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

Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...

Cheers
Luke Szczepaniak

The line vs. cylinder is not about geometry, it's about altitude. If you're all coming in the same direction at low altitude over houses and quarries, that doesn't help all that much.

A finish line -- which really means a low minimum finish altitude -- is a maneuver requiring delicate management of energy and last-minute landout options. 500 extra feet makes a world of difference in a last 5 mile landout.

Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

Hank, oh hank, why did you have to stir this up?

John Cochrane.

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:


Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

John Cochrane.

By "last year", John means 2013. And, John, I could just as easily point out that on Day 4 of that same contest, with a finish cylinder, a pilot kept pushing towards home thinking he would get lift and ended up landing just a very few miles out (about 7). You can't blame that one on a low minimum finish altitude, John, yet you don't ever mention it. Why not?

And, Luke, I will disagree strongly that a finish line and a close in steering point is a good idea. Why the heck would you want to drive everyone towards a point close to home, so they are at low altitude, looking at their GPS to make sure they get in or don't go out the far side of that circle, then have them turn and start looking out for the close corner of the finish line? If you use a line, leave it pure as a line, with a last turnpoint far enough away that you aren't funneling everyone together. Leave the final glide long and straight and let them be looking for traffic straight ahead, where everyone will be going. Know that altitudes and courses will be converging and that you need to be aware that not everyone will have taken the same final glide line that you did, so be looking left, right, up and down.

Now, I will throw fuel on the fire and join Hank under the desk. On a MAT, I would rather deal with gate hooking than a mandatory close in final turnpoint. Why? I (think I) am smart enough to not cut my final glide to the point where I will have no good options when I get back to the airport. Close in final turnpoints that could require a near 180 degree course reversal assure same altitude inbound and outbound traffic. But, my real preference for a MAT task is a finish cylinder with a good minimum height. Maybe that will quell the fire a bit with some? And make it worse with others.

Steve Leonard

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:12:11 PM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:


Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

John Cochrane.

By "last year", John means 2013. And, John, I could just as easily point out that on Day 4 of that same contest, with a finish cylinder, a pilot kept pushing towards home thinking he would get lift and ended up landing just a very few miles out (about 7). You can't blame that one on a low minimum finish altitude, John, yet you don't ever mention it. Why not?

And, Luke, I will disagree strongly that a finish line and a close in steering point is a good idea. Why the heck would you want to drive everyone towards a point close to home, so they are at low altitude, looking at their GPS to make sure they get in or don't go out the far side of that circle, then have them turn and start looking out for the close corner of the finish line? If you use a line, leave it pure as a line, with a last turnpoint far enough away that you aren't funneling everyone together. Leave the final glide long and straight and let them be looking for traffic straight ahead, where everyone will be going. Know that altitudes and courses will be converging and that you need to be aware that not everyone will have taken the same final glide line that you did, so be looking left, right, up and down.

Now, I will throw fuel on the fire and join Hank under the desk. On a MAT, I would rather deal with gate hooking than a mandatory close in final turnpoint. Why? I (think I) am smart enough to not cut my final glide to the point where I will have no good options when I get back to the airport. Close in final turnpoints that could require a near 180 degree course reversal assure same altitude inbound and outbound traffic. But, my real preference for a MAT task is a finish cylinder with a good minimum height. Maybe that will quell the fire a bit with some? And make it worse with others.

Steve Leonard

It's an interesting question about where, and how high, you want to congregate traffic. In the end, if you intend to finish at the airport you are going to have a bunch of gliders coming together at whatever the finish height is (maybe zero if it's a gate). If it's a line with anything but a basically perpendicular final course line you will be concentrating that traffic at the close end of the gate and at the finish height. I was squeezed up against that point a few times 30 years ago. I still remember the experience vividly - including the other pilots. It works decently well on an AST (Fidler - you listening?) because you are all lined up on final glide and know who you are going to be dealing with at the finish 20-30 miles out. With modern tasks (TAT and MAT) I think you need a steering turn at least 20-30 miles out where people are at altitude and cruising, rather than on final glide where they all hit the turn on final glide at the same altitude. I'd still take converging traffic to a 1-mile cylinder at altitude over converging traffic to the edge of a gate at zero feet. In fact I'm not even sure how you'd do it on a MAT without a mandatory final turn where gliders could be trying to hook the gate going opposite directions at redline and zero feet - ouch!

9B

Yep, listening. Interesting discussion.

My solution is more assigned tasks (AT) and less conversation about these silly, rule intensive "compromise tasks." We should be flying 40% AT's instead of the current 5-7% (2013).

You called MAT and AAT tasks, "modern tasks." I almost fell off my chair. Please! "Modern" is a very poor choice of words for AAT/MAT tasking. AAT//MAT tasks are diluted, compromised tasks created to allow CD's to deal with poor weather, broad handicap range classes and/or perhaps broad pilot skill level within a single class. I still cannot believe that some pilots actually PREFER to do "compromise tasks" vs pure/clean/simple assigned tasks. As soaring pilots, we only get a few contests a year (if we are lucky). Does anyone really wake up in the morning at a contest and WANT to do a TAT tasks? I hope not.

Furthermore, the skill level required to effectively "time" AAT turns or choose the correct sequence of free MAT turnpoints is quite high. These complex "compromise tasks" are actually difficult for beginners both in terms of rules and strategy. I would expect that both novice and experienced pilots would strongly prefer AT's. Assigned Tasks have (by far) the lowest amount of complexity. A pilot could EASILY fly an AT with a cheap GPS ($150) and have little or no need for expensive flight computers.

As for the AHRS/smart phone rule discussion, if we are serious about stoping this behavior we should do cameras. Here is how it could work. Pilots would be required to produce a flight trace AND a clear video file of their flight (clear view out of the canopy). Suitable cameras are available for $100. If (and only if) a cloud flying protest is made, the CD would ask the "protested" pilot to produce the video file. The CD could then easily go to the portion of the flight the protest identifies without having to watch the entire video. If you are not protested (99.99999% of the time), you still have great video library to share. CD's (and protesters) would have PROOF if cloud flying occurred. No playing around. I think its a good idea IF we really think cloud flying is actually influencing results often (ice on wings story from last year?). Maybe it is. Only thing I know for sure is the OLD RULE was not preventing it AT ALL!


On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 1:03:15 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:12:11 PM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:


Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

John Cochrane.

By "last year", John means 2013. And, John, I could just as easily point out that on Day 4 of that same contest, with a finish cylinder, a pilot kept pushing towards home thinking he would get lift and ended up landing just a very few miles out (about 7). You can't blame that one on a low minimum finish altitude, John, yet you don't ever mention it. Why not?

And, Luke, I will disagree strongly that a finish line and a close in steering point is a good idea. Why the heck would you want to drive everyone towards a point close to home, so they are at low altitude, looking at their GPS to make sure they get in or don't go out the far side of that circle, then have them turn and start looking out for the close corner of the finish line? If you use a line, leave it pure as a line, with a last turnpoint far enough away that you aren't funneling everyone together. Leave the final glide long and straight and let them be looking for traffic straight ahead, where everyone will be going. Know that altitudes and courses will be converging and that you need to be aware that not everyone will have taken the same final glide line that you did, so be looking left, right, up and down.

Now, I will throw fuel on the fire and join Hank under the desk. On a MAT, I would rather deal with gate hooking than a mandatory close in final turnpoint. Why? I (think I) am smart enough to not cut my final glide to the point where I will have no good options when I get back to the airport. Close in final turnpoints that could require a near 180 degree course reversal assure same altitude inbound and outbound traffic. But, my real preference for a MAT task is a finish cylinder with a good minimum height. Maybe that will quell the fire a bit with some? And make it worse with others..

Steve Leonard

It's an interesting question about where, and how high, you want to congregate traffic. In the end, if you intend to finish at the airport you are going to have a bunch of gliders coming together at whatever the finish height is (maybe zero if it's a gate). If it's a line with anything but a basically perpendicular final course line you will be concentrating that traffic at the close end of the gate and at the finish height. I was squeezed up against that point a few times 30 years ago. I still remember the experience vividly - including the other pilots. It works decently well on an AST (Fidler - you listening?) because you are all lined up on final glide and know who you are going to be dealing with at the finish 20-30 miles out. With modern tasks (TAT and MAT) I think you need a steering turn at least 20-30 miles out where people are at altitude and cruising, rather than on final glide where they all hit the turn on final glide at the same altitude. I'd still take converging traffic to a 1-mile cylinder at altitude over converging traffic to the edge of a gate at zero feet. In fact I'm not even sure how you'd do it on a MAT without a mandatory final turn where gliders could be trying to hook the gate going opposite directions at redline and zero feet - ouch!

9B

If your flying in clouds and its working, you should be in the top three, right? Why not issue the top three a camera, right after we weigh them? These cameras can be set to take photo every minute, so a 3 hour flight would only have 180 frames...........not a burden to review, only looking for an all grey shot, right? Ice is not the only thing that one can find inside a cloud.
Trust, but verify!
JJ

On Thursday, 22 January 2015 07:40:07 UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
If your flying in clouds and its working, you should be in the top three, right? Why not issue the top three a camera, right after we weigh them? These cameras can be set to take photo every minute, so a 3 hour flight would only have 180 frames...........not a burden to review, only looking for an all grey shot, right? Ice is not the only thing that one can find inside a cloud.
Trust, but verify!
JJ

Requiring cameras is as ridiculous as weighing gliders. Let's see I finish in the top 3 for the day so I get weighed the next day. HMMMM wonder how that is proving anything

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 2:48:09 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
... My solution is more assigned tasks (AT) ...
... We should be flying 40% AT's instead of the current 5-7% (2013).

Looks like latest rules have discarded AT:

10.3.2.1 Assigned Task (AT) - Speed over a course of one or more designated turnpoints, with a finish at the contest site. This task is available only for US Club Class...

On 01/23/2015 10:41 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
Looks like latest rules have discarded AT:

10.3.2.1 Assigned Task (AT) - Speed over a course of one or more designated turnpoints, with a finish at the contest site. This task is available only for US Club Class...


This is in the sports class rules not in the FAI rules, sports class did
not support AST tasks untill now. FAI classes still have AST.

Luke Szczepaniak

Pure AT's are almost as rare as ridge soaring unicorns in the United States today: http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/09/13/uni...8&y=429&crop=1

As only 3% of SSA sanctioned contest tasks (all classes sports, FAI, 15, 18, Standard & Open in both regionals and nationals) were AT's in 2013. THREE PERCENT! The 2014 "numbers" are coming soon. Anyone care to wager what the 2014 AT % will be?

Link to the 2013 SSA Task Spreadsheet he https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

It is waste of printer ink to include a rule forbidding ASTs in sports class. Why bother? The likelihood of getting as AST at a sports class regional or nationals (only the US has a "sports class") is almost zero. AST's have been criminalized and *******ized by the US/SSA into the MAT. Most MAT's in 2013 were the DREADED "one turn" MAT aka OLC task. I won't even speak about the 1 turn MAT other than to say that nothing justifies OLC contests better.

The MAT is a poor task in my opinion. It only exists in the USA (SSA) I believe. If that is true, I think it is for very good reason. As the prominent feature of a MAT (much like the TAT) is a minimum time, it is not a racing task by definition. The complexity that is inherently introduced at the end of the long MAT (the only reasonable MAT) often screws up the leaders great performance (to that point) as a mistake in choosing the extra turn point(s) often results in another pilot "getting lucky." Timing/task speed is also critical. If the first pilot to the final "called" MAT point is 5-10 minutes early, they really have no time to hit another point. They may be forced to simply give up that time. The alternative is to "take a chance" in adding another free turn point while the trailers do not have to take this risk to finish over the minimum time. What a mess! This is not a satisfying way to win a task (luck) and is simply unfair to the top pilots. MATs should almost never be called in pure classes or at Nationals. If you can call a long MAT, why bother? Call an AST!!!! MATs should mainly be called in sports class which has now formally OUTLAWED (nice catch YO) the AST! That is pretty funny really. I am not in the least surprised.

Pure AT's should be called on any contest flying day when the weather is good or great. If its a great forecast, call an AT, simple! Pure assigned tasks are easy, clean tests of flying skill. They have the fewest variables of all other tasks BY FAR. They should be further enhanced with 30-60 minute start windows (I would prefer 20)! The other SSA tasks are "compromise tasks" that should only be called when the CD absolutely must in order to deal with less than ideal circumstances (weather, handicap range, broad pilot skill). We should have at least 25% AT's in the USA, not 3%. MAT's are NOT ATs! They stink! We should outlaw them in pure classes just as the AST was OUTLAWED in sports!

I understand why sports class CD's (with its large handicap range and varied pilot skill level) would have a difficult time getting a real task called.. And this is probably why the sports class is fading away. Its not a very good means of competing. It is certainly my (and probably most others) last choice for a competition class. SSA sports class (only in the USA) is a compromise class to use when not enough gliders are available to have club, 15, 18, Open, Standard or FAI classes.

I would suggest that sports class should be broken into smaller groups (as small as 5) of similar handicap ranges in order to further avoid having to call so many of these compromise tasks. More small classes would also mean more chances to compete fairly and more trophies! That is a great thing IMO. A class with many gliders from 126 to ASG29 and tasks to accommodate that range is, very, very undesirable.

Now, I'm off to put together 2014 tasking numbers!



On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:41:05 AM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 2:48:09 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
... My solution is more assigned tasks (AT) ...
... We should be flying 40% AT's instead of the current 5-7% (2013).

Looks like latest rules have discarded AT:

10.3.2.1 Assigned Task (AT) - Speed over a course of one or more designated turnpoints, with a finish at the contest site. This task is available only for US Club Class...

Sean,
You are absolutely correct that there are very few AST's called in US contests each year. However, perhaps you could improve the validity of your research by factoring in for each day the handicap range of the class flown, daily weather conditions, and perhaps landout opportunities over the projected course (add any other factors you think might be pertinent). Just shouting 3% AST's in 2013, while it may be an accurate gross percentage, does not include the variables that would come into play for a CD to remove that option for a give day.
After more than 25 years as a professional buyer listening to sales personnel sling statistics at me to prove a point, it never failed to amaze me on how often they neglected to add or subtract data that gave a true picture of how a product may perform.
I'm very interested in what you come up with.