Junior World Championships - FAI Rules Absurdity

On Monday, August 12, 2013 10:28:36 AM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.



The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) a



1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.



2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!



Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.



I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!



Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?



I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.



Sean

F2

Interesting metric, rules length. Current (2012) IGC Sporting Code Annex A for world and continental soaring championships is a 47 page pdf file. SSA contest rules for "FAI Class Nationals" is a 40 page pdf file. Sort of almost twice as long? Try rescoring the last day at the JWGC using both scoring formulas and see which is simpler, "more transparent", and which leads to more unusual tactics, ie not flying for the best absolute performance.

Both sets of rules are very flexible in terms of tasking as well as starting and finishing procedures. Very much left up to the organizer. No denying most US organizers have low tolerance for landout risk. But that's not rule driven.

The last AST only contest I flew in was Tonopah 2003. The other current task options were available, but not used by the CD. He called a task in the morning and that was it, no changes. Memorable, but not on the top of my fun list.

I wonder how the Florida GP will handle landouts since they are using a 1000 pt scoring system. No mention at all in the rules.

On Monday, August 12, 2013 12:28:36 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.

It appears that it was not the deciding factor. That being said, it very well could have been. The Dutch team captain made an excellent decision. If Czech's would have been a little faster, or the Dutch winner a little slower, it would have been the deciding factor.

I'm not trying to say what is good/right/perfect. Its just an interesting real life situation for everyone to consider.

2C

On Monday, August 12, 2013 9:28:36 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:

Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking).


Hi Sean,

Now I'm even more curious. Allow me to probe a little further...

Why do you consider ability to read the weather and go where conditions are strongest "luck". Some people are much better at this than others (much, much better - I know some pretty decent pilots who positively lock up when you ask them to pick a turnpoint). Is it not a soaring skill, reading clouds and terrain? Doesn't lack of any meaningful option of where to go in the horizontal plane basically reduce pilot decision-making from three dimensions to one? It seems like the main skill being measured is who is able to gut it out the lowest to get the big, fast climb or game the gaggle the best since there will be much more bunching/leeching. Those are skills, but aren't they really a subset of the broader skillset of the sport.

If you like US scoring, but IGC tasking, does than mean you favor US rules, just with guidance to CDs to call tasks where every pilot has to fly more or less the same path?

9B

The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US
rules (5% of the world) a

Guys, we love you to bits but this does look like a bit of a recurring
theme to us in the rest of the world. Maybe the US self belief that the US
knows best is what drives you to success but to many in the wider world it
looks a bit daft.

World IGC Rules - US different
World Metric - US Imperial
In particular for commerical aviation:
World Tonnes - US Pounds
World HPa - US Inches of Mercury

Then there is:
World Colour/Favour/Labour - US Color/Favor/Labor
World Government Transparancy - US Gov Secrecy
World Whistle blower hero - US Traitor
World Left leaning liberalism - US Right wing imperialism, I am joking but
to many it looks just like that, more war war than jaw jaw.

Believe me, there is a big wide world out there, that has many varied
cultures and customs, and that is learning how to work together in many
ways for the common good.

You do not need to stand apart or 'lead' all the time, it would be good if
the US sometimes decided to join in. Go on, you can do it!

On Monday, August 12, 2013 8:41:57 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Your analysis doesn't account for speed and the altitude gained by pulling
up after finishing.

Hi Dan,

Quite right, I didn't include any kinetic-to-potential energy exchange. The number of feet involved can vary quite dramatically. In the end, because IGC rules encourage longer tasking that use up the available day and because the scoring for speed versus distance points yield a greater amount of gaggling and start-gate roulette, I thought it was fair to assume that a significant proportion of finishers would be at low McCready settings where the altitude gained in a pullup would be on the same order as the height of obstacles to be surmounted at the airport boundary. A 2-knot McCready starting speed yields less than 100 feet in a pullup to best L/D speed.

There's no single precise answer to what McCready setting to use for such a single-point analysis, but that's also beside the point. The real question was, why is it preferable to set up the finish by rule in such a way that a significant portion of pilots end up making low, slow, straight-in approaches to the airport? Is it a superior way to set up the finish, and if so, why?

9B

" because IGC rules encourage longer tasking that use up the available day...."
Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles..."

Minor correction: There is NOTHING in US rules about short tasks or large circle AATs.

"10.3.1.3 Normal Task - Tasks should make as full use of the available soaring weather as is practical"

Appendix: "- Try to use the full day, not merely the best part of it.."

The TAT appendix suggests 8-10 mile radius and 15 miles for the final steering turn.

Short tasks and few enormous turn areas rather than a larger number of smaller turns are choices made by the CD and task advisers, often in response to pilot complaining. If you want the opposite, talk to the CD don't complain about the rules.

John Cochrane

Hi 9B,

Agreed. A friend emailed me privately to point out the case of a 0 MC
finish. That would never have occurred to me and is another reason why I
don't compete - too chicken! ;-P


wrote in message
...
On Monday, August 12, 2013 8:41:57 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Your analysis doesn't account for speed and the altitude gained by pulling
up after finishing.

Hi Dan,

Quite right, I didn't include any kinetic-to-potential energy exchange. The
number of feet involved can vary quite dramatically. In the end, because IGC
rules encourage longer tasking that use up the available day and because the
scoring for speed versus distance points yield a greater amount of gaggling
and start-gate roulette, I thought it was fair to assume that a significant
proportion of finishers would be at low McCready settings where the altitude
gained in a pullup would be on the same order as the height of obstacles to
be surmounted at the airport boundary. A 2-knot McCready starting speed
yields less than 100 feet in a pullup to best L/D speed.

There's no single precise answer to what McCready setting to use for such a
single-point analysis, but that's also beside the point. The real question
was, why is it preferable to set up the finish by rule in such a way that a
significant portion of pilots end up making low, slow, straight-in
approaches to the airport? Is it a superior way to set up the finish, and if
so, why?

9B

For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.

Sure, if your finish point is on the edge of the airfield, which most aren't.

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:37:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.

Sure, if your finish point is on the edge of the airfield, which most aren't.

Not to nit pick, but there is the issue of landing on the runway. Many, if not most, US glider fields are single runways and the options off runway heading are "varied" to say the least. We need to consider the altitude margin to get lined up on a runway so that you don't end up in a low, skidding turn to final at the end of your glide from the finish to the airport.

In the case of JWGC this year it was a 3km finish ring at 50m for std and 75m for club, to the middle of the airfield (roughly 2.5km wide) which made for approximately 35:1 for std and 23:1 for club. Easily achievable even with no energy (ask me how I know). But it was stressed many times that it was set at a height which is meant to the absolute minimum you could conceivably require (MC0 and a headwind) and you should not plan to arrive at that height with no energy. As far as I know no gliders that were at or above the minimum height that subsequently failed to make the field.

I think that is incorrect. I have a picture of a US junior team member's glider in a cut hayfield from a week ago - he stated that he was at the requisite finish height (no penalty) but had no extra energy to make the airfield and landed 0.8 mi short. Also, it was posted by the US Team captain at the WWGC that there was one injured pilot and separately a wrecked glider because in a close contest the pilots apparently ignored the very safety advice you mention in order to gain a few points by pushing it down to the top of the cylinder. This is not surprising in a world where team captains order deliberate land outs for less than 10 points "just in case".

Back to my original question. What is the compelling reason to adopt IGC rules in the US? Which rules will represent the big improvement and why? Finish is only one out of many rules, but I've heard no affirmative arguments yet.

I'd love to hear some specifics.

9B

Not to nit pick, but there is the issue of landing on the runway. Many, if not most, US glider fields are single runways and the options off runway heading are "varied" to say the least. We need to consider the altitude margin to get lined up on a runway so that you don't end up in a low, skidding turn to final at the end of your glide from the finish to the airport.

Why would you set a task that returns you on a heading other than for a direct landing? If you only have single runways why aren't you using control points to align pilots to them? Good safety concept regardless of finish height.


I think that is incorrect. I have a picture of a US junior team member's glider in a cut hayfield from a week ago - he stated that he was at the requisite finish height (no penalty) but had no extra energy to make the airfield and landed 0.8 mi short. Also, it was posted by the US Team captain at the WWGC that there was one injured pilot and separately a wrecked glider because in a close contest the pilots apparently ignored the very safety advice you mention in order to gain a few points by pushing it down to the top of the cylinder. This is not surprising in a world where team captains order deliberate land outs for less than 10 points "just in case".


Perhaps the penalty was not awarded immediately and they were not aware at the time (they took some hours to appear), but on that day (if I have the right one) they busted the finish height and were penalized accordingly - http://soaringspot.net/jwgc2013/resu...aily/day3.html

I don't think traces were published for the accident at WWGC so let's not speculate.


Back to my original question. What is the compelling reason to adopt IGC rules in the US? Which rules will represent the big improvement and why? Finish is only one out of many rules, but I've heard no affirmative arguments yet.

Are there affirmative reasons not to? If you want to be different you should have solid reasons for being so. I'm not convinced they're less safe (if you have a high finish, and someone arrives low but on glide, what are they going to do??) Learning new processes and procedures and how to fly them optimally is not something you want to be doing upon arrival at a world competition.