Distance Task Opinions?

Gary Ittner wrote in message ...

Gosh, a quarter mile? Have you never been in a big gaggle on an Assigned
Task and had another glider stick its belly 10 feet from your canopy?
Have you never been in a gaggle turning right, with another group
directly below turning left, and then seen the two groups merge because
the lower group was climbing slightly faster?

Yes, I have, and I prefer a threat I can see and moving in basically
the same direction to a threat I don't see going in the opposite
direction. One threat is skill related - and I know the skill of the
pilots I fly with most of the time. The other threat is almost
entirely a luck factor. I agree that gaggles can be dangerous, but if
I remember right one of the "selling points" of the TAT is that it is
safer because it reduces gaggles. Ok, but it may introduce a
different threat instead. I know I don't like it when an AST task is
called with only one turnpoint, so that head-ons are inevitable.

That's the same weak argument that was used for many years by famous
PST-haters like Bill Bartell and Alan Reeter. But have you ever heard of
a collision between racing gliders cruising in different directions on a
flexible task? I haven't. Gaggles are where collisions happen.

Actually, it seems that "safety" (or lack of) is used way too much in
justifying rule changes. Same with stats - what is the percentage of
Assigned tasks to Area tasks, with equivalent number of gliders
competing, etc.. Where were the gaggles - an area task with obvious
better routes will also have gaggles, etc...

I've heard of many collisions in gaggles during Assigned Tasks, usually
when one racer mis-judges his high speed entry into an existing gaggle.
Just off the top of my head I can think of 3 fatal ones: Ephrata '84,
Uvalde '91, Bayreuth '98.

If you're really worried about collisions in races, and not just trying
to use another weak argument to support an "Assigned Task only" minority
opinion, you'll become a big fan of flexible tasks that cause gaggles to
disappear, such as a MAT with zero assigned turnpoints or a TAT with
very large circles.

Actually, I'm not really very worried about collisions in races - I'm
more concerned when I lose situational awareness and let someone get
by without seeing him. I am concerned with diluting the purpose of
racing with all sorts of (in my opinion) dumbed-down tasks. Now I'll
be the first to admit I'm no threat to anyone on the national team,
but I do race enough to know what I like and don't like. And so far,
I like TATs less and less. And I absolutely hate "flexible tasks".
That's not racing, it's going cross country in a hurry! I guess you
can mark me down in the "Assigned Task only" minority.

So you all know what I'll probably call when it's my turn to be CD!

Kirk

OK 66 even though I "live with you" I have to add a couple of comments....

I totally agree re the safety card thing.....it is used way too much and so
would like to leave it out of this arguement but you did mention it. I
disagree that any task is any safer than the other. It is not only the
other sailplane that you don't see but also that Cessna or 737 out there
that is the threat. The reason that I got a transponder was so that I
didn't get a Southwest enema on one of those long final glides from the
north. Besides that I can't count the number of AST's that I've been on
where the next turn was nearly 180 degrees and so made a potential conflict
with oncoming traffic.

I have a real problem with folks that announce that they will never call
anything but one type of task. It happened at Tonopah and IMHO it resulted
in pilots being required to choose between a puckered up flight or winning a
contest. Yes, yes, yes I know that we are all in charge of ourselves and
that there was that "hole in the clouds" that some claimed made it OK but if
the forecast was for overdevelopment then giving the pilots some options is
a much more reasonable way to be. I'm surprised that you would argue with
this considering we have flown a large number of TAT's this year in our
local contest. It has been overcalled and I would have liked to have seen
more AST's and MAT's but I didn't hear much dissention.

With all due respect to Ben who is a much more experienced and skilled pilot
than myself, I think that PST type tasks are good. If there were such a
luck factor then the same guys would not be winning them consistently (here
in the US at least). I do agree that there is at least more of a luck
factor and so the scoring should somehow reflect it but it should not be
thrown out.

Just some more thoughts...flame away!

Casey
KC

I think the MAT and TAT are both very good options that can, and should be used
at the appropriate time and place. The MAT is an excellent call for Sports
Class where the competitors may be flying everything from an ASH-25 to a 1-26.
Give them several turn points and the ASH driver can get them all and then go
looking for more trouble to get into. The 1-26 driver, on the other hand, may
use up his alloted time in obtaining the first few turn points and then return
home at any time for full credit and speed points. The MAT is also a good call
on a day that may be very weak. If conditions prove better than forcast,
contestants are free to continue onto other turn points.
The TAT is an excellent call on a day where thunderstorms may be a problem, but
exactly where and when can't be predicted too well. Call the TAT with large
circles and the pilots will do the rest.

Both of these tasks are new to US soaring and therefore are being called so
that competitors can become familiar with just how to fly them. I would hope
that in the future they would be used in the appropriate conditions and will
save the day from an inappropriate call where contestants are forced to fly
into dangerous conditions on an AST.
JJ Sinclair