On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 2:58:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Sean, it must frustrating to always be right and have to spend SO much time explaining yourself to those who aren't bright or experienced enough to figure it out on their own.

Seriously, I invite you to examine the starting times of the leaders at Elmira: IIRC, seldom did they hang around and often they were some of the first ones out of the gate. There was little of the pre-start maneuvering I've seen at many contests as pilots jockey to be the last one to leave and try to bounce the gaggles on the first leg to catch up. For one thing, the weather wasn't usually very kind to those who lingered. For another, we were blessed with pilots who had their own ideas about what to do to win and flew that way. You and I haven't flown at the same contests so perhaps your experience is different. I saw a lot of what you describe many years ago but as the number of participants has declined precipitously, it's been less of an issue. And to Andy's point, I have to admit I saw less leeching at Elmira than in prior years.

There was one exception to the no late starts paradigm: Gary Ittner won the third day by leaving nearly 30 minutes later than the next-fastest finishers (and 10+ minutes after the next-to-last starter) on the longest task and at the highest speed of the contest. Who really knows what went into his decision (I recall his saying something about it not being altogether intentional). But one of the most outstanding performances of the national contest would arguably have been prevented by a 30 minute start window rule.

I'm playing with you, of course. One can prove anything with statistics. But you know that already.

In the spirit of cooperation, however, and as long as we're thinking out of the box, here's an idea.

Let's say you're right with your statement that the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game [is] the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring." The incentive to orbit at 80 kts. to 100 kts. to avoid (1) popping out of the top of the start cylinder or (2) being the first to leave is built into the rules.

So let's get rid of the 2 minute rule. That was put in to prevent pilots from climbing up above the cylinder and diving down through it (and through the gaggles) to start through the side. The solution to THAT problem is very easy: get rid of the start cylinder. Let's move to a simple start LINE with a maximum altitude. Start whenever you want by crossing the line in the prescribed direction. No incentive to cluster at the top of the thermal; just be under the top of the gate when you go through. To make it even safer, pilots would have to announce their intent and enter the start line area for a run at the gate by passing over an initial point (we could abbreviate it "IP") so everyone would know where they were. Yeah...

Within weeks, software designers would add a feature to graphically depict the entry path all the way into the start line on a moving map without overspeeding. Simple. No more pushing the nose forward the last few seconds and ignoring the redline to squeak under the top of gate. Just tell the software what your personal maximum speed is (the manufacturer's redline, altitude adjusted, would be the default) and follow directions, as if on a very fast final glide.

And with FLARM, no more worries about crowding and potential collisions. Eureka!!! Much safer and more straightforward starts. Set the line any height you want. Sometimes the solution really is simple.

This would be great for folks like you who want head-to-head racing. No more gliders starting as far as 10 miles apart through opposite sides of the cylinder or, even more outrageous, out the top.

Just to head off the inevitable objections, the talk about high-speed start gate accidents in the old days was, in my experience, overblown. I only know of two incidents. One involved a glider where the main pins weren't safetied and the whole assembly came apart at high speed, with the pilot parachuting to safety. The other involved an enthusiastic young pilot in an early (read: flexible) ASW 20 who experienced flutter and landed safely. I'm sure there were others, but the start line was not nearly as lethal as those who promoted the adoption of GPS loggers made it out to be in order to hasten the mandatory use of those gadgets.

We're currently using finish lines in some contests; how about a start line? I can say from experience that a pilot knew exactly where he could and couldn't fly (no circling in the gate), and knew exactly where to look for traffic even without FLARM.

So let's quit arguing about limited start times and get back to the way real men (and women) flew in the golden age of soaring! (sigh)

Just trying to help.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

I really can't think of any big reasons against a start line. There is some modest incentive to cluster off the upwind edge so maybe a little hooking the gate? You would almost certainly have to use a line if you wanted to use any kind of time-regulated start procedure to reduce leeching. (true for GP obviously, but also 15-minute start windows).

Generally the biggest constraint on where people start is where the thermals are. They stubbornly refuse to appear where and when I want them so I have to adjust. I think start out the top has been helpful in keeping people from getting low on the first leg, though when I looked at it last it appeared that people paid a price for this insurance in the form of slower initial club rates on average. Not surprising when you think about it.

9B