2014 SSA/US Tasking Analysis

4) The RC would look favorably upon granting a waiver to anyone with the conviction to call an AST-only contest. That is, commit up front that only ASTs would be called - all or nothing. Other formats short of "all in" would be looked upon favorably as well, though wishing for more ASTs hardly seems like a big commitment.

I don't even think it requires a waiver. So long as there is "variety and challenge" and "safe and fair," as I read the rules you can call all ATs

It might be wise for a CD to announce this ahead of time, to attract AT fans and warn others. But I don't see it required.

John Cochrane

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 7:00:20 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
4) The RC would look favorably upon granting a waiver to anyone with the conviction to call an AST-only contest. That is, commit up front that only ASTs would be called - all or nothing. Other formats short of "all in" would be looked upon favorably as well, though wishing for more ASTs hardly seems like a big commitment.

I don't even think it requires a waiver. So long as there is "variety and challenge" and "safe and fair," as I read the rules you can call all ATs

It might be wise for a CD to announce this ahead of time, to attract AT fans and warn others. But I don't see it required.

John Cochrane

True, but if we want to provoke some experimentation and innovation (even if it's "back to the future"), I'm happy to draw some attention to it with an official endorsement.

All we need now is some "money where our mouth is".

9B

The Oracle of Brighton, MI might find, as I did, some interesting stats relating to pilot ranking and success with the "thinking" tasks, the MAT and TAT.

It turns out that the DJ's, 7V's and DB's finish higher with the tasks that require more than the ability to slavishly chase gaggles as is the case with the AT.

The frequent mislabeling of the AT as the "AST" leads me to believe that the detractors believe a pilot's score for the AT is based on speed while the MAT and TAT scores are calculated differently. Of course all three are tests of speed.The difference is the MAT and TAT add on another level of difficulty by favoring experience, weather insight and (sometimes) local knowledge. The inevitable score leveling present with the AT may feel good to the runners up, but it certainly doesn't represent a ranking of the pilots total soaring abilities.

Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).

Karl Striedieck

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 8:23:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
I hear what your saying. The U.S. tasking allows for creativity.

But, we don't have any of those being called. We have almost no ATs and lots of OLC.

CDs don't be afraid to challenge the field. Be a leader! It's important!

I'm going to shut up now. I feel like a broken record.


Not sure on which of the 7 threads on task format I should post this, so it'll go here.

A couple of points from the RC on this subject (well, some of the RC - we don't schedule a meeting every time Sean posts a rant - we have day jobs).

1) ASTs have RC support (r.a.s. debating points aside), that's why they are in the rules. We'd like to see them called more rather than less. The fine points of the relative merits of different task formats pale in comparison to variety and challenge being the lifeblood of fun competition.

2) Calling ASTs take some CD conviction and willingness to withstand pilot fear and opposition on occasions. There is some natural risk aversion to mass landouts. If pilots don't want it it's hard to call. Make your preferences known to your CD.

3) No one is going to ban MATs or big-circle TATs, no matter how much you give them funny nicknames. It is extremely unlikely that a specified mix of task formats will ever become a rule. CD discretion and flexibility in calling tasks to suit the weather is more important than firmly held beliefs about what tasks ought to be called in theory or after the fact.

4) The RC would look favorably upon granting a waiver to anyone with the conviction to call an AST-only contest. That is, commit up front that only ASTs would be called - all or nothing. Other formats short of "all in" would be looked upon favorably as well, though wishing for more ASTs hardly seems like a big commitment.

Related note - There will likely be some experiments in racing formats tried at Nephi this year - for those who have an interest. More on that in the coming weeks.

9B

Well said 9B
John Godfrey (QT), RC Chair

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:41:47 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:

Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).

Karl Striedieck

Also note the US Results at Leszno. US Daily win happened on an assigned task.

Steve Leonard

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:24:06 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:41:47 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:

Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).

Karl Striedieck

Also note the US Results at Leszno. US Daily win happened on an assigned task.

Steve Leonard

Dave and I both finished first on an AT in the 2014 WGC. However, that may not be the best way to judge which task we need more practice.
Other WGC placings:
2nd 2014 WGC Day 1: TAT
2nd 2012 WGC Day 4: TAT
2nd 2010 WGC Day 9: AT
Other US Team members may have a similar mix.

Sean Franke

On Sunday, 25 January 2015 05:44:38 UTC, Sean Fidler wrote:
2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

2013: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

2014 US Tasking Highlights
Total Number of Tasks - 189
TATs - 122 or 65%
MATs - 63 or 33%
ASTs - 4 or 2%

2014 US Nationals Tasking Highlights
Total Number of Tasks - 36
TATs - 17 or 47%
MATs - 17 or 47%
ASTs - 2 or 5% (Club Class Nationals)

For the benefit of an ignorant pilot from the UK, please could someone explain what the different task types are? (We talk a different language in this particular area).

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:02:43 AM UTC-8, Sean Franke wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:24:06 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:41:47 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:

Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).

Karl Striedieck

Also note the US Results at Leszno. US Daily win happened on an assigned task.

Steve Leonard

Dave and I both finished first on an AT in the 2014 WGC. However, that may not be the best way to judge which task we need more practice.
Other WGC placings:
2nd 2014 WGC Day 1: TAT
2nd 2012 WGC Day 4: TAT
2nd 2010 WGC Day 9: AT
Other US Team members may have a similar mix.

Sean Franke


Normalized for the number of times each task type is called the data presented would suggest slightly better at ATs. While I'm all for improving our placing at WGC, I suspect that task format is not the biggest factor.

As for the US - whatever gets more people flying more contests is just fine by me. If someone calls an all-AT (my terminology got polluted earlier - sorry) contest out west I'll go just for the nostalgia. Have done one of those since 1985. I'll be needing a crew.

9B

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, waremark wrote:

For the benefit of an ignorant pilot from the UK, please could someone explain what the different task types are? (We talk a different language in this particular area).

TAT (Turn Area Task) = AAT

MAT (Modified Assigned Task) = task with some number between 0 and 11 designated 1-mi turnpoints and a minimum task time. To the extent that less than 11 turnpoints are assigned each pilot can add turnpoints to fill out the time or improve his speed. MATs with a lot of assigned turnpoint are referred to informally as "long MATs" and are quite similar to...

AT (Assigned Task, sometimes called Assigned Speed Task, or AST). Like a MAT only no minimum time and all turnpoints are assigned.

9B

For the benefit of an ignorant pilot from the UK, please could someone explain what the different task types are? (We talk a different language in this particular area).

AT (sometimes referred to as AST): Assigned task. Just like in the UK, flight through a sequence of predeclared turnpoints. Unlike UK/IGC our turnpoints are 1 mile radius circles with credit for distance gained inside the turn area. We find this spreads out traffic and leads to a little less aerobatics in trying to get exactly one fix in the turn area.

TAT Turn area task, like AAT in IGC parlance. Areas are cylinders between 5 miles and 30 miles (ugh) radius, you get the best fix in the turn area.

MAT Modified assigned task. Turn points are all 1 mile radius like assigned task. There is a minimum time like TAT. The first few points are assigned.. After that, go where you want to fill up the allotted time. It's useful to give an assigned task feel to a handicapped contest, or to allow pilots to avoid big areas of bad weather.

More details on the ssa webpage under contests, rules, appendix.

John Cochrane