Benalla

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:52:01 AM UTC-8, John Bojack J4 wrote:
Lowly (and only) LS-10 has taken a 9th and a 7th flying amongst all the latest super new models.
Too bad DG doesn't bother to place some top world-class pilots in a few more LS-10's.

Rick Walter's (RIP) won the pre-worlds in a LS-10 when it was first on Market. I was always surprised that the LS-6 drivers did not buy the LS-10. At a fit 200 pounds I just could not close the canopy though, (Longer torso, broad shoulders). I too thought DG should put a few top pilots in their LS-10 years ago.

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 10:52:01 AM UTC-5, John Bojack J4 wrote:
Lowly (and only) LS-10 has taken a 9th and a 7th flying amongst all the latest super new models.
Too bad DG doesn't bother to place some top world-class pilots in a few more LS-10's.

It is not even advertised on their new website. From the product page: "The company currently produces DG-808C, DG-1001, and LS8 gliders in different variations."

maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2017 18.42.58 UTC+2 Tango Eight kirjoitti:this.

Courage? Or did he simply conclude that fighting through Tokyo traffic -- very rarely even having to find his own lift -- wasn't a valid test for selecting a champion of the sport we know and love called "Soaring"?

The IGC seems to be locked into this notion that the peloton must always score well, even if it does not finish. Imagine what might happen if we flushed those rules and did something innovative (lol) like 600 points for speed, 400 for distance. No devaluations, no re-valuations. Everyone knows at all times what points are in play and how to earn them.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Instead of bashing IGC you can contact your IGC delegate (who happens to be Annex A sub-group chair BTW), or IGC president (your compatriot) directly, and propose rule change. IGC does what pilots collectively want. Good proposals will be put forward to rules. Just saying "someone should do something" gets you nowhere. Score formula changes are not easy or simple, they might work with some scenarios, but at the same time do opposite in others, or create new unwanted behaviour.

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 12:49:55 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2017 18.42.58 UTC+2 Tango Eight kirjoitti:this.

Courage? Or did he simply conclude that fighting through Tokyo traffic -- very rarely even having to find his own lift -- wasn't a valid test for selecting a champion of the sport we know and love called "Soaring"?

The IGC seems to be locked into this notion that the peloton must always score well, even if it does not finish. Imagine what might happen if we flushed those rules and did something innovative (lol) like 600 points for speed, 400 for distance. No devaluations, no re-valuations. Everyone knows at all times what points are in play and how to earn them.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Instead of bashing IGC you can contact your IGC delegate (who happens to be Annex A sub-group chair BTW), or IGC president (your compatriot) directly, and propose rule change. IGC does what pilots collectively want. Good proposals will be put forward to rules. Just saying "someone should do something" gets you nowhere. Score formula changes are not easy or simple, they might work with some scenarios, but at the same time do opposite in others, or create new unwanted behaviour.

Look, I get all of that. I am not pretending that BS'ing on this forum is a substitute for real effort, this is just a quick cartoon idea born of frustration (and also frank concern for good friends flying in that melee), tossed out for the purpose of discussion and thought-experiment. I'm simply curious at this point to know if others think as I do and this is as good a place as any to ask. Maybe everyone else likes it as is? shrug

Surely you would agree that any proposal along the lines I have just sketched out, signed only by myself, would be a complete non-starter at IGC. They are proud of what they have and their process is incremental and glacial, so why would I waste my time?

Now -- if -- this turned into a lively discussion with good ideas converging on a solution that might really improve international competition, then of course I'd be willing to put my shoulder to the wheel in whatever fashion seemed appropriate. A serious proposal signed by some hundreds of (mostly European) pilots could be very worth while, but it's a little hard for this one American to see how to do that.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Why do European sailplane pilots want to race like US stock car drivers? At some point the insurance companies might be re-writing the racing rules.
On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 3:28:53 PM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 12:49:55 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2017 18.42.58 UTC+2 Tango Eight kirjoitti:this..

Courage? Or did he simply conclude that fighting through Tokyo traffic -- very rarely even having to find his own lift -- wasn't a valid test for selecting a champion of the sport we know and love called "Soaring"?

The IGC seems to be locked into this notion that the peloton must always score well, even if it does not finish. Imagine what might happen if we flushed those rules and did something innovative (lol) like 600 points for speed, 400 for distance. No devaluations, no re-valuations. Everyone knows at all times what points are in play and how to earn them.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Instead of bashing IGC you can contact your IGC delegate (who happens to be Annex A sub-group chair BTW), or IGC president (your compatriot) directly, and propose rule change. IGC does what pilots collectively want. Good proposals will be put forward to rules. Just saying "someone should do something" gets you nowhere. Score formula changes are not easy or simple, they might work with some scenarios, but at the same time do opposite in others, or create new unwanted behaviour.

Look, I get all of that. I am not pretending that BS'ing on this forum is a substitute for real effort, this is just a quick cartoon idea born of frustration (and also frank concern for good friends flying in that melee), tossed out for the purpose of discussion and thought-experiment. I'm simply curious at this point to know if others think as I do and this is as good a place as any to ask. Maybe everyone else likes it as is? shrug

Surely you would agree that any proposal along the lines I have just sketched out, signed only by myself, would be a complete non-starter at IGC. They are proud of what they have and their process is incremental and glacial, so why would I waste my time?

Now -- if -- this turned into a lively discussion with good ideas converging on a solution that might really improve international competition, then of course I'd be willing to put my shoulder to the wheel in whatever fashion seemed appropriate. A serious proposal signed by some hundreds of (mostly European) pilots could be very worth while, but it's a little hard for this one American to see how to do that.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Not really... 18 and Open class (I hear) have been fairly split up on course. I've been flying basically alone for the majority of my flights on each day, perhaps with 1-3 other gliders for a portion. I have intentionally left well ahead of the gaggle and many others in other classes, are doing the same. Think Tour de France break aways. It's really fun racing rather than playing chance and weather guess.

Fortunately, the gaggle has been caught starting too late a couple times and has been too inefficient (2-4 kph slower).

There was a collision at Uvalde in 2012 right? Hmmm. Generalizing and diminishing this event sounds like sour grapes to me. IMO (as a pilot flying here) the flying is almost exactly the same as in any large contest in the USA. The most frightening flying I have ever witnessed was the pre-startvgaghle at seniors to be perfectly honest. The difference is that everyone here is VERY good and is fully capable of staying with others as long as they want. So the gaggles I have witnessed here are often together at the same altitude more at the start and apparently out on course in 15m especially..

Another rule system would not alter this behavior much if at all.

The US starting system max altitude rule requiring a decent below and then waiting 2 minutes below that a max altitude probably would have causes 10 crashes here by now. What a ridiculous rule! That US starting rule consistently creates the most dangerous moments that I have ever witnessed in soaring and worries me much more than anything I have seen here! The "no max start altitude" start system used here at the WGC (IGC rules) creates the best starting safety possible and rewards the best pilots for using the available lift and getting higher. The starts here are docile in comparison to the "US start circle of death" as we call it... Gaggle climbs up above max height in strong thermal, descends at high speed circling thermal, waits two minutes, then recenter and climbs while others exit and renter, descend and climb...mass chaos and extremely dangerous! "US rules patented!"

So I suggest thinking this thru a little bit more intelligently before attacking the IGC (again for the 300 time) and trying to delegitimize the WGC event. The US rules are terrible. Some aspects are ok. And the IGC feels pretty much the same as do almost all pilots outside the USA. So US thinking is virtually insignificant. Keep that in perspective...

My opinion is that only one pilot in each class should be here. That means less traffic and eliminates large gaggles, team flying and much of the complexity, as well as high cost of sending six gliders...

I am enjoying this WGC event immensely. It has been really fun (minus the collision)! It's really nice to participate in a "real racing" competition and not exclusively a chance weather guessing game like we are forced to endlessly endure in US contests.

I had even more fun in Horsham at the FAI SGP Australia as it was only 15 gliders and pure racing!

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 2:56:52 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Not really... 18 and Open class (I hear) have been fairly split up on course. I've been flying basically alone for the majority of my flights on each day, perhaps with 1-3 other gliders for a portion. I have intentionally left well ahead of the gaggle and many others in other classes, are doing the same. Think Tour de France break aways. It's really fun racing rather than playing chance and weather guess.

Fortunately, the gaggle has been caught starting too late a couple times and has been too inefficient (2-4 kph slower).

There was a collision at Uvalde in 2012 right? Hmmm. Generalizing and diminishing this event sounds like sour grapes to me. IMO (as a pilot flying here) the flying is almost exactly the same as in any large contest in the USA. The most frightening flying I have ever witnessed was the pre-startvgaghle at seniors to be perfectly honest. The difference is that everyone here is VERY good and is fully capable of staying with others as long as they want. So the gaggles I have witnessed here are often together at the same altitude more at the start and apparently out on course in 15m especially.

Another rule system would not alter this behavior much if at all.

The US starting system max altitude rule requiring a decent below and then waiting 2 minutes below that a max altitude probably would have causes 10 crashes here by now. What a ridiculous rule! That US starting rule consistently creates the most dangerous moments that I have ever witnessed in soaring and worries me much more than anything I have seen here! The "no max start altitude" start system used here at the WGC (IGC rules) creates the best starting safety possible and rewards the best pilots for using the available lift and getting higher. The starts here are docile in comparison to the "US start circle of death" as we call it... Gaggle climbs up above max height in strong thermal, descends at high speed circling thermal, waits two minutes, then recenter and climbs while others exit and renter, descend and climb...mass chaos and extremely dangerous! "US rules patented!"

So I suggest thinking this thru a little bit more intelligently before attacking the IGC (again for the 300 time) and trying to delegitimize the WGC event. The US rules are terrible. Some aspects are ok. And the IGC feels pretty much the same as do almost all pilots outside the USA. So US thinking is virtually insignificant. Keep that in perspective...

My opinion is that only one pilot in each class should be here. That means less traffic and eliminates large gaggles, team flying and much of the complexity, as well as high cost of sending six gliders...

I am enjoying this WGC event immensely. It has been really fun (minus the collision)! It's really nice to participate in a "real racing" competition and not exclusively a chance weather guessing game like we are forced to endlessly endure in US contests.

I had even more fun in Horsham at the FAI SGP Australia as it was only 15 gliders and pure racing!

Actually at Uvalde 2012 there were two collision. One with only wingtip damage (both gliders returned to land) and the other involved parachutes. sounds familiar?

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 5:29:27 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 2:56:52 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Not really... 18 and Open class (I hear) have been fairly split up on course. I've been flying basically alone for the majority of my flights on each day, perhaps with 1-3 other gliders for a portion. I have intentionally left well ahead of the gaggle and many others in other classes, are doing the same. Think Tour de France break aways. It's really fun racing rather than playing chance and weather guess.

Fortunately, the gaggle has been caught starting too late a couple times and has been too inefficient (2-4 kph slower).

There was a collision at Uvalde in 2012 right? Hmmm. Generalizing and diminishing this event sounds like sour grapes to me. IMO (as a pilot flying here) the flying is almost exactly the same as in any large contest in the USA. The most frightening flying I have ever witnessed was the pre-startvgaghle at seniors to be perfectly honest. The difference is that everyone here is VERY good and is fully capable of staying with others as long as they want. So the gaggles I have witnessed here are often together at the same altitude more at the start and apparently out on course in 15m especially.

Another rule system would not alter this behavior much if at all.

The US starting system max altitude rule requiring a decent below and then waiting 2 minutes below that a max altitude probably would have causes 10 crashes here by now. What a ridiculous rule! That US starting rule consistently creates the most dangerous moments that I have ever witnessed in soaring and worries me much more than anything I have seen here! The "no max start altitude" start system used here at the WGC (IGC rules) creates the best starting safety possible and rewards the best pilots for using the available lift and getting higher. The starts here are docile in comparison to the "US start circle of death" as we call it... Gaggle climbs up above max height in strong thermal, descends at high speed circling thermal, waits two minutes, then recenter and climbs while others exit and renter, descend and climb...mass chaos and extremely dangerous! "US rules patented!"

So I suggest thinking this thru a little bit more intelligently before attacking the IGC (again for the 300 time) and trying to delegitimize the WGC event. The US rules are terrible. Some aspects are ok. And the IGC feels pretty much the same as do almost all pilots outside the USA. So US thinking is virtually insignificant. Keep that in perspective...

My opinion is that only one pilot in each class should be here. That means less traffic and eliminates large gaggles, team flying and much of the complexity, as well as high cost of sending six gliders...

I am enjoying this WGC event immensely. It has been really fun (minus the collision)! It's really nice to participate in a "real racing" competition and not exclusively a chance weather guessing game like we are forced to endlessly endure in US contests.

I had even more fun in Horsham at the FAI SGP Australia as it was only 15 gliders and pure racing!

Actually at Uvalde 2012 there were two collision. One with only wingtip damage (both gliders returned to land) and the other involved parachutes. sounds familiar?

True - same order, too; the touch, a briefing, then more serious collision.

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 12:56:52 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Not really... 18 and Open class (I hear) have been fairly split up on course. I've been flying basically alone for the majority of my flights on each day, perhaps with 1-3 other gliders for a portion. I have intentionally left well ahead of the gaggle and many others in other classes, are doing the same. Think Tour de France break aways. It's really fun racing rather than playing chance and weather guess.

Fortunately, the gaggle has been caught starting too late a couple times and has been too inefficient (2-4 kph slower).

There was a collision at Uvalde in 2012 right? Hmmm. Generalizing and diminishing this event sounds like sour grapes to me. IMO (as a pilot flying here) the flying is almost exactly the same as in any large contest in the USA. The most frightening flying I have ever witnessed was the pre-startvgaghle at seniors to be perfectly honest. The difference is that everyone here is VERY good and is fully capable of staying with others as long as they want. So the gaggles I have witnessed here are often together at the same altitude more at the start and apparently out on course in 15m especially.

Another rule system would not alter this behavior much if at all.

The US starting system max altitude rule requiring a decent below and then waiting 2 minutes below that a max altitude probably would have causes 10 crashes here by now. What a ridiculous rule! That US starting rule consistently creates the most dangerous moments that I have ever witnessed in soaring and worries me much more than anything I have seen here! The "no max start altitude" start system used here at the WGC (IGC rules) creates the best starting safety possible and rewards the best pilots for using the available lift and getting higher. The starts here are docile in comparison to the "US start circle of death" as we call it... Gaggle climbs up above max height in strong thermal, descends at high speed circling thermal, waits two minutes, then recenter and climbs while others exit and renter, descend and climb...mass chaos and extremely dangerous! "US rules patented!"

So I suggest thinking this thru a little bit more intelligently before attacking the IGC (again for the 300 time) and trying to delegitimize the WGC event. The US rules are terrible. Some aspects are ok. And the IGC feels pretty much the same as do almost all pilots outside the USA. So US thinking is virtually insignificant. Keep that in perspective...

My opinion is that only one pilot in each class should be here. That means less traffic and eliminates large gaggles, team flying and much of the complexity, as well as high cost of sending six gliders...

I am enjoying this WGC event immensely. It has been really fun (minus the collision)! It's really nice to participate in a "real racing" competition and not exclusively a chance weather guessing game like we are forced to endlessly endure in US contests.

I had even more fun in Horsham at the FAI SGP Australia as it was only 15 gliders and pure racing!


7T

First off congrats on the day three win! Sounds like you’re having a lot of fun.

I just wanted to put in my take on your comments. I’ve flown in many Seniors, Club Class and Sports Class National contests that have large start gaggles and haven’t witnessed the “US Start Circle of Death� as you put it. I’ve never seen someone descending dangerously through the gaggle at high speed to get below the max start height.. In fact, its been my experience, that most pilots leave the gaggle, descend and then reenter at a reasonable speed to be able to quickly feel and recenter the thermal. Additionally, I’m sure you know that the rules state that “While inside or within 2 miles of any Start Cylinder that has been designated for use by any competition class, pilots are expected to avoid flight at indicated airspeeds greater than 115 mph, (100 kts), and to pay particular attention to safe flight near circling sailplanes.� This rule is in place to prevent your “Circle of Death.� I for one, am a supporter of the Start Cylinder top. I think that, in the interest of creating a “fair and safe� task, the the start top rule is essential. You say you “It's really fun racing rather than playing chance and weather guess,� but, doesn’t allowing a pilot who just by chance before the start finds wave or lift that no-one else encounters and then starts with that altitude advantage, reward chance or weather guessing?

It’s my opinion that the US rules are designed to encourage maximum contest participation. I’m not convinced that eliminating a rule that I think would reduce the “fair and safe� guideline of US tasks or to call a majority of Assigned Tasks which can result in mass gaggles and potentially mass land outs would increase US Contest participation.

Just my opinion, though I’m open to discussing any rule change that will recruit more contest pilots.

Bif Huss “H7�

US Contest Rules Committee

Â*

Any reason why US 15M does not have a tracker today (Day 7)? That measn I may have to follow the 18M more closely without switching back and forth. On the plus side I might get some sleep tonight.