WGC Uvalde: US Team... What Happened????

Let me make this simple.

Team flying + US "Soaring TEAM?" = Individuals who instinctively fly for themselves in LARGE TURN AREA TASKS.

If that was a math problem it would be 1 + 1 = 0 or false. It does not compute.

It really is this simple. And the powers that be in the SSA have their heels dug in tight and are waiting to crush any resistance immediately, why are we still wasting our time here talking about it?

Bottom line is that the SSA organization does not care in the slightest about World Championship results or the US Soaring Individuals (Team). If they did, they would get out of the way. They only care about their participation in US events. That is the only focus. So while that narrative is in play, nothing much is going to change. If you are disappointed, its all about adjusting your expectations :-).

The US soaring team has GREAT pilots. But they are playing checkers. The WORLD plays chess. If they are given a home environment in which they can practice and improve at Chess (FAI), they will slowly (perhaps rapidly) become more competitive at a World level AND we may see some more foreign pilots coming to join us at US contests.

But, its going to be checkers until enough resistance is applied to that rope...



Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place.



Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.



We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care?



Al Batross

At 14:55 24 September 2012, wrote:
George Lee was an RAF Fighter Pilot and flew an ASW-17 twice and a pre
production Nimbus 3 owned by the RAFGSA.

Prior to the ASW17 he had a RAFGSA Kestrel 19, which many years later I
owned

While I do take offense at being given the moniker of "troll" in this discussion, I would like to thank all the posters and especially ZL, BB, OG, and F2 for their excellent responses and interest in this topic. THeir thoughts and honesty are refreshing and useful.

It just seemed to me that the worlds ended and then there was "wind whistling through the trees". Really? In light of what happened? This seemed to be the only place where an open discussion on this topic might plausibly take place for all (or at least those that peruse this forum) to see and learn from. If that is being a Troll, then I stand accused!

For competitive American pilots who want to pursue the racing aspect of our sport to its highest level, we need to discuss these things and have these discussions be open for all (experienced and aspiring) racing pilots to make use of.

And as far as the money issue goes, it is THE most important issue in our racing sport. To do well one needs to make a substantial commitment of time and resources. This is without doubt and cannot be changed. Our US Team members do this on a never-ending two year cycle and should be applauded for their efforts to represent us. But could we do better, given the tremendous amount of time and resources (i.e. DB and the Concordia) expended? That was all this thread was meant to do.

I, for one, would be more inclined to give more to the US Team if I knew the money was being well spent and the effort was aimed at producing podium finishes for both individuals AND team points. That is, after all, the goal of competition, isn't it?

Al Batross

w

On Monday, September 17, 2012 2:11:31 PM UTC-4, wrote:
To everyone with an interest:



Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened?



Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place.



Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.



We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care?



Al Batross

who said we did poorly? a 70- year old man won two days in a home-made glider.

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:48:02 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:11:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:

To everyone with an interest: Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened? Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place. Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas. We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care? Al Batross



There are plenty of excellent sailplane pilots but very few who can pay out the 100,000 it takes to buy a sailplane that will compete in competion flying. It is a rich mans game, the rest of fly the best we can in the sailplanes we can afford and can only wonder if given the chance what we could do.

i don't believe that. if you have a dream, you have to make it happen. i have limited means, but i work a second job so that i can fly more. you do not need to shell out 100,000 or even 70,000 to have a shot at the worlds.

Originally Posted by Oscar[_2_]

Hi Colin
We also have very little exposure to high level contests, and going to Europe to compete is expensive. In my opinion, there are more competition opportunities in the US than we have in SA, as we only have two regional (three since last year) and our one multi-class nationals. And we have the same 25 or so guys going to all of these to race.
I wouldnt knock your team pilots, as they can hold their own, but not being used to flying as a team, definitely puts them at a disadvantage. Team flying is not something that you can just switch on, it takes years to learn to do, and there are a multitude of aspects that need to be adressed, both in flying, but also in knowing your partner.
Regards
Oscar Goudriaan

Hi Oscar

I'm in New Zealand

Thanks for the feed back. I was thinking of Ben Flewett and Dane Dickinson who have been competing overseas on a regular basis, Ben being resident in the UK. Whenever he comes back to NZ he just seems to have that edge that makes the difference, same with Dane.

I haven't forgotten John Coutts either but I'm not au fait with how much flying or competing he is doing of recent times in SA.

I could be wrong but the impression I have is that although you don't have so many competition oppourtunities as the Europeans your top pilots race each other very hard. How much does your (collective) WGC experience help/push you all in that regard?

Regards to Mark Holliday too, it was a pleasure meeting you both at Omarama in 07

:-) Colin

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:15:04 PM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:07*pm, John Cochrane wrote: Hi John I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now. Good! Now let's persuade the IGC, which banned this for Uvalde. Huge gaggles in the clouds at Szeged was idiotic. In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10 minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task. This is also by far the most common situation in the US. Task changes in the air are avoided if at all possible. They are a last ditch tool for a CD to remedy a looming disaster, but CDs are strongly advised against it if at all possible. Still, it's nice to avoid the disaster... Our contests try to launch everyone in 1 hour, and wait 15 minutes before gate open. We also require 15 minutes between task change and launch. So, the decision to open the task is at least 1:30 after the last chance to change the task on the ground. Often, weather ucertainty means that the start is delayed further. So it's easy to have two hours pass. The weather can change a lot in two hours! What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day? It happens rarely. Once to me when I was leading the contest on the last day. Fortunately I heard the task change, rocked my wings in response to radio call and it was passed on. If you can't hear either, then you can't hear when the start gate is opened. I don't know of a case of that happening yet. But it is the pilot's responsibility to have a radio. If the roll call goes through, and the pilot can't be raised on multiple tries, tough for him. We're not going to send the whole fleet into the storm because of that. I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and are prepared to adopt good ideas. Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live. I'll take you up on that! John, actually I participated in a contest were 2 days in a row new tasks were given in the air and not because of thunderstorms. This rule just enables a not so smart CD to be really stupid just because he is also lazy. Luckily 90% of contests do not have tasks set while pilots are in the air, but when I see one done again that might be a reason for me to quick contest flying. If you ask me if I want to stay alive or lose a day I would say I want to stay alive! This rule has no place in our competitions. We can program many tasks into our computers. Have 5 dump tasks but do not force people to put heads into the instruments in such high glider density area as start cylinder. John, your safety approach is not consistent. On one side you say we need minimum finish height because we can't trust pilots not to put themselves in dangerous situations but on the other hand you give a CD a way to put all pilots in a dangerous situation.

It is becoming very common to have alternate tasks available and published in advance so they can be pre programmed by the pilots. These were available in many of the contests I flew this year.
The characterization of CD's as stupid and lazy does not match with what I observe.
Maybe some of the rock ******* ought to step up and wear the CD hat, it might be enlightening. It's easy to be an arm chair expert on RAS, but tougher in the real world. I speak from the experience of someone who has, in the last 2 years, been a CD and has acted as task advisor to the CD 4 times.
That said, the quality of weather information, and the experience and knowledge to interpret that information, is a big variable.
The good CD's recognize this and use their advisors to make prudent changes that make a fairer and safer race and one that is more rewarding to the pilots.
I lived through the period when these changes were not available and recall several flights, carefully planned by experienced CD's and weathermen, that sent the entire fleet off doomed to a land out in thunderstorms, sometime visible before the task even opened.
We've moved beyond this and we are better for it.
I've read of days where the Brits landed the fleet, rebriefed, and then went again. I'm pretty sure that is very rare.
I am convinced that, properly administered, the system we use in the US is a net positive on safety and is better than that commonly used in other places.
F2 will likely use this as an example of digging my heels in. I'll disagree in advance and simply ask the critics to take time to understand our reasoning.
UH

On Monday, September 24, 2012 10:38:04 AM UTC-6, wrote:
While I do take offense at being given the moniker of "troll" in this discussion, I would like to thank all the posters and especially ZL, BB, OG, and F2 for their excellent responses and interest in this topic. THeir thoughts and honesty are refreshing and useful.



It just seemed to me that the worlds ended and then there was "wind whistling through the trees". Really? In light of what happened? This seemed to be the only place where an open discussion on this topic might plausibly take place for all (or at least those that peruse this forum) to see and learn from. If that is being a Troll, then I stand accused!



For competitive American pilots who want to pursue the racing aspect of our sport to its highest level, we need to discuss these things and have these discussions be open for all (experienced and aspiring) racing pilots to make use of.



And as far as the money issue goes, it is THE most important issue in our racing sport. To do well one needs to make a substantial commitment of time and resources. This is without doubt and cannot be changed. Our US Team members do this on a never-ending two year cycle and should be applauded for their efforts to represent us. But could we do better, given the tremendous amount of time and resources (i.e. DB and the Concordia) expended? That was all this thread was meant to do.



I, for one, would be more inclined to give more to the US Team if I knew the money was being well spent and the effort was aimed at producing podium finishes for both individuals AND team points. That is, after all, the goal of competition, isn't it?



Al Batross

Well, since you post under a nom de plume rather than a real name, the troll moniker fits. Well fed thread BTW. Yet, you fail to comment on the substance of my post, which others have suggested is part of the problem. I do know some US pilots, if they had the means or the support, may well have replaced some of the US team for this event, but they can't afford to compete in those classes on their own. However, I'm acquainted with several of the US team members and find them to be quite competent and worthy of selection. That said, a fellow SSA member reminded me that George Moffatt did have access to gliders through the support of another. As I trained originally in the UK, I was pleased to have 32 glider makes in my logbook within the first four years, two of which I owned shares in. That type of exposure is a bit harder to acquire in the US. As a scorer in the 93 and 94 UK Opens and later a US regional CD, I objected to the US photo TP approach, US windicapping, and the emerging beer can TP's. My experience was that we in the US were flying to different standard in our competitions to the effect it was a lesser standard. I understand the emergence of the current US rules, but I appreciate the vocal club class proponents wanting something other than Sports Class rules as a discriminator.

Frank Whiteley

On Sep 24, 9:03*pm, wrote:
It is becoming very common to have alternate tasks available and published in advance so they can be pre programmed by the pilots. These were available in many of the contests I flew this year.
The characterization of CD's as stupid and lazy does not match with what I observe.
Maybe some of the rock ******* ought to step up and wear the CD hat, it might be enlightening. It's easy to be an arm chair expert on RAS, but tougher in the real world. I speak from the experience of someone who has, in the last 2 years, been a CD and has acted as task advisor to the CD 4 times.

Hank, I did not say all CDs are stupid, so please no generalizations.
I said "This rule just enables a not so smart CD to be really stupid
just because he is also lazy." I saw tasks being changed in the air
just because it looked better in a different direction. Is this a
valid reason? No, and it does not reflect intended use of the rule.
This is stupid to me. There was nothing to be gained from that, except
a potential problem. I can give you a detail account but not on RAS.

There is no reason for tasks to be changed in the air. Give 10 dump
tasks the first day of the contest (use some from previous years) so
everyone can put them in safely. I hear the argument of thunderstorms
but the truth is in my experience that is not why the tasks were
changed. They were simply changed to fly in somewhat better air e.g
visible Cu in one direction and blue in the other.

I also said 90% of contests do not have tasks set in the air.

Also since we are on the topic of CDs and tasks. What kind of a task
is a task with one mandatory turn point? I would rather stay at home
and fly OLC rather than spend a considerable amount of time and money
to go to a contest just so I can fly another version of an OLC task.

Maybe instead of the word "stupid" I should have used a word
irresponsible, it would probably fit better.

On Monday, September 24, 2012 11:35:09 PM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Monday, September 24, 2012 10:38:04 AM UTC-6, wrote:

While I do take offense at being given the moniker of "troll" in this discussion, I would like to thank all the posters and especially ZL, BB, OG, and F2 for their excellent responses and interest in this topic. THeir thoughts and honesty are refreshing and useful.







It just seemed to me that the worlds ended and then there was "wind whistling through the trees". Really? In light of what happened? This seemed to be the only place where an open discussion on this topic might plausibly take place for all (or at least those that peruse this forum) to see and learn from. If that is being a Troll, then I stand accused!







For competitive American pilots who want to pursue the racing aspect of our sport to its highest level, we need to discuss these things and have these discussions be open for all (experienced and aspiring) racing pilots to make use of.







And as far as the money issue goes, it is THE most important issue in our racing sport. To do well one needs to make a substantial commitment of time and resources. This is without doubt and cannot be changed. Our US Team members do this on a never-ending two year cycle and should be applauded for their efforts to represent us. But could we do better, given the tremendous amount of time and resources (i.e. DB and the Concordia) expended? That was all this thread was meant to do.







I, for one, would be more inclined to give more to the US Team if I knew the money was being well spent and the effort was aimed at producing podium finishes for both individuals AND team points. That is, after all, the goal of competition, isn't it?







Al Batross



Well, since you post under a nom de plume rather than a real name, the troll moniker fits. Well fed thread BTW. Yet, you fail to comment on the substance of my post, which others have suggested is part of the problem. I do know some US pilots, if they had the means or the support, may well have replaced some of the US team for this event, but they can't afford to compete in those classes on their own. However, I'm acquainted with several of the US team members and find them to be quite competent and worthy of selection. That said, a fellow SSA member reminded me that George Moffatt did have access to gliders through the support of another. As I trained originally in the UK, I was pleased to have 32 glider makes in my logbook within the first four years, two of which I owned shares in. That type of exposure is a bit harder to acquire in the US. As a scorer in the 93 and 94 UK Opens and later a US regional CD, I objected to the US photo TP approach, US windicapping, and the emerging beer can TP's. My experience was that we in the US were flying to different standard in our competitions to the effect it was a lesser standard. I understand the emergence of the current US rules, but I appreciate the vocal club class proponents wanting something other than Sports Class rules as a discriminator.



Frank Whiteley

I will add that there is some patronage and much generosity in US soaring. I recall one US soaring family that attempted to provide gliders for our US junior team development, but that offer did not complete.

Frank