Starts Procedures ; Proposal

Not just Argentina. At least three countries have proposed bringing back the event marker, with variations.

The full IGC meeting agenda can be found by starting he
https://www.fai.org/page/igc-meetings


On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 8:15:04 AM UTC-5, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
At the upcoming IGC meeting, Argentina proposes ...

These proposals make a fundamental mistake. In current WGC flying, it is vitally important to start with the fast gaggle. If you don't you're toast. These proposals make it harder to accomplish the optimal start -- but do nothing to reduce the incentive to start with the gaggle. That will just make a high stress high intensity moment even more high stress and high intensity. Literally, when you push the PEV, you're making the single most important decision of the day. If you push it at the wrong time, and the Kawa express leaves without you, well, the day is over and done before it starts. Now doesn't that sound like fun. So what do you do? Focus even more intense attention on the start! Get ground helpers listening in Polish and analyzing the trackers to figure out what everyone else is doing. And in this proposal, keep all that going for three PEV cycles. Boy does that sound like fun.

The first answer, as I see it, is to lower the vital importance of flying with the gaggle. The US scoring proposal before IGC will help a lot with that -- though it will not be a miracle either.

Second, yes, really the only way I can see to do this, without massively increasing the pre-start workload, is with an assigned start time or start interval. When bicycles don't want drafting tactics, they use a time trial. It's not the end of the world. It can be flexible, with a 5 minute interval and later starts valid, just counted as starting at the last start time.

John Cochrane
BB

On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 3:51:53 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
These proposals make a fundamental mistake. In current WGC flying, it is vitally important to start with the fast gaggle. If you don't you're toast. These proposals make it harder to accomplish the optimal start -- but do nothing to reduce the incentive to start with the gaggle. That will just make a high stress high intensity moment even more high stress and high intensity. Literally, when you push the PEV, you're making the single most important decision of the day. If you push it at the wrong time, and the Kawa express leaves without you, well, the day is over and done before it starts. Now doesn't that sound like fun. So what do you do? Focus even more intense attention on the start! Get ground helpers listening in Polish and analyzing the trackers to figure out what everyone else is doing. And in this proposal, keep all that going for three PEV cycles. Boy does that sound like fun..

The first answer, as I see it, is to lower the vital importance of flying with the gaggle. The US scoring proposal before IGC will help a lot with that -- though it will not be a miracle either.

Second, yes, really the only way I can see to do this, without massively increasing the pre-start workload, is with an assigned start time or start interval. When bicycles don't want drafting tactics, they use a time trial.. It's not the end of the world. It can be flexible, with a 5 minute interval and later starts valid, just counted as starting at the last start time.

John Cochrane
BB

That assigned start time works for cycling because the weather doesn't have (as much) an effect on the performance as it does with soaring. Conditions can change dramatically over the course of an hour or so, and this can make a much bigger difference to a glider pilot than a time-trialist. Not saying that cycling is immune to the weather, but just not to the same extent as with soaring.

Hi John,

I agree with your premise (gaggles and leeching ruin gliding competitions, and should be reduced), but I think the reasoning is not entirely correct regarding the event marker start.

If a leading pilot has a bunch of people flying behind him, waiting for him to start, the event marker (EM) start can be a great tool to shake them off.

Basically there are 3 versions of the event marker start floating around:

- Push the EM 10 minutes before you want to start. After those 10 minutes a 1 (2?) minute window opens up in which you can start. You can repush the EM as often as you like, resetting the 10 minute countdown timer every time.

- Push the EM, and immediately a 2 minute window opens up. You have to start within that 2 minute window. After pushing the EM, you have to wait 15 minutes to push it again.

- Push the EM within 1 minute after you crossed the startline (as a startline crossing confirmation). Once the EM is pushed, you have to wait 15 minutes for a possible restart.


The first 1 makes it impossible to know when the leading pilot will leave. When the leeches see him start and scramble to push their own EM they have to wait 10 minutes before they can take their own start.

The 2 last ones make it possible for the leading pilot to make "fake" starts, letting his leeches take their actual start, flying back to the start line, wait, and then take his own real start. If the leeches return with him, they have to wait 15 minutes. In that way, the leader can get rid of them.

Which one is best is unknown, since they are all untested. This year, some contests will try some of these concepts and we will get valuable initial data to see how they work in practice.

(It's my main beef with a lot of the new rules that are proposed to the IGC: they are untested in practice. For a Y1 proposal that's of course fine, but for a Y2 proposal it should be mandatory to have been implemented in at least 1 contest)

I agree that the EM start in itself increases pre-start workload. The Belgian proposal includes therefor another rule: a coupling between start and finish altitude. You have to finish at most x meters lower than your starting altitude (and of course above a lower limit). For instance, x=800m. If you start at 1200m, you have to finish above 400m. If you start at 1400m, you have to finish above 600m (our finish circle is 15km radius, by the way. Probably the easiest rule change possible to significantly reduce accident rates, but that's another discussion). By doing it this way, the concern to start as high as possible falls away, making starting much easier and you only have to focus on 1 number again (the clock instead of the altitude).

I think all the new proposals are a great sign. There is a tremendous urgency to reduce accident rates and to improve gliding competitions. That sense of urgency is now shared by many pilots in many countries. I hope that good debate, testing(!) of the proposals, and rational decision making will improve our sport.

Tijl

Spreading folks out seems good and the Belgian rule is interesting. If you are leaching under this rule, then would you just stick with your host as best you could before the start? If this happens, could the rule increase congestion.

EM rule 1 seems the simplest. How would it interact with team flying?

Problem with all event marker proposals is our use of several loggers. In an event were even one logger would malfunction, pilot would have to score zero, even if other loggers would function normally. Otherwise you have a possibility to press event marker at two (or more) different intervals and just empty the other logger's memory and say it did not work after the flight..

That's why in Belgium's proposal, the files of both the primary and secondary logger need to be submitted every day. If there is a difference between the two loggers in event marker push of more than 1 minute, a penalty is given.

There is also another method possible in which the primary logger is the only logger that counts, unless proof is given that that primary logger has malfunctioned. If that proof can not be given, a penalty is given.

What the exact best procedure is, needs still some trying out and debate as well, but I do not think this will be to much of a problem.

The leech can follow the leader all he wants before the startline, but he can not look inside the leaders cockpit. He thus can't see when or if he presses the event marker. If the leader wants to get rid of a leech, he can make a fake start without pushing the event marker. The leech follows, and is forced to push his event marker if he wants to start. The leader flies back, wait a couple of minutes, and then takes his real start. The leech either continues without the leader, or he flies back with the leader, but is now forced to wait 15 minutes for his next start, and can't start when the leader leaves.

Do this a few days in a row, and even a persistent leech will give up on even trying to follow. (At least if the theoretical concept works in practice).

I thus don't think it would increase congestion, on the contrary.

Pilots flying in team can communicate their thoughts on starting by talking in code. That's already pretty common in other aspects when discussing tactics on the radio. So, I don't think there is too much of an impact there.

I am not sure if another contest will try that first event marker system, but I like it as well. Would be good to compare if some did.

I would say that this proposal is beautiful. It will brake down the start game, all competitions have to make there own tactical decision about when to start.

In Kawas(or any one else in leading position) case is there no need to make an false start to trig the leachers (as it is today). When the leader is starting are all the leachers at least 10min behind as they has not pressed the event button when needed. The concept of have to be in the gaggle disappears as there will be no gaggles. All pilots has to make their own idea of the right starting time and that with 10-20min in advance. The only gaggle that will appear is by those who had the same idea of what is the “right� time to start.

Sorry to say this. But the US proposal will not change the starting game at all.

What you are proposal is just another linear function of how to distribute the points. It will be equally important not to lose more points than necessary for each day and it will be equally hard to catch up lost points tomorrow. Therefore will it not change the behavior of us competitors.

What you can do to create an initiative is the use an non-linear distribution of points.

Example:
The gaggle flies with 100km/h around an 300k task. If you are 5km/h faster or slower gives you equally gain or lost in points (linear function of speed). But it is much harder to fly 5km/h faster than 5km/h slower (or it is easier to make mistakes that cost 5km/h than to beat the gaggle). Therefore should the faster gain more points than the slower losses (a non-linear function of speed).
A system where it actually pays to leave the gaggle and win the day will eventually brake down the gaggles.