Andy: Not enough review? RC has been asking pilots for a year for
feedback, we had a poll question, we've assembled all we could learn
about how it worked this year, and I can't tell you how many hours of
discussion went into talking about it.

More feedback is always welcome, but information is most useful when
it comes around poll time and before the annual rules committee
meeting in November. We're now at the stage of finalizing things for
the SSA board. As per minutes, "start anywhere" is scheduled to go to
nationals next year unless there is some nuclear disaster we don't
know about.


I don't understand how giving you credit for the actual distance from
start point to first turn meakes you want to pop the brakes and go
down to start more often. Explain please.


It sounds like you're more upset with start altitudes than "start
anywhere." Start altitudes should be low enough that the last guy to
launch has a reasonable chance to get to MSH before the gate opens.
We're also going to encourage CDs to set start heights at least 500'
below cloudbase to stop this idiotic prestart gaggling in the clouds,
and 500' below dry thermal tops so you don't have to spend 20 minutes
clawing that last few feet before start. With the option to start out
the top in a strong thermal (which was always there) I'm still not
sure what you're unhappy about.
____________________________

Sorry John - poor choice of words on my part.

I know there was a lot of discussion here (and a lot of other places
that I don't witness first-hand) prior to the 2008 season. I also know
about the survey question - which is all good and appropriate process
for RC decision-making. My observation was I hadn't seen any public
dialog about the rule 'a posteriori'. For me it helps to compare my
actual experience with the real-world observations of others. I also
find it interesting to compare actual experiences across a number of
people with the various 'a priori' hypotheses we discussed this time
last year. Not trying to second-guess the RC - I'm just curious. There
are potentially a number of interesting race strategy implications so
a broad discussion based on actual experience with the rule is a good
thing in my book.

I definitely took a lot more starts at Region 9 last year than in
years past and on a couple of days was the last starter by something
like 20 minutes as I struggled to get a start I was happy with. I
think there were a couple of reasons behind this. My experience was
that on many days there was a lot of variability in the strength and
height of the lift around the start cylinder. With start anywhere you
don't have the usual clustering of gliders trying to find the best
thermal in a relatively small sector of the cylinder near the first
leg. That's because under the old rules there is a tradeoff between
taking the best lift you can find in that sector and taking a distance
'penalty' to take a start with a stronger climb through the top from
further back. The probability that someone would find a superior
thermal undetected by others in that sector was relatively small.
Lastly, under the old rule if you didn't find a great thermal pre-
start you'd just start out the side as near to MSH as you can get and
look for a good climb on course. Now, under the new rule you are much
more likely to take a start through the top of the cylinder because
you have 75 square miles to explore and you can eliminate risk, as
well as the search and centering time associated with trying to get a
great first climb out on course. Under the new rule the odds are much
higher that someone is going to find a superior thermal somewhere in
those 75 square miles, possibly undetected by many or any others. If
that person is someone other than you, you will be at a disadvantage
right out of the gate. I could have dismissed this as paranoia, except
for those cases when I saw gliders heading out on course 2,000' higher
than the top of my miserable thermal.

As to the MSH issue - I'm not upset and you are right, the issue is
more about setting a proper MSH than the rule per se, though I think
there is some interaction between the two. If people can start
anywhere and if they are making more starts through the top of the
cylinder where they want some room to get centered in the thermal
before going through MSH then the CD is well advised to consider
terrain clearance (including the 'thermal centering buffer') across
the whole cylinder rather than just near the first leg course line.
The situation I experienced had to do with the fact that on a couple
of days the best thermals were up in the high ground or even on the
far side of the 10,000' ridge east of the field. With an 11,000' MSH,
several of us faced some terrain-induced pucker trying to connect
enough below MSH to center the lift without losing our ability to get
back to the airport side of the ridge. Setting the MSH at 12,000'
resolved that issue, but not before one pre-start outlanding on the
far side of the ridge. Obviously, the issue can be very site-specific
and (as you point out) could happen under the old rules too - it just
is a bit more widespread now with increased through-the-top starts
across the whole cylinder.

It would be interesting (by looking at flight traces) to see if the
new rule creates more spread in the field over the first few miles
than the old rule - my hypothesis is that it does. That's not a
negative judgement as personally I prefer the new rule.

9B