Analyzing US Competition Flights

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

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

Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P3