Reducing collision hazard at contests

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 4:08:49 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
Here's a conceptually simple idea for contest pilots to rattle around... I believe it would be highly effective at reducing dangerous big gaggles that happen during contests. The desirables are that it doesn't damage the sport, it's effective at improving safety, it's easy to understand and it's easy to implement.

The idea is inspired by the blog comments from one of the collision pilots at the recent Hahnweide contest where dense gaggles did lead to a mid-air (fortunately in that incident all 3 pilots successfully parachuted).

Let's require flarm log files from all contestants. Let's designate a 1 point penalty whenever a glider comes within 400 feet horizontal and 150 feet vertical of any other glider. For any pair of gliders that come within penalty range, both are docked 1 point without regard to who approached who.. After 5 minutes, the same two gliders will be docked again if they come within penalty range again.

A 400 foot horizontal rule would allow two gliders to safely fly across from one another in a thermal without penalty. Perhaps three gliders could fly together in a thermal if they space out and open the circle. Most likely, though, penalty points would result if more than three gliders attempt to thermal at the same level.

The effect would be to de-motivate gaggle flying. Everyone would want to avoid crowds before the start and on task in order to keep his penalty count low. Pilots would be caused to fly their own machine and think for themselves and that would make for a better test of soaring skill afterall.

If we're trying to choose pilots to compete in WGC, perhaps they should get a bonus point per minute for ea glider within 400'.

T8

Dan: Thanks for that link. Glad to know IGC is thinking hard about this. The point of that article seems to be that we might fix the problem by identifying particular bad actors and fix their bad behavior with penalties. I'll contend that the problem isn't so much bad actors as it is a bad system of rules that forces or motivates bad action by all players. If we can fix the game, then we don't have to pick on people individually. That's the direction I'm suggesting we take it.

Andy: Look again at my third paragraph. I did suggest that vertical separation would be different from horizontal. Regardless, I'm not right now picking parameters for this. I just threw out some numbers to make the idea understandable.

T8: I agree, WGC is the candidate first and foremost. But if IGC operate on the theory that big changes can't be introduced and that pilots are expendable, then maybe the US needs to lead.

On Monday, 14 May 2018 17:32:52 UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
Dan: Thanks for that link. Glad to know IGC is thinking hard about this. The point of that article seems to be that we might fix the problem by identifying particular bad actors and fix their bad behavior with penalties. I'll contend that the problem isn't so much bad actors as it is a bad system of rules that forces or motivates bad action by all players. If we can fix the game, then we don't have to pick on people individually. That's the direction I'm suggesting we take it.

Andy: Look again at my third paragraph. I did suggest that vertical separation would be different from horizontal. Regardless, I'm not right now picking parameters for this. I just threw out some numbers to make the idea understandable.

T8: I agree, WGC is the candidate first and foremost. But if IGC operate on the theory that big changes can't be introduced and that pilots are expendable, then maybe the US needs to lead.

Steve wrote 'I agree, WGC is the candidate first and foremost.' A step that the FAI has taken is allow only one participant per country for the 15M class, the offending class, starting in 2022. THerefore 2018 and 2020 will be the last 15M WGC's with multiple participants form the same country. Also the USA submitted a proposal that was accepted by the FAI to change the scoring that should reduce the incentive to gaggle and not take risks, will take a few years to get implemented.

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/fi...r_1_p rop.pdf

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/fi...1_proposal.pdf

Craig: You can look at a chart like that and think you've found the culprits. Now make a list of contest IDs and put them on a dart board and start throwing darts. I think you'll see bad actors show up about the same way. Yes, there is surely differences in flying behavior for different pilots, but attacking the individual can be statistically fallacious. Moreover, that way of thinking takes the fun out of the sport. Those guys on page 35 are all national champions who each believe that they are safe pilots. It's better to acknowledge that the game itself needs improvement.

Duh - skipped right over the horizontal/vertical bit.

I thought about it a bit more.

I could imagine a tactic emerging where teammates further down the scoresheet would hug the closest competitor to their leading teammate to penalize him/her out of contention in the last day or two of a competition. You'd need additional rules to try to judge who's "fault" each penalty is. That might be possible - for instance, penalizing "new" entrants to a thermal. But that might lead to crazy dives to get to the next thermal ahead of the nest competitor(s) and establish a primary position.

Also imagine a couple of gliders in a thermal at the same altitude cracking their airbrakes to block the way of gliders below to let a teammate above get ahead of the group. Yes, it's not very sporting, but certainly unsportsmanlike tactics have been tried. Might need some rules for that to...or maybe people wouldn't try it.

You also wouldn't want people performing crazy maneuvers to clear a conflict without being forced to leave the thermal entirely - zooms, dives, trying to carve across the middle of the thermal to get to the opposite side.

Lastly, people might quibble about not being able to judge these distances very accurately in circumstances where being able to just squeeze in might be important. Would flight computers tell you when you are being penalized? Which flight computers? Software is tough to mandate.

Just noodling.

Andy


On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:32:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
Andy: Look again at my third paragraph. I did suggest that vertical separation would be different from horizontal. Regardless, I'm not right now picking parameters for this. I just threw out some numbers to make the idea understandable.