US Contest Rules Proposed Changes for 2006

Let's calm down a minute here guys. When does this happen? It's an iffy
day, the CD has thoughtfullly set up tasks A B and C, we launch the
fleet and start praying. The CD looks on the satellite and radar loops,
talks to the advisers, and realizes that all three tasks are hopeless.
But there is a sliver of soarble sky off to the southeast. We could
just get to X and back.

Now, what would you do? If the CD cannot call a new task, his choices
are a) Use one of the preannounced tasks. OK, here we go off in to the
thunderstorms, mass landout on its way. That's not particularly safe
either. b) Cancel the day, even though X and back is doable. This might
mean no contest in many cases. c) Force everyone to land, reprogram
computers, grid, and takeoff again. At about 6 PM.

Yes, reprogramming in the air is a serious issue. And every CD I've
ever seen call a task change in the air has been aware of this issue,
giving plenty of time and usually an extra safety reminder on the
radio. Smart CDs tend to call a simple task rather than a complex area
task in this situation. Wise pilots wait a few minutes to dodge the
programmers, move out of the start gaggle, and then rejoin. I've never
seen a CD call a new task and not give plenty of reprogramming time.

The ability to change tasks in the air has saved many a contest day,
and many a contest. And conversely, the one contest I've been to where
the CD insisted on calling the task at the morning meeting and sticking
to it no matter what was..., well, let's just say not a great success,
with the task deep in thunderstorms and the rest of the area
beautifully soarable.

John Cochrane
BB

Obviously you have never flown at a Spratt CD'ed contest.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Before I bother Uncle Hank, I have a question for the racing sages on
RAS:

Does anyone else think the practice of changing tasks after launch is a
bit dangerous? At the last regional I was in there were several days
that the task was significantly changed after the start of the launch -
different turnpoints, different type of task (AST to AAT), different
task times. And of course, the change was not announced until
everybody was airborne and gaggled up in somewhat weak conditions. So
now you have 30 - odd gliders, milling around in close proximity, and
trying to write down a new task, then having to enter it into their
flight computer and/or PDA. Whoo boy, that's a lot of fun!

Now I understand the need occasionally to change a task at the last
moment (I've CD'd local contests..), but I thought that was what the
AAT was for - to be used if the weather was iffy.

But here is my gentle suggestion for CD's out there - if you think you
might need to change the task at the last moment, come up with
alternate A, B, and C tasks before takeoff so the pilots already have
the task in the cockpit when the change is announced (and can preload
several tasks in some of the computers). A less ideal option is to
make the original task one that can be easily changed inflight (MAT
with deletable turnpoints, or different size AAT areas, for example).

A nice advantage of changing to an already selected and distributed
task is that the task change can be announced as soon as it is made -
"15 meter, change to the B task", repeated as required to cover gliders
in the process of launching, then confirmed with a roll call after the
last launch.

Comments?

KIrk
66

I agree with BB. I've been flying U.S. contests for over 35 years, with
many tasks of both types: i.e., set and forget vs. change in the air.
It's like life (a series of compromises). Or lawyers (on the one
hand...but on the other hand...).

My strong preference: let the CD change the task in the air to
accommodate the actual conditions so long as he/she provides enough
time to reprogram the computer(s) and refold the map. Yes, I admit I
still carry one--you gotta problem with that?

But this is yet another reason that every contest pilot MUST be
intimately familiar with his/her flight computers. In the haze at the
top of a crowded gaggle in 1 kt. lift at 3,000 ft. is no place to be
exploring how to change from an assigned task to an area task, or how
to make a skinny triangle out of a big quadrilateral by removing the
second TP.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

Interesting responses.

Obviously, some more experienced pilots are comfortable setting up a
new task inflight. I'm not too bothered by it myself, I practice with
my systems so I can retask quickly and minimize time heads-down.

It's the "other" guy I worry about!

But it still seems like the way we do it now not the safest way to do
it - especially at regionals - by definition "training" races. Perhaps
some guidelines for airborne retasks would be a start? To try to avoid
the need to completely reprogram the whole task while gaggling in 1
knot and 1/2 mile vis?

Heck, if the conditions are so bad that the A, B, or C task have to be
dropped, then you probably should bail to a PST anyway! Now that's
easy to retask!

With all the recent emphasis on "safety" (ELTs, 500' finishes, etc) I
just figured it was open season to discuss any area that could be
potentially dangerous. I guess some guys like playing with their
computers more than flying their gliders!

Anyway, I'm curious about how other countries handle this issue (I
think we've heard from the Brits?).

Kirk
66

At 19:06 10 January 2006, wrote:
Interesting responses.

Obviously, some more experienced pilots are comfortable
setting up a
new task inflight. I'm not too bothered by it myself,
I practice with
my systems so I can retask quickly and minimize time
heads-down.

It's the 'other' guy I worry about!

But it still seems like the way we do it now not the
safest way to do
it - especially at regionals - by definition 'training'
races. Perhaps
some guidelines for airborne retasks would be a start?
To try to avoid
the need to completely reprogram the whole task while
gaggling in 1
knot and 1/2 mile vis?

Heck, if the conditions are so bad that the A, B, or
C task have to be
dropped, then you probably should bail to a PST anyway!
Now that's
easy to retask!

With all the recent emphasis on 'safety' (ELTs, 500'
finishes, etc) I
just figured it was open season to discuss any area
that could be
potentially dangerous. I guess some guys like playing
with their
computers more than flying their gliders!

Anyway, I'm curious about how other countries handle
this issue (I
think we've heard from the Brits?).

Kirk
66

My orignal response was a little flippant. On a more
serious note as you are well aware the UK weather is
known for being iffy. I always set at least 2 tasks
A and B and if circumstances warrant it C as well and
all are issued to the pilots at briefing. They must
be given at least 10 mins notice of a task change which
can only be done on the ground. If launching starts
the only way a task can be changed is to recall and
rebrief. This applies to all comps, national and regional.
I suspect if I tried to retask in the air I would get
lynched, and rightly so. The thought of 60 pilots all
heads down in the start area reprogramming their PDAs
is a really scary thought. The bits might drop on me.

Mr. Dean's comments on British tasking are thought provoking. Quite a
few days I competed in the U.S. last year were retasked in the air,
usually by changing among A, B and C but sometimes by modifying one of
the pre-called tasks and occasionally by throwing them all out the
window. At least in the eastern U.S., it seems rare that we launch with
any great certainty that the current task will prevail when the start
finally opens. Most of us think that's a good thing. But are we missing
something?

Does this mean U.S. CDs don't do as good a job of setting the original
tasks as do their British counterparts? Are British pilots condemned to
fly hopelessly ambitious (or undercalled) tasks more often than we are?
Does the U.S. practice result in more flyable days for the same chancy
weather? Is consistent British success at the Worlds partly due to
their pilots being forced to compete in more uncertain weather with a
beneficial effect on their proficiency?

This newsgroup has been WAY too quiet this winter.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

wrote:
Mr. Dean's comments on British tasking are thought provoking. Quite a
few days I competed in the U.S. last year were retasked in the air,
usually by changing among A, B and C but sometimes by modifying one of
the pre-called tasks and occasionally by throwing them all out the
window. At least in the eastern U.S., it seems rare that we launch with
any great certainty that the current task will prevail when the start
finally opens. Most of us think that's a good thing. But are we missing
something?

Does this mean U.S. CDs don't do as good a job of setting the original
tasks as do their British counterparts? Are British pilots condemned to
fly hopelessly ambitious (or undercalled) tasks more often than we are?
Does the U.S. practice result in more flyable days for the same chancy
weather? Is consistent British success at the Worlds partly due to
their pilots being forced to compete in more uncertain weather with a
beneficial effect on their proficiency?

This is a point made quite forcibly by George Moffatt in Winning II. It also
applies to us spoiled brats from Southern Hemisphere places that consider a 2kt
day as "not worth the effort".

Contests are often won on the weak days. We tend to call off flying in exactly
the conditions we should be learning in, or make our tasks too easy to really
stretch us...


This newsgroup has been WAY too quiet this winter.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"



--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

Bruce wrote:
wrote:
Mr. Dean's comments on British tasking are thought provoking. Quite a
few days I competed in the U.S. last year were retasked in the air,
usually by changing among A, B and C but sometimes by modifying one of
the pre-called tasks and occasionally by throwing them all out the
window. At least in the eastern U.S., it seems rare that we launch with
any great certainty that the current task will prevail when the start
finally opens. Most of us think that's a good thing. But are we missing
something?

Does this mean U.S. CDs don't do as good a job of setting the original
tasks as do their British counterparts? Are British pilots condemned to
fly hopelessly ambitious (or undercalled) tasks more often than we are?
Does the U.S. practice result in more flyable days for the same chancy
weather? Is consistent British success at the Worlds partly due to
their pilots being forced to compete in more uncertain weather with a
beneficial effect on their proficiency?

This is a point made quite forcibly by George Moffatt in Winning II. It also
applies to us spoiled brats from Southern Hemisphere places that consider a 2kt
day as "not worth the effort".

Contests are often won on the weak days. We tend to call off flying in exactly
the conditions we should be learning in, or make our tasks too easy to really
stretch us...


This newsgroup has been WAY too quiet this winter.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"


Inserting comment:
I see most task changes in the air as intended to use the most soarable
quadrant, or at least to avoid one that is developing into one where it
is or has been not soarable.
In the "old days"( less than 10 yr ago) we would commonly be sent on a
suicide mission with thunderstorm on the first or second leg already in
view because "the task is set".
I see the newer way of doing things to be much safer given the improved
opportunity to avoid dangerous weather and higher completion rates
meaning less equipment at risk landing out.
My personal view is that these benefits far out weigh the issues
related to task entry/ change in the air.
UH


--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

My personal view is that these benefits [i.e., of retasking in the
air] far out weigh the issues
related to task entry/ change in the air.

I agree with Hank. It is safer. Moreover there are days where only a
task change after some or all of the field has launched permits a
scorable day at all.

That said, one would still expect some difference in behavior between
two similarly qualified CDs where one must set an achievable task
before launch and the other has a chance to revise it at the last
minute owing to the different risk/reward profiles.

Two differences that might be expected are longer tasks and/or fewer
landouts for the same weather in the U.S. because the task can be
"tuned" to the conditions nearer the start time. Those differences
might get lost in the noise from other effects--e.g., the tendency in
the U.S. in recent years to set shorter tasks to reduce landouts rather
than tasking to promote using more of the day as is apparently the
practice in Europe. Both of these metrics could be tracked
quantitatively using task length in time (not distance) and completion
percentage (perhaps adjusted for experience and/or skill).

Along these lines, one might also expect less dispersion in U.S.
scores, with late task changes reducing the "luck" factor. Has anyone
explored this? (BB, this cries out for your analytical approach!)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"