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

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

On Mar 13, 11:01*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
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

I have a deep respect for the RC and the pilots who fly under their
rules. I will always remain a fan of sanctioned contests. I've made
my point more strongly than I intended so I exit this thread.

On Mar 13, 10:01*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
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

Kirk,

I would like to suggest that while OLC may not be a "sanctioned" race,
it is still a race: it is a race against the weather, the conditions,
the amount of daylight and most importantly, it is a race against your
fellow pilots flying together on that day. While true, OLC pilots will
never reach the same first name only notoriety that "racing" pilots
enjoy, to say we don't race isn't really accurate.

Regards,
Brad

Kirk,

I would like to suggest that while OLC may not be a "sanctioned" race,
it is still a race: it is a race against the weather, the conditions,
the amount of daylight and most importantly, it is a race against your
fellow pilots flying together on that day. While true, OLC pilots will
never reach the same first name only notoriety that "racing" pilots
enjoy, to say we don't race isn't really accurate.

Regards,
Brad

Sorry, Brad, I totally disagree. A "race" implies competition between people on the same task, whatever that task is. OLC doesn't have a "task"!

Definition of "Race":

Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

Verb: Compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.

OLC fits neither of these.

Why the need to mix the two? OLC is a valid form of competition, and is a lot of fun - it just isn't a race where individuals compete against each other on the same field of play. A race against fellow pilots? YGBSM! I'm in Illinois scratching around in 1 knot up to 2000', and you are running around in NM at 17999' under a cloud street? Yeah right. You get a better OLC score, that's great! But we didn't race!

I want my racing to have rules. If you don't like rules - then you probably won't like racing. I like to see how I do against other pilots on solving a problem we are all exposed to at the same time - not comparing the soaring weather where I live to the soaring weather where someone else lives.

Kirk
66

On Mar 13, 5:13*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:
Kirk,

I would like to suggest that while OLC may not be a "sanctioned" race,
it is still a race: it is a race against the weather, the conditions,
the amount of daylight and most importantly, it is a race against your
fellow pilots flying together on that day. While true, OLC pilots will
never reach the same first name only notoriety that "racing" pilots
enjoy, to say we don't race isn't really accurate.

Regards,
Brad

Sorry, Brad, I totally disagree. *A "race" implies competition between people on the same task, whatever that task is. OLC doesn't have a "task"!

Definition of "Race":

Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

Verb: Compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.

OLC fits neither of these.

Why the need to mix the two? *OLC is a valid form of competition, and is a lot of fun - it just isn't a race where individuals compete against each other on the same field of play. *A race against fellow pilots? YGBSM! I'm in Illinois scratching around in 1 knot up to 2000', and you are running around in NM at 17999' under a cloud street? *Yeah right. *You get a better OLC score, that's great! But we didn't race!

I want my racing to have rules. *If you don't like rules - then you probably won't like racing. I like to see how I do against other pilots on solving a problem we are all exposed to at the same time - not comparing the soaring weather where I live to the soaring weather where someone else lives..

Kirk
66

You are not getting it Kirk. Our kinder and gentler PC society won't
have their precious children divided into winners and losers. Look at
the bedrooms of all those Generation XYZ babies with their
certificates of participation proudly displayed. Rules? Who needs
rules if we just all strive to get along and let those mimosas do what
it takes not to have another temper tantrum. Kirk, you and I are just
too damned old to understand that.
Herb, J7

On Mar 13, 3:56*pm, Herbert kilian wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:









Kirk,

I would like to suggest that while OLC may not be a "sanctioned" race,
it is still a race: it is a race against the weather, the conditions,
the amount of daylight and most importantly, it is a race against your
fellow pilots flying together on that day. While true, OLC pilots will
never reach the same first name only notoriety that "racing" pilots
enjoy, to say we don't race isn't really accurate.

Regards,
Brad

Sorry, Brad, I totally disagree. *A "race" implies competition between people on the same task, whatever that task is. OLC doesn't have a "task"!

Definition of "Race":

Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

Verb: Compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.

OLC fits neither of these.

Why the need to mix the two? *OLC is a valid form of competition, and is a lot of fun - it just isn't a race where individuals compete against each other on the same field of play. *A race against fellow pilots? YGBSM! I'm in Illinois scratching around in 1 knot up to 2000', and you are running around in NM at 17999' under a cloud street? *Yeah right. *You get a better OLC score, that's great! But we didn't race!

I want my racing to have rules. *If you don't like rules - then you probably won't like racing. I like to see how I do against other pilots on solving a problem we are all exposed to at the same time - not comparing the soaring weather where I live to the soaring weather where someone else lives.

Kirk
66

You are not getting it Kirk. *Our kinder and gentler PC society won't
have their precious children divided into winners and losers. *Look at
the bedrooms of all those Generation XYZ babies with their
certificates of participation proudly displayed. *Rules? Who needs
rules if we just all strive to get along and let those mimosas do what
it takes not to have another temper tantrum. *Kirk, you and I are just
too damned old to understand that.
Herb, J7

Hey Herb, I'm old enough to have grandkids and I sure as hell am not a
PC hack, so understand that racing is for those who wanna race, and
OLC is for those who wanna race.
You guys have hijacked the term "race" like the gays have hijacked the
word "gay".

Herb come on up to my neck of the woods and I'll kick your ass where I
fly.

Brad
(almost forgot to add respectfully)