Distance Task Opinions?

Gary...even though I may be the "vocal minority" in the Arizona Soaring
Association, you are preaching to the choir with me.....I think that we
should continue to have the MAT, TAT and also the AST. I actually think
that the MAT was undercalled this season. If it is because CD's feel that
it is the same as the TAT I think they are incorrect. If you look at my
original post on this thread it suggested a task that discouraged flying
together.

Different tasks evaluate different skills in racing pilots so there should
be a mix to be able to truly see who is the best. It sounds like your
primary reason for disliking the AST is because of following or gaggles.
Although I agree with you that the non-AST tasks discourage that I think
that the top pilots can loose others even on the AST tasks....it has
happened to me even when another top pilot told me to follow him early on in
my racing career! On the other hand I do agree that it is possible to keep
within "striking distance" in a contest by following on some days. I also
think though that some folks take independence to a fault and will pass up a
great thermal on the basis of other pilots already in it. There is also a
fine line at some point in ones racing career when they go from learning
mode, when they should be following or at least watching, to going out on
their own. That point may not be agreed upon by you and them.

Finally it will all continue to be in disarray until the US Competition
Committee defines a set of skills that we are trying to evaluate in racing
pilots and/or a goal of racing gliders. Until then you, I or anyone else
can say whatever they wish in terms of importance but there will be no way
determine which is correct.

Casey
KC

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

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message
Using the SeeYou 3d view, you can see how each glider was on a
collision course with the other - no relative movement.

If you want to see the effect, the traces are available on the ASA
website - look for Sunday's contest flights for GY and 66.


Kirk Stant
LS6-b "66"

The traces show about 0.2 mile lateral and about 100ft vertical
separation. Since I had 66 in sight, and was comfortable with the
separation, I didn't change course.

We were both well clear of cloud base at the time. The real risk is
when 2 gliders are head on and both bumping the bases. (Not than
anyone would be within 1000ft of bases above 10k).

Andy (GY)