Junior World Championships - FAI Rules Absurdity

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

Ok. To summarize a bit from the last few posts, the main problems with the US rules a
1. HATE MAT tasks.
2. Pretty much dislike AAT tasks
3. Want an adrenaline rush on final glide

To me, the first two are an issue between the CD and the pilots at the contest. No rule changes need to be implemented to cover those 2 issues. The only drawback I foresee is that out of 30 pilots at a contest, 5 will want AST's called every day and the other 25 will not return next year because they prefer MAT's and AAT's and don't want to fly for 5 hours on task (6+ for the day). The vocal minority keeps this issue up and running in RAS.

The third is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Both rule sets include procedures that must be obeyed to return to the airport. I compete in a few locations where you could be dead if you land 1/2 mile short of the airport. Sagebrush and lava are not forgiving to fiberglass moving at 48 knots. Agreed, the penalties in the US rules are severe for low returns and speed vs. distance points. You don't need a contest to practice low contest finishes. To prep for an FAI contest, you can do that on any flight at your home airport. So other than getting a thrill and doing it in front of the other contest pilots, what is the point? For me, landing safely without damage to my glider (or me) after many hours in the air is more important than an adrenaline hit.
Craig Reinholt

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

Guys, we love you to bits but this does look like a bit of a recurring
theme to us in the rest of the world. Maybe the US self belief that the US
knows best is what drives you to success but to many in the wider world it
looks a bit daft.

World IGC Rules - US different
World Metric - US Imperial
In particular for commerical aviation:
World Tonnes - US Pounds
World HPa - US Inches of Mercury

Then there is:
World Colour/Favour/Labour - US Color/Favor/Labor
World Government Transparancy - US Gov Secrecy
World Whistle blower hero - US Traitor
World Left leaning liberalism - US Right wing imperialism, I am joking but
to many it looks just like that, more war war than jaw jaw.

Believe me, there is a big wide world out there, that has many varied
cultures and customs, and that is learning how to work together in many
ways for the common good.

You do not need to stand apart or 'lead' all the time, it would be good if
the US sometimes decided to join in. Go on, you can do it!

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, Jim White wrote:


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

rules (5% of the world) a



Guys, we love you to bits but this does look like a bit of a recurring

theme to us in the rest of the world. Maybe the US self belief that the US

knows best is what drives you to success but to many in the wider world it

looks a bit daft.



World IGC Rules - US different

World Metric - US Imperial

In particular for commerical aviation:

World Tonnes - US Pounds

World HPa - US Inches of Mercury



Then there is:

World Colour/Favour/Labour - US Color/Favor/Labor

World Government Transparancy - US Gov Secrecy

World Whistle blower hero - US Traitor

World Left leaning liberalism - US Right wing imperialism, I am joking but

to many it looks just like that, more war war than jaw jaw.



Believe me, there is a big wide world out there, that has many varied

cultures and customs, and that is learning how to work together in many

ways for the common good.



You do not need to stand apart or 'lead' all the time, it would be good if

the US sometimes decided to join in. Go on, you can do it!

Jim,

Glad you still love is even if the government that claims to have the consent of the governed (it certainly hasn't been the "informed consent", lol) isn't so lovable.

You have to understand that politics over here borrows much from professional sports. It doesn't matter that your team is insane, paranoid and intends to trod unforgivably on the very things that made this country (pardon my chauvinism) special, it matters that they win. And having won, principles and promises of doing things a certain way can be safely swept into the closet, business continues apace and the cheer leaders and the fans still cheer.

There's plenty of bs in competition rules on all sides of all oceans. I think it'd be really nice if we all converged on a rules set that kept the emphasis on soaring rather than game theory. It's my opinion that US rules are slightly better in this regard at the moment, but that's just my opinion..

Best,

Evan Ludeman / T8