US team silence

Us team finished 23rd out of 24. I would be keeping quiet too.
Not a big fan of Sean Fidler, but he certainly had a point that not using FAI rules for US comps ensures bad results.

Other than two that did OK, the others make me realize how bad I suck. Those in the know always point out ‘team flying’.
I would like to simply read or hear about the Science of how the winners do it, IF there is more to it than wiggling the stick and making tight turns.
Our guys are all good pilots, they showed up.
R

John,

Are you volunteering to fund a dedicated PR person like these other teams have? Cool! Well done. The US team thanks you for your support.

At 06:31 22 July 2018, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Us team finished 23rd out of 24. I would be keeping quiet too.
Not a big fan of Sean Fidler, but he certainly had a point that not
using FAI rules for US comps ensures bad results.


Well, there is probably much to be said about that. I advocated for
using FAI rules in the USA back in the 1980's and '90's but was
rebuked (probably before Sean was born). The answer was that
we were down to only one insurance company that would cover
gliders due to the high breakage rates, and that they were
threatening to drop all glider coverage too, unless we did something
to minimize the damage rate in contests. So, there was this threat
of nobody being able to get insurance coverage to fly gliders
anywhere in the USA. (or so it was portrayed) The USA rules have
thus been revised to promote "lone eagle" flying, and to disperse
gaggles to a certain extent. That is what a lot of (if not most) glider
racers in the USA want and have voted for. They don't like gaggles,
(maybe over simplified) so the USA has wound up with a different
method to judge glider racing ability compared to what the rest of
the world uses. To be fair though, some of the USA ideas/changes
have been incorporated into the FAI rules, such as being able to use
a Turn Area Task on a day where thunderstorms are forecast in order
to minimize land-outs, etc...

The problem is that at a WGC, (at least in the short winged classes)
it's all about being able to fly well in gaggles and traffic. To do well
there, you not only have to be comfortable in the monster gaggle
environment, you have to be able to steer and lead it.... (This is
coming from yours truly who finished 2nd in the STDs at Benalla
in 1987 - only 37 points out of 1st place in a 12,000 point contest.
Personally, I give great credit to my former military formation
flying which has given me the ability to be more comfortable than
most while having good situational awareness when flying in
close proximity to other aircraft.)

So, CQ, in a nutshell you are correct. The USA rules and racing
experiences just don't adequately prepare USA team members
for the harsh realities of what it really takes to do well at a WGC.
If you have troubles with gaggle flying, you are not going to do
well at a WGC, especially when you are routinely presented with
gaggles of 40+ gliders all racing against each other.

(Flame suit on, but it's only my personal observation from having
"been there, done that, got the T shirt". If you have not been
there in person yourself, don't be so quick to pass judgement from
your armchair / PC.)

RO

Well, nice you sorta bring it up, and I have asked before on here, what are a couple/few things you think out WGC pilots are lacking based on how we do rules?

I have been looking for comments from US pilots that have flown here and a WGC.

You mention large gaggles.
I have thought team flying.
Maybe it's contest flight planning.

I have received some emails in the last couple years where certain people said, "well, we will be discussing soon, can't say anything now".
Can't say I ever heard back.

Just curious.

At 15:34 22 July 2018, Charlie M. UH & 002 owner/pilot wrote:
Well, nice you sorta bring it up, and I have asked before on here,
what are
a couple/few things you think out WGC pilots are lacking based on
how we do
rules?

I have been looking for comments from US pilots that have flown
here and a
WGC.

You mention large gaggles.
I have thought team flying.
Maybe it's contest flight planning.

I have received some emails in the last couple years where certain
people
said, "well, we will be discussing soon, can't say anything now".
Can't say I ever heard back.

Just curious.

Ideally, in my mind, you need good team flyers who also are both
(or 3) equally comfortable in huge gaggle flying. The team flying
is especially important for the times when you get split off from the
gaggle. You really need both....though look at what Makoto from
Japan was able to achieve at the 2016 and now the 2018 WGC as a
single player. In the short winged "white tornado" gaggle classes,
gaggle flying ability comes first, then team flying. USA contests are
designed to minimize the gaggle flying, WGC's are not. Contest
flight planning? Not so much. You can start with an anticipated
game plan, but once you are on course, you have to run continual
decision making loops which will generate almost immediate
deviations from the original plan. The wx and situations can change
very rapidly, and you need to be able to shift gears and deviate from
the plan ASAP. Your decision making loop process has to be faster
than that of your competitors. That is where you get ahead, but
most of that is from what develops on course, rather than pre-flight
planning.

Simply my own first hand perspective / observations....

RO

Mak had help from the Australian team, particularly Matthew Scutter in 2016. I presume they also were cooperating on at least the final day in 2018 based on their start and finish times.

I got the following response to a similar post on another forum from Aus team members Allan Barnes.
G.Dales statement is most interesting



There's a dichotomy between selecting the winner of the Nationals (rightly an individual honour) and selecting the best team pilots for the Worlds. With the current formulaic selection process, we only have the Nationals to select from. So we are selecting on ability to fly well independently, where for the Worlds, what we need to select on is ability to stick with busy gaggles and resist the impulse to do your own thing. I love team flying at international comps - there is no better fun than flying with a partner and having two sets of eyes and two brains to improve decision making. Jim and I have worked really well here at Ostrow. There is no question that it improves outcomes if done properly. But for that you need discipline and commitment, and practice.

Adam has been playing the gaggle game at this comp and doing a fantastic job of it. If you religiously stay with a gaggle of top pilots and have a glider that can keep up with them, then you are almost guaranteed a good result, even without a team partner. The rest of the gaggle becomes your de-facto team. It is hard for us as Australian pilots, brought up with the idea that leaching is despicable, to embrace this approach. But there is no shame at it at the Worlds. If you are not doing it, you are at the very bottom of the points table, almost every day.

As G Dale said to me this competition: We're not here to show that we're better pilots than the rest. We're here to get more points than the rest. And like it or not, that's not the same thing.

Whether you agree with it or not, that's the reality of flying at a Worlds.

I'm not suggesting that we start selecting team pilots on a subjective basis or by committee vote. Every Nationals pilot needs to know that if they perform well enough they will be on the team. But I do think that there's scope for selecting the first pilot in each class by results, and the second pilot in the class based on who would work best with that first pilot.

As for pair flying in a Nationals, it remains against the rules and that's fine. The true problem is enforcement and proof of pre-arranged intent. A pilot may legitimately decide that their best tactic is to hook up with a top pilot pre-start and shadow them around the whole task, every day. Perfect training for the Worlds, in fact. If the pilot does that off their own bat then it's not team flying. But if the two pilots discuss and agree beforehand then it is. How do you distinguish the two cases from track logs alone? You can't.

I've heard the opinion that if a rule is not enforceable then it shouldn't be in the rulebook. I disagree. The rules describe how we want the competition to be conducted. We don't want cloud flying, we can't enforce it, but it's still in the rules. If someone cloud flies, and they end up winning the day, then they will know it's a hollow victory, and many of their competitors will at least suspect as much. If this forms a pattern of behaviour then their reputation and respect will rapidly diminish.

So back to Worlds selection. My proposal would be this: Keep the Nationals as an individual event. Select the top pilot based on results. And select their partner based on who would be most likely to add value to the team effort. The pilot selected on results would make a case for who should be their partner, and this would normally be accepted by the Sports Committee unless they considered it inappropriate. This system still guarantees a place to any pilot who makes the grade, but gives flexibility to ensure that we don't send a team who has never had a chance to practice together, or are fundamentally incompatible.

It's a thrill and a privilege to fly for Australia at a Worlds, and it's something I think every comp pilot should aspire to. Right now it's 4:30am and raining, but I'm still pleased to be here!

At 03:26 23 July 2018, Charlie Quebec wrote:

There's a dichotomy between selecting the winner of the Nationals
(rightly an individual honour) and selecting the best team pilots for
the Worlds. With the current formulaic selection process, we only
have the Nationals to select from. So we are selecting on ability to
fly well independently, where for the Worlds, what we need to select
on is ability to stick with busy gaggles and resist the impulse to do
your own thing. I love team flying at international comps - there is
no better fun than flying with a partner and having two sets of eyes
and two brains to improve decision making. Jim and I have worked
really well here at Ostrow. There is no question that it improves
outcomes if done properly. But for that you need discipline and
commitment, and practice.

Adam has been playing the gaggle game at this comp and doing a
fantastic job of it. If you religiously stay with a gaggle of top pilots
and have a glider that can keep up with them, then you are almost
guaranteed a good result, even without a team partner. The rest of
the gaggle becomes your de-facto team. It is hard for us as
Australian pilots, brought up with the idea that leaching is
despicable, to embrace this approach. But there is no shame at it at
the Worlds. If you are not doing it, you are at the very bottom of the
points table, almost every day.

As G Dale said to me this competition: We're not here to show that
we're better pilots than the rest. We're here to get more points than
the rest. And like it or not, that's not the same thing.

Whether you agree with it or not, that's the reality of flying at a
Worlds.

CQ,

That is exactly the point I was trying to make about the USA team
too. The reality of a WGC is that if you want to do well, you have to
possess an excellent gaggle flying skill set to put in your toolbox
to use as required - and it will be required on multiple occasions.
The current USA rules and thought process are to defuse gaggle
flying due to safety issues, and that's fine, but we have to be aware
that it may be detrimental to choosing a team that will finish well at
the WGC. The SSA charter says that the purpose of a Nationals is to
determine a National Champion. It doesn't say that the purpose is
to pick members of a team to represent the USA at a WGC. A
National Champion may be a great "lone eagle" pilot, but a lousy
gaggle flyer, so that pilot's WGC chances are greatly diminished right
from the start.

RO