On Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:41:42 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
Hank I deleted my post to fix spelling errors. Below is the post fixed as best I could. Basically the same as you responded too. Thanks by the way!



I fully understand that in our reality (less pilots, not wanting to land out, etc) that TATs are here to stay. I'm just arguing for us to try harder and to do a bit more AT's at Nationals (and clean them up). Everybody wants to have fun and I get it. I know I am a little radical at times. But I think there is a case to consider stepping them up a little but more. I think it will help us all grow together a bit more as glider pilots!



Sincerely,



Sean

Sean and I have discussed this before.

I enjoy AT's (and long MAT's, for that MATter) because you are closer to your competitors for much of the course - and the broad deployment of Flarm enhances that sensation. Under most circumstances I find AT's test a very different set of skills that the pilot-option task formats. I left glider racing to raise a family right before GPS tasking was introduced and came back after it was established. I was amazed at the broader set of skills that were put to the test when the pilot was given more latitude to choose his/her own path to maximize the conditions.

I find AT's depend very much on the cat and mouse game of "use markers/lose leeches" or "start gate roulette". This can sometimes result in strategies that gain advantage by being willing to push lower and farther to get the big climb when other pilots chicken out. AAT's (or TAT's) depend much more on your ability to read the conditions and pick a path with the most energy.. MAT's with lots of turn options have this in spades - I have kicked a$$ and gotten my a$$ kicked by outsmarting or being outsmarted by pilots who know how to figure out clouds, terrain, weather forecasts, how heating affects lift conditions 20 minutes from now when the Cirrus blows past, haze domes, the math of course deviations, the math of upwind/downwind/crosswind legs, the list goes on and on. Much less of that is available when the penalty for deviating from straight down the course line is as high as it is on an AT. I know I have a different view from many. For me soaring is a game of rich analytical and pattern-recognition tradeoffs and strategy rather than head-faking, risk management and guts, but I see the appeal of both. The sucker/leech (or "cat/mouse" if you prefer) game-theory tactical part of the sport - especially with Flarm on board - is intriguing and I regularly see it on display with the more prescribed tasks. To be good at the sport you need to hone your skills in both, but I know which part I find more stimulating and offering more possibility.

It's also true that each task type yields a different racing experience depending on terrain and conditions. Pure flatland soaring with no terrain or ground surface variation and no clouds makes the choices of an AAT or MAT less clear so you may as well prescribe the turns and use gliders and the lift indicators, there's less richness in being able to read the conditions - or gain some advantage from them. On the other hand, on a mountain day with cu and thunderstorms and convergence and ridges, it seems a bit of a pity not to let the pilots get creative in optimizing for the conditions. My most thrilling flights have always been where I got to figure out what was going on with conditions and make a play to make something big out of it.

I disagree that computers are expensive only because of managing finish time. With assigned tasks making a long dead glide out into a turn point with no lift around it and back to the lift is no less taxing for a computer to figure out then "when am I going to finish" - plus the value of being right on time is a bit overblown. I've made speed on the field by extending the flight by significant time/distance under the right conditions (oh, that's another thing I like that you don't get in AT's).

I know - I think too much.

:-)

9B