Seniors USA 2009 Start and Finish notes..... # 711 reporting

A couple of things:

1) "Noel, are you keeping up?" Of course I am! :-) Isn't that what
good soaring pilots do - "keep up"?

2) Regarding "Winning" - I have the revised edition and have read it
twice. I'm reading it a third time in the weeks leading up to the
contest, just to stay fresh (since I'm in the middle of work hell and
its early in the season to get a lot of flying in). I also practice
with Condor Soaring, and constantly read Bob Wander's material and
John C's material, and others. I'm a voracious reader and I always
try to over-prepare for new experiences (this is why I was able to get
my PPL SEL in only 43 hours - its not becuase I'm the world's best
pilot; but I was ALWAYS prepared). I give credit for that to my Boy
Scout (Eagle Scout) training... :-)

3) The "300 foot finish window" suggestion is a no-go. A range of
altitude with an exactly equal penalty to offset the time-gain won't
work, because a zero-sum solution doesn't encourage folks to do
anything but push hard to go as fast as possible and just nick through
at minimum altitude... You end up right back at the same situation
we're at today. :-P Worse yet, you may wind up with people trying to
pull up at the last second to regain altitude and avoid that penalty
and "game the system" - if they make a better-than-expected final
glide to that minimum altitude.

The finish is a thorny issue indeed, and I don't think there's a
perfect solution out there anywhere. Its good fodder for endless
debate, however!

Take care,

--Noel
P.S. While the low-pass finish is neat for spectators, are people
really going to sit around for 3 or 4 hours at the airport just to
watch a few high-speed passes? I don't think that's the real reason
for declining entries or crew numbers. I think it has more to do with
societal changes, busy schedules, rising costs of transportation and
lodging, and (most of all) the insular nature of the soaring community
and its aging members. I keep threatening to write an article for
SOARING on this topic, from the perspective of a young (31 year old)
newbie to the sport...

Noel,

2) Regarding "Winning" - I have the revised edition and have read it
twice. *I'm reading it a third time in the weeks leading up to the
contest, just to stay fresh (since I'm in the middle of work hell and
its early in the season to get a lot of flying in).

A good start. The Italian book on Racing Sailplanes, although a poor
translation, is also a good read.


3) The "300 foot finish window" suggestion is a no-go. *A range of
altitude with an exactly equal penalty to offset the time-gain won't
work, because a zero-sum solution doesn't encourage folks to do
anything but push hard to go as fast as possible and just nick through
at minimum altitude... You end up right back at the same situation
we're at today. :-P *Worse yet, you may wind up with people trying to
pull up at the last second to regain altitude and avoid that penalty
and "game the system" - if they make a better-than-expected final
glide to that minimum altitude.

I disagree (and this comes from 10 years of contest finishes, both
line and cylinders). If there is no penalty to finishing within a
reasonable window, there is no incentive to pull up to reach an
arbitrary (and impossible to determine in the cockpit in real time)
altitude. The objective is to make a point-neutral "finish window"
that is big enough that the pilot can fly through it with minimal
heads-down time. You would probably have to have a pretty severe
penalty for finishing low (automatic rolling finish?) to discourage a
diving finish. The current system does not encourage that - it still
rewards a perfect, 501' finish, but has less of a penalty for pooching
it than last year.

The old 50' finish line was a lot easier (and in my opinion, just as
safe, if flown intelligently) But it does require a big airfield if a
lot of gliders are finishing at the same time. I'm not holding my
breath to see it again, though, since it drives the safety nazis
absolutely bonkers!

On Mar 20, 1:21*pm, "
wrote:

I disagree (and this comes from 10 years of contest finishes, both
line and cylinders). *If there is no penalty to finishing within a
reasonable window, there is no incentive to pull up to reach an
arbitrary (and impossible to determine in the cockpit in real time)
altitude. *The objective is to make a point-neutral "finish window"
that is big enough that the pilot can fly through it with minimal
heads-down time. *You would probably have to have a pretty severe
penalty for finishing low (automatic rolling finish?) to discourage a
diving finish. *The current system does not encourage that - it still
rewards a perfect, 501' finish, but has less of a penalty for pooching
it than last year.

The old 50' finish line was a lot easier (and in my opinion, just as
safe, if flown intelligently) *But it does require a big airfield if a
lot of gliders are finishing at the same time. *I'm not holding my
breath to see it again, though, since it drives the safety nazis
absolutely bonkers!

Kirk - I may misunderstand your point, but it there were a 300-foot
window within which there is no penalty wouldn't you fly a faster
glide to shoot for the bottom of it? If you mean a window where the
penalty approximates the time it takes to climb the extra distance,
it's my understanding that is what the current rule tries to do,
though obviously you would need to set the climb rate low to keep a
pilot in a marginal thermal from taking the penalty over the slow
climb to avoid the penalty. That means the current rule has a penalty
that seems steep for someone who nicks the cylinder on an strong day.

I loved the old finish line, but as a practical matter we aren't going
to see it anymore. ASTs aren't called often enough to give pilots
experience with it so no CD would ever call it even if we kept it in
the rules as an option. I like the graduated penalty on the cylinder a
lot more that the old rule and I think this years mod does decrease
the likelihood of zoomies into the cylinder - I did a few over the
years if I felt the coast was clear - just to be sure I was high
enough to get a finish. Now you need to pull up just short of the edge
of the cylinder if you want to add a few extra feet for insurance. I
agree with the point that if you had a more precise and easy way to
see the finish you could hit it more precisely, but in all honesty all
the speed in the final glide is in how well you optimize the speed for
the last 20-40 miles. I know I ALWAYS climb too high for final glides,
but I hate being low if the sky dumps on me. Under the old finish line
you had no altitude at the finish gate so you carried altitude with
you until you had it made. This is why all the finishes were 120-knots
crowd-pleasers, but in general I'd argue that they weren't more
efficient form a task speed perspective.


Again, my personal experience is that yes, spouses/girlfriends/dogs/
kids will hang around if they are involved and there is some visual
feedback on how their pilot is doing. *Remember, you got the launch,
then gliders start going through the gate for a 2.5 or 3 hour task -
the starts may last over an hour, one a time, then in a couple of
hours or less the finishes begin, and go on for a while. *After the
rush to get everything done prior to the launch and working the start
gate, the crews were happy for a break to get lunch, relax, and get
ready for the finish show - when there were simultaneous finishes, it
even looked like a real race!

Sorta, kinda...

I worked my share of gates and only the guys with the binoculars got
much of a look at the starts. Under the TAT and MAT rules you get more
bunching of the finishes I think - so it make more sense for people to
scram until finish time - which is predictable within a few tens of
minutes the way things work today - just that there's nothing to see.
At one contest last year it was permitted to make a pass after
finishing as long as you were away from the buildings and people and
landing gliders - it was fun, if a bit pointless from a racing
perspective.

9B

Al, what I'm struggling to describe is a situation where there is no
advantage to diving at the finish; yes it is very similar to today's
rule, but would use the log record of the last few climbs to
automatically figure the "penalty" if low, which would really just
equal the time spent climbing the extra feet to finish above the
window. So essentially, there is no difference in climbing the extra
300 feet to make a good 500' finish, since if you take a chance and
end up 200 feet low, you get hit for the time it would have taken you
to continue the climb those 200'.

If it worked, the emphasis on final glides would to to climb to the
optimum Mc altitude for the climb rate, then fly that speed all the
way to the finish - and you would want to take the time to get up to
the 500' finish, to make sure you had a pad on the way in. But if you
hit a bad stretch on the glide, you could still just slow down and
ghost in, without a "penalty" - or call a rolling finish and land
straight in.

But to make it work, you then have to be a bit draconian if you bust
the bottom of the finish, I guess.

But this is all pre-season bartalk anyway - I can't wait to try out
the new start/finish at Cordele in a couple of months!

Like you I've asked for a "low approach" at the end of a contest
flight, on the pretext of waking up the Crew!

Cheers,

Kirk

On Mar 20, 3:24*pm, "
wrote:
Al, what I'm struggling to describe is a situation where there is no
advantage to diving at the finish; yes it is very similar to today's
rule, but would use the log record of the last few climbs to
automatically figure the "penalty" if low, which would really just
equal the time spent climbing the extra feet to finish above the
window. So essentially, there is no difference in climbing the extra
300 feet to make a good 500' finish, since if you take a chance and
end up 200 feet low, you get hit for the time it would have taken you
to continue the climb those 200'.

If it worked, the emphasis on final glides would to to climb to the
optimum Mc altitude for the climb rate, then fly that speed all the
way to the finish - and you would want to take the time to get up to
the 500' finish, to make sure you had a pad on the way in. *But if you
hit a bad stretch on the glide, you could still just slow down and
ghost in, without a "penalty" - or call a rolling finish and land
straight in.

But to make it work, you then have to be a bit draconian if you bust
the bottom of the finish, I guess.

But this is all pre-season bartalk anyway - I can't wait to try out
the new start/finish at Cordele in a couple of months!

Like you I've asked for a "low approach" at the end of a contest
flight, on the pretext of waking up the Crew!

Cheers,

Kirk

Got it - that makes sense except for the situation where your last
thermal was a good one but you are still low on the glide so you face
a choice of skipping any lift that you aren't POSITIVE is at least as
good. That's because one turn an a half knot thermal and - BAM -
you're into a much steeper penalty.

9B

On Mar 20, 7:29*pm, wrote:
On Mar 20, 3:24*pm, "
wrote:





Al, what I'm struggling to describe is a situation where there is no
advantage to diving at the finish; yes it is very similar to today's
rule, but would use the log record of the last few climbs to
automatically figure the "penalty" if low, which would really just
equal the time spent climbing the extra feet to finish above the
window. So essentially, there is no difference in climbing the extra
300 feet to make a good 500' finish, since if you take a chance and
end up 200 feet low, you get hit for the time it would have taken you
to continue the climb those 200'.

If it worked, the emphasis on final glides would to to climb to the
optimum Mc altitude for the climb rate, then fly that speed all the
way to the finish - and you would want to take the time to get up to
the 500' finish, to make sure you had a pad on the way in. *But if you
hit a bad stretch on the glide, you could still just slow down and
ghost in, without a "penalty" - or call a rolling finish and land
straight in.

But to make it work, you then have to be a bit draconian if you bust
the bottom of the finish, I guess.

But this is all pre-season bartalk anyway - I can't wait to try out
the new start/finish at Cordele in a couple of months!

Like you I've asked for a "low approach" at the end of a contest
flight, on the pretext of waking up the Crew!

Cheers,

Kirk

Got it - that makes sense except for the situation where your last
thermal was a good one but you are still low on the glide so you face
a choice of skipping any lift that you aren't POSITIVE is at least as
good. That's because one turn an a half knot thermal and - BAM -
you're into a much steeper penalty.

9B- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, there are so many variables and unintended consequences - and no
way to make everybody happy! I'm glad to leave it all to the contest
committee and just rag on them on RAS (tongue in cheek, of course!).

Kirk
66