Start Anywhere

I think the "start anywhere" idea was great and the CD suggestion for
the 500' buffer even better. However I can't seem to connect the dots
on JJ issue with the penalty and nicking the start cyl. along with BB
explaination. BB, would you you expand on what happened to JJ and your
response.

Sure. The "start anywhere" rule says you must take your last start, if
that start doesn't incur a penalty. If your last start incurs a
penalty, then you're free to use earlier starts. A start is any time
you exit the cylinder, so when JJ started out the top/back but then
glided back down and nicked the cylinder he did "start" again.
However, since he wasn't under the start height for 2 minutes, this
last "start" would have the 2 minute penalty associated with it.
Therefore, JJ was free to use the earlier start out the top, which is
what he wanted to do all along. (We're going to try to automate this
process this year so that you don't have to be a rules expert or
butter up the scorer.)

This is the rule working exactly as it should. If someone nips out
the top/back and then tries to bump the start gaggles, he's not going
to get away with it -- he will be forced to take the last start. But
if you start out the top and try your best to stay above the start
cylinder but inadvertently nip into it, you're ok.

By the way, this is exactly what would have happened on the old rule.
Winscore would have found the last start, noticed the 2 minute
penalty, and suggested a start with penalty. Then it would have been
up to JJ and the scorer to search back and see if he had a previous
start that avoided the big penalty. The only difference is that now
JJ gets credit for the extra 10 miles or so of distance, whereas
before he would have had to give that up.

I hope this clears it up. Short version: If you stay the heck out of
the start cylinder after starting, you can ignore all the fancy
language in the rules.

I wrote a little "contest corner" explaining the new start, still
available he
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.c...t_anywhere.htm

John Cochrane
BB

Just a quick note:

As a new contest pilot (first Regionals will be #12 in Warner Springs
in April), I really like the 'start anywhere' idea. Some more
experienced folk might not like it as much because it seems less-
competitive or a bit more complex - but its been beaten into me how
dangerous gaggle-flying can be in a contest, ESPECIALLY near the
start. As a newbie it takes a lot of pressure off if I can just float
away from the main gaggle and find another acceptable thermal - who
knows, it may be an even better one than the group is using?
Regardless of whether it is, in fact, better - I get to make the
choice myself and I get all the "credit" (or "blame" and shame) for
making that call in terms of distance and scoring. Its nice to know
that i'm going to start my flight with a lot of options open to me...

I'll be curious to see how it plays out in my actual contest starts
this year!

Take care,

--Noel

John, a couple of questions:

First, what is the difference between starting out the top and
"nicking" the front of the start cylinder (JJ's example) and starting
out the top and "bouncing" a convenient start gaggle near the front of
the start cylinder, conveniently located on your courseline - which
(according to your Contest Corner article, the new start is supposed
to prevent)? Seems the two are for all practical purposes identical
to me - If JJ had to bounce a start gaggle where he nicked the
cylinder, would he have had to take the penalized start?

Second, and more basic: Why do we even allow starts out the top? I
thought the CD was supposed to set the top high enough that it would
be unlikely that anyone could start out the top (Quote in Winning
2?). Allowing the lucky pilot who stumbles into the one thermal that
tops out 2000' above the rest to use all of it, while the rest are
trying to stay under the top to avoid the 2 minute penalty seems a bit
counterproductive. I've raced out West, where the selected top can be
a significant factor, and in the East, where it usually isn't, so I'm
really curious. We setup the start opening time to allow everybody an
equal opportunity to achieve a good start, but leave a bit of a
loophole, IMHO.

As an aside, why isn't the top of the start cylinder given as an MSL
altitude, instead of an AGL altitude? Seems absurd, since you end up
having to add the start height to the elevation of the start point,
then use an MSL altitude anyway, which could have no relation to AGL
if the start cylinder is over mountainous terrain and the start point
in a valley!

That being said, I like the new start - just wish the computers I use
(SN10 and mSeeYou) handled it better....

Kirk
66

I agree with Kirk...who determines a nick vs. a machette wack.
R

On Dec 22, 2:28*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:
John, a couple of questions:

First, what is the difference between starting out the top and
"nicking" the front of the start cylinder (JJ's example) and starting
out the top and "bouncing" a convenient start gaggle near the front of
the start cylinder, conveniently located on your courseline - which
(according to your Contest Corner article, the new start is supposed
to prevent)? *Seems the two are for all practical purposes identical
to me - If JJ had to bounce a start gaggle where he nicked the
cylinder, would he have had to take the penalized start?

We thought hard about the tradeoff of rule complexity vs. desire to
keep "on course" traffic separate from "pre-start" traffic, and the
current rule is our best compromise. But it is a compromise.

Keep in mind that blasting through gaggles is incredibly bad form out
on course just as it is in the start cylinder. It can and should draw
the gentle reminders of your fellow pilots, then somewhat more stern
reminders, then unsafe flying penalties, and finally expulsion from
the sport. Yes, this happens. There is nothing all that special about
gaggles in vs. out of the cylinder, and traces mean that pilot
complaints can be followed up by CD penalties very quickly.

The current rule does allow two minutes of time spent within the start
cylinder, and it does allow a pilot to use any gaggles above the
cylinder. We thought about more stringent rules to require greater
separation, but they got more complicated fast. If we get a lot of bad
behavior, we will either go to those or more likely the whole project
will get abandoned and we'll go back to the old way. My experience is
that pre-start gaggles tend to mark ragged half-knot lift, and quite
often negative 1 knot lift, so it takes only a mild bit of self-
preservation to see that they're not worth bouncing in the first
place. Together with the current rule, I doubt this will be much of a
problem. Planning to go back in the cylinder, but somehow for less
than two minutes, seems just too complex to be a viable strategy.


Second, and more basic: *Why do we even allow starts out the top? *I
thought the CD was supposed to set the top high enough that it would
be unlikely that anyone could start out the top (Quote in Winning
2?). *Allowing the lucky pilot who stumbles into the one thermal that
tops out 2000' above the rest to use all of it, while the rest are
trying to stay under the top to avoid the 2 minute penalty seems a bit
counterproductive. *I've raced out West, where the selected top can be
a significant factor, and in the East, where it usually isn't, so I'm
really curious. *We setup the start opening time to allow everybody an
equal opportunity to achieve a good start, but leave a bit of a
loophole, IMHO.

Starts out the top are good for spreading pilots out -- the more
places you can start, the better. They are also great out west. If
you're heading out over boondocks, it's wonderful to leave the airport
at 17000'. However, we can't make the top of the start gate 17000', as
that would be very unfair to the poor sap who launches last and has to
climb that high in 15 minutes. The top of the start gate should be
500' below cloudbase too, and low enough not to give a huge advantage
to a few pilots who stumble on a shear wave and can climb at 1 knot to
great height.

I don't really get your scenario. If there are strong thermals inside
the start cylnder, everyone can fish around for them and then zoom out
the top at 10 knots. Ok, there is some luck there, but there is the
same luck out on course. This is not like the luck of finding a shear
wave and milking it for an hour while the other guys wait to launch.


That being said, I like the new start - just wish the computers I use
(SN10 and mSeeYou) handled it better....

The basics are easy, and all computers should have this quickly.
Detecting a start is just as before. All they have to do is program an
easier formula for your distance, from the start fix not from the
center of the start circle. Handling all the penalty options is a
programming nightmare, but that was true before.

John Cochrane
BB

On Dec 22, 5:17*pm, wrote:
On Dec 22, 2:28*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:

John, a couple of questions:

First, what is the difference between starting out the top and
"nicking" the front of the start cylinder (JJ's example) and starting
out the top and "bouncing" a convenient start gaggle near the front of
the start cylinder, conveniently located on your courseline - which
(according to your Contest Corner article, the new start is supposed
to prevent)? *Seems the two are for all practical purposes identical
to me - If JJ had to bounce a start gaggle where he nicked the
cylinder, would he have had to take the penalized start?

We thought hard about the tradeoff of rule complexity vs. desire to
keep "on course" traffic separate from "pre-start" traffic, and the
current rule is our best compromise. But it is a compromise.

Keep in mind that blasting through gaggles is incredibly bad form out
on course just as it is in the start cylinder. It can and should draw
the gentle reminders of your fellow pilots, then somewhat more stern
reminders, then unsafe flying penalties, and finally expulsion from
the sport. Yes, this happens. There is nothing all that special about
gaggles in vs. out of the cylinder, and traces mean that pilot
complaints can be followed up by CD penalties very quickly.

The current rule does allow two minutes of time spent within the start
cylinder, and it does allow a pilot to use any gaggles above the
cylinder. We thought about more stringent rules to require greater
separation, but they got more complicated fast. If we get a lot of bad
behavior, we will either go to those or more likely the whole project
will get abandoned and we'll go back to the old way. *My experience is
that pre-start gaggles tend to mark ragged half-knot lift, and quite
often negative 1 knot lift, so it takes only a mild bit of self-
preservation to see that they're not worth bouncing in the first
place. Together with the current rule, I doubt this will be much of a
problem. Planning to go back in the cylinder, but somehow for less
than two minutes, seems just too complex to be a viable strategy.



Second, and more basic: *Why do we even allow starts out the top? *I
thought the CD was supposed to set the top high enough that it would
be unlikely that anyone could start out the top (Quote in Winning
2?). *Allowing the lucky pilot who stumbles into the one thermal that
tops out 2000' above the rest to use all of it, while the rest are
trying to stay under the top to avoid the 2 minute penalty seems a bit
counterproductive. *I've raced out West, where the selected top can be
a significant factor, and in the East, where it usually isn't, so I'm
really curious. *We setup the start opening time to allow everybody an
equal opportunity to achieve a good start, but leave a bit of a
loophole, IMHO.

Starts out the top are good for spreading pilots out -- the more
places you can start, the better. They are also great out west. If
you're heading out over boondocks, it's wonderful to leave the airport
at 17000'. However, we can't make the top of the start gate 17000', as
that would be very unfair to the poor sap who launches last and has to
climb that high in 15 minutes. The top of the start gate should be
500' below cloudbase too, and low enough not to give a huge advantage
to a few pilots who stumble on a shear wave and can climb at 1 knot to
great height.

I don't really get your scenario. If there are strong thermals inside
the start cylnder, everyone can fish around for them and then zoom out
the top at 10 knots. Ok, there is some luck there, but there is the
same luck out on course. This is not like the luck of finding a shear
wave and milking it for an hour while the other guys wait to launch.



That being said, I like the new start - just wish the computers I use
(SN10 and mSeeYou) handled it better....

The basics are easy, and all computers should have this quickly.
Detecting a start is just as before. All they have to do is program an
easier formula for your distance, from the start fix not from the
center of the start circle. Handling all the penalty options is a
programming nightmare, but that was true before.

John Cochrane
BB

Well, I'll give a resounding endorsement to the new rule. Case in
point,
day 2 at Perry last spring for Sports class was a 3 turn MAT task.
Minimum distance was 40 miles, and nominal distance to the first turn
was 19.56 miles. Some pilots were pressed to get to more than just
the first turn (it was a late day start as we had to wait for the
cloudbase
to rise to a safe height), so starting out the side was really needed
for
those pilots. My friend Roger made minimum distance by about 600 feet
thanks to starting out the side.