A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 23rd 10, 05:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
noel.wade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 681
Default US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll

On Sep 23, 7:26*am, Frank wrote:

Do we, as an organization, really want to be biasing the 'Sporting
Risk' equation in that direction?

TA


Exactly my concern with this rule, too.

I understand your arguments, John; they make a fair amount of
sense... I don't want to reward someone who "took it easy" because
their glider has long legs. But a big part of me also thinks its just
weird to reward someone who didn't make it around the course! Even
though ATs, TATs, and MATs are all very different, they start with the
core idea that you have a start, some waypoints, and a finish. And
the overriding theme is to make it around the course and to the
finish. Screwing up that fundamental "getting to the finish" part can
be interpreted as a bad performance and/or bad decision-making. I
don't want to reward that, simply because the pilot has big cojones
and is willing to fly into a bad situation on the gamble that he or
she will rack up more distance points than others before hitting the
dirt. And when does one "flip the switch" mentally, to go for that
instead of speed points? Would it be on the worst of days, when
everyone's cutting the task really short (isn't this when we usually
see MATs called most-often, too)? That's when we want to encourage
people to strike out on their own? hrrm...

Also: What other sport defines a course and a finish, but gives some
people more credit if they DON'T cross the finish-line?

Like I said befo It seems to me that we're turning the system on
its ear. We're moving away from "the course" as the underlying
foundation, and moving towards "speed and distance are more important
than the course"; which is a big shift IMHO.

I'm not vehemently opposed to this, but I still am not comfortable
with it. In some ways, it seems like a fix primarily for the Sports
Class, since the "1-26 vs Nimbus4" argument only applies there.
Performance levels are so much closer in the FAI classes, you're
"fixing" anything (no one can use min-distance to gain a big advantage
over others). In the FAI classes, the way I see it, you're flat-out
shifting the focus of the TAT & MAT away from "fly the course and
return at minimum time, go for max speed". You're moving the focus
towards "make nominal (or greater) distance in a reasonable time
without sacrificing much speed and if it starts to go bad screw
getting home and make max distance you can".

I see the "problem" with the current system; but if you view
competition tasks through the lens of "complete the course, first and
foremost" then its only a problem for the Sports Class with its wide
performance-level variance. For the other classes its more about how
you want to view tasks and what should be the _most-important_
criteria for judging someone's performance. Is it speed around the
course and across the finish line? Or is it distance?

--Noel
P.S. BTW, since other threads on RAS are talking about the Worlds -
just out of curiosity do any other countries (or the IGC) have scoring
rules like this, wherein non-finishers can score higher than
finishers?

  #2  
Old September 24th 10, 12:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll

On 9/23/2010 9:29 AM, noel.wade wrote:

I see the "problem" with the current system; but if you view
competition tasks through the lens of "complete the course, first and
foremost" then its only a problem for the Sports Class with its wide
performance-level variance. For the other classes its more about how
you want to view tasks and what should be the _most-important_
criteria for judging someone's performance. Is it speed around the
course and across the finish line? Or is it distance?

In the olden days, when we had waypoints that were actually points, we
had a well defined course, and it was reasonable to talk about
completing it. Now we no longer have points, but huge areas, and you can
draw millions of courses, so maybe we should drop the idea of "the
course" and just talk about the Task. That's what people are trying to
complete - "the course" no longer exists, as each pilot picks his own
course.

And while that is the backbone of the Sports Class, it is also the
reason I had little interest in it, and eventually stopped racing as the
other classes flew fewer and fewer assigned speed tasks. But I digress...

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

  #3  
Old September 24th 10, 03:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll

On Sep 23, 6:48*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 9/23/2010 9:29 AM, noel.wade wrote:

I see the "problem" with the current system; but if you view
competition tasks through the lens of "complete the course, first and
foremost" then its only a problem for the Sports Class with its wide
performance-level variance. *For the other classes its more about how
you want to view tasks and what should be the _most-important_
criteria for judging someone's performance. *Is it speed around the
course and across the finish line? *Or is it distance?


In the olden days, when we had waypoints that were actually points, we
had a well defined course, and it was reasonable to talk about
completing it. Now we no longer have points, but huge areas, and you can
draw millions of courses, so maybe we should drop the idea of "the
course" and just talk about the Task. That's what people are trying to
complete - "the course" no longer exists, as each pilot picks his own
course.

And while that is the backbone of the Sports Class, it is also the
reason I had little interest in it, and eventually stopped racing as the
other classes flew fewer and fewer assigned speed tasks. But I digress...

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz


My view is quite similar to Eric's. Back in the AST days, there was a
"course" and if you made it home you "finished". I'm not so sure that
doing 61 miles and beetling home on a 270 mile day qualifies in the
same way. It's as if we let people turn around at the first turn and
get a "finish" anyway. That is the central philosophical issue.

It does happen in TATs, and in FAI classes too. The examples on the
poll question were from FAI classes. Newcastle day 2 just had a TAT
with possible distances from 66 o 245 miles, in view of very uncertain
weather.

I'm as concerned about safety and incentives not to push on in bad
weather as the next guy, and I'm usually on the other end of those
discussions. However, we have an airport bonus for that. It's not
obvious to me that we should give 600 points for landing at one
particular airport and 25 points for landing at another one. If one
sees a problem in people pushing on in bad weather, raising the
airport bonus is a more sensible step.

Part of my preference is because the change removes and awful roll-
the-dice decision, stop in an hour for a "finish" or push on for speed
points. I hate big roll of the dice decisions. In the AST, on which
the scoring equation was based, there was no such decision, you just
keep plugging along as long as you can. The proposed new system
removes a lot of that agonizing. It's especially bad in the TAT
because you have to commit early if you want to use the option to nick
the cylinders and finish in one hour. I also dislike MATs where the
right strategy is always to buzz around in gliding distance of the
home airport so you make sure to get those "finisher" points. I didn't
take two weeks off of work and drive a thousand miles for that. Stay
safe, yes. Stay near airports, sure. But not necessarily right near
the home airport.

John Cochrane
  #4  
Old September 24th 10, 04:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Brian[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 399
Default US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll

I to really perfer assigned tasks when the conditions allow for it,
and that is why for years I flew my HP16T in the regional 15 meter
category. Of course at the time Sports Class used strictly PoST
Tasks.

I really like the change from PoST to MAT tasks, and in unpredictable
conditions Turn Area Tasks aren't bad either. This year I flew Sports
Class for only my 3rd time (1st in a 1-26, 2nd in a National Sports
Class). My reason for changing from 15 meter was two fold. 1st with
the ASW20's and LS6's being replaced with even high performing ships
it was just about impossible for me to come even close to placing
anywhere but last on the score sheet, even though that was where I
typically was anyway. And 2nd even the 15 meter class has moved away
from AST tasks. At our region 8 regionals this year TAT tasks were
called every day for both 15 meter and Sport Class. For all but the
last day I think this was appropriate. However the last day was
forcast to be the best conditions of the contest and I thought it
would have easily supported a AST task for the 15 meter and an
Identical MAT task (using the same turn points) for the Sports Class.
I would like to see a few more Assigned tasked called when good
conditions exist. And MAT's that are laid out like an Assigned task
for Sports Class.

Brian

  #5  
Old September 24th 10, 04:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,565
Default US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll

On Sep 24, 7:34*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
On Sep 23, 6:48*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:



On 9/23/2010 9:29 AM, noel.wade wrote:


I see the "problem" with the current system; but if you view
competition tasks through the lens of "complete the course, first and
foremost" then its only a problem for the Sports Class with its wide
performance-level variance. *For the other classes its more about how
you want to view tasks and what should be the _most-important_
criteria for judging someone's performance. *Is it speed around the
course and across the finish line? *Or is it distance?


In the olden days, when we had waypoints that were actually points, we
had a well defined course, and it was reasonable to talk about
completing it. Now we no longer have points, but huge areas, and you can
draw millions of courses, so maybe we should drop the idea of "the
course" and just talk about the Task. That's what people are trying to
complete - "the course" no longer exists, as each pilot picks his own
course.


And while that is the backbone of the Sports Class, it is also the
reason I had little interest in it, and eventually stopped racing as the
other classes flew fewer and fewer assigned speed tasks. But I digress....


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz


My view is quite similar to Eric's. Back in the AST days, there was a
"course" and if you made it home you "finished". I'm not so sure that
doing 61 miles and beetling home on a 270 mile day qualifies in the
same way. It's as if we let people turn around at the first turn and
get a "finish" anyway. That is the central philosophical issue.

It does happen in TATs, and in FAI classes too. The examples on the
poll question were from FAI classes. Newcastle day 2 just had a TAT
with possible distances from 66 o 245 miles, in view of very uncertain
weather.

I'm as concerned about safety and incentives not to push on in bad
weather as the next guy, and I'm usually on the other end of those
discussions. However, we have an airport bonus for that. It's not
obvious to me that we should give 600 points for landing at one
particular airport and 25 points for landing at another one. If one
sees a problem in people pushing on in bad weather, raising the
airport bonus is a more sensible step.

Part of my preference is because the change *removes and awful roll-
the-dice decision, stop in an hour for a "finish" or push on for speed
points. I hate big roll of the dice decisions. In the AST, on which
the scoring equation was based, there was no such decision, you just
keep plugging along as long as you can. The proposed new system
removes a lot of that agonizing. It's especially bad in the TAT
because you have to commit early if you want to use the option to nick
the cylinders and finish in one hour. I also dislike MATs where the
right strategy is always to buzz around in gliding distance of the
home airport so you make sure to get those "finisher" points. I didn't
take two weeks off of work and drive a thousand miles for that. Stay
safe, yes. Stay near airports, sure. But not necessarily right near
the home airport.

John Cochrane


Please adopt the FAI rules and stop wasting everyone's time with
inventing new ones! Use any surplus energy to participate in
refining the FAI rules if changes are needed.

Andy
  #6  
Old September 24th 10, 04:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll


Please adopt the FAI rules and stop wasting everyone's time with
inventing new ones! * Use any surplus energy to participate in
refining the FAI rules if changes are needed.

Andy


Have you actually read the FAI rules? I have, and flown under them,
and I think adopting them for US contests would be a terrible idea.
Start with frequent mass landouts. If we basically say that everybody
needs a crew to fly in a contest, that alone will cut participation in
half. At least half of our pilots show up crewless. The FAI has known
for over 20 years that its day devaluation formulas lead to dangerous
and unpleasant mass gaggling start roulette and leeching, yet does
nothing about it. Then there are little gems like a start with an
altitude limit but no time or speed limit. Pilots diving at VNE out of
clouds. At WGC Szeged we saw what happens with a finish line set 1 cm
over a barbed wire fence at the airport perimeter -- crash into a
truck on the airport road. We got rid of that nonsense a long time ago
by moving the finish up. And on and on. Yes, adopting FAI rules would
better train our US teams -- we were at a real disadvantage from not
having much practice with them. It would also mean nobody but the team
shows up for contests!

John Cochrane
  #7  
Old September 24th 10, 07:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,565
Default US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll

On Sep 24, 8:35*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
Please adopt the FAI rules and stop wasting everyone's time with
inventing new ones! * Use any surplus energy to participate in
refining the FAI rules if changes are needed.


Andy


Have you actually read the FAI rules? I have, and flown under them,
and I think adopting them for US contests would be a terrible idea.
Start with frequent mass landouts. If we basically say that everybody
needs a crew to fly in a contest, that alone will cut participation in
half. At least half of our pilots show up crewless. The FAI has known
for over 20 years that its day devaluation formulas lead to dangerous
and unpleasant mass gaggling start roulette and leeching, yet does
nothing about it. Then there are little gems like a start with an
altitude limit but no time or speed limit. Pilots diving at VNE out of
clouds. At WGC Szeged we saw what happens with a finish line set 1 cm
over a barbed wire fence at the airport perimeter -- crash into a
truck on the airport road. We got rid of that nonsense a long time ago
by moving the finish up. And on and on. Yes, adopting FAI rules would
better train our US teams -- we were at a real disadvantage from not
having much practice with them. It would also mean nobody but the team
shows up for contests!

John Cochrane


I have not flown under the FAI rules but I did study them when I was
following this year's WGC.

All you objections are valid I'm sure, hence the second part of my
proposal "Use any surplus energy to participate in refining the FAI
rules if changes are needed."

Surely mass landouts as much a function of the task setting as the
rules.

Also nothing to say that US contests could not have exceptions to FAI
rules where is was appropriate. E.g. It would seem quite easy to use
the same tasking and scoring rules but with a modified finish
altitude.

The fact that the FAI rules are not perfect does not seem to justify
having a completely separate set of rules.

Andy
  #8  
Old September 24th 10, 04:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Richard[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 551
Default US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll

On Sep 24, 5:10*pm, Andy wrote:
On Sep 24, 7:34*am, John Cochrane
wrote:





On Sep 23, 6:48*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:


On 9/23/2010 9:29 AM, noel.wade wrote:


I see the "problem" with the current system; but if you view
competition tasks through the lens of "complete the course, first and
foremost" then its only a problem for the Sports Class with its wide
performance-level variance. *For the other classes its more about how
you want to view tasks and what should be the _most-important_
criteria for judging someone's performance. *Is it speed around the
course and across the finish line? *Or is it distance?


In the olden days, when we had waypoints that were actually points, we
had a well defined course, and it was reasonable to talk about
completing it. Now we no longer have points, but huge areas, and you can
draw millions of courses, so maybe we should drop the idea of "the
course" and just talk about the Task. That's what people are trying to
complete - "the course" no longer exists, as each pilot picks his own
course.


And while that is the backbone of the Sports Class, it is also the
reason I had little interest in it, and eventually stopped racing as the
other classes flew fewer and fewer assigned speed tasks. But I digress...


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz


My view is quite similar to Eric's. Back in the AST days, there was a
"course" and if you made it home you "finished". I'm not so sure that
doing 61 miles and beetling home on a 270 mile day qualifies in the
same way. It's as if we let people turn around at the first turn and
get a "finish" anyway. That is the central philosophical issue.


It does happen in TATs, and in FAI classes too. The examples on the
poll question were from FAI classes. Newcastle day 2 just had a TAT
with possible distances from 66 o 245 miles, in view of very uncertain
weather.


I'm as concerned about safety and incentives not to push on in bad
weather as the next guy, and I'm usually on the other end of those
discussions. However, we have an airport bonus for that. It's not
obvious to me that we should give 600 points for landing at one
particular airport and 25 points for landing at another one. If one
sees a problem in people pushing on in bad weather, raising the
airport bonus is a more sensible step.


Part of my preference is because the change *removes and awful roll-
the-dice decision, stop in an hour for a "finish" or push on for speed
points. I hate big roll of the dice decisions. In the AST, on which
the scoring equation was based, there was no such decision, you just
keep plugging along as long as you can. The proposed new system
removes a lot of that agonizing. It's especially bad in the TAT
because you have to commit early if you want to use the option to nick
the cylinders and finish in one hour. I also dislike MATs where the
right strategy is always to buzz around in gliding distance of the
home airport so you make sure to get those "finisher" points. I didn't
take two weeks off of work and drive a thousand miles for that. Stay
safe, yes. Stay near airports, sure. But not necessarily right near
the home airport.


John Cochrane


Please adopt the FAI rules and stop wasting everyone's time with
inventing new ones! * Use any surplus energy to participate in
refining the FAI rules if changes are needed.

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I agree with Andy adopt the FAI Rules. Don't you guys on the rules
committee have something better to do like fly gliders. Guy may also
be able to fly more rather than pumping code.

You could use an established accurate scoring program like SeeYou
Competition.

Richard

  #9  
Old September 24th 10, 04:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
mattm[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 167
Default US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll

On Sep 24, 11:45*am, Richard wrote:
On Sep 24, 5:10*pm, Andy wrote:



On Sep 24, 7:34*am, John Cochrane
wrote:


On Sep 23, 6:48*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:


On 9/23/2010 9:29 AM, noel.wade wrote:


I see the "problem" with the current system; but if you view
competition tasks through the lens of "complete the course, first and
foremost" then its only a problem for the Sports Class with its wide
performance-level variance. *For the other classes its more about how
you want to view tasks and what should be the _most-important_
criteria for judging someone's performance. *Is it speed around the
course and across the finish line? *Or is it distance?


In the olden days, when we had waypoints that were actually points, we
had a well defined course, and it was reasonable to talk about
completing it. Now we no longer have points, but huge areas, and you can
draw millions of courses, so maybe we should drop the idea of "the
course" and just talk about the Task. That's what people are trying to
complete - "the course" no longer exists, as each pilot picks his own
course.


And while that is the backbone of the Sports Class, it is also the
reason I had little interest in it, and eventually stopped racing as the
other classes flew fewer and fewer assigned speed tasks. But I digress...


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz


My view is quite similar to Eric's. Back in the AST days, there was a
"course" and if you made it home you "finished". I'm not so sure that
doing 61 miles and beetling home on a 270 mile day qualifies in the
same way. It's as if we let people turn around at the first turn and
get a "finish" anyway. That is the central philosophical issue.


It does happen in TATs, and in FAI classes too. The examples on the
poll question were from FAI classes. Newcastle day 2 just had a TAT
with possible distances from 66 o 245 miles, in view of very uncertain
weather.


I'm as concerned about safety and incentives not to push on in bad
weather as the next guy, and I'm usually on the other end of those
discussions. However, we have an airport bonus for that. It's not
obvious to me that we should give 600 points for landing at one
particular airport and 25 points for landing at another one. If one
sees a problem in people pushing on in bad weather, raising the
airport bonus is a more sensible step.


Part of my preference is because the change *removes and awful roll-
the-dice decision, stop in an hour for a "finish" or push on for speed
points. I hate big roll of the dice decisions. In the AST, on which
the scoring equation was based, there was no such decision, you just
keep plugging along as long as you can. The proposed new system
removes a lot of that agonizing. It's especially bad in the TAT
because you have to commit early if you want to use the option to nick
the cylinders and finish in one hour. I also dislike MATs where the
right strategy is always to buzz around in gliding distance of the
home airport so you make sure to get those "finisher" points. I didn't
take two weeks off of work and drive a thousand miles for that. Stay
safe, yes. Stay near airports, sure. But not necessarily right near
the home airport.


John Cochrane


Please adopt the FAI rules and stop wasting everyone's time with
inventing new ones! * Use any surplus energy to participate in
refining the FAI rules if changes are needed.


Andy- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


I agree with Andy adopt the FAI Rules. *Don't you guys on the rules
committee have something better to do like fly gliders. *Guy may also
be able to fly more rather than pumping code.

You could use an established accurate scoring program like SeeYou
Competition.

Richard


No, I have to agree with John on this one. I (virtually) fly with the
IGC
rules and scoring in Condor. Vne starts, leeching, mass landouts,
low finishes to stall/spin turning final, half the field dead in the
rocks,
yeah, all that. At least it's only our virtual selves that suffer all
that.
I'm glad I don't have to fly that at real life contests.

-- Matt
  #10  
Old September 25th 10, 06:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll

On 9/24/2010 8:45 AM, Richard wrote:
On Sep 24, 5:10 pm, wrote:


Please adopt the FAI rules and stop wasting everyone's time with
inventing new ones! Use any surplus energy to participate in
refining the FAI rules if changes are needed.

Andy- Hide quoted text -


I agree with Andy adopt the FAI Rules. Don't you guys on the rules
committee have something better to do like fly gliders. Guy may also
be able to fly more rather than pumping code.

You could use an established accurate scoring program like SeeYou
Competition.


Speaking as a 35 year SSA member, a former Board of Directors member, a
former contest pilot, but still very active pilot, I have believed the
following for decades:

"The USA contest rules primary goal, in my opinion, should be to
maximize soaring participation in the USA. I don't care what rules are
used as long as they achieve this goal, and all rules should be judged
against this goal. If the rules obtained in the pursuit of this goal are
not the optimum for selecting or preparing the US Team for the World
contests, that is an unfortunate but acceptable outcome."

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SSA Contest Rules Committee Election and Poll Results (USA) Ken Sorenson Soaring 1 October 14th 08 02:11 AM
US SSA/SRA Contest Rules Poll Ken Sorenson Soaring 18 November 4th 07 05:59 PM
USA - 2005 SRA Pilot Opinion Poll Results Posted Ken Kochanski (KK) Soaring 0 December 1st 05 12:33 PM
2005 SSA Contest Rules Poll and Election [email protected] Soaring 0 September 27th 05 01:47 PM
500 foot rule and pilot opinion poll John Cochrane Soaring 84 October 2nd 03 02:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.