AT, TAT, MAT?

Noel, I'm in the same boat as you, so I've been following this thread.
Regarding Altitude band, I find it educational to review other guys at
my field flights on OLC to see their speeds, alt band, how often they
stopped and circled, how many times they stopped only to abandone the
thermal, etc.

Noel (and Barny and all):

Since others might be in the same boat, here is a review of height
bands. Please accept my apology if this goes too far back as others
might benefit.

According to Phil Petmecky's "Breaking the Apron Strings, page 29 and
33," Flight bands are designed solely to increase your speed. The
primary time to use flight bands is when speed or time is a factor;
such as during a contest task, or a long badge flight, or racing the
sun or clouds (this last one is my addition). Altitude bands allow us
to fly fast when conditions warrant, without reducing our options at
lower altitudes. Flight bands expand our options as we get lower.

Per Bob Wander's "Glider Polars and Speed-to-fly Made Easy, page 18,"
Fly aggressive speeds when high in the band, conservative speeds when
in the middle of the band, and fly survival speeds when low in the
band.

The normal operating band is most often the top two thirds of the
convection layer (e.g.: If the maximum achieved altitude is 6,000'
AGL, the normal operating band is between 2,000-6,000 feet). But until
confidence is gained, the new cross-country pilot might use the top
half of the convection layer as the normal operating height band.
Below the normal operating band, any lift should be used (until
gaining more experience).

Raul Boerner
LS6-b
(also with only two Regionals under the belt)

Thanks, Raul. I'm very familiar with the published information...
But as some of those authors point out - what people say about flying
and what people do _when_ flying are sometimes different. :-)

That's why I was looking for some anecdotal responses from competition
pilots... How often are they taking big climbs (regardless of whether
its a great thermal)? How often are they driving far enough between
thermals to lose 2000' or more in altitude between climbs?

Take care,

--Noel

On Oct 11, 12:13*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
Thanks, Raul. *I'm very familiar with the published information...
But as some of those authors point out - what people say about flying
and what people do _when_ flying are sometimes different. :-)

That's why I was looking for some anecdotal responses from competition
pilots... How often are they taking big climbs (regardless of whether
its a great thermal)? *How often are they driving far enough between
thermals to lose 2000' or more in altitude between climbs?

Take care,

--Noel

Try downloading the flightlogs from SSA.org sailplane racing, contest
results and use seeyou to look at the flights and statistics. Usually
the top three spots for each contest day are posted. That will
provide much more reliable data than anecdotal reports ever will.

The advice of Jay Rebbeck (former World Junior Champion)in an article in
Sailplane and Gliding a few years ago was to fly your Macready setting
in the top 50% of the height between ground and cloudbase. Once you drop
below 50%, reduce your speed to fly until you find the thermal to get
you back into the top 50%. He reckons this works irrespective of whether
your cloudbase is 3,000 ft or 15,000 ft.

The thing I find hardest is not stopping to climb in the top 50% for
anything but the best lift - that's why I'm pretty much the slowest
pilot around.

wrote:
Noel (and Barny and all):

Since others might be in the same boat, here is a review of height
bands. Please accept my apology if this goes too far back as others
might benefit.

According to Phil Petmecky's "Breaking the Apron Strings, page 29 and
33," Flight bands are designed solely to increase your speed. The
primary time to use flight bands is when speed or time is a factor;
such as during a contest task, or a long badge flight, or racing the
sun or clouds (this last one is my addition). Altitude bands allow us
to fly fast when conditions warrant, without reducing our options at
lower altitudes. Flight bands expand our options as we get lower.

Per Bob Wander's "Glider Polars and Speed-to-fly Made Easy, page 18,"
Fly aggressive speeds when high in the band, conservative speeds when
in the middle of the band, and fly survival speeds when low in the
band.

The normal operating band is most often the top two thirds of the
convection layer (e.g.: If the maximum achieved altitude is 6,000'
AGL, the normal operating band is between 2,000-6,000 feet). But until
confidence is gained, the new cross-country pilot might use the top
half of the convection layer as the normal operating height band.
Below the normal operating band, any lift should be used (until
gaining more experience).

Raul Boerner
LS6-b
(also with only two Regionals under the belt)

The height band theory works best when conditions in the task area are
homogeneous -- adjust for your conditions.

I recall a task at the Parowan Region 9 in 2007 that took me from the
clouds out into the blue, 20 miles or more to the next clouds. I left
the clouds at cloudbase at best L/D speed and kept it there. I just
made it to the next lift!

2NO

Noel - It really depends on the conditions. In the strong conditions we have the top pilots are typically doing a lot
more running, and a lot less thermalling than you would believe advisable/possible.

To do this they are using a much wider soaring band. That means they can be more picky about what thermal they take, and
yes the plan is to make big climbs, as infrequently as possible, in the strongest thermals possible. If you blow it and
get low, you have to take what you can get - the trick is to have the fortitude to leave your weak thermal and look for
better as soon as you have enough height to have a reasonable chance of getting to the next 'good' thermal.

I am constantly amazed at how low the top contest pilots are comfortable to go on a strong day, when the thermals are
decent from low down. Conversely, on other days the same pilots will be using maybe 2-3000 feet working band. Getting
home always beats landing out...

Consequently I tend to be sloooow.

One place to look - Recent contest at Magaliesburg (South Africa)
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...artId=ORIEN 1

Reasonable thermals, lots of wind. Look at the difference between the faster and slower pilots. I am the only one to log
flights on OLC in Club class but there are a few 15m pilots to compare.

What really works is to go and fly a contest, or same task as a competitive pilot. Then when you make a valid comparison
of your performance/decisions in similar conditions.

Don't compare your performance to others. Analyse their techniques, try them - use what works for you.



chipsoars wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:13 pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
Thanks, Raul. I'm very familiar with the published information...
But as some of those authors point out - what people say about flying
and what people do _when_ flying are sometimes different. :-)

That's why I was looking for some anecdotal responses from competition
pilots... How often are they taking big climbs (regardless of whether
its a great thermal)? How often are they driving far enough between
thermals to lose 2000' or more in altitude between climbs?

Take care,

--Noel

Try downloading the flightlogs from SSA.org sailplane racing, contest
results and use seeyou to look at the flights and statistics. Usually
the top three spots for each contest day are posted. That will
provide much more reliable data than anecdotal reports ever will.

noel.wade wrote:
Thanks for all the tips and info, folks! Big thanks for the links to
John Cochrane & KS's past articles.

A couple of responses to the concerns and basic "just fly the task"
comments, so you understand where I'm coming from:

1) I'm flying with an S-Nav, a PDA (XCSoar), and an ewMicroRecorder.
I've practiced using all of the above equipment with AT-type tasks,
but I do need to figure out to set up MAT and TAT tasks. :-) I've
definitely spent some time dialing in my polar and final-glide
settings to try to make that part of it accurate, though (and I'm not
there yet).

2) I have been a big proponent of the Condor soaring simulator since I
first started working on transitioning from SEL to Glider. I have a
nice setup and have flown a lot of hours with it over the last 2
years. I think the thermals are slightly too symmetrical (too easy to
perfectly center in many cases) - but otherwise its an EXCELLENT
resource. Didn't think you could do MAT or TAT tasks with it,
though...

3) Practice: My last several flights at EPH this summer I made a
point of researching in the morning (see point #4 below), and picking
a few waypoints. I then flew to (or beyond) these waypoints on my
flights (noting differences in the forecast and the actual
conditions). I've also spent a fair amount of time flying near
Seattle itself, where cloudbases are very low and the lift is
typically only about 2 knots. This week I did a 125km+ XC flight -
which doesn't sound like much until you learn that the cloudbase was
3000' MSL and we were dodging rain-showers the whole time; and half of
the pilots that day landed out! Flying in weak conditions may not
allow for big distances, but the skills you develop in making low-
saves and "tiptoeing around" are invaluable!

4) Weather: For me this is a hugely important skill to learn as a
pilot. I've worked to become the chief forecaster for our local (west-
side) club. I am still working to get better at reading individual
clouds and timing my jumps to them, but I have become very adept at
using soundings (both real and simulated) and other online weather
resources to figure out the forecasted conditions at various points
along my flight-path. I'll admit it: mostly, I'm stubborn and I don't
trust other people's forecasts. I want to read the tea-leaves myself,
and then if I screw up I have no one else to blame. :-P

5) When to turn: This is still a big one for me. I am developing a
good "butt-meter" when it comes to detecting and centering lift when
I'm flying along slowly or already circling. At my typical cruise-
speed of ~80 knots I find it MUCH harder! Either I stop and turn for
a big bump that isn't workable (just a gust or something ragged); or I
blow through the lift by the time I realize its big enough to use, and
I don't think its worthwhile to try to turn back around to find it.
At least I know I'm not the only one who sometimes dolphin-flies and
pulls up in the sink on the far side because of vario lag... *sigh*
Hi Noel, just my opinion as a low experience contest pilot.

Thermal entry from fast cruise is a very important skill.

As a beginner on this (4 contests - low scores, speed improving) from high speed the trick is to pull up relatively hard
and straight, as the speed bleeds off you can hunt a little to feel which way the lift is best. IF the vario gets to
above your MC Cready setting then turn that way when your speed is near what you want to thermal at. If the vario tops
out below whatever your MC setting is at that height, get the nose down as the lift reduces and keep going. (Thanks mr
Moffatt) Implies you know have decided what your MC number is going to be for the top 50%, next 20%-30% and the
"survival" part of the soaring band. The really hard part is being ruthless about bad thermals, too weak, too broken up,
or just behind you are all thermals that you need to disdain and reject.

If the vario setup is bad you can have a lot of frustration - suggest you have someone who has the experience fly your
ship and get an opinion on whether your probe and vario are working well.
My performance improved markedly when I got a reasonable vario as opposed to the laggy, inaccurate vintage thing my ship
came with. Of course, now I know the poor performance is due to the laggy, inaccurate pilot.


For those that have read this far (I'm impressed!) and have flown in
competitions: On a good day (thermal-strength-wise), how big of an
altitude band do you typically use when jumping between individual
clouds? I know about McCready theory and using streets and energy
lines and such; but I am curious about people's experiences and
anecdotal evidence. And yes, I know the exact answer is dependant
upon terrain and conditions - but I'm still interested to know what
your rough estimate is.

Thanks again for some excellent suggestions and information!

Take care,

--Noel

5) When to turn: *This is still a big one for me. *I am developing a
good "butt-meter" when it comes to detecting and centering lift when
I'm flying along slowly or already circling. *At my typical cruise-
speed of ~80 knots I find it MUCH harder! *Either I stop and turn for
a big bump that isn't workable (just a gust or something ragged); or I
blow through the lift by the time I realize its big enough to use, and
I don't think its worthwhile to try to turn back around to find it.
At least I know I'm not the only one who sometimes dolphin-flies and
pulls up in the sink on the far side because of vario lag... **sigh*


In my current thinking this is about the most important thing in
contest success. Maybe the only thing. The good pilots find and center
good lift. It all comes down to thermaling. When I do badly it is
because I missed thermals that better pilots found. I write all these
MacCready articles and such, but my big focus is just on going back to
basics and thermaling better.

By and large, you don't find lift at 80 kts dry (90+ wet). You slow
down in the bumpy air that indicates there is a thermal around here
somewhere, take S turns, sniff around like a dog looking for a hidden
bone, (Forget all that Moffat mid 70s stuff about aerobatic thermal
entries. That happens occasionally, but really rarely) LOOK LOOK LOOK
out the window for cloud shapes, birds, chaff, gliders, or any other
clue, and learn to recognize all those great feelings in your butt,
You want to recognize the feeling that is a thermal, not a gust; to
know that if you turn you will turn into increasing lift, and not the
dreaded sink. You're trying not to ever go past 45 degrees off course
unless you KNOW the lift will be there all the way around.

Of course, you're rock steady in attitude control, thermaling at
exactly the right airspeed.

John Cochrane.

Thanks all,

This may sound egotistical, but when I'm alone or with one or two
other gliders I'm pretty confident my thermaling skills are above-
average (I admit that I still need work in gaggles). I tend to circle
a little bit faster than some folks (usually 48 - 50 knots in my
DG-300), but I turn at a tight 45 - 50 degree bank angle - never less
(narrow thermals here in the west). Doing the math on load factors at
various bank-angles, and given my min-sink speed of about 42 knots, I
think this thermaling speed may be about right (despite some "advice"
that I should be circling slower). The glider certainly doesn't
"groove" through the turns as well when I really try to slow it up and
fly in the mid-to-lower 40's at these bank angles. BTW, I don't
credit my climb capabilities to talent or anything; I just got started
flying in a place where 1 - 2 knot lift was the norm, and cloudbases
are typically around 3000'. If you want to get anywhere in those
conditions, you *cannot* miss a climb or lose a thermal!

I just got "Winning II" last night, and I'm glad to hear someone with
John's experience discount Moffat's thermal entry technique. The
vario swings due to TE compensation and the sudden/aerobatic thermal
entry at 80+ knots seems like it would make it incredibly hard to
judge what the thermal strength truly is (in addition to the safety
issues if you rocket up farther than expected and wind up smack in the
middle of a gaggle that's already circling).

Oh, and unless I'm really low I _never_ make S turns and hunt. :-) I
usually have 2 "targets" in mind when I set out on each inter-thermal
glide; a primary thermal marker (or best guess) and a backup somewhere
beyond it along my course-line. I try to only slow down and hunt if I
hit bumps or other evidence of lift where I'm already expecting it at
these target-points. But sometimes I feel like I've bypassed a good
thermal along the way (perhaps better than the one I'll find at my
target area). Like I said in my earlier post, occasionally I try for
these "good bumps" - and get skunked most of the time. And the cost
of slowing down, turning a circle (even just one) for no gain, and
then speeding back up is just HUGE.

I just don't know if the "cure" is to avoid circling at all in these
situations, or if there are better ways to determine if the lift is
big enough or good enough to work without actually throwing in a
circle.

Thanks for the tip on downloading race flights/IGC files. I've been
meaning to do that, now its time I actually follow through!

Take care,

--Noel