The 11 best things at the 2015 15m/Std Class Nationals at Harris Hill

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 1:33:04 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
FWIW, again, I strongly disagree.

Pilots are simply not innocently waiting around in the start cylinder for the "most favorable conditions." Common! That is probably only 10% true, especially at high levels. That statement is pretty funny to me and I think plain false. It damages the discussion here because it is so false. U.S. Pilots are, in general, fairly well conditioned to search for, find and wait around with other pilots (in an accelerated high energy gaggle) to start, often for what seems to be quite and endless amount of time. What goes on in these gaggles is often quite exhilarating to say the least.

Your response is a gross oversimplification and is obviously aimed at me. So I'll bite and respond.

We already know the behavior that a start time limit would produce. Look at any start recording in see you where it's late in the day and the conditions are expected to be very week. The final day of this years PAGC is a great example. There are many, many more.

I contend that we simply will move the endless start posturing process forward with a reasonable time limit on the "game." It will be the same, just shorter in many cases or in a day where conditions are expected to be strongest late in the day. I am in NO WAY asking for a Grand Prix start in all US contest. Please! That would be too good. Too simple!

That said, in a "real" glider race start (Sailplane Grand Prix), the better pilots actually leave the followers rather quickly. I do not believe that (in the U.S.) gaggles would be any larger than they are now. I contend that the gaggles would be SMALLER and would BREAK UP FASTER than current US rules. But I digress...

At the Sailplane Grand Prix World Championship level gaggles break up almost immediately (the best sailplane competition pilots in the world, easily capable of leeching most of the others all day long). Go ahead and look at the flights (recorded on YouTube) PLEASE rather than guessing what will happen! Don't assume or take what someone tells you here to be true. I promise you that SGP finishes are never a big gaggle. In fact usually 20 minutes into the task they are broken up. These are 20 glider classes (no bigger or smaller than our nationals usually). SGP gaggles break up rather quickly on weak and strong days alike (and in mountains and flatlands).

This misconception propagated by many here about Sailplane Grand Prix or start time limits promoting gaggles is amazing in light of those clear, easily available facts. Watch the races. See what happens.

Furthermore, I contend that IT IS ACTUALLY UNLIMITED START WINDOWS (our current rules) THAT PROMOTE OUR GAGGLES. I believe that I can prove it with a short video mash-up of some recent U.S. tasks. You betcha...coming soon! Thanks for forcing me to do more homework Andy.

The definition of insanity is said to be "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Wise words, wise words.

I simply would rather "get to it" and race with less dangerous, wasteful loitering in the start area. A fact many here seem to consistently discount or ignore in these debates is the very real safety risk that our current starting rules consistently create. Eventually, this risk we all must take (willingly, in the case of many) is going to catch up with a couple of us. When it does it is going to sting. I have witnessed some extremely close calls. I am absolutely NOT A FAN of start gaggles waiting around for long periods (with great conditions by the way) playing the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game. This is the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring. I find it, frankly, disturbing. The interrelationship of unlimited start time and the two minute below max start height rule creates a mass panic of descenders as the first key starters begin to go (often a fake) out the top of a strong thermal. This pattern just keeps repeating usually. We must minimize this macho game of who can out-wait the rest of them.

Finally, there is no correlation to starting rules and course type. Starting sooner is equally good for all task types, even hats (OLC).

I have always thought quite differently that most. That said I am shocked in the way many perceive the pre start patterns of sailplane competition with a shoulder shrug to safety. It's a sport. Sports are constrained by boundaries in 3D space and time. DEAL WITH IT! ACCEPT IT. An unlimited start window makes it less of a sport and more of a game IMO.

Unlimited starting times are bad for competition quality and create highly dangerous, unpredictable patterns in our cherished soaring time/distance contests (absolutely not racing). More soon!

End-

While trying not to be disagreeable, I don't agree.
If the intent is to start last and run down the group, the pilot still waits as late as possible. Then, when the start time window runs out, he goes, along with everybody else that is trying to do the same thing. The competitive part of the fleet all starts in the last few seconds and has been winding up at the top for the last 2 or 3 minutes.
I was there when this was tried. We scared ourselves silly.
UH

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:33:04 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
FWIW, again, I strongly disagree.

Pilots are simply not innocently waiting around in the start cylinder for the "most favorable conditions." Common! That is probably only 10% true, especially at high levels. That statement is pretty funny to me and I think plain false. It damages the discussion here because it is so false. U.S. Pilots are, in general, fairly well conditioned to search for, find and wait around with other pilots (in an accelerated high energy gaggle) to start, often for what seems to be quite and endless amount of time. What goes on in these gaggles is often quite exhilarating to say the least.

Your response is a gross oversimplification and is obviously aimed at me. So I'll bite and respond.

We already know the behavior that a start time limit would produce. Look at any start recording in see you where it's late in the day and the conditions are expected to be very week. The final day of this years PAGC is a great example. There are many, many more.

I contend that we simply will move the endless start posturing process forward with a reasonable time limit on the "game." It will be the same, just shorter in many cases or in a day where conditions are expected to be strongest late in the day. I am in NO WAY asking for a Grand Prix start in all US contest. Please! That would be too good. Too simple!

That said, in a "real" glider race start (Sailplane Grand Prix), the better pilots actually leave the followers rather quickly. I do not believe that (in the U.S.) gaggles would be any larger than they are now. I contend that the gaggles would be SMALLER and would BREAK UP FASTER than current US rules. But I digress...

At the Sailplane Grand Prix World Championship level gaggles break up almost immediately (the best sailplane competition pilots in the world, easily capable of leeching most of the others all day long). Go ahead and look at the flights (recorded on YouTube) PLEASE rather than guessing what will happen! Don't assume or take what someone tells you here to be true. I promise you that SGP finishes are never a big gaggle. In fact usually 20 minutes into the task they are broken up. These are 20 glider classes (no bigger or smaller than our nationals usually). SGP gaggles break up rather quickly on weak and strong days alike (and in mountains and flatlands).

This misconception propagated by many here about Sailplane Grand Prix or start time limits promoting gaggles is amazing in light of those clear, easily available facts. Watch the races. See what happens.

Furthermore, I contend that IT IS ACTUALLY UNLIMITED START WINDOWS (our current rules) THAT PROMOTE OUR GAGGLES. I believe that I can prove it with a short video mash-up of some recent U.S. tasks. You betcha...coming soon! Thanks for forcing me to do more homework Andy.

The definition of insanity is said to be "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Wise words, wise words.

I simply would rather "get to it" and race with less dangerous, wasteful loitering in the start area. A fact many here seem to consistently discount or ignore in these debates is the very real safety risk that our current starting rules consistently create. Eventually, this risk we all must take (willingly, in the case of many) is going to catch up with a couple of us. When it does it is going to sting. I have witnessed some extremely close calls. I am absolutely NOT A FAN of start gaggles waiting around for long periods (with great conditions by the way) playing the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game. This is the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring. I find it, frankly, disturbing. The interrelationship of unlimited start time and the two minute below max start height rule creates a mass panic of descenders as the first key starters begin to go (often a fake) out the top of a strong thermal. This pattern just keeps repeating usually. We must minimize this macho game of who can out-wait the rest of them.

Finally, there is no correlation to starting rules and course type. Starting sooner is equally good for all task types, even hats (OLC).

I have always thought quite differently that most. That said I am shocked in the way many perceive the pre start patterns of sailplane competition with a shoulder shrug to safety. It's a sport. Sports are constrained by boundaries in 3D space and time. DEAL WITH IT! ACCEPT IT. An unlimited start window makes it less of a sport and more of a game IMO.

Unlimited starting times are bad for competition quality and create highly dangerous, unpredictable patterns in our cherished soaring time/distance contests (absolutely not racing). More soon!

End-


Not really targeted at anyone in particular - though the "real racing" line probably was a fun poke to get the ball rolling. ;-)

No opposition from me in setting a last start time - we put it in the rules and didn't get a single taker in two years so we let it drop in our efforts to simplify. It can easily be put back in, though the scoring programming would need to be done and it's non-trivial. Manual scoring is too much of a pain. Maybe something super-clever can be thought up to minimize the scorer and programmer burden.

I am a bit confused by two contentions I've heard from pilots. One is that having a GP start is totally fair because everyone starts at the same time so no one has an advantage. A related contention (repeated here) is that slower pilots can't keep up with faster ones when they all start at the same time and quickly fall back from the lead.

The other contention I've heard is that leeching confers an significant advantage on those who follow. There have been two forms of this - and a particular flavoring for Flarm. The first form is that pilots starting later can use the leader's thermals to quickly catch up (coring lift faster or having twice as many thermals to sample are the means to this end). The Flarm variant of this argument is that you can now perform this trick from 5 miles back instead of two miles back. The other variant on the contention is more about keeping up than catching up - that slower pilots can figuratively lash their glider to a leader's and use that leader to keep from falling behind (the Flarm flavoring extends the length of the tow rope). This allow them to score almost as well as the leader, or at least better than they would have.

I can't reconcile these two contentions. Either leeching confers a real benefit big enough to worry about or it doesn't. Having thoughtful approaches to a whole host of racing issues (task types, start formats, technology, scoring) relies at east in part on being accurate in our understanding of the magnitude of this effect.

If leeching confers a benefit then compressing the field makes races less fair - to the extent a tighter field increases the opportunity to leech (it certainly doesn't decrease it). True, a dedicated leech need only attach him/herself to a single glider and that is mostly independent of race format (where you go, I go). But a look at almost any race shows virtually everyone joining thermals being used by a glider in front of them at some point(s) along the way and gaggles form from this very behavior - surely we aren't saying that these things don't happen and don't exist? Or are we saying it's okay to leech if you start out on course rather than at the start? Or if you were heading sort of the same direction anyway? Or if you at least try to lead out some times?

If leeching isn't a significant benefit then we needn't worry about trying to spread the field out, but also we really needn't worry about Flarm leeching either because seeing a glider 5 miles ahead of you, while an interesting curiosity, won't allow you to catch up beyond your natural ability to make better speed on course and it may not even allow you to do much to keep up. If you can't keep up when you start wingtip to wingtip there's no way they are going to be able to keep up trying to find someone else's thermals 5 minutes later.

BTW, I've started looking at some actual races, particularly ones that were reputed to be "leechy" and doing some analytics. I'm looking at every thermal for every competitor for each task and recording whether each thermal was independently found or "borrowed" from someone ahead - and how far ahead.. I'm also measuring whether in the latter case the heading of the trailing glider on course would have taken it within 2km and 1000' of the 'lead' glider (Stealth range). I want some real data about how much leeching is really going on and how much of it might be reduced by Stealth mode. [If you want, PM me your suggestions for "leechy" contests (and specify which day) - I'll try to take a look.] One interesting metric is average climb rate achieved in leeched thermals versus independently found thermals - for each pilot and for the entire field. Results for the first contest day I looked at were...surprising. Occasionally you can even see gliders altering course in response to a glider ahead connecting with lift.

9B

While I'm a bit "disconnected from a current'racer'", I will say that "leeching" has been around for a while.

I will also state, while you can leech, it does NOT mean you can climb as well as another when you're "scrapping the trees".

I've, "been there, done that" and lost a good regional placing trying to go for a slightly higher podium position.....

"Way back when......", I remember pilots picking starting positions in the morning. When a "hot pilot" picked a start time, a "whole gaggle picked whatever time was shortly thereafter......".
This was back when I was a crew..... likely before some in this thread were born......

I still say, "You can follow a better pilot, but can you "really" core a thermal & get away??

Best I can come up with is...... I did a "pass" in a thermal (of a slow climber) and looked over my shoulder to see KS & SM following me.
Likely will never forget that.
No, they kicked my butt...... sigh.

Sean, it must frustrating to always be right and have to spend SO much time explaining yourself to those who aren't bright or experienced enough to figure it out on their own.

Seriously, I invite you to examine the starting times of the leaders at Elmira: IIRC, seldom did they hang around and often they were some of the first ones out of the gate. There was little of the pre-start maneuvering I've seen at many contests as pilots jockey to be the last one to leave and try to bounce the gaggles on the first leg to catch up. For one thing, the weather wasn't usually very kind to those who lingered. For another, we were blessed with pilots who had their own ideas about what to do to win and flew that way. You and I haven't flown at the same contests so perhaps your experience is different. I saw a lot of what you describe many years ago but as the number of participants has declined precipitously, it's been less of an issue. And to Andy's point, I have to admit I saw less leeching at Elmira than in prior years.

There was one exception to the no late starts paradigm: Gary Ittner won the third day by leaving nearly 30 minutes later than the next-fastest finishers (and 10+ minutes after the next-to-last starter) on the longest task and at the highest speed of the contest. Who really knows what went into his decision (I recall his saying something about it not being altogether intentional). But one of the most outstanding performances of the national contest would arguably have been prevented by a 30 minute start window rule.

I'm playing with you, of course. One can prove anything with statistics. But you know that already.

In the spirit of cooperation, however, and as long as we're thinking out of the box, here's an idea.

Let's say you're right with your statement that the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game [is] the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring." The incentive to orbit at 80 kts. to 100 kts. to avoid (1) popping out of the top of the start cylinder or (2) being the first to leave is built into the rules.

So let's get rid of the 2 minute rule. That was put in to prevent pilots from climbing up above the cylinder and diving down through it (and through the gaggles) to start through the side. The solution to THAT problem is very easy: get rid of the start cylinder. Let's move to a simple start LINE with a maximum altitude. Start whenever you want by crossing the line in the prescribed direction. No incentive to cluster at the top of the thermal; just be under the top of the gate when you go through. To make it even safer, pilots would have to announce their intent and enter the start line area for a run at the gate by passing over an initial point (we could abbreviate it "IP") so everyone would know where they were. Yeah...

Within weeks, software designers would add a feature to graphically depict the entry path all the way into the start line on a moving map without overspeeding. Simple. No more pushing the nose forward the last few seconds and ignoring the redline to squeak under the top of gate. Just tell the software what your personal maximum speed is (the manufacturer's redline, altitude adjusted, would be the default) and follow directions, as if on a very fast final glide.

And with FLARM, no more worries about crowding and potential collisions. Eureka!!! Much safer and more straightforward starts. Set the line any height you want. Sometimes the solution really is simple.

This would be great for folks like you who want head-to-head racing. No more gliders starting as far as 10 miles apart through opposite sides of the cylinder or, even more outrageous, out the top.

Just to head off the inevitable objections, the talk about high-speed start gate accidents in the old days was, in my experience, overblown. I only know of two incidents. One involved a glider where the main pins weren't safetied and the whole assembly came apart at high speed, with the pilot parachuting to safety. The other involved an enthusiastic young pilot in an early (read: flexible) ASW 20 who experienced flutter and landed safely. I'm sure there were others, but the start line was not nearly as lethal as those who promoted the adoption of GPS loggers made it out to be in order to hasten the mandatory use of those gadgets.

We're currently using finish lines in some contests; how about a start line? I can say from experience that a pilot knew exactly where he could and couldn't fly (no circling in the gate), and knew exactly where to look for traffic even without FLARM.

So let's quit arguing about limited start times and get back to the way real men (and women) flew in the golden age of soaring! (sigh)

Just trying to help.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:21:59 PM UTC-7, wrote:
I'm not sure how we got from a discussion on the impact of FLARM stealth on soaring skills and leeching, on the one hand, and time-limited start gates on the other.

They are very related. The whole reason for stealth mode is to reduce the value of flarm for gaggling and leeching. So, that means people who want stealth think gaggling and leeching are a problem, and it's useful to put in rules changes that reduce the benefits of gaggling and leeching.

Multiple start gates, event timers, last start, 15 minute brackets, less (if that's possible) assigned tasks, etc. etc. etc. are all rules changes proposed to reduce gaggling and leeching. That's why this thread went there.

If gaggling and leeching is a problem so we need to impose stealth mode -- which has some costs, to safety, to situational awareness, and for many to the enjoyment of the contest (it's fun to know where your buddies are) -- then it seems logical to explore all these other approaches to stopping gaggling and leeching.

if nothing else, the benefits of flarm for gaggling and leeching would be much lower if one adopted other rules changes that reduced gaggling and leeching.

All the other rules changes also have costs, downsides, complexity and so forth, which is why we don't have them (sometimes, anymore). But if gaggling and leeching are problems bad enough to motivate imposing stealth mode, then they must be bad enough to motivate reconsidering the rest of the anti-gaggling and leeching changes. Or maybe if we reconsidered one of those, we'd put enough stop to gaggling and leeching that we wouldn't have to go through the bother and other costs of imposing stealth.

Not advocating a side here, just why the dicussion is going this way and encouraging that larger discussion.

And here I thought it was going to be a boring rules season...

John Cochrane

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 2:58:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Sean, it must frustrating to always be right and have to spend SO much time explaining yourself to those who aren't bright or experienced enough to figure it out on their own.

Seriously, I invite you to examine the starting times of the leaders at Elmira: IIRC, seldom did they hang around and often they were some of the first ones out of the gate. There was little of the pre-start maneuvering I've seen at many contests as pilots jockey to be the last one to leave and try to bounce the gaggles on the first leg to catch up. For one thing, the weather wasn't usually very kind to those who lingered. For another, we were blessed with pilots who had their own ideas about what to do to win and flew that way. You and I haven't flown at the same contests so perhaps your experience is different. I saw a lot of what you describe many years ago but as the number of participants has declined precipitously, it's been less of an issue. And to Andy's point, I have to admit I saw less leeching at Elmira than in prior years.

There was one exception to the no late starts paradigm: Gary Ittner won the third day by leaving nearly 30 minutes later than the next-fastest finishers (and 10+ minutes after the next-to-last starter) on the longest task and at the highest speed of the contest. Who really knows what went into his decision (I recall his saying something about it not being altogether intentional). But one of the most outstanding performances of the national contest would arguably have been prevented by a 30 minute start window rule.

I'm playing with you, of course. One can prove anything with statistics. But you know that already.

In the spirit of cooperation, however, and as long as we're thinking out of the box, here's an idea.

Let's say you're right with your statement that the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game [is] the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring." The incentive to orbit at 80 kts. to 100 kts. to avoid (1) popping out of the top of the start cylinder or (2) being the first to leave is built into the rules.

So let's get rid of the 2 minute rule. That was put in to prevent pilots from climbing up above the cylinder and diving down through it (and through the gaggles) to start through the side. The solution to THAT problem is very easy: get rid of the start cylinder. Let's move to a simple start LINE with a maximum altitude. Start whenever you want by crossing the line in the prescribed direction. No incentive to cluster at the top of the thermal; just be under the top of the gate when you go through. To make it even safer, pilots would have to announce their intent and enter the start line area for a run at the gate by passing over an initial point (we could abbreviate it "IP") so everyone would know where they were. Yeah...

Within weeks, software designers would add a feature to graphically depict the entry path all the way into the start line on a moving map without overspeeding. Simple. No more pushing the nose forward the last few seconds and ignoring the redline to squeak under the top of gate. Just tell the software what your personal maximum speed is (the manufacturer's redline, altitude adjusted, would be the default) and follow directions, as if on a very fast final glide.

And with FLARM, no more worries about crowding and potential collisions. Eureka!!! Much safer and more straightforward starts. Set the line any height you want. Sometimes the solution really is simple.

This would be great for folks like you who want head-to-head racing. No more gliders starting as far as 10 miles apart through opposite sides of the cylinder or, even more outrageous, out the top.

Just to head off the inevitable objections, the talk about high-speed start gate accidents in the old days was, in my experience, overblown. I only know of two incidents. One involved a glider where the main pins weren't safetied and the whole assembly came apart at high speed, with the pilot parachuting to safety. The other involved an enthusiastic young pilot in an early (read: flexible) ASW 20 who experienced flutter and landed safely. I'm sure there were others, but the start line was not nearly as lethal as those who promoted the adoption of GPS loggers made it out to be in order to hasten the mandatory use of those gadgets.

We're currently using finish lines in some contests; how about a start line? I can say from experience that a pilot knew exactly where he could and couldn't fly (no circling in the gate), and knew exactly where to look for traffic even without FLARM.

So let's quit arguing about limited start times and get back to the way real men (and women) flew in the golden age of soaring! (sigh)

Just trying to help.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

I really can't think of any big reasons against a start line. There is some modest incentive to cluster off the upwind edge so maybe a little hooking the gate? You would almost certainly have to use a line if you wanted to use any kind of time-regulated start procedure to reduce leeching. (true for GP obviously, but also 15-minute start windows).

Generally the biggest constraint on where people start is where the thermals are. They stubbornly refuse to appear where and when I want them so I have to adjust. I think start out the top has been helpful in keeping people from getting low on the first leg, though when I looked at it last it appeared that people paid a price for this insurance in the form of slower initial club rates on average. Not surprising when you think about it.

9B

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:52:11 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 2:58:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Sean, it must frustrating to always be right and have to spend SO much time explaining yourself to those who aren't bright or experienced enough to figure it out on their own.

Seriously, I invite you to examine the starting times of the leaders at Elmira: IIRC, seldom did they hang around and often they were some of the first ones out of the gate. There was little of the pre-start maneuvering I've seen at many contests as pilots jockey to be the last one to leave and try to bounce the gaggles on the first leg to catch up. For one thing, the weather wasn't usually very kind to those who lingered. For another, we were blessed with pilots who had their own ideas about what to do to win and flew that way. You and I haven't flown at the same contests so perhaps your experience is different. I saw a lot of what you describe many years ago but as the number of participants has declined precipitously, it's been less of an issue. And to Andy's point, I have to admit I saw less leeching at Elmira than in prior years.

There was one exception to the no late starts paradigm: Gary Ittner won the third day by leaving nearly 30 minutes later than the next-fastest finishers (and 10+ minutes after the next-to-last starter) on the longest task and at the highest speed of the contest. Who really knows what went into his decision (I recall his saying something about it not being altogether intentional). But one of the most outstanding performances of the national contest would arguably have been prevented by a 30 minute start window rule.

I'm playing with you, of course. One can prove anything with statistics.. But you know that already.

In the spirit of cooperation, however, and as long as we're thinking out of the box, here's an idea.

Let's say you're right with your statement that the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game [is] the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring." The incentive to orbit at 80 kts. to 100 kts. to avoid (1) popping out of the top of the start cylinder or (2) being the first to leave is built into the rules.

So let's get rid of the 2 minute rule. That was put in to prevent pilots from climbing up above the cylinder and diving down through it (and through the gaggles) to start through the side. The solution to THAT problem is very easy: get rid of the start cylinder. Let's move to a simple start LINE with a maximum altitude. Start whenever you want by crossing the line in the prescribed direction. No incentive to cluster at the top of the thermal; just be under the top of the gate when you go through. To make it even safer, pilots would have to announce their intent and enter the start line area for a run at the gate by passing over an initial point (we could abbreviate it "IP") so everyone would know where they were. Yeah...

Within weeks, software designers would add a feature to graphically depict the entry path all the way into the start line on a moving map without overspeeding. Simple. No more pushing the nose forward the last few seconds and ignoring the redline to squeak under the top of gate. Just tell the software what your personal maximum speed is (the manufacturer's redline, altitude adjusted, would be the default) and follow directions, as if on a very fast final glide.

And with FLARM, no more worries about crowding and potential collisions.. Eureka!!! Much safer and more straightforward starts. Set the line any height you want. Sometimes the solution really is simple.

This would be great for folks like you who want head-to-head racing. No more gliders starting as far as 10 miles apart through opposite sides of the cylinder or, even more outrageous, out the top.

Just to head off the inevitable objections, the talk about high-speed start gate accidents in the old days was, in my experience, overblown. I only know of two incidents. One involved a glider where the main pins weren't safetied and the whole assembly came apart at high speed, with the pilot parachuting to safety. The other involved an enthusiastic young pilot in an early (read: flexible) ASW 20 who experienced flutter and landed safely. I'm sure there were others, but the start line was not nearly as lethal as those who promoted the adoption of GPS loggers made it out to be in order to hasten the mandatory use of those gadgets.

We're currently using finish lines in some contests; how about a start line? I can say from experience that a pilot knew exactly where he could and couldn't fly (no circling in the gate), and knew exactly where to look for traffic even without FLARM.

So let's quit arguing about limited start times and get back to the way real men (and women) flew in the golden age of soaring! (sigh)

Just trying to help.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

I really can't think of any big reasons against a start line. There is some modest incentive to cluster off the upwind edge so maybe a little hooking the gate? You would almost certainly have to use a line if you wanted to use any kind of time-regulated start procedure to reduce leeching. (true for GP obviously, but also 15-minute start windows).

Generally the biggest constraint on where people start is where the thermals are. They stubbornly refuse to appear where and when I want them so I have to adjust. I think start out the top has been helpful in keeping people from getting low on the first leg, though when I looked at it last it appeared that people paid a price for this insurance in the form of slower initial club rates on average. Not surprising when you think about it.

9B

My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
UH

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
UH

Yup - that's consistent with what I've seen looking at a bunch of starts before and after start out the top was implemented. A slight tendency to try to win the start with a better climb which tends to spread people out a bit.. Ironically, In the starts I looked at people who started out the side tended to find stronger initial climbs. I'm sure it varies.

9B

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 7:47:25 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
UH

Yup - that's consistent with what I've seen looking at a bunch of starts before and after start out the top was implemented. A slight tendency to try to win the start with a better climb which tends to spread people out a bit. Ironically, In the starts I looked at people who started out the side tended to find stronger initial climbs. I'm sure it varies.

9B

You all know Ill be back next year either way...

That said, I think the time has come to start moving the "dials" a bit more (than has been happening recently with the RC) and then assess the actual behaviors that result (rather than trying to debate what we "think" will happen). If, for example we decided to institute the start gate time limit (thirty minutes or one hour, whatever), would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe it would solve some of the problems.

It would be interesting to see the behavior if on a predicted 5 knot day, one found themselves in a 4.5 kt (and has only found 3.5 kt so far) knot climb with 10 minutes until the start time limit expires. Perhaps one will decide to start rather than a) get stuck with 3.5 later or b) simply waiting around with the pack all afternoon. Maybe many would start earlier rather than risk getting very close to the time limit and risking to consequences.. It actually makes taking a strong climb early a potential advantage. Its hard to predict exaclty how that small change would affect the "game" other than...I basically guarantee...on average we will all be on course sooner than today and we will spend less time in the "circle of death."

I am all for Stealth Mode now by the way, 100%. See, I'm flexible. I think that is clearly out of control. I hope that passes.

In terms of score sheets, I think the top dogs (XG, DJ, DB, KM, ect, etc) are still going to win many of the major contests regardless. In fact, I think the results will mainly remain the same top to bottom no matter what rules we adopt. Im not expecting any real change in results. This is not why I am arguing here. Im arguing because I remain very concerned about start safety and wasting time there vs. getting out on course. Im still shocked how many want to continue the possibility of the extended, spinning, pre-start fur-balls we all so enjoy.

Yes, I admit it. I absolutely hate having to keep track of or wait around with the gaggle(s) and playing the start game when its clearly very soar-able out on course (there is a reason they open the start gate you know!). I often start early anyway knowing full well that some will successfully grind me down eventually out the task (you know who you are). I think I will need to toughen up on that clear weakness if we continue to do "what we are doing" as its a significant give away. I hate that. I may have to play "the game" even more than now.

This is how they did it in the "glory days?" I thought the "glory days" each pilot had a start time and flew thru a defined start gate? What did I miss? IMO, what we do in sailplane contests today is a form of "time trailing" on a fairly free course (see HAT) and a key part of this game is jockeying (or simply out-waiting) to get into a position to "draft up" on the gang (or key pilot) ahead. At least in a Grand Prix you don't gain anything by leeching on. Your all even. And in SGP the scoring favors the winner of the day, greatly. So their is motivation to break the pack (just staying with the pack is not enough).

Finally, in the 5 years I have been flying sailplane contests, I have not seen any discernible change in start gate behavior or patterns. The 2 minute rule is a big, big player in the scariness. I understand the reasoning for the rule but think the behavior is too costly.

Here is a thought. Why is this below max altitude so short (2 min)? Especially considering that start gates are UNLIMITED! Have we considered, for example, a 10 minute below max altitude? Imagine how that would change the game. Or how about you have to go 500 feet below max altitude to reset? At current, one can quickly spiral down from above the limit and keep a lot of energy going in that 2 minutes. Especially if the thermal is wide, strong and well marked by other competitors. Of course this is highly dangerous. I think the problem is that 2 min is really not long enough to settle everyone down. In other common scenarios, one can keep going up, then changing your mind, going down, waiting 2 min, etc, etc, etc. With only 2 min....one can see others leave (make an obvious start) and then quickly descend, wait 2 min, climb back up and start and only be 3-4 minutes behind the "target." An almost perfect leech (draft) up position.

Just a thought.

Sean

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 7:47:25 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
UH

Yup - that's consistent with what I've seen looking at a bunch of starts before and after start out the top was implemented. A slight tendency to try to win the start with a better climb which tends to spread people out a bit. Ironically, In the starts I looked at people who started out the side tended to find stronger initial climbs. I'm sure it varies.

9B

You all know Ill be back next year either way...

That said, I think the time has come to start moving the "dials" a bit more (than has been happening recently with the RC) and then assess the actual behaviors that result (rather than trying to debate what we "think" will happen). If, for example we decided to institute the start gate time limit (thirty minutes or one hour, whatever), would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe it would solve some of the problems.

It would be interesting to see the behavior if on a predicted 5 knot day, one found themselves in a 4.5 kt (and has only found 3.5 kt so far) knot climb with 10 minutes until the start time limit expires. Perhaps one will decide to start rather than a) get stuck with 3.5 later or b) simply waiting around with the pack all afternoon. Maybe many would start earlier rather than risk getting very close to the time limit and risking to consequences.. It actually makes taking a strong climb early a potential advantage. Its hard to predict exaclty how that small change would affect the "game" other than...I basically guarantee...on average we will all be on course sooner than today and we will spend less time in the "circle of death."

I am all for Stealth Mode now by the way, 100%. See, I'm flexible. I think that is clearly out of control. I hope that passes.

In terms of score sheets, I think the top dogs (XG, DJ, DB, KM, ect, etc) are still going to win many of the major contests regardless. In fact, I think the results will mainly remain the same top to bottom no matter what rules we adopt. Im not expecting any real change in results. This is not why I am arguing here. Im arguing because I remain very concerned about start safety and wasting time there vs. getting out on course. Im still shocked how many want to continue the possibility of the extended, spinning, pre-start fur-balls we all so enjoy.

Yes, I admit it. I absolutely hate having to keep track of or wait around with the gaggle(s) and playing the start game when its clearly very soar-able out on course (there is a reason they open the start gate you know!). I often start early anyway knowing full well that some will successfully grind me down eventually out the task (you know who you are). I think I will need to toughen up on that clear weakness if we continue to do "what we are doing" as its a significant give away. I hate that. I may have to play "the game" even more than now.

This is how they did it in the "glory days?" I thought the "glory days" each pilot had a start time and flew thru a defined start gate? What did I miss? IMO, what we do in sailplane contests today is a form of "time trailing" on a fairly free course (see HAT) and a key part of this game is jockeying (or simply out-waiting) to get into a position to "draft up" on the gang (or key pilot) ahead. At least in a Grand Prix you don't gain anything by leeching on. You're all basically even. And in SGP the scoring favors the winner of the day, greatly. So there is good motivation to break the pack (just staying with the pack is not a good strategy as it usually is in US contest, especially if you drafted up 3-5 minutes on the group you are with...HMMM).

Finally, in the 5 years I have been flying sailplane contests, I have not seen any discernible change in start gate behavior or patterns. The 2 minute rule is a big, big player in the scariness. The ability to wait and wait is commonly utilized. I understand the reasoning for the rule but think the negative behavior is clearly too costly to the sport.

Here is a thought. Why is this below max altitude so short (2 min)? Especially considering that start gates open for an UNLIMITED period of time! Have we considered, for example, a 10 minute below max altitude? Imagine how that would change the game. Or how about you have to go 500 feet below max altitude to reset? 1000 ft? At current, one can quickly spiral down from above the limit and keep a lot of energy going in that 2 minutes. Especially if the thermal is wide, strong and well marked by other competitors. Of course this is highly dangerous. I think the problem is that 2 min is really not long enough to settle everyone down. In other common scenarios, one can keep going up, then changing your mind, going down, waiting 2 min, etc, etc, etc. With only 2 min...one can see others leave (make an obvious start) and then quickly descend, wait 2 min, climb back up and start and only be 3-4 minutes behind the "target." An almost perfect leech (draft) up position.

Just a thought.

Sean