Analyzing US Competition Flights

Hi folks,

Been out of the US for a few days. Just read this thread today and finally have a minute to respond (after a couple Disaronno's with friends I must admit...)

First and foremost, I would like to apologize for being so animate about the rule related to AH. I think in several ways I was out of line and regret it significantly. While initially I felt very passionately about the safety aspects of allowing AH's I think I have learned why it makes sense to leave the rule as it has been. After many phone and email conversations with more experienced contest pilots, which I respect greatly, I have slowly been won over by the argument that cheating (and the potential results of multiple cheating pilots flying around in the clouds) is a more serious problem than the innocent (inadvertent IMC) safety concerns I initially argued. While I regret being so "bold" in my arguments I feel that it was valuable to rattle the rules committee in some ways. But overall I wish I would not have argued the point.

My only goal is to have fun and learn this game. Hopefully in time my over-zealousness will be forgiven. Regardless, I want to have fun and compete fairly. It is far more important to me to have a beer with friends and make new friends then to change any rule. Enough said...

In terms of our "contest altitude peak" research project, absolutely John Cochran it will be shared with the powers that be. My intention is not to humiliate people who may have "climbed higher than the rest." Me intention is to see if IGC files can be mined to show trends in tasks, contests and seasons. Can they be used to identify potential incidents. Perhaps in contests where cheating is suspected or protested? My only goal is to see if there is a more "concrete way" to identify cloud flying incidents.

I will share any results or software we create with the US rules committee with a hope of developing a simple tool which can reinforce any protests or suspicion and turn the heat on a potential offending pilot.

My initial hypothesis is: "can a pattern be identified." The value of that pattern I would leave to smarter people to intemperate. I can say the technology is not difficult to develop. I will be happy to donate or share it as needed with the SSA, FAI, etc.

I love the game of sailplane racing and truly don't wish to be the "bad guy.." I can be very passionate about things...for sure. Often to a fault. Yes I love electronic toys (XC Soar), etc. But at the end of the day I have come to realize the wisdom of the no AH rule after hearing of the many cheating incidents over the years. Shocking how much cheating has, allegedly, occured over time. I am, for the record, in support of the rules committee's decisions at present and in the future in regards to the existing rule..

This is hopefully a chapter I can put behind and move forward with a chuckle and a smile. I understand that may take time. I am happy to take any **** that might be deserved... But bottom line I just want to focus on learning how to race gliders.

Best,

Sean
F2

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.


No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
overreacting.

The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
"cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
us well.

No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
“very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.

I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:04:20 -0800 (PST), Sean Fidler
wrote:


Been out of the US for a few days. Just read this thread today and finally have a minute to respond (after a couple Disaronno's with friends I must admit...)

not very much related, but...
Disaronno's owner has been a keen glider pilot, and today is still an
active tmg pilot.
His business is extremely successful, and he regularly has an ad
published on the italian magazine voloavela

aldo cernezzi
www.voloavela.it

On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:34:34 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
...The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer.. Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...

Yep, it was nice hanging around up high before start that day, but those guys down low were a worry...

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

On Mar 11, 7:44*am, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:34:34 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
...The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer. * Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...

Yep, it was nice hanging around up high before start that day, but those guys down low were a worry...

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

I don't think you were there the year that the skydiving club dropped
a bunch of jumpers from 12K... over a 5/10 cumulus sky at 5 or 6000...
into the middle of a start gate which had not yet opened. We had 30
gliders in the air, a fair number of which were in the gate. I heard
the radio call, was completely dumbfounded. I was under a Cu at the
time, in the gate, close to the airport. I hoped no one was crazy
enough to punch through a cloud... but they were crazy enough to jump
with tens of gliders in the local area, so who knew? IIRC that was
2010. Someone must have spoken with them. They didn't do it again.

T8

Looking at old contest data for the possibility of cloud flying is pretty meaningless. Old AH equipment was pretty obvious. However, we all can be busted for not maintaining proper VFR clearances. I really enjoy climbing up the face of a big cu and this has happened at various times waiting for a start. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time during a contest flight on course climbing in those marginal lift conditions. I think that virtually all of the “suspicious data” will be VFR clearance issues or wave conditions.

As a contest pilot, my much bigger concern is the availability of real time (or almost real time) weather information through the use of smart phones in the cockpit. To see and monitor the advancement of a weather front or cirrus deck over a task area is a MUCH larger issue than someone gaining a couple of thousand feet (probably slowly) in clouds. The person cheating with updated weather reports has a much better probability of making better course decisions than the person that doesn’t have that information and, therefore, will have faster times. Will back seaters can finally earn their way? ) I know that folk’s smart phones are a hot button, but in my opinion, we should have a bigger uproar over this issue than AH’s in the cockpit.

Although illegal for the moment, sooner or later the widely available, highly affordable technologies of the day will likely be allowed in contests. I know this might bother some, but so what. Its just a matter of time.

In terms of mobile based weather data, almost everyone has it in their pockets now nobody uses it unless a danger exists. Cost is negligible. 90% of pilots walking around the Sr's today have smart phones with data plans in their pockets. Weather is a perfect example of a technology that will likely be available to contest pilots eventually. There are some great free aviation mobile nav/weather apps for private pilots, etc. Radar, metars, surface charts, etc. What is the big deal?

Question: How many pilots (not in contests) bother to mess with mobile weather information on a fun flight, task or OLC flight? How many try to exploit this information to fly faster? How many are successful? Answer: very, very few... Reason: because most of the time accessing weather info via a smartphone makes zero difference to flight performance and is a complete waste of time (as it would be in a contest).

Does anyone have scenario's that they think would be a contest advantage for a contest pilot using mobile based weather? Please explain in detail.

AWOS is available via our radio's, so getting metars on the phone would be "neat" but also pretty pointless. AWOS is instant, metars can be almost an hour old. Flight service could be easily contacted in flight for detailed weather reports customized for our route of flight. By this means a clear picture of weather radar and atmospheric conditions, etc can be accessed today very easily in a contest (I reserve the right to claim innocence if that is somehow a rule and calling flight service in a contest is illegal). Now that I think of it...calling flight service will probably will be illegal shortly after this post arrives.

So why not just let pilots access mobile based weather if they chose via their mobile phones? Is it really that important to fight this off and call it illegal? Its just a basic technology we all possess.

Safety is one aspect that I would again argue for allowing weather to be accessed on the mobile phone. Radar: "Look there, thunderstorm is building near the next turn-point..." METAR: Towering cumulonimbus approaching, etc. Often the gliders are well out of radio contact with CD's, etc. If the pilots suspects a problem, it would be sensible to allow them to access the best information available.

The argument that people are unable or unwilling to learn how to use new technology is not one that I respond too. Give me a break. If you can send a text message you can use these apps. And the apps are not granular enough to be of any contest value other than safety and convenience. I just dont see any likely situation that will allow a pilot to "cheat" if everyone had it. But I look forward to other providing scenario's in which they think mobile weather in contests would be a game changer.

My two cents...

On Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:51:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Looking at old contest data for the possibility of cloud flying is pretty meaningless. Old AH equipment was pretty obvious. However, we all can be busted for not maintaining proper VFR clearances. I really enjoy climbing up the face of a big cu and this has happened at various times waiting for a start. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time during a contest flight on course climbing in those marginal lift conditions. I think that virtually all of the “suspicious data” will be VFR clearance issues or wave conditions..

As a contest pilot, my much bigger concern is the availability of real time (or almost real time) weather information through the use of smart phones in the cockpit. To see and monitor the advancement of a weather front or cirrus deck over a task area is a MUCH larger issue than someone gaining a couple of thousand feet (probably slowly) in clouds. The person cheating with updated weather reports has a much better probability of making better course decisions than the person that doesn’t have that information and, therefore, will have faster times. Will back seaters can finally earn their way? ) I know that folk’s smart phones are a hot button, but in my opinion, we should have a bigger uproar over this issue than AH’s in the cockpit.

I've been trying to stay out of this since I don't have a 'dog in the
fight'. However, I may be able to offer some useful observations.

I totally agree with Sean. Technology is unstoppable. Anything
imaginable will find it's way into cockpits - if pilots want it
there. One suspects some of the resistance to tech is that is it
seems easier to ban it than learn to use it correctly. Learn to live
with it.

Arguably, most technology has a safety benefit. Anyone seeking to ban
a particular technology should proceed carefully lest they be blamed
for an accident the technology might have prevented.

Anti-tech rule making is almost always counterproductive. In some
eyes, simply banning a technology makes it appear all the more
attractive. If pilots like a banned technology, they'll install it
anyway - and then compete in OLC instead of sanctioned contests. This
drives the contest attendance still lower than it is now.

A pragmatic approach to rule making is to just keep a level playing
field. If a technology is likely to offer a significant advantage but
only the very rich can afford it, then temporarily restrict its use
until it's cheap enough all contestants can afford it. That's more or
less how it worked with GPS.

Just my $.02

On Mar 12, 11:14*am, Sean Fidler wrote:
Although illegal for the moment, sooner or later the widely available, highly affordable technologies of the day will likely be allowed in contests. *I know this might bother some, but so what. *Its just a matter of time.

In terms of mobile based weather data, almost everyone has it in their pockets now nobody uses it unless a danger exists. *Cost is negligible. 90% of pilots walking around the Sr's today have smart phones with data plans in their pockets. *Weather is a perfect example of a technology that will likely be available to contest pilots eventually. *There are some great free aviation mobile nav/weather apps for private pilots, etc. *Radar, metars, surface charts, etc. *What is the big deal?

Question: *How many pilots (not in contests) bother to mess with mobile weather information on a fun flight, task or OLC flight? *How many try to exploit this information to fly faster? *How many are successful? *Answer: very, very few... Reason: *because most of the time accessing weather info via a smartphone makes zero difference to flight performance and is a complete waste of time (as it would be in a contest).

Does anyone have scenario's that they think would be a contest advantage for a contest pilot using mobile based weather? *Please explain in detail..

AWOS is available via our radio's, so getting metars on the phone would be "neat" but also pretty pointless. *AWOS is instant, metars can be almost an hour old. *Flight service could be easily contacted in flight for detailed weather reports customized for our route of flight. By this means a clear picture of weather radar and atmospheric conditions, etc can be accessed today very easily in a contest (I reserve the right to claim innocence if that is somehow a rule and calling flight service in a contest is illegal). *Now that I think of it...calling flight service will probably will be illegal shortly after this post arrives.

So why not just let pilots access mobile based weather if they chose via their mobile phones? *Is it really that important to fight this off and call it illegal? *Its just a basic technology we all possess.

Safety is one aspect that I would again argue for allowing weather to be accessed on the mobile phone. *Radar: *"Look there, thunderstorm is building near the next turn-point..." *METAR: *Towering cumulonimbus approaching, etc. *Often the gliders are well out of radio contact with CD's, etc. *If the pilots suspects a problem, it would be sensible to allow them to access the best information available.

The argument that people are unable or unwilling to learn how to use new technology is not one that I respond too. *Give me a break. *If you can send a text message you can use these apps. *And the apps are not granular enough to be of any contest value other than safety and convenience. *I just dont see any likely situation that will allow a pilot to "cheat" if everyone had it. *But I look forward to other providing scenario's in which they think mobile weather in contests would be a game changer.

My two cents...







On Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:51:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Looking at old contest data for the possibility of cloud flying is pretty meaningless. Old AH equipment was pretty obvious. However, we all can be busted for not maintaining proper VFR clearances. I really enjoy climbing up the face of a big cu and this has happened at various times waiting for a start. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time during a contest flight on course climbing in those marginal lift conditions. I think that virtually all of the “suspicious data” will be VFR clearance issues or wave conditions.

As a contest pilot, my much bigger concern is the availability of real time (or almost real time) weather information through the use of smart phones in the cockpit. To see and monitor the advancement of a weather front or cirrus deck over a task area is a MUCH larger issue than someone gaining a couple of thousand feet (probably slowly) in clouds. The person cheating with updated weather reports has a much better probability of making better course decisions than the person that doesn’t have that information and, therefore, will have faster times. Will back seaters can finally earn their way? ) *I know that folk’s smart phones are a hot button, but in my opinion, we should have a bigger uproar over this issue than AH’s in the cockpit.

From experience, nearly every contest I've flown since 1968 has had
multiple points where knowledge of the weather elsewhere on the course
or upstream of it would have conferred a significant, in many cases
winning advantage. And this applies even to the formerly ubiquitous
assigned tasks, as well as to today's area tasks. In many of these
cases, simply seeing the cloud cover would have sufficed. In other
cases, a more detailed assessment of local forecasts and observations
would have been necessary. The argument that onboard weather is of
marginal value in competition doesn't hold up.

There is a downside to all of this. We already know we have a
potential safety problem with pilots spending too much time staring at
their little displays and not enough looking outside the cockpits
owing to the rapid proliferation of flight computers and GPS
navigation systems of increasing capability (read: complexity). How
much will onboard weather on a smart phone exacerbate this problem? I
don't think anyone can answer this analytically. It depends on the
application, the hardware platform (e.g., the UI and display),
response time, the information needed, the urgency of the need, and
the user, among other factors.

We're considering requiring a PowerFLARM in every cockpit to reduce
the odds of a midair collision which, to be cold, happens very seldom.
Yet some of the same folks who are loudest in their call for
PowerFLARM seem to take a rather more cavalier attitude towards
situational awareness when it comes to using a handheld PC or
smartphone to deliver detailed weather info. Sure, the availability of
better weather info could increase safety, but only to pilots who
choose to proceed instead of simply turning back or going around. It's
similar to the argument made about GPS years ago: knowing exactly
where you were should have allowed safer flying. Instead, what
happened was that most pilots used that precise location data to shave
their safety margin down on final glides. A few even flew right down
to the deck, almost oblivious to the fact that they were getting low
enough to choose a field.

OK, GPS doesn't break gliders; pilots break gliders. And onboard
weather won't make good pilots less safe...unless they focus on it to
the exclusion of keeping an outside view. Maybe that's why FLARM is
necessary, to allow us all to focus on our electronics, trusting FLARM
to warn us if we're getting close to someone.

I agree that trying to ban technology is difficult. But it's not
impossible, as nearly every sport has demonstrated (think golf,
Formula 1, America's Cup sailing, baseball, swimming, etc.). It all
comes down to what are our objectives and what rules do we all agree
to abide by. Most pilots are fundamentally honest. What causes some of
them to be tempted is when they think other competitors are doing it,
too. If we, as a group, decide not to allow onboard weather (or AH)
for the moment, we can make it stick by the simple expediant of clear
rules and Draconian penalties. We should make our views known (as the
above posters have done) and look to the Rules Committee for
leadership rather than letting technology drive our sport.

I work in a technology business. Technology is never a goal and never
inevitable. It is an optional means to an end. Clearly defining our
objectives allows us to more easily promulgate rules that allow the
appropriate use of technology in achieving them.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

On Mar 12, 3:19*pm, Chip Bearden wrote:
From experience, nearly every contest I've flown since 1968 has had
multiple points where knowledge of the weather elsewhere on the course
or upstream of it would have conferred a significant, in many cases
winning advantage. And this applies even to the formerly ubiquitous
assigned tasks, as well as to today's area tasks. In many of these
cases, simply seeing the cloud cover would have sufficed. In other
cases, a more detailed assessment of local forecasts and observations
would have been necessary. The argument that onboard weather is of
marginal value in competition doesn't hold up.

There is a downside to all of this. We already know we have a
potential safety problem with pilots spending too much time staring at
their little displays and not enough looking outside the cockpits
owing to the rapid proliferation of flight computers and GPS
navigation systems of increasing capability (read: complexity). How
much will onboard weather on a smart phone exacerbate this problem? I
don't think anyone can answer this analytically. It depends on the
application, the hardware platform (e.g., the UI and display),
response time, the information needed, the urgency of the need, and
the user, among other factors.

We're considering requiring a PowerFLARM in every cockpit to reduce
the odds of a midair collision which, to be cold, happens very seldom.
Yet some of the same folks who are loudest in their call for
PowerFLARM seem to take a rather more cavalier attitude towards
situational awareness when it comes to using a handheld PC or
smartphone to deliver detailed weather info. Sure, the availability of
better weather info could increase safety, but only to pilots who
choose to proceed instead of simply turning back or going around. It's
similar to the argument made about GPS years ago: knowing exactly
where you were should have allowed safer flying. Instead, what
happened was that most pilots used that precise location data to shave
their safety margin down on final glides. A few even flew right down
to the deck, almost oblivious to the fact that they were getting low
enough to choose a field.

OK, GPS doesn't break gliders; pilots break gliders. And onboard
weather won't make good pilots less safe...unless they focus on it to
the exclusion of keeping an outside view. Maybe that's why FLARM is
necessary, to allow us all to focus on our electronics, trusting FLARM
to warn us if we're getting close to someone.

I agree that trying to ban technology is difficult. But it's not
impossible, as nearly every sport has demonstrated (think golf,
Formula 1, America's Cup sailing, baseball, swimming, etc.). It all
comes down to what are our objectives and what rules do we all agree
to abide by. Most pilots are fundamentally honest. What causes some of
them to be tempted is when they think other competitors are doing it,
too. If we, as a group, decide not to allow onboard weather (or AH)
for the moment, we can make it stick by the simple expediant of clear
rules and Draconian penalties. We should make our views known (as the
above posters have done) and look to the Rules Committee for
leadership rather than letting technology drive our sport.

I work in a technology business. Technology is never a goal and never
inevitable. It is an optional means to an end. Clearly defining our
objectives allows us to more easily promulgate rules that allow the
appropriate use of technology in achieving them.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

Chip, I think the "heads down while fiddling with the gadgets" problem
(and I agree there is one) is due to a single cause and it's not the
presence of the gadgets. It's pilots stupidly trying to learn how to
use them while in flight.

If a pilot really knows how to use a gadget, the pilot will look at it
only when information is needed. It won't take more than a second or
two and it'll represent ~1% of the total flight time.

The right way to learn a gadget is on the ground using Condor as a GPS
stand in or while playing back a flight on SeeYou. I've seen a couple
of pilots sitting in their cockpits on the ground with a laptop
running SeeYou in animation mode feeding NMEA data to the glide
computer. Smart guys.

On Monday, March 12, 2012 2:45:55 PM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:

I totally agree with Sean. Technology is unstoppable. Anything
imaginable will find it's way into cockpits - if pilots want it
there. One suspects some of the resistance to tech is that is it
seems easier to ban it than learn to use it correctly. Learn to live
with it.

Bill,

I respectfully disagree. If you take that tack (word chosen intentionally), then technological determinism prevails. As a "technologist" by trade, I'm extremely wary of letting technology drive "requirements"; I've seen too many clients seduced by the latest-and-greatest without fully understanding the implications. The first step in any discussion of competition is to decide what it is we want to measure, then seek to allow or limit technology as required to meet those broadly-stated goals.

I've been in soaring competition for "only" about 25 years, so I'm still a rookie by some standards. But, if you look at what it took to win when I first started in the sport, key skills included:

- Navigation (reading maps, dead reckoning, etc.)
- Final glide management (wiz wheels, rules-of-thumb)
- Situational awareness (as distinct from pure navigation - involved lots of pre-study of topo maps)
- Turnpoint photography
- Start gate flying (diving the gate)
- Stick and rudder (especially gaggling, efficient climbing)
- Group flying (leveraging the pack, finding a good working group)
- Reading the micro and macro weather picture
- Risk/reward management
- Lots of other stuff

So, over the years, especially with the introduction of GPS, the skill list shifted. The first 5 items on the list above are gone or largely so. Sure, many core skills remain relevant. And new rules and new task types (especially TATs) introduced some additional skill requirements. I think most people agree that, on balance, GPS has been a tremendous boon to the sport.. But, it also (in my opinion) compressed the remaining skill differential just a bit. For example, it was very possible to win (or lose) a competition in the early 1990s based on being a better (or worse) navigator or final glide calculator. On balance, the new technology of GPS has made it easier on guys/gals who weren't very good with that stuff.

So, if we think this through to its logical extreme, eliminating things like ability to read the weather based only on what's visible outside the canopy based on knowledge/experience means removing another item from the required skill bucket. In and of itself, it's not a big deal. But add thermal sensing or "hawk detectors" or any one of a number of other forseeable technological advances, and what are we left with? At some point, the race is reduced to who is willing to take the largest risks on an otherwise completely level playing field, I have to wonder whether we will have achieved what we want? Did all of these things we lobbied for in the name of "safety" actually have the opposite effect?

For good examples of managing technology in competition, we need only look at certain 1 design sailing classes for guidance. I campaigned for years in Lightnings, a wonderful little boat with a nice, tight definition of what is (and what isn't) allowed. For example, hulls are either wood or conventional glass over wood; no carbon fiber or honeycomb (even though either of these would be much "better". Similarly, sails are restricted from using many of the newest and "best" materials. And masts are positively archaic, what with being limited to aluminum or (gasp) wood.

So, in true Management Consulting fashion, I'd conclude that the first step is to lay out a strategy for what sailplane racing is supposed to be about at its essence. Once those principles are fully fleshed out, then the rules and regulations regarding technology follow. Not vice versa.

P3