JWGC USA update

I don't know the man and have no dog in this fight, but I did not see
anything in the resume you stated that would indicate mathematical
competency, such as a degree in math, physics, or engineering. Not
saying he doesn't have that but you just threw a bunch of snow and
claimed something for which I see no proof. Maybe I missed that. I
have a degree in electrical engineering and a diamond badge, but I don't
consider myself very competent in math any more, though I can add 2 + 2.

On 12/12/2015 7:17 AM, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
At 13:55 12 December 2015, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:51:28 PM UTC+3,
wr=
ote:
This is one of the absurdities of the IGC scoring rules: Sometimes you
ca=
n gain a lot of points by waiting in front of the finish line. Day 11 in
th=
e standard class was such a day, and has cost the Polish team a medal.
=20
If the 3 in front (2 Poles, 1 Brit) had colluded, en waited 21!!!
minutes=
to cross the finish line, and finished all 3 with a speed of 122.82kph
(in=
stead of the real 138.14kph), this would have resulted in the following:
=20
- T0 would have become larger than 3 hours, leading to a 1000pt day
inst=
ead of a 932point day.
=20
- n2 (returners with speed larger than 66,7% of best speed) would have
in=
creased from 3 to 12. Thus the speed points would have increased from 72
to=
308 points.
=20
- The result is, that the first 3 would have scored all 1000 points,
and
=
number 4 would have had 711 points. This is a 289point lead, instead of
the=
real achieved 72point lead.
=20
- For all others behind 4th place, the results would even have been
worse=
..
=20
- In the total final ranking of the JWGC15, Siodloczek would have
become
=
2nd (instead of 4th in reality), Flis would have become 4th (instead of
6th=
), and Matt Davis, would have become 7th (instead of 10th).
=20
=20
I understand the reasoning behind the rules: a "lucky" outlier (such as
i=
n this case) should not have an unreasonable impact on the final
competitio=
n results.
=20
However, the implementation is totally wrong: it should never be
possible=
to gain points (or better: increase your pointspread against the rest),
by=
flying slower.=20
=20
I have seen this happen a couple of times in the past, but never with
suc=
h a substantial impact as in this case.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
On Friday, 11 December 2015 15:59:53 UTC+1, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
=20
That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make
min=
imum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club
Cl=
ass - there are no rule-based surprises.
=20
Yet, in the Standard Class, with more completions, the day is
devalued.=
Also interesting that to be 50 KPH slower than the guy ahead of you
only
=
cost you 70 points on this day with 50% landouts. I would only consider
th=
at to be a "no rule-based surprise" if you fully understand that the
rules
=
are not even close to anything linear to comparing your daily performance
t=
o the best performance that day.
=20
But, this is digressing into which set of scoring formulas you
prefer.
=20
Go Boyd! Go JP! Go Daniel! Fly safe, and fly fast!
=20
Steve Leonard
It's easy enough to ensure this, by using continuous (or at least
piecewise=
continuous) functions in the rules, rather than step functions.

But then you have to have someone mathematically competent on the rules
com=
mittee.

There are certainly a few such here (e.g. JC), but maybe not in IGC.

The chairman of the annex A (Competition Rules) sub-committee of IGC is
Rick Sheppe. If you are sugesting that he is not mathematically competent
consider his CV.:

1. Gliding · Active glider pilot since 1967. Flight instructor since 1981.
Tug pilot since 1988. · Diamond Badge Nr. 6517 2. Technical · Instrument
designer: consultant to Cambridge Aero Instruments, Nielsen-Kellerman
Corporation and ClearNav Systems. Software developer for several glide
computers, variometers, and Flight Recorders. Responsible for FR security
standards and algorithms. · Functional designer of the first IGC-approved
Flight Recorder · Originator of the IGC file format. · Early consultant
to Flight Recorder Approval Committee 1996-1997. Responsible for some FR
security standards. Originator of the idea to remove Flight Recorder
specifications from the Sporting Code. · Attended numerous WGC, Pre-WGC,
and EGC competitions as technical expert for instrumentation. ·
Barograph/Flight Recorder calibration station, instrument repairman ·
Member of the organization (“GNSS Expert�) at World Air Games in 1997.
Advisor to the International Jury. 3. Administrative · Acting Team Captain
at WGC 2003 (Poland), Team Captain at WGC 2012 (Argentina) · Member of
OSTIV Working Group for Light and Ultralight Sailplanes · Former Soaring
Society of America Director. · IGC positions: - IGC Alternate Delegate
from USA - Annex A Committee member - Safety Pays Working Group member -
Scoring Software Testing Working group member (Chairman as of May 1, 2012)
- Communications and PR Committee member

Does that strike you as someone who is not mathematically competent?




--
Dan, 5J

2 plus 2 still 22 ?

Looking forward to reading the "how I dunnits" and "how I shoulda dunnits" from the team.

******** to arguing about the rules. Every game has rules and is entered knowing them. People seem to accept American "football" teams standing there with a ball and watching the clock tick down to zero. It's the same thing.

Zulu Romeo, good finish.
(now you can give Attila his glider back)
Jim

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-6, JS wrote:
Looking forward to reading the "how I dunnits" and "how I shoulda dunnits" from the team.

******** to arguing about the rules. Every game has rules and is entered knowing them. People seem to accept American "football" teams standing there with a ball and watching the clock tick down to zero. It's the same thing..

Zulu Romeo, good finish.
(now you can give Attila his glider back)
Jim

Yep. I let out a scream of "NOOOOOO!!!!" on the last day when Boyd's tracker said he had landed out. I think based on the altitude, that he probably won the Limbo Contest that day! Or maybe it was a Monty Python moment. He landed out. But, he got better.

Well done, guys! Looking forward to hearing more about it.

Steve

Did anyone catch the track of the kid that landed short and ran across the finish line carrying his tracker? I wish there was a video.

He also landed 300m short toward the end of the contest. No running Ricky Bobby style that time though.

Hey Guys,

Thanks for all the support and enthusiasm along the way. We definitely kept track and we really appreciated it. As far as takeaways from the contest, we learned a tremendous amount and are really excited going into the future.. I am doing a write-up for the US Team and future junior pilots as far as lessons learned and what worked, etc.

This biggest implication of the US vs. FAI rules has little to do with the mechanics of starting, finishing or the like. The adjustments were easy, including doing a direct finish instead of the finish sectors we have. The biggest difference is the gaggle dynamic that exists and gets reinforced due to the point structure in place in FAI rules. We learned that it is very costly to try to outsmart the gaggle.

The Club Class Nationals at Hobbs were great practice for the Junior worlds.. The tasks seemed to be as intense and reasonably reflected the difficulty in tasking we experienced. I would definitely like to see more Nationals conducted in such a manner, with the variety of Assigned and Area tasks that we had there.

The other major takeaway is the need to practice team flying. I am now a complete convert. Team-flying can be extremely effective and we were able to fly a lot better because we did this. We were all amazed that we were able to stick together so well. Going into 2017, JP and I plan on practicing team-flying as much as we can. We would like to make informal weekend meets at Mifflin where we can fly with John Good and do ground school on tactics and strategy so that we can perform better in the upcoming Junior Worlds.

Our idea is to also expand this to other serious juniors within a reasonable radius of Mifflin and hopefully make this the basis of a consistent junior racing contingent.

Something that would be helpful to us developing skills and tactics for future world competitions is if team-flying were to be allowed at the National level. It would certainly be a great way to implement the practice we intend on doing during the off-season in a racing environment.

Best Regards,
Daniel

Yep. I let out a scream of "NOOOOOO!!!!" on the last day when Boyd's tracker said he had landed out.

We certainly came close! We had some bad luck and plummeted from 6000ft AGL to 850ft without hitting any reasonable nibble. The sink was atrocious and the only reprieve was a weak little thermal over the field we were planning on landing in. All three of us, plus a straggler were parked in this little thermal, digging out. It was certainly a slow climb, but we got away and made it back home. Prior to plummeting out of the sky, we were really cooking along. If we had managed to keep the pace we were going and come back at minimum time, Boyd would have gotten third place. It was a good tactical gamble, but it did not work out.

Climbing out of that field was certainly exciting. It was the most fun low save I ever had, being in the company of three other gliders.

Best Regards,
Daniel

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:38:45 AM UTC-6, wrote:
Yep. I let out a scream of "NOOOOOO!!!!" on the last day when Boyd's tracker said he had landed out.

We certainly came close! We had some bad luck and plummeted from 6000ft AGL to 850ft without hitting any reasonable nibble. The sink was atrocious and the only reprieve was a weak little thermal over the field we were planning on landing in. All three of us, plus a straggler were parked in this little thermal, digging out. It was certainly a slow climb, but we got away and made it back home. Prior to plummeting out of the sky, we were really cooking along. If we had managed to keep the pace we were going and come back at minimum time, Boyd would have gotten third place. It was a good tactical gamble, but it did not work out.

Climbing out of that field was certainly exciting. It was the most fun low save I ever had, being in the company of three other gliders.

Best Regards,
Daniel

I noticed a lot of time on that last day with ground speeds showing 140 KPH or so, and vertical speeds of 4 to 5 M/sec down. For most everyone. And for rather extended periods of time. Glad you guys kept it together. I am sure you have heard this before, but I have been told when running crosswind, and in strong sink, immediate turn upwind.

Haven't been there or done that but it is interesting to me how at the world level, you live or die by the gaggle (or leaving it) and in the US, we hate the idea of the gaggle and the group flying and call people "leeches" for doing so. To me, this seems a far greater difference than our scoring system differences, or assigned versus AAT ratio on number of tasks, direct versus finish line or cylinder.

Thanks for the insights so far!

Steve Leonard

From Daniel::

"This biggest implication of the US vs. FAI rules has little to do with the mechanics of starting, finishing or the like....The biggest difference is the gaggle dynamic that exists and gets reinforced due to the point structure in place in FAI rules. "

I have heard this message consistently from US team members, and it is the number one lesson I came back with from a WGC. In our team efforts, this ought to be cut out and framed somewhere. How do we get better at that highly tactical game, and how do we collect and pass on the knowledge that each team gains.

John Cochrane BB