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

My Bad. I see "no change". But, I would still be interested in knowing why, if you have a moment, John.

Thanks for all you guys do!

Steve

The issue with the current system: If you start with the minimum number of pilots, then there is a danger of it all falling apart if one guy has problems -- equipment breaks, small damage, so on. Also, a weird thing has happened where the whole rest of the fleet has to devote themselves on the last day to making sure the last guy on the scoresheet doesn't land out, and finishes with the required 40%. So the idea was to build a buffer in to starting a contest.

The RC wisely decided not to implement it.

There is a larger question. What do we do with slowly diminishing classes? Having contests fail, as standard did at Hobbs last year, is not a great way to run a railroad.

On electronics. Yes, the whole business of policing turn and banks in iPhones was getting out of hand. But technology changes in both ways. Now that we have flight recorders, we can detect serious cloud flying. A ban on carriage is much more important when you have no idea what people are doing out there. If you circle up a few thousand feet over cloudless, expect a long hard talk with the CD. If you do it often and start winning contests expect longer and harder talks.

There is also a big philosophical push towards making rules simple. Please keep that in mind when making requests.

John Cochrane BB

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 11:58:11 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
The issue with the current system: If you start with the minimum number of pilots, then there is a danger of it all falling apart if one guy has problems -- equipment breaks, small damage, so on. Also, a weird thing has happened where the whole rest of the fleet has to devote themselves on the last day to making sure the last guy on the scoresheet doesn't land out, and finishes with the required 40%. So the idea was to build a buffer in to starting a contest.

The RC wisely decided not to implement it.

There is a larger question. What do we do with slowly diminishing classes? Having contests fail, as standard did at Hobbs last year, is not a great way to run a railroad.

On electronics. Yes, the whole business of policing turn and banks in iPhones was getting out of hand. But technology changes in both ways. Now that we have flight recorders, we can detect serious cloud flying. A ban on carriage is much more important when you have no idea what people are doing out there. If you circle up a few thousand feet over cloudless, expect a long hard talk with the CD. If you do it often and start winning contests expect longer and harder talks.

There is also a big philosophical push towards making rules simple. Please keep that in mind when making requests.

John Cochrane BB

Thank you for the reply, John. I am well aware of watching the numbers drop as a contest goes on. And it is often due to things outside of the contest that has people leaving. Guess it is the risk we will have to keep if we fly in a minimally subscribed class.

Suggestion (tongue in cheek) to a CD that has to have "the talk" with someone for climbing above cloudbase. "Next time you do that, how about you record the climb "along the edge of the cloud" for all to see at the pilot's meeting."

I had the rare fortune to do a climb up the side of a cu at a contest at TSA. In the cylinder, before the task opened. Got about 1000 feet higher than anyone else. On that day, 2 knots was a good climb, so I had 5 minutes on them at the start! Too bad that by the time I got to the "correct" side of the start cylinder, I was back down with them. But, you should have seen them searching down below me out in the blue!

Steve Leonard

At 18:51 12 January 2015, Steve Leonard wrote:

On electronics. Yes, the whole business of policing turn and banks in
iPh=
ones was getting out of hand. But technology changes in both ways. Now
that=
we have flight recorders, we can detect serious cloud flying.

Really? How does that work?

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

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

It's certainly possible to end up above cloudbase without flying in the cloud or breaking rules. Years ago, I flew from southern Arizona over the Chiricuhua Mountains into New Mexico to find myself over the tops of cumulus clouds on the other side of the hill! On another occasion, I flew out of the top of a thermal into wave that took me well over clouds that day.

Having said that, if someone is using instruments to cloud fly to get an advantage, it will be readily noticeable.

Mike

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:32:46 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:

Having said that, if someone is using instruments to cloud fly to get an advantage, it will be readily noticeable.

Mike


If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.


Evan

If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.


Evan

Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.

John Cochrane

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.


Evan

Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.

John Cochrane

JJ reported knowing of 3 pilots icing up on a thunderstorm day. Not easy to do outside of clouds.
While we can expect (many/most?)pilots to have smart phones, some of which may have a app that could permit cloud flying for a short time, there is no justifiable reason to allow true AHRS equipment is contest sailplanes. The only reason to have that equipment is to cheat on the requirements of VFR flight that we all agree to abode by when we enter a contest.
Removing the express prohibition essentially says it is OK to make cloud flying a part of the sport.
If some foolish pilot wants to try to smart phone fly, they will likely scare themselves pretty quickly.
My bigger personal concern is the obvious extension to opening of the prohibition against information coming in on the phone. With better flight tracking, it is quite foreseeable that we will have crews watching tracks and performance of competitors and feeding that information to the pilot either by voice, or text. If you start late and your crew can tell you where the guys ahead of you are doing well, you have a huge advantage.
While true enforcement is not practical, retaining the existing philosophies and rules leaves and unsportsmanlike conduct penalty still available, if appropriate.
Availability of weather information is claimed to be a safety advantage, yet the last time this was polled(2013?) the strong majority of pilots said they wished to retain the current prohibition.
FWIW
UH