WGC Uvalde: US Team... What Happened????

I hear the points John made clearly. *I understand the vision. *I simply don't accept them as fact.

Where is this data supporting claims of “mass land outs” if a contest is run under FAI rules vs. US Rules? *Where is the data that shows higher levels of appeal for US rule contests vs. FAI? *To who? *What choice do “they” have? Safety doesn’t appear to improve under US rules although I respect that in many ways that is the intent.

Bottom line: *the whole "World" seems to be doing as well as the US in attendance and safety, and better in many cases in World Championship or FAI contest performance.

Yet, the US insists on going down a completely different contest rules program. *I am starting to wonder how this different path ever began frankly. *It’s a bummer. *Here we are with clear change resistance issues even though the conversation (me) is simply suggesting that we do the same as the rest of the world and flying FAI. *A suggestion that we adopt for the US what appears to be the "gold standard" around the world. *It appears we are saying the rest of the world is "wrong" and we are "right."

I honestly don't think this change effort would be a big of a deal (the way we swim, drowning, etc). *Although I fear many who are “emotionally invested” in the US rules would cry doom and gloom if a real debate about adopting FAI rules was started. *Changing to FAI would be fairly simple IMO. *It would aslo have some clear benefits.

The rest of the world flies FAI rules. *They appear to be pretty darn healthy when compared to US attendance. *Pilots all over the world appear to be very happy with FAI soaring competition.
I think we somehow assume alot about the effectiveness of the US rules on attendance. *And clearly we as a country provide no weight to the Worlds competitiveness issue.

I don’t mean to be calling someone’s baby ugly here. *But I will say that we are hindering baby's potential. *Baby's growth. *Baby is behind. *I think being the only country in the world that supports a completely different set of rules than the rest of the world is a mistake. *I think being the only country in the world to support its own A-Z sports class and blocks Club class is a big mistake. *15/18/Standard are the classes with attendance issues. *Club level ships are a very dense area of US contest participation. *They complain about being forced to compete level with ASG29 and Arcus. *Giving them their own class would, IMO, improve their enthusiasm and attendance.

We should allow Club class (FAI) and then call Sports the high end ships until we figure out the new classes. *This is my recommendation.

I hate having another different point of view here, but I do. *I believe it is good thing to have these conversations and let others weigh in.


Put in a bid for Ionia super-regional to be flown under IGC rules with
club class. If 50 pilots show up, your case will be made. Heck, put in
a bid to run a continental championship under IGC rules. Ditto.

John Cochrane

Will do. But are damn weather. I might not even show up. :-). Probably will need to be late July/August.

I guess if you want to have one of your pilots be World Champion (or at
least stand somewhere on the podium) and are disappointed that with home
advantage it wasn't achieved, you can either shrug you shoulders and say
'all the other pilots were even better', or look for some structural reason
why.

The argument, 'we have a small glider pilot population density, and are
geographically isolated', doesn't stack up when you see how pilots from
South Africa and New Zealand perform.

Regularly flying with a different set of rules is (IMHO) a much more
plausible reason. A Worlds is a learning environment - but not if you
expect to win.

Encouraging a proper Club Class (limited handicap range) is one step
towards getting a wider range of pilots interested in a serious top-level
comp., at affordable cost (if any form of soaring can be categorised as
affordable). And educate your CDs into task setting that causes pilots to
develop the kind of tactical thinking that wins FAI rules competitions.
The US MAT is a cop-out. In UK we manage to use FAI rules in weather that
is just as demanding, without mass landouts except on the days when no sane
pilot would rig if it weren't for the fact some sadistic CD has called
'launch the grid' (I confess, it has been me in the past, but I have also
been a victim)..

And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

Peter:

All over Europe, I hear this opinion. "unsafe!"" "heavens, they'll
run in to each other programming pdas" And so, off in to the
thunderstorm we go, just because that's the task someone picked at 9
am

You and the rest of the gliding world discussing rules would do a lot
better if we were all to listen to experience rather than just
theorizing.

The US has been changing task in the air for over 25 years -- since
long before flight computers. It's done carefully and methodically --
we're not stupid you know. Usually there is a task B, so all that is
done is "now that we see where the storm is on the radar loop, we're
changing to task B" Very rarely a whole task will be entered. We give
at least 10 minutes and more often 15 for task entry time, pushing
back the start. We brief pilots over and over again how to do this.
Wait a few minutes -- don't all do it at once. Leave the start gaggle.
Look around. Then reprogram. We do a roll call on the radio, does
everyone have the task and has had a chance to reprogram. Only then do
we go.

Now, off theory and on to experience. Not once in 25 years has there
been an accident, incident, or even a near miss caused by
reprogramming computers in response to a task change. NOT ONCE. So
much for theory. We've had crashes in every other imaginable way, and
a few creative ones besides.

This is helped by the US start procedure, which the rest of the world
also hooted down at Uvalde based on theory, ignoring 25 years of
experience. We limit altitude at the start, and require you stay 2
minutes under the start height. "Heavens, they'll just look at the
altimeter and run in to each other" screams theory. No, 25 years of
experience says NOT ONE incident of the sort. What we save are the
gaggling in the starts, big start gaggles going off into the clouds
together, VNE dives through limited-altitude starts that don't have
time limits, and sticking with the gaggle for half an hour to gain
the last 50 feet that everyone else seems to love. (With a limited
altitude start, you can go away, reprogram, and know you'll easily get
back to start altitude in a short time; you don't have to stick with
the gaggle like glue.)

No not perfect. But we haven't stuck with this for 25 years because
we're insane.

Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her.

John Cochrane

On Sep 20, 10:07*am, John Cochrane wrote:
And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

Peter:

*All over Europe, I hear this opinion. "unsafe!"" "heavens, they'll
run in to each other programming pdas" And so, off in to the
thunderstorm we go, just because that's the task someone picked at 9
am

You and the rest of the gliding world discussing rules would do a lot
better if we were all to listen to experience rather than just
theorizing.

The US has been changing task in the air for over 25 years -- since
long before flight computers. It's done carefully and methodically --
we're not stupid you know. Usually there is a task B, so all that is
done is "now that we see where the storm is on the radar loop, we're
changing to task B" Very rarely a whole task will be entered. We give
at least 10 minutes and more often 15 for task entry time, pushing
back the start. We brief pilots over and over again how to do this.
Wait a few minutes -- don't all do it at once. Leave the start gaggle.
Look around. Then reprogram. We do a roll call on the radio, does
everyone have the task and has had a chance to reprogram. Only then do
we go.

Now, off theory and on to experience. Not once in 25 years has there
been an accident, incident, or even a near miss caused by
reprogramming computers in response to a task change. NOT ONCE. So
much for theory. We've had crashes in every other imaginable way, and
a few creative ones besides.

This is helped by the US start procedure, which the rest of the world
also hooted down at Uvalde based on theory, ignoring 25 years of
experience. We limit altitude at the start, and require you stay 2
minutes under the start height. "Heavens, they'll just look at the
altimeter and run in to each other" screams theory. No, 25 years of
experience says NOT ONE incident of the sort. What we save are the
gaggling in the starts, big start gaggles going off into the clouds
together, VNE dives through limited-altitude starts that don't have
time limits, *and sticking with the gaggle for half an hour to gain
the last 50 feet that everyone else seems to love. (With a limited
altitude start, you can go away, reprogram, and know you'll easily get
back to start altitude in a short time; you don't have to stick with
the gaggle like glue.)

No not perfect. But we haven't stuck with this for 25 years because
we're insane.

Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her.

John Cochrane


"Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her."

IF there is no bias involved. When we dig our heals in, and apply
blinders, not so good.

Hi John

I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start
originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.

And I remain unconvinced that a CD that sets a task at 9 a.m and then
doesn't decide to change it until everyone is launched has his eye on the
ball.

In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the
variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10
minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.

As a CD I have the option of briefing a completely changed task 20 mins
before first launch.

What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't
be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?

I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and
are prepared to adopt good ideas.

Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live.

Peter

t 19:57 20 September 2012, Mike C wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:07=A0am, John Cochrane wrote:
And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

Peter:

=A0All over Europe, I hear this opinion. "unsafe!"" "heavens, they'll
run in to each other programming pdas" And so, off in to the
thunderstorm we go, just because that's the task someone picked at 9
am

You and the rest of the gliding world discussing rules would do a lot
better if we were all to listen to experience rather than just
theorizing.

The US has been changing task in the air for over 25 years -- since
long before flight computers. It's done carefully and methodically --
we're not stupid you know. Usually there is a task B, so all that is
done is "now that we see where the storm is on the radar loop, we're
changing to task B" Very rarely a whole task will be entered. We give
at least 10 minutes and more often 15 for task entry time, pushing
back the start. We brief pilots over and over again how to do this.
Wait a few minutes -- don't all do it at once. Leave the start gaggle.
Look around. Then reprogram. We do a roll call on the radio, does
everyone have the task and has had a chance to reprogram. Only then do
we go.

Now, off theory and on to experience. Not once in 25 years has there
been an accident, incident, or even a near miss caused by
reprogramming computers in response to a task change. NOT ONCE. So
much for theory. We've had crashes in every other imaginable way, and
a few creative ones besides.

This is helped by the US start procedure, which the rest of the world
also hooted down at Uvalde based on theory, ignoring 25 years of
experience. We limit altitude at the start, and require you stay 2
minutes under the start height. "Heavens, they'll just look at the
altimeter and run in to each other" screams theory. No, 25 years of
experience says NOT ONE incident of the sort. What we save are the
gaggling in the starts, big start gaggles going off into the clouds
together, VNE dives through limited-altitude starts that don't have
time limits, =A0and sticking with the gaggle for half an hour to gain
the last 50 feet that everyone else seems to love. (With a limited
altitude start, you can go away, reprogram, and know you'll easily get
back to start altitude in a short time; you don't have to stick with
the gaggle like glue.)

No not perfect. But we haven't stuck with this for 25 years because
we're insane.

Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her.

John Cochrane


"Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her."

IF there is no bias involved. When we dig our heals in, and apply
blinders, not so good.

Hi John

I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start
originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.

Good! Now let's persuade the IGC, which banned this for Uvalde. Huge
gaggles in the clouds at Szeged was idiotic.

In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the
variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10
minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.

This is also by far the most common situation in the US. Task changes
in the air are avoided if at all possible. They are a last ditch tool
for a CD to remedy a looming disaster, but CDs are strongly advised
against it if at all possible. Still, it's nice to avoid the
disaster...

Our contests try to launch everyone in 1 hour, and wait 15 minutes
before gate open. We also require 15 minutes between task change and
launch. So, the decision to open the task is at least 1:30 after the
last chance to change the task on the ground. Often, weather
ucertainty means that the start is delayed further. So it's easy to
have two hours pass. The weather can change a lot in two hours!

What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't
be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?

It happens rarely. Once to me when I was leading the contest on the
last day. Fortunately I heard the task change, rocked my wings in
response to radio call and it was passed on. If you can't hear either,
then you can't hear when the start gate is opened. I don't know of a
case of that happening yet. But it is the pilot's responsibility to
have a radio. If the roll call goes through, and the pilot can't be
raised on multiple tries, tough for him. We're not going to send the
whole fleet into the storm because of that.


I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and
are prepared to adopt good ideas.

Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live.

I'll take you up on that!