![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.
9B" Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out. TT " The current rules for finish cylinders specify t hat for the first 200 feet below the minimum finish height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of 20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet below MFH, the pilot is scored as if he landed out at the home ai rport. The intent is to make it transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont inuing a marginal final glide. However, it moves the end of the race for speed points from landing at the airport to crossing a point at MFH-200'. Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude): A: The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below the finish height should be the same as the penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground. B: The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below the finish height should be more severe than for a high start, since safety as well as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground. C: Scoring for crossing the finish cylinder below the fini sh height should be the same as coming up short on a line finish - if you come up short you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for instrument error)" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:08:32 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
"The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process. 9B" Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out. TT " The current rules for finish cylinders specify t hat for the first 200 feet below the minimum finish height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of 20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet below MFH, the pilot is scored as if he landed out at the home ai rport. The intent is to make it transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont inuing a marginal final glide. However, it moves the end of the race for speed points from landing at the airport to crossing a point at MFH-200'. Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude): A: The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below the finish height should be the same as the penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground. B: The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below the finish height should be more severe than for a high start, since safety as well as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground. C: Scoring for crossing the finish cylinder below the fini sh height should be the same as coming up short on a line finish - if you come up short you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for instrument error)" Hey Tim, A few pilots do review the survey before it goes out. I'm sure there is room for improvement. I also thought the results were pretty clear. No, there was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues - it was intended to survey views on paths forward and overall objectives rather than a vote on a specific penalty structure which had plenty of detailed feedback provided already. The very specific structure of a rule is not practical to survey for in multiple-choice format. Verbatims help as do focus-group format discussions. 9B |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:26:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:08:32 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote: "The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process. 9B" Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out. TT " The current rules for finish cylinders specify t hat for the first 200 feet below the minimum finish height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of 20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet below MFH, the pilot is scored as if he landed out at the home ai rport. The intent is to make it transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont inuing a marginal final glide. However, it moves the end of the race for speed points from landing at the airport to crossing a point at MFH-200'. Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude): A: The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below the finish height should be the same as the penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground. B: The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below the finish height should be more severe than for a high start, since safety as well as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground. C: Scoring for crossing the finish cylinder below the fini sh height should be the same as coming up short on a line finish - if you come up short you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for instrument error)" Hey Tim, A few pilots do review the survey before it goes out. I'm sure there is room for improvement. I also thought the results were pretty clear. No, there was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues - it was intended to survey views on paths forward and overall objectives rather than a vote on a specific penalty structure which had plenty of detailed feedback provided already. The very specific structure of a rule is not practical to survey for in multiple-choice format. Verbatims help as do focus-group format discussions. 9B After reviewing the data the result's were very clear. 73% (168 out of 231) of the pilots voted that they wanted the points to go all the way to the ground. That is nearly 3/4 of the pilots said they DID NOT want a hard deck or any type of land out penalty imposed on those that crossed the finish line. Rules committee please explain why we did not immediately reverse the land out rule on finishes when you saw these results? How much clearer do you need the data to be to react and rectify a rule that was not liked by 3 out of 4 pilots? Tim Taylor |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:41:04 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
Rules committee please explain why we did not immediately reverse the land out rule on finishes when you saw these results? How much clearer do you need the data to be to react and rectify a rule that was not liked by 3 out of 4 pilots? Tim Taylor Here's the explanation - my personal interpretation. The survey included a question on the overall rule approach to get pilots' view of relative proportionality versus other penalties. The least severe option as applied to a 1000' finish cylinder (which in my experience is the mode MSH currently in use) would invoke a penalty such that a rolling finish would get distance points. This is slightly more severe than your option - 0.5 points per foot (less a 100' buffer). It is more severe than the current rule for the first few hundred feet (I'd need to model it to get the crossover), less severe for middle altitudes and about the same for a rolling finish. We saw it as less severe overall. The middle choice called for a more severe penalty than the start penalty - it did not specify how much more. Let's say 0.75 to 1.0 points per foot. For a 1,000' gate this would be 675-900 point penalty for a rolling finish. This was viewed as about the same as current option, since there are several hundred feet in the middle where the points penalties are close and we didn't assume pilots took it that the rules would ever penalize to a total score less than distance points. The most severe option was a landout for being lower than MFH (allowing for altimeter error). This was viewed as more severe than the current option - mandatory landout for missing MFH. So the summary was 1/4 for less severe, 1/2 for about the same and 1/4 for more severe. It wasn't just the survey that was used as input, there was a lot of discussion of the SRA meeting feedback. The overall conclusion was not to tweak the rules every year - especially on a change that was only in force for a year. The RC minutes reflect this. I think it's fair to say this is continues to be an area of focus. 9B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sean F2, Evan T8, HELP! Current finish cylinder rule! | Tom Kelley #711 | Soaring | 5 | May 24th 13 09:59 PM |
Safety finish rule & circle radius | Frank[_1_] | Soaring | 19 | September 12th 07 07:31 PM |
Height records? | Paul Repacholi | Soaring | 2 | September 7th 03 03:14 PM |