Analyzing US Competition Flights

Looking at old contest data for the possibility of cloud flying is pretty meaningless. Old AH equipment was pretty obvious. However, we all can be busted for not maintaining proper VFR clearances. I really enjoy climbing up the face of a big cu and this has happened at various times waiting for a start. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time during a contest flight on course climbing in those marginal lift conditions. I think that virtually all of the “suspicious data” will be VFR clearance issues or wave conditions.

As a contest pilot, my much bigger concern is the availability of real time (or almost real time) weather information through the use of smart phones in the cockpit. To see and monitor the advancement of a weather front or cirrus deck over a task area is a MUCH larger issue than someone gaining a couple of thousand feet (probably slowly) in clouds. The person cheating with updated weather reports has a much better probability of making better course decisions than the person that doesn’t have that information and, therefore, will have faster times. Will back seaters can finally earn their way? ) I know that folk’s smart phones are a hot button, but in my opinion, we should have a bigger uproar over this issue than AH’s in the cockpit.

Although illegal for the moment, sooner or later the widely available, highly affordable technologies of the day will likely be allowed in contests. I know this might bother some, but so what. Its just a matter of time.

In terms of mobile based weather data, almost everyone has it in their pockets now nobody uses it unless a danger exists. Cost is negligible. 90% of pilots walking around the Sr's today have smart phones with data plans in their pockets. Weather is a perfect example of a technology that will likely be available to contest pilots eventually. There are some great free aviation mobile nav/weather apps for private pilots, etc. Radar, metars, surface charts, etc. What is the big deal?

Question: How many pilots (not in contests) bother to mess with mobile weather information on a fun flight, task or OLC flight? How many try to exploit this information to fly faster? How many are successful? Answer: very, very few... Reason: because most of the time accessing weather info via a smartphone makes zero difference to flight performance and is a complete waste of time (as it would be in a contest).

Does anyone have scenario's that they think would be a contest advantage for a contest pilot using mobile based weather? Please explain in detail.

AWOS is available via our radio's, so getting metars on the phone would be "neat" but also pretty pointless. AWOS is instant, metars can be almost an hour old. Flight service could be easily contacted in flight for detailed weather reports customized for our route of flight. By this means a clear picture of weather radar and atmospheric conditions, etc can be accessed today very easily in a contest (I reserve the right to claim innocence if that is somehow a rule and calling flight service in a contest is illegal). Now that I think of it...calling flight service will probably will be illegal shortly after this post arrives.

So why not just let pilots access mobile based weather if they chose via their mobile phones? Is it really that important to fight this off and call it illegal? Its just a basic technology we all possess.

Safety is one aspect that I would again argue for allowing weather to be accessed on the mobile phone. Radar: "Look there, thunderstorm is building near the next turn-point..." METAR: Towering cumulonimbus approaching, etc. Often the gliders are well out of radio contact with CD's, etc. If the pilots suspects a problem, it would be sensible to allow them to access the best information available.

The argument that people are unable or unwilling to learn how to use new technology is not one that I respond too. Give me a break. If you can send a text message you can use these apps. And the apps are not granular enough to be of any contest value other than safety and convenience. I just dont see any likely situation that will allow a pilot to "cheat" if everyone had it. But I look forward to other providing scenario's in which they think mobile weather in contests would be a game changer.

My two cents...

On Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:51:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Looking at old contest data for the possibility of cloud flying is pretty meaningless. Old AH equipment was pretty obvious. However, we all can be busted for not maintaining proper VFR clearances. I really enjoy climbing up the face of a big cu and this has happened at various times waiting for a start. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time during a contest flight on course climbing in those marginal lift conditions. I think that virtually all of the “suspicious data” will be VFR clearance issues or wave conditions..

As a contest pilot, my much bigger concern is the availability of real time (or almost real time) weather information through the use of smart phones in the cockpit. To see and monitor the advancement of a weather front or cirrus deck over a task area is a MUCH larger issue than someone gaining a couple of thousand feet (probably slowly) in clouds. The person cheating with updated weather reports has a much better probability of making better course decisions than the person that doesn’t have that information and, therefore, will have faster times. Will back seaters can finally earn their way? ) I know that folk’s smart phones are a hot button, but in my opinion, we should have a bigger uproar over this issue than AH’s in the cockpit.

I've been trying to stay out of this since I don't have a 'dog in the
fight'. However, I may be able to offer some useful observations.

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.

Arguably, most technology has a safety benefit. Anyone seeking to ban
a particular technology should proceed carefully lest they be blamed
for an accident the technology might have prevented.

Anti-tech rule making is almost always counterproductive. In some
eyes, simply banning a technology makes it appear all the more
attractive. If pilots like a banned technology, they'll install it
anyway - and then compete in OLC instead of sanctioned contests. This
drives the contest attendance still lower than it is now.

A pragmatic approach to rule making is to just keep a level playing
field. If a technology is likely to offer a significant advantage but
only the very rich can afford it, then temporarily restrict its use
until it's cheap enough all contestants can afford it. That's more or
less how it worked with GPS.

Just my $.02

On Mar 12, 11:14*am, Sean Fidler wrote:
Although illegal for the moment, sooner or later the widely available, highly affordable technologies of the day will likely be allowed in contests. *I know this might bother some, but so what. *Its just a matter of time.

In terms of mobile based weather data, almost everyone has it in their pockets now nobody uses it unless a danger exists. *Cost is negligible. 90% of pilots walking around the Sr's today have smart phones with data plans in their pockets. *Weather is a perfect example of a technology that will likely be available to contest pilots eventually. *There are some great free aviation mobile nav/weather apps for private pilots, etc. *Radar, metars, surface charts, etc. *What is the big deal?

Question: *How many pilots (not in contests) bother to mess with mobile weather information on a fun flight, task or OLC flight? *How many try to exploit this information to fly faster? *How many are successful? *Answer: very, very few... Reason: *because most of the time accessing weather info via a smartphone makes zero difference to flight performance and is a complete waste of time (as it would be in a contest).

Does anyone have scenario's that they think would be a contest advantage for a contest pilot using mobile based weather? *Please explain in detail..

AWOS is available via our radio's, so getting metars on the phone would be "neat" but also pretty pointless. *AWOS is instant, metars can be almost an hour old. *Flight service could be easily contacted in flight for detailed weather reports customized for our route of flight. By this means a clear picture of weather radar and atmospheric conditions, etc can be accessed today very easily in a contest (I reserve the right to claim innocence if that is somehow a rule and calling flight service in a contest is illegal). *Now that I think of it...calling flight service will probably will be illegal shortly after this post arrives.

So why not just let pilots access mobile based weather if they chose via their mobile phones? *Is it really that important to fight this off and call it illegal? *Its just a basic technology we all possess.

Safety is one aspect that I would again argue for allowing weather to be accessed on the mobile phone. *Radar: *"Look there, thunderstorm is building near the next turn-point..." *METAR: *Towering cumulonimbus approaching, etc. *Often the gliders are well out of radio contact with CD's, etc. *If the pilots suspects a problem, it would be sensible to allow them to access the best information available.

The argument that people are unable or unwilling to learn how to use new technology is not one that I respond too. *Give me a break. *If you can send a text message you can use these apps. *And the apps are not granular enough to be of any contest value other than safety and convenience. *I just dont see any likely situation that will allow a pilot to "cheat" if everyone had it. *But I look forward to other providing scenario's in which they think mobile weather in contests would be a game changer.

My two cents...







On Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:51:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Looking at old contest data for the possibility of cloud flying is pretty meaningless. Old AH equipment was pretty obvious. However, we all can be busted for not maintaining proper VFR clearances. I really enjoy climbing up the face of a big cu and this has happened at various times waiting for a start. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time during a contest flight on course climbing in those marginal lift conditions. I think that virtually all of the “suspicious data” will be VFR clearance issues or wave conditions.

As a contest pilot, my much bigger concern is the availability of real time (or almost real time) weather information through the use of smart phones in the cockpit. To see and monitor the advancement of a weather front or cirrus deck over a task area is a MUCH larger issue than someone gaining a couple of thousand feet (probably slowly) in clouds. The person cheating with updated weather reports has a much better probability of making better course decisions than the person that doesn’t have that information and, therefore, will have faster times. Will back seaters can finally earn their way? ) *I know that folk’s smart phones are a hot button, but in my opinion, we should have a bigger uproar over this issue than AH’s in the cockpit.

From experience, nearly every contest I've flown since 1968 has had
multiple points where knowledge of the weather elsewhere on the course
or upstream of it would have conferred a significant, in many cases
winning advantage. And this applies even to the formerly ubiquitous
assigned tasks, as well as to today's area tasks. In many of these
cases, simply seeing the cloud cover would have sufficed. In other
cases, a more detailed assessment of local forecasts and observations
would have been necessary. The argument that onboard weather is of
marginal value in competition doesn't hold up.

There is a downside to all of this. We already know we have a
potential safety problem with pilots spending too much time staring at
their little displays and not enough looking outside the cockpits
owing to the rapid proliferation of flight computers and GPS
navigation systems of increasing capability (read: complexity). How
much will onboard weather on a smart phone exacerbate this problem? I
don't think anyone can answer this analytically. It depends on the
application, the hardware platform (e.g., the UI and display),
response time, the information needed, the urgency of the need, and
the user, among other factors.

We're considering requiring a PowerFLARM in every cockpit to reduce
the odds of a midair collision which, to be cold, happens very seldom.
Yet some of the same folks who are loudest in their call for
PowerFLARM seem to take a rather more cavalier attitude towards
situational awareness when it comes to using a handheld PC or
smartphone to deliver detailed weather info. Sure, the availability of
better weather info could increase safety, but only to pilots who
choose to proceed instead of simply turning back or going around. It's
similar to the argument made about GPS years ago: knowing exactly
where you were should have allowed safer flying. Instead, what
happened was that most pilots used that precise location data to shave
their safety margin down on final glides. A few even flew right down
to the deck, almost oblivious to the fact that they were getting low
enough to choose a field.

OK, GPS doesn't break gliders; pilots break gliders. And onboard
weather won't make good pilots less safe...unless they focus on it to
the exclusion of keeping an outside view. Maybe that's why FLARM is
necessary, to allow us all to focus on our electronics, trusting FLARM
to warn us if we're getting close to someone.

I agree that trying to ban technology is difficult. But it's not
impossible, as nearly every sport has demonstrated (think golf,
Formula 1, America's Cup sailing, baseball, swimming, etc.). It all
comes down to what are our objectives and what rules do we all agree
to abide by. Most pilots are fundamentally honest. What causes some of
them to be tempted is when they think other competitors are doing it,
too. If we, as a group, decide not to allow onboard weather (or AH)
for the moment, we can make it stick by the simple expediant of clear
rules and Draconian penalties. We should make our views known (as the
above posters have done) and look to the Rules Committee for
leadership rather than letting technology drive our sport.

I work in a technology business. Technology is never a goal and never
inevitable. It is an optional means to an end. Clearly defining our
objectives allows us to more easily promulgate rules that allow the
appropriate use of technology in achieving them.

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

On Mar 12, 3:19*pm, Chip Bearden wrote:
From experience, nearly every contest I've flown since 1968 has had
multiple points where knowledge of the weather elsewhere on the course
or upstream of it would have conferred a significant, in many cases
winning advantage. And this applies even to the formerly ubiquitous
assigned tasks, as well as to today's area tasks. In many of these
cases, simply seeing the cloud cover would have sufficed. In other
cases, a more detailed assessment of local forecasts and observations
would have been necessary. The argument that onboard weather is of
marginal value in competition doesn't hold up.

There is a downside to all of this. We already know we have a
potential safety problem with pilots spending too much time staring at
their little displays and not enough looking outside the cockpits
owing to the rapid proliferation of flight computers and GPS
navigation systems of increasing capability (read: complexity). How
much will onboard weather on a smart phone exacerbate this problem? I
don't think anyone can answer this analytically. It depends on the
application, the hardware platform (e.g., the UI and display),
response time, the information needed, the urgency of the need, and
the user, among other factors.

We're considering requiring a PowerFLARM in every cockpit to reduce
the odds of a midair collision which, to be cold, happens very seldom.
Yet some of the same folks who are loudest in their call for
PowerFLARM seem to take a rather more cavalier attitude towards
situational awareness when it comes to using a handheld PC or
smartphone to deliver detailed weather info. Sure, the availability of
better weather info could increase safety, but only to pilots who
choose to proceed instead of simply turning back or going around. It's
similar to the argument made about GPS years ago: knowing exactly
where you were should have allowed safer flying. Instead, what
happened was that most pilots used that precise location data to shave
their safety margin down on final glides. A few even flew right down
to the deck, almost oblivious to the fact that they were getting low
enough to choose a field.

OK, GPS doesn't break gliders; pilots break gliders. And onboard
weather won't make good pilots less safe...unless they focus on it to
the exclusion of keeping an outside view. Maybe that's why FLARM is
necessary, to allow us all to focus on our electronics, trusting FLARM
to warn us if we're getting close to someone.

I agree that trying to ban technology is difficult. But it's not
impossible, as nearly every sport has demonstrated (think golf,
Formula 1, America's Cup sailing, baseball, swimming, etc.). It all
comes down to what are our objectives and what rules do we all agree
to abide by. Most pilots are fundamentally honest. What causes some of
them to be tempted is when they think other competitors are doing it,
too. If we, as a group, decide not to allow onboard weather (or AH)
for the moment, we can make it stick by the simple expediant of clear
rules and Draconian penalties. We should make our views known (as the
above posters have done) and look to the Rules Committee for
leadership rather than letting technology drive our sport.

I work in a technology business. Technology is never a goal and never
inevitable. It is an optional means to an end. Clearly defining our
objectives allows us to more easily promulgate rules that allow the
appropriate use of technology in achieving them.

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

Chip, I think the "heads down while fiddling with the gadgets" problem
(and I agree there is one) is due to a single cause and it's not the
presence of the gadgets. It's pilots stupidly trying to learn how to
use them while in flight.

If a pilot really knows how to use a gadget, the pilot will look at it
only when information is needed. It won't take more than a second or
two and it'll represent ~1% of the total flight time.

The right way to learn a gadget is on the ground using Condor as a GPS
stand in or while playing back a flight on SeeYou. I've seen a couple
of pilots sitting in their cockpits on the ground with a laptop
running SeeYou in animation mode feeding NMEA data to the glide
computer. Smart guys.

Good post Chip.

Guys, sorry to not post clearly. I have no issues with technology being introduced into soaring competition. Quite the contrary, I was really glad to see the twin point and shoot cameras bite the dust. Flight computers are wonderful. The point is not about the increasing technology, but properly managing that technology so that the playing field is even for all. Some want instant changes. I'm glad the RC takes a managed approach and looks at all angles before they make a decision. I've seen way too much "shooting from the hip" and the typical outcome is not satisfactory. Let's let the RC run with the ball and give them the time to do it right.
Craig

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

On 3/12/2012 7:32 PM, Papa3 wrote:
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.

Yes, I think so. When I was an SSA Director in the late '80s, I thought
contest rules should be selected to maximize the growth of the Society.
More or fewer classes? More or less technology? Longer/shorter tasks?
Whatever caused the most growth over the years was the right choice was
my thinking then.

I still think it's the best goal; admittedly, a difficult one to follow,
but worth reflecting on when the conversation starts to get lost in the
details.

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

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Mar 12, 8:32*pm, Papa3 wrote:

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

Well, good luck with that.

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your preferences, there's
another glider competition system with no equipment limitations - OLC
- and pilots seem to like it.

I think a bigger problem for rule makers is convincing OLC pilots to
try sanctioned contests. If they have to remove their beloved gadgets
to participate, that makes it harder.

That's not to say sanctioned contest rules shouldn't restrict
technology - they should, but wisely and only to maintain a level
playing field.

On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:32:32 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:

Well, good luck with that.

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your preferences, there's
another glider competition system with no equipment limitations - OLC
- and pilots seem to like it.

I think a bigger problem for rule makers is convincing OLC pilots to
try sanctioned contests. If they have to remove their beloved gadgets
to participate, that makes it harder.

That's not to say sanctioned contest rules shouldn't restrict
technology - they should, but wisely and only to maintain a level
playing field.

Bill, you are mixing apples and oranges. OLC, while a contest, is not (and never has been, or ever will be) a RACE.

A contest can have very simple rules ("go as far as you can in a glider"). But if I show up in a Concordia, and you show up in a 1-26, we are not racing. A race, to be fair and interesting, has to have tight rules.

There is plenty of room for both in our sport, as the two activities are not mutually exclusive.

I do fail to see the problem with restrictive rules in racing. If you want to race, read and comply with the rules, then have fun. It's as simple as that. Really.

Kirk
66