Analyzing US Competition Flights

Errrr... "Hard Deck" refers to minimum altitude, not cloud clearance...


"Sean Fidler" wrote in message
news:32846365.1740.1331764875489.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynll40...
John,

HARD DECK: I fully agree with the hard deck idea based on recent AH panic,
fear, etc. A hard deck would be simple, safe, comprehensive, measurable,
enforceable and absolute. It would ensure a fair parcel of air to work
within for all pilots. I fully understand that nobody knows where the
clouds really are at any given time, and that this level varies throughout
the day and task area. But with a hard deck and no AH it is extremely
unlikely that clouds will be entered in contests, resulting in any
advantage, assuming the weather predictions are relatively accurate (simply
error low on hard deck top, greater challenge). The AH rule alone, with
today’s technology, certainly no longer prevents pilots truly motivated to
cheat via cloud flying. This is FOR SURE! The hard deck keeps the cheater
out of the clouds and can be measured and enforced.

It is interesting that some fight passionately to preventing AH technology
in the cockpit (cloud flying) while seemingly being unconcerned about
contest pilots regularly flying within 500 ft. of cloud base (no support for
a hard deck). These acts are systemic clear violations of a FAA regulation
broken by almost all contest pilots every time we fly with clouds. They
seem to mainly want it “the way it has been” (No AH) and have no interest in
other changes, no matter logic. If we want no cloud flying, shouldn’t we be
using this FAA regulation as a buffer zone to ensure (by the legal 500 ft.
limit) that clouds are not entered?

Can a contest pilot be protested for flying along at cloud base? They are
breaking federal law and therefore the SSA contest rules (obey the FAA
regulations, etc), are they not? Just wondering… Why is this common (and
clearly illegal) act never protested but AH’s are hissed at like voodoo
dolls?

A hard bottom and hard top would be a real solution to these problems. In
Reno this was discussed by OSTIV in terms of finishing penalties but it
appears to already be part of the US rules ( 300 ft (anywhere on course?)
is now or soon will be a land-out). I say why not simply make this 500 ft.
if the safety cushion we want to encourage is indeed critical? A 500 ft.
estimate of cloud base can also be made creating a hard deck top and bottom.
Problem solved. Or is this not a problem because (like the AH ban) it’s
what has been going on for 20+ years?

Sean

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:02:51 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
Two points on this evolving thread:

Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
think about them.

Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
majority say they want to keep the ban.

It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
(For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)

When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
in club class.

That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
would be banned forever.

So, if you want it, just start making noise.

Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.

John Cochrane

Eric -

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I *LIKE* that I am not limited
to a 1 mi AT circle. I don't like the idea that some guy can (semi-
randomly) go into that turnpoint and catch the only thermal of the day
that drifts through that small volume if airspace. With a bigger
cylinder, the law of averages gives me better odds of finding a
thermal that's as good as a thermal some other contestant may find in
the same area.

Of course, I've never experienced the "good old days" of racing with
picking my own start times. I've also never had a race without a
1000' finish height, or an open/pure-distance day with overnight
retrieves, or no radios or cell-phones when I land out. ;-P

Maybe I'm just a snot-nosed punk who missed the glory days of
sailplane racing (I _am_ jealous of those pics from the 70's showing
the huge grids), but I find the current system is still compelling and
VERY different from casual/OLC flying. I still have a course, I still
have time limits, and I am still trying to outsmart the weather, the
sun, and my fellow pilots.

--Noel


On Mar 14, 8:13*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:

As we shifted to PST and later "open" tasks, it became harder to compare
the technical, weather, and strategic skills, and I gradually lost
interest as flying a contest increasingly became the same as
"opportunistic" (aka "recreational") soaring. Why go to the cost and
effort of a contest, when the flying was the same as what I did all the
time anyway?

On 3/15/2012 2:38 PM, noel.wade wrote:
Eric -

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I*LIKE* that I am not limited
to a 1 mi AT circle. I don't like the idea that some guy can (semi-
randomly) go into that turnpoint and catch the only thermal of the day
that drifts through that small volume if airspace. With a bigger
cylinder, the law of averages gives me better odds of finding a
thermal that's as good as a thermal some other contestant may find in
the same area.

Of course, I've never experienced the "good old days" of racing with
picking my own start times. I've also never had a race without a
1000' finish height, or an open/pure-distance day with overnight
retrieves, or no radios or cell-phones when I land out.;-P

Maybe I'm just a snot-nosed punk who missed the glory days of
sailplane racing (I_am_ jealous of those pics from the 70's showing
the huge grids), but I find the current system is still compelling and
VERY different from casual/OLC flying. I still have a course, I still
have time limits, and I am still trying to outsmart the weather, the
sun, and my fellow pilots.

Rules attract a constituency that likes them, so you've self-selected
yourself into the current situation, as I have self-selected myself out
of it!

But to the turnpoint size ... We were not limited to a 1 mile circle,
instead, we had to fly _over_ the turnpoint (usually a specific end of a
runway) and take a picture of the photo target (usually the other end of
the runway) with a camera that was mounted on the canopy rail.

The problem that eventually led to changes wasn't the luck of finding a
better situated thermal a mile or two away, but the possibility a
thunderstorm or cirrus would shut off the thermals for miles in all
directions near the turnpoint. When this happened, there would a lot of
landouts, as most (or no) pilots could get past that turnpoint.

The thermal "luck" you mention really wasn't much of a problem, and the
longer tasks we flew (compared to the last decade or more) averaged out
a lot of the luck inherent in a contest, and made sure the best rose to
the top of the list.

So, yes: different rules, different people, different times.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38:04 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
Eric -

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I *LIKE* that I am not limited
to a 1 mi AT circle. I don't like the idea that some guy can (semi-
randomly) go into that turnpoint and catch the only thermal of the day
that drifts through that small volume if airspace. With a bigger
cylinder, the law of averages gives me better odds of finding a
thermal that's as good as a thermal some other contestant may find in
the same area.

Interesting. I see the same situation in EXACTLY the opposite way: With large area tasks, a guy can semi-randomly catch the only thermal of the day and coast to an easy win; with small turnpoints (and a 1 mile circle is pretty small at 90 knots!) everyone has to solve pretty much the same problems. I don't want the law of averages involved, I want pilot skills involved. Area tasks were developed (and rightly so) to allow tasks in iffy weather - not as a replacement for assigned tasks on good, predictable days. I think many CDs use area tasks because they are a lot easier to call (BTDT). They are a lot better than the detestable one-turnpoint 3 hour MAT! And they are useful when racing handicapped classes. Called intelligently (which is not a 2.5 hour task with two 30mile radius turnpoints 60 miles apart!) they are a lot of fun.

Of course, I've never experienced the "good old days" of racing with
picking my own start times. I've also never had a race without a
1000' finish height, or an open/pure-distance day with overnight
retrieves, or no radios or cell-phones when I land out. ;-P

Ahh, the good old days of formation 50' line finishes over the hangars - at redline, dumping your ballast on the barbecue, pulling up into the line of gliders on downwind (at 500' or so...) to take your turn to land. Now that was FUN! When you got out of your ship you were pumped!

(please, no safety retorts, you guys have won that fight...)

Cheers,

Kirk
66

So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy). Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.

But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.

-John

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
I flew without having to measure on a map. Call me lazy, but after 39 years
of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. It's also
fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.


"John Carlyle" wrote in message
news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26...
Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

On Friday, March 16, 2012 9:01:08 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy).. Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.

But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.

-John

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
I flew without having to measure on a map. Call me lazy, but after 39 years
of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. It's also
fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.


"John Carlyle" wrote in message
news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26....
Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

It's pretty much self evident that OLC is fun for a lot of people. It is great for our sport because it gets people out flying cross country and gives them a challange that fits them.
One of the neat things about our sport is the wide variety of ways people can participate in a huge range of equipment. Few other sports do this in my view.
I get a bit crazy(UH crazy?) when I read a lot of stuff on RAS that seems to simply be dumping on what the other guy likes.
OLC is different than organized single competition. They each serve a substantial group of folks because of their different characters. You can't make them the same and shouldn't, nor should the success of either be some example of why the other has to change.
I have friends that do both. I have friends that do OLC and have no interest in organized contests, and others just the opposite.
RAS needs a more constructive topic than havein 2 factions dumping on each other.
Rant over
UH

On Mar 16, 7:01*am, John Carlyle wrote:
So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy).. Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.

But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.

-John







On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
I flew without having to measure on a map. *Call me lazy, but after 39 years
of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. *It's also
fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.

"John Carlyle" wrote in message
news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26....
Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

The OLC is great! OLC is responsible for greatly increasing the
number of pilots who have tried cross country and that's a very good
thing. It's also given us a provable way to show the public what
gliders can really do which makes it a fantastic tool from recruiting
new glider pilots. Reiner Rose and his team are the great hero's of
21st Century soaring.

The OLC's very simple requirements for participation set the bar very
low for newbie cross country pilots while still recognizing the
accomplishments of top pilots. That's an accomplishment all by
itself. Pilots are voting with their feet. The OLC is very popular,
sanctioned events less so.

OLC has also separated hype from reality. I've noticed a few pilots
who once bragged loudly about their supposed accomplishments have gone
silent and some soaring sites once billed as "the worlds best place to
fly gliders" don't rank very high. If you've got it, flaunt it. If
you haven't, you can't upload it to the OLC. That qualifies as a
competition not only between pilots but between soaring sites and
clubs.

Is OLC a race? No. The only real race format is the Soaring Grand Prix
series.

Two interesting replies to my question of why people think the OLC is fun.

The first response boils down to: OLc is fun because it is, and shut up! It’s quite passionate, but as a response it’s not very persuasive or informative.

The second responder says OLC is fun because it’s simple to do, people are doing it, the posted flights prove gliders can do something, and you can use the results to put down some snotty pilots and soaring sites. Somehow, none of these match my definition of “fun”.

Seriously, can anybody explain why they find OLC is fun? I’m not putting it down, I just don’t think that it’s any more “fun” than logging my flight time. I find the fun in the flight, not in an artificial, biased, “contest”.

-John

On Mar 16, 12:52*pm, John Carlyle wrote:
Two interesting replies to my question of why people think the OLC is fun..

The first response boils down to: *OLc is fun because it is, and shut up! It’s quite passionate, but as a response it’s not very persuasive or informative.

The second responder says OLC is fun because it’s simple to do, people are doing it, the posted flights prove gliders can do something, and you can use the results to put down some snotty pilots and soaring sites. Somehow, none of these match my definition of “fun”.

Seriously, can anybody explain why they find OLC is fun? I’m not putting it down, I just don’t think that it’s any more “fun” than logging my flight time. I find the fun in the flight, not in an artificial, biased, “contest”.

-John

I like OLC for "bragging rights" and friendly match flying with other
guys in my region in a light hearted way. It is fun to see what other
people are up to at sites around the world. The "contest" part I
don't take seriously. That's about location, ability to fly on the
six best days of the year and skill set in roughly equal measures. I
certainly aspire to all those things, but the skill set bit is the one
that earns real respect and that's only 1/3 of OLC.

T8

On 3/16/2012 8:26 AM, wrote:

Major snip...

It's pretty much self evident that OLC is fun for a lot of people. It is
great for our sport because it gets people out flying cross country and
gives them a challenge that fits them. One of the neat things about our
sport is the wide variety of ways people can participate in a huge range of
equipment. Few other sports do this in my view. I get a bit crazy(UH
crazy?) when I read a lot of stuff on RAS that seems to simply be dumping
on what the other guy likes. OLC is different than organized single
competition. They each serve a substantial group of folks because of their
different characters. You can't make them the same and shouldn't, nor
should the success of either be some example of why the other has to
change. I have friends that do both. I have friends that do OLC and have no
interest in organized contests, and others just the opposite. RAS needs a
more constructive topic than having 2 factions dumping on each other. Rant
over UH

UH - IMHO - raises a great point that (also IMHO) periodically benefits from
'group awareness.'

It's simply this: soaring worldwide has sufficient difficulties
attracting/hooking committed participants that any appearance of internecine
squabbling/denigration/warfare/whatever is sure to be perceived by some
current participants as off-putting to their commitment to the sport...and
hence not good.

Being able to agree to disagree is a good thing (IMHO). The trick is to do so
'civilly'...as individually defined. Therein lies the problem and paradox.

The 'problem' is a universal definition of 'civil' is fairly remote (dry
chuckle), though a dictionary seems (to me) to be a great place to start.

The paradox can be sensed in reflective reading of OLC/racing threads. Clearly
passionate fans of both exist (which passion alone, as Bill D. has noted, is
GREAT for OLC as measured by participation in something that didn't exist a
few short years ago, soaring, XC, daydreaming, etc.), and I'd suggest that
sometimes the passion FOR a particular point of view (whether OLC or racing is
unimportant to the larger point I'm trying to convey here) can (especially
through the relatively impersonal text-based medium of RAS) easily be misread
(even if never intended as such) as *denigration* OF THE OTHER.

I think UH (whom I have never met) has said it fairly well: "I have friends
that do both. I have friends that do OLC and have no interest in organized
contests, and others just the opposite."

He could well add there are others who have no interest in participating in
either, but: 1) who thoroughly enjoy flying XC for its own rewards; 2) who
thoroughly enjoy the fact OF OLC and its swelling participation, and encourage
any/all potentially interested folks to sample those waters; 3) who thoroughly
enjoy the fact OF formal competitions (even as they have evolved for better or
worse over the years), and encourage any/all potentially interested folks to
sample those waters too; 4) who thoroughly enjoy the fact there are so many
OTHER ways for folks to obtain personal satisfaction and growth from
participating in soaring (even if it doesn't include flight itself); 5) who etc...

1) through 5) above is me, for one.

It's been a long winter for some northern hemisphere denizens. Let's try to
keep in mind the persistence and universality inherent to RAS when we post?

End of preachment.

Bob W.