Analyzing US Competition Flights

Thanks, Evan, what you said was helpful.

It turns out that I’ve been missing information on OLC, due to the way I get to the site and a failure on my part to understand the complexities of the OLC menu. After getting your hint, I invested some time and got some listings that showed the results for my region, plus the results for other clubs in my region, in addition to my club, my club mates and the US overall, plus a lot more, besides.

I have to agree with Evan, these results are fun. Now I know...

-John

On Friday, March 16, 2012 2:00:51 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
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

Hopefully you discover the inspirational and encouraging aspect of OLC. Nothing like looking at the flights for your region or nearby glider ops and seeing that someone turned a mediocre day into a 300k flight. For me, that's a source of encouragement and while I don't consider it a race or a contest for all of Evan's points, I do have fun checking out what is going on in the region so that sharing and learning aspect is really cool. It's also a great way to live vicariously through your friends with better work/life balance when they take a day off to fly during the week. You can review their flights that night and see what you missed or didn't as the case occasionally is.

Morgan

On Friday, March 16, 2012 1:16:13 PM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
Thanks, Evan, what you said was helpful.

It turns out that I’ve been missing information on OLC, due to the way I get to the site and a failure on my part to understand the complexities of the OLC menu. After getting your hint, I invested some time and got some listings that showed the results for my region, plus the results for other clubs in my region, in addition to my club, my club mates and the US overall, plus a lot more, besides.

I have to agree with Evan, these results are fun. Now I know...

-John

On Friday, March 16, 2012 2:00:51 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
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

Great post. I appreciate OLC. I think OLC is outstanding within a region, state or club as a way to measure your season, month or week of flying vs. your friends. And the results, in terms of participation and satisfaction, speak volumes.

That said, the truth is that I would prefer to race assigned tasks & regatta starts with like gliders every time I fly. Isn't this what we all wish we could do? In a perfect world would we not all have the same great glider? Wait a minute, we do. They are called 18m & 15m class! Handicap "racing" (chuckle, chuckle) is something that we are forced into because the proliferation of glider design classes has outpaced the growth of the sport? Now we have too little participation in most classes...and are looking at combining what is left into block handicap classes.

Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.

Why not try regatta starts if the goal is fair, true racing? Safety? I think a set start would actually be safer than the random chaos of start whenever you like. Simply introduce a 2 mile entry corridor (twice as wide as the start line) where course must be held (along with a speed limit) up until the starting line is crossed. This would be far safer than our current chaos in my opinion. I could not imagine a "start whenever you like" program was an option in sailboat racing. Unthinkable because it could, literally, decide the race. No different in soaring.

With AAT’s, the increase in the amount of decisions is massive. The luck involved increases exponentially. The critical aspect of choosing the right points to turn is highly dependent by having the best flight computer (and knowing how to use it very well). Many complain about cost and technology? AAT's require full screen maps, lots of pondering and revision of strategy based on situational changes and lots of playing with the computer (heads down, safety) to recalculate our turn decisions. This says nothing of the many paths possible to reach that magical point within the Turn Area. A skill in itself, but not true racing. Not even close. Lots of luck involved. Dangerous. Expensive!

Question? Why do 18m and 15m (essentially one design classes) ever do AAT's? Why at worlds or nationals are AAT’s even considered? Even though these gliders are scored without handicap, the AAT seems to be the more common task. In Uvalde last year we did a number of AAT's in 18m, 15m and Open? Why? This makes no sense to me. The conditions were excellent literally every day. AAT's, per the definition as I understand it, should be an absolute last resort for the CD. Instead it seems by far the most common task and AT's are avoided.

AAT's are boring (speaking as a new contest pilot) and not real racing in my view. Sure in a handicap class you may need them, but handicap racing is not real racing in and of itself. AAT's (and handicap racing) are an effort to satisfy everyone. Trying to satisfy everyone is always a bad choice in my book, let alone impossible. The tendency to call mainly AAT's further dilutes the few opportunities left in the sport of soaring for "true racing." I see this AAT topic as a real problem to be looked at in the future..

Why not have combined tasks (as a compromise) with, for example, two AT turn-points and one AAT circle to level things out? (My apology if this exists; I have never seen it in action). At least this would reduce the variability of a pure AT while allowing the CD to vary the min/max distance of the task. A pure AAT with 3 large circles is just silly... Almost no point to this type of task in my view if true racing is the goal. It should be avoided like the plague. But the fact is that it is becoming the main task in our “racing” world.

I love racing tasks, will tolerate the occasional AAT and enjoy OLC when true racing is not an option (most of the time). I think both racing and OLC are great things. I do agree that OLC is an excellent way to measure flying site "productivity!" Other than that (from region to region) I agree that OLC is fundamentally useless. Even more useless than AAT's with open starts (pick your time). But in the case of OLC so what. Everyone understands that (or should). In racing, I think alot of people think that AAT's are better races than they really are.

I hope this is discussed in a friendly way in the future.

Sean


On Friday, March 16, 2012 10:38:18 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
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.

On Monday, March 19, 2012 11:26:21 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
Great post. I appreciate OLC. I think OLC is outstanding within a region, state or club as a way to measure your season, month or week of flying vs. your friends. And the results, in terms of participation and satisfaction, speak volumes.

That said, the truth is that I would prefer to race assigned tasks & regatta starts with like gliders every time I fly. Isn't this what we all wish we could do? In a perfect world would we not all have the same great glider? Wait a minute, we do. They are called 18m & 15m class! Handicap "racing" (chuckle, chuckle) is something that we are forced into because the proliferation of glider design classes has outpaced the growth of the sport? Now we have too little participation in most classes...and are looking at combining what is left into block handicap classes.

Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless.. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.

Why not try regatta starts if the goal is fair, true racing? Safety? I think a set start would actually be safer than the random chaos of start whenever you like. Simply introduce a 2 mile entry corridor (twice as wide as the start line) where course must be held (along with a speed limit) up until the starting line is crossed. This would be far safer than our current chaos in my opinion. I could not imagine a "start whenever you like" program was an option in sailboat racing. Unthinkable because it could, literally, decide the race. No different in soaring.

With AAT’s, the increase in the amount of decisions is massive. The luck involved increases exponentially. The critical aspect of choosing the right points to turn is highly dependent by having the best flight computer (and knowing how to use it very well). Many complain about cost and technology? AAT's require full screen maps, lots of pondering and revision of strategy based on situational changes and lots of playing with the computer (heads down, safety) to recalculate our turn decisions. This says nothing of the many paths possible to reach that magical point within the Turn Area. A skill in itself, but not true racing. Not even close. Lots of luck involved. Dangerous. Expensive!

Question? Why do 18m and 15m (essentially one design classes) ever do AAT's? Why at worlds or nationals are AAT’s even considered? Even though these gliders are scored without handicap, the AAT seems to be the more common task. In Uvalde last year we did a number of AAT's in 18m, 15m and Open? Why? This makes no sense to me. The conditions were excellent literally every day. AAT's, per the definition as I understand it, should be an absolute last resort for the CD. Instead it seems by far the most common task and AT's are avoided.

AAT's are boring (speaking as a new contest pilot) and not real racing in my view. Sure in a handicap class you may need them, but handicap racing is not real racing in and of itself. AAT's (and handicap racing) are an effort to satisfy everyone. Trying to satisfy everyone is always a bad choice in my book, let alone impossible. The tendency to call mainly AAT's further dilutes the few opportunities left in the sport of soaring for "true racing." I see this AAT topic as a real problem to be looked at in the future.

Why not have combined tasks (as a compromise) with, for example, two AT turn-points and one AAT circle to level things out? (My apology if this exists; I have never seen it in action). At least this would reduce the variability of a pure AT while allowing the CD to vary the min/max distance of the task. A pure AAT with 3 large circles is just silly... Almost no point to this type of task in my view if true racing is the goal. It should be avoided like the plague. But the fact is that it is becoming the main task in our “racing” world.

I love racing tasks, will tolerate the occasional AAT and enjoy OLC when true racing is not an option (most of the time). I think both racing and OLC are great things. I do agree that OLC is an excellent way to measure flying site "productivity!" Other than that (from region to region) I agree that OLC is fundamentally useless. Even more useless than AAT's with open starts (pick your time). But in the case of OLC so what. Everyone understands that (or should). In racing, I think alot of people think that AAT's are better races than they really are.

I hope this is discussed in a friendly way in the future.

Sean


The type of task you describe above is available within the rules. It is an AAT with one or more turn points having an assigned radius of as little as 1 mile and then a larger last turn area for task length tuning. It's there, just not many CD's or advisors use it.
Another interesting task that has the benefit of keeping everyone on the same course, yet allowing the slower guys to come home while the fast guys go far, is the "long MAT". Properly done, this is set too long to complete by anybody so all say on the same course, yet, the slower(or lower performance gliders) still get to drop off and finish.
FWIW - In my view, the many variables in contest soaring are part of what make the sport interesting to many of us. Interesting that some folks seem to get lucky a lot in dealing with those variables. Frustrating to the rest of us.
UH

Indeed, the AST task is merely an AAT with all turnpoint radii set to 1 mile. No reason at all that you can't have several 1-mile turnpoints together with one or more with larger radii. I've flown in many contests and never seen this done, though.

Mike

Question? *Why do 18m and 15m (essentially one design classes) ever do AAT's? *Why at worlds or nationals are AAT’s even considered? *Even though these gliders are scored without handicap, the AAT seems to be the more common task. *In Uvalde last year we did a number of AAT's in 18m, 15m and Open? *Why? *This makes no sense to *me. *The conditions were excellent literally every day. *AAT's, per the definition as I understand it, should be an absolute last resort for the CD. *Instead it seems by far the most common task and AT's are avoided.


I can think of a few reasons:

1) Safety: A bunch of gliders flying into 1mi circles tends to have a
higher mid-air collision risk than larger circles. Larger circles
also allow you to complete a task rather than having to fly into a
thunderstorm to hit the 1mi circle.
2) Competition: Having to choose the best energy lines, how far to fly
into the circles, ect. more thoroughly tests the skill of the
pilots.

Talk to the guys that have been around for a long time... We wouldn't
be doing TATs unless the great majority of pilots preferred it.

2C

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Monday, March 19, 2012 11:26:21 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:


Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless.. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.


Since you're an accomplished sailboat racer, you also know that large regattas with multiple boats all aiming for the line when the gun goes off are "interesting" to say the least. I still have a scar where I caught a boom from another boat in the forearm. And that was only operating in two dimensions with closing speeds measured in 10s of knots.

We went away from a start line in gliding where people went through it in a (somewhat) orderly fashion for a reason. Imagine all 45 gliders at Mifflin aiming for a start at a specific instant in time with only 1 or 2 thermals feeding the optimal spot. It's bad enough today when you can go off to a quiet spot and wait for the wanna-be Battle of Britain types to go on their merry way or climb up through the top.

FWIW, I actually did a number of horse-race starts with the Bucks County Air Force and Wayward Drinkers Association from Van Sant back in the late 1980s. This was a small group affair with 4-5 guys operating on a gentleman's agreement to link up. The high guys had to hold divebrakes waiting for the others to get to the top of the thermal. Even then, with such a small group, trying to make it safe and fair with no real points on the line was surpisingly scary.

As far as racing with large groups, I think one of the reasons behind a lot of our current rules was to reduce gaggling. Having flown any number of tasks where the whole fleet was in one to two furballs on a weak day, I'm not sure how much I pine for those days. It's a lot more fun to fly "with" a small group or to pick up markers along the way. Fighting for a small chunk of airspace with 15 other gliders... not so much.

I think it's good to challenge convention, but do realize that a lot of hard-earned experience has lead us to where we are today.

Thanks for the replies and yes I admit my view may be a bit naive in terms of safety concerns and historical justifications.

The more variables and complexity included within an activity or task the harder it is to learn and master. In sailing we spend a great amount of effort mastering controllable variables within an AT type race course. Things such as: rig set up, mast and sail design, hull & bottom preparation, foil shape, sail trim settings, tacks, jybes, sets, starts, etc (controllable variables). By keeping the execution levels of these basic skills high we consistently reduce the negative impact of uncontrollable (and inevitable) variables vs our competitors. Things such as: large adverse windshifts, area's of stronger or weaker wind that cannot be predicted accurately, fouls from other competitors that push us back into the fleet churn, breakdowns, inevitable basic mistakes).

If suddenly the sailboat race course was defined by large GPS turn area cylinders, the sport would change dramatically. The importance of the basic skills would be reduced significantly and many boats (formerly non-competitive) would begin to score better based on randomly arriving at an area in the cylinder that happened to have stronger wind, less current or a favorable wind-shift and benefiting significantly from it.

AAT's are a great challenge due to the natural introduction of high probability for uncontrollable variables. Simple example: (Sports class) Faster gliders need to go farther, but what if the conditions in the far area of the turn area are poor vs the near area? And so on. On top of that there are simply far more potential solutions to the puzzle (and chances for error). I ooze frustration from trying to figure them out.

The pure AAT task makes learning and managing the decision making process extremely challenging. AAT's are by nature far more random. With AAT's, in my observation, often radical thinking is rewarded. With AAT's you can get lucky (or unlucky). This is great fun...but very difficult to learn or teach! End of my whining...

I think that AT tasking is a much better test of flying skill. AAT's offer higher degree of difficulty tests for weather skill & computer management while introducing higher chances of benefit from significant amounts of luck (uncontrollable variables).

I agree that safety can be an issue in regatta starts, but many of our contests could have 15 meter or 18 meter starts with less than 20 gliders (most with far less), which I (again perhaps naively) think could be handled safely and with awesome results!

The combined AT/AAT task (I will read up) sounds really interesting and I hope we see some of those this season. We just seem to do way to many AT's! I jokingly (not kidding) have referred to AAT's privately with my crew as OLC tasks. We fly them like we do OLC, with similar constraints. This was far before the recent wrangling ;-). Go wherever you want...fly fast, far, etc... Try to go for at least this amount of flying time, etc. In many ways I think the similarity is real. But remember I am also a good fan of OLC so I am fine with AAT's in that respect.

Best,

Sean

On Monday, March 19, 2012 10:36:03 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2012 11:26:21 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:


Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.


Since you're an accomplished sailboat racer, you also know that large regattas with multiple boats all aiming for the line when the gun goes off are "interesting" to say the least. I still have a scar where I caught a boom from another boat in the forearm. And that was only operating in two dimensions with closing speeds measured in 10s of knots.

We went away from a start line in gliding where people went through it in a (somewhat) orderly fashion for a reason. Imagine all 45 gliders at Mifflin aiming for a start at a specific instant in time with only 1 or 2 thermals feeding the optimal spot. It's bad enough today when you can go off to a quiet spot and wait for the wanna-be Battle of Britain types to go on their merry way or climb up through the top.

FWIW, I actually did a number of horse-race starts with the Bucks County Air Force and Wayward Drinkers Association from Van Sant back in the late 1980s. This was a small group affair with 4-5 guys operating on a gentleman's agreement to link up. The high guys had to hold divebrakes waiting for the others to get to the top of the thermal. Even then, with such a small group, trying to make it safe and fair with no real points on the line was surpisingly scary.

As far as racing with large groups, I think one of the reasons behind a lot of our current rules was to reduce gaggling. Having flown any number of tasks where the whole fleet was in one to two furballs on a weak day, I'm not sure how much I pine for those days. It's a lot more fun to fly "with" a small group or to pick up markers along the way. Fighting for a small chunk of airspace with 15 other gliders... not so much.

I think it's good to challenge convention, but do realize that a lot of hard-earned experience has lead us to where we are today.

Thanks for the replies and yes I admit my view may be a bit naive in terms of safety concerns and historical justifications.

The more variables and complexity included within an activity or task the harder it is to learn and master. In sailing we spend a great amount of effort mastering controllable variables within an AT type race course. Things such as: rig set up, mast and sail design, hull & bottom preparation, foil shape, sail trim settings, tacks, jybes, sets, starts, etc (controllable variables). By keeping the execution levels of these basic skills high we consistently reduce the negative impact of uncontrollable (and inevitable) variables vs our competitors. Things such as: large adverse windshifts, area's of stronger or weaker wind that cannot be predicted accurately, fouls from other competitors that push us back into the fleet churn.

The better one consistently executes on controllable variables (practice & preparation), the easier it is to recover from mistakes. Over the course of a competitive regatta, results are measurably more robust. Sailing is a bit more intense than gliding in terms of close proximity, tactics and rules. But the nature of controllable variables (and impact of uncontrollable variables) are very similar between the two sports.

If suddenly the classic sailboat race course could be occasionally (at the whim of the RaceC chair) defined by large GPS turn area cylinders, the sport would change dramatically. The importance of the basic skills would be reduced significantly and many boats (formerly non-competitive) would begin to score better based on randomly arriving at an area in the cylinder that happened to have stronger wind, less current or a favorable wind-shift and benefiting significantly from it. In someways I can see arguments for this being positive. But lets, for the moment, assume that pure racing is the goal.

AAT's are a great challenge due to the natural introduction of higher probability for uncontrollable variables. Simple example: (Sports class) Faster gliders need to go farther, but what if the conditions in the far area of the turn area are poor vs the near area? And so on. On top of that there are simply far more potential solutions to the puzzle (and chances for error). I ooze frustration from trying to figure them out.

The pure AAT task makes learning and managing the decision making process extremely challenging for all (especially new) pilots. AAT's are by nature far more random. With AAT's, in my observation, often radical thinking is rewarded. With AAT's you can get lucky (or unlucky). This is great fun...but very difficult to learn or teach! At the same time, generally based on the seniors, the best pilots won. But the results varied widely from day to day (one day first, next day 40th). In a way I think this lends to my argument.

I still feel strongly that AT tasking is a much better test of flying skill.. AT's are a better use of time. AAT's offer higher degree of difficulty for weather skill & computer management while introducing higher chances of benefit from significant amounts of luck (uncontrollable variables).

I agree that safety can be an issue in regatta starts, but many of our contests could have 15 meter or 18 meter starts with less than 20 gliders (most with far less), which I (again perhaps naively) think could be handled safely and with awesome results! Fun, close racing. Simple results! The benefit of knowing that a glider ahead or above is indeed ahead of you!

The combined AT/AAT task (I will read up) sounds really interesting and I hope we see some of those this season. I jokingly (not kidding) have referred to AAT's privately with my crew as OLC tasks (my crew is also a very good scorer). We fly them like we do OLC, with similar constraints. This was far before the recent wrangling ;-). In OLC we go wherever we want...fly fast, far, etc... AAT is pretty similar.

Best,

Sean

On Monday, March 19, 2012 7:48:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2012 11:26:21 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
Great post. I appreciate OLC. I think OLC is outstanding within a region, state or club as a way to measure your season, month or week of flying vs. your friends. And the results, in terms of participation and satisfaction, speak volumes.

That said, the truth is that I would prefer to race assigned tasks & regatta starts with like gliders every time I fly. Isn't this what we all wish we could do? In a perfect world would we not all have the same great glider? Wait a minute, we do. They are called 18m & 15m class! Handicap "racing" (chuckle, chuckle) is something that we are forced into because the proliferation of glider design classes has outpaced the growth of the sport? Now we have too little participation in most classes...and are looking at combining what is left into block handicap classes.

Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.

Why not try regatta starts if the goal is fair, true racing? Safety? I think a set start would actually be safer than the random chaos of start whenever you like. Simply introduce a 2 mile entry corridor (twice as wide as the start line) where course must be held (along with a speed limit) up until the starting line is crossed. This would be far safer than our current chaos in my opinion. I could not imagine a "start whenever you like" program was an option in sailboat racing. Unthinkable because it could, literally, decide the race. No different in soaring.

With AAT’s, the increase in the amount of decisions is massive. The luck involved increases exponentially. The critical aspect of choosing the right points to turn is highly dependent by having the best flight computer (and knowing how to use it very well). Many complain about cost and technology? AAT's require full screen maps, lots of pondering and revision of strategy based on situational changes and lots of playing with the computer (heads down, safety) to recalculate our turn decisions. This says nothing of the many paths possible to reach that magical point within the Turn Area. A skill in itself, but not true racing. Not even close. Lots of luck involved. Dangerous. Expensive!

Question? Why do 18m and 15m (essentially one design classes) ever do AAT's? Why at worlds or nationals are AAT’s even considered? Even though these gliders are scored without handicap, the AAT seems to be the more common task. In Uvalde last year we did a number of AAT's in 18m, 15m and Open? Why? This makes no sense to me. The conditions were excellent literally every day. AAT's, per the definition as I understand it, should be an absolute last resort for the CD. Instead it seems by far the most common task and AT's are avoided.

AAT's are boring (speaking as a new contest pilot) and not real racing in my view. Sure in a handicap class you may need them, but handicap racing is not real racing in and of itself. AAT's (and handicap racing) are an effort to satisfy everyone. Trying to satisfy everyone is always a bad choice in my book, let alone impossible. The tendency to call mainly AAT's further dilutes the few opportunities left in the sport of soaring for "true racing." I see this AAT topic as a real problem to be looked at in the future.

Why not have combined tasks (as a compromise) with, for example, two AT turn-points and one AAT circle to level things out? (My apology if this exists; I have never seen it in action). At least this would reduce the variability of a pure AT while allowing the CD to vary the min/max distance of the task. A pure AAT with 3 large circles is just silly... Almost no point to this type of task in my view if true racing is the goal. It should be avoided like the plague. But the fact is that it is becoming the main task in our “racing” world.

I love racing tasks, will tolerate the occasional AAT and enjoy OLC when true racing is not an option (most of the time). I think both racing and OLC are great things. I do agree that OLC is an excellent way to measure flying site "productivity!" Other than that (from region to region) I agree that OLC is fundamentally useless. Even more useless than AAT's with open starts (pick your time). But in the case of OLC so what. Everyone understands that (or should). In racing, I think alot of people think that AAT's are better races than they really are.

I hope this is discussed in a friendly way in the future.

Sean


The type of task you describe above is available within the rules. It is an AAT with one or more turn points having an assigned radius of as little as 1 mile and then a larger last turn area for task length tuning. It's there, just not many CD's or advisors use it.
Another interesting task that has the benefit of keeping everyone on the same course, yet allowing the slower guys to come home while the fast guys go far, is the "long MAT". Properly done, this is set too long to complete by anybody so all say on the same course, yet, the slower(or lower performance gliders) still get to drop off and finish.
FWIW - In my view, the many variables in contest soaring are part of what make the sport interesting to many of us. Interesting that some folks seem to get lucky a lot in dealing with those variables. Frustrating to the rest of us.
UH