Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:01:26 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...

This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.

In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.

Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!

Hi Sean,

I've had all the start experiences you mention. I share most of your issues with them (just not in CAPS - ;-) ).

I'm not sure what the alternative proposal is, but the ones I can think of have also issues. Unlimited height start clusters everybody at the top of lift or at cloudbase if there are clouds (maybe even above cloudbase - been there, done that and I did not enjoy it). If there is no top there is no start out the top and a giant gaggle tends to form at the point where the first leg course line exists the cylinder - all at top of lift. Done that too. At least with start out the top you spread the pack out a bit.

FYI all my soaring software is European (i.e. not US-based or particularly focused on US rules) and all have a tone for getting below MSH and at 120 seconds. They work great. Not sure what you are using these days, but I expect you'll have it in a future release - it really helps an immense amount in terms of all the fiddling.

I'd love to hear your suggestion? Some possibilities:

1) Unlimited height start? If so how to handle gaggling at top of lift or cloud base and what if any enforcement for the FARs regarding clearance from clouds?
2) Eliminate two minutes below MSH?
3) If yes on #2 - Eliminate the speed limit in the start cylinder? Should there be enforcement for exceeding Vne or leave it to the pilot?
4) Other ideas? I'd love to hear some specific ideas.

Without a better alternative all we are left with is the griping part.

9B

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:09:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:01:26 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...



This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.



In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.



Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!



Hi Sean,



I've had all the start experiences you mention. I share most of your issues with them (just not in CAPS - ;-) ).



I'm not sure what the alternative proposal is, but the ones I can think of have also issues. Unlimited height start clusters everybody at the top of lift or at cloudbase if there are clouds (maybe even above cloudbase - been there, done that and I did not enjoy it). If there is no top there is no start out the top and a giant gaggle tends to form at the point where the first leg course line exists the cylinder - all at top of lift. Done that too. At least with start out the top you spread the pack out a bit.



FYI all my soaring software is European (i.e. not US-based or particularly focused on US rules) and all have a tone for getting below MSH and at 120 seconds. They work great. Not sure what you are using these days, but I expect you'll have it in a future release - it really helps an immense amount in terms of all the fiddling.



I'd love to hear your suggestion? Some possibilities:



1) Unlimited height start? If so how to handle gaggling at top of lift or cloud base and what if any enforcement for the FARs regarding clearance from clouds?

2) Eliminate two minutes below MSH?

3) If yes on #2 - Eliminate the speed limit in the start cylinder? Should there be enforcement for exceeding Vne or leave it to the pilot?

4) Other ideas? I'd love to hear some specific ideas.



Without a better alternative all we are left with is the griping part.



9B

The two minute rule causes some bad behavior as Sean and Luke described. Pilots congregate in a thermal just below the altitude limit flying at 100 kts to avoid busting the limit constantly looking at altimeters and timers. A lot of very nervous flying.

This rule is simply not a good rule. It does not improve safety so it should be removed.

How to prevent pilots from diving? Don't limit the start altitude. Then you don't need the 2 minute rule. I know this will cause pilots to stay at the cloud base but they are now all staying under the limit altitude anyway. In the end you would remove the 2 minute rule that causes problems.

I flew before the altitude limit was introduced and I felt safer then than I do now as at the cloud base no one needs to watch an altimeter or a timer.. Heads outside.

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:29:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:09:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:01:26 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:



Several times this season (18 meter nationals for example) I experienced the following US Rules starting procedure...







This is a highly dangerous process that I think should deleted from the sport. This is far more dangerous than finish height, normal thermalling or cruising in a large pack.







In short, absurd. It was alot of fun, but from a rules perspective, head down flying in this manner is not safe. It is highly charged and invites disaster.







Nibble on that for awhile and let me know if you have experienced this procedure. Please be honest!







Hi Sean,







I've had all the start experiences you mention. I share most of your issues with them (just not in CAPS - ;-) ).







I'm not sure what the alternative proposal is, but the ones I can think of have also issues. Unlimited height start clusters everybody at the top of lift or at cloudbase if there are clouds (maybe even above cloudbase - been there, done that and I did not enjoy it). If there is no top there is no start out the top and a giant gaggle tends to form at the point where the first leg course line exists the cylinder - all at top of lift. Done that too. At least with start out the top you spread the pack out a bit.







FYI all my soaring software is European (i.e. not US-based or particularly focused on US rules) and all have a tone for getting below MSH and at 120 seconds. They work great. Not sure what you are using these days, but I expect you'll have it in a future release - it really helps an immense amount in terms of all the fiddling.







I'd love to hear your suggestion? Some possibilities:







1) Unlimited height start? If so how to handle gaggling at top of lift or cloud base and what if any enforcement for the FARs regarding clearance from clouds?



2) Eliminate two minutes below MSH?



3) If yes on #2 - Eliminate the speed limit in the start cylinder? Should there be enforcement for exceeding Vne or leave it to the pilot?



4) Other ideas? I'd love to hear some specific ideas.







Without a better alternative all we are left with is the griping part.







9B



The two minute rule causes some bad behavior as Sean and Luke described. Pilots congregate in a thermal just below the altitude limit flying at 100 kts to avoid busting the limit constantly looking at altimeters and timers. A lot of very nervous flying.



This rule is simply not a good rule. It does not improve safety so it should be removed.



How to prevent pilots from diving? Don't limit the start altitude. Then you don't need the 2 minute rule. I know this will cause pilots to stay at the cloud base but they are now all staying under the limit altitude anyway. In the end you would remove the 2 minute rule that causes problems.



I flew before the altitude limit was introduced and I felt safer then than I do now as at the cloud base no one needs to watch an altimeter or a timer. Heads outside.

Nothing wrong with altitude limit as long as it is close to the cloud base - no advantage to go trough the top .
We had huge safety problem where cylinder top was well below cloud base in 2013 18M Nationals,
2012 15M Nationals Mifflin and in addition 2011 15M Nationals in Logan where limit was just 1,000 feet above ridge and most gliders were between ridge and top of the start cylinder.
I can say that above start cylinders were the most dangerous moments in my recent contest flying.
Very often there is only one strong thermal in start cylinder area and all pilots will go for it . Rules introduce behavior and we will do all possible to have start advantage on other pilots, proposal to find other thermal and start from other end is only in theory.
In US we use start cylinder and start trough the top, if we change to start line (FAI 10 km) we have larger separation in addition we don't have
30 gliders in the front half of the cylinder, Imagine 50 gliders during WGC in 5 SM start front half cylinder with US rules. ( in reality only front half cylinder is usable)
If we remove start trough the top then no advantage to be just below start altitude and slingshot trough the top in strong thermal and climb to the cloud base another 1,000 or 1,500 feet.
If we have limit of 90 or 100kt and start line for FAI class then no one will dive like in old times at VNE, it is easier to control speed then time.
Two minutes limit is removing two safety futures- vertical separation and horizontal separation as all are trying to be for 2 minutes below specific altitude, in addition it is forcing all pilots in to the same area of limited radius with no vertical separation and very close proximity I think it works opposite to safety.
Yes, we need start altitude limit in cases of very high cloud base, blue thermals or (wave 2012 WGC Uvalde) to give all pilots the same chance, but US start cylinder is very unsafe place to be.
Jerzy Szemplinski

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:40:39 PM UTC-7, Jerzy wrote:

If we have limit of 90 or 100kt and start line for FAI class then no one will dive like in old times at VNE, it is easier to control speed then time.

Two minutes limit is removing two safety futures- vertical separation and horizontal separation as all are trying to be for 2 minutes below specific altitude, in addition it is forcing all pilots in to the same area of limited radius with no vertical separation and very close proximity I think it works opposite to safety.

Yes, we need start altitude limit in cases of very high cloud base, blue thermals or (wave 2012 WGC Uvalde) to give all pilots the same chance, but US start cylinder is very unsafe place to be.

Jerzy Szemplinski

So your specific suggestion is:

1) Reset the MSH suggestion in the rules to, say, 8000' MSL. It would effectively be top of lift or cloud base on many contests in the eastern US. You'd either live with the fact that you'll sometimes get pre-start gaggles congregating at the front edge of the cylinder just barely clear of clouds - or provide for the same penalty for violating the cloud clearance FAR as for violating airspace FARs.

2) Re-set the speed limit in the start cylinder to 90 knots IAS calculated from the log file. You'd have to base it on a standard atmosphere calculation and an estimate for wind based on aggregate circling speed differentials as best as can be estimated from all the log files at the closest time available if IAS isn't available directly in each log - or require logs that include IAS if we don't require it today.

3) Based on 2), you no longer need a 2 minute rule because an 90-knot dive into the top of cylinder at 8,000 feet isn't a concern, since you'll probably be heading out on course at no less than 70.

Is that a correct summary?

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32:27 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Correction in #1 - 8,000' AGL.


So your specific suggestion is:



1) Reset the MSH suggestion in the rules to, say, 8000' MSL. It would effectively be top of lift or cloud base on many contests in the eastern US. You'd either live with the fact that you'll sometimes get pre-start gaggles congregating at the front edge of the cylinder just barely clear of clouds - or provide for the same penalty for violating the cloud clearance FAR as for violating airspace FARs.



2) Re-set the speed limit in the start cylinder to 90 knots IAS calculated from the log file. You'd have to base it on a standard atmosphere calculation and an estimate for wind based on aggregate circling speed differentials as best as can be estimated from all the log files at the closest time available if IAS isn't available directly in each log - or require logs that include IAS if we don't require it today.



3) Based on 2), you no longer need a 2 minute rule because an 90-knot dive into the top of cylinder at 8,000 feet isn't a concern, since you'll probably be heading out on course at no less than 70.



Is that a correct summary?

Great post Jerzy. We have very few pilots with true FAI rules experience. We should listen to their perspectives very carefully....

FAI start line solves many problems...

Jerzy:
Perhaps you misunderstand the rule. You do NOT have to stay below start top height the whole time before the start. You only need to stay down there for two minutes. So in these situations, fly around above MSH to your heart's content, come down for two whole minutes, and then start.
John Cochrane

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 5:58:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Jerzy:

Perhaps you misunderstand the rule. You do NOT have to stay below start top height the whole time before the start. You only need to stay down there for two minutes. So in these situations, fly around above MSH to your heart's content, come down for two whole minutes, and then start.

John Cochrane

Do you really think that XG does not know the rules? Almost insulting.

Changes I would like to see is:

1. Reduce the time to one minute. Not sure where the two minutes came from.. There is no need for that long and it just puts more pilots in the area longer.

2. Make the start penalty realistic for leaving too soon. Currently is is about 200 points for a two minute error. Totally unreasonable. How about a maximum of 50 points.

XG, the top at Logan was 1500 to 1700 feet above most of the ridges at Logan. The reason for not higher than 11,000 is that then too many pilots spend too much time hanging around trying to get that last 1000 feet in the start gate. Also at Logan very few pilots start out the top, it is usually a waste of time and costs you points.

The only site that starting out the top is really beneficial is Parowan and sometimes at Hobbs, other than that most sites it is not that important.

TT

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:08:46 PM UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:


The only site that starting out the top is really beneficial is Parowan and sometimes at Hobbs, other than that most sites it is not that important.

TT,
Would this not be more of a function of conditions? As you know I am far from being a racing veteran but I spent some time at the last contest I attended analyzing my starts and it seems that (For example) if one is in a strong climb on a blue day it would be an advantage to stay with it out the top.. Conversely, when CU were popping on the ridge between the start and the first TP, I would plan exiting the side of the start gate whenever I had the altitude to connect with the clouds and 120 seconds on SYM. What am I missing?