The truth about Flarm Stealth and Competition definition...

Well, I've now deleted two posts where I got overly irritated at Sean for his "weak assed" comments and insinuations that those of us who are concerned about safety aren't really, we're just not "real men" and can't fly without help. Sheesh Sean!

And then comes along Andy Blackburn with an eloquent, well written, logical argument that makes any continuation of those sorts of "I'm tougher than you", "you're a wimp and I'm a real man", hopefully look as weak as they are.. Thank you, Andy. I haven't met you (I don't think), but look forward to doing so.

And for what it's worth, I personally couldn't care less about leaching. Or about winning a contest - and I suspect there are a lot like me. I get to fly 1 or 2 contests a year because of my job. One of my main aims is to maximize the chance of leaving that contest alive. It's yet another group that I hope the RC considers - us amateurs who do this not for the glory, not for the hope of standing on some wooden pedestal holding a tin trophy, but for the fun of hanging out, safely, with our friends. Pretty weak-assed, but there it is.

I still remember an elderly gentleman (no longer with us) missing me by about 20 feet some 17 years ago at Newcastle as he went straight through my thermal at 100 mph. I swear I saw his eyes... And he still didn't see me as he went by. I'll fully admit that I was so focused on centering that I didn't see him coming either. Anything - absolutely anything - that I can do to not repeat that little bit of fun is great with me. And I suspect that if the same gentleman had a device that gave him 60 seconds warning, he'd still be searching around trying to find where the warning was coming from me as he smacked into me. A few minutes sounds a lot nicer to me than 60 seconds, thank you very much.

I think the real point about STEALTH mode is still being missed. There
are now many users of FLARM, increasingly aircraft other than gliders
are fitting it. Here in the UK GA and the military are fitting it.

Competition pilots do not operate in an airspace bubble of their own,
they share the sky with pilots who are not flying in competitions. None
of these other gliders or aircraft would set STEALTH mode and could
be forgiven for thinking that they have the full features of FLARM. They
do not, if a glider has STEALTH mode set then all other users have only
the reduced features available.

If the setting of STEALTH mode only effected those flying in the
competition then it might be acceptable, provided ALL the pilots in the
competition agree to the reduction in safety margins. It is not about the
risks to competition pilots it is about the degraded service provided to
those not in competition who may not even know that they are
receiving a reduced service.

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:10:42 PM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
Well, I've now deleted two posts where I got overly irritated at Sean for his "weak assed" comments and insinuations that those of us who are concerned about safety aren't really, we're just not "real men" and can't fly without help. Sheesh Sean!

And then comes along Andy Blackburn with an eloquent, well written, logical argument that makes any continuation of those sorts of "I'm tougher than you", "you're a wimp and I'm a real man", hopefully look as weak as they are. Thank you, Andy. I haven't met you (I don't think), but look forward to doing so.

And for what it's worth, I personally couldn't care less about leaching. Or about winning a contest - and I suspect there are a lot like me. I get to fly 1 or 2 contests a year because of my job. One of my main aims is to maximize the chance of leaving that contest alive. It's yet another group that I hope the RC considers - us amateurs who do this not for the glory, not for the hope of standing on some wooden pedestal holding a tin trophy, but for the fun of hanging out, safely, with our friends. Pretty weak-assed, but there it is.

I still remember an elderly gentleman (no longer with us) missing me by about 20 feet some 17 years ago at Newcastle as he went straight through my thermal at 100 mph. I swear I saw his eyes... And he still didn't see me as he went by. I'll fully admit that I was so focused on centering that I didn't see him coming either. Anything - absolutely anything - that I can do to not repeat that little bit of fun is great with me. And I suspect that if the same gentleman had a device that gave him 60 seconds warning, he'd still be searching around trying to find where the warning was coming from me as he smacked into me. A few minutes sounds a lot nicer to me than 60 seconds, thank you very much.


Andrew,
I already tried to tone down what I said in the "weak assed" post. We've covered some of this already in other posts. I'll try to be brief.

1) We are talking about a competition or stealth option in contest flying only.

2) There is a fair amount of heads down time associated with open FLARM usage that off sets or in my opinion outweighs the SA gained in regard to safety. So much so that I think some people will over do it and their soaring performance will suffer. This is a nod to Andy's comment on balancing the new technology.

3) Several folks have tried to make it seem that this is about me be overly competitive. Not so. I just think the score sheet should rank who are the better soaring pilots and all that entails, especially in say the top half of the positions. I'll finish where I finish and if I land out, not only will I make some new acquaintances, I will have time to think about what I did to get there. I will not blame bad luck or randomness. I don't get any better by doing that.

4) The idea that cross country or racing is starting to involve using a display to read values and pick this thermal or that one at a distance is "weak assed" or watered down from what it once was. I do believe this. This what I meant to say. If I insulted those who simply go to contests for a good time and learn or who's only goal is to get around the course and back home, I apologize. Like I said getting frustrated. So nothing to do with safety.. Open FLARM and FLARM used in a competition or stealth mode both offer plenty of safety to prevent the near miss you described. Safety of open FLARM being better due to SA is overstated due to the heads down time mentioned above.

Thanks for not posting your overly-irritated responses,

XC

Andrew, you rock! Well said. Great point.

Even though I am willing to consider a "reduced SA...mode" for PowerFlarm, safety (at all levels of competitiveness) seems to overwhelmingly outweight any potential, philosphical tactical benifit. If I was on the RC I would have to understand that 50% of the pilots (at least) are of this viewpoint. I am concerned that they are blinded by pure emotion in many ways.

Sean

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:15:36 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:36:45 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:

9B,

Obviously you are trying to goad me on with that last comment. I'll bite.

Some of us still believe that looking at clouds and terrain, finding thermals yourself, is an important part of the sport. Throughout these threads this is still a lot of talk overstated talk about safety that is covering for what some folks really want, to buddy-fly their way around the race course.

BB has even said leading out is a losing strategy. Strange, champions of the past weren't afraid to lead out. Is this the way we are heading?

FLARM with stealth as it is now really works well in a contest setting for collision avoidance. Those who claim otherwise have largely never tried it and/or want (need) to see others to make their way around the race course. Seems kind of weak-assed in my opinion.

Still waiting to hear what you think our sport should be about. You are on the RC. I'd like to know your vision on where we are going. What parts are essential to the sport?

Should we keep the part about not running a motor? Or should we allow folks to run their motors for 2 five minute periods? This would arguably be safer and those who maybe didn't get enough practice in could stay competitive on the score sheet longer. Still seems like an arbitrary limit, though.

I'd hate to limit engine technology. If we only allow 10 minutes of engine time they better count. I'd want to get some good performance out of my engine. All this too can be part of the undefined future of our sport.

XC

Hey Sean,

Wasn't trying to goad you particularly. It was more philosophical - but I know you're always up to the philosophical challenge.

My vision for the sport. Okay, pressure's on...

I think soaring competitions (or contests - note that I don't say "race", which is an important sub-part of the skills needed in soaring competition, but not the whole) should test a number of skills, all of which are related to the ability to make distance over the ground, primarily in a minimum amount of time, all without benefit of propulsion by means of stored energy (gasoline, electrons, rubber bands, nuclear reactors, etc.) and without proprietary assistance from others (that is, it needs to be your performance (philosophy on two-seaters will need its own thread).

While there are a wide array of skills that contribute to being good at achieving the above objective, I think the paramount skill is the ability to make optimal strategic and tactical decisions with complex information inputs under uncertainty. This boils down to two basic tenets. Tenet 1: Don't pick sub-par climbs and, Tenet 2: Don't get so low that you can't pick the thermal you want. Fundamentally, we are testing pilots' abilities to trade off these two tenets. In flight this boils down to two types of decisions, 1) which line will have the best energy and 2) should I stop and climb here or press on in hope of finding better lift (BB has written quite eloquently on the latter item in his "A little faster please" article - if you haven't, read it. It includes a lot on decisions about altitude and thermal lift distribution versus the "stop to climb" decision and upwind/downwind/crosswind starts and turnpoint decisions). In general, the more complex and varied the information inputs involved in testing that ability, the better and more accurate the test of soaring skills.

In constructing soaring competitions, they need to be subject to a constraint of fairness, which is: every pilot needs the same opportunity to make the same in-flight tradeoff decisions. Note that this does not necessarily mean that every pilot needs to make the exact same flight in a giant bomber formation. Now, some people will argue that if every glider isn't flying in exactly the same air at exactly the same time random and unpredictable differences in weather can make all the difference and that's all luck. I can sympathize and understand this perspective and agree that some poorly thought through logic can end up looking pretty clever if the unexpected happens weather-wise, but generally I think better pilots are better at reading the weather and integrating macro and micro level forecasts and weather clues into their decision-making. This to me is an important skill that comes into play whether your rage of course line flexibility is 5 miles or 50 miles.

There is an element of risk tolerance that figures into all of this that I personally think needs to go so far but no further in terms of contests encouraging or accepting "bet your life" or "bet your glider" decisions. A significant amount of risk is inevitable, but I don't see willingness to take on risk - or belief that you can pull off risky decisions when others can't or won't - as a skill set we want to test for its own sake. I don't think we should try to eliminate every landout or risk of landout no matter what. There is plenty of time to be lost just by taking a 2 knot thermal instead of a 4-knot thermal and pilots will press for the better climb as their comfort-level dictates. But ensuring that a pilot at 1000' desperate for a climb has to put into a field doesn't do anything to improve how we judge soaring performance, in fact every landout just complicates matters because we have to translate miles to miles per hour (or more exactly translate both to points with formulas that arbitrarily weight the two metrics differently). If we can't compare performance exactly then it undermines the validity of the results. We tolerate this because we have to - landouts are inevitable but the ideal goal would be to challenge pilots' decision-making skills to the maximum without having to figure out how many points a mike is worth.

So what are the skills we want to test? My view (in order of importance):

1) Ability to make decisions about the optimal path to fly to achieve the best speed over the course - this can include small deviations to maximize energy, places to look for lift based on terrain, clouds or other indicators (like gliders or raptors climbing) and macro decisions about where to go when task flexibility is greater (as in AAT and MAT formats).

2) Ability to best estimate how to make use of the available lift in terms of when to climb, when to press on, when to cruise or dolphin.

(I go back and forth on the priority order between 1 and 2)

3) Ability to understand weather and how it affects likely task performance at the micro-level and macro-level both in terms of forecast weather and weather dynamics over the course of the day, including the ability to integrate new information as weather changes. Note that 3) interplays with 1) on many days.

4) Ability to extract the most energy out of lift sources. This includes thermalling technique, search technique, etc.

5) Stick skills - the ability to fly at the right speed, right flap setting, right bank angle, judge the final glide, not crash into a ridge, etc. I see these as table-stakes for flying, but not something we are trying to test explicitly. Leave that to the Red Bull racing pilots.

I'm sure there are other things I am forgetting so I reserve the right to revise my list.

So, how does this vision for the sport affect philosophy for technology like Flarm and ADS-B? They are at the simplest level another source of information that needs to be balanced against and integrated with other information inputs. More information puts more pressure on good decision-making ("go for the cu on course or the glider climbing a mile off course in the blue?" is a more complex decision than "go for the cu on course - it's all you've got").

Sure, some pilots may decide that they can latch onto others decisions and more Flarm range may give them more opportunity to try, but all the evidence is that if you are borrowing someone else'd decisions without even knowing what they are deciding it's very hard to perform well, except in some very narrow scope. There are just too many variables and they change way too dynamically to blindly follow and win most of the time. Even if it were possible to use more information about other gliders I don't believe this fundamentally changes the sport - other gliders are just more information. If it is true that you can win just by following then we are all fools not to fly the gaggle all the time, regardless of technology enablers. If we don't like the gaggle, we should change how we score and set up tasks (and maybe penalize leeching - it's pretty easy) rather than scapegoating technology. These practices pre- and post-date every technology shift. It's not about technology and technology doesn't significantly alter the balance - I looked for it.

I feel the same way about weather data - so long as we confirm that it is reasonably available to all at affordable cost. It gives more information for complex tradeoff decisions rather than flying blindly. Why flying blindly is viewed as a skill totally escapes me. Guts to press into a thunderstorm without knowing what's ahead? It's not a "skill" I think soaring contests should be testing.

Hope that's a decent start at a reply.

9B
Andy Blackburn
RC "Revolutionary"

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with almost everything you've said about priorities. Our two view points differ in one fundamental way that I can think of. I believe we should be measuring these same abilities with the pilot and glider taken as one system competing against and amongst other pilots. Pulling in more and more information from people outside the glider just means you are using their abilities. This homogenates not differentiates pilots abilities in my view.

You'll see as time goes on that people are talking more and more about the FLARM thermal values. When you hear this you know that the pilot was able to pick one thermal over another based on someone else's analysis of that thermal. They never had to size up the look of the cloud or sample the air that was already done for them, This is already happening.

Do you believe we should be able to talk to people on the ground during competitions? Serious question. Can I have an expert glider pilot with a bank of computers coach me through the flight? That would be an example of having more information to balance. I think that is nuts but they are all about it at the Worlds.

Enough on that now I have to respond to VW.

XC

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:15:36 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:36:45 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:

9B,

Obviously you are trying to goad me on with that last comment. I'll bite.

Some of us still believe that looking at clouds and terrain, finding thermals yourself, is an important part of the sport. Throughout these threads this is still a lot of talk overstated talk about safety that is covering for what some folks really want, to buddy-fly their way around the race course.

BB has even said leading out is a losing strategy. Strange, champions of the past weren't afraid to lead out. Is this the way we are heading?

FLARM with stealth as it is now really works well in a contest setting for collision avoidance. Those who claim otherwise have largely never tried it and/or want (need) to see others to make their way around the race course. Seems kind of weak-assed in my opinion.

Still waiting to hear what you think our sport should be about. You are on the RC. I'd like to know your vision on where we are going. What parts are essential to the sport?

Should we keep the part about not running a motor? Or should we allow folks to run their motors for 2 five minute periods? This would arguably be safer and those who maybe didn't get enough practice in could stay competitive on the score sheet longer. Still seems like an arbitrary limit, though.

I'd hate to limit engine technology. If we only allow 10 minutes of engine time they better count. I'd want to get some good performance out of my engine. All this too can be part of the undefined future of our sport.

XC

Hey Sean,

Wasn't trying to goad you particularly. It was more philosophical - but I know you're always up to the philosophical challenge.

My vision for the sport. Okay, pressure's on...

I think soaring competitions (or contests - note that I don't say "race", which is an important sub-part of the skills needed in soaring competition, but not the whole) should test a number of skills, all of which are related to the ability to make distance over the ground, primarily in a minimum amount of time, all without benefit of propulsion by means of stored energy (gasoline, electrons, rubber bands, nuclear reactors, etc.) and without proprietary assistance from others (that is, it needs to be your performance (philosophy on two-seaters will need its own thread).

While there are a wide array of skills that contribute to being good at achieving the above objective, I think the paramount skill is the ability to make optimal strategic and tactical decisions with complex information inputs under uncertainty. This boils down to two basic tenets. Tenet 1: Don't pick sub-par climbs and, Tenet 2: Don't get so low that you can't pick the thermal you want. Fundamentally, we are testing pilots' abilities to trade off these two tenets. In flight this boils down to two types of decisions, 1) which line will have the best energy and 2) should I stop and climb here or press on in hope of finding better lift (BB has written quite eloquently on the latter item in his "A little faster please" article - if you haven't, read it. It includes a lot on decisions about altitude and thermal lift distribution versus the "stop to climb" decision and upwind/downwind/crosswind starts and turnpoint decisions). In general, the more complex and varied the information inputs involved in testing that ability, the better and more accurate the test of soaring skills.

In constructing soaring competitions, they need to be subject to a constraint of fairness, which is: every pilot needs the same opportunity to make the same in-flight tradeoff decisions. Note that this does not necessarily mean that every pilot needs to make the exact same flight in a giant bomber formation. Now, some people will argue that if every glider isn't flying in exactly the same air at exactly the same time random and unpredictable differences in weather can make all the difference and that's all luck. I can sympathize and understand this perspective and agree that some poorly thought through logic can end up looking pretty clever if the unexpected happens weather-wise, but generally I think better pilots are better at reading the weather and integrating macro and micro level forecasts and weather clues into their decision-making. This to me is an important skill that comes into play whether your rage of course line flexibility is 5 miles or 50 miles.

There is an element of risk tolerance that figures into all of this that I personally think needs to go so far but no further in terms of contests encouraging or accepting "bet your life" or "bet your glider" decisions. A significant amount of risk is inevitable, but I don't see willingness to take on risk - or belief that you can pull off risky decisions when others can't or won't - as a skill set we want to test for its own sake. I don't think we should try to eliminate every landout or risk of landout no matter what. There is plenty of time to be lost just by taking a 2 knot thermal instead of a 4-knot thermal and pilots will press for the better climb as their comfort-level dictates. But ensuring that a pilot at 1000' desperate for a climb has to put into a field doesn't do anything to improve how we judge soaring performance, in fact every landout just complicates matters because we have to translate miles to miles per hour (or more exactly translate both to points with formulas that arbitrarily weight the two metrics differently). If we can't compare performance exactly then it undermines the validity of the results. We tolerate this because we have to - landouts are inevitable but the ideal goal would be to challenge pilots' decision-making skills to the maximum without having to figure out how many points a mike is worth.

So what are the skills we want to test? My view (in order of importance):

1) Ability to make decisions about the optimal path to fly to achieve the best speed over the course - this can include small deviations to maximize energy, places to look for lift based on terrain, clouds or other indicators (like gliders or raptors climbing) and macro decisions about where to go when task flexibility is greater (as in AAT and MAT formats).

2) Ability to best estimate how to make use of the available lift in terms of when to climb, when to press on, when to cruise or dolphin.

(I go back and forth on the priority order between 1 and 2)

3) Ability to understand weather and how it affects likely task performance at the micro-level and macro-level both in terms of forecast weather and weather dynamics over the course of the day, including the ability to integrate new information as weather changes. Note that 3) interplays with 1) on many days.

4) Ability to extract the most energy out of lift sources. This includes thermalling technique, search technique, etc.

5) Stick skills - the ability to fly at the right speed, right flap setting, right bank angle, judge the final glide, not crash into a ridge, etc. I see these as table-stakes for flying, but not something we are trying to test explicitly. Leave that to the Red Bull racing pilots.

I'm sure there are other things I am forgetting so I reserve the right to revise my list.

So, how does this vision for the sport affect philosophy for technology like Flarm and ADS-B? They are at the simplest level another source of information that needs to be balanced against and integrated with other information inputs. More information puts more pressure on good decision-making ("go for the cu on course or the glider climbing a mile off course in the blue?" is a more complex decision than "go for the cu on course - it's all you've got").

Sure, some pilots may decide that they can latch onto others decisions and more Flarm range may give them more opportunity to try, but all the evidence is that if you are borrowing someone else'd decisions without even knowing what they are deciding it's very hard to perform well, except in some very narrow scope. There are just too many variables and they change way too dynamically to blindly follow and win most of the time. Even if it were possible to use more information about other gliders I don't believe this fundamentally changes the sport - other gliders are just more information. If it is true that you can win just by following then we are all fools not to fly the gaggle all the time, regardless of technology enablers. If we don't like the gaggle, we should change how we score and set up tasks (and maybe penalize leeching - it's pretty easy) rather than scapegoating technology. These practices pre- and post-date every technology shift. It's not about technology and technology doesn't significantly alter the balance - I looked for it.

I feel the same way about weather data - so long as we confirm that it is reasonably available to all at affordable cost. It gives more information for complex tradeoff decisions rather than flying blindly. Why flying blindly is viewed as a skill totally escapes me. Guts to press into a thunderstorm without knowing what's ahead? It's not a "skill" I think soaring contests should be testing.

Hope that's a decent start at a reply.

9B
Andy Blackburn
RC "Revolutionary"

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with almost everything you've said about priorities. Our two view points differ in one fundamental way that I can think of. I believe we should be measuring these same abilities with the pilot and glider taken as one system competing against and amongst other pilots. Pulling in more and more information from people outside the glider just means you are using their abilities. This homogenizes not differentiates pilots abilities in my view.

You'll see as time goes on that people are talking more and more about the FLARM thermal values. When you hear this you know that the pilot was able to pick one thermal over another based on someone else's analysis of that thermal. They never had to size up the look of the cloud or sample the air that was already done for them, This is already happening.

Do you believe we should be able to talk to people on the ground during competitions? Serious question. Can I have an expert glider pilot with a bank of computers coach me through the flight? That would be an example of having more information to balance. I think that is nuts but they are all about it at the Worlds.

Enough on that now I have to respond to VW.

XC

At 03:15 04 January 2016, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Hey Sean,

Wasn't trying to goad you particularly. It was more philosophical - but I
k=
now you're always up to the philosophical challenge.

My vision for the sport. Okay, pressure's on...

I think soaring competitions (or contests - note that I don't say "race",
w=
hich is an important sub-part of the skills needed in soaring
competition,
=
but not the whole) should test a number of skills, all of which are
related=
to the ability to make distance over the ground, primarily in a minimum
am=
ount of time, all without benefit of propulsion by means of stored energy
(=
gasoline, electrons, rubber bands, nuclear reactors, etc.) and without
prop=
rietary assistance from others (that is, it needs to be your performance
(p=
hilosophy on two-seaters will need its own thread).=20

While there are a wide array of skills that contribute to being good at
ach=
ieving the above objective, I think the paramount skill is the ability to
m=
ake optimal strategic and tactical decisions with complex information
input=
s under uncertainty. This boils down to two basic tenets. Tenet 1: Don't
pi=
ck sub-par climbs and, Tenet 2: Don't get so low that you can't pick the
th=
ermal you want. Fundamentally, we are testing pilots' abilities to trade
of=
f these two tenets. In flight this boils down to two types of decisions,
1)=
which line will have the best energy and 2) should I stop and climb here
o=
r press on in hope of finding better lift (BB has written quite
eloquently
=
on the latter item in his "A little faster please" article - if you
haven't=
, read it. It includes a lot on decisions about altitude and thermal lift
d=
istribution versus the "stop to climb" decision and
upwind/downwind/crosswi=
nd starts and turnpoint decisions). In general, the more complex and
varied=
the information inputs involved in testing that ability, the better and
mo=
re accurate the test of soaring skills.=20

In constructing soaring competitions, they need to be subject to a
constrai=
nt of fairness, which is: every pilot needs the same opportunity to make
th=
e same in-flight tradeoff decisions. Note that this does not necessarily
me=
an that every pilot needs to make the exact same flight in a giant bomber
f=
ormation. Now, some people will argue that if every glider isn't flying
in
=
exactly the same air at exactly the same time random and unpredictable
diff=
erences in weather can make all the difference and that's all luck. I can
s=
ympathize and understand this perspective and agree that some poorly
though=
t through logic can end up looking pretty clever if the unexpected
happens
=
weather-wise, but generally I think better pilots are better at reading
the=
weather and integrating macro and micro level forecasts and weather
clues
=
into their decision-making. This to me is an important skill that comes
int=
o play whether your rage of course line flexibility is 5 miles or 50
miles.

There is an element of risk tolerance that figures into all of this that
I
=
personally think needs to go so far but no further in terms of contests
enc=
ouraging or accepting "bet your life" or "bet your glider" decisions. A
sig=
nificant amount of risk is inevitable, but I don't see willingness to
take
=
on risk - or belief that you can pull off risky decisions when others
can't=
or won't - as a skill set we want to test for its own sake. I don't
think
=
we should try to eliminate every landout or risk of landout no matter
what.=
There is plenty of time to be lost just by taking a 2 knot thermal
instead=
of a 4-knot thermal and pilots will press for the better climb as their
co=
mfort-level dictates. But ensuring that a pilot at 1000' desperate for a
cl=
imb has to put into a field doesn't do anything to improve how we judge
soa=
ring performance, in fact every landout just complicates matters because
we=
have to translate miles to miles per hour (or more exactly translate
both
=
to points with formulas that arbitrarily weight the two metrics
differently=
). If we can't compare performance exactly then it undermines the
validity
=
of the results. We tolerate this because we have to - landouts are
inevitab=
le but the ideal goal would be to challenge pilots' decision-making
skills
=
to the maximum without having to figure out how many points a mike is
worth=
..=20

So what are the skills we want to test? My view (in order of importance):

1) Ability to make decisions about the optimal path to fly to achieve the
b=
est speed over the course - this can include small deviations to maximize
e=
nergy, places to look for lift based on terrain, clouds or other
indicators=
(like gliders or raptors climbing) and macro decisions about where to go
w=
hen task flexibility is greater (as in AAT and MAT formats). =20

2) Ability to best estimate how to make use of the available lift in
terms
=
of when to climb, when to press on, when to cruise or dolphin.

(I go back and forth on the priority order between 1 and 2)

3) Ability to understand weather and how it affects likely task
performance=
at the micro-level and macro-level both in terms of forecast weather and
w=
eather dynamics over the course of the day, including the ability to
integr=
ate new information as weather changes. Note that 3) interplays with 1)
on
=
many days.

4) Ability to extract the most energy out of lift sources. This includes
th=
ermalling technique, search technique, etc.

5) Stick skills - the ability to fly at the right speed, right flap
setting=
, right bank angle, judge the final glide, not crash into a ridge, etc. I
s=
ee these as table-stakes for flying, but not something we are trying to
tes=
t explicitly. Leave that to the Red Bull racing pilots.

I'm sure there are other things I am forgetting so I reserve the right to
r=
evise my list.

So, how does this vision for the sport affect philosophy for technology
lik=
e Flarm and ADS-B? They are at the simplest level another source of
inform=
ation that needs to be balanced against and integrated with other
informati=
on inputs. More information puts more pressure on good decision-making
("go=
for the cu on course or the glider climbing a mile off course in the
blue?=
" is a more complex decision than "go for the cu on course - it's all
you'v=
e got").=20

Sure, some pilots may decide that they can latch onto others decisions
and
=
more Flarm range may give them more opportunity to try, but all the
evidenc=
e is that if you are borrowing someone else'd decisions without even
knowin=
g what they are deciding it's very hard to perform well, except in some
ver=
y narrow scope. There are just too many variables and they change way too
d=
ynamically to blindly follow and win most of the time. Even if it were
poss=
ible to use more information about other gliders I don't believe this
funda=
mentally changes the sport - other gliders are just more information. If
it=
is true that you can win just by following then we are all fools not to
fl=
y the gaggle all the time, regardless of technology enablers. If we don't
l=
ike the gaggle, we should change how we score and set up tasks (and maybe
p=
enalize leeching - it's pretty easy) rather than scapegoating technology.
T=
hese practices pre- and post-date every technology shift. It's not about
te=
chnology and technology doesn't significantly alter the balance - I
looked
=
for it.

I feel the same way about weather data - so long as we confirm that it is
r=
easonably available to all at affordable cost. It gives more information
fo=
r complex tradeoff decisions rather than flying blindly. Why flying
blindly=
is viewed as a skill totally escapes me. Guts to press into a
thunderstorm=
without knowing what's ahead? It's not a "skill" I think soaring
contests
=
should be testing.

Hope that's a decent start at a reply.

9B
Andy Blackburn
RC "Revolutionary"


Well reasoned Andy. Do you mind if I use it in my lectures?

Whilst I agree with pretty much all of what you say the reality is somewhat
different. My experience over 15 years of racing is that handicapped
regional competitions do generally reward the pilot with the best XC
skills. #1 XC skill here is not landing out!

In single class Nationals however the principal skill is different. I have
observed two types of winning pilot he

The 1st type has immense XC skill and does their own thing. They win
sometimes but usually have a day or two where they lose out big time.

The other, and more successful type, stays religiously in the leading
gaggle. The group think of the gaggle generally stays airborne and finishes
near the top. Several days near the top puts you within a few points of a
championship win.

Often there is one outstanding pilot who ends up dragging the gaggle around
all week. They usually win, but I have seen them usurped by the friendly
follower who starts 10 seconds later and hits the line at the same time
again and again.

When I moved from regionals to nationals I missed this point for a couple
of years!

To win an international today you have to team fly and use the gaggle.
Intelligence from the ground using live weather and tracking information
seems to be an increasing part.

Whilst I prefer to use stealth mode I fear that this technology cat is out
of the bag and we shall have to embrace it sooner or later.

Jim

Some good points Andy. I disagree with much of it, but I'm sure that you are not surprised by this. ;-).

I have to call US tasking "philosophy" out again. This will be a nice intermission from the Flarm fantasy discussion.

In a word, US tasking SUCKS! And, it's getting worse all the time. First, the idea that an assigned task does not "test" weather skill (but a HAT, MAT or TAT does) is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard within the sport of soaring.

The more variability or "vagueness" in a given tasks requirement to "consolidate" and get back to a defined point along a set race course, via your skills (weather knowledge, pilot skill, tactical efficiency, puzzle solving skills) while flying down a "leg" of a task, the EASIER the task is. This ranges from timed, area tasks of up to 60 miles in diameter (2800+ sq. miles) to 1 mile assiged turns. The more tightly defined the task is, the better it is. It's that simple. PERIOD.

We (SSA/US) fly almost exclusively "easy tasks" (75% TAT last I checked), and have created whole new types of even easier tasks in the USA (see one or even zero "turn" MAT, i.e. OLC, i.e. HAT). Easy, vague and by definition very prone to being lucky in the broad randomness that results in an individual score via the formulas of our US scoring program, WinScore.. Some call the ability to wander around only flying the best weather, skill. Sure, but it requires LESS SKILL when you don't have to bring it back to an assigned turn, several times throughout the task. Sadly, many seem to love this randomness. They somehow see an objective measurement in it. We do area tasks roughly 75% of the time in the USA, so someone must be happy. I for one am continuously disgusted by it. Less variables, less luck (racing tasks). More variables, more luck (go wherever the hell you wish, tasks). 2000 words describing what elements you wish to "TEST?" is a waste of time, but you do write very well Andy!

I want to test how fast a pilot can get around a race course. Pure, simple, no bull ****. Right now, we do this only a few times a year within the USA, that's it. At World Championships, they do it 50% of the time. I say that's not enough!

Example. You're flying down an 80-mile leg of a real racing, assigned task.. All the while, you must carefully adjust your strategy and tactics to find the most efficient means of getting yourself back to the assigned turn point. This is an entirely more difficult game than managing an area task. First of all, you have the same exact race track (not really in the USA, but for the sake of time) for every pilot. Imagine that! If you choose to waiver way off course during an assigned task, for a good weather reason of course (you know, the superior weather knowledge) that deviation must always be tempered by the need to pay it back and get back to the turn point at some point. A far more complex puzzle. In area tasks, you only have the find the fastest way to keep going "that a way" and towards the easiest weather available in that huge range. You are never "boxed in" and forced to suffer from a poor weather decision on that leg (having to pay back the extra distance), or to cross difficult spots more efficiently than your competitors.

Going down a "leg?" (one can't really define any leg of an Area task, can they?) of an Area "task?" which can be 30 miles or 90 miles in length (for example), or vary up to 60 miles laterally depending on said pilots superior weather knowledge (ROTFL). This sure sounds like racing to me! Seriously, should the word "racing" even be used in SSA descriptions of contests any more? Its almost fraud to call our tasks, "races." In fact, it IS fraud! See definition of "race."

We should instead start call our tasks...

"Mileage/time=speed calculations of flight traces over a series of (up to) 2800 square mile weather variability assessment tests, aided by our clearNav that basically does all the time/distance stuff for us (Frank Sinatra music optional)." How is this really different from OLC already? Anyone?

Boy, ESPN must be kicking down our doors to get the rights to cover this "sport!" Sailplane racing! Im sure they will have color commentary of the scoring process as well. Multiple camera angles, mood lighting, elevator music, commercial free, etc.

Anyway, these area "tasks" are, by definition, designed to allow our pilots to choose what weather is "easiest" to fly so they do not land out! Area tasks allow the pilot to pick and choose the best clouds to follow into a huge general area of THEIR OWN choosing. You can turn back anytime you wish if you get into trouble. For example, I'm low now on an upwind Area task "leg", NO PROBLEM! You can just choose to turn at this HIGHLY CONVIENENT point and go downwind. Hell, it doesn't matter. It's all based on the concept of a minimum time! Get out of jail free! You might even time to change to a new Sinatra CD!

Now, compare that to the developed skills of an assigned task pilot. Getting low on an upwind leg is a real problem. You have to figure it out and complete the race course, and lose real time around a REAL RACE TRACK vs. your smarter competitors. Oh, the humanity of that. How terrible! How uncivilized. I won't have time to make a new gin and tonic!

Area tasks are, quite literally, infant tasks in comparison to assigned (real racing). They are the favorite task type of tourists who also want OLC to be considered a real form of meaningful "competition?" Some clowns want "no" racing tasks in the USA. None! 3% racing is too much! Hey, I've got a new word to describe area tasks! Let's call them weak-assed tasks! Thanks Sean! WATs!

Assigned tasks are "grown up" tasks. For true racing sailplane pilots. The task real glider pilots WANT to fly each day. Nobody really wakes up in the morning and wants to fly an area task at a contest. Do they? If so, I mourn for you! Assigned tasks force real consequences for strategy and tactical mistakes and require resilient, brilliant pilots to win consistently.. I, for one, have more respect for the winner of an assigned task, then I do for a huge area task. Assigned tasks are tasks of complete racing champions. Champions who are, IMO, better sailplane pilots in literally every form of measure. Stick and rudder skills, WHAT A BUNCH OF ABSOLUTE CRAP. Anyone who says this is what makes a good assigned task competitor has zero understanding of the sport of sailplane competition.

Look at Sailplane Grand Prix. Let's see how pilots who only fly WATs, you know, with their superior weather skills, do in Grand Prix for example. They will get destroyed. On the other hand, how will the top SGP pilots do when they must fly area tasks. Answer, they still win. They are complete pilots. Tougher mentally. Precision matters. Decision making and puzzle solution skills matter.

Furthermore, the reason everyone runs out and buys the fancy computers (I passed by the way) is to allow the computer to help MAKE THE TURN AREA DECISION for them! Those decisions are critical to being successful in the very vague, very obtuse Area tasks. These computers are designed to much better tell you if you (for example) can turn now or if you need to try make a few more miles is less than perfect clouds (oh the humanity...). I'll call the fancy computers that are great at making decisions for their pilots in US tasks, weak-assed technology! ;-) You know, unlike PowerFlarm (where all pilots have the same data), when you buy a fancy flight computer, you have SUPERIOR technology than your competitors! This ADVANTAGE helps you make better decisions while flying complex tasks (every single timed task type in fact). What a horrible, HORRIBLE, unfair, awful thing.......right? RC that just voted to limit FLARM (perhaps risking safety)? Right?

You know, I have just realized something. I need to accept it. We really are going to only run OLC "tasks" in the SSA 10 years. OLC tasks will be formally introduced as an actual task by the SSA this year (next year at the latest), and without specific guidance and an overlying policy that prevents it, most regionals will immediately begin calling OLC as tasks 80% of the time. I can see it now! In 5 years, nearly 100% of our regional tasking will be OLC (many will still argue that OLC is racing) and 50% of our nationals tasks will be OLC "racing." And so on... An area task will be voodoo then! LOL!

I'll be running a US Grand Prix racing league and will not even bother with SSA contests by this point. 3% (or less) is not going to keep my attention.

For me, the only form of competition that I am truly interested in involves one simple measured element, speed around a set RACING track. The other stuff is a compromise when the weather is bad, except in the USA of course. Times tasks are the main course here, but I digress. Assigned tasks require only stopwatch. They do not even require an elaborate scoring program (or an experienced, scorer!) and its highly subjective formulas (see Andys post) trying to "best assess" what elements of "racing" sailplanes are most important to you as a person. For example, leeching penalties. WOW. Like little economist attempting to plan economies, our RC tries to plan what soaring competition "should be" for us. And it is becoming ANYTHING but racing. What a complete disaster this has become.

Remember, in assigned tasks, pilots are free to go anywhere they want in between the set turn points. That alone provides nearly infinite variables by itself, by itself. The difference is, they have to always bring it back to a specific turn point that may not be at the end of a magical line of puffy white clouds. Simple.

The only reason to run a TAT is when the weather is in question or the class that must account for broad handicap range (sports). Times, area task are, by definition, "compromise tasks!" HATs and MATs are, in comparison, huge compromise tasks. I'm honestly amazed we still make our pilots come back to a 2 mile finish cylinder. Why not a 60 mile finish "area?" Sometimes it's hard to come back to that small point in space. Its too hard! Right?

Sean

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 9:26:02 AM UTC-8, smfidler wrote:
Some good points Andy. I disagree with much of it, but I'm sure that you are not surprised by this. ;-).

I have to call US tasking "philosophy" out again. This will be a nice intermission from the Flarm fantasy discussion.

In a word, US tasking SUCKS! And, it's getting worse all the time. First, the idea that an assigned task does not "test" weather skill (but a HAT, MAT or TAT does) is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard within the sport of soaring.

The more variability or "vagueness" in a given tasks requirement to "consolidate" and get back to a defined point along a set race course, via your skills (weather knowledge, pilot skill, tactical efficiency, puzzle solving skills) while flying down a "leg" of a task, the EASIER the task is. This ranges from timed, area tasks of up to 60 miles in diameter (2800+ sq. miles) to 1 mile assiged turns. The more tightly defined the task is, the better it is. It's that simple. PERIOD.

We (SSA/US) fly almost exclusively "easy tasks" (75% TAT last I checked), and have created whole new types of even easier tasks in the USA (see one or even zero "turn" MAT, i.e. OLC, i.e. HAT). Easy, vague and by definition very prone to being lucky in the broad randomness that results in an individual score via the formulas of our US scoring program, WinScore.. Some call the ability to wander around only flying the best weather, skill. Sure, but it requires LESS SKILL when you don't have to bring it back to an assigned turn, several times throughout the task. Sadly, many seem to love this randomness. They somehow see an objective measurement in it. We do area tasks roughly 75% of the time in the USA, so someone must be happy. I for one am continuously disgusted by it. Less variables, less luck (racing tasks). More variables, more luck (go wherever the hell you wish, tasks). 2000 words describing what elements you wish to "TEST?" is a waste of time, but you do write very well Andy!

I want to test how fast a pilot can get around a race course. Pure, simple, no bull ****. Right now, we do this only a few times a year within the USA, that's it. At World Championships, they do it 50% of the time. I say that's not enough!

Example. You're flying down an 80-mile leg of a real racing, assigned task. All the while, you must carefully adjust your strategy and tactics to find the most efficient means of getting yourself back to the assigned turn point. This is an entirely more difficult game than managing an area task.. First of all, you have the same exact race track (not really in the USA, but for the sake of time) for every pilot. Imagine that! If you choose to waiver way off course during an assigned task, for a good weather reason of course (you know, the superior weather knowledge) that deviation must always be tempered by the need to pay it back and get back to the turn point at some point. A far more complex puzzle. In area tasks, you only have the find the fastest way to keep going "that a way" and towards the easiest weather available in that huge range. You are never "boxed in" and forced to suffer from a poor weather decision on that leg (having to pay back the extra distance), or to cross difficult spots more efficiently than your competitors.

Going down a "leg?" (one can't really define any leg of an Area task, can they?) of an Area "task?" which can be 30 miles or 90 miles in length (for example), or vary up to 60 miles laterally depending on said pilots superior weather knowledge (ROTFL). This sure sounds like racing to me! Seriously, should the word "racing" even be used in SSA descriptions of contests any more? Its almost fraud to call our tasks, "races." In fact, it IS fraud! See definition of "race."

We should instead start call our tasks...

"Mileage/time=speed calculations of flight traces over a series of (up to) 2800 square mile weather variability assessment tests, aided by our clearNav that basically does all the time/distance stuff for us (Frank Sinatra music optional)." How is this really different from OLC already? Anyone?

Boy, ESPN must be kicking down our doors to get the rights to cover this "sport!" Sailplane racing! Im sure they will have color commentary of the scoring process as well. Multiple camera angles, mood lighting, elevator music, commercial free, etc.

Anyway, these area "tasks" are, by definition, designed to allow our pilots to choose what weather is "easiest" to fly so they do not land out! Area tasks allow the pilot to pick and choose the best clouds to follow into a huge general area of THEIR OWN choosing. You can turn back anytime you wish if you get into trouble. For example, I'm low now on an upwind Area task "leg", NO PROBLEM! You can just choose to turn at this HIGHLY CONVIENENT point and go downwind. Hell, it doesn't matter. It's all based on the concept of a minimum time! Get out of jail free! You might even time to change to a new Sinatra CD!

Now, compare that to the developed skills of an assigned task pilot. Getting low on an upwind leg is a real problem. You have to figure it out and complete the race course, and lose real time around a REAL RACE TRACK vs. your smarter competitors. Oh, the humanity of that. How terrible! How uncivilized. I won't have time to make a new gin and tonic!

Area tasks are, quite literally, infant tasks in comparison to assigned (real racing). They are the favorite task type of tourists who also want OLC to be considered a real form of meaningful "competition?" Some clowns want "no" racing tasks in the USA. None! 3% racing is too much! Hey, I've got a new word to describe area tasks! Let's call them weak-assed tasks! Thanks Sean! WATs!

Assigned tasks are "grown up" tasks. For true racing sailplane pilots. The task real glider pilots WANT to fly each day. Nobody really wakes up in the morning and wants to fly an area task at a contest. Do they? If so, I mourn for you! Assigned tasks force real consequences for strategy and tactical mistakes and require resilient, brilliant pilots to win consistently. I, for one, have more respect for the winner of an assigned task, then I do for a huge area task. Assigned tasks are tasks of complete racing champions. Champions who are, IMO, better sailplane pilots in literally every form of measure. Stick and rudder skills, WHAT A BUNCH OF ABSOLUTE CRAP. Anyone who says this is what makes a good assigned task competitor has zero understanding of the sport of sailplane competition.

Look at Sailplane Grand Prix. Let's see how pilots who only fly WATs, you know, with their superior weather skills, do in Grand Prix for example. They will get destroyed. On the other hand, how will the top SGP pilots do when they must fly area tasks. Answer, they still win. They are complete pilots. Tougher mentally. Precision matters. Decision making and puzzle solution skills matter.

Furthermore, the reason everyone runs out and buys the fancy computers (I passed by the way) is to allow the computer to help MAKE THE TURN AREA DECISION for them! Those decisions are critical to being successful in the very vague, very obtuse Area tasks. These computers are designed to much better tell you if you (for example) can turn now or if you need to try make a few more miles is less than perfect clouds (oh the humanity...). I'll call the fancy computers that are great at making decisions for their pilots in US tasks, weak-assed technology! ;-) You know, unlike PowerFlarm (where all pilots have the same data), when you buy a fancy flight computer, you have SUPERIOR technology than your competitors! This ADVANTAGE helps you make better decisions while flying complex tasks (every single timed task type in fact). What a horrible, HORRIBLE, unfair, awful thing.......right? RC that just voted to limit FLARM (perhaps risking safety)? Right?

You know, I have just realized something. I need to accept it. We really are going to only run OLC "tasks" in the SSA 10 years. OLC tasks will be formally introduced as an actual task by the SSA this year (next year at the latest), and without specific guidance and an overlying policy that prevents it, most regionals will immediately begin calling OLC as tasks 80% of the time. I can see it now! In 5 years, nearly 100% of our regional tasking will be OLC (many will still argue that OLC is racing) and 50% of our nationals tasks will be OLC "racing." And so on... An area task will be voodoo then! LOL!

I'll be running a US Grand Prix racing league and will not even bother with SSA contests by this point. 3% (or less) is not going to keep my attention.

For me, the only form of competition that I am truly interested in involves one simple measured element, speed around a set RACING track. The other stuff is a compromise when the weather is bad, except in the USA of course.. Times tasks are the main course here, but I digress. Assigned tasks require only stopwatch. They do not even require an elaborate scoring program (or an experienced, scorer!) and its highly subjective formulas (see Andys post) trying to "best assess" what elements of "racing" sailplanes are most important to you as a person. For example, leeching penalties. WOW. Like little economist attempting to plan economies, our RC tries to plan what soaring competition "should be" for us. And it is becoming ANYTHING but racing. What a complete disaster this has become.

Remember, in assigned tasks, pilots are free to go anywhere they want in between the set turn points. That alone provides nearly infinite variables by itself, by itself. The difference is, they have to always bring it back to a specific turn point that may not be at the end of a magical line of puffy white clouds. Simple.

The only reason to run a TAT is when the weather is in question or the class that must account for broad handicap range (sports). Times, area task are, by definition, "compromise tasks!" HATs and MATs are, in comparison, huge compromise tasks. I'm honestly amazed we still make our pilots come back to a 2 mile finish cylinder. Why not a 60 mile finish "area?" Sometimes it's hard to come back to that small point in space. Its too hard! Right?

Sean

I take your points and don't disagree that we should be calling more constrained tasks on average and more ATs where practical. I don't think we will do participation in the sport any favors driving up the landout percentages significantly in the process. I do think there is some skill in picking the macro lines of strongest weather that you wouldn't normally get in an AT, but also that there is skill in being required to get to a specific point. We all did it for years back before GPS and took pictures of the turnpoints to prove it. Also, we will have to tolerate more gaggling and leeching. I'm okay with that too.

You sure get excited about it. How's your CAPS LOCK holding up?

9B

Aww crap, this was going so well, then everyone had to get all rational and stuff.

Many good points made by all. However, the assumption being made is that "open Flarm" will be just that: Flarm with all it's excellent capabilities intact to maximize situational awareness and safety. That would be optimal. No argument from me. However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?