USA and FAI rules

A few points, as someone who's just come into glider racing in the
last 5 years:

1) I've studied US and IGC/FAI rules and I think that in many ways the
USA rules are far superior. Because we haven't tried to get multiple
nations to agree to our rules-set, we've been able to adapt and evolve
our rules more readily over the years and I think it has bred a better
system. Our finishes are safer, our tasks often leave less to dumb
luck (more on that in a minute) and scoring quirks, etc. I don't love
every rule in the book and I think that some of our procedures
definitely DO work against us when pilots have to change gears and
adapt to IGC/FAI rules for international contests.

BUT, as John points out, a very few pilots ever go to the Worlds and
the idea of throwing out our rules-set so that a few of the top pilots
get better practice at local events before heading off to the worlds
seems backwards and elitist. The SSA is a national organization that
is supposedly targeting _all_ soaring participants, not just a select
few. Therefore, our rules should support broad and fair competition
that works well and is compatible with our FAA rules, our airspace,
our liability laws (i.e. landouts, distance-days, low finishes,
accidents, etc). That may put us at a disadvantage in world
competitions, but I fail to see how our standing at World
Championships is anything but a vanity issue. Sure finishing on top
*might* have some PR and recruiting advantages for growing the sport;
but there are far more things we can do at the local and regional (and
national) level to grow the sport, than to hope for some "Olympic
moment" to get US culture to change and suddenly value soaring. I
mean, when's the last time you heard a bunch of people say they were
going to take up skiing simply because they heard about an American
winning the FAI Apline or Super-G championships? AND, I might add,
the sport of skiing does just fine in the USA despite a lot of
Europeans winning the top prizes year after year.

2) As for the comment from some people that "we need to call ATs". I
couldn't disagree with you more. While AATs and MATs can be poorly
called (and those are a CD issue, not a rules issue), the AT is a
fundamentally flawed metric for testing pilot skill. That 1 mile
cylinder forces pilots to all fly virtually the same route between
waypoints. You might think that forcing pilots to fly similar courses
is a good thing, but that TOTALLY ignores the fact that the atmosphere
is changing all the time. Just because they fly over the same points
on the ground does _NOT_ mean they fly through the same AIR. And
while you can do _some_ planning ahead when you choose to start on-
course, you simply cannot forecast what the air will be doing over a
particular point on the ground 1-2 hours down the course ahead of
you. This means that pilots who fly along the course legs and
encounter more rising air than their opponents have a HUGE advantage
over the pilots who don't hit that rising air. An AT constrains the
less-lucky pilots and gives them far fewer options, because your
course is essentially fixed and ANY course deviation adds distance and
time. If I go through the start gate 5 minutes after my opponent, but
I hit 2 less thermals on-course as a result is it really a fair judge
of pilot skill if he then wins and I lose? Sure, he exhibited some
skill in picking the exact right time to leave the start gate; but did
he (or she) actually _predict_ that they'd find that extra thermal or
two 100 miles down-course if they left the start-gate at that exact
moment? Is that really a predictable and repeatable skill we should
be evaluating pilots on?

With a reasonable AAT or TAT, you can still make an equal _distance_
by flying a different course-line. So deviating to hit rising air (or
escape sinking air) is not an immediate penalty. The upshot of this
is that an AAT/TAT with reasonably-sized turn cylinders evens out the
luck-factor and gives pilots who start at slightly different times a
chance at encountering the same number of thermals throughout their
entire flight. Compared to an AT, you're dampening the luck-factor in
finding thermals directly on-course. This allows two other skills to
have a larger impact on a pilot's contest performance: Their ability
to find lift (and deviate to it when worthwhile), and their ability to
work lift (or overall glide efficiency) better than their opponents.

So you tell me: What do YOU think is the important factor in
determining the "best" glider pilot out there - their ability to leave
the Start Gate at a precise time and find lift directly on-course? Or
their ability to read the sky while on-course, deviate to lift, and
work it optimally?

Just like Baseball statistics are evolving and the rise of
sabermetrics has allowed us to more accurately measure game-state and
find true player skill, so too can evolutions in contest tasking.

--Noel

Quick correction: Below I should have said "FIS Alpine or Super-G
championships"... D'oh!

On Jan 17, 5:39*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:

mean, when's the last time you heard a bunch of people say they were
going to take up skiing simply because they heard about an American
winning the FAI Apline or Super-G championships? *AND, I might add,

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:39:24 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:


Noel makes some interesting points and has obviously given the topic some careful thought.
I do not think that the AT is by any means an unfair test, if used properly.
The rules appendix, section 10.3 provides guidelines covering task calling.
It calls for a balanced variety of tasks to be called.
It also gives useful guidance as the when each type of task can and should be used.
I suspect many CD's have not read and applied these guidelines well.
Those commenting on US tasking philosophy would do well to read what the rules writers have intended and communicated.
Noel- thank you for constructively commenting for all to share.
UH

Sean - So rather than trying to defend your position that ATs need to be called more, you just fall back on sarcasm? I like Dr. Evil as much as the next guy, but its not a convincing argument that one of us is right or wrong.

I know there is a lot of tradition and emotion behind the AT. Just like there's a lot or tradition and emotion behind having Umpires call balls and strikes in baseball. But modern studies have proven how inconsistent and inaccurate Umpires are at calling the strike zone as-written in the rule book. Now I'm not saying that the AT doesn't judge some flying skill, or that its "not fair". I'm saying that what it judges may or may not be the best way to determine who the best pilot is; and that the behaviors an AT encourages/dictates _can_ cause luck to play a larger factor in the outcome.

--Noel

On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:49:40 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:39:24 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:





Noel makes some interesting points and has obviously given the topic some careful thought.

I do not think that the AT is by any means an unfair test, if used properly.

The rules appendix, section 10.3 provides guidelines covering task calling.

It calls for a balanced variety of tasks to be called.

It also gives useful guidance as the when each type of task can and should be used.

I suspect many CD's have not read and applied these guidelines well.

Those commenting on US tasking philosophy would do well to read what the rules writers have intended and communicated.

Noel- thank you for constructively commenting for all to share.

UH

An interesting data point would be the 2011 Standard Class Nationals in Cordele. We had arguably the best weather of the year and certainly the best in the East for quite some time (rarely less than 7,000 foot bases with most days featuring Cu and lift of 5kts or better). We had a CD (P1) who was dead set on calling more ATs to help us be "competitive when we go to the Worlds." Yet, we only ended up with 2 ATs out of 8 competition days, and one of the ATs was an undercall with significant devaluation. I believe the A Task on at least 2 of the remaining days was an AT, but they were dialed back to AAT after the day didn't seem as good as forecast during the pre-start (not as good meant "only" 4kts to 4,500 or 5,000). Yet, even on those days, the winning speed was never less than 70kts.

This is in no way a criticism of Ray; he did a great job. But, it clearly wasn't a "rules issue." We had the weather. It was a Nationals. We had the intent. Yet, when there was even the slightest chance that the day would be tough, the advisors and CD felt the need to fall back. Why?

Not sure what that says about the whole debate about whether there would/should be more ATs if we flew under a different set of rules...

P3

An interesting data point would be the 2011 Standard Class Nationals in Cordele. * We had arguably the best weather of the year and certainly the best in the East for quite some time (rarely less than 7,000 foot bases with most days featuring Cu and lift of 5kts or better). *We had a CD (P1) who was dead set on calling more ATs to help us be "competitive when we go to the Worlds." * Yet, we only ended up with 2 ATs out of 8 competition days, and one of the ATs was an undercall with significant devaluation. * *I believe the A Task on at least 2 of the remaining days was an AT, but they were dialed back to AAT after the day didn't seem as good as forecast during the pre-start (not as good meant "only" 4kts to 4,500 or 5,000). *Yet, even on those days, the winning speed was never less than 70kts.

This is in no way a criticism of Ray; he did a great job. But, it clearly wasn't a "rules issue." *We had the weather. *It was a Nationals. *We had the intent. * Yet, when there was even the slightest chance that the day would be tough, the advisors and CD felt the need to fall back. Why?

Not sure what that says about the whole debate about whether there would/should be more ATs if we flew under a different set of rules...

P3

Yeah, I think like many things in soaring, there is a big difference
between winter dreaming at the keyboard and putting stick in hand and
going.

We all know what the AT means. A lot more "race" feel, since you see
your buddies out on course. A lot more emphasis on start time and
gaggle/marker strategy. A lot greater danger of being sent to a
turnpoint that's in a thunderstorm, or totally dead area. So, a bigger
chance of mass landouts. A lot greater chance of overcalls and
undercalls. Either the task is too short for the fast guys (who then
spend up spending hours playing start games, or landing under a sky
full of cus) or it's too long for the slow guys. And, a lot better
preparation for WGCs where this stuff is all more common.

It's easy to see how we get all full of enthusiasm in the winter but
shy away from actually doing it in the summer!

John Cochrane

On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:58:51 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:49:40 AM UTC-5, wrote:

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:39:24 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:











Noel makes some interesting points and has obviously given the topic some careful thought.



I do not think that the AT is by any means an unfair test, if used properly.



The rules appendix, section 10.3 provides guidelines covering task calling.



It calls for a balanced variety of tasks to be called.



It also gives useful guidance as the when each type of task can and should be used.



I suspect many CD's have not read and applied these guidelines well.



Those commenting on US tasking philosophy would do well to read what the rules writers have intended and communicated.



Noel- thank you for constructively commenting for all to share.



UH



An interesting data point would be the 2011 Standard Class Nationals in Cordele. We had arguably the best weather of the year and certainly the best in the East for quite some time (rarely less than 7,000 foot bases with most days featuring Cu and lift of 5kts or better). We had a CD (P1) who was dead set on calling more ATs to help us be "competitive when we go to the Worlds." Yet, we only ended up with 2 ATs out of 8 competition days, and one of the ATs was an undercall with significant devaluation. I believe the A Task on at least 2 of the remaining days was an AT, but they were dialed back to AAT after the day didn't seem as good as forecast during the pre-start (not as good meant "only" 4kts to 4,500 or 5,000). Yet, even on those days, the winning speed was never less than 70kts.



This is in no way a criticism of Ray; he did a great job. But, it clearly wasn't a "rules issue." We had the weather. It was a Nationals. We had the intent. Yet, when there was even the slightest chance that the day would be tough, the advisors and CD felt the need to fall back. Why?



Not sure what that says about the whole debate about whether there would/should be more ATs if we flew under a different set of rules...



P3

It says that CDs and advisors really don't like to land people out. That's not a bad thing.

Part of the story has to be that we've had so few ATs called in the last 15 years that we don't have much of a track record on them.

It's worth noting in passing that there is a *huge* difference (imo, anyway) between FAI and US ATs. The US AT is an AAT with 1 stature mile radius turn areas. The FAI course has smaller turn sectors and is scored on fixed distance. The US style has some significant safety advantages (obviously) and also encourages some somewhat different tactics (net positive sporting value imo, but not the right training for WGC).

T8

Having flown in 13 WGC's, a number of European nationals, and in US comps in the days when the assigned task (AT) was the only task used, if I never fly another AT it will be too soon.

The AT is a mindless, hand-holding, relatively dangerous, day-wasting, score leveling exercise that deserves the same fate as the altitude, duration and straight distance tasks that have been appropriately consigned to the dust bin of history.

As for the argument that we should march lock step with the glacial, uninspired IGC bureaucracy, baloney! Just as in many areas where US innovation has made us proud (space, GPS, IT, right turn on red, etc, etc) we should lead the way, not grovel in the dust.

One example that worked: The original TAT (AAT in other lands) had turn areas described by radials and arcs from a point. We stayed with the simpler circle and they finally came along.

As capably noted by previous authors, our national contests are not conducted solely so that a few of us US Team contenders might fly in exact conditions found at WGC's. As noted, our rules committee must consider far more than this to appeal to a wider range of pilots.

AT's encourage mass gaggling from start to finish. I remember one such event on a blue day at an 80's national contest at Hobbs. Everyone, save one pilot, refused to be the first to leave resulting in a late start, 3 hours of near miss thermalling, mindless leeching, and slower speeds. At the pilots meeting the next day the lone wolf pilot was recognized by a round of applause by the those of us that played dodge um all day. Wish I could remember his name.

The difference between US and WGC rules is miniscule and of no consequence in determining who we should be on the team. The pilot that finds the best lift and least sink will win, and our rules certainly will pick that pilot.

Karl Striedieck

I really don't care who's rules we use as long as we actually race and
go somewhere rather than flying idiot cat's cradle tasks that are "6
turns and go around twice", or area tasks where the circles nearly
overlap. Unless the weather is frankly dangerous, I'd rather land out
100 miles away than fly tasks where I can communicate with my crew by
hollering out the vent window.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jan 18, 2:50*pm, Wallace Berry wrote:
I really don't care who's rules we use as long as we actually race and
go somewhere rather than flying idiot cat's cradle tasks that are "6
turns and go around twice", or area tasks where the circles nearly
overlap. Unless the weather is frankly dangerous, I'd rather land out
100 miles away than fly tasks where I can communicate with my crew by
hollering out the vent window.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Talk to the CD. Talk to the CD. Talk to the CD....Or, these days, talk
to the task advisers, talk to the task advisers, talk to the task
advisers.

There is nothing in the rules that mandates calling unrestricted MATs.
Long MATs, restrictions on using or reusing close-in turnpoints,
restrictions on number of turnpoints, etc. etc. are all in the CD
toolkit for avoiding the mind-numbing churn around three points in
gliding distance of the home airport.

John Cochrane