On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 7:31:09 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
John Cochrane's point about what skill ATs test is excellent. Pilots should seriously consider if understanding gaggle dynamics is a skill that they want. For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air, as that's what I'll be doing during non-contest flying. Therefore, I'll be asking the task advisers to continue calling TATs and MATs and to skip the ATs.

-John, Q3

Thank you for demonstrating the flawed logic that poisons US contest flying so perfectly!

To be specific, your key statement was this. "For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather..." Let's talk about that, and Cochrane's...

The first point is "be careful what you wish for!" You already have what you want. You are already being "tested" :-) (lol) ONLY on "reading" the weather in US tasks. That is almost like saying you wish to only be tested on reading my palm! To say you only want to develop the skill of reading weather is like saying you don't want to learn how to land the plane in flight school! The tasks we run in the US are already highly free form and "un-objective." Pilots are flying such widely varying routes. It is not a test anymore, it's a crap shoot! Again, it's almost all we do in US tasks.

Soaring weather develops (or overdevelops) in minutes. It is PURE LUCK if you fly for one hour in one direction and get better weather than another who flies an hour in another direction. There is absolutely no way you can consistently "read the weather" better than another skilled pilot in that common scenario of wildly different routing. LUCK is therefore ABSOLUTELY a big part of the US competition soaring format. a format that is already so incredibly SUBJECTIVE and variable!!!!!! We almost NEVER fly the same race track. We fly almost pure OLC in the US today. We say go wherever you want and show me that you can "read (aka guess) the weather" better than your "competitor." Competitors who are perhaps 40-50-60 or even hundreds of miles away from your us in the same task! How unsatisfying! How subjective. How disappointing.

In 2014, 98% of SSAtasks were TAT or MAT. Half of the MATs were zero or one turn. Most of the rest were 3 or 4 (average 2.9). So, John, I ask why are you are complaining? Did you fly an "evil" AT in 2014? I doubt it, there were only 4! Did you fly an AT in 2013? I doubt it, there were only 7! The chances of you flying an AT in the US is almost zero in 2015. You are probably dancing on your desk right now, aren't you? All you do is guess the weather "just as you do at home." --- my point about US pilots not challenging themselves. Hey, look at that cloud, let's go over there! What a minute "I'm reading the weather!" Wait a minute, it looks better over there! Amazing.

ATs require a pilot to read the weather as well. It is even more important. That is the point. Just missing one key cloud (better climb) or choosing one better ridge actually has an objective, measurable value. Every meter counts. Reading the weather is not an hour ahead however (impossible). In ATs it's about consistently making the best decisions about the weather 5-15 minutes ahead. Consistently making choices not only about which cloud is better ahead but what "part" of that cloud is better! Skill here means gains! This is FAR more objective that flying two hours away from your competitors and saying "I won!" What did you win exactly? A guessing contest!

The assumption that ATs are ONLY about gaggle flying skills is both wrong and ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as they "cause" more landouts than a long MAT or any other challenging, well called task for that matter. First of all, ATs allow for pilots to start anytime they wish. That variable will naturally spread the pilots out significantly. Just as in any other task, the best pilots cannot be simply followed. This is actually the surest way to lose In my experience. The best pilots are constantly pulling ahead. Soon, if you only follow, you are pulling into thermals minutes later and are not getting the same air. This assures that the lead pilot will leave you eventually. But be my guest gentleman. Go ahead and keep assuming that leeching is the way to manage ATs. If you study them carefully, you'll see the real best pilots do not follow that strategy much at all and the tactics are quite amazing.

These far higher skill level pilots (and their strategies) are probably why these same pilots win the world championships. They flow over to all tasks and all flying and make then 2-5% better on all flying days. Yep, PLEASE keep thinking this way!!!

Disgusted,

Sean


My TV starts to look a little funny when I set the contrast to maximum, but it gives a different view of things for sure.

AST's are not all about leeching and gaggle flying - true. They are more that way than the other formats as everyone would admit. In a world with Flarm they are a bit more that way than they used to be. More "head to head racing" means more using other gliders as samples of lift conditions around, and particularly ahead, of you. It's axiomatic. It's the thing that the AST proponents describe as a virtue. Embrace it. It's not necessarily bad or good. I quite enjoy flying with other gliders around - and I'm getting better at using Flarm in those opportunities where you can sit back with 3 or 4 gliders out in front of you and take a slightly different course to sample they air they are not in. You get to see 3 to 4 time as much air. If you find a great thermal the guys in front of you a few miles won't turn around and if they find a better one you can roll right in. It's good for picking up a couple of minutes here and there when it works. It's kind of fun - but it's a very different thought process.

If you think weather is either 1) random or 2) mostly local knowledge. I'd encourage you to look at recent contest results. As has been mentioned, you see that the winners on MAT days tend to be not very different from the ones who win on other days and not necessarily the local pilots. Heck, the 1-turn MAT day at Montague was won by a talented pilot from...(wait for it)....Brooklyn. Why? Superior strategy and flawless execution of that strategy. It wasn't random - after the race a lot of pilots were saying "wish I'd thought of that!"

I find I have to exercise very different neurons on MAT days. On days where thunderstorms pop up my experience is that it is far more "random" to be the late guy into a 1-mile turn with a building CB over it on an AST day than the guy who has to pick a different route on a MAT day.

I'd also welcome an analysis of the point spread (points standard deviation) for less-specified versus more specified tasks. My general observation is that greater spread most of the time means that the task better separated out the pilots' total ability to get speed out of the day regardless of the task format.

Only in extreme cases where pilots can get cut off, stuck or landed out, do I think of the outcome of a single day as "random". Being forced under an overcast might be a test of scratching skills, or the luck of hitting the one thermal you need to get in and out, or your willingness to push over bad terrain - all happen and different task formats get pilots into these different situations in different proportions. Randomness or luck is more a function of the weather, not as much the format, though certainly there is some interaction between the two and plusses and minuses for any format.

My high school Physics teacher used to refer to tests with large point spreads as "separators" in that they separated the men from the boys. Maybe that's what we need at least a couple of days in every contest with a bigger points spread based on pilot decisions rather than luck, so that the overall results aren't as subject to a single day with dicey weather. If you have one of those early in a contest (kind of like Moriarty 2014, but not necessarily that extreme) and the rest of the contests with all ASTs where the total spread is narrow there is no prayer for anyone to move up.

Some musings for your consideration.

9B