Analyzing US Competition Flights

Hi folks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

Sean
F2

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


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

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

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

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

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