In article .net,
says...

My main complaint about the "start height penalty" , if I can call it that,
is that it treats all pilots the same, even though actual start height is
different. I have actually started a task lower than a colleague, flown
faster cross-country than him, then been beaten by him as he converts his
extra height into distance! We both received the same height (time)
penalty, even though I started lower.

But wouldn't you have the same outcome under the old system, simply
because you started lower? Isn't it the "starting lower" that allowed
him to beat you, not the 15 minutes added to the time?


You might ask, why didn't I take the extra height and start at the top like
others? First, it's crowded at the top of a start cylinder. Second, we
often get cyclical thermals that go higher than others and sometimes one
group of starters gets higher than the others. The lower group just can't
get up there!

As long as it is crowded at the top of the start cylinder anyway, have
the contest managers considered setting the start height lower, so
that all groups can start at the top?


If you want to level the playing field on start height (and I'm not going to
argue that it's unreasonable), then why not use each individual pilot's
actual start height? It's on the logger, and it means you don't have to add
an arbitrary fixed time (or height) to everyone.

How would you suggest using the start height information? I have
couple of ideas:

1) Pick a "standard" rate-of-climb to apply to all pilots, to
translate the start height into a time that is added on to the flight?
The strategy in that case would be to climb as high as possible if you
thought the thermals on course would have a lower climb rate than the
"standard"; or leave as low as possible if you thought the thermals on
course would have a higher rate of climb than the "standard".

2) Do it like badge and record attempts, and allow the pilots to start
at any height they wish, but penalize them for finishing more than,
say, 3000' below their start height. This might "uncrowd" the start
gate thermals, in addition to giving everyone the same "free" start
height. A minimum AGL finish height could still be set, of course.


The big problem, in my view, is that the decision making has been made more
complicated than under previous rules. Before, when you got final glide, if
you were getting home over minimum time, you just flew to the finish as fast
as possible. (It is a race, after all!) Under the new rule, when you get
final glide, you have to decide the optimum speed and how much of that
height to allocate to speed and how much to distance.

But won't the optimum speed already be known before you start your
glide; I.e., isn't it the speed for the McCready setting you are
using, which would be the rate of climb in your last thermal? The
whole idea of the 15 minutes was to make cross-country speed the
predominant factor by reducing the effect of the "free" start height.
For that case, the final glide should be flown according to McCready.
Sounds easier to me.

Personally, I'm a fan of assigned speed tasks, which I much prefer
over PST and AAT. I've always liked them, but must confess that I like
them even more now that I'm flying a motorglider, and don't have to
worry about a bad task call or bad weather causing me to land away
from the home airport.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)