A fair opportunity to compete?

Hear-ye, Hear-ye, Hear-ye,
Court is now in session, the honorable Chuck U Farley preciding.
CD, you ar accused of not holding the gate and thereby creating an
injustice for the last 3 launchers in sports class. You are further
accused of gross injustice to the finishers by expunging the results
of day 3 to correct the original injustice (see indictment no.1).
How do you plead....................................?

Chad wrote:
Just catching up with the discussion here and reading JJ's post. I was
also just thinking of the situation 2 years ago at Parowan he
mentions. I got bit by that situation- I was the second last to be
towed to the dead spot, landed back, and was last to relight only to
be towed to dying lift at a second drop zone opposite the field. I
worked 0.5 knot lift and landed out 11 miles from the field on course,
in the rain, with minor but unflyable damage. Everyone in front of me
made it on course. Everyone behind me (the re- relights) fell out. I
didn't think to protest and glad I didn't, but I sure thought the CD
was too cavalier about opening the gate. There should be some printed
guidance for CDs on how to deal with these situations to avoid
protests and pitting sportsmanship against fairness.

A few observations-
1) This idea that all gliders need to be towed to the same launch spot
is silly. We need to all be given roughly equal chances to contact
lift, and towpilots are as impartial as they come. If the lift zone
shifts, don't keep dropping ships off under virga! Ultimately, you end
up with more relights and a longer launch cue which only increases the
chance of not giving the field a sporting chance.

2) The 2000' is a standard tow height, just like there is a standard
minimum task time. It can AND SHOULD be changed by the CD given the
conditions and the input of his advisors. Dropping ships off at the
southern end of Little Salt Lake 6 miles from Parowan airport is
unsafe for low performance sports class ships. Why do we require high
energy finishes to be at 500-800' altitude, while we expect "fall
outs" to come back low energy at 500' or less??? We need some guidance
on safe glide cones after tow release while allowing for a modicum of
searching for lift. A suggestion- take a 35:1 glider, derate its glide
by 33%, yielding 4.5 statute miles per thousand feet. Then allow for a
1000' pattern. Thus, a 2000' drop can only be made out 4.5 statue
miles. If a greater distance is anticipated, then the tow height
should be raised. This is not unreasonable given the entries in sports
class, and would still be sporting if not a little unsafe still. This
would also prevent the too high problem-- If you towplane encounters
lift early on tow, or your sailplane is light, you end up hitting
2000' ceiling well before the thermal that everyone is circling in 5
miles from the field. Then you must release and lose altitude before
getting to the gaggle/lift zone/etc, putting you at a double
disadvantage- you lost altitude plus you probably don't have the
airport in safe glide anymore. You Duo Discus guys don't know what I'm
talking about here I know... I must stress that while pilots are
responsible for their safety on course and should evaluate contest
goals against aircraft and personal safety, the tow phase of flight
has few options for improving safety. This is a built-in unsafe
procedure we have in contests for moderate performance aircraft. This
is also at the root of a fairness issue.

3) Advisors should be spaced throughout the launch order, so there is
always someone near the back and front. Yes, this may mean more
advisors for a larger contest. Suggest 2 advisors or 20% of field,
whichever is greater.

4) The decision to open the gate, even with contestants having trouble
staying up, should be based on some key questions: Are the conditions
deteriorating to the degree that the task or pre-task period is
becoming clearly unsafe? Were all contestants given a "fighting
chance" to gain altitude and reach the start gate? Would an
experienced pilot/ viable competitor not be able to start given the
conditions?

5) The gate opening decision is critical, and as evidenced here is the
most important decision a CD can make. There should be a go-no go
decision tree, just like a takeoff roll and climbout, leading up to
it. Not just a perfunctory "gate will open in 15 minutes" call.

I think we can definitely go overboard trying to make it fair, and we
should not try to take the advantage of launch order out of the
equation. Sometimes luck plays a factor, and that is part of the
sport. I hope my fellow pilots would not classify me as a whiner in my
years of taking a 34:1 sailplane to regional and national sport class
contests, but we need to fix this problem. Both Parowan and this CD
have had repeated issues with similar scenarios. The SRA and soaring
community should provide guidance as to how we want the CDs to fix
this. Those are my suggestions.

JJ Sinclair wrote:
Hear-ye, Hear-ye, Hear-ye,
Court is now in session, the honorable Chuck U Farley preciding.
CD, you ar accused of not holding the gate and thereby creating an
injustice for the last 3 launchers in sports class. You are further
accused of gross injustice to the finishers by expunging the results
of day 3 to correct the original injustice (see indictment no.1).
How do you plead....................................?

You are found guilty! Penalty is $5 and time served. Pay the bear. Next
case.

You are found guilty! Penalty is $5 and time served. Pay the bear. Next
case.

Errr, not so fast there bailiff, the defendant hasn't entered a plea
yet!

The Parowan competition was my first glider competition, I was
competing in the sport class and I was in the air for the start having
been launched in the middle of the field. I have participated in many
hang gliding competitions at the regional, national and world levels
that were both foot launched and aerotow based. I also served as the
USHGA Competition Rulebook Chairperson and the USHGA Competition
Committee Chairperson.

Trying to follow all aspects of the discussion and have the following
observations:

JJ raises a great point, what is the definition of 'fair' when it
relates to the start of a task? There are factors beyond anyone's
control and ensuring that everyone is guaranteed to stick places a
tough burden on the competition organizers. Are we trying to
eliminate any aspect of luck or dynamics associated with weather?

While JJ quoted the rulebook but there was a section excluded that IMO
is important

(US) rule 11.1.1 states; A valid competition day is one in which
every regular entrant is given a fair opportunity to compete, and at
least 25% of Contestants achieve a Scored Distance not less than the
Standard Mnimum Task Distance.

The second part of 11.1.1 is another check and balance to measure the
validity of the task and to define the word 'fair' for a given day.

Pertaining to a task opening. There are few more areas that need to
be examined within the rulebook

10.1.5 Task Opens - at a time designated by the CD, about 15 minutes
after the last competitor who accepts his designated launch starts his
takeoff roll.
10.8.1.1 As the last pilot who accepts the designated launch starts
the takeoff roll, the CD will announce the time the class's task
opening, which shall be approximately 15 minutes after this launch,
and long enough to allow this pilot a fair chance to climb prior to
the task opening.
10.8.1.2 After the announcement of task opening time, the CD should
consult with the task advisors as to whether the selected task is fair
and safe. If a delay or a task change is deemed necessary, this
hsould be announced 10 minutes or more before task opening time; task
changes later than this should be avoided when possible.

If we examine these rulebook sections there are some inconsistencies
and/or undefined terms

How do you resolve the difference between (11.1.1) 'given a fair
opportunity to compete' and (10.8.1.1) 'long enough to allow this
pilot a fair chance to climb prior to the task opening'
What does 'pilot who accepts the designated launch' mean and what does
it imply about the intent of that pilot to attempt to start a task?
If the pilot accepts the launch does s/he also accept the risk of not
being able to perform a valid start?

There is one other area that should be examined in the big picture-
Contest Competition Committee. Section 3.1.4 states Contest
Competition Committee chaired by the CD, it consists of up to three
other members appointed by the CD. These members should be
experienced competition pilots, officials of the contest or pilots
with a good understanding of sail plane competitions. (Entrants are
not eligible) The Contest Competition Committee is responsible for
interpretation, assessment of penalties and protest resolution. IMO
opinion the CCC can and should a group of pilots competing and the CD
should not be part of the equation. Think of the term 'jury of your
peers'.

I was disappointed to hear about the protest and since I believe that
luck is always a variable within the sport of soaring I believe that
the day was a valid one for sports class and should have been scored
BTW my standing would not change as I chose to land at a designated
airport when I did not like the weather conditions.

Ron Gleason
DG303 N303MR
Contest Id MR

Having read all this and accepting that I am not familiar with all the US
Rules there is a basic flaw in the argument.
It may well be that the CD opened the gate when he should not have done,
it may well be that some competitors were disadvantaged, however the CD
did open the gate and allow the competition to start and once that
decision was made it should never have been reversed. There was a valid
contest, enough competitors completed to satisfy the requirements for a
day, so what possible justification can there be for declaring it a non
contest day.
JJ is dead right. Mark you if you live in a country where a Winebago
driver can sue the makers of that vehicle for her injuries in the
accident, that occurred when she engaged cruise control and went down the
back to make a cup of coffee, then I suppose anything is possible.

Late news: I am eating cashew nuts from a packet clearly marked with the
words "May contain nuts" No sh1t Sherlock.

Don Johnstone wrote:
It may well be that the CD opened the gate when he should not have done,
it may well be that some competitors were disadvantaged, however the CD
did open the gate and allow the competition to start and once that
decision was made it should never have been reversed.
JJ is dead right.

Thanks for the support, Don. I can just about hear a couple of our
British friends discussing all this;
I say, the Americans are having a splendid time bashing one another,
aren't they? Yes, seems some chap by the name of Chuck U Farley isn't
quite up to his best form.

We are capable of doing it right. At the Montague contest a similar
situation developed on the 6th day. The task area was covered with low
clouds and rain starting. Sports class launched last behind open and
standard who were flying their national competition. The CD called the
last launcher (me, I was also the sports adviser) and asked how I was
doing? I replied that hadn't found anything yet, just got off tow.
Will try to make my way over to the start cylinder........recommend
you hold the gate opening. A few minutes later I was at cloud base in
the start cylinder and gave the following assessment; Only 1000 feet
between the top of the mountains and the bottom of the clouds. I see
rain between me and the first turn point. I don't think it would be a
fair race, recommend you scrub it. The CD then scrubbed the day. Not
everyone was happy, 2 were above the clouds at 8000 feet and wanted to
play. We had flown 5 days and didn't need that day to make a contest.

This is the kind of interaction that can arrive at the correct
decision while maintaining fairness and safety. I consider this an
example of CD'ing at its best and Nelson Funston (CD), Noelle (CM),
Rex, Ben and Nick Mayes along with the whole crew from Williams
Soaring put on a first rate show.......Good on you!!!
JJ

On Jul 8, 5:00*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
Having read all this and accepting that I am not familiar with all the US
Rules there is a basic flaw in the argument.
It may well be that the CD opened the gate when he should not have done,
it may well be that some competitors were disadvantaged, however the CD
did open the gate and allow the competition to start and once that
decision was made it should never have been reversed. There was a valid
contest, enough competitors completed to satisfy the requirements for a
day, so what possible justification can there be for declaring it a non
contest day.
JJ is dead right. Mark you if you live in a country where a Winebago
driver can sue the makers of that vehicle for her injuries in the
accident, that occurred when she engaged cruise control and went down the
back to make a cup of coffee, then I suppose anything is possible.

Late news: I am eating cashew nuts from a packet clearly marked with the
words "May contain nuts" No sh1t Sherlock.

I heard that she actually went to the back of her RV to microwave her
cat to dry it off...

There are enough wacky things in the USA (and elsewhere) that we
don't need to retread old urban legends.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp


Darryl

Here's to better times JJ

http://www.pbase.com/plane_pictures/...0/original.jpg

dave

On Jul 6, 6:50*am, ZL wrote:
ZL wrote:

The launch was slowed by the remote drop point. A bit over an hour for
the first 2/3 of the field. It felt longer as the last hope for lift
dwindled with the storm growing while waiting for a launch. And the day
never recycled in the valley, staying overcast and cool the rest of the day.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All,

2cents - As the #3or 4 15m ship in line when the launch was halted, I
had a front row seat. The days descriptions contained here as well as
the pro and con comments all seem valid from my POV, and there’s the
rub, perfection is unattainable.

Keeping in mind, as Zl stated “I have no dog in this fight”, I would
add that although I can understand JJs disappointment and subsequent
reaction to “withdraw in disgust”, I respectfully don’t agree with
that decision. Additionally, I fully understand the reasons for and
the validity of submitting the original “protest”, but given its
lopsided impact, and it would have taken a better man than I to do so,
I believe it should have been withdrawn. No disrespect is intended to
the Protester, I know him fairly well and he’s a good guy.

I’m sure this will be looked at by the contest committee to see if
clearer guidelines are appropriate or possible, but as I said before,
perfection is unattainable, you play the cards your dealt.

21

Well, I tried to stay out of it, but I was PLEASED by the discussion
of the rules as a general point. However, some facts that people
haven't mentioned (until Ron Gleason, the newbie at the contest!)

1. The competition committee met and discussed the rules after the
protest(s) were filed. the CD convened the meeting, but was not the
sole decision maker.
2. The start was called at the proper time (15 minutes AFTER last
roll of last of the sports class).
3. The advisors were in communication with the CD (on channel 5, if
the pilots turned their channels to listen)
4. The weather guy was in the air and advising as well, as well as a
pilot on the ground waiting for launch, who was a task advisor in the
sports class.
5. The competition committee also sought advice from John Good, who
is the scribe for the USA rules committee and is more than familiar
with the rules.

By the way, one of the members of the contest competition committee
was also a another "rules committee" member for the SSA/SRA.

OK, back to the discussion of the rules as a general point with these
details included.
Micki Minner
Contest Manager