Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

Do you really want to go back to a start with no 2 minute limit, so the competitively right thing to do is to get up to about 1000 feet high, then manage a high speed dive to the edge of the cylinder, while watching altitude, distance to start, airspeed, oh and of course for other gliders? Then, argue each day with the scorer about whether you have one fix in/under the cylinder, and whether you went more than 115 mph after comparing true/indicated, ground/airspeed?

The Europeans have a remarkably sensible solution (in my opinion). If a maximum start height is set, it is simply required that pilots have a single fix BELOW the start height between the time of the start gate opening (usually ~20 minutes after last launch) until the time they actually cross the start line. So you can climb into wave as high as you like and start as high as you like, as long as you do it after the start gate has opened. If you're in the wave before the start gate opens, you have to come down and then climb up again like those who launched later.

This means:
1) Everyone has a fair chance of getting into the wave / getting to cloudbase.
2) No VNE dives to get under the start line.

-matthew

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:21:55 PM UTC-4, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
On 08/13/2013 12:59 PM, Evan Ludeman wrote:

You're doing it wrong.



T8





Evan, this is exactly the answer I got when I brought it up two years

ago. Regardless of how I fly the other guys in the start cylinder are

still doing this. It will continue to happen until we replace the rules

with something even more complex, in the name of "safety" of course.

All the meanwhile we'll be sitting down having dinner and a beer at 5:30

in the afternoon complaining that the sport is dying and that no one

wants to go to contests... here is a bit of a news flash, the sport is

not dying of natural causes.. we're killing it!



Rant over...

Luke Szczepaniak

My opinion... none of the behavior described by the OP yields a significant competitive advantage.

There are many very smart, very consistently fast, very safe pilots in this sport. Those are my role models and I recommend that others choose likewise.

I may go pull flight logs from 18s and look at the starts. I bet I can name in advance a couple of guys with competition records to swoon over who weren't tying their gliders in knots before the start.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan, this is exactly the answer I got when I brought it up two years

ago. Regardless of how I fly the other guys in the start cylinder are

still doing this. It will continue to happen until we replace the rules

with something even more complex, in the name of "safety" of course.

All the meanwhile we'll be sitting down having dinner and a beer at 5:30

in the afternoon complaining that the sport is dying and that no one

wants to go to contests... here is a bit of a news flash, the sport is

not dying of natural causes.. we're killing it!



Rant over...

Luke Szczepaniak



Seriously? A rule promoting contest safety killing this sport? Please.

Let’s go the root of the problem.

We have all discussed the cost of entry into soaring. It is severe in relation to many other activities. Since the middle class hasn’t had a real increase in income (not discussing COL increases) over the past couple of decades, disposable income has steadily dropped. We have to be more selective in our recreational activities.. I’ll stop here. We are all pretty well informed on this. No need to beat a “dead horse”.

What is even more insidious and what effecting many other sports besides soaring is that we are losing youth participation in the US.

Let’s talk another sport.... golf. My best friend from Jr. High School through Grad school is a PGA pro and owns his own course. We recently talked about how golf is in a steady decline in dollars and participation for the past decade or two. I postulated that the cost per round has gone up through proliferation of courses, increase in equipment costs and that our incomes haven’t kept pace. People just can’t afford the activity like they used to. He states that this does impact golf numbers, but what is the greater issue is a huge decline in junior programs. Overall, kids are just NOT interested in golf the way we used to be. Tennis? Soaring? Hah! At the junior level, the same can be said for just about any sport other than perhaps football, soccer and baseball (my guesses here). The base is dwindling. Kids have other activities that interest them. Many activities not related to sports.

The result is that participation numbers for these sports decline over time.. A contest rule one way or the other will NOT change this.

Seriously? A rule promoting contest safety killing this sport? Please.



It is my contention that this particular rule, and several others, that were instituted in the name of safety, in reality do little or nothing to enhance it. Further more, the unintended results of implementing these rules may actually promote unsafe behaviour. It is my opinion, that the complex, constantly changing set of rules are PARTIALLY to blame for the low participation at contests.

Luke Szczepaniak

Malcontents don't become champions. If someone doesn't like rules - may change competitions or professions...
The dumbest rules are smarter than complains.

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:40:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Malcontents don't become champions. If someone doesn't like rules - may change competitions or professions...

The dumbest rules are smarter than complains.

Wow, that was very insightful! Congratulations.

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:01:26 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...

This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.

In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.

Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!

Hi Sean,

I've had all the start experiences you mention. I share most of your issues with them (just not in CAPS - ;-) ).

I'm not sure what the alternative proposal is, but the ones I can think of have also issues. Unlimited height start clusters everybody at the top of lift or at cloudbase if there are clouds (maybe even above cloudbase - been there, done that and I did not enjoy it). If there is no top there is no start out the top and a giant gaggle tends to form at the point where the first leg course line exists the cylinder - all at top of lift. Done that too. At least with start out the top you spread the pack out a bit.

FYI all my soaring software is European (i.e. not US-based or particularly focused on US rules) and all have a tone for getting below MSH and at 120 seconds. They work great. Not sure what you are using these days, but I expect you'll have it in a future release - it really helps an immense amount in terms of all the fiddling.

I'd love to hear your suggestion? Some possibilities:

1) Unlimited height start? If so how to handle gaggling at top of lift or cloud base and what if any enforcement for the FARs regarding clearance from clouds?
2) Eliminate two minutes below MSH?
3) If yes on #2 - Eliminate the speed limit in the start cylinder? Should there be enforcement for exceeding Vne or leave it to the pilot?
4) Other ideas? I'd love to hear some specific ideas.

Without a better alternative all we are left with is the griping part.

9B

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:09:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:01:26 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...



This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.



In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.



Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!



Hi Sean,



I've had all the start experiences you mention. I share most of your issues with them (just not in CAPS - ;-) ).



I'm not sure what the alternative proposal is, but the ones I can think of have also issues. Unlimited height start clusters everybody at the top of lift or at cloudbase if there are clouds (maybe even above cloudbase - been there, done that and I did not enjoy it). If there is no top there is no start out the top and a giant gaggle tends to form at the point where the first leg course line exists the cylinder - all at top of lift. Done that too. At least with start out the top you spread the pack out a bit.



FYI all my soaring software is European (i.e. not US-based or particularly focused on US rules) and all have a tone for getting below MSH and at 120 seconds. They work great. Not sure what you are using these days, but I expect you'll have it in a future release - it really helps an immense amount in terms of all the fiddling.



I'd love to hear your suggestion? Some possibilities:



1) Unlimited height start? If so how to handle gaggling at top of lift or cloud base and what if any enforcement for the FARs regarding clearance from clouds?

2) Eliminate two minutes below MSH?

3) If yes on #2 - Eliminate the speed limit in the start cylinder? Should there be enforcement for exceeding Vne or leave it to the pilot?

4) Other ideas? I'd love to hear some specific ideas.



Without a better alternative all we are left with is the griping part.



9B

The two minute rule causes some bad behavior as Sean and Luke described. Pilots congregate in a thermal just below the altitude limit flying at 100 kts to avoid busting the limit constantly looking at altimeters and timers. A lot of very nervous flying.

This rule is simply not a good rule. It does not improve safety so it should be removed.

How to prevent pilots from diving? Don't limit the start altitude. Then you don't need the 2 minute rule. I know this will cause pilots to stay at the cloud base but they are now all staying under the limit altitude anyway. In the end you would remove the 2 minute rule that causes problems.

I flew before the altitude limit was introduced and I felt safer then than I do now as at the cloud base no one needs to watch an altimeter or a timer.. Heads outside.

I like the free start height option. It goes nicely with open start times and will really reward pilots for finding and centering lift. Also may break up the pack and provide interesting tactics.

And sorry for the title of my thread but the beating IGC rules are taking on RAS and in other mediums from certain US pilots needed some balance ;-).

For the record, I felt OK? with this starting procedure although it was highly energized (airspeed and turning radius), often with a big pull up back into a climb after 2 minutes had passed. As long as all the pilots 'knew what was happening tactically' it was fine but occasionally I saw guys going 55 knots thermaling up thru guys going 140 knots descending and later pulling back up into the same crowded thermal....

The golden BB syndrome comes into play mixing gliders in this manner....a lot of chaos can develop in a hurry. So much so that I pulled off and went away once as I was growing concerned about the complexity of keeping track

Again, I think an unlimited or free height start might be safer. Cloud flying is not a concern of mine. It should be self policed. One thought is on days with clouds you could get still get packs waiting for each other to start under said cloud. At least they would not be mixing up and down and looking into their cockpits as often...and they would all be going roily the same speed, turning left, etc.

Sean
F2

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:29:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:09:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:01:26 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:



Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...







This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.







In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.







Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!







Hi Sean,







I've had all the start experiences you mention. I share most of your issues with them (just not in CAPS - ;-) ).







I'm not sure what the alternative proposal is, but the ones I can think of have also issues. Unlimited height start clusters everybody at the top of lift or at cloudbase if there are clouds (maybe even above cloudbase - been there, done that and I did not enjoy it). If there is no top there is no start out the top and a giant gaggle tends to form at the point where the first leg course line exists the cylinder - all at top of lift. Done that too. At least with start out the top you spread the pack out a bit.







FYI all my soaring software is European (i.e. not US-based or particularly focused on US rules) and all have a tone for getting below MSH and at 120 seconds. They work great. Not sure what you are using these days, but I expect you'll have it in a future release - it really helps an immense amount in terms of all the fiddling.







I'd love to hear your suggestion? Some possibilities:







1) Unlimited height start? If so how to handle gaggling at top of lift or cloud base and what if any enforcement for the FARs regarding clearance from clouds?



2) Eliminate two minutes below MSH?



3) If yes on #2 - Eliminate the speed limit in the start cylinder? Should there be enforcement for exceeding Vne or leave it to the pilot?



4) Other ideas? I'd love to hear some specific ideas.







Without a better alternative all we are left with is the griping part.







9B



The two minute rule causes some bad behavior as Sean and Luke described. Pilots congregate in a thermal just below the altitude limit flying at 100 kts to avoid busting the limit constantly looking at altimeters and timers. A lot of very nervous flying.



This rule is simply not a good rule. It does not improve safety so it should be removed.



How to prevent pilots from diving? Don't limit the start altitude. Then you don't need the 2 minute rule. I know this will cause pilots to stay at the cloud base but they are now all staying under the limit altitude anyway. In the end you would remove the 2 minute rule that causes problems.



I flew before the altitude limit was introduced and I felt safer then than I do now as at the cloud base no one needs to watch an altimeter or a timer. Heads outside.

Nothing wrong with altitude limit as long as it is close to the cloud base - no advantage to go trough the top .
We had huge safety problem where cylinder top was well below cloud base in 2013 18M Nationals,
2012 15M Nationals Mifflin and in addition 2011 15M Nationals in Logan where limit was just 1,000 feet above ridge and most gliders were between ridge and top of the start cylinder.
I can say that above start cylinders were the most dangerous moments in my recent contest flying.
Very often there is only one strong thermal in start cylinder area and all pilots will go for it . Rules introduce behavior and we will do all possible to have start advantage on other pilots, proposal to find other thermal and start from other end is only in theory.
In US we use start cylinder and start trough the top, if we change to start line (FAI 10 km) we have larger separation in addition we don't have
30 gliders in the front half of the cylinder, Imagine 50 gliders during WGC in 5 SM start front half cylinder with US rules. ( in reality only front half cylinder is usable)
If we remove start trough the top then no advantage to be just below start altitude and slingshot trough the top in strong thermal and climb to the cloud base another 1,000 or 1,500 feet.
If we have limit of 90 or 100kt and start line for FAI class then no one will dive like in old times at VNE, it is easier to control speed then time.
Two minutes limit is removing two safety futures- vertical separation and horizontal separation as all are trying to be for 2 minutes below specific altitude, in addition it is forcing all pilots in to the same area of limited radius with no vertical separation and very close proximity I think it works opposite to safety.
Yes, we need start altitude limit in cases of very high cloud base, blue thermals or (wave 2012 WGC Uvalde) to give all pilots the same chance, but US start cylinder is very unsafe place to be.
Jerzy Szemplinski