A fair opportunity to compete?

Wow, Dave thats beautiful. Was that taken on day 3 returning from
Kanosh Canyon?
Thanks for sharing,
JJ

dave wrote:
Here's to better times JJ

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

dave

JJ

I spent most of day three waiting for a retrieve from the dry lake, so
that can't be it. I think that it was taken running up North on day 4
toward Milford.

Glad you liked it

dave.

On Jul 9, 12:32*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:
Wow, Dave thats beautiful. Was that taken on day 3 returning from
Kanosh Canyon?
Thanks for sharing,
JJ



dave wrote:
Here's to better times JJ

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

dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 6, 4:55*am, wrote:
On Jul 4, 11:48*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:



(US) rule 11.1.1 states; A valid competition day is one in which every
regular entrant is given a fair opportunity to compete. What is the
definition of fair? I can tell you what I have used as CD in 3
nationals and several regionals over the last 35 years. The launch
should go without interuption. All contestants should be towed to 2000
feet in the designated release area. That's it, you are on your own
after release! There is no guarantee that you will find lift.

On day 3 at parowan this year, the launch went without delay and all
were released in the designated area at 2000 feet. Several pilots
didn't find lift and landed back. Some took re-lights and one landed
on the dry lake in the release area. About half the class found that
all important first thermal, the gate was opened 15 minutes after the
last scheduled launch and most completed the assigned task. Data
loggers were evaluated, scores computed and day 3 was a valid contest
day, right?

Not so fast! Two pilots protested that they hadn't been given a fair
opportunity to compete. The competition committee met and threw out
day 3. Their ruling may seem fair to the 2 protesters, but it was
unfair to the remaining 25 pilots in the class. The CD even went so
far as to state; If one of the protesters had found lift, he would
have come in 3rd for the day! *Unbelievable! *Just how he determined
that remains a mystery? *There was one contestant who did place 3rd on
that day, but his performance was ignored. I tried to talk to the CD
with no response other than; You have the right to protest my ruling.

If my 3rd place had counted, I would have been 5th overall and 19
points out of 4th. I withdrew from the contest in disgust! *What has
our competition come to? Are we all guaranteed lift? Who is to decide
if the actions taken by the pilot after release were the correct
ones? *If you don't find lift, simply land back and file a protest!

I will turn 75 next month and Pat and I have been asking ourselves
just how much longer all this will be considered fun? *In the words of
an old country song; That just about does it, Don't it?

Pat & JJ Sinclair

FWIW
This is a good example of where use of the advisors is invaluable.
They are in the air and can
afdvise whether the day meets the "fair and safe" criteria. If it does
not, they are obligated to say
so and advise either holding the opening or not opening the task. If
the task is opened, they day should go on,
unless the CD cancels they day due to safety concerns, which he is
permitted and encouraged to do under the
rules.
All that said, don't quit JJ. We like having your grumpy self around
to make us laugh and keep us honest.
UH

Sorry you felt compelled to withdraw JJ - I like having you and your
bat-plane on the grid.

I was one of the handful of 15M launchers that day and after thrashing
about in +/- 50 fpm made a nail-biter of a return back to the field
rather than put it into the dry lake 5 miles west of the field. FWIW
there was no climbing out after a certain time that day unless you
wanted to risk an outlanding in the open desert in order to do a dead-
glide to the sunlight 10 miles west of the field. If I recall
correctly the protester in this case did land in the dry lake prior to
taking a start - a consideration of some consequence as an outlanding
ends your day whereas a relight doesn't.

I don't know if I agree that once the gate opens the task should count
no matter what, though I do think this should be the strong bias.
Whether it should be incumbent on the CD to poll the last launchers in
each class to ensure they are getting up before opening the gate, or
if it should be the responsibility of the individual pilots to call
this out to the CD (my preference) should probably be clarified. If
you can't climb you should make that clear before the gate opens so
the CD has the option of delaying/canceling the opening of the gate or
chalking it up to poor piloting. One such request was granted later in
the contest and I have made such requests myself in the past. I do
wonder whether pilots should forfeit their right to protest the start
later if they don't make the call in real time.

I suspect a future version of the rules could clarify the procedures
and recourse as it seems this sort of thing happens a couple of time
each year.

9B

Whether it should be incumbent on the CD to poll the last launchers in
each class to ensure they are getting up before opening the gate, or
if it should be the responsibility of the individual pilots to call
this out to the CD (my preference) should probably be clarified. If
you can't climb you should make that clear before the gate opens so
the CD has the option of delaying/canceling the opening of the gate or
chalking it up to poor piloting. One such request was granted later in
the contest and I have made such requests myself in the past. I do
wonder whether pilots should forfeit their right to protest the start
later if they don't make the call in real time.

To avoid setting off anguished howls of "I can't climb, you gotta
delay opening the gate!", I don't radio the CD when faced with this
kind of problem. I have, however, called my class advisor on more than
one occasion and let him/her decide to call the CD with an official,
authorized communication. I recognize, of course, that my
request--"[task advisor ID], go to 123.5"--is tantamount to inviting
the world to listen in.

It's tough to judge from afar but it sounds like the task shouldn't
have opened. How to prevent situations like this in the future is
tougher, as is how to deal with them once they've occurred. I'm
strongly of the mind that once the task is open, it should not be
cancelled or invalidated. I don't want to have to judge whether to go
100% and risk a landout knowing the CD might change his/her mind, and
soaring is full of historical situations where nearly no one thought
the task possible but some intrepid pilot proved them wrong. But there
are valid exceptions to every rule in the interests of fairness and/or
safety. Defining those exceptions is difficult, which is why we value
the good CDs so highly. Rest in peace, Charlie Spratt; you made a few
mistakes but far fewer than anyone before or since, given the number
of contests you CD'd.

Finally, there shouldn't be any stigma associated with protesting what
a pilot believes is an unfair outcome. I'd hate to see competition
soaring turn into the US tort system but there is some merit in
raising the protest and having all the facts come out for an impartial
jury to review and decide. It is partly through this kind of exchange
that we will arrive at a better system in the future.

Although I still hope the Rules Committee keeps future Rules changes
to a bare minimum!

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

I figured I better let some time pass before I chimed in since I was on the
short end of the ruling at Parowan.



1 - I have no problem with the protest since the rule allowed it.

2 - I have no problem with the decision of the committee and felt they
upheld the rule.

3 - I have no problem with Charlie opening the gate when he did so per the
rules.



Everyone was correct. The rub is the rule itself. This rule punished
competitors that flew well (in this case a vast majority of the field) and
benefited those that landed out / back or choose not to fly. It is
frustrating to have 4 hours negated to zero.



To make matters worse, the Sports Class was moved to the end of the grid the
next day since the 15 and 18 meter guys did not have a contest day. Hello!?
Neither did Sports. Separate topic, but if you fly Sports at R9 you will
not receive the same attention to detail as the FAI guys. Our starts are
historically called poorly and until this year we always launched last.



All week long in the pilot's meeting we were reminded that competition
pilots represent a very small percentage of soaring people. Reading RAS and
going through this last Region 9, it is clear that crappy rules and scoring
that requires a degree in mathematics will probably keep this number in the
same range in the future.



Can't bitch without making suggestions right? Two rule suggestions -



1 - Change the rule so that if a majority of the field scores, adjust the
competitor's score that was not able to start. Instead of bringing 20 some
scores down to zero, adjust 1 or two scores up.



2 - As suggested in other posts, change the call when the gate opens.
Opening the gate 15 minutes after the last competitor starts the t/o roll is
not viable.



Tom Dukerich OD2

At 23:51 14 July 2009, Tom wrote:
I figured I better let some time pass before I chimed in since I was on
the

short end of the ruling at Parowan.



1 - I have no problem with the protest since the rule allowed it.

2 - I have no problem with the decision of the committee and felt they
upheld the rule.

3 - I have no problem with Charlie opening the gate when he did so per
the

rules.



Everyone was correct. The rub is the rule itself. This rule punished
competitors that flew well (in this case a vast majority of the field)
and

benefited those that landed out / back or choose not to fly. It is
frustrating to have 4 hours negated to zero.



To make matters worse, the Sports Class was moved to the end of the grid
the
next day since the 15 and 18 meter guys did not have a contest day.
Hello!?
Neither did Sports. Separate topic, but if you fly Sports at R9 you will

not receive the same attention to detail as the FAI guys. Our starts are

historically called poorly and until this year we always launched last.



All week long in the pilot's meeting we were reminded that competition
pilots represent a very small percentage of soaring people. Reading RAS
and
going through this last Region 9, it is clear that crappy rules and
scoring
that requires a degree in mathematics will probably keep this number in
the
same range in the future.



Can't bitch without making suggestions right? Two rule suggestions -



1 - Change the rule so that if a majority of the field scores, adjust the

competitor's score that was not able to start. Instead of bringing 20
some
scores down to zero, adjust 1 or two scores up.



2 - As suggested in other posts, change the call when the gate opens.
Opening the gate 15 minutes after the last competitor starts the t/o
roll
is
not viable.



Tom Dukerich OD2

The UK rules are very similar regarding the opening of the gate, but the
CD has the discretion not to open the gate, or to delay the opening.

Some years ago the last day of a competition was marginal as far as
weather was concerned. The leading pilot persuaded other pilots, who had
no chance of winning, to refuse to take a launch in the hope of getting
the day scrubbed/devalued. The net effect was to shorten the launch time
and enable the gate to be opened earlier than would have been the case
with a full grid. After the gate opened the weather stopped launching for
several hours. If the "protest" had not been made the full field would
never have been launched and the day scrubbed.
Unluckily the second place pilot, who had launched, did not score enough
points to win.

On Jul 14, 7:51Â*pm, "Tom" wrote:
I figured I better let some time pass before I chimed in since I was on the
short end of the ruling at Parowan.

1 - I have no problem with the protest since the rule allowed it.

2 - I have no problem with the decision of the committee and felt they
upheld the rule.

3 - I have no problem with Charlie opening the gate when he did so per the
rules.

Everyone was correct. Â*The rub is the rule itself. Â*This rule punished
competitors that flew well (in this case a vast majority of the field) and
benefited those that landed out / back or choose not to fly. Â*It is
frustrating to have 4 hours negated to zero.

To make matters worse, the Sports Class was moved to the end of the grid the
next day since the 15 and 18 meter guys did not have a contest day. Â*Hello!?
Neither did Sports. Â*Separate topic, but if you fly Sports at R9 you will
not receive the same attention to detail as the FAI guys. Â*Our starts are
historically called poorly and until this year we always launched last.

All week long in the pilot's meeting we were reminded that competition
pilots represent a very small percentage of soaring people. Â*Reading RAS and
going through this last Region 9, it is clear that crappy rules and scoring
that requires a degree in mathematics will probably keep this number in the
same range in the future.

Can't bitch without making suggestions right? Â*Two rule suggestions -

1 - Change the rule so that if a majority of the field scores, adjust the
competitor's score that was not able to start. Â*Instead of bringing 20 some
scores down to zero, adjust 1 or two scores up.

2 - As suggested in other posts, change the call when the gate opens.
Opening the gate 15 minutes after the last competitor starts the t/o roll is
not viable.

Tom Dukerich Â*OD2

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the rule states:

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.

I.e. the CD has the discretion to delay the opening of the task for
whatever reason. The suggested 15 mins is the nominal time for the
last launch to have a reasonable opportunity to get as good a start as
the first launch. The premise of the race is that everyone gets the
same opportunity to start at the same earliest time from the same
location if they desire (eliminating the luck of the grid draw as a
significant factor).

An alternative would be to allow a start immediately off tow and
virtually never cancel the day once the launch starts, in which case
the luck of the grid draw would be a big factor - so are we measuring
skill or luck?

Should Charlie have held the gate opening? It's easy to say yes with
20/20 hindsight but it was not necessarily easy to tell at the time.
The nullification of a day after it has been run is an exceptional
action justified only by "force majure" circumstances. In this case
we all judged in retrospect that we had not set a mostly level playing
field and if those most affected had performed near their average for
the prior two days it would have materially affected the leadership
positions.
..
Second, there is currently in the rules a (to date unused) provision
for "worst day score adjustment" in regionals.

11.4.4 â€* Worst Day Score Adjustment
If this is declared to be in effect, an adjustment is calculated and
added to the cumulative score of each entrant..

If you think the scoring formulas are complicated now, read the rest
of the rule.

QT

It's worth reiterating that 15 minutes is not carved in stone. Charlie
Spratt had what I thought an excellent habit. About 2 minutes before
the announced gate open time, he would ask the task advisers "do we
have a fair start?" meaning, did the last guys off tow have a decent
chance to climb to start altitude. If not, he would delay start
opening a bit. Now, advisers can't see everyone, and they might well
have missed the developing situation at Parowan since to stay up they
would have to have been in a totally different piece of sky. Nothing's
perfect. But it does help, and to the point here, it is entirely
within the rules. (He would also ask, "is the task doable?" another
commendable question before sending us off.)


11.4.4 â€* Worst Day Score Adjustment
If this is declared to be in effect, an adjustment is calculated and
added to the cumulative score of each entrant..

If you think the scoring formulas are complicated now, read the rest
of the rule.

QT


Don't give up on drop a day just because the wording of the rule is of
necessity a little complex. This is a great idea, and I hope somebody
tries it! Contests might be a lot more fun if a landout or one slow
low save did not doom you for the rest of the week.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane wrote:


Don't give up on drop a day just because the wording of the rule is of
necessity a little complex. This is a great idea, and I hope somebody
tries it! Contests might be a lot more fun if a landout or one slow
low save did not doom you for the rest of the week.

John Cochrane

Good point John, but you wouldn't be able to 'drop-a-day' that has
been expunged, now would you?
JJ

On Jul 15, 9:30*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:

John Cochrane

Good point John, but you wouldn't be able to 'drop-a-day' that has
been expunged, now would you?
JJ

People might be less inclined to protest if they could drop a day and
the competition committee might be less inclined to expunge a day for
95% of the class if the one affected pilot could drop the day.

It creates other issues, but is worth a try.

9B