USA and FAI rules

I just want to say that reading everyone's posts are alot of fun. Thanks! I hope my attempt at humor was not taken as an insult (Dr. Evil, Riiiight!). I just completely disagree with the logic presented. For me people have 1000's of opinions. I still drink beer with people and call them great friends (and they me) even if we disagree passionately about a number of topics. Same applies to us here.

For me, an AAT and especially the infamous MAT (more commonly referred to as the HAT or "half assed task") are abominations to competition and pointless. We should just fly OLC and save the cost of certified loggers ;-) as we seem to fly these tasks 95% of the time!

To Karl: If I were you and had been chased around by leeches for a couple decades, I likely would have a different viewpoint. ;-). Fortunately I do not have this problem as of yet. So I don't mind the idea of these things and don't think that AAT's, MAT's or AT's make that much difference in the tactics of pilots who like to leech or start late and jump the gaggles. The same start cylinder gaggles exist in all of these tasks. Who are we kidding? ;-)

At the end of the day I will respect the elders here and have read the various posts & viewpoints. Some are compelling to me, but most fall short.

I wish to fly more (much more) AT's. IGC is not the key to my happiness however. The AT's in Uvalde 2011 were the most exciting, enjoyable flights of my soaring career (US Rules I believe). The gaggle's were almost non-existant (mainly AT tasks!!!). The group of 15-20 18 meter gliders regularly broke into small packs of 2 or 3 at most. Everyone was going so fast, so far, etc between thermals. Pilots with different tactics split up early and were never seen again. Maybe weak eastern conditions provides more gaggles in AT's, but so what? I saw more gaggles in Fairfield this fall during AAT and MAT tasks then I have seen in the AT's I have flown (to be honest).

As a sailboat racer (regularly within feet of competitors at full speed) I don't really mind close contact or gaggles in gliders. I respect them for sure but am not fearful of them. I think, if you want to call yourself a glider racer you need to build the skills & confidence necessary to manage gaggles and traffic (Flarm, scan, etc). Sometimes I have decided to leave a thermal when it becomes too unpredictable or a glider enters in a dangerous manner. But, we cant make rules that eliminate other gliders from the program entirely (even though some might like to try!).

Sean
F2

Sean -

I'm not offended by your comments, so no worries there.

But saying that certain tasks are "abominations to competition and
pointless" is rather unhelpful and hyperbolic. What is it about the
AAT/TAT and MAT that you hate so much? Can you at least put into
words what kinds of flying, or pilot behavior, or skills that you feel
these tasks inappropriately focus on?

I'm glad you felt exhilarated flying some AT tasks; but have you
considered that maybe the site, weather, or contest committee were the
reason for that - not just the task type?

A good AAT/TAT should be challenging, fun, exhilarating, and provide
many tense moments where you have to choose what course-line to take,
how far to run into cylinders, when to head for home, etc. If you're
not having those experiences in your normal contest flying, then your
contest staff are not calling good tasks.

Lastly, please note that none of us are saying we are scared of gaggle-
flying or unwilling to do it. But there's a difference between having
the occasional gaggle on-course, and a contest task that explicitly
encourages pilots to always stick together and never be innovative or
think on their own, or try their own thing. Its been proven that AT
racing rules strongly encourage and reward gaggle-flying, where
everyone stays together - and the individual who strikes out on their
own loses the vast, VAST majority of the time.

--Noel

On Friday, January 18, 2013 8:05:57 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
Sean -



I'm not offended by your comments, so no worries there.



But saying that certain tasks are "abominations to competition and

pointless" is rather unhelpful and hyperbolic. What is it about the

AAT/TAT and MAT that you hate so much? Can you at least put into

words what kinds of flying, or pilot behavior, or skills that you feel

these tasks inappropriately focus on?



I'm glad you felt exhilarated flying some AT tasks; but have you

considered that maybe the site, weather, or contest committee were the

reason for that - not just the task type?



A good AAT/TAT should be challenging, fun, exhilarating, and provide

many tense moments where you have to choose what course-line to take,

how far to run into cylinders, when to head for home, etc. If you're

not having those experiences in your normal contest flying, then your

contest staff are not calling good tasks.



Lastly, please note that none of us are saying we are scared of gaggle-

flying or unwilling to do it. But there's a difference between having

the occasional gaggle on-course, and a contest task that explicitly

encourages pilots to always stick together and never be innovative or

think on their own, or try their own thing. Its been proven that AT

racing rules strongly encourage and reward gaggle-flying, where

everyone stays together - and the individual who strikes out on their

own loses the vast, VAST majority of the time.



--Noel

I was reflecting back on a couple of memorable ATs I've flown over the years. I suspect the reality is that, under good conditions, our US ATs are no more or less likely to have large, furball gaggles and actually do present some interesting tactical challenges. With relatively good conditions, Cu, and a reasonable likelihood of a long day, pilots will make different decisions about when to start. Also, with obvious Cu marking thermals, folks may take different lines or streets. I think of Day 4 at Cordele in 2011. A "manly" 260 mile triangle called by P1 under cu-filled sky with high bases. I picked what I thought was the optimal start considering time, development on course, and corker of a thermal at the edge of the cyclinder. Saw a few gliders here and there, but was never really "with" anyone for probably 200 of the 260 miles.

Contrast that with an AT 14 years earlier at the 1997 Nationals in Cordele. The task was a 156 mile quadrilateral with weakish lift to maybe 4,000 feet. I recall leaving a little later than some of the early starters - maybe middle of the pack. I actually caught up with some of the early guys on the first leg, but the later starters caught us by the first turn. For the next 3 hours probably 25 of the 30 ships in the fleet bounced between two gaggles around almost the whole course. For the most part, I remember it being relatively well behaved, though there were a few curt exchanges over the radio. I had some fun, but I recall being amazed that people were just trying to maintain position (this was my first nationals). The late starters had the race won by the first TP, and there was absolutely no way anyone was going to make a significant gain on the fleet with 30 pairs of eyes watching every ship that made even a small breakaway move. Real peleton stuff. The first 20 finishers all scored over 900 points, and 3/4 of those didn't make a single decision regarding courseline or tactics in the entire flight other than at the start.

Clearly in the second case, a AAT with even 10 mile cylinders would have reduced the gaggling somewhat and probably resulted in a broader spectrum of scores. IMO, that would have been a much tougher test than what we got.

"One example that worked: The original TAT (AAT in other lands) had turn areas described by radials and arcs from a point. We stayed with the simpler circle and they finally came along."

Sorry, no. Radials and arcs (more often called 'wedges') are still in the FAI rules (Annex A, 7.5.2b) and actively used in other countries.
Popular in Australia at the moment as a timesoak as when set 'pointing' at the finish it brings all the gliders in on the same heading.

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:17:35 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.

Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.

R



Yeah, I'm really surprised that this winter's flame war has been over

the idea of using IGC rules, like next spring, at nationals. I thought

for sure that flarm radar (require stealth mode?), the team-flying and

pilot to pilot communication experiment, and the structure of future

national competition (more handicaps? merge classes?) would be the

huge issues we'd be discussing over the winter. Surely, these are the

issues that have bedeviled the rules committee the most -- we really

don't have clean simple answers here. And, in practice, they still

look to me like the issues with the likely most profound impact on US

contest soaring this and in the next few years.



A minor point. As I think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever for

the US to have two sets of rules as fundamentally different as IGC and

US going on at the same time. If one contest uses a line, no altitude

limit, kilometers, and no penalty buffer zones, while the next contest

uses a cylinder, altitude limit, miles, and buffer zones, there will

be no end of confusion. Scorers and CDs can barely keep up with one

set of rules. It also makes no sense to create a completely new set of

hybrid rules halfway between US and IGC, losing the many years of

experience behind every single paragraph in the US rules and opening

us up to who knows how many bugs.



So, the question really is, should the US go wholehog to IGC annex A

for its rules, in all classes. The RC is starting to be attracted to

the idea, because then we could all quit and go home, and if you don't

like a rule, call Switzerland.



Look for it to be polled in the fall.



John Cochrane

No, we need you John, too many contest pilots died of too low finishes ,
and nobody died of your stupid rules(don't push me to contact widow),
Make sure my last turn is above 500agl, make sure I never turn below 45 kts..
If I do, make sure I get penalized and look only at the gauges while landing.
Make me worry that all pilots want to fly like me and will follow me with all the time with theirs Flarms. Make sure that I safely crash land between collided gliders on the runway. Defend your rules. Let CD have a chance to set task, so opposite gaggles can fly with high speed head on.
This is your legacy.We need You.
Ryszard Krolikowski

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:46:38 PM UTC-6, RW wrote:
On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:17:35 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

I do fear the impact of flarm, if any for those smart enough to game it to an advantage or now the use of radio chatter at regionals. I can only hope that the idea to drop the worst day, whether some of us are believed by others not to fully understand it, will never rear its ugly head.



Sorry Ray, I think the world has it wrong and we have the best. You and others helped create what to me is downright magic. Carry that with you and let the World chips fall where they may.



R







Yeah, I'm really surprised that this winter's flame war has been over



the idea of using IGC rules, like next spring, at nationals. I thought



for sure that flarm radar (require stealth mode?), the team-flying and



pilot to pilot communication experiment, and the structure of future



national competition (more handicaps? merge classes?) would be the



huge issues we'd be discussing over the winter. Surely, these are the



issues that have bedeviled the rules committee the most -- we really



don't have clean simple answers here. And, in practice, they still



look to me like the issues with the likely most profound impact on US



contest soaring this and in the next few years.







A minor point. As I think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever for



the US to have two sets of rules as fundamentally different as IGC and



US going on at the same time. If one contest uses a line, no altitude



limit, kilometers, and no penalty buffer zones, while the next contest



uses a cylinder, altitude limit, miles, and buffer zones, there will



be no end of confusion. Scorers and CDs can barely keep up with one



set of rules. It also makes no sense to create a completely new set of



hybrid rules halfway between US and IGC, losing the many years of



experience behind every single paragraph in the US rules and opening



us up to who knows how many bugs.







So, the question really is, should the US go wholehog to IGC annex A



for its rules, in all classes. The RC is starting to be attracted to



the idea, because then we could all quit and go home, and if you don't



like a rule, call Switzerland.







Look for it to be polled in the fall.







John Cochrane



No, we need you John, too many contest pilots died of too low finishes ,

and nobody died of your stupid rules(don't push me to contact widow),

Make sure my last turn is above 500agl, make sure I never turn below 45 kts.

If I do, make sure I get penalized and look only at the gauges while landing.

Make me worry that all pilots want to fly like me and will follow me with all the time with theirs Flarms. Make sure that I safely crash land between collided gliders on the runway. Defend your rules. Let CD have a chance to set task, so opposite gaggles can fly with high speed head on.

This is your legacy.We need You.

Ryszard Krolikowski

Ryszard, your rambling 'irony' is completely lost on me. You seem to be bitter, clinging to your strictly assigned tasks and super-low finishes.
Sorry to say but times have passed you by. You won't find a majority of contest pilots going back to those rules. Dumping on those in the sport who want to make soaring contests safer is not helping your cause.

I dont think this discussion needs to be looked at as sinister. There are good people throughout the range of opinion here. I feel that there are justifications for US rules which are sensible, especially for new or conservative pilots. But there are others who would like to fly IGC and they have every right to want the right to have that choice within the USA and under their SSA organization.

I am confident that they WILL have that choice in the US within the next year and even this year, although it may not be at the 2013 Sports Class Nationals as was hoped. It will likely begin in Club Class but should be an option in all classes. Change is a slow process and significant communication and progress has occurred as a result of these debates. While these discussions may have become passionate at times, a positive result will be the outcome in the end.

I look forward to the upcoming season and flying US rules and potentially some IGC rules.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

All

I've been a little preoccupied recently, but I'd like to throw in my perspective here since many of the discussion points seem polarized. I'd like to throw out some ideas about IGC vs US rules and Club class in particular. I have flown in 2 WGC's and one European National Championships.

The US scoring system is not the reason we are not as competitive as we would like to be. (I agree with Karl here) The reason is that our own contest scene is dwindling and not as competitive as it needs to be. (many reasons for this)

A major goal of the RC needs to be to promote a popular, competitive, contest scene. They are doing their best in a difficult environment. Our country is huge and has no areas of critical mass and focus for contest flying as many European countries do.

Having said that, part of promoting a competitive contest scene is to help drive competitiveness within the scoring.

The IGC speed/distance points approach rewards smaller differences in speed and helps to focus pilots on the value and importance of small improvements particularly at the top level. It is NOT the major driver for gaggling (though it has some influence) - gaggling is caused by the fear of losing points relative to other competitors and is rooted most importantly in the massive penalty for going alone and landing out that exists in our own US scoring. Karl himself has noted that gaggling in AST's in the blue at Hobbs happens WITHOUT IGC scoring to blame. That particular bugaboo (IGC drives gaggling) needs to be put in its place. It is a factor yes, but not the dominant one.

I would like to see us take the best of IGC and US systems. We can use IGC speed/distance points equations with our Start and finish procedures. We can reward speed differential more and help reduce the tiny margins by which many National competitions are won in the US. (I resemble that remark...)

Club is the most accessible, affordable racing class available to us. I believe club class is the long term foundation for pilot development in the US and can be an excellent trial class for a 'best of US/IGC' system. (thinking here that handicapping for wt as per the US is a plus, as one example of the ways we can pick the best system)

Club class afficionado's need to embrace a handicap range that matches the IGC high and low (not a Euro-centric cherry picked list that has NO relevance in the US)- the goal needs to be how to make the club class as popular and accessible as possible - competitiveness will then ensue. It is also a perfect development ground for junior pilots (see cost and accessibility)

With a more competitive contest scene, we will be able to send our pilots to WGC's with the confidence that their selection environment (like the Germans for example, whose Nationals in my experience are higher average standard than a WGC) ensures competitive performance.

I propose we stop religious warfare about scoring systems and focus our energies on how we can take the best of all systems into our own, to build a foundation for the future of US competitive soaring.


Hope this helps.

Peter Deane (my own views - not necessarily those of the USTC)



On Monday, 28 January 2013 09:09:04 UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
I dont think this discussion needs to be looked at as sinister. There are good people throughout the range of opinion here. I feel that there are justifications for US rules which are sensible, especially for new or conservative pilots. But there are others who would like to fly IGC and they have every right to want the right to have that choice within the USA and under their SSA organization.



I am confident that they WILL have that choice in the US within the next year and even this year, although it may not be at the 2013 Sports Class Nationals as was hoped. It will likely begin in Club Class but should be an option in all classes. Change is a slow process and significant communication and progress has occurred as a result of these debates. While these discussions may have become passionate at times, a positive result will be the outcome in the end.



I look forward to the upcoming season and flying US rules and potentially some IGC rules.



Sincerely,



Sean

F2

In article ,
wrote:

All

I've been a little preoccupied recently, but I'd like to throw in my
perspective here since many of the discussion points seem polarized. I'd like
to throw out some ideas about IGC vs US rules and Club class in particular. I
have flown in 2 WGC's and one European National Championships.

The US scoring system is not the reason we are not as competitive as we would
like to be. (I agree with Karl here) The reason is that our own contest scene
is dwindling and not as competitive as it needs to be. (many reasons for
this)

A major goal of the RC needs to be to promote a popular, competitive, contest
scene. They are doing their best in a difficult environment. Our country is
huge and has no areas of critical mass and focus for contest flying as many
European countries do.

Having said that, part of promoting a competitive contest scene is to help
drive competitiveness within the scoring.

The IGC speed/distance points approach rewards smaller differences in speed
and helps to focus pilots on the value and importance of small improvements
particularly at the top level. It is NOT the major driver for gaggling
(though it has some influence) - gaggling is caused by the fear of losing
points relative to other competitors and is rooted most importantly in the
massive penalty for going alone and landing out that exists in our own US
scoring. Karl himself has noted that gaggling in AST's in the blue at Hobbs
happens WITHOUT IGC scoring to blame. That particular bugaboo (IGC drives
gaggling) needs to be put in its place. It is a factor yes, but not the
dominant one.

I would like to see us take the best of IGC and US systems. We can use IGC
speed/distance points equations with our Start and finish procedures. We can
reward speed differential more and help reduce the tiny margins by which many
National competitions are won in the US. (I resemble that remark...)

Club is the most accessible, affordable racing class available to us. I
believe club class is the long term foundation for pilot development in the
US and can be an excellent trial class for a 'best of US/IGC' system.
(thinking here that handicapping for wt as per the US is a plus, as one
example of the ways we can pick the best system)

Club class afficionado's need to embrace a handicap range that matches the
IGC high and low (not a Euro-centric cherry picked list that has NO relevance
in the US)- the goal needs to be how to make the club class as popular and
accessible as possible - competitiveness will then ensue. It is also a
perfect development ground for junior pilots (see cost and accessibility)

With a more competitive contest scene, we will be able to send our pilots to
WGC's with the confidence that their selection environment (like the Germans
for example, whose Nationals in my experience are higher average standard
than a WGC) ensures competitive performance.

I propose we stop religious warfare about scoring systems and focus our
energies on how we can take the best of all systems into our own, to build a
foundation for the future of US competitive soaring.


Hope this helps.

Peter Deane (my own views - not necessarily those of the USTC)



Well said!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jan 28, 1:09*pm, wrote:

Club is the most accessible, affordable racing class available to us. I believe club class is the long term foundation
for pilot development in the US and can be an excellent trial class for a 'best of US/IGC' system. (thinking here that
handicapping for wt as per the US is a plus, as one example of the ways we can pick the best system)

Peter Deane (my own views - *not necessarily those of the USTC)


Regardless of whether or not you think "Club" or "Sports" is the way
to go, I would like to point at myself as the perfect example of what
Peter is referring to. I'm 35 (which is young for a US glider pilot).
I started gliding in late 2006. I bought my DG-300 in 2008 (a fancy
and "high-dollar" ship for someone with less than 100 hours in the
sport). I tried my first competition in early 2009 - a little regional
down at Warner Springs, CA.

If it wasn't for the Sports class, I probably never would have even
tried competitions (or maybe once, just to say I'd done it). But why
pay for competition entries just to get my ass repeatedly kicked by
D2s, V2s, and other high-dollar glass being flown by super-experienced
pilots?

The handicapping and spread of pilot experience made Sports Class far
more appealing. And the supportive atmosphere from fellow competitors
(especially the experienced ones who freely share their local
knowledge and wisdom) keep me coming back. And I've found that
atmosphere much more prevalent in Regional handicapped races, than at
high-stakes Nationals.

If you want to push the top end of the contest group, you need to
build a broad, solid base first. Over time a bigger base of pilots
will ensure you net more "top guns" (i.e. 1% of 5000 is more than 1%
of 1000). The cream will rise to the top, and drive everyone around
them (who's serious about staying on top) to do better. If you neglect
the base, the whole system slowly withers on the vine; and without new
blood coming up to challenge the existing top dogs, people aren't as
driven to evolve or improve. Things stagnate - the top dogs probably
stay on top; but only within their own limited peer-group. Eventually
age takes its toll and the top dogs disappear into the sunset - and
who is left to take their place?

--Noel
(with total respect and thanks for the top dogs out there who've
helped me learn to dog-paddle over the past 5 years...)