2014 SSA/US Tasking Analysis

The Oracle of Brighton, MI might find, as I did, some interesting stats relating to pilot ranking and success with the "thinking" tasks, the MAT and TAT.

It turns out that the DJ's, 7V's and DB's finish higher with the tasks that require more than the ability to slavishly chase gaggles as is the case with the AT.

The frequent mislabeling of the AT as the "AST" leads me to believe that the detractors believe a pilot's score for the AT is based on speed while the MAT and TAT scores are calculated differently. Of course all three are tests of speed.The difference is the MAT and TAT add on another level of difficulty by favoring experience, weather insight and (sometimes) local knowledge. The inevitable score leveling present with the AT may feel good to the runners up, but it certainly doesn't represent a ranking of the pilots total soaring abilities.

Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).

Karl Striedieck

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:41:47 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:

Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).

Karl Striedieck

Also note the US Results at Leszno. US Daily win happened on an assigned task.

Steve Leonard

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:24:06 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:41:47 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:

Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).

Karl Striedieck

Also note the US Results at Leszno. US Daily win happened on an assigned task.

Steve Leonard

Dave and I both finished first on an AT in the 2014 WGC. However, that may not be the best way to judge which task we need more practice.
Other WGC placings:
2nd 2014 WGC Day 1: TAT
2nd 2012 WGC Day 4: TAT
2nd 2010 WGC Day 9: AT
Other US Team members may have a similar mix.

Sean Franke

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:02:43 AM UTC-8, Sean Franke wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:24:06 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:41:47 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:

Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).

Karl Striedieck

Also note the US Results at Leszno. US Daily win happened on an assigned task.

Steve Leonard

Dave and I both finished first on an AT in the 2014 WGC. However, that may not be the best way to judge which task we need more practice.
Other WGC placings:
2nd 2014 WGC Day 1: TAT
2nd 2012 WGC Day 4: TAT
2nd 2010 WGC Day 9: AT
Other US Team members may have a similar mix.

Sean Franke


Normalized for the number of times each task type is called the data presented would suggest slightly better at ATs. While I'm all for improving our placing at WGC, I suspect that task format is not the biggest factor.

As for the US - whatever gets more people flying more contests is just fine by me. If someone calls an all-AT (my terminology got polluted earlier - sorry) contest out west I'll go just for the nostalgia. Have done one of those since 1985. I'll be needing a crew.

9B

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 4:41:47 AM UTC-5, Karl Striedieck wrote:
The Oracle of Brighton, MI might find, as I did, some interesting stats relating to pilot ranking and success with the "thinking" tasks, the MAT and TAT.

It turns out that the DJ's, 7V's and DB's finish higher with the tasks that require more than the ability to slavishly chase gaggles as is the case with the AT.

The frequent mislabeling of the AT as the "AST" leads me to believe that the detractors believe a pilot's score for the AT is based on speed while the MAT and TAT scores are calculated differently. Of course all three are tests of speed.The difference is the MAT and TAT add on another level of difficulty by favoring experience, weather insight and (sometimes) local knowledge. The inevitable score leveling present with the AT may feel good to the runners up, but it certainly doesn't represent a ranking of the pilots total soaring abilities.

Another task related subject that has been flailed to death on this forum is the idea that our WGC results would be better if we called more AT's in the US. Check out the Club Class results from Finland and you will see that the only task we won was an AT. Looks like we need to brush up on TAT's (AAT's in WGC parlance).

Karl Striedieck

The competitors of most well known "weather sports" (such as sailing and soaring) do not commonly refer to meteorologists as "weather guessers" for nothing.

I continue to see US OLC tasks (75% of US tasks in 2014) as having a high degree of "chance" associated with them. That is to say that weather variation over the wide flying area of an essentially "free distance" task (such as a wide TAT or US HAT) is what I call an "uncontrollable variable." Therefore, a certain amount of "chance" is introduced by their very nature (uncontrollable). Sure, we all "think" (thinking men) about where we expect the weather to be better as we embark on an OLC flight (or most US tasks for that matter). This is because exploiting weather advantage IS the key variable of home airfield OLC flying and a US OLC (HAT) contest task. Just as our completely professional career weatherman prove quite often, "thinking" about where the best weather is going to be in a task area is often (very) quite "challenging" to get right consistently. OLC tasks are weather forecasting tasks, almost exclusively. The exact percentage of these tasks which is weather "luck" vs. weather "skill" is open for debate. What I can tell you absolutely is that a significant portion of a "pilot weather strategy" in an OLC task is what I would call guessing. The science of weather is still well known to be disturbingly inaccurate (see NYC blizzard). This is especially true in soaring meteorology where just a few degrees of temperature can be the difference between strong conditions and weak conditions. What percentage of your most recent pilot weather briefings have proven to be accurate? Are you saying that the pilots are more accurate? Its relative between the pilots sure, but still HIGHLY VARIABLE.

In contrast and to your point, pilot skill in controllable variables such as 1) solid and efficient glider flying skills 2) flying tactics 3) short term decision making (reading the clouds (terrain) that you can see at a given time) 4) a well prepared glider 5) knowledge of the task rules 6) basic task strategy 7) experience, etc all deeply influence a given pilots performance. Strength in these areas, unlike identifying (guessing) on weather variance 200 miles away from another competitor, impact of every flying mile throughout the task. These skills, if higher than fellow competitors, constantly "chips away" and soften less than perfect weather assumptions. These controllable skills allow the best pilots to still perform well in TAT/HAT even when weather mistakes are made. This to me these controllable variables are the true key to being a great pilot.

60 mile diameter turn TATs or OLC HATs (one or zero turn MATs) allow competitors to regularly fly into significantly different air masses. A decision to go to the far left side (or right) of such a turn area is often made WELL outside (in both time and distance) any pilots ability to see the weather ahead visually. Therefore (and at best) only educated guesses are being made in regards to where to go in a wide TAT turn area. There is absolutely know way that any pilot can consistently and accurately predict exactly what is going to be "out there" relative to other pilots who happen (luck) to be able to see better weather conditions outside of your visual range.

AT's, on the other hand, have far, far less variability in that all pilots are flying the same basic "race track." A misconception I see is that AT's result in one big gaggle flying around the task, straight ahead with no alternative choices along the way. This is ridiculous. AT's offer MANY different flight paths. Strategies, tactics and short term weather decisions are all highly available to AT competitors along the way. Only the 1 mile AT turnpoints themselves are common requirements. If you study AT flight logs at major contests with SeeYou you will see A) gaggles that do form break up very quickly and B) pilots take numerous routes on each leg looking for advantages and C) the "winner" is usually well, well ahead. I will produce some (facts) replays to show what I am seeing and how it differs to what "the guy with the spoon" is feeding us.

Again, I understand that soaring weather on a given contest day is often uncertain and inconsistent (supporting my point of course). These situations often lead to a need for well called TAT tasks. In certain locals, terrain concerns may also lead to well called TAT's. I also understand that some sailplane competition classes have large handicap ranges (such as US Sports Class for example). This is what TATs and the US one/zero turn HAT (aka MAT) are designed to manage. Got it. Sure, there is a value to being experienced with this kind of competition task. 65% of World Championship tasks at (IGC) events are TATs I believe. But 35% are AT! Of course, there are NO MAT (or HATs) in the World Championship. Only the US runs MATs and only the US runs the infamous HAT. Somehow, World Championship pilots manage to fly nearly 35% more AT's then the US does while apparently being on the same planet with the same basic weather.

Again, in 2014 98% of US tasks were TAT - MAT (50% of 2014 US MATs were HATS). Only 4 US tasks were AT in 2014. Remember the US has significantly modified the IGC AT in its design allowing additional distance to be earned in each turn (to reform gaggles I guess?).

If you really think we need "more" practice on wide area TAT and HATs (one or zero turn MAT), I am not sure where you are going to find them. We only had 4 tasks in 2014 that were NOT Turn Area or Modified Assign Tasks.

The best US pilots would, still, win tasks (probably by even greater margins) if the US ran more assigned tasks. I do not think different US (or Canadian) pilots would suddenly be winning ATs when the had not been competitive in TAT. That said, I do think that US pilots (in general) would become better pilots if they flew more than 4 AT's a year. The reason some people are worried about ATs is because they are harder. They simply take more skill to complete. They take more skill to win (IMO).

Sean

On Sunday, 25 January 2015 05:44:38 UTC, Sean Fidler wrote:
2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

2013: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

2014 US Tasking Highlights
Total Number of Tasks - 189
TATs - 122 or 65%
MATs - 63 or 33%
ASTs - 4 or 2%

2014 US Nationals Tasking Highlights
Total Number of Tasks - 36
TATs - 17 or 47%
MATs - 17 or 47%
ASTs - 2 or 5% (Club Class Nationals)

For the benefit of an ignorant pilot from the UK, please could someone explain what the different task types are? (We talk a different language in this particular area).

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, waremark wrote:

For the benefit of an ignorant pilot from the UK, please could someone explain what the different task types are? (We talk a different language in this particular area).

TAT (Turn Area Task) = AAT

MAT (Modified Assigned Task) = task with some number between 0 and 11 designated 1-mi turnpoints and a minimum task time. To the extent that less than 11 turnpoints are assigned each pilot can add turnpoints to fill out the time or improve his speed. MATs with a lot of assigned turnpoint are referred to informally as "long MATs" and are quite similar to...

AT (Assigned Task, sometimes called Assigned Speed Task, or AST). Like a MAT only no minimum time and all turnpoints are assigned.

9B

For the benefit of an ignorant pilot from the UK, please could someone explain what the different task types are? (We talk a different language in this particular area).

AT (sometimes referred to as AST): Assigned task. Just like in the UK, flight through a sequence of predeclared turnpoints. Unlike UK/IGC our turnpoints are 1 mile radius circles with credit for distance gained inside the turn area. We find this spreads out traffic and leads to a little less aerobatics in trying to get exactly one fix in the turn area.

TAT Turn area task, like AAT in IGC parlance. Areas are cylinders between 5 miles and 30 miles (ugh) radius, you get the best fix in the turn area.

MAT Modified assigned task. Turn points are all 1 mile radius like assigned task. There is a minimum time like TAT. The first few points are assigned.. After that, go where you want to fill up the allotted time. It's useful to give an assigned task feel to a handicapped contest, or to allow pilots to avoid big areas of bad weather.

More details on the ssa webpage under contests, rules, appendix.

John Cochrane

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 12:44:38 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

2013: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

2014 US Tasking Highlights
Total Number of Tasks - 189
TATs - 122 or 65%
MATs - 63 or 33%
ASTs - 4 or 2%

2014 US Nationals Tasking Highlights
Total Number of Tasks - 36
TATs - 17 or 47%
MATs - 17 or 47%
ASTs - 2 or 5% (Club Class Nationals)

Of the Modified Assigned Tasks (63)...
49% (thats right, 49) were ONE or ZERO TP's (aka HAT or Half Ass Tasks)
9 Zero Turn MATs
22 One Turn MATs

Number of TATs with Average Turn Area Radius 20 miles - 16 or 13%
Number of TATs with all 30 mile Turn Areas - 10 or 8%

i did an AST at the club class nationals this year, and it was a lot of fun

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 10:44:38 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
2014: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

2013: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

2014 US Tasking Highlights
Total Number of Tasks - 189
TATs - 122 or 65%
MATs - 63 or 33%
ASTs - 4 or 2%

2014 US Nationals Tasking Highlights
Total Number of Tasks - 36
TATs - 17 or 47%
MATs - 17 or 47%
ASTs - 2 or 5% (Club Class Nationals)

Of the Modified Assigned Tasks (63)...
49% (thats right, 49) were ONE or ZERO TP's (aka HAT or Half Ass Tasks)
9 Zero Turn MATs
22 One Turn MATs

Number of TATs with Average Turn Area Radius 20 miles - 16 or 13%
Number of TATs with all 30 mile Turn Areas - 10 or 8%

Sean Fidler, 7T,

I will help you. I believe and understand all your asking for are CD's be asked to have a few more AT's at their contest's. At the contest's I'll be going to, I will ask, when your not their, for that to be considered. The contests you go to, you can do whatever you wish. No problem at all.

Just a friendly heads up. The reason the TP diameter was increased in size was for safety reasons. To reduce the possible chance for a mid-air( we have had reported close calls). No one has ever complained about this that I am aware of. Also, a friendly reminder, at the Seniors, the tasks we fly are what's wished. I am sure you can understand. Thanks again.

This should cover it. Thanks big time for all your input and time.

Best regards, #711.