Analyzing US Competition Flights

Sean,

I'm going to have to assume that you haven't flown much in competitions and/or you've never been much out of the midwest. Even a cursory review of log files from contests I've actually flown in shows huge variations in altitude (cloudbase and or top of lift) in a given day. Mifflin day 3 2010 is a geat example. Impossible to get above 4500 at the start with weak climbs and low clouds. Hard to get away from the start cylinder. 20 miles NW 5kts to 8,000 feet and riproaring conditions. Forecast was for moderate lift to 5,000. Now tell me exactly how/when the CD sets the ceiling and how throwing away 3,000 or more feet of usable climb (assuming the ceiling was based on the forecast) makes for better or fairer racing? Or, what if the forecast was for 5,000 and the actual cloudbase was 4,000?

Or, what about the last day of the Fairfield regional in 2010 (or was it 2009). 8/8ths high overcast with decent blue (no Cu) lift to 3500. Intrepid CD who spent too much time in the UK declares it a cracking good day and sends us out. Surprisingly, it works! Somewhere along the way the local utility fires up a supplementary gas fired generation plant and guys get a single climb to 6,000. We shouldn't have even been able to stay up according to the forecast, yet we got what many of us will remember as one of the most enjoyable days in a contest ever. Again, what's the ceiling that day?

It's just a bad idea. Period

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:41:15 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
John,

HARD DECK: I fully agree with the hard deck idea based on recent AH panic, fear, etc. A hard deck would be simple, safe, comprehensive, measurable, enforceable and absolute. It would ensure a fair parcel of air to work within for all pilots. I fully understand that nobody knows where the clouds really are at any given time, and that this level varies throughout the day and task area. But with a hard deck and no AH it is extremely unlikely that clouds will be entered in contests, resulting in any advantage, assuming the weather predictions are relatively accurate (simply error low on hard deck top, greater challenge). The AH rule alone, with today’s technology, certainly no longer prevents pilots truly motivated to cheat via cloud flying. This is FOR SURE! The hard deck keeps the cheater out of the clouds and can be measured and enforced.

It is interesting that some fight passionately to preventing AH technology in the cockpit (cloud flying) while seemingly being unconcerned about contest pilots regularly flying within 500 ft. of cloud base (no support for a hard deck). These acts are systemic clear violations of a FAA regulation broken by almost all contest pilots every time we fly with clouds. They seem to mainly want it “the way it has been” (No AH) and have no interest in other changes, no matter logic. If we want no cloud flying, shouldn’t we be using this FAA regulation as a buffer zone to ensure (by the legal 500 ft. limit) that clouds are not entered?

Can a contest pilot be protested for flying along at cloud base? They are breaking federal law and therefore the SSA contest rules (obey the FAA regulations, etc), are they not? Just wondering… Why is this common (and clearly illegal) act never protested but AH’s are hissed at like voodoo dolls?

A hard bottom and hard top would be a real solution to these problems. In Reno this was discussed by OSTIV in terms of finishing penalties but it appears to already be part of the US rules ( 300 ft (anywhere on course?) is now or soon will be a land-out). I say why not simply make this 500 ft. if the safety cushion we want to encourage is indeed critical? A 500 ft. estimate of cloud base can also be made creating a hard deck top and bottom. Problem solved. Or is this not a problem because (like the AH ban) it’s what has been going on for 20+ years?

Sean

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:02:51 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
Two points on this evolving thread:

Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
think about them.

Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
majority say they want to keep the ban.

It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
(For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)

When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
in club class.

That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
would be banned forever.

So, if you want it, just start making noise.

Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.

John Cochrane

Errrr... "Hard Deck" refers to minimum altitude, not cloud clearance...


"Sean Fidler" wrote in message
news:32846365.1740.1331764875489.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynll40...
John,

HARD DECK: I fully agree with the hard deck idea based on recent AH panic,
fear, etc. A hard deck would be simple, safe, comprehensive, measurable,
enforceable and absolute. It would ensure a fair parcel of air to work
within for all pilots. I fully understand that nobody knows where the
clouds really are at any given time, and that this level varies throughout
the day and task area. But with a hard deck and no AH it is extremely
unlikely that clouds will be entered in contests, resulting in any
advantage, assuming the weather predictions are relatively accurate (simply
error low on hard deck top, greater challenge). The AH rule alone, with
today’s technology, certainly no longer prevents pilots truly motivated to
cheat via cloud flying. This is FOR SURE! The hard deck keeps the cheater
out of the clouds and can be measured and enforced.

It is interesting that some fight passionately to preventing AH technology
in the cockpit (cloud flying) while seemingly being unconcerned about
contest pilots regularly flying within 500 ft. of cloud base (no support for
a hard deck). These acts are systemic clear violations of a FAA regulation
broken by almost all contest pilots every time we fly with clouds. They
seem to mainly want it “the way it has been” (No AH) and have no interest in
other changes, no matter logic. If we want no cloud flying, shouldn’t we be
using this FAA regulation as a buffer zone to ensure (by the legal 500 ft.
limit) that clouds are not entered?

Can a contest pilot be protested for flying along at cloud base? They are
breaking federal law and therefore the SSA contest rules (obey the FAA
regulations, etc), are they not? Just wondering… Why is this common (and
clearly illegal) act never protested but AH’s are hissed at like voodoo
dolls?

A hard bottom and hard top would be a real solution to these problems. In
Reno this was discussed by OSTIV in terms of finishing penalties but it
appears to already be part of the US rules ( 300 ft (anywhere on course?)
is now or soon will be a land-out). I say why not simply make this 500 ft.
if the safety cushion we want to encourage is indeed critical? A 500 ft.
estimate of cloud base can also be made creating a hard deck top and bottom.
Problem solved. Or is this not a problem because (like the AH ban) it’s
what has been going on for 20+ years?

Sean

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:02:51 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
Two points on this evolving thread:

Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
think about them.

Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
majority say they want to keep the ban.

It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
(For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)

When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
in club class.

That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
would be banned forever.

So, if you want it, just start making noise.

Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.

John Cochrane

Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore..

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
I flew without having to measure on a map. Call me lazy, but after 39 years
of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. It's also
fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.


"John Carlyle" wrote in message
news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26...
Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy). Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.

But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.

-John

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
I flew without having to measure on a map. Call me lazy, but after 39 years
of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. It's also
fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.


"John Carlyle" wrote in message
news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26...
Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

On Friday, March 16, 2012 9:01:08 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy).. Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.

But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.

-John

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
I flew without having to measure on a map. Call me lazy, but after 39 years
of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. It's also
fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.


"John Carlyle" wrote in message
news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26....
Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

It's pretty much self evident that OLC is fun for a lot of people. It is great for our sport because it gets people out flying cross country and gives them a challange that fits them.
One of the neat things about our sport is the wide variety of ways people can participate in a huge range of equipment. Few other sports do this in my view.
I get a bit crazy(UH crazy?) when I read a lot of stuff on RAS that seems to simply be dumping on what the other guy likes.
OLC is different than organized single competition. They each serve a substantial group of folks because of their different characters. You can't make them the same and shouldn't, nor should the success of either be some example of why the other has to change.
I have friends that do both. I have friends that do OLC and have no interest in organized contests, and others just the opposite.
RAS needs a more constructive topic than havein 2 factions dumping on each other.
Rant over
UH

On 3/16/2012 8:26 AM, wrote:

Major snip...

It's pretty much self evident that OLC is fun for a lot of people. It is
great for our sport because it gets people out flying cross country and
gives them a challenge that fits them. One of the neat things about our
sport is the wide variety of ways people can participate in a huge range of
equipment. Few other sports do this in my view. I get a bit crazy(UH
crazy?) when I read a lot of stuff on RAS that seems to simply be dumping
on what the other guy likes. OLC is different than organized single
competition. They each serve a substantial group of folks because of their
different characters. You can't make them the same and shouldn't, nor
should the success of either be some example of why the other has to
change. I have friends that do both. I have friends that do OLC and have no
interest in organized contests, and others just the opposite. RAS needs a
more constructive topic than having 2 factions dumping on each other. Rant
over UH

UH - IMHO - raises a great point that (also IMHO) periodically benefits from
'group awareness.'

It's simply this: soaring worldwide has sufficient difficulties
attracting/hooking committed participants that any appearance of internecine
squabbling/denigration/warfare/whatever is sure to be perceived by some
current participants as off-putting to their commitment to the sport...and
hence not good.

Being able to agree to disagree is a good thing (IMHO). The trick is to do so
'civilly'...as individually defined. Therein lies the problem and paradox.

The 'problem' is a universal definition of 'civil' is fairly remote (dry
chuckle), though a dictionary seems (to me) to be a great place to start.

The paradox can be sensed in reflective reading of OLC/racing threads. Clearly
passionate fans of both exist (which passion alone, as Bill D. has noted, is
GREAT for OLC as measured by participation in something that didn't exist a
few short years ago, soaring, XC, daydreaming, etc.), and I'd suggest that
sometimes the passion FOR a particular point of view (whether OLC or racing is
unimportant to the larger point I'm trying to convey here) can (especially
through the relatively impersonal text-based medium of RAS) easily be misread
(even if never intended as such) as *denigration* OF THE OTHER.

I think UH (whom I have never met) has said it fairly well: "I have friends
that do both. I have friends that do OLC and have no interest in organized
contests, and others just the opposite."

He could well add there are others who have no interest in participating in
either, but: 1) who thoroughly enjoy flying XC for its own rewards; 2) who
thoroughly enjoy the fact OF OLC and its swelling participation, and encourage
any/all potentially interested folks to sample those waters; 3) who thoroughly
enjoy the fact OF formal competitions (even as they have evolved for better or
worse over the years), and encourage any/all potentially interested folks to
sample those waters too; 4) who thoroughly enjoy the fact there are so many
OTHER ways for folks to obtain personal satisfaction and growth from
participating in soaring (even if it doesn't include flight itself); 5) who etc...

1) through 5) above is me, for one.

It's been a long winter for some northern hemisphere denizens. Let's try to
keep in mind the persistence and universality inherent to RAS when we post?

End of preachment.

Bob W.

On Mar 16, 7:01*am, John Carlyle wrote:
So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy).. Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.

But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.

-John







On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
I flew without having to measure on a map. *Call me lazy, but after 39 years
of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. *It's also
fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.

"John Carlyle" wrote in message
news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26....
Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore.

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

The OLC is great! OLC is responsible for greatly increasing the
number of pilots who have tried cross country and that's a very good
thing. It's also given us a provable way to show the public what
gliders can really do which makes it a fantastic tool from recruiting
new glider pilots. Reiner Rose and his team are the great hero's of
21st Century soaring.

The OLC's very simple requirements for participation set the bar very
low for newbie cross country pilots while still recognizing the
accomplishments of top pilots. That's an accomplishment all by
itself. Pilots are voting with their feet. The OLC is very popular,
sanctioned events less so.

OLC has also separated hype from reality. I've noticed a few pilots
who once bragged loudly about their supposed accomplishments have gone
silent and some soaring sites once billed as "the worlds best place to
fly gliders" don't rank very high. If you've got it, flaunt it. If
you haven't, you can't upload it to the OLC. That qualifies as a
competition not only between pilots but between soaring sites and
clubs.

Is OLC a race? No. The only real race format is the Soaring Grand Prix
series.

Great post. I appreciate OLC. I think OLC is outstanding within a region, state or club as a way to measure your season, month or week of flying vs. your friends. And the results, in terms of participation and satisfaction, speak volumes.

That said, the truth is that I would prefer to race assigned tasks & regatta starts with like gliders every time I fly. Isn't this what we all wish we could do? In a perfect world would we not all have the same great glider? Wait a minute, we do. They are called 18m & 15m class! Handicap "racing" (chuckle, chuckle) is something that we are forced into because the proliferation of glider design classes has outpaced the growth of the sport? Now we have too little participation in most classes...and are looking at combining what is left into block handicap classes.

Only Grand Prix Soaring with assigned tasks and regatta starts is true racing. As a sailboat racer, the AAT task gives me a vomit reflex. AAT & start gaggle waiting game is not true racing. This is VERY MUCH LIKE OLC! Thousands of new unnecessary variables are introduced (also a high degree of luck / bad luck) with AAT's. Starting time variance alone (even in an assigned task) provides significant variability in results albeit based on an educated guess. Start whenever you like is a massive variable nonetheless. AAT’s and OLC are highly synonymous in my book. When racing an AAT, getting the start decision wrong can destroy the task and potentially the contest.

Why not try regatta starts if the goal is fair, true racing? Safety? I think a set start would actually be safer than the random chaos of start whenever you like. Simply introduce a 2 mile entry corridor (twice as wide as the start line) where course must be held (along with a speed limit) up until the starting line is crossed. This would be far safer than our current chaos in my opinion. I could not imagine a "start whenever you like" program was an option in sailboat racing. Unthinkable because it could, literally, decide the race. No different in soaring.

With AAT’s, the increase in the amount of decisions is massive. The luck involved increases exponentially. The critical aspect of choosing the right points to turn is highly dependent by having the best flight computer (and knowing how to use it very well). Many complain about cost and technology? AAT's require full screen maps, lots of pondering and revision of strategy based on situational changes and lots of playing with the computer (heads down, safety) to recalculate our turn decisions. This says nothing of the many paths possible to reach that magical point within the Turn Area. A skill in itself, but not true racing. Not even close. Lots of luck involved. Dangerous. Expensive!

Question? Why do 18m and 15m (essentially one design classes) ever do AAT's? Why at worlds or nationals are AAT’s even considered? Even though these gliders are scored without handicap, the AAT seems to be the more common task. In Uvalde last year we did a number of AAT's in 18m, 15m and Open? Why? This makes no sense to me. The conditions were excellent literally every day. AAT's, per the definition as I understand it, should be an absolute last resort for the CD. Instead it seems by far the most common task and AT's are avoided.

AAT's are boring (speaking as a new contest pilot) and not real racing in my view. Sure in a handicap class you may need them, but handicap racing is not real racing in and of itself. AAT's (and handicap racing) are an effort to satisfy everyone. Trying to satisfy everyone is always a bad choice in my book, let alone impossible. The tendency to call mainly AAT's further dilutes the few opportunities left in the sport of soaring for "true racing." I see this AAT topic as a real problem to be looked at in the future..

Why not have combined tasks (as a compromise) with, for example, two AT turn-points and one AAT circle to level things out? (My apology if this exists; I have never seen it in action). At least this would reduce the variability of a pure AT while allowing the CD to vary the min/max distance of the task. A pure AAT with 3 large circles is just silly... Almost no point to this type of task in my view if true racing is the goal. It should be avoided like the plague. But the fact is that it is becoming the main task in our “racing” world.

I love racing tasks, will tolerate the occasional AAT and enjoy OLC when true racing is not an option (most of the time). I think both racing and OLC are great things. I do agree that OLC is an excellent way to measure flying site "productivity!" Other than that (from region to region) I agree that OLC is fundamentally useless. Even more useless than AAT's with open starts (pick your time). But in the case of OLC so what. Everyone understands that (or should). In racing, I think alot of people think that AAT's are better races than they really are.

I hope this is discussed in a friendly way in the future.

Sean


On Friday, March 16, 2012 10:38:18 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
On Mar 16, 7:01*am, John Carlyle wrote:
So, Dan, you’re essentially using OLC as a poor-man’s SeeYou. That makes sense, and it’s a good use of a free service (and certainly not lazy). Other folks have told me offline that they use OLC to find good soaring sites to visit and to download flights from areas they intend to fly at.

But OLC bills itself as a Contest, and that’s still the thing I don’t get. OLC, as I said previously, is so biased towards great sites, pilots who fly a lot, and pilots who choose less challenging flights that it’s a mug's game. I don't see how people can view this as fun.

-John







On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:16:23 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well, since you asked a specific question - for me it's simply being able to
look at my flight at the end of the day and having a closer idea of how far
I flew without having to measure on a map. *Call me lazy, but after 39 years
of drawing lines, measuring angles, etc., I like the convenience. *It's also
fun to compare flights with friends who flew the same day and area with me.

"John Carlyle" wrote in message
news:23447273.4338.1331754963686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26....
Seriously, what does the OLC offer that people find attractive? I’m trying
to understand, but I just don’t get it.

If one looks at worldwide or countrywide daily results, they see that the
score sheet is dominated by long, fast flights out of well-known soaring
meccas. Flights from ordinary sites are noticeable for being in the bottom
half of the daily score sheet. Nothing fun in that result…

At a single club, if several guys go out together to do an XC task that is
long enough to involve several air masses, someone who simply rides back and
forth along a single cloud street over the club as long as he can might beat
them on the club OLC score sheet. Nothing fun there, either…

Again at a single club, at the end of the year it’s common to see that the
pilot who is at the top of the score sheet was able to fly several times a
week and has posted longer and faster flights than other pilots who could
only fly once a week or once every other week. Again, nothing fun there…

Because of observations like these, pilots at my club don’t take the OLC
seriously. They’ll post their flights to OLC only if it’s easy or if they
think of it. Now that OLC doesn’t allow the use of Cambridge loggers, and
have removed the ability to post a flight to OLC from SeeYou, I think that a
lot of our pilots won’t bother to post their flights on OLC anymore..

Is there something about OLC that we’re missing?

-John

The OLC is great! OLC is responsible for greatly increasing the
number of pilots who have tried cross country and that's a very good
thing. It's also given us a provable way to show the public what
gliders can really do which makes it a fantastic tool from recruiting
new glider pilots. Reiner Rose and his team are the great hero's of
21st Century soaring.

The OLC's very simple requirements for participation set the bar very
low for newbie cross country pilots while still recognizing the
accomplishments of top pilots. That's an accomplishment all by
itself. Pilots are voting with their feet. The OLC is very popular,
sanctioned events less so.

OLC has also separated hype from reality. I've noticed a few pilots
who once bragged loudly about their supposed accomplishments have gone
silent and some soaring sites once billed as "the worlds best place to
fly gliders" don't rank very high. If you've got it, flaunt it. If
you haven't, you can't upload it to the OLC. That qualifies as a
competition not only between pilots but between soaring sites and
clubs.

Is OLC a race? No. The only real race format is the Soaring Grand Prix
series.

John,

MOBILE DATA: Opening weather data to higher cost classes (18/Open). I don’t think that distinction is needed. Mobile phone data is really not a cost issue. To me it is a question of "what is the nature of the information" and how can it REALLY be used in a race to gain advantage. Mobile is at best equal to and likely far less reliable than standard radio accessible weather data. I suppose mobile "may" give you hints into sun on the ground at long distances (how old is the image is the question) in some cases. But this a severly doubt.

I agree that XM "SAT BASED" Weather on a Garmin 496 (for example, or similar) is overboard (at this point) but only because it will require the purchase of a $500 - $3000 piece of hardware and subscription to a $40 - $100 monthly service to access.

Simple smart phone based weather data (metars, etc) are already integrated into popular flight computer software such as XC Soar. The reason this information is included in these apps because it is incredibly simple to leverage mobile networks and there basic data capabilities.

Yes, a gentleman’s rule/recommendation now exists on the SSA site warning pilots not to use data via smart phone or tablet based flight computers. I have to ask, why? What are we afraid will happen? Remember, anyone is free to access this "where is the sun on the ground over the horizon" info (which in my opinion does not exist) in my scenario.

If there is something to fear from mobile based weather information, then it should also be illegal to call listen to ASOS/AWOS or get an in-flight briefing.

In short, I think you have to either allow smart phone data or ban the radio ;-)! They are one in the same with regards to weather or, for example, illegal communication from crew, etc over hundreds of potential frequencies.

Sean


On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.


No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
overreacting.

The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
"cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
us well.

No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
“very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.

I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.