USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted

On Dec 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
Can someone please explain the intent of this:

"Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
of all gliders up to the
weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
provision that allows no ballast.
For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
“No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
ballast allowed."

Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?

Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?

thanks

Andy

This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
same thing.

Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
(And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
kidding)

The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
ballast rules.

Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.

Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
safety, fairness, etc. etc.

I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....

John Cochrane

No water rule is US new wheel invention.
If the airport is not safe(soft field ect.) , we should not fly or
wait.
If there is no water in the field we can bring our own water (Mifflin)
If somebody didn't put his glider in the morning together and fill it
with water(it was raining) , it is his problem.
If was raining after morning briefing we should have no tape day.
Same if somebody forgot to charge his battery.
Can we make no battery day ?Maybe was no power at the airport last
night.Some time ago I did check ride in Estrela and I got really
****ed (they had no airbrake rules),Can I use slip, NO was the
respond.Took me 3 trays to stop+/- 50ft from my waiting son.
Or maybe some of us are too old for all this hassle ?
OK, we have a team RC) ,,,, they have to produce,,,,, more and more
rules.
Water rule is aimed against Diana 2 and future Duckhawk fliers.
Who is afraid ?
Ryszard
Before last Grand Prix in Chile there was protest against Diana 2
fliers having bigger wing loading.Both Diana fliers had to reduce
water ballast, but it did not help.

On Dec 17, 12:31*am, RW wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote:





Can someone please explain the intent of this:

"Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
of all gliders up to the
weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
provision that allows no ballast.
For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
“No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
ballast allowed."

Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?

Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?

thanks

Andy

This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
same thing.

Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
(And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
kidding)

The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
ballast rules.

Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.

Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
safety, fairness, etc. etc.

I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....

John Cochrane

No water rule is US new wheel invention.
If the airport is not safe(soft field ect.) , we should not fly or
wait.
If there is no water in the field we can bring our own water (Mifflin)
If somebody didn't put his glider in the morning together and fill it
with water(it was raining) , it is his problem.
If was raining after morning briefing we should have no tape day.
Same if somebody forgot to charge his battery.
Can we make no battery day ?Maybe was no power at the airport last
night.Some time ago I did check ride in Estrela and I got really
****ed (they had no airbrake rules),Can I use slip, NO was the
respond.Took me 3 trays to stop+/- 50ft from my waiting son.
Or maybe some of us are too old for all this hassle ?
OK, we have a team RC) ,,,, they have to produce,,,,, more and more
rules.
Water rule is aimed against Diana 2 and future Duckhawk fliers.
Who is afraid ?
Ryszard
Before last Grand Prix in Chile there was protest against Diana 2
fliers having bigger wing loading.Both Diana fliers had to reduce
water ballast, * *but it did not help.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are conditions such as at Caesar Creek in 2010 where the field
was wet enough that towing fully loaded 18M gliders would be marginal
enough to seriously consider not flying, yet not so bad when towing
dry. 400 lb or so weight difference is significant in launch. In these
kinds of situatuions it makes sense for the CD to have this option
available so as to keep a good safety margin and not lose a day. The
contemplated weight adjustment
being looked at would add maybe 60 or 70 lb to "light" gliders to
bring them closer to motorized gliders for fairness. This would be at
tha option of the CD.
This is pretty much a nationals issue in my expectation. Most other
contests would not bother.
UH

On Dec 17, 8:42*am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:31*am, RW wrote:



On Dec 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote:

Can someone please explain the intent of this:

"Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
of all gliders up to the
weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
provision that allows no ballast.
For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
“No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
ballast allowed."

Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?

Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?

thanks

Andy

This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
same thing.

Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
(And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
kidding)

The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
ballast rules.

Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.

Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
safety, fairness, etc. etc.

I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....

John Cochrane

No water rule is US new wheel invention.
If the airport is not safe(soft field ect.) , we should not fly or
wait.
If there is no water in the field we can bring our own water (Mifflin)
If somebody didn't put his glider in the morning together and fill it
with water(it was raining) , it is his problem.
If was raining after morning briefing we should have no tape day.
Same if somebody forgot to charge his battery.
Can we make no battery day ?Maybe was no power at the airport last
night.Some time ago I did check ride in Estrela and I got really
****ed (they had no airbrake rules),Can I use slip, NO was the
respond.Took me 3 trays to stop+/- 50ft from my waiting son.
Or maybe some of us are too old for all this hassle ?
OK, we have a team RC) ,,,, they have to produce,,,,, more and more
rules.
Water rule is aimed against Diana 2 and future Duckhawk fliers.
Who is afraid ?
Ryszard
Before last Grand Prix in Chile there was protest against Diana 2
fliers having bigger wing loading.Both Diana fliers had to reduce
water ballast, * *but it did not help.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are conditions such as at Caesar Creek in 2010 where the field
was wet enough that towing fully loaded 18M gliders would be marginal
enough to seriously consider not flying, yet not so bad when towing
dry. 400 lb or so weight difference is significant in launch. In these
kinds of situatuions it makes sense for the CD to have this option
available so as to keep a good safety margin and not lose a day. The
contemplated weight adjustment
being looked at would add maybe 60 or 70 lb to "light" gliders to
bring them closer to motorized gliders for fairness. This would be at
tha option of the CD.
This is pretty much a nationals issue in my expectation. Most other
contests would not bother.
UH

In this specific situation old rule (CD could only propose no water(or
quits) and all pilots have to agree) would get same results.
Especially if we would let get everybody to same the weight(part of
newest rule) it is hard to imagine opposition.
PW5-ers do it every contest(they have option to bring their PW5 to the
heaviest PW5 glider)
Ryszard

On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20...

John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20...

John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
distance points versus min speed points. It was polled again this
year.

You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
60% of the winners speed.

The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
finishers.

I think I got that right.

9B

On Dec 16, 8:19*pm, Andy wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank wrote:

On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20....

John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
distance points versus min speed points. *It was polled again this
year.

You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
60% of the winners speed.

The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
finishers.

I think I got that right.

9B

Yes, that's what I understand too. However, I haven't heard any
details about exactly how the scoring would be changed - i.e. how the
current scoring formulas for MDP (Max Distance Points), MSP (Max Speed
Points), "Points for Finishers" and "Points for Non-Finishers" would
be modified. Stating the philosophy is one thing, but the devil is in
the details (and the unintended consequences, whatever they turn out
to be ;-).

Just my luck that I'm giving a talk on the nuances of the U.S. contest
scoring rules, and there is a potentially game-changer looming on the
horizon ;-).

TA

TA

On Dec 16, 6:39*pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:19*pm, Andy wrote:





On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank wrote:

On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20...

John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
distance points versus min speed points. *It was polled again this
year.

You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
60% of the winners speed.

The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
finishers.

I think I got that right.

9B

Yes, that's what I understand too. *However, I haven't heard any
details about exactly how the scoring would be changed - i.e. how the
current scoring formulas for MDP (Max Distance Points), MSP (Max Speed
Points), "Points for Finishers" and "Points for Non-Finishers" would
be modified. *Stating the philosophy is one thing, but the devil is in
the details (and the unintended consequences, whatever they turn out
to be ;-).

Just my luck that I'm giving a talk on the nuances of the U.S. contest
scoring rules, and there is a potentially game-changer looming on the
horizon ;-).

TA

TA

The specific formula change is described in the pilot poll.

9B

On Dec 16, 8:19*pm, Andy wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank wrote:

On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20....

John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
distance points versus min speed points. *It was polled again this
year.

You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
60% of the winners speed.

The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
finishers.

I think I got that right.

9B

That is correct. The only exception occurs when only one person
finishes and they are a "min distancer." In that case the finisher
gets the gold, but its a very chancy strategy to bet on being the only
finisher.

On the weight / handicap issue(s), the RC continues to try an find
"fairness" solutions to problems that all have their base in the
decreasing number of competitors and the need to to avoid contests
with classes made up of only 3 or 4 ships. It is not an easy task and
all the solutions found so far are imperfect. Ongoing thoughtful
discussion is really helpful.

John Godfrey (QT)
Rules Committee

On Dec 16, 8:19*pm, Andy wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank wrote:

On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20....

John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
distance points versus min speed points. *It was polled again this
year.

You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
60% of the winners speed.

The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
finishers.

I think I got that right.

9B

I like the long landout rule change. It encourages trying to create a
nice flight utilizing the most of each day without feeling that a
landout is going to severely punish your standing. In Perry last year
I flew what for me was a very nice flight. I landed 1.5 miles short
of the home airport. Competitors that flew 60% of my distance
punished me in the daily points. I planned my flight poorly for the
conditions but I sure was proud of all those miles!

Lane
XF

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

Take a look at the poll, question 4, which tries to explain it all
compactly.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...%20Results.pdf

Come back if that isn't clear

John Cochrane