Minutes of Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting posted on SSA website

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 2:06:42 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
John,

I think most would agree that US rules and our general US tasking "policy" is deeply intertwined. Some very strongly held opinions on tasking are held in certain "area's of influence." I believe that many US and Canadian "contest" pilots are very interested in this discussion about the near US extinction of Assigned Tasks.

The facts are that the USA/SSA ran only 4 (thats right, FOUR aka 2%) ASTs in 2014. This is down almost 50% from 7 in 2013. We ran only 2 ASTs in 2014 US National Contests (down 60% from 2013). Ironically, the only 2014 US Nationals AST (two classes, same day) was held for the "US?" Club Class! So its really one 1 AST in US Nationals in 2014.

I can't imagine too many pilots getting excited to go fly contests that consist mainly of wide turn radius TAT and zero and one turn point MAT.

Well, at least we have the Sailplane Grand Prix to dream about...

Sean


On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:33:15 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Sean:

There is a reason CDs and task advisers call so few ATs. In the winter on RAS ATs sound great. At 10 AM running a real contest they don't.

ATs necessarily use a small fraction of the soaring day. If a 70% speed pilot can finish, that means the top pilot left 30% of the soaring day on the table. A few days of flying 3 hour tasks on 5-6 hour days (4 hours for slow pilot to finish task, 1 hour to lanuch, 15 minutes to open gate, 15 minutes to get everyone going) and people start grumbling that OLC lets them do a lot more flying.

Or, the CD sets long tasks and the beginners land out day after day. Then they go home and don't go back.

That's on great days with predictable weather. Your CD and task advisers notice quickly that not every day is perfect. Thunderstorms, and the whole fleet lands out at turnpoint 1, while the sky is booming everywhere else. This just isn't fun.

But the rules allow AT! This is not a rules question. Volunteer to be task adviser. Run an all AT contest at Ionia. See if people want it so bad to show up. Lobby task advisers at your contests to run more ATs -- and to persuade all the other pilots that it's a great idea. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stopping anyone from running an all -AT contest. If they want to do it.

John Cochrane

That is appalling, I fully agree with you, Sean.
When moving to the Chicago area I found out about the NISC or Northern IL Soaring Contest that John Cochrane and Mike Shakman are running for our area.. The goal of the contest is to provide tasks and challenges that are similar to Regional Contests and to provide training for those (those goals must have been set in the last century). Tasks are pilot-called and consist of picking turnpoints and a minimum flight time (has to be = 2 hours. TP radius is of course 1 mi. In 2013 for example I turned in 21 flights, at least 90% of them AST type tasks (with min. time). Unfortunately, we started allowing area TP some 2-3 years ago and I don't like them. The discipline required to "make" a turnpoint is an important skill to hone. When flying an OLC camp in UT last year I found myself collecting real turnpoints rather than bouncing only along the lift lines, cost me quite a few OLC points.. Habit is a strong thing to overcome, I guess. Have a look at our NISC and emulate at will:
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ring/index.htm
John, I hope you don't mind me posting this link to your web site.

Herb Kilian

Thank you Herb.

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:26:26 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Once the door is open, there will be no closing it.
UH

Or, we can wait to see if there is actually a problem before writing a lot of rules to ban hypothetical problems.

I never understood the "once the door is open there will be no closing it" argument. If pilots don't like an innovation -- after they've seen it, if it turns out to actually cause a problem -- then it's easy enough to ban after the fact.

It sounds like UH is worried that a majority of pilots, especially young hot pilots, wee see tech in the cockpit and say "yeah, that's great." Well, should a minority of us older guys really stand in the way if a majority feels that way?

There is plenty of precedent for closing doors. People put artificial horizons in gliders, flew clouds, won contests with it. Then US pilots decided this wasn't such a good idea, and banned them. (Back then, we didn't have traces, so banning equipment was the only way.) Contests used to allow distance tasks. Pilots decided they didn't like the, door closed. Contests used to allow pilots to have a crew following the pilot around the sky, ready to retrieve, throw the glider back in the box, reassemble, and try again. Pilots decided they didn't like this, door closed. Again and again, when something has turned out to be a real problem, in the real world, and a majority of pilots decide they don't like the way racing is going, rules change and things go back in the box.

I just don't get how, if something turns out to be a problem that a majority of pilots dislike, it can't be ruled out later. And if your argument is that you're afraid a majority of pilots will like change, I see even less reason that the RC should stand in the way.

John Cochrane

My point is that it is the responsible thing to look at the potential negative aspects of any change and seriously consider them. There are unintended consequences tied to almost any significant decision and they should be properly addressed. I don't thing playing the Geezer card is a proper way to do this.
Some negatives that I see:
Real AHRS will end up in cockpits. There is little doubt in my mind that, while it may save a few situations, it will lead to more risk taking and quite possibly bad outcomes.
Telephony and data handling in the cockpit will undoubtedly result in more heads down time as pilots try to take advantage of information that could come in. If you doubt this, look around you on your daily commute.
The fundamental character of the sport will change from pilot/glider/sky to pilot/glider/sky/internet resource. Some will say that is a cool thing. Many will not.
If you say this is going to happen anyway, I say it is your duty to manage this in a way that has the fewest negative consequences to our sport.
I understand that this is mostly driven by a vision that flight tracking will create some significant new interest in contest flying. My experience is that watchers and spectators generally aren't participants. If we want more young participants, we need to do a much better job of getting the ones we already have into a contest cockpit. The internet won't do it, mentoring and sponsorship can and will.
My many years experience is that it is much easier to get a bad idea in than it is to get it out later.
The doors on these technologies were knowingly closed many years ago, when much of what is now a reality was foreseen. The philosophical change being contemplated is likely the most profound since the variometer. It certainly potentially far exceeds the impact of GPS.
I'm sure there will be more debate on this. I hope that this topic is polled in a fair and honest way, and not just done to sell the idea. Past experience leads me to believe it will be hard to get all points of view equally represented.

UH

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:20:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:26:26 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Once the door is open, there will be no closing it.
UH

Or, we can wait to see if there is actually a problem before writing a lot of rules to ban hypothetical problems.

I never understood the "once the door is open there will be no closing it" argument. If pilots don't like an innovation -- after they've seen it, if it turns out to actually cause a problem -- then it's easy enough to ban after the fact.

It sounds like UH is worried that a majority of pilots, especially young hot pilots, wee see tech in the cockpit and say "yeah, that's great." Well, should a minority of us older guys really stand in the way if a majority feels that way?

There is plenty of precedent for closing doors. People put artificial horizons in gliders, flew clouds, won contests with it. Then US pilots decided this wasn't such a good idea, and banned them. (Back then, we didn't have traces, so banning equipment was the only way.) Contests used to allow distance tasks. Pilots decided they didn't like the, door closed. Contests used to allow pilots to have a crew following the pilot around the sky, ready to retrieve, throw the glider back in the box, reassemble, and try again. Pilots decided they didn't like this, door closed. Again and again, when something has turned out to be a real problem, in the real world, and a majority of pilots decide they don't like the way racing is going, rules change and things go back in the box.

I just don't get how, if something turns out to be a problem that a majority of pilots dislike, it can't be ruled out later. And if your argument is that you're afraid a majority of pilots will like change, I see even less reason that the RC should stand in the way.

John Cochrane

My point is that it is the responsible thing to look at the potential negative aspects of any change and seriously consider them. There are unintended consequences tied to almost any significant decision and they should be properly addressed. I don't thing playing the Geezer card is a proper way to do this.
Some negatives that I see:
Real AHRS will end up in cockpits. There is little doubt in my mind that, while it may save a few situations, it will lead to more risk taking and quite possibly bad outcomes.
Telephony and data handling in the cockpit will undoubtedly result in more heads down time as pilots try to take advantage of information that could come in. If you doubt this, look around you on your daily commute.
The fundamental character of the sport will change from pilot/glider/sky to pilot/glider/sky/internet resource. Some will say that is a cool thing. Many will not.
If you say this is going to happen anyway, I say it is your duty to manage this in a way that has the fewest negative consequences to our sport.
I understand that this is mostly driven by a vision that flight tracking will create some significant new interest in contest flying. My experience is that watchers and spectators generally aren't participants. If we want more young participants, we need to do a much better job of getting the ones we already have into a contest cockpit. The internet won't do it, mentoring and sponsorship can and will.
My many years experience is that it is much easier to get a bad idea in than it is to get it out later.
The doors on these technologies were knowingly closed many years ago, when much of what is now a reality was foreseen. The philosophical change being contemplated is likely the most profound since the variometer. It certainly potentially far exceeds the impact of GPS.
I'm sure there will be more debate on this. I hope that this topic is polled in a fair and honest way, and not just done to sell the idea. Past experience leads me to believe it will be hard to get all points of view equally represented.

UH

AHRS, (gyro instruments) are already almost universally installed in airplane cockpits. Has this led to increased risk taking? Sure, some have illegally nosed their airplanes into clouds with one of two outcomes. (for those who survived) One group was so scared they never did it again and the other group promptly began training for an instrument rating. If attitude instruments ever saved anyone not trained to use them, the number of such incidents is vanishingly small.

So, how do we," manage this in a way that has the fewest negative consequences to our sport"? (I really like that quote) One is to make it clear that blind flying without extensive and very necessary training usually leads to an early grave.

The real problem is with those who have that training, experience and competency using their advanced skills to gain advantage over those without it. First we must acknowledge that, in a way, it happens all the time - highly skilled glider pilots usually beat those with lesser skills. But, instrument rated pilots flying a glider equipped in a way to allow them to exploit those skills is a special case that could confer an overwhelming advantage. How would we prevent this?

First is to look for the concurrence of skills and equipment. An instrument rated pilot with no gyro instruments is no issue nor is a non-instrument rated pilot with gyros. For those with both, one asks how well they are scoring relative to the pack. Only the top two or three pilots with both need be watched closely. My bet is the incidences where a pilot with both is at the top of the score sheet with several hundred points separating them from #2 will be very rare. I'd also bet it would be very hard to hide cloud flying when everyone turns in their GPS logs.

My first glider had a gyro turn and bank that I practiced with enough so that I could fly straight and level if I ever needed to get out of clouds - I didn't deliberately fly into them. This circumstance happened to me a year or so later when cold air outflow from a frontal line suddenly produced a layer of stratus below me that completely blocked the ground. I was able to descend under control through the cloud layer with the aid of the turn and bank. I learned a good lesson that day and I'm sure I won't get caught again the same way.

The argument for not having instruments in the cockpit is the same as that for motorcyclists not to wear helmets or motorists to use seat belts - namely that they encourage risky behavior! Bull****!

Yes, and I'll continue to use radar, satellite and lightning data in the cockpit too, as will many others. The RC better figure out how to adapt to the changing world!

Mike

They have! And many of us applaud them for doing so under relentless political pressure. The old rule, clearly, was not enforced and was therefore useless. If we don't want cloud flying, we should require cameras. I am more than happy to fly with one. Or, develop another technology to identify IMC occurrences. If your not willing to argue equally for an effective means of cloud flying enforcement (vs just an unenforced rule), aren't you really saying that it's not a real problem? That's how I see it.

Now, back to the fact that only 4 assigned tasks (count them with me...one, two, three...........three and a half..........three and three quarters...........FOUR!!!) were flown in the United States in 2014. Are we the first country to adopt OLC as our basic model for competition flying? Sadly, that it not really a joke. It's a serious question. A strong argument can be made that we (the USA/SSA) are the worlds OLCs largest adopter! So much so that our contest tasking is mimicking OLC more and more every year.

Compare our 4 assigned tasks to ----- 31 ----- ONE turn or ZERO turn HATs (MATs). These (HATS) are really OLC tasks. They have absolutely nothing to do with assigned tasks. We ran 8 times as many OLC tasks as AST tasks! Eight times!!!!!!!!

The weather cannot be that bad. Can it? I'll have data on the speeds and land out percentages soon. Most of our contests were out west last year! Wouldn't you think we would get more ASTs? The problem is that the powers that be no longer value pure ASTs.

One reason that Assigned Tasks are a land out concern for the US may be because very few of our pilots are used to flying to assigned turnpoints anymore. Our pilots never try them. It's becoming all about flying wherever one wants. Making it easier. "Maximizing the day" of flying only were the flying is easiest!!! What challenge is that again? That is the whole point of assigned tasking. It's harder!

The art, the challenge of flying effectively thru less then ideal conditions is being lost (in the US) with the ever easier tasks. Hey, there are some nice clouds over there! Oh wait, now it looks better over there! Or, where is the best cloud in that general direction? Let's head to that one! That's not competition soaring, it's sightseeing. It's vactioning. Touring. :-). It's also basically all we do in US contests anymore. Go wherever we want...after weather guy struggles to set the "task" the area with the best weather (assuming the "task" has any assigned turnpoints or turn areas at all).

Who else wants a few more racing tasks and a few less OLC tasks? Remember, I'm not arguing for ALL assigned tasks. I am arguing for "some" ASTs in our competitive contest on solid weather days. I'm arguing that we need to fly far more than 2%. 5x more would be 10% (16 in 2014). Why is that so terrible and frightening?

How is that for hijacking a thread? :-)

Hey, there are some nice clouds over there! Oh wait, now it looks better over there! Or, where is the best cloud in that general direction? Let's head to that one! That's not competition soaring, it's sightseeing. It's vactioning. Touring. :-).
This is why I stopped going to contests. I can fly like this at my home airport for far less $$.
Mark

Mike,
The problem is that some have used their smart phone app to access the latest radar wx, and headed straight for a developing thunderstorm, then ran under the storm exchanging lift for speed. This tactic is legal, but very foolish and dangerous because you always run the chance of being sucked into the storm...................but wait, the smart phone also has an app that provides an artificial horizon, problem solved! This tactic works best in a 2 place sailplane with instrument rated pilots. The GIB (guy in back) directs the show while the nose gunner flies instruments.

I fear allowing unrestricted smart phone use has unlocked the candy store, but failed to activate the security cameras.
:) JJ

Sorry, but I find that scenario hard to swallow. It would be hard to
miss a developing thunderstorm simply by looking out the window. If it's
so far away that you can't see it, I doubt, you'd change course and fly
into the gloom just because your so-called "smart phone" (it's only as
smart as the idiots who wrote the software) told you there was lift in
that direction. Note: I put my phone in airplane mode and clip it to
my belt before takeoff.


On 1/27/2015 8:04 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
Mike,
The problem is that some have used their smart phone app to access the latest radar wx, and headed straight for a developing thunderstorm, then ran under the storm exchanging lift for speed. This tactic is legal, but very foolish and dangerous because you always run the chance of being sucked into the storm...................but wait, the smart phone also has an app that provides an artificial horizon, problem solved! This tactic works best in a 2 place sailplane with instrument rated pilots. The GIB (guy in back) directs the show while the nose gunner flies instruments.

I fear allowing unrestricted smart phone use has unlocked the candy store, but failed to activate the security cameras.
:) JJ

--
Dan Marotta

I've said this in the past and I'll say it again. Let's not think of "smart phones" as in: I picked up my iPhone or Galaxy S4 and looked at the radar app. Then opened up the artificial horizon app. etc.

As long as we allow connectivity for real time communications in the cockpit, it's absolutely trivial for even a halfway talented developer to create a really, really slick interface on a larger format tablet (something like a Nexus) with GPS and wireless data inputs. Wanna overlay the Radar and Satellite pictures over the task area 40 miles out. No sweat. Pull in all of the latest surface observations for current wind data and depict that as wind vectors. Got it. And while we're at it lets overlay a better user interface to create a tactical leaching tool off of Flarm data. Put some additional tapes and markers on the UI, and just eliminate that annoyance of having to look out the window.

I'm not necessarily "against this", but I do think that one of the reasons you have rules is to decide what technology we do or don't want. The 1960 Lightning that I used to sail would certainly have been "better" using more modern rigging and carbon fiber spars, but the folks in the ILCA decided this wasn't what was wanted.

If we decided we DON'T want this, can we guarantee with 100% certainty that someone isn't violating the letter or the spirit of the rules? Maybe, maybe not. But if it were clear that any form of connectivity was verboten and that all pilots were subject to post flight ramp checks of all devices immediately upon rollout, it would at least send a message. COTS devices all log their usage of data and services, so it would take someone actively cheating to hide this. Point being, let's first decide what we really want, then let's decide if/how we can eforce "the rules".

P3



On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Sorry, but I find that scenario hard to swallow.* It would be hard
to miss a developing thunderstorm simply by looking out the window.*
If it's so far away that you can't see it, I doubt, you'd change
course and fly into the gloom just because your so-called "smart
phone" (it's only as smart as the idiots who wrote the software)
told you there was lift in that direction.* Note:* I put my phone in
airplane mode and clip it to my belt before takeoff.






On 1/27/2015 8:04 AM, JJ Sinclair
wrote:



Mike,
The problem is that some have used their smart phone app to access the latest radar wx, and headed straight for a developing thunderstorm, then ran under the storm exchanging lift for speed. This tactic is legal, but very foolish and dangerous because you always run the chance of being sucked into the storm...................but wait, the smart phone also has an app that provides an artificial horizon, problem solved! This tactic works best in a 2 place sailplane with instrument rated pilots. The GIB (guy in back) directs the show while the nose gunner flies instruments.

I fear allowing unrestricted smart phone use has unlocked the candy store, but failed to activate the security cameras.
:) JJ





--

Dan Marotta