contest corner

On Dec 26, 12:31*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
JJ Sinclair wrote:
*I do like calling a
whole bunch of turns, so many that some wont be able to do them all
and will be forced to quit and head home when their time's up. Call it
JJ's AT, a way to *call an assigned task in sports class.
Happy, Happy
JJ

I don't fly contests anymore, but I would have enjoyed Sports Class a
lot more with JJ running it! I preferred AT much more than the Sports
Class "do your own thing" task, because DYOT is what I did when I wasn't
flying a contest. I liked contest flying much more when the AT was the
standard, because it was _different_ from my usual flying. Why put up
with the hassle and cost of a contest to do exactly what I always do?

Eventually (after 28 years), I quit contest flying because it was
interfering with my soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly


I, too, have not done any contest flying for the past few years. And I
liked
contests.

It seems to me that we should decide on what properties we would like
to reward, those we would least encourage, and those we would
penalize. Try this. Make a list.

money
risk tolerance
weather forecasting
weather assessment
flying skill
rule reading

I'd bet that rule reading would end up low on the reward list, but
ends up being
one of the primary requirements for contest success. Another would
probably
be money, low on reward list, primary for contest success. How about
risk?
Do we want to encourage this?

Dennis Brown LY

On Dec 27, 6:32*am, n7ly wrote:
On Dec 26, 12:31*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:





JJ Sinclair wrote:
*I do like calling a
whole bunch of turns, so many that some wont be able to do them all
and will be forced to quit and head home when their time's up. Call it
JJ's AT, a way to *call an assigned task in sports class.
Happy, Happy
JJ

I don't fly contests anymore, but I would have enjoyed Sports Class a
lot more with JJ running it! I preferred AT much more than the Sports
Class "do your own thing" task, because DYOT is what I did when I wasn't
flying a contest. I liked contest flying much more when the AT was the
standard, because it was _different_ from my usual flying. Why put up
with the hassle and cost of a contest to do exactly what I always do?

Eventually (after 28 years), I quit contest flying because it was
interfering with my soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

I, too, have not done any contest flying for the past few years. And I
liked
contests.

It seems to me that we should decide on what properties we would like
to reward, those we would least encourage, and those we would
penalize. Try this. Make a list.

* * * * *money
* * * * *risk tolerance
* * * * *weather forecasting
* * * * *weather assessment
* * * * *flying skill
* * * * *rule reading

I'd bet that rule reading would end up low on the reward list, but
ends up being
one of the primary requirements for contest success. Another would
probably
be money, low on reward list, primary for contest success. How about
risk?
Do we want to encourage this?

Dennis Brown *LY


I think the the one attribute that discourages the most pilots is
available time - both for practice and to participate in contests.
It's why you see many competition pilots either have lots of schedule
flexibility (retired, have their own businesses, professional pilots
(not so true anymore)), or devote nearly all their free time to the
sport (many of these don't have kids at home). It used to be that
soaring contests were more of a family affair, but less so now.

I hear all the comments about complex rules and in all honesty don't
fully agree. Yes they are long and the wording can be a bit
convoluted, but they are designed to make it so that there is no
advantage to be gained in finding strategies to game the rules or
trade safety for points. The extra wording is to close loopholes that
schemers could take advantage of. Pretty much all you need to do is:
1) Get to the grid on time and do what officials tell you to do, 2)
Know how to put a task in your computer, 3) Stay below max start
height for 2 minutes before you start, 4) Start from the front half of
the start cylinder AFTER the start opens, 5) Fly to the assigned
turnpoints in the assigned order (and pick 11 or fewer on a MAT), 6)
Stay away from controlled/restricted airspace, 7) Get back as fast as
you can (but over the minimum time on TATs and MATs), 8) Finish above
minimum finish height, 9) Turn in your flight log promptly after you
land.

Maybe there are a couple of other rules worth knowing, but mostly they
correspond to common sense. For instance, you should try to land out
at an airport if there is one you can get to. In that case you get an
airport bonus for doing the sensible thing. I'd rather have the rule
than wonder how many points I am losing by turning back to an airport
instead of doing a straight glide on course until touchdown. A second
example is the penalty for finishing below minimum finish height -
without the a pilot can make perhaps 50 points on the field by
managing a final glide so they run out of speed and altitude right at
the finish line. In these cases and many others the extra wording in
the rules makes it so that I don' t have to do mental math in the air
to tradeoff points versus safety margins - doing the right thing
doesn't carry a point penalty.

I haven't read the rules cover-to-cover since 2003 - seriously. I do
read the changes every year - takes maybe 30 minutes. Generally the
changes make life easier. A lot of the details are for contest
managers and CDs to know, but aren't necessary to know in order to
compete effectively. We could author a "plain English" version of the
rules without the formulae that simply explains what the rule is
intended to accomplish/encourage/discourage. Without that you have to
either read and understand the rules or take it on faith that you
don't have to understand all the calculations to compete effectively.

9B

On Dec 27, 10:16*am, Andy wrote:
I haven't read the rules cover-to-cover since 2003 - seriously. I do
read the changes every year - takes maybe 30 minutes. Generally the
changes make life easier. A lot of the details are for contest
managers and CDs to know, but aren't necessary to know in order to
compete effectively. *We could author a "plain English" version of the
rules without the formulae that simply explains what the rule is
intended to accomplish/encourage/discourage. Without that you have to
either read and understand the rules or take it on faith that you
don't have to understand all the calculations to compete effectively.


As proof that I haven't read the rules since 2003, I just noticed that
the rules do have a "plain English" explanation of sorts. Appendix A
explains the logic behind each rule without all the formulae and
nomenclature. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good.

The rules for FAI Regionals are 43 pages long, but the rules
themselves are actually 29 of those pages - the remainder is the
"plain English" translation and some other details. Out of the 29
pages, 15 apply to the contest organizers (CM and CD) and 5 apply to
the scorer (or scoring program writer). This means that 9 pages of
rules apply specifically to pilots (or 4 pages of the "plain English"
Appendix). If if you spend 5 minutes per page that's less than an hour
each year. Is it really that big a burden?

9B

On Dec 26, 10:16*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:
Hi Andy,
When I take my turn in the barrel and CD a contest, I never assign a
final turn. Why? Because I won't call a MAT in the first place unless
conditions are unpredictable to the point I can't say for sure just
where to send them. I always try to assign the first point so that
everybody must start making decisions at the same place. Only at 3:00
PM will I call a MAT with no mandatory turns, but to make them all hit
a final turn or two, late in the day with no idea what the conditions
will be is something I don't like. The final point in a TAT is bad
enough under unpredictable conditions, but at least you have a large
hunk of sky to get in that last fix before heading home. I have seen
MAT's with 2 first turns assigned and the pilot must decide which one
to use before calling his own. Bad idea. Choose right and your a hero,
choose wrong *and you could end up being a zero. I do like calling a
whole bunch of turns, so many that some wont be able to do them all
and will be forced to quit and head home when their time's up. Call it
JJ's AT, a way to *call an assigned task in sports class.
Happy, Happy
JJ



Andy wrote:
On Dec 23, 12:32*pm, Rick Culbertson wrote:
Yes, I too find myself guilty of very quietly
groaning under my breath (you can’t let the other pilots know) when a
MAT with one assign TP is called.

They know now Rick - *they're watching you. *;-)

In all honesty I kind of like the MAT with no assigned turns (I like
variety so it's not to the exclusion of the AST or any other task). I
enjoy predicting the weather on the fly. The problem on really dodgy
days is that it can totally scramble the standings because things get
UN-predictable. These days tend to favor the bold - the pilot who
decides to "get out of Dodge" and racks up some miles going to some
far corner of the task area following the best weather. Some of my
most enjoyable contest flights have been these types.

Here's another idea: A MAT with a couple of turns at the start and a
couple of turns at the end to line everybody up again. Maybe 1/2 to
2/3 of the nominal task is assigned. *Call it the "donut hole MAT", or
the "leech scraper MAT". You're not head's down with the computer all
day but you do have to make one significant weather call in the middle
of the flight and you break up the gaggles. The slowest pilots in the
pack might make no additional turns. You wouldn't want to make the
final couple of legs too long because it would make estimating arrival
time hard, but long enough that they weren't just final glide.

9B- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, I agree with JJ. His experience shows.
Even relatively close final turns can sometimes bite. Example - Harris
Hill this year- twice we had to fly marginal final glides around a
mandatory steering turn(put there for the only good reason- airspace)
which was in totally dead air. I seriously doubt that very many pilots
would have gone there for tactical reasons.
If the day is any kind of marginal , let the pilots figure out how to
use it and how to get home.
Happy New Year to All
UH

On Dec 28, 6:10*am, wrote:

Again, I agree with JJ. His experience shows.
Even relatively close final turns can sometimes bite. Example - Harris
Hill this year- twice we had to fly marginal final glides around a
mandatory steering turn(put there for the only good reason- airspace)
which was in totally dead air. I seriously doubt that very many pilots
would have gone there for tactical reasons.
If the day is any kind of marginal , let the pilots figure out how to
use it and how to get home.

I think most agree that on marginal days it's best to let the pilots
figure out where to go.

I think the question posed in thread is a different one: whether it is
worthwhile to consider the MAT format on day when you might otherwise
call a TAT or an AST. Some of the MAT variations described here are
pretty close to an AST, but with an option to get home if you're
slower. Many of the comments here seem to make the assumption that you
only call a MAT when the weather is unpredictable, in which case
you'll always get what you've had before - a no-turm or one-turn MAT.

Here's another variation - short track "lap" races: set up a course
that's a triangle (could be four turns too) where the nominal distance
is three laps. Faster pilots might do four laps, slower pilots might
do 2 or 2 1/3 laps. Everyone stays close to home and you get a fair
amount of head-to-head racing. Maybe more leeching too - but that's
what you get with ASTs as well.

Another variation is a MAT with an AST conversion option - if you hit
all the mandatory turns you don't have to worry about min time
(probably requires a rules change for that - but I can't see why it's
a problem). Slower pilots can head for home without hitting all the
mandatory turns as long as they're over min time. This would require
5+ mandatory turns and a course layout where skipping the last turn or
two actually shortens the total distance flown (e.g. it doesn't work
if the course is out and return).

9B

On Dec 28, 12:16*pm, Andy wrote:
On Dec 28, 6:10*am, wrote:



Again, I agree with JJ. His experience shows.
Even relatively close final turns can sometimes bite. Example - Harris
Hill this year- twice we had to fly marginal final glides around a
mandatory steering turn(put there for the only good reason- airspace)
which was in totally dead air. I seriously doubt that very many pilots
would have gone there for tactical reasons.
If the day is any kind of marginal , let the pilots figure out how to
use it and how to get home.

I think most agree that on marginal days it's best to let the pilots
figure out where to go.

I think the question posed in thread is a different one: whether it is
worthwhile to consider the MAT format on day when you might otherwise
call a TAT or an AST. Some of the MAT variations described here are
pretty close to an AST, but with an option to get home if you're
slower. Many of the comments here seem to make the assumption that you
only call a MAT when the weather is unpredictable, in which case
you'll always get what you've had before - a no-turm or one-turn MAT.

Here's another variation - short track "lap" races: set up a course
that's a triangle (could be four turns too) where the nominal distance
is three laps. Faster pilots might do four laps, slower pilots might
do 2 or 2 1/3 laps. Everyone stays close to home and you get a fair
amount of head-to-head racing. Maybe more leeching too - but that's
what you get with ASTs as well.

Another variation is a MAT with an AST conversion option - if you hit
all the mandatory turns you don't have to worry about min time
(probably requires a rules change for that - but I can't see why it's
a problem). Slower pilots can head for home without hitting all the
mandatory turns as long as they're over min time. This would require
5+ mandatory turns and a course layout where skipping the last turn or
two actually shortens the total distance flown (e.g. it doesn't work
if the course is out and return).

9B

I really like the long MAT concept for 3 reasons;
1: It keeps folks on the same course which arguably reduces the "luck"
factor.
2. It still lets the guys who aren't as fast come home without having
hopeless landout.
3 Still let's everyone drop off if wx goes to crap.
All this said, CD task setters need to make it so later turns don't
require huge risk vs. reward.
One of the problems with so many options is that some folks have
trouble figuring out the tactics and then whine\
about how complex the rules are.
I personally like the varying options because it makes for more
challange.
My all time favorite is the no repeat MAT because, it most sites, it
will require the pilot to figure out how to use
the task area instead of doing tiny triangles in a hot spot.
Good exchange
UH