Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:08:46 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
Changes I would like to see is:

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

Hi Tim,

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm not sure where/how you determine that "at most sites [starting out the top] is not that important." Looking at some of my best performances at Cordele and Mifflin, it's been due to nailing a corker at the start and climbing at 5 knots to 1500-2000 feet above the top, allowing me to bypass the slow gaggle and catch up to some of the faster guys. I ran some numbers that showed only a 2kt (already centered) improvement in the climb was worth the time "penalty". Is there something I'm missing.

Curious in Jersey (P3)

I like the free start height option. It goes nicely with open start times and will really reward pilots for finding and centering lift. Also may break up the pack and provide interesting tactics.

And sorry for the title of my thread but the beating IGC rules are taking on RAS and in other mediums from certain US pilots needed some balance ;-).

For the record, I felt OK? with this starting procedure although it was highly energized (airspeed and turning radius), often with a big pull up back into a climb after 2 minutes had passed. As long as all the pilots 'knew what was happening tactically' it was fine but occasionally I saw guys going 55 knots thermaling up thru guys going 140 knots descending and later pulling back up into the same crowded thermal....

The golden BB syndrome comes into play mixing gliders in this manner....a lot of chaos can develop in a hurry. So much so that I pulled off and went away once as I was growing concerned about the complexity of keeping track

Again, I think an unlimited or free height start might be safer. Cloud flying is not a concern of mine. It should be self policed. One thought is on days with clouds you could get still get packs waiting for each other to start under said cloud. At least they would not be mixing up and down and looking into their cockpits as often...and they would all be going roily the same speed, turning left, etc.

Sean
F2

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:39:41 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
I like the free start height option. It goes nicely with open start times and will really reward pilots for finding and centering lift. Also may break up the pack and provide interesting tactics.

And sorry for the title of my thread but the beating IGC rules are taking on RAS and in other mediums from certain US pilots needed some balance ;-).
Sean

F2

Unlimited start heights are unfair to the guy/girl at the back of the grid. Minden and even Hobbs on occasion have cloudbases above 17,500'. All 8 IGC contests I have flown have used height limited starts- usually 1200-2000m.
Richard Walters

Richard,

Why? Any start opening 15 minutes after the last launch has the potential of being unfair on a weak day (loosing the gaggle). This is just part of the nature of soaring. Sometimes you have to do it yourself! ;-)

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 5:32:50 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Richard,
Why? Any start opening 15 minutes after the last launch has the potential of being unfair on a weak day (loosing the gaggle). This is just part of the nature of soaring. Sometimes you have to do it yourself! ;-)

Sean,
There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled
is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue.
Richard Walters

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:05:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Sean, There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue. Richard Walters

I have been last off, and 6 or 7 of the 15 minutes were spent on tow because of a weak towplane and not finding any lift to get off in. Finally got off at 2K AGL in a measly weak thermal. I now have 8 or 9 minutes to climb 6000+ feet and fly to the front half of the start cylinder because the drop zone is not even in the start cylinder for the day. It is not so much the weak, low days that can make an unlimited height start unfair. It is the taller days. Where thermals are farther apart. And as others have pointed out, there may only be one good thermal in the front half of your cylinder..

I am with Rick. Limited start height is good. Option to climb out the top or run out the side is good. We need to educate pilots that it is much easier and more effieicent to stay 500 or even 1000 feet below the top until you are ready to climb out the top, if that is your choice. Why? Do you really think you can "feel" the thermal running around at 100 knots with your dive brakes out 100 feet below the top of the cylinder? If you are well below the top of the cylinder, you don't need to be watching the altimeter. Leave. Cruise around a bit. Get back into the thermal and give yourself time to get centered before going out the top. Your climb rate will be better from the time you actually do start until you leave that first climb.

As with so many other rules, pilot behavior can and will test the edges of any rule. You the pilot can choose to make the rule safe or dangerous.

Just my 2 cents.

Steve Leonard

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:05:42 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:05:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:

Sean, There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue. Richard Walters



I have been last off, and 6 or 7 of the 15 minutes were spent on tow because of a weak towplane and not finding any lift to get off in. Finally got off at 2K AGL in a measly weak thermal. I now have 8 or 9 minutes to climb 6000+ feet and fly to the front half of the start cylinder because the drop zone is not even in the start cylinder for the day. It is not so much the weak, low days that can make an unlimited height start unfair. It is the taller days. Where thermals are farther apart. And as others have pointed out, there may only be one good thermal in the front half of your cylinder.



I am with Rick. Limited start height is good. Option to climb out the top or run out the side is good. We need to educate pilots that it is much easier and more effieicent to stay 500 or even 1000 feet below the top until you are ready to climb out the top, if that is your choice. Why? Do you really think you can "feel" the thermal running around at 100 knots with your dive brakes out 100 feet below the top of the cylinder? If you are well below the top of the cylinder, you don't need to be watching the altimeter. Leave. Cruise around a bit. Get back into the thermal and give yourself time to get centered before going out the top. Your climb rate will be better from the time you actually do start until you leave that first climb..



As with so many other rules, pilot behavior can and will test the edges of any rule. You the pilot can choose to make the rule safe or dangerous.



Just my 2 cents.

Steve Leonard

The simple implication of raising the start height is to increase the time lag from last launch to gate open. For starts up to 17,500, just accounting for tow time, search time and climb time in a thermal that is 2 standard deviations below the mean in strength you'd be talking 45 minutes to an hour depending under typical circumstances - and that's under pretty much ideal conditions in terms of a pilot finding a climb. That's what you'd need to do if you want to let the last guys on the grid get up to start height. Much shorter and you run a big risk of most of the field heading out on course while the last guys off the grid are still climbing.

This may not be all that desirable, depending on the day. You only rarely see pilots getting a floor to ceiling climb right out of the start cylinder, so it might be preferred to let people get out on course and get up to altitude over a few climbs rather that ensuring by rule that most everybody can make a full climb to cloud base first.

I've also been thinking that a lower speed limit in place of the two minute rule might be hard to enforce and would certainly lead to some unhappiness for pilots who get caught in the speed trap, just due to inherent imprecision in estimating IAS off of a flight log.

Since I got my integrated two minute timer in both my computers I am less concerned about the timing workload. Also, the analysis I did a couple of years ago comparing starts through the top of the cylinder versus the edge (before versus after the rule changed) showed a very significant reduction in pre-start congestion and gaggling.

9B

Rich,

If someone gets to 10k ahead of me launching, I would expect that I should be able to get that high as well in short order. If not, its probably my problem. I need to give myself time to climb up just as the early launcher did. Sometimes there is not enough time for the late launchers to be in position to start 15 minutes after launching or with the early starters. So what? This is a basic fact of contests. I just don't see a early launcher having a head start over a late launcher or re-lite as unfair. As with many things, it depends.

Back to the climbs. The ability to climb higher than the others requires great skill. Often its lighter wing-loading which balances out over the task, etc (assuming all other factors are equal). Sure, occasionally one may get 500 ft above the rest before starting. Good for them! Is this luck? Skill? I say skill.

Furthermore, within a start area and over a period of an hour or so, opportunities to climb should be fairly uniform in said area. I don't see a major difference in climb potential in the start process unless you are in a wave condition and are inexperienced with wave flying.

Grid positions are random, and part of our sports nature (until we all have motor gliders). Example: I was left behind unable to climb high enough to start one day this year at 18 meter nationals. Should I have called the CD and said this is unfair? I was just not finding lift as the gaggles heading out on task (I was 1500 below, struggling), and it took me 20-30 minutes to find a climb and set off after the pack. In my opinion that is just part of the game. Fairness is not guaranteed, same as skill varies. That day it was my inexperience that cost me the chance to start with the pack, not unfairness.

What if you cant get as high as a guy who launched after you? Is that also unfair? ;-)

Anyhoo, I just don't seem to get the unfairness you are concerned with regarding an unlimited start height which will allow pilots to get their heads out of the contest in this highly dangerous part of contest flying. I see it as a great solution to a massive problem that is just a mistake away from causing a big, big bummer for a couple unlucky pilots.

Safety first! Everything else is a distant second. Pilots need to have their heads out of the cockpit, especially when in the start cylinder/line area!

Sean

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:05:10 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 5:32:50 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Richard,

Why? Any start opening 15 minutes after the last launch has the potential of being unfair on a weak day (loosing the gaggle). This is just part of the nature of soaring. Sometimes you have to do it yourself! ;-)



Sean,

There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled

is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue.

Richard Walters

On Friday, August 16, 2013 11:35:26 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Rich,
If someone gets to 10k ahead of me launching, I would expect that I should be able to get that high as well in short order. If not, its probably my problem.
Sean

Sean,
You are forgeting that sometimes the lift that goes to 17,500' is nowhere near the start cylinder. Assuming a large contest and a one hour launch, the first off the grid have an additional hour to explore and utilize this lift, then return for a start. What if the task is overcalled? Invariably, your day at the front of the grid will be met with low cloudbases. Sign up for Minden next year and you can experience in person just how unfair your proposal is.
Richard Walters