The truth about Flarm Stealth and Competition definition...

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