Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

On Friday, 16 August 2013 10:47:16 UTC-6, Sean Franke wrote:
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:07:26 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Having thought long and hard about this for many years, I'm curious what alternative you guys would prefer.







Unlimited altitude start? Then on blue days you absolutely have to sit with the gaggle for 20-30 minutes to get that last 500 feet. Or, everyone goes off into the clouds (demonstrated fact). It can also be remarkably unfair, when early takeoffs find thermal wave or it takes a long time to get to start altitude.







Limited altitude, no 2 minutes, a la IGC? Back to VNE dives. Or VNE dives after orbiting up in the clouds, a la IGC.







The current system has the advantage that you don't have to do any craziness for competitive reasons. If the max height is set sensibly low enough, as the rules suggest, then orbit above or away from everyone else. When it's time to start, return to the cylinder, climb up and go. Or better yet, stay below, well away from the nutty gaggle, and climb out through the top.







"Start anywhere" adds to the options as you get credit for distance flown and can more easily choose to avoid the big gaggle.







I grant many people still do some silly things, like orbit just below MSH in a big gaggle for half an hour. They don't have to, but they choose to and it's not great.







Still, let's hear a better alternative.







John Cochrane



BB, I'm trying really hard not to get drawn in this again.



Do you think VNE dives and orbiting up into clouds is old school IGC? I haven't experienced that in the last two WGC's. Max height was set a bit above maximum expected altitude. No need to dive. Is it really a problem? Anomaly?



Cloud flying is prohibited under US rules and IGC. At the last WGC gliders were thermalling right near the home field where prohibited before the start. One day the organizers said if you do it from now on there WILL be a penalty. They sent up an observer every day after. Interesting, pilots stopped thermalling right where prohibited. Seems to me if you don't want cloud flying then enforce the rule.



Sean R Franke

To me a lot of the issues being discussed have pro and con factors to them. How you determine which side you lean towards is probably personal experience.

What Sean just pointed out is an important one to me; enforcement. The rules for the USA and IGC are defined in such way, IMO, so that software can be used for enforcement. Have scored USA and WGC contests this can easily, well kinda sorta almost, be accomplished with existing software solutions.

Having to provide observers or enforcers in the air is most likely prohibited, financial and resource wise, for anything but a WGC

Carry on

I work under the very basic premise of if you cannot enforce a rule then do
not make it, so why stipulate a maximum start height.

Why do we have a maximum start height at all? Prior to the rules of the
past 20 years the start height for a contest was set at 3000 feet. The
reason for this was quite simple. 3000ft was found to be the maximum height
at which the identifying letters in the underside of a glider wing could be
read from the ground by an observer using binoculars. This was necessary
because competitors had to be logged crossing the start line by an observer
on the ground for a start time to be recorded (There was no GPS) So the
reason for specifying a maximum start height at all is historical and has
no logical purpose if the start is recorded on a logger.
For some reason, after the need for observed starts became unecessary the
maximum start height rule was maintained.
The simple answer to the problem is two fold. Stop using start cylinders
and use a standard D start sector with a start line. Do not specify a
maximum start height, replace it with a rule which penalises any glider
exceeding a specified height before the gate opens, after the gate is open
a start can be made at any height. Easily enforceable, fair to all
including those launching last. Simples

On Friday, August 16, 2013 10:25:33 AM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:

What Sean just pointed out is an important one to me; enforcement. The rules for the USA and IGC are defined in such way, IMO, so that software can be used for enforcement. Have scored USA and WGC contests this can easily, well kinda sorta almost, be accomplished with existing software solutions..


Important point Ron/Sean.

There are certain things that are very challenging to enforce so it's probably preferred to set up the rules so you are not dependent on enforcement that is expensive/difficult or subject to uncertainty in measurement.

It's likely easier to try to set MSH below cloud base to have than observers to enforce clearance from clouds. You could leave it to pilots to report or take pictures so as to zero out fellow competitors' scores for the day, but that seems a bit harsh/impractical too.

The two minute rule is probably more precise to enforce than a speed limit. I am not aware of anyone having been dinged for flying too fast in the start cylinder and I can imagine that it would be the subject of protest given the inherent imprecision in estimating indicated airspeed off a GPS trace.

Other summary observations from this thread:

Raising the start height (to as high as infinity) creates problems with fairness for the back of the grid unless you extend the time from last takeoff to gate open to account for tow, search and potentially multiple climbs to get to top of lift. This may be an impractically long time and could generate protests under the fair opportunity to compete provision in the rules.

Out of the top starts are generally improve task speed and generally are a preferred tactic if allowed and possible. They also have a demonstrated effect (I did the analysis personally) of spreading out starts over the entire area of the start cylinder rather than the edge. This should be beneficial to safety.

There is a challenge with pilot behavior diving into or orbiting gaggles just below MSH, combined with "clock-watching" for the two minute rule. Some of the effects of this may be ameliorated with revisions to glide computer software that automate the two minute measurement. Some of the pilot behavior may in fact be not beneficial to the pilots' performance and could be improved with education. It may also benefit from adjustments in how the rules are implemented.

There may be some benefit from line starts, but I am not really clear how or why this would be true since a line is just a segment of a cylinder with infinite radius. Food for further thought.

That's most of what I got out of it. Pretty good discussion.

9B

Rich,

If someone gets to 10k ahead of me launching, I would expect that I should be able to get that high as well in short order. If not, its probably my problem. I need to give myself time to climb up just as the early launcher did. Sometimes there is not enough time for the late launchers to be in position to start 15 minutes after launching or with the early starters. So what? This is a basic fact of contests. I just don't see a early launcher having a head start over a late launcher or re-lite as unfair. As with many things, it depends.

Back to the climbs. The ability to climb higher than the others requires great skill. Often its lighter wing-loading which balances out over the task, etc (assuming all other factors are equal). Sure, occasionally one may get 500 ft above the rest before starting. Good for them! Is this luck? Skill? I say skill.

Furthermore, within a start area and over a period of an hour or so, opportunities to climb should be fairly uniform in said area. I don't see a major difference in climb potential in the start process unless you are in a wave condition and are inexperienced with wave flying.

Grid positions are random, and part of our sports nature (until we all have motor gliders). Example: I was left behind unable to climb high enough to start one day this year at 18 meter nationals. Should I have called the CD and said this is unfair? I was just not finding lift as the gaggles heading out on task (I was 1500 below, struggling), and it took me 20-30 minutes to find a climb and set off after the pack. In my opinion that is just part of the game. Fairness is not guaranteed, same as skill varies. That day it was my inexperience that cost me the chance to start with the pack, not unfairness.

What if you cant get as high as a guy who launched after you? Is that also unfair? ;-)

Anyhoo, I just don't seem to get the unfairness you are concerned with regarding an unlimited start height which will allow pilots to get their heads out of the contest in this highly dangerous part of contest flying. I see it as a great solution to a massive problem that is just a mistake away from causing a big, big bummer for a couple unlucky pilots.

Safety first! Everything else is a distant second. Pilots need to have their heads out of the cockpit, especially when in the start cylinder/line area!

Sean

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:05:10 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 5:32:50 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Richard,

Why? Any start opening 15 minutes after the last launch has the potential of being unfair on a weak day (loosing the gaggle). This is just part of the nature of soaring. Sometimes you have to do it yourself! ;-)



Sean,

There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled

is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue.

Richard Walters

On Friday, August 16, 2013 11:35:26 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Rich,
If someone gets to 10k ahead of me launching, I would expect that I should be able to get that high as well in short order. If not, its probably my problem.
Sean

Sean,
You are forgeting that sometimes the lift that goes to 17,500' is nowhere near the start cylinder. Assuming a large contest and a one hour launch, the first off the grid have an additional hour to explore and utilize this lift, then return for a start. What if the task is overcalled? Invariably, your day at the front of the grid will be met with low cloudbases. Sign up for Minden next year and you can experience in person just how unfair your proposal is.
Richard Walters

I have great pics from sitting in the wave at Mifflin at 10,000 feet (and climbing) while about half the fleet is still on the grid. It was a bit of a fluke that I and one or two other guys got into it, as the one big thermal that happened to go high enough to get into the wave showed up at just the right time/place.

So, suppose this was okay in the rules. Two of us have a 6,000 foot advantage on a 3kt average day, or a 20 minute head start on a 3 hour task. We've won the day before the gate ever opens.

While I don't subscribe to the idea that everything has to be perfectly fair, I don't believe that this sort of luck should be so heavily rewarded. I think there's a balance between trying to over-engineer fairness and no-holds-barred.

P3

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:12:32 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, August 16, 2013 11:35:26 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Rich,

If someone gets to 10k ahead of me launching, I would expect that I should be able to get that high as well in short order. If not, its probably my problem.

Sean



Sean,

You are forgeting that sometimes the lift that goes to 17,500' is nowhere near the start cylinder. Assuming a large contest and a one hour launch, the first off the grid have an additional hour to explore and utilize this lift, then return for a start. What if the task is overcalled? Invariably, your day at the front of the grid will be met with low cloudbases. Sign up for Minden next year and you can experience in person just how unfair your proposal is.

Richard Walters

At 14:35 17 August 2013, Papa3 wrote:
I have great pics from sitting in the wave at Mifflin at 10,000 feet (and
c=
limbing) while about half the fleet is still on the grid. It was a bit
of=
a fluke that I and one or two other guys got into it, as the one big
therm=
al that happened to go high enough to get into the wave showed up at just
t=
he right time/place.

So, suppose this was okay in the rules. Two of us have a 6,000 foot
advan=
tage on a 3kt average day, or a 20 minute head start on a 3 hour task.
We'=
ve won the day before the gate ever opens. =20

While I don't subscribe to the idea that everything has to be perfectly
fai=
r, I don't believe that this sort of luck should be so heavily rewarded.

=
I think there's a balance between trying to over-engineer fairness and
no=
-holds-barred. =20

P3
Which is exactly why I suggest that there should be a restriction on the
maximum height before the gate opens. After the gate opens you can climb
to/ start from any height. Don't forget to do away with the start cyclinder
and use a proper D sector with a start line.

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:48:38 AM UTC-7, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 14:35 17 August 2013, Papa3 wrote:

I have great pics from sitting in the wave at Mifflin at 10,000 feet (and

c=

limbing) while about half the fleet is still on the grid. It was a bit

of=

a fluke that I and one or two other guys got into it, as the one big

therm=

al that happened to go high enough to get into the wave showed up at just

t=

he right time/place.



So, suppose this was okay in the rules. Two of us have a 6,000 foot

advan=

tage on a 3kt average day, or a 20 minute head start on a 3 hour task.

We'=

ve won the day before the gate ever opens. =20



While I don't subscribe to the idea that everything has to be perfectly

fai=

r, I don't believe that this sort of luck should be so heavily rewarded..



=

I think there's a balance between trying to over-engineer fairness and

no=

-holds-barred. =20



P3

Which is exactly why I suggest that there should be a restriction on the

maximum height before the gate opens. After the gate opens you can climb

to/ start from any height. Don't forget to do away with the start cyclinder

and use a proper D sector with a start line.

Hmmmmm...

I think the main issue is that a high starts adds to the average speed on course (because of the higher ratio of gliding to climbing in your time on course) so if you can start high before a competitor can even have a chance to start, particularly on a day where the weather may be changing (say, OD at the start) you may force the late launchers to take up to a 5 mph speed hit because they have to take a start thousands of feet lower (say 12.5k vs 17.5k). I've seen lots of days where it takes a while to climb up that high and where there is OD or some other weather consideration that makes you want to get out of Dodge.

The reason why we have 15 minutes from last launch to gate open is so that everyone has some reasonable chance to get to MSH before anyone can go out on course to reduce the effect of luck in the outcomes. If you want unlimited height starts than you should extend the time period to allow people to climb. If people are getting 12-14k AGL you'll need nearly an hour.

I think this is totally different from whether you are able as a pilot to find a thermal and climb as well as your peers - that is more skill than luck.

You can, as has been suggested, simply say that position on the grid is part of the game and if you can get up and out on course before the weather moves in and while others are still on the gird, good for you. If this is your philosophy the the there is actually no point in having a start opening time at all - it should be launch and go if you want. If I'm grinding around trying to climb in the rain with competitors out on course in the sun, however, I would probably not like it much and might be inclined to protest under the fair opportunity to compete provisions in the rules.

Interesting point. I see it now! Well, perhaps the RC has some ideas to noodle on anyway...

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:35:50 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
I have great pics from sitting in the wave at Mifflin at 10,000 feet (and climbing) while about half the fleet is still on the grid. It was a bit of a fluke that I and one or two other guys got into it, as the one big thermal that happened to go high enough to get into the wave showed up at just the right time/place.



So, suppose this was okay in the rules. Two of us have a 6,000 foot advantage on a 3kt average day, or a 20 minute head start on a 3 hour task. We've won the day before the gate ever opens.


Same thing happened at Fairfield last year, but in this case the MSH was high enough so the few who got into wave were able to start 1000 or more above the rest (and I wasn't one of the fortunate few). The day was a very weak one, so 1000' was a huge advantage.

TA