WGC Final Report, John Good

I completely agree that it should be pilot skills and not technology that determines the winners.


Your idea is unfortunately very easy to circumvent, put someone in a car near the end of the runway at launch time with a reciever and write down code and rego.

I would more go for random turnpoints in a circle so that every pilot flies the same distance but you wont know if the pilot you see has done more or less of the task than you did.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-7, mart wrote:
I completely agree that it should be pilot skills and not technology that determines the winners.


Your idea is unfortunately very easy to circumvent, put someone in a car near the end of the runway at launch time with a reciever and write down code and rego.

I would more go for random turnpoints in a circle so that every pilot flies the same distance but you wont know if the pilot you see has done more or less of the task than you did.

I think it could simplify a lot of things if they changed the rules to be more like sailboat racing. The start line opens at a specific time, and whoever crosses the line first is the winner. None of this delayed start stuff. Everyone is racing against each other in real time. The guys behind can see where the leaders are climbing, and maybe make up some time, but in order to win, you have to be in front. Much like they do in SGP racing. That format just makes more sense to me. I realize it is quite a bit different from how things have been done for many years, but it could eliminate a lot of the advantages folks would get from this whole live-tracking thing.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 7:36:09 PM UTC-5, John Foster wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-7, mart wrote:
I completely agree that it should be pilot skills and not technology that determines the winners.


Your idea is unfortunately very easy to circumvent, put someone in a car near the end of the runway at launch time with a reciever and write down code and rego.

I would more go for random turnpoints in a circle so that every pilot flies the same distance but you wont know if the pilot you see has done more or less of the task than you did.

I think it could simplify a lot of things if they changed the rules to be more like sailboat racing. The start line opens at a specific time, and whoever crosses the line first is the winner. None of this delayed start stuff. Everyone is racing against each other in real time. The guys behind can see where the leaders are climbing, and maybe make up some time, but in order to win, you have to be in front. Much like they do in SGP racing. That format just makes more sense to me. I realize it is quite a bit different from how things have been done for many years, but it could eliminate a lot of the advantages folks would get from this whole live-tracking thing..

The size of the field matters. SGP has relatively small field intentionally..
I flew in one of the first "bomb burst" starts about 25 years ago. There were about 50 ships, all at cloud base when the go signal was sent. We almost all came back saying that we never wanted to do that again.
This concept also puts everyone in one big gaggle which can be highly dangerous.
Been there - done that.
In my view the solution is to work to make FLARM the collision avoidance tool it is meant to be, and do whatever can be done to stop tracking and minimize the benefits of FLARM radar. Start with option for no ID. Kill climb rate information. Make range only what it needs to be for collision avoidance. Stealth does some of this.
UH

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 8:11:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I flew in one of the first "bomb burst" starts about 25 years ago.
There were about 50 ships, all at cloud base when the go signal was sent.
We almost all came back saying that we never wanted to do that again.

I remember that one - terrifying.
IIRC that was also the USA intro of the DG-600, for sale by mid-contest...

Both concentrating everyone at the start was bad AND the first few gaggles
was quite dangerous. Even in SGP format (limited number of contestants) the
starts have been much too exciting...

Anyone looking into who made the obscure nondelayed tracking website? Was the website built to enhance one team's race coaching. Left open for plausible denial, confident no one is going to find it by accident. Less sportsmanlike but more likely than happenstance finding a website giving nondelayed tracking data for the World Championships you just happen to be coaching.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 6:11:09 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 7:36:09 PM UTC-5, John Foster wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-7, mart wrote:
I completely agree that it should be pilot skills and not technology that determines the winners.


Your idea is unfortunately very easy to circumvent, put someone in a car near the end of the runway at launch time with a reciever and write down code and rego.

I would more go for random turnpoints in a circle so that every pilot flies the same distance but you wont know if the pilot you see has done more or less of the task than you did.

I think it could simplify a lot of things if they changed the rules to be more like sailboat racing. The start line opens at a specific time, and whoever crosses the line first is the winner. None of this delayed start stuff. Everyone is racing against each other in real time. The guys behind can see where the leaders are climbing, and maybe make up some time, but in order to win, you have to be in front. Much like they do in SGP racing. That format just makes more sense to me. I realize it is quite a bit different from how things have been done for many years, but it could eliminate a lot of the advantages folks would get from this whole live-tracking thing.

The size of the field matters. SGP has relatively small field intentionally.
I flew in one of the first "bomb burst" starts about 25 years ago. There were about 50 ships, all at cloud base when the go signal was sent. We almost all came back saying that we never wanted to do that again.
This concept also puts everyone in one big gaggle which can be highly dangerous.
Been there - done that.
In my view the solution is to work to make FLARM the collision avoidance tool it is meant to be, and do whatever can be done to stop tracking and minimize the benefits of FLARM radar. Start with option for no ID. Kill climb rate information. Make range only what it needs to be for collision avoidance. Stealth does some of this.
UH

I would agree that the size of the field matters. What would the maximum size field be that you would consider safe? How much smaller is that than current class sizes in current US contests? For a world championship contest, it could be run much like a swim meet, or other such contest where you have qualifying races with elimination rounds followed by a final race. That would be quite different than how we do things today, but I think we could take a lot from how the sport of sailing does things. They also have to deal with safety issues with mass starts and traffic and changing weather conditions across the course and throughout the day. I think that this kind of format could fix many of the issues (not all though) we are wrestling with.

At 00:36 21 January 2020, John Foster wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-7, mart wrote:
I completely agree that it should be pilot skills and not technology
that=
determines the winners.
=20
=20
Your idea is unfortunately very easy to circumvent, put someone in a
car
=
near the end of the runway at launch time with a reciever and write down
co=
de and rego.=20
=20
I would more go for random turnpoints in a circle so that every pilot
fli=
es the same distance but you wont know if the pilot you see has done more
o=
r less of the task than you did.

I think it could simplify a lot of things if they changed the rules to be
m=
ore like sailboat racing. The start line opens at a specific time, and
who=
ever crosses the line first is the winner. None of this delayed start
stuf=
f. Everyone is racing against each other in real time. The guys behind
ca=
n see where the leaders are climbing, and maybe make up some time, but in
o=
rder to win, you have to be in front. Much like they do in SGP racing.
Th=
at format just makes more sense to me. I realize it is quite a bit
differe=
nt from how things have been done for many years, but it could eliminate
a
=
lot of the advantages folks would get from this whole live-tracking
thing.

Distance Handicap Tasks do this great for handicap competition even with
pilot selected start time. see www.handicaptask.uk

That wouldn't circumvent manual Flarm-ID changes at any given moment within the flight (with an LX9000 connection for instance).

You can also quickly power your Flarm off an on after take-off, thereby creating a new random ID.

I am sure if the IGC asks for it, FLARM can quickly bring out a feature that triggers a ID-randomizer every 15 minutes during the flight. But that would not even be necessary in my opinion.


Also, if the punishment of having a private ground-based Flarm receiver in a team is disqualification for the whole team, and if the rules on this are 100% clear and widely known, who in their right mind would do this?

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 7:46:03 PM UTC-5, Tijl wrote:
That wouldn't circumvent manual Flarm-ID changes at any given moment within the flight (with an LX9000 connection for instance).

You can also quickly power your Flarm off an on after take-off, thereby creating a new random ID.

I am sure if the IGC asks for it, FLARM can quickly bring out a feature that triggers a ID-randomizer every 15 minutes during the flight. But that would not even be necessary in my opinion.


Also, if the punishment of having a private ground-based Flarm receiver in a team is disqualification for the whole team, and if the rules on this are 100% clear and widely known, who in their right mind would do this?

I would be surprised if changing the ICAO ID didn't violate the IGC file security and validation.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:01:24 -0800, Dan Daly wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 7:46:03 PM UTC-5, Tijl wrote:
That wouldn't circumvent manual Flarm-ID changes at any given moment
within the flight (with an LX9000 connection for instance).

You can also quickly power your Flarm off an on after take-off, thereby
creating a new random ID.

I am sure if the IGC asks for it, FLARM can quickly bring out a feature
that triggers a ID-randomizer every 15 minutes during the flight. But
that would not even be necessary in my opinion.


Also, if the punishment of having a private ground-based Flarm receiver
in a team is disqualification for the whole team, and if the rules on
this are 100% clear and widely known, who in their right mind would do
this?

I would be surprised if changing the ICAO ID didn't violate the IGC file
security and validation.

Its not recorded anywhere in an ICG flight log, so no problem there.

I've written and tested a Java class for decoding IGC logs, so needed to
understand precisely what's in every record type (except the G record,
whose exact format is logger-specific. Thats because the checksum format
is not defined by the standard: its specified and known only by the
manufacturer.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org