Minutes of Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting posted on SSA website

We've talked about this format, and the Houston club has experimented with it and found they like it.

In the US we frequently use turn area tasks and MAT (modified assigned) tasks. A popular form of the latter is the "long MAT" where everyone goes to the same turnpoints but the lower performance gliders can turn for home sooner.

These aren't exactly the same, I know. The handicap distance task removes the strategic question of how far to go into turn areas, and the strategic flexibility of going a bit more into one and a bit less into the other. But overall, like turn areas, you're going in roughly the same directions and the lower performance can turn around sooner. In the "long MAT" the high performance guys can't get behind the low performance gaggle on every turnpoint.

Still, we have two task types that accommodate racing between gliders of dissimilar performance. We have a lot of confusion by pilots on how these two work, and a strong demand from pilots to keep rules simple. So for the moment the US is "watch and wait" on this task type.

If a contest wants to try it by waiver that would be great.

John Cochrane BB

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
I note that the rules committee felt that UK style Handicap Distance Tasks
did not give enough benefit to warrant the difficulty of scoring.

In the UK we ran handicap distance tasks in several regional contests last
season and the feedback was almost universally good. Some high handicap
(fast) gliders didn't like it as they found that that they had to work
harder to stay ahead!

To overcome the scoring difficulties, we wrote some software and worked
with Naviter to make it easy to use See You Competition to score the tasks.
This has worked well.

If you use some other software then it could be harder although the process
is simple for those that complete. In theory all gliders flown equally well
will complete in the same elapsed time. Compare the handicapped speed of
each glider to the winners' for speed points. Distance points are the
same.

The difficulty comes with determining distance points for land outs. In the
UK we accept that there are some anomalies between handicaps on the grounds
that the point is to get round.

I am keen to facilitate universal acceptance of this exciting new format as
I believe that it will attract more pilots into competition. If I can help
please give me a shout.

For more information or to download the software go to
www.boffins.co.uk/gliding

Jim

The RC continually looks at innovations in racing formats that can up the competitiveness and enjoyment of the sport and/or broaden its appeal to more pilots. We had a very interesting racing/OLC discussion the evening following this year's RC meeting. There are discussions underway to try some informal experiments at Nephi this year (thanks Bruno!).


Handicapped distance task is an interesting format. There are several questions/issues that made it challenging for use in sanctioned contests, particularly in the immediate future.

1) Scoring - there is only so much capacity to integrate new features into our scoring infrastructure. Experimental task formats that require lots of coding end up low on the priority list until/unless there is known strong demand from pilots. Conversely, manual scoring, we have learned form experience, is simply too much to ask of over-taxed contest organizers, so we don't see a lot of eagerness to try new formats that would prove out the appeal.. Catch-22.

2) One of the concerns with the format that I have heard is the requirement that lower handicap pilots have to fly farther than high handicap pilots. In non-flatland flying in particular this can mean out of good lift bands, into thunderstorms, etc. The format has a bit less courseline flexibility than an AAT or MAT, so it's a potential fairness issue.

3) We already have two variable distance tasks that don't exactly mimic this format, but serve the same basic purpose.

4) The rules are already filled with complexity - this is one more change in mindset that pilots have to get their heads around in terms of mastering strategy and tactics. We get a lot of feedback that introducing changes that don't address a part of the sport that is demonstrably broken drives pilots up the wall.

If there is a big groundswell of local contests that start using this format and/or organic pilot demand, it'll certainly get more attention.

9B

On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 8:35:19 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
The minutes of the Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting have been posted on the SSA website under "Racing Rules and Process" and can be accessed directly via the link below.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2014...ng_Minutes.pdf

If you can't get the link to work automatically, copy its text and paste it into a program like Notepad, then copy the text from Notepad and paste it into your browser.

For the Committee,
John Godfrey (QT), Chair

As an "on again/off again" contest pilot in the US (for 30 years in regional & national contests), I agree that a "fat rulebook" either means people won't read it, or, will go for "shades of gray".

For the first, it can be daunting.
For latter, they're always "looking for a way".

In general, my biggest gripe (not that I can point a finger at anyone) is that, if, "Someone spirals out of a cloud and hits someone else (while illegally cloud flying), I feel bad for the "hit party"."

Yes, I will admit "flying way up in a dome under a strong CU" or "ridge soaring the face of a CU", both were likely "in violation of US FAR's (related to cloud clearance)", but I have never flown or seen "cloud flying".

While this does not make it correct, I also see a major difficulty in enforcing a rule against it.
I can foresee a case where the "FAR rules" were met but a "Monday morning quarterback" may see info that looks different.
Not to slight on anyone, just commenting.

Have at it guys........

In cockpit cameras? OK, let's say we have a contest with 40 entries and they are equipped with 10 actual cockpit cameras and 30 dummies, which is supposed to scare people into compliance. The day's task is 3 hours. Who is going to sit there and review 30 hours of video, trying to find that elusive 30 seconds of cloud flying? And if you run it in fast-forward speed, you will probably miss it if you blink. Just thought I would point out that cockpit cameras are an empty threat unless all of the video is reviewed daily. Sounds like the most boring job in the world.

And so the advantage will go to a well-practiced crew in a two-seater. The driver in front and the electronics whizz in the back seat driving all of the "stuff" and acting as captain. Should be invincible in sports and open.






On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 6:35:19 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
The minutes of the Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting have been posted on the SSA website under "Racing Rules and Process" and can be accessed directly via the link below.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2014...ng_Minutes.pdf

If you can't get the link to work automatically, copy its text and paste it into a program like Notepad, then copy the text from Notepad and paste it into your browser.

For the Committee,
John Godfrey (QT), Chair

Hey, there are some nice clouds over there! Oh wait, now it looks better over there! Or, where is the best cloud in that general direction? Let's head to that one! That's not competition soaring, it's sightseeing. It's vactioning. Touring. :-).
This is why I stopped going to contests. I can fly like this at my home airport for far less $$.
Mark