On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:49:40 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:39:24 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:





Noel makes some interesting points and has obviously given the topic some careful thought.

I do not think that the AT is by any means an unfair test, if used properly.

The rules appendix, section 10.3 provides guidelines covering task calling.

It calls for a balanced variety of tasks to be called.

It also gives useful guidance as the when each type of task can and should be used.

I suspect many CD's have not read and applied these guidelines well.

Those commenting on US tasking philosophy would do well to read what the rules writers have intended and communicated.

Noel- thank you for constructively commenting for all to share.

UH

An interesting data point would be the 2011 Standard Class Nationals in Cordele. We had arguably the best weather of the year and certainly the best in the East for quite some time (rarely less than 7,000 foot bases with most days featuring Cu and lift of 5kts or better). We had a CD (P1) who was dead set on calling more ATs to help us be "competitive when we go to the Worlds." Yet, we only ended up with 2 ATs out of 8 competition days, and one of the ATs was an undercall with significant devaluation. I believe the A Task on at least 2 of the remaining days was an AT, but they were dialed back to AAT after the day didn't seem as good as forecast during the pre-start (not as good meant "only" 4kts to 4,500 or 5,000). Yet, even on those days, the winning speed was never less than 70kts.

This is in no way a criticism of Ray; he did a great job. But, it clearly wasn't a "rules issue." We had the weather. It was a Nationals. We had the intent. Yet, when there was even the slightest chance that the day would be tough, the advisors and CD felt the need to fall back. Why?

Not sure what that says about the whole debate about whether there would/should be more ATs if we flew under a different set of rules...

P3