Start Anywhere

I was reviewing some contest flights from 2008 and it occurred to me
that there hadn't been a thorough review of people's experience with
the new "start anywhere" rule - which measures distance on the first
leg from a start from anywhere along the boundries of the start
cylinder.

I general I prefer it to the old rule, but it seems to put more
pressure on getting the perfect start. I found myself popping the
brakes and going down for a lot more starts than in prior years. At
Parowan a few of us lobbied for and got a higher MSH to keep people
out of the weeds when going back down for another start in the high
ground east of the field (where most of the good thermals were).

Any other reactions out there?

9B

On Dec 22, 6:03*am, wrote:
I was reviewing some contest flights from 2008 and it occurred to me
that there hadn't been a thorough review of people's experience with
the new "start anywhere" rule - which measures distance on the first
leg from a start from anywhere along the boundries of the start
cylinder.

I general I prefer it to the old rule, but it seems to put more
pressure on getting the perfect start. I found myself popping the
brakes and going down for a lot more starts than in prior years. At
Parowan a few of us lobbied for and got a higher MSH to keep people
out of the weeds when going back down for another start in the high
ground east of the field (where most of the good thermals were).

Any other reactions out there?

9B

I brought this up a couple times at the regionals I flew this year. I
was assured that we were flying "start anywhere" with actual distance
from the start fix to the first turn being scored, but I never saw the
actual rule that made it so. This is what the 08 regional FAI rules,
published on the SSA web site state: "10.8.6 The distance of the
first task leg shall be taken as the distance from the Start Point to
the control fix at the first turnpoint, minus the Start Radius."
That, of course, is the old rule.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

I took a start by climbing out the top, near the back of the circle,
then winscore gave me another start with a penalty ( I wasn't below
start gate altitude for 2 minutes), as I nicked the front edge of the
circle on my way to the first turn. This rule requires a lot more
talking to the scorer, not sure its worth the hassle.
JJ

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.

Evan: 10.8.6 was a typo. The intent, and what was programmed into
winscore, is to give you the distance from start point to the control
fix at the first turnpoint. That's what will be implemeted this year.

JJ: There's nothing new about this. Even under the old system,
winscore would have picked out the last start with a penalty, and it
would have been up to you to find the better earlier start. We're
working with Guy Byars to automate this process, which should help
scorers. If your last start has a penalty, then winscore will (we
hope) automatically look for a better previous start. Of course,
nothing beats understanding the rules and checking that you're being
credited for the "right" start, but we're all working on getting it
automated so you don't have to.

More questions please! It's freezing darn cold outside and a great
time for everyone to understand how "start anywhere" will work this
year.

John Cochrane
BB

I think the "start anywhere" idea was great and the CD suggestion for
the 500' buffer even better. However I can't seem to connect the dots
on JJ issue with the penalty and nicking the start cyl. along with BB
explaination. BB, would you you expand on what happened to JJ and your
response.
R

I think the "start anywhere" idea was great and the CD suggestion for
the 500' buffer even better. However I can't seem to connect the dots
on JJ issue with the penalty and nicking the start cyl. along with BB
explaination. BB, would you you expand on what happened to JJ and your
response.

Sure. The "start anywhere" rule says you must take your last start, if
that start doesn't incur a penalty. If your last start incurs a
penalty, then you're free to use earlier starts. A start is any time
you exit the cylinder, so when JJ started out the top/back but then
glided back down and nicked the cylinder he did "start" again.
However, since he wasn't under the start height for 2 minutes, this
last "start" would have the 2 minute penalty associated with it.
Therefore, JJ was free to use the earlier start out the top, which is
what he wanted to do all along. (We're going to try to automate this
process this year so that you don't have to be a rules expert or
butter up the scorer.)

This is the rule working exactly as it should. If someone nips out
the top/back and then tries to bump the start gaggles, he's not going
to get away with it -- he will be forced to take the last start. But
if you start out the top and try your best to stay above the start
cylinder but inadvertently nip into it, you're ok.

By the way, this is exactly what would have happened on the old rule.
Winscore would have found the last start, noticed the 2 minute
penalty, and suggested a start with penalty. Then it would have been
up to JJ and the scorer to search back and see if he had a previous
start that avoided the big penalty. The only difference is that now
JJ gets credit for the extra 10 miles or so of distance, whereas
before he would have had to give that up.

I hope this clears it up. Short version: If you stay the heck out of
the start cylinder after starting, you can ignore all the fancy
language in the rules.

I wrote a little "contest corner" explaining the new start, still
available he
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.c...t_anywhere.htm

John Cochrane
BB

Thanks, BB.

Yes, I like the new rule.

-T8

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

Andy-San,

Like you I prefer the new rule over the old, but I disagree that it
puts more pressure on getting the perfect start. Without the rule,
there is a lot more lurking and loitering around the side of the start
cylinder in the direction of the first turn. With the rule, one can
explore the whole start cylinder for a good thermal and take it out
the top. I would feel more pressure under the old rule.

There is a small learning curve for scorers (as you know I was the
scorer at Parowan last year). The rule essentially requires that the
scorer examine any and all warnings or suggested penalties at a start.
Pilots should *always* verify their given score against what the
scorer accepts from Winscore, and know the rules wrt starting out the
top and nicking the cylinder again on course to the first turn (ref.
JJ's comment). And it never, EVER hurts to take the scorer a cold
something in a green bottle with your question, especially in Utah.

I'm looking forward to FLYING with the new rule at Parowan this year.
It's not even 2009 yet and the contest already has 35 pilots
registered!

~ted/2NO