Junior World Championships - FAI Rules Absurdity

On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:54:56 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 2:10:47 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:

We've heard a lot of arguments for and against instituting FAI rules in the US. For the record, I lean towards the FAI rules.

I agree with you Kevin, and I suspect most in the US at least do.

I'm curious whether people like the idea of consistency with FAI rules as a matter of principle regardless of issues like this or if they prefer FAI rules based on a point-by-point comparison of the FAI us US rules and find the FAI versions superior?

For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.

9B

For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.

9B


Which resulted in many landouts in fields past the finish and short of the airport, the IGC's new safety initiative.

The speed/distance points formula is responsible for a lot of the silly stuff in the IGC rules. (If all finish, it's 1000 points for speed and 300 points for distance. When there are lots of landouts it becomes 1000 points for distance and none for speed.) If you are the only finisher and everyone else lands 1 km short, you get about 1 point for your efforts as it is a 1000 points for distance day. If you land 1 km short and everyone finishes, you get 300 points.

In the US team's analysis, this makes it imperative to play start roulette, and sit with the gaggle, even if by waiting around it becomes clear everyone will land out.

I think the formula was designed thinking only about measurement, and not thinking about incentives. If pilots ignored tactical incentives, it would indeed provide a fine measurement of performance.

John Cochrane

snip ...what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet
2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1
glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.

9B

Your analysis doesn't account for speed and the altitude gained by pulling
up after finishing.

Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.

The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) a

1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.

2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!

Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.

I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!

Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?

I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.

Sean
F2

On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:28:36 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.



The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) a



1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.



2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!



Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.



I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!



Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?



I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.



Sean

F2

talk to your CD. Ken Sorenson called 3 long MAT's at Region 10 South and everyone really liked them. Sports had TAT's the other 2 days of course, and the FAI guys had a TAT and an Assigned Task, which they all enjoyed a lot.

On Monday, August 12, 2013 12:28:36 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.



The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) a



1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.



2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!



Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.



I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!



Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?



I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.



Sean

F2

Hmm, I'm not sure the different rule sets are the major factor anymore.
More important is the age of the winners. In the US, we mostly tend
to be older by the time we get to be winners at National contests.
Competitors from other countries are younger on the whole and have
more stamina to fly well for a 3 week contest. Look at how well
our pilots did at the WWGC and Club Class WGC this year -- both of
those pilots are very able, and also younger than the average US
contest pilot.

It was heartening to see the pilots at R3 this year (sorry we missed you!),
especially the young people doing so well.

As to the rule sets, Condor contests use the IGC rules almost exclusively
(it's pretty hard to apply the US rules there, actually). I've found
that practicing on Condor does bleed over into better flying under
US contest rules. You just have to understand the differences, and especially
avoid those Vne dives through the start gate!

Matt

On Monday, August 12, 2013 10:28:36 AM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.



The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) a



1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.



2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!



Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.



I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!



Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?



I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.



Sean

F2

Interesting metric, rules length. Current (2012) IGC Sporting Code Annex A for world and continental soaring championships is a 47 page pdf file. SSA contest rules for "FAI Class Nationals" is a 40 page pdf file. Sort of almost twice as long? Try rescoring the last day at the JWGC using both scoring formulas and see which is simpler, "more transparent", and which leads to more unusual tactics, ie not flying for the best absolute performance.

Both sets of rules are very flexible in terms of tasking as well as starting and finishing procedures. Very much left up to the organizer. No denying most US organizers have low tolerance for landout risk. But that's not rule driven.

The last AST only contest I flew in was Tonopah 2003. The other current task options were available, but not used by the CD. He called a task in the morning and that was it, no changes. Memorable, but not on the top of my fun list.

I wonder how the Florida GP will handle landouts since they are using a 1000 pt scoring system. No mention at all in the rules.

On Monday, August 12, 2013 12:28:36 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.

It appears that it was not the deciding factor. That being said, it very well could have been. The Dutch team captain made an excellent decision. If Czech's would have been a little faster, or the Dutch winner a little slower, it would have been the deciding factor.

I'm not trying to say what is good/right/perfect. Its just an interesting real life situation for everyone to consider.

2C

On Monday, August 12, 2013 9:28:36 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking).


Hi Sean,

Now I'm even more curious. Allow me to probe a little further...

Why do you consider ability to read the weather and go where conditions are strongest "luck". Some people are much better at this than others (much, much better - I know some pretty decent pilots who positively lock up when you ask them to pick a turnpoint). Is it not a soaring skill, reading clouds and terrain? Doesn't lack of any meaningful option of where to go in the horizontal plane basically reduce pilot decision-making from three dimensions to one? It seems like the main skill being measured is who is able to gut it out the lowest to get the big, fast climb or game the gaggle the best since there will be much more bunching/leeching. Those are skills, but aren't they really a subset of the broader skillset of the sport.

If you like US scoring, but IGC tasking, does than mean you favor US rules, just with guidance to CDs to call tasks where every pilot has to fly more or less the same path?

9B

9B,

It's just the nature of the range of variables. Pilots flying ATs have to read the weather, terrain and clouds just the same. But the small turnpoint forces RACING rather than making big bets on those variables over a wide range of area. This introduces luck and chance, ie stumbling on to something others may not find, good or bad.

Comically, AATs are referee to as HATs (half ass tasks) by many of the better pilots I know...and I agree.

These should be absolute last resort tasks, not the norm.

Sean