots fly knowing that
they can drop the day, and we see what different decisions they
make.

There are good arguments on both sides. Maybe pilolts will go for
broke, knowing that they can drop a bad day. Maybe not, knowing that
there is enough bad luck in this sport.

Personally, I hope that it will lead to better measurement and better
behavior. You don't have to fly into that thunderstorm if you know you
can drop the day. I also think it will be more fun. If you land out on
the first day of a national, you don't face 9 more days knowing you've
tanked the contest. And I've seen too many contests -- especially in
the east -- decided on luck of one landout on a weak day. But again,
it's all hot air until we try it.

Those of you who would like to try it, you need to tell CDs and CM's
rather than wait for them to do it. They are sensitive to pilot
opinion, and usually don't want to force things on pilots who don't
want it.

John Cochrane BB

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 15:43 18 July 2009, John Cochrane wrote:
>> The CD must make
>> decisions based primarily on the best course of action for the most
>> competitors.
>
>Sorry, in order to run a race, the CD must ensure that the race is
>fair (and safe) for all competitors, not "most" competitors. If all
>the towplanes break down with two gliders left to launch, you cannot
>run a race, even if 44 pilots are circling around in a beautiful sky.
>We can debate whether Parowan represented such a circumstance, but not
>the principle.
>
>John Cochrane

and that ladies and gentlemen is your failing, you are trying to do what
is suggested and make a contest fair for all competitors. No matter how
hard you try, no matter how good you are if you do actually manage to
suceed in that aim it will be because of pure blind luck. There will
always be something which does not go exactly according to plan, no plan
survives first contact remember.
You have to do be best you can and that does really mean that you have to
make it fair for as many competitors as possible, you cannot control the
weather so forget all and think most. It does not alter the premise that
if a competition gate is opened and competitors complete the task it
should never be cancelled.
As far a safety is concerned you have even less chance of making it safe
for all competitors than you do of making it fair, the best you can do is
ensure that the conditions existing are such that pilots of the level of
competence engaged in the task can compete safely. What pilots actually
do, how far they are prepared to let competitiveness overcome their
airmansip, or not, will determine how safe a competition actually is. The
actions of a CD can contribute much but how safe a competition is is
firmly in the hands of the competing pilots.
While you can set in place a fair framework you can never control the
envoironment to ensure it.
All the whining in the world would not cause a competition day to be
cancelled under our rules, and quite rightly so and there will always be
someone who percieves they were unfairly treated if for no other reason
that they need an excuse to explain why they failed.

[Nick Kennedy]

This has been a long and very interesting thread. How the rules CAN look
and be interpreted from different points of view when push comes to
shove.
I too came from the Hang Gliding world as both a competitor and a
Nationals CD and have had to deal with several pivotal decisions. It is
tough on everyone when one of these situations come up and pilots take up
sides. Ron Gleason pointed out several vague aspects to our current set of
rules and I hope this winter these can be clarified to make it the playing
field a bit more level and clear.
One more spice in this giant pot of stew:
If a guy has a rope break and lands out and can't get back in the air
does he have a fair opportunity to compete?
What if this guy was KS and he is in first place on the last day?
What if this guy was Joe glider guy and was in last place and the day had
the best weather conditions of the comp and the whole gang flew 350 miles
at 90 MPH. do you throw out the day?

This protest was a tough decision that was seriously looked. I can both
sides very clearly, as I was in the middle of the sports class launch that
day. I feel for the protester. I feel for JJ.
Never the less it was another GREAT Parowan contest. Super people to hang
with, excellent task calls, superior management. Some real top level
flying.
I learned alot about the "rules and had a blast to boot
Nick Kennedy
XS
At 23:07 18 July 2009, wrote:
>On Jul 18, 12:51=A0pm, Andy wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 2:22=A0pm, Tim wrote:
>>
>> > I, myself, hope that drop-a-day is tried
>> > somewhere soon. If I can, I would gladly fly that contest.
>
>Drop-a-day might make some sense in a long contest (like the ASAs
>summer long series, which effectively does drop the worst days), but
>in my recent experience back east it's tough to get enough good
>contest days in to even have a valid contest! And if the purpose of
>a contest is to find out who the best pilot is, then cutting down the
>number of scored days just increases the luck factor - which in my
>book is the opposite of "fair".
>
>My $.02 on this whole debate (having been at contests where there was
>a lot of waiting around after the launch was complete for the lift to
>get high enough to open the gate: CDs need to be aware of the
>conditions during the launch and not open the gate until everyone has
>a fair chance to climb out - once. But once the gate is open, it's a
>race, barring the most unusual circumstances (and then only if they
>are safety-of-flight related).
>
>Kirk
>66
>

[Nick Kennedy]

This has been a long and very interesting thread. How the rules CAN look
and be interpreted from different points of view when push comes to
shove.
I too came from the Hang Gliding world as both a competitor and a
Nationals CD and have had to deal with several pivotal decisions. It is
tough on everyone when one of these situations come up and pilots take up
sides. Ron Gleason pointed out several vague aspects to our current set of
rules and I hope this winter these can be clarified to make it the playing
field a bit more level and clear.
One more spice in this giant pot of stew:
If a guy has a rope break and lands out and can't get back in the air
does he have a fair opportunity to compete?
What if this guy was KS and he is in first place on the last day?
What if this guy was Joe glider guy and was in last place and the day had
the best weather conditions of the comp and the whole gang flew 350 miles
at 90 MPH. do you throw out the day?

This protest was a tough decision that was seriously looked. I can both
sides very clearly, as I was in the middle of the sports class launch that
day. I feel for the protester. I feel for JJ.
Never the less it was another GREAT Parowan contest. Super people to hang
with, excellent task calls, superior management. Some real top level
flying.
I learned alot about the "rules and had a blast to boot
Nick Kennedy
XS
At 23:07 18 July 2009, wrote:
>On Jul 18, 12:51=A0pm, Andy wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 2:22=A0pm, Tim wrote:
>>
>> > I, myself, hope that drop-a-day is tried
>> > somewhere soon. If I can, I would gladly fly that contest.
>
>Drop-a-day might make some sense in a long contest (like the ASAs
>summer long series, which effectively does drop the worst days), but
>in my recent experience back east it's tough to get enough good
>contest days in to even have a valid contest! And if the purpose of
>a contest is to find out who the best pilot is, then cutting down the
>number of scored days just increases the luck factor - which in my
>book is the opposite of "fair".
>
>My $.02 on this whole debate (having been at contests where there was
>a lot of waiting around after the launch was complete for the lift to
>get high enough to open the gate: CDs need to be aware of the
>conditions during the launch and not open the gate until everyone has
>a fair chance to climb out - once. But once the gate is open, it's a
>race, barring the most unusual circumstances (and then only if they
>are safety-of-flight related).
>
>Kirk
>66
>

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Jul 18, 4:50*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:

> OK, time to move drop a day to its own subject.
>
> Let's start by getting the facts straight. You don't drop a day of the
> whole contest, as if it were rained out! *Each individual pilot gets
> to drop his worst score. Let's read the rule:
>
(good explanation snipped...)

John, thanks for clarifying the rule - but if it isn't "dropping a
day", perhaps we should call it something else!

Personally, I don't agree with your assumption that it will change the
way most pilots will compete - I think most will still try as hard as
they can and not even think about being able to get a WDSA added to
their score. Ow, my head hurts!

And the rule seems to go against the fact that short contests are more
luck prone, while longer contests allow mistakes to be made up (or
gives other pilots a chance to make mistakes...).

Like the old "add 15 minutes" rule, I'm not convinced this option
fixes anything that needs fixing.

Kirk
66

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jul 18, 6:19*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> Andy wrote?
>
> The 5 minutes comes right from the master, Charlie Spratt. Its an
> acknowledgment that some are in trouble, but we're here to race and
> race we will. Probably done more as an answer (in advance) to any
> potential Parowan type protests that might be lurking out there.
>

Got it. The 5 minutes is just lip service - not my preferred approach,
by probably effective most of the time.

I do think in this case the CD would have been justified in not
opening the Sports Class gate at all - as disappointing as that may
have been for several dozen pilots. Opening the gate makes an implicit
statement that the CD believes everyone in the class has been given a
fair opportunity to get a start. This should probably be made more
explicit - either in the rules or in the guidance given to CDs. We
should also consider making it more explicit that the CD should take
whatever measures s/he thinks are necessary to ensure that
opportunity, including raising the release altitude and/or changing
the drop zone (changing the drop zone in particular is tricky, because
changing ANYTHING can lead to griping and protests).

9B

[Chad[_2_]]

Well said Andy. Your comments underscore the importance of the task
advisors (perhaps we should call them "task and gate advisors"). The
rules indicate how these individuals should be well respected, fair,
and experience. Using their input more is less likely to generate
protests. I'll throw in my earlier comment here that in a big contest,
we probably need more task advisors to get an accurate "sample."

4Z
(on hiatus in 2009)

[Andy[_10_]]

On Jul 19, 8:01*am, Chad > wrote:
> Well said Andy. Your comments underscore the importance of the task
> advisors (perhaps we should call them "task and gate advisors"). The
> rules indicate how these individuals should be well respected, fair,
> and experience. Using their input more is less likely to generate
> protests. I'll throw in my earlier comment here that in a big contest,
> we probably need more task advisors to get an accurate "sample."
>
> 4Z
> (on hiatus in 2009)

The tension in raising release altitudes is that it delays the launch,
but when conditions are deteriorating the CD may be forced with a
choice between getting the current class launched AND started versus
getting the next class launched at all. Not an enviable situation, but
sometimes you gotta make the tough call. I think once the majority of
a class is in the air, making sure they can all get a chance at a
start takes priority over commencing the launch for the next class.

See you at the 2010 Sports Nationals Chad?

9B