TAT scoring question

Jonathan Gere wrote:

It did not count for a finish, because you didn't announce it on the
radio. If you did call a finish, you are done after one lap and can't
go on later. I'm not speaking of what WinScore will say, only of what
the rules require.

No, this is what the rules requi

11.2.2.4.4 If all claimed turnpoints are valid, and the pilot obtained
a scored start time, a finish time prior to finish closing and landed at
the contest site, then the pilot has completed the task.

Please notice that this rule does NOT contain the phrase "and announced
his start and finish on the radio".

It is unambiguous that S's and F's "shall" be
announced on the radio.

No, it is unambiguous that start *times* shall be reported within 15
minutes of a start, and it does not have to be on the radio (see rule
10.8.8.3). Finishes are announced by the pilot only when a finish
cylinder is used. With a finish line, the pilot only announces his
approach: "(Contest ID) four miles".

Maybe it can be a finish, but you take a
penalty for not announcing.

Now you are getting closer. It *is* a valid finish, and *maybe* you will
get a penalty for not announcing it on the radio. If a pilot repeatedly
refused to follow the radio procedures defined in the rules, the Contest
Director could make a good case for awarding a penalty for unsafe
flying or unsportsmanlike conduct. But I would have a low opinion of any
CD that handed out such a penalty automatically on first offense without
considering the circumstances.

On day 7 of the 2002 USA 15m Nats at Tonopah, Bill Bartell experienced a
double battery failure while on task: his primary battery became
unplugged, and his backup battery had a low charge. He turned off his
radio, his only vario, and his flight computer, saving his few remaining
electrons for the flight recorder. Bill finished and landed silently,
winning the day and moving into first place overall. Would you have
given him distance points only, or a penalty for not calling "four
miles"?

One day at the 2001 USA 15m Nats at Uvalde, the finish was so crowded
that the radio was squealing constantly from multiple pilots stepping on
each other trying to call "four miles", and Charlie Lite trying to
acknowledge each call. During the less than 2 minutes it took me to fly
at redline from "four miles out" to the finish line, there was not one
moment of clear frequency in which to announce my approach, and I chose
not to step on some other pilot's announcement. Would you have given me
a penalty?

Suppose S(tart)=F(inish)=TP C. No designated turn MAT. You fly
S-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-(FSC)-A-B-F (i.e. 11 TPs - 4 times around a
triangle) then after landing claim the best scoring of any one of 10
combinations of consecutive laps:
1,1+2,1+2+3,1+2+3+4,2,2+3,2+3+4,3,3+4,or 4.

Will this work? Can you openly announce all 4 S's and all 4 F's on
the radio to avoid the penalties for not doing so, and choose which to
discard by leaving them off your landing card?

There is nothing in the rules to prevent this scheme, but practical
considerations make it a useless strategy. Firstly, any of the lap
combinations that took significantly less than the minimum task time
would likely score very low.

And since maximum start altitude and minimum finish altitude are never
the same, in order to make an efficient finish and an efficient start
between each lap, you would have to finish at minimum finish altitude
and immediately pull up into a good thermal, climbing to maximum start
altitude before exiting the start cylinder, all without wasting time
searching for lift.

It is therefore unlikely that any combination of laps other than 1+2+3+4
would have both an efficient start and an efficient finish. And if any
number of laps less than four is sufficient to use up the minimum task
time, you will be beaten by the pilot who did a better job of
"bracketing" the day by not flying as far as your four laps.

If so, why do so many pilots go undertime on no turn MAT's, when they
could easily bank insurance laps during the start gate roulette?

Perhaps those pilots are not as adept as you are at mis-interpreting the
rules or devising poor racing strategies.

Gary Ittner P7
"Have glider, will race"

(John Cochrane) wrote in message

Does anyone disagree with this interpretation? I can't find a "finish
time interval" (nor can edit find in the SSA rules) between the time
of finish and landing.

John Cochrane BB


Agree. The FTI, a max time between finishing and landing, went away a
while ago. The intention of that rule, like the STI, was to stop
contestants getting pictures of additional turnpoints after finishing
(or before starting). Like STI, FTI was dropped when cameras were no
longer allowed, not when loggers were allowed. There was an overlap
when both cameras and loggers were used. I think I was the last US
competitor to use cameras in a national.

Andy

(John Cochrane) wrote in message . com...

However, as far as I can tell, you CAN call your first passage the
"finish" for scoring purposes if you're willing to take the land-out
risk. For example, if you try another turnpoint in a MAT but then turn
around and land home, or even if you make it but it gives you a slower
time overall, nothing stops you from calling the first passage a
"finish."


I agree with John' interpretation, and I think the way you accomplish
this is based on the contents of the landing card. Using the MAT
example for a second, if we have a task with: Start, Turn 1, Turn 2
assigned and assuming the pilot completes Turns 1 and 2, then the
options for the next CLAIMED point a

- Finish
- Turn 3

If the landing card says the pilot claims Finish (irrespective of
whether the trace shows he actually made Turn 3), then the scorer is
obligated to score the flight that way. As long as he was within the
limits of the Finish Cylinder, I see no reason why that isn't
legitimate. If the landing card says the pilot claims Turn 3, then
that's how it is scored. It's not unlike the old PST where you might
take a picture of a turnpoint as you went by it "just in case". You
might opt not to include it if you were going to exceed your 11
turnpoints, for example.

HOWEVER, rule 11.2.2.1 says that the landing card shall "accurately
reflect the flight that the pilot completed". As I recall, the intent
of that rule was to prevent someone from intentionally under-reporting
their flight in order to cancel out a day. That's certainly how I
would interpret this rule if I were on the Contest Competition
Committee (3.1.4).

As far as radio usage is concerned, the Appendix to the rules makes it
clear that the radio finish calls are for safety or nostalgia only
"Pilots and gate personnel should understand that the radio call... is
now mostly for show"

No?

P3

(Erik mann) wrote in message . com...
(John Cochrane) wrote in message . com...

However, as far as I can tell, you CAN call your first passage the
"finish" for scoring purposes if you're willing to take the land-out
risk. For example, if you try another turnpoint in a MAT but then turn
around and land home, or even if you make it but it gives you a slower
time overall, nothing stops you from calling the first passage a
"finish."


I agree with John' interpretation, and I think the way you accomplish
this is based on the contents of the landing card. Using the MAT
example for a second, if we have a task with: Start, Turn 1, Turn 2
assigned and assuming the pilot completes Turns 1 and 2, then the
options for the next CLAIMED point a

- Finish
- Turn 3

If the landing card says the pilot claims Finish (irrespective of
whether the trace shows he actually made Turn 3), then the scorer is
obligated to score the flight that way. As long as he was within the
limits of the Finish Cylinder, I see no reason why that isn't
legitimate. If the landing card says the pilot claims Turn 3, then
that's how it is scored. It's not unlike the old PST where you might
take a picture of a turnpoint as you went by it "just in case". You
might opt not to include it if you were going to exceed your 11
turnpoints, for example.

HOWEVER, rule 11.2.2.1 says that the landing card shall "accurately
reflect the flight that the pilot completed". As I recall, the intent
of that rule was to prevent someone from intentionally under-reporting
their flight in order to cancel out a day. That's certainly how I
would interpret this rule if I were on the Contest Competition
Committee (3.1.4).

As far as radio usage is concerned, the Appendix to the rules makes it
clear that the radio finish calls are for safety or nostalgia only
"Pilots and gate personnel should understand that the radio call... is
now mostly for show"

No?

P3

The start and finish are not required to be entered on the landing
card. Finishing is implied by checking the task complete box. Neither
the start, not the finish, are turnpoints although turnpoints may be
colocated with the start or finish. Your example of a completed
landing card does not seem to be valid.

In the case where a turnpoint falls inside the finish cylinder it is
perfectly legitimate to bag that turnpoint, then another, then return
to the finish. It is also true that a flight leg that happens to pass
through the finish cylinder does not force the pilot to abort the task
and land. No landing card claim need be associated with that event.

The radio call that "is for nostalgia" is the call of good finish by a
finish line ground observer. There have been cases where a good
finish call was given but the flight log shows no such valid finish
was made. It only applies to line finishes. The pilot call of
"finish" only applies to cylinder finishes.

Otherwise I think we are in agreement that there is no prohibition on
attempting another turnpoint after being inside the finish cylinder.
That's fortunate of course because often the start and finish are
colocated or overlap.

Andy

11.2.2.1

Quote
A11.2.2.1 ...
The landing card must reflect the flight actually accomplished, even
in the case where claiming a shorter flight might be in the pilot's
best interest. A deliberate violation of this rule could be considered
unsportsmanlike conduct.
Unquote

If the intent here is only to preclude deliberately helping to cancel
or devalue the day, then this certainly should not apply to not
claiming TP's along the way which would invalidate the pilot's flight.
Examples might be exceeding 11 TP's, as you mention, or a TP which
winds up being a repeated TP. To claim the invalid TP's would be to
claim a "shorter" flight in the scoring sense anyway.

The issue I see is that in quaint olden days the starts and finishes
were fixed and known to the ground, so the pilot's longest (in
distance) task was his fastest task. The pilot would never be
contributing to devaluation or cancellation by reporting the subset of
his flight giving the best scoring speed. Also, a pilot could not
discard a later start and revert to a previous start and use some TP's
made before and some TP's made after the final start to get a better
distance.

But now:

What if his best attempt in one flight is complete, but grossly
undertime? This could cause devaluation under Rule 11.5.4. Must he
claim the maximum possible distance and/or time from the combination
of turnpoints reached in two attempts he never intended as a single
task attempt, even if it produces a slower scoring speed? An
unintended valid TP may even have been reached following an unintended
valid start with no intention of even being on course, must he claim
this under 11.2.2.1?

What if a pilot starts, gets a TP, gets slow, comes back without
landing, takes another start (an entirely new attempt he thinks) and
lands out short of minimum distance. Should he claim the maximum
possible distance from the combination of turnpoints reached in two
attempts he never intended as a single task attempt? Does good
sportsmanship require it? Do the rules require it?

Jonathan Gere 34

(Erik mann) wrote in message . com...
(John Cochrane) wrote in message . com...

However, as far as I can tell, you CAN call your first passage the
"finish" for scoring purposes if you're willing to take the land-out
risk. For example, if you try another turnpoint in a MAT but then turn
around and land home, or even if you make it but it gives you a slower
time overall, nothing stops you from calling the first passage a
"finish."


I agree with John' interpretation, and I think the way you accomplish
this is based on the contents of the landing card. Using the MAT
example for a second, if we have a task with: Start, Turn 1, Turn 2
assigned and assuming the pilot completes Turns 1 and 2, then the
options for the next CLAIMED point a

- Finish
- Turn 3

If the landing card says the pilot claims Finish (irrespective of
whether the trace shows he actually made Turn 3), then the scorer is
obligated to score the flight that way. As long as he was within the
limits of the Finish Cylinder, I see no reason why that isn't
legitimate. If the landing card says the pilot claims Turn 3, then
that's how it is scored. It's not unlike the old PST where you might
take a picture of a turnpoint as you went by it "just in case". You
might opt not to include it if you were going to exceed your 11
turnpoints, for example.

HOWEVER, rule 11.2.2.1 says that the landing card shall "accurately
reflect the flight that the pilot completed". As I recall, the intent
of that rule was to prevent someone from intentionally under-reporting
their flight in order to cancel out a day. That's certainly how I
would interpret this rule if I were on the Contest Competition
Committee (3.1.4).

As far as radio usage is concerned, the Appendix to the rules makes it
clear that the radio finish calls are for safety or nostalgia only
"Pilots and gate personnel should understand that the radio call... is
now mostly for show"

No?

P3

Mark,
You are free to claim the contest site as a turn point
and then proceed to another turn point, but if you
land out or start your engine, you will get distance
points only. It's your devious attempt to have your
cake and eat it too, that has me upset.
JJ

As I read the rules I am hard pressed to find any language
that indicates that radio calls are intended to determine
which starts or finishes are to be used. There is certainly
no specific language requiring this. To the contrary,
what language there is appears to indicate safety as
the reason, particularly for finishes. Furthermore,
the specific language in the 2004 rules makes start
calls optional at the CD's discretion.

10.8.8 Start time reporting
The CD *may* require pilots to report their start times
by radio.

When it's mandatory, the rules read *shall* rather
than *may*.

As to the efficacy Jonathan's 4-lap strategy, I guess
it is theoretically possible that you could have a
1.5 hour MAT called (with or without a first TP) on
a day with 6 hours of good soaring conditions after
the gate opens. Gary points out some of the practical
limitations (best conditions near the Start/Finish,
outlanding risk, needing to find a good thermal from
low altitude right after each intermediate finish).


The biggest negative for me is the fact that you would
need to take a start earlier than normal to get in
the first 'lap' and from then on you are 'on the clock'.
This means that you are forced at each subsequent finish
to get back out on course right away, rather than trying
to optimize the height or location or time of your
start. This is particularly true if you need more than
one lap to get over minimum time. There is also (as
John Cochrane would point out) a structural points
penalty associated with multi-lap strategies that put
you well over minimum time.

A potentially more likely scenario is a pilot who elects
to add turnpoints after 'finishing' a task - either
because he finds himself under time and/or sees conditions
ahead that allow him to quickly bag a couple of additional
turnpoints. I pursued this strategy one day at a contest
this summer, but never connected with a good thermal,
so I landed.

I personally don't have a problem with pilots pursuing
these strategies - practical or not. It doesn't seem
unfair and the rules required to preclude them would
just add complexity.

9B

This bagging of turnpoints or laps before your start. Remember, the task start
time?? Remember what Winscore checks for?? Whenever you start, no matter when,
Winscore MUST see a gps trace to each and every turnpoint or turn area and a
finish. IF Winscore does NOT see this trace, then it gives you a landout. On A
MAT, Winscore must see this trace between turnpoints claimed or you will get a
landout. Winscore checks flight traces and turnpoints/ turn areas. Like it
connects the gps fixes to the dots and the circle has to be complete. Without a
proper flight trace you will get a landout, or no flight. Just as See you shows
you your flight, if you don't get to the turnpoint/turn area it shows you a
photo landing. Only a small power interuption is allowed. The finish and start
are not turnpoints. If you come back and finish, you better get a turnpoint for
the area you are in before you go back and try to increase your distance. and
then get a turnpoint on a mat and then landout, since you didn't land at the
home field, then Winscore will land you out. What you can not do is bag
turnpoints or laps before the start. Winscore again checks for traces between
the start and turnpoints and /or turn areas. If someone wishes to finish, then
head back to the turn area to get more mileage, he can do so, but he better
make it home and show a finish and not landout. And if anyone wishes to do this
and think it will increase his speed, please do so, I like to win. If cheaters
like to come and try to win this way, of bagging laps or turnpoints before the
start, then I have noticed that they make themselfs seen. As they have teeth
marks on their foreheads, as they have bitten their ass which their heads are
up. IMHO. # 711.

Winscore MUST see a gps trace to each and every turnpoint or turn area and
a
finish. IF Winscore does NOT see this trace, then it gives you a landout.
On A MAT, Winscore must see this trace between turnpoints claimed or you
will get a
landout. Winscore checks flight traces and turnpoints/ turn areas. Like
it.....

I have watched this thead with interest, and really wanted to keep out of
it, but this post forced me to jump in.

In your post you repeatedly say what Winscore can and can't do and what
Winscore requires of a flight trace. Winscore is one tool used by a scorer
to see if a US contest flight conforms to the published US rules. "Winscore
will land you out" if the rules specify a landout in such a situation.
"Winscore checks" was is required to be checked by the US rules. Any
deviation in Winscore's behavior from the US rules should be immediately
reported to me as a program problem.

And when, inevitably, Winscore does make an error scoring a flight, it gives
the scorer the tools to override and correct the analysis based on the
scorer and CD's judment.

Guy Byars
Winscore Author

In your post you repeatedly say what Winscore can and can't do and what
Winscore requires of a flight trace. Winscore is one tool used by a scorer
to see if a US contest flight conforms to the published US rules. "Winscore
will land you out" if the rules specify a landout in such a situation.
"Winscore checks" was is required to be checked by the US rules. Any
deviation in Winscore's behavior from the US rules should be immediately
reported to me as a program problem.


Yes, Guy, I assumed we are talking about WinScore being used at US contests.
This topic started from the bagging of turnpoints before the start. Current US
contest rules do not permit bagging of turnpoints before the start. to then be
used whenever a contestant wishes to slip them in. I was speaking of how
generally Winscore works, and of course it must be used by a qualified scorer
and CD, under US rules, when used in the U.S.A. I believe that when used in
this way, Winscore does what it is designed to do. My responce to this thead
came from the idea that contestants were thinking of a way to get around the
rules for a unfair advantage. I believe that we, the contestants, all want a
""level playing field"" and this is what is given us by the US contest rules.
Our US contest board, along with you, have worked very hard to give us what we
have today. A good progam which has "checks" and "balances" for our racing
needs. I do not know everything Winscore can and cann't do, and as you know,
earlier this year I spoke with you about a start problem seen by a contest
scorer and contest manager. I have been told that this problem now has been
corrected. That's great and I thank you for your help. At the contests I have
been at over the last few years, most scorers, when their time permits, are
glad to show you how they perform their work. Most CD's are willing to speak
with you over the rules when their workload does permit. As new contestants are
needed for our sport to grow, I suggest to them that when they do go to
contests, they speak with their mentors, or contest officals to "clear their
thoughts" on the US rules, so all of us can have a "level playing field". #
711.