MATs

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 9:51:39 AM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 2:17:04 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
It is highly underestimated how complex one or zero turn MATS really are. Yes, they ARE very, very common. Yes, they are rapidly increasing in total percentage of US tasks!

Less experienced contest pilots (unsurprisingly) seem to struggle with getting their heads around the OLC tasks (one or zero turn HAT). I did. I still cannot stand them becuase they are about more about local knowledge than anything else (see OLC).

Task management of the "free" portion of the OLC task is very difficult. This is especially true if you are not a local pilot and are unfamiliar with the flying area. Errors in managing turnpoint order (and rules) has huge potential influence on the scores and ultimately the final contest results. A pilots "ability" to quickly and constantly program expensive flight computers "on the fly" in order to better understand possible "free" HAT turnpoint combinations that will best use up available minimum time (vs. your competitor) is a critical success factor. This best combination of free turnpoints is, of course, constantly changing as conditions and circumstances change along the task. This experience is fairly similar to the decision making complexity (and luck) of wide (60 mile diameter) area TATs (aka slightly constrained OLC task). But nothing introduces luck like an OLC HAT task!

ASTs or "very long" MATs (actually fairly rare BTW) are far, far easier tasks to manage from a flight computer, strategy and local knowledge standpoint. This is more about flying well and less about wild variances in strategy. Especially for beginners or people without expensive computers on board. A $50 handheld GPS is all you need! But even with a "long" MAT, As little as 15 minutes of "extra time" for "free" turnpoints at the "end" of the task can dramatically change the result (vs. the end of the assigned portion). The free portion of a MAT can essentially "destroys" the MATs assigned purity by introducing OLC like behaviors (massive swings in strategy, risk, complexity and of course luck).

Study "the guide" but the only way to get good at OLC tasks is local knowledge and a lot of practice (an expensive flight computer helps too). Expect more and more OLC "MATs" in the USA if the current trends continue. I would say 50% of all US task may be OLC (MATs, many of them the very short one or zero TP variety) in 3-5 years. We are on route to becoming OLC nation!

Sean, you are bringing very good points. We should actually ban MAT tasks in favor of AST tasks with an option to turn home early. That way a contest director would be forced to assign enough turn points for the fastest guys.

If we did this the outcome would probably be TAT with 30 miles radius.

You just can't win. Even using the current rules CDs could do the right thing. Why aren't they? I always thought that the objective of the contest day was to get back for the evening beer and food . Time to find a crew so they can get me beer to the field and food

I think for Nationals MATs with one turn points should be simply banned..

AK

I'd be fine with long MAT's since they keep the class flying the same turnpoints in the same air mass. Combine that with a min. time that uses the soaring day well and you have a race. As Sean pointed out, the problem with that concept is the end of the MAT. In order to keep the beginner/intermediate pilots close to the finish to reduce land-outs, the last called TP's are often chosen too close in. That makes for a short-legged cat's cradle that to me is no fun to fly. I like long lines and fewer TP's further away. To beginners, that's intimidating. As BB pointed out, they may experience too many land-outs and not come back.
This coming season, I suggest the CD at all contests spend more time questioning pilots about the previous day's task. That kind of critique many CD's don't want to hear, I'm afraid since the Monday morning quarterbacks will come at them. However, I encourage them to get that kind of feedback and adjust task calling.
Herb

I'll go further. Maybe CD's need to ask pilots a bit more about what they as a group, want in tasking for a particular contest. The mandatory meeting is a reasonable place to do this.
Pilots also should be giving input to the task advisers. Maybe seeing them before the task meeting with an opinion like- "hey the weather looks good and reliable, how about an assigned task".
Most people would rather not take a position and reserve the option to complain.
More pilots also should volunteer to serve in the advising capacity. Then they get heard and also get a taste of what goes on to set the task.
UH

My main objection to unrestricted MATs is that they are boring. The right strategy is to find one good area of sky and then plow around it over and over again. If it gets weak, come back home and stick to the 5 turnpoints near the home airport so you make sure not to land out. Often you can win the day with something more daring, but it's not worth the risk.

They have their place. A bunch of us got about 1000k out of a ridge task at Mifflin. It could not have been done by anything else, and a pity to waste the chance on a short AT because some rule book said we had to.

Like UH says. Talk to the CD and task advisers. CDs and task advisers, talk to the pilots.

We have a huge buffet of tasks available: Long MATs, short MATs, MATs with restricted turnpoints, (nobody has called a three turnpoint only MAT. Might be fun!); TATs with a few big areas ("OLC") TATs with a many small areas, (very close to handicapped assigned tasks), and the AT. We ought to be able to keep people happy!

John Cochrane

Don't forget the HAT!

;-)

So John, I'll actually disagree with you. Too much flexibility certainly makes it confusing, especially for new pilots. What is the right strategy for a given type of task? Not everyone who comes to our races can run a "real time stochastic models" in their heads :-) I can absolutely see where even a long MAT introduces some challenging considerations that may seem unfair or overwhelming to newer pilots.

If we are going to try out novel or unusual variations, then I do think we would want to make sure that pilots are thoroughly briefed before hand, and I'm not sure that every CD is equipped to do that...

P3



On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 1:43:40 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
My main objection to unrestricted MATs is that they are boring. The right strategy is to find one good area of sky and then plow around it over and over again. If it gets weak, come back home and stick to the 5 turnpoints near the home airport so you make sure not to land out. Often you can win the day with something more daring, but it's not worth the risk.

They have their place. A bunch of us got about 1000k out of a ridge task at Mifflin. It could not have been done by anything else, and a pity to waste the chance on a short AT because some rule book said we had to.

Like UH says. Talk to the CD and task advisers. CDs and task advisers, talk to the pilots.

We have a huge buffet of tasks available: Long MATs, short MATs, MATs with restricted turnpoints, (nobody has called a three turnpoint only MAT. Might be fun!); TATs with a few big areas ("OLC") TATs with a many small areas, (very close to handicapped assigned tasks), and the AT. We ought to be able to keep people happy!

John Cochrane

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 1:43:40 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
My main objection to unrestricted MATs is that they are boring. The right strategy is to find one good area of sky and then plow around it over and over again. If it gets weak, come back home and stick to the 5 turnpoints near the home airport so you make sure not to land out. Often you can win the day with something more daring, but it's not worth the risk.

They have their place. A bunch of us got about 1000k out of a ridge task at Mifflin. It could not have been done by anything else, and a pity to waste the chance on a short AT because some rule book said we had to.

Like UH says. Talk to the CD and task advisers. CDs and task advisers, talk to the pilots.

We have a huge buffet of tasks available: Long MATs, short MATs, MATs with restricted turnpoints, (nobody has called a three turnpoint only MAT. Might be fun!); TATs with a few big areas ("OLC") TATs with a many small areas, (very close to handicapped assigned tasks), and the AT. We ought to be able to keep people happy!

John Cochrane

My personal favorite is the MAT with no turn points allowed to be repeated. It means you must move around, not flying around in some really good little triangle of air. Some guys don't like it because you have to think and you have to go away a bit to ensure you have a nearer in turn point at the end if you need it to tune up the last part of the flight.
That said, we do need to try for variety which certainly can include an AT or 2.
Note that I said AT. There is no task called an AST in the US contest rules..
UH

Let's talk about the real issue. The assigned task is tactical. The key skill it tests is being able to sniff out gaggle dynamics. Ideally you start 5 minutes after the gaggle, cacth them, move through the guys waiting for the gaggle and lead out just in time to flinal glide home. Or sometimes move ahead, jump from smaller gaggle to smaller gaggle, or whatever. But everyone else is trying to do the same thing.

This is not easy. Gaggle / start dynamics and tactics are a huge subject. We could write books about them. The top pilots at this are masters of an incredibly complex game. But make no mistake, that game is what assigned tasks are about.

The MAT and TAT don't allow many gaggles and markers to form. They end up valuing much more your ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air.

This is not a judgment. Decide what you like to do with your precious two weeks of vacation. I happen to like the latter kind of task. AT advocates are really saying they want the former. Doing well at IGC contests requires a lot more of that tactical skill than is typically used at US contests.

But, once again. Talk to the CD. Talk to the task advisers.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane's point about what skill ATs test is excellent. Pilots should seriously consider if understanding gaggle dynamics is a skill that they want. For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air, as that's what I'll be doing during non-contest flying. Therefore, I'll be asking the task advisers to continue calling TATs and MATs and to skip the ATs.

-John, Q3


On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 10:54:15 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Let's talk about the real issue. The assigned task is tactical. The key skill it tests is being able to sniff out gaggle dynamics. Ideally you start 5 minutes after the gaggle, cacth them, move through the guys waiting for the gaggle and lead out just in time to flinal glide home. Or sometimes move ahead, jump from smaller gaggle to smaller gaggle, or whatever. But everyone else is trying to do the same thing.

This is not easy. Gaggle / start dynamics and tactics are a huge subject. We could write books about them. The top pilots at this are masters of an incredibly complex game. But make no mistake, that game is what assigned tasks are about.

The MAT and TAT don't allow many gaggles and markers to form. They end up valuing much more your ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air.

This is not a judgment. Decide what you like to do with your precious two weeks of vacation. I happen to like the latter kind of task. AT advocates are really saying they want the former. Doing well at IGC contests requires a lot more of that tactical skill than is typically used at US contests.

But, once again. Talk to the CD. Talk to the task advisers.

John Cochrane

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:47:52 AM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
John Cochrane's point about what skill ATs test is excellent. Pilots should seriously consider if understanding gaggle dynamics is a skill that they want. For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air, as that's what I'll be doing during non-contest flying. Therefore, I'll be asking the task advisers to continue calling TATs and MATs and to skip the ATs.

-John, Q3


On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 10:54:15 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Let's talk about the real issue. The assigned task is tactical. The key skill it tests is being able to sniff out gaggle dynamics. Ideally you start 5 minutes after the gaggle, cacth them, move through the guys waiting for the gaggle and lead out just in time to flinal glide home. Or sometimes move ahead, jump from smaller gaggle to smaller gaggle, or whatever. But everyone else is trying to do the same thing.

This is not easy. Gaggle / start dynamics and tactics are a huge subject. We could write books about them. The top pilots at this are masters of an incredibly complex game. But make no mistake, that game is what assigned tasks are about.

The MAT and TAT don't allow many gaggles and markers to form. They end up valuing much more your ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air.

This is not a judgment. Decide what you like to do with your precious two weeks of vacation. I happen to like the latter kind of task. AT advocates are really saying they want the former. Doing well at IGC contests requires a lot more of that tactical skill than is typically used at US contests.

But, once again. Talk to the CD. Talk to the task advisers.

John Cochrane

I enjoy all task types, but I agree they do test different skills.

To summarize:

1) MAT = follow the macro-scale weather
2) TAT = follow the micro-scale weather
3) AST = follow the glider in front of you

They are all available - CDs generally have an ear out or what the pilots want to do.

9B

John Cochrane's point about what skill ATs test is excellent. Pilots should seriously consider if understanding gaggle dynamics is a skill that they want. For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather, read the terrain, and soar the air, as that's what I'll be doing during non-contest flying. Therefore, I'll be asking the task advisers to continue calling TATs and MATs and to skip the ATs.

-John, Q3

Thank you for demonstrating the flawed logic that poisons US contest flying so perfectly!

To be specific, your key statement was this. "For myself I'd rather develop a better ability to read the weather..." Let's talk about that, and Cochrane's...

The first point is "be careful what you wish for!" You already have what you want. You are already being "tested" :-) (lol) ONLY on "reading" the weather in US tasks. That is almost like saying you wish to only be tested on reading my palm! To say you only want to develop the skill of reading weather is like saying you don't want to learn how to land the plane in flight school! The tasks we run in the US are already highly free form and "un-objective." Pilots are flying such widely varying routes. It is not a test anymore, it's a crap shoot! Again, it's almost all we do in US tasks.

Soaring weather develops (or overdevelops) in minutes. It is PURE LUCK if you fly for one hour in one direction and get better weather than another who flies an hour in another direction. There is absolutely no way you can consistently "read the weather" better than another skilled pilot in that common scenario of wildly different routing. LUCK is therefore ABSOLUTELY a big part of the US competition soaring format. a format that is already so incredibly SUBJECTIVE and variable!!!!!! We almost NEVER fly the same race track. We fly almost pure OLC in the US today. We say go wherever you want and show me that you can "read (aka guess) the weather" better than your "competitor." Competitors who are perhaps 40-50-60 or even hundreds of miles away from your us in the same task! How unsatisfying! How subjective. How disappointing.

In 2014, 98% of SSAtasks were TAT or MAT. Half of the MATs were zero or one turn. Most of the rest were 3 or 4 (average 2.9). So, John, I ask why are you are complaining? Did you fly an "evil" AT in 2014? I doubt it, there were only 4! Did you fly an AT in 2013? I doubt it, there were only 7! The chances of you flying an AT in the US is almost zero in 2015. You are probably dancing on your desk right now, aren't you? All you do is guess the weather "just as you do at home." --- my point about US pilots not challenging themselves. Hey, look at that cloud, let's go over there! What a minute "I'm reading the weather!" Wait a minute, it looks better over there! Amazing.

ATs require a pilot to read the weather as well. It is even more important.. That is the point. Just missing one key cloud (better climb) or choosing one better ridge actually has an objective, measurable value. Every meter counts. Reading the weather is not an hour ahead however (impossible). In ATs it's about consistently making the best decisions about the weather 5-15 minutes ahead. Consistently making choices not only about which cloud is better ahead but what "part" of that cloud is better! Skill here means gains! This is FAR more objective that flying two hours away from your competitors and saying "I won!" What did you win exactly? A guessing contest!

The assumption that ATs are ONLY about gaggle flying skills is both wrong and ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as they "cause" more landouts than a long MAT or any other challenging, well called task for that matter. First of all, ATs allow for pilots to start anytime they wish. That variable will naturally spread the pilots out significantly. Just as in any other task, the best pilots cannot be simply followed. This is actually the surest way to lose In my experience. The best pilots are constantly pulling ahead. Soon, if you only follow, you are pulling into thermals minutes later and are not getting the same air. This assures that the lead pilot will leave you eventually. But be my guest gentleman. Go ahead and keep assuming that leeching is the way to manage ATs. If you study them carefully, you'll see the real best pilots do not follow that strategy much at all and the tactics are quite amazing.

These far higher skill level pilots (and their strategies) are probably why these same pilots win the world championships. They flow over to all tasks and all flying and make then 2-5% better on all flying days. Yep, PLEASE keep thinking this way!!!

Disgusted,

Sean

It's amazing that when flying so many tasks that apparently depend purely on luck, are subjective, and highly variable, that the same people win day after day...